How would you feel about an investigation into steroid use among baseball players led by the Major League Baseball Player's Union? Perhaps they could hire Rogers Clemens as chief investigator.

If you think that's ridiculous you should look equally askance at the absurd non-statements emanating from both the House Republican and Democratic leadership on whether they will keep a successful, independent ethics body intact when the next Congress convenes.

Most of these non-statements are coming from the Republican leadership as they being confronted with previous statements regarding the Office of Congressional Ethics. The Republicans who universally opposed the creation of the office have used Democratic scandals--investigated by the Office of Congressional Ethics--to bolster their cause in seeking control of the House of Representatives in this fall's midterm elections.

The Office of Congressional Ethics has definitely pushed the boundaries of ethics enforcement in its short three year existence. The investigatory body has produced two upcoming ethics trials of prominent Democrats--Reps. Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters--and has produced a veritable snowstorm of activity at the House Ethics Committee. The committee has already admonished Rangel once this year and has taken on many other difficult questions regarding other members and potential ethical violations.

More than anything the Office of Congressional Ethics has helped to reveal to the public the patent absurdity of the self-policing oversight that members provide through the House Ethics Committee.

These absurdities included the rejection of charges in the PMA Group contributions-for-earmarks scandal based on the lack of rules, guidelines or understanding on the appropriateness of connecting campaign fundraising activities to the federal earmarking process. Oops, we just don't have any guidelines for that.

The Office of Congressional Ethics has also injected a dose of much-needed transparency into the congressional ethics process. Reports have been posted online, arguments are voiced between the office and the House Ethics Committee and the public has learned more than previous about how ethics investigations are conducted.

Now Minority Leader John Boehner, who voted against the creation of the Office of Congressional Ethics in 2007, is dodging questions about whether he would do away with the office were he to become the next Speaker of the House. Boehner had previously stated that he wanted to "take a look" at the office come next year.

This is despite the fact that Boehner has claimed that "the most glaring promise that [Speaker Nancy Pelosi has] broken" was her promise to "drain the swamp" in Washington. Does Boehner have any plans to fix the ethics process or will he simply end one of the most successful, but discomfiting reforms to the ethics process in recent memory?

The same question should be asked of Speaker Pelosi: will she accede to the demands of several members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who have often found themselves involved in the investigations of the Office of Congressional Ethics? As The Hill indicates, "Pelosi has indicated a willingness to change the OCE’s rules."

If anything the independent ethics process needs to be strengthened and given more resources, not eliminated so as to protect lawmakers from greater scrutiny. Perhaps these leaders should be proposing how they will make the ethics process work towards routing out all corruption rather than dither and dodge questions.

Chris Van Hollen, the House Democrat's campaign chief, recently stated that the upcoming ethics trials of Reps. Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters prove that the ethics process has been strengthened under the watch of the majority Democrats. I'm not so sure that that's the case.

If we take a walk back through time we'll see that the ethics committee was plenty busy in the nineties and even during the dark days of the early to mid aughts.

Over the course of ten years during the Republican majority, the committee issued five admonishments (three to Rep. Tom DeLay), two letters of reproval, one sanction and one expulsion. Of course, there were also numerous issues that the committee failed to cover including the Jack Abramoff scandal and the Duke Cunningham scandal.

What appears to make the recent spat of ethics flare-ups notable is that the members involved are refusing to accept a lesser punishment by publicly accepting guilt and responsibility. Both Rangel and Waters have clearly been offered deals to accept lesser penalties in lieu of a trial. In 2004, Tom DeLay accepted committee admonishments and never went to trial. It's clear that the what is operating differently at this stage of the ethics process is the obstinance of the lawmakers involved.

Despite that, there is one way that the ethics process has improved since 2006: the introduction of the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE). The creation of OCE, a body created out of compromise in the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, has enabled a less corruptible body to review ethics complaints with more freedom and less clubbiness than the traditional ethics committee. The Waters charges began as an OCE investigation and were referred to the ethics committee.

Certainly, this counts as an improvement that has happened under the watch of the Democrats. The fact that two lawmakers refused to accept deals for lesser punishments and are pushing for public trials, not so much.

If Van Hollen wants to take credit for something else he can also point out that the current majority has followed a simple dictat: do no harm. The majority Democrats have not yet struck out to dismantle or neuter the ethics process, particularly OCE, despite pressure coming from both sides of the aisle.

The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) and Republican Minority Leader John Boehner have both been critical of the indepedent ethics office. If lawmakers want to truly maintain and expand upon a more just and credible ethics process they need to retain OCE as it is or increase it's authority.

In 2005, after Majority Leader DeLay received three admonishments from the committee he moved to purge the committee of its members and change the way in which the committee ran investigations. The move was widely panned and the majority Republicans would have to walk back the changes in the coming months.

Neither the Democrats, if they retain the majority, nor the Republicans, if they win back control, should move to dismantle the ethics process by reducing the role of the independent OCE. The rhetoric coming from the CBC and Minority Leader Boehner are not encouraging. Hopefully they won't follow DeLay's lead and neuter the ethics process again.

I've included a quick summary of actions taken by the ethics committeesince 1996 below:

• 1996: The ethics committee dismissed charges that Rep. Tom DeLay linked campaign contributions to his official actions and made improper favors to his brother, a lobbyist. The ethics committee also sanctioned Rep. Bud Shuster for serious official misconduct in dealings with his former chief-of-staff turned lobbyist.
• 1997: The committee gave Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich a letter of reproval for violating tax laws and providing false information to the committee. The committee also fined Gingrich $300,000, the largest fined issued by the committee in it's history. Later in the year the committee brought a six-count Statement of Alleged Violations against Rep. Jay Kim after he plead guilty to three misdemeanor charges of accepting illegal campaign contributions. The charges were dropped as Kim had lost his primary and the committee no longer held jurisdiction.
• 1999: The committee dismissed charges against Rep. Corrine Brown, but stated that the congresswoman had used "poor judgment." Rep. Earl Hilliard received a letter of reproval after a three-count Statement of Alleged Violations was brought against him for making improper loans to his campaign committee, failing to properly file financial disclose forms and making payments from his campaign to nonprofits and companies connected to him.
• 2001: The committee voted to expel Rep. Jim Traficant after he was found guily of bribery, racketeering, tax evasion and many other laws. The full House of Representatives voted to expel Traficant in 2002. The committee also dismissed claims against Rep. Steve Buyer.
• 2004: The committee admonished three members, Reps. Tom DeLay, Candice Miller and Nick Smith, for their actions during the vote on the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act. DeLay also received two separate admonishments for other violations of laws and House ethics rules.
• 2006: The committee dismissed complaints against Jeffrey Shockey, the deputy chief of staff to Rep. Jerry Lewis. Rep. John Conyers was scolded by the committee for letting his congressional staff do campaign work. The committee also settled a long-running dispute by ruling that Rep. Jim McDermott had violated the spirit of the House by leaking information related to the ethics investigation of then-Speaker Gingrich to the press.
• 2007: Former Reps. Tom Feeney and Curt Weldon were ordered to pay for travel that they accepted in violation of House rules. Feeney agreed to pay, but it is unclear whether the committee has jurisdiction to force Weldon to pay.
• 2010: The committee brought a thirteen-count Statement of Alleged Violations against Rep. Charlie Rangel for a variety of violations of House rules. That case will be adjudicated. The committee brought a State of Alleged Violations against Rep. Maxine Waters, who will also take the case to the adjudication phase. Rangel was also admonished separately for accepting corporate paid travel. The committee also cleared the following members on a variety of charges: Reps. Pete Stark, Pete Visclosky, Bill Young, Norm Dicks, John Murtha, Marcy Kaptur, Todd Tiahrt, James Moran, Bennie Thompson, Yvette Clarke, Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick and Del. Donna Christensen.

So says the New York Times. The independent ethics office created in the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 is under attack from both the House Republicans and the Congressional Black Caucus.

House Republicans are chortling over the Democratic majority’s troubles with ethics allegations, but they also are ominously signaling their distaste for the Office of Congressional Ethics — the one new player on Capitol Hill with a clear determination to do something about the morass.

The Republican minority leader, John Boehner, said he wants to “take a look” at the office if his party regains majority power — a reminder that his members fiercely opposed the quasi-independent office when it was created two years ago by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. ... Grumblers on both sides want to gut the ethics office. That is because it has been fulfilling its mission to put life into the lawmakers’ own stultified ethics process, to penetrate the murk of misbehavior and keep the public better informed. Republicans would be the ultimate hypocrites to subvert the ethics office while campaigning as the all-new party of reform that, ah, yes, learned its lesson after the Jack Abramoff corruption scandal.

The Congressional Black Caucus should also reconsider their attacks on the office. Investigations by the office have already resulted in an admonishment of one member, Rep. Charlie Rangel, and charges brought against another, Rep. Maxine Waters, by the House Ethics Committee.

Any body that subverts the traditional role of the House Ethics Committee sweeping charges under the rug is a useful tool to protect the public from official abuses of office.

Last week, the House Ethics Committee confirmed that they were investigating two Caribbean trips, in 2007 and 2008, taken by a number of lawmakers, all members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), that may have violated House rules forbidding lawmakers from accepting corporate funded travel. The Committee empaneled a subcommittee to investigate and appointed G.K. Butterfield, a CBC member and participant in a similar Caribbean trip in 2005, as the chairman of the investigation.

Unlike the 2007 and 2008 trips, Butterfield's visit to the Caribbean did not violate House rules, as the rules forbidding corporate sponsored travel were not passed until 2007 as part of a broad ethics bill. However, considering that the CBC is openly opposing this investigation and actively trying to reverse the rule that was broken by the Caribbean trip attendees, Butterfield appears to be in a fairly conflicted situation. While he has stated that "he would step down or recuse himself if he felt conflicted at any time during the investigation," I think it's fair to say that his personal relationships with the lawmakers who are under investigation is grounds enough for recusal. In any judicial setting -- whether a judge or jury -- there would be no question that a person in Butterfield's position would not be allowed to hear this case.

This is just another example of the need for a more independent ethics body to enforce the rules of Congress. It's getting tiring writing these posts about how the ethics process doesn't work. Can't you guys just get it right?

Call the wahmbulance, some congressmen are complaining about being investigated.

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) are organizing a working group to gut new ethics rules that created the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE). The OCE was created as a semi-independent investigative body that could sift through ethics complaints and decide which ones merited investigation or review by the House Ethics Committee.

The CBC is upset that the OCE may be investigating a trip taken by some CBC members to the Caribbean that may have violated House rules preventing lawmakers from going on travel sponsored by corporations.

According to The Hill, a source states, "We might need to revisit that law," regarding the OCE. Another aide to a CBC member says, "In an environment where there’s allegations of clear criminality, investigating a trip to a Caribbean island is a bit odd ... What’s the charge, that they spent too much time at the pool? That’s ridiculous.”

Well... What's ridiculous is that this trip may have violated House rules and now you're pretending like the investigation is about nothing but pool-side, pina colada sipping.

There are House rules that prevent lawmakers from going on travel sponsored by corporations. These rules were passed in the wake of the Abramoff scandal to prevent Scottish golfing trips and other outrages that had gone on for too long. The convention that CBC members were attending, according to photographs and independent accounts, contained banners of corporate sponsors and speeches by CBC members thanking corporate sponsors. That's against the House rules.

While there might not be direct criminality involved, lawmakers can't just violate the House rules. At least they shouldn't be able to. And if you think that you should be able to, then please leave my city.

Privately paid travel may have fallen over the past year, and more precisely since 2005, but some lawmakers are still taking lavish trips to exotic locales. And some of them might be breaking the new ethics rules that Majority Leader Steny Hoyer stated there would be a “zero tolerance” policy. The New York Post has an exposé on a privately paid trip (not everyone stopped taking them) to the Caribbean island of St. Maarten taken by six members of the Congressional Black Caucus. The Post accuses the lawmakers of accepting travel from an entity that employs a lobbyist, going on a trip that included lobbyists, and failing to properly file their disclosures.

Officially the trip was sponsored by the Carib News Foundation for a conference in St. Maarten. The Foundation, however, accepts contributions from corporate sponsors, some just for the Foundation’s operations and others specifically for the conference. These corporate sponsors included Citigroup, AT&T, Verizon, Pfizer, Macy's, and American Airlines. Since, ethics rules forbid the acceptance of travel from an entity that employs a lobbyist, and all of these companies employ lobbyists, the question is whether a sponsor of the Carib News Foundation and their conference needs to be listed as a sponsor of the trip. This is the primary question at the center of possible ethics violations.

According to the Post, the Foundation, in filling out the proper disclosure forms, checked the box, "I represent that the trip sponsor(s) has not accepted from any other source funds earmarked directly or indirectly to finance any aspect of the trip." This statement is not properly backed up by statements made by Carib News Foundation CEO Karl Rodney and representatives of the corporate sponsors:

[I]n his opening remarks in St. Maarten, Rodney, who has organized 13 annual conferences, thanked all of the corporate sponsors by name.

He expressed gratitude to AT&T for its sponsorship at all prior conferences and singled out Citigroup as being the biggest conference sponsor this year.

"And so we want to say thanks to Citi," said Rodney. "It's a great team to have working, and great partners."

Citigroup Vice President Michael Flanigan, who attended the St. Maarten event and is listed as a member of the conference planning committee, didn't try to hide his company's association with the event during a speech he gave to attendees.

"This year was significant for Citi," Flanigan said, speaking to a half-full room. "For the first time we are the lead sponsor of this premier event."

The House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct states that:

...when a nonprofit organization pays for travel with donations that were earmarked, either formally or informally, for the trip, each such donor is deemed a “private source” for the trip and (1) must be publicly disclosed as a trip sponsor on the applicable travel forms and (2) must itself be required to satisfy the above standards on proper sources of travel expenses.

It appears, through the indirect admission of Rodney and corporate representatives, that corporate funds were used to finance the conference. The question remains as to whether the conference counts as part of “the trip.” Rodney states that the Foundation funds 50% of the conference, and it is possible that all the funds earmarked for the lawmaker trips came from the Foundation’s coffers. The Committee has further rules relating to the involvement of corporate sponsors:

[I]n order for a Member or staff person to receive Committee approval to accept officially-connected travel from a private source, the source must certify to the Committee that it has not accepted from any other source funds earmarked directly or indirectly to finance any aspect of the trip

“[A]ny aspect of the trip” certainly sounds as though the conference would count as part of the trip. Looking at the definitions in another disputed matter of ethics violations in the Post story puts doubt into what could define a “trip” or “aspect of [a] trip”.

The Post also points out that the presence of lobbyists at the conference may violate the rules banning lawmakers from accepting travel in which lobbyists accompany them. The use of simple language is where legal loopholes are born. And this is no exception:

In addition to prohibiting Members and staff from accepting officially-connected travel from a private source that retains or employs lobbyists or agents of a foreign principal, for most trips the travel provisions of the gift rule prohibit Members and staff from accepting travel from a private source if the official will be accompanied by a lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal on “any segment” of the trip (House Rule 25, clause 5(c)(1)(A)). The term “segment” means any part(s) of the travel to and from the destination, rather than the event itself or location being visited that is the purpose of the trip. Whether a lobbyist may be involved in planning, organizing, requesting, or arranging a trip also depends on the source of the travel expenses.

So there you go. A “segment” does not include the segment of the trip that includes the purpose of the trip. If a “segment” of a trip is only defined by the coming and going part of “trip,” does this extend to “any aspect” of said trip? Doubtfully, considering the sponsor, the Foundation, is paying not just for airfare, but for food and lodging.

This trip is certainly a case of questionable twisting of ethics rules, if not an outright violation. The loopholes evident make the restrictions placed on privately paid travel easy to circumnavigate, and thus ought to addressed.