Welcome to the Sunlight Blogger Round-up. Each week, we will be giving you a look at what is happening in the world of Sunlight on the state and local level. Have a tip for good local news or blogs? Get in touch with us in the comments.

Enjoy our pioneer round-up!

• Open Records' Joshua Meyer in Wisconsin blogged about how state government rules on Open Meetings provide lessons in Federalism. He discussed Alabama Mayor Tony Kennon's refusal of video recording public meetings and how this hinders transparency in a democratically elected government. Read his blog here.
• Commissioner Greg Hartmann of Cincinnati said that Hamilton County should not allow its employees to fund overtly political groups such as Community Shares of Greater Cincinnati. See Carl Weiser's take on Politics Extra, and find the rest of the story here .
• On the Kentucky Open Government Blog, Terry Anderson wrote about the city of Salyersville among those cited by the state's attorney general for violations in open records cases. The attorney general found that the city undermined the Open Records Act when it refused a request for employee payroll records.
• Diana Lopez of the Sunshine Review Blog in Virginia takes a look at the pros and cons of transparency, inspired by an article in The Guardian. Lopez’s suggestion? Though there may be negative consequences, it is always better to provide people with information so that they can empower themselves.

While everyone's been running around writing about former congresstickler Eric Massa, Eric Lichtblau and Eric Lipton of the New York Times spent some time digging further into a congressional sex scandal that actually involved some kind of corruption.

Previously undisclosed e-mail messages turned over to the F.B.I. and Senate ethics investigators provide new evidence about Senator John Ensign’s efforts to steer lobbying work to the embittered husband of his former mistress and could deepen his legal and political troubles.

Mr. Ensign, Republican of Nevada, suggested that a Las Vegas development firm hire the husband, Douglas Hampton, after it had sought the senator’s help on several energy projects in 2008, according to e-mail messages and interviews with company executives.

Investigators are looking at a number of issues including whether Ensign aided Hampton in circumventing the one-year lobbying ban for staffers-turned-lobbyists. Considering that the F.B.I. is involved in the investigation, it is unlikely that the Senate Ethics Committee will rule on ethics violations against Ensign before the criminal investigation is complete.

On a related aside: I'm with Matt Yglesias here. If you're a journalist covering Congress, particularly ethical malfeasance in Congress, why not spend some time covering scandals like Ensign's or Charlie Rangel or the PMA Group (and why the Ethics Committee spiked the investigation)? Do we really need more information on tickle-parties and Eric Massa's deranged sense of self-worth?

The Senate Ethics Committee released two letters (Dodd, Conrad) today clearing Sens. Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad of ethics violations in a case where both senators were members of a Countrywide "VIP" loan program. These letters concluded a year-long investigation into the "VIP" program and the loans the senators received.

The Committee found that the two senators did not violate Senate ethics rules prohibiting members from accepting outside gifts. The rule in question does not cover "loans from banks and other financial institutions on terms generally available to the public." The committee also ruled that while the "VIP" loans did offer "quicker, more efficient loan processing and some discounts," the discounts provided "were not the best deals that were available at Countrywide or in the marketplace at large."

The senators did receive a chiding for not exhibiting care in their dealings with Countrywide. The Committee told both senators that they "should have excercised more vigilance in [their] dealings with Countrywide in order to avoid the appearance that [they] were receiving preferential treatment based on [their] status as Senator[s]."

In response to the investigation that Committee declared that it should have issued guidance on the receipt of loans and the involvement of senators in special loan programs. The Committee expects to issue a guidance to members in the future.

The organization that filed the initial ethics complaint, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), stated in a blog post that this amounts to "battered wife" syndrome.

"Like a battered woman who explains she brought the beating on herself, the committee faulted itself for failing to ‘provide more guidance to the Senate community about issues surrounding mortgage negotiations.’ Over a year has passed since CREW filed its complaint and the committee became aware of this issue. Now would be a good time for the committee to start proactively providing its promised advice.”

The Ethics Committee could also review legislation that has been introduced requiring limited disclosure of home loan information on personal financial disclosure forms (S. 1632).

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?

Are you a lawmaker in Washington wondering whether you are involved in a scandal or under investigation? Well, we've made a very simple game for you to play to help answer that question. Just follow the flow chart below to find out which lawmakers are embroiled in scandal and for what offense.

In total, the chart shows twenty-three lawmakers (21 congressmen and 2 senators) currently involved in a scandal. Most of these lawmakers are currently under investigation by either a congressional ethics body or the Department of Justice. In the case of Rep. Sanford Bishop, the state of Georgia is investigating an earmark he obtained for an organization employing his step-daughter and her husband.

Follow the chutes and ladders of ScandaLand below:

Am I Involved In A Scandal?
Personal Finances?		Shady Land Deal?		Gary Miller (R-CA) Ken Calvert (R-CA)
		Housing?		Chris Dodd (D-CT) Kent Conrad (D-ND) Charles Rangel (D-NY)
Earmarks?		Jerry Lewis (R-CA) Alan Mollohan (D-WV) John Murtha (D-PA) Pete Visclosky (D-IN) Sanford Bishop (D-GA) Don Young (R-AK) Charles Rangel (D-NY)
Breaking House Ethics Rules?		Caribbean Vacation?		Charles Rangel (D-NY) Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-MI) S. Jackson Lee (D-TX) Donald Payne (D-NJ) Bennie Thompson (D-MS) Donna Christensen (D-VI) Yvette Clarke (D-NY)
		Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) Linda Sanchez (D-CA) Tim Murphy (R-PA) Charles Rangel (D-NY)
Blagojevich?		Roland Burris (D-IL) Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)
Paying off mistress & cuckolded husband?		John Ensign (R-NV)
Congrats! You Are Not Embroiled In A Scandal

Inspired by the interactive guide to recent republican sex scandals

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.

Local county commissioners in the district of Indiana Rep. Mike Pence passed a resolution requesting that the congressman end his ban on earmarks. The President of Ball State University is also supporting the call for Pence to accept earmarks.

Rep. Darrell Issa is seeking more information on Countrywide's VIP mortgage deals with lawmakers and political figures like Sens. Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad. Issa is trying to obtain eight years worth of documents relating to the "Friends of Angelo" program. Angelo Mozilo, the CEO of Countrywide, is currently facing multiple indictments brought by the federal government.

The trial of former Rep. William Jefferson is finally getting under way. In case you forgot, Jefferson was caught with $90,000 in cash in his freezer.

And over at Party Time, Nancy Watzman has a post on how a little sunlight can make lawmakers rethink how they fundraise. A common practice in fundraising letters is to list the committee memberships of the lawmaker raising money. For a fundraiser to aid Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Democratic lobbyist Heather Podesta went a little over the line in her solicitation, aligning amounts of money with the committees Feinstein sits on. Feinstein wound up cancelling the fundraiser due to the appearance of impropriety.

The party may be over, but the investigation is just beginning. The House Ethics Committee confirms that it is investigating lawmakers involved in the PMA Group contributions-cum-earmarks scandal embroiling the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

Lawmakers just filed their personal financial disclosures and we're already seeing problems. Rep. Marion Berry under reported the value of property he owns in here in Washington. Sen. Chris Dodd, facing serious questions about his personal finances, asked for a 90-day extension to file his report. Nearly one-in-five senators were like Dodd and could not file their report on time. This included serial late-filer Sen. Bob Corker. Has this guy ever filed a report on time?

The Hill reports on one of those personal financial disclosures, those of Rep. Don Young. Apparently, Young has spent $1.3 million defending himself in an investigation into his relationship with the oil services company from Hades, VECO. Has there ever been one company that got so many politicians sent to jail or placed under investigation?

Last week, I posted about the relationship between PMA Group fanboy Rep. Pete Visclosky's campaign contributions from clients of the lobbying firm and the earmarks they received from the congressman. One thing I noted was Visclosky's regular use of the word "Indiana" -- his home state -- in the Congressional Record. This is what his word usage looks like over the last ten years:

Do regular earmarkers like Visclosky use their state name more than any other word in the Congressional Record? Do they talk about their district more than any other word? I'll be taking a look and will let you know soon.

(hat tip to @kerryrm and Capitol Words for the word cloud)

It comes as no surprise that Indiana Democrat Pete Visclosky's favorite word to say in Congress is "Indiana." While staying out of the spotlight in Washington, he has been a champion for his Northwestern Indiana congressional district, bringing home millions of federal dollars to create jobs and win fans. Since the decline in manufacturing, new jobs have become essential for this Rult Belt region and Visclosky, from his position on the House Appropriations Committee, has sought to get as big a piece of the federal pie as he can for his constituents.

This hard work bringing home federal dollars has made Visclosky a national news name as his connection to a lobbying firm, the PMA Group, which represented many of the recipients of federal money earmarked by the congressman, has brought him under investigation by the FBI. In the past two weeks, Visclosky's offices and campaign committess have been subpoenaed and he has reliquished control of the Energy & Water Appropriations Subcommittee to Rep. Ed Pastor.

All of this is due to the connection between campaign contributions flowing from the PMA Group and their clients to Visclosky's campaigns and the millions of dollars in earmarks to PMA Group clients that Visclosky secured in his post on the powerful House Appropriations Committee. After studying campaign contribution data for 1998-2008 (compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics) and earmark data for FY2008 and FY2009 (from both Taxpayers for Common Sense and Legistorm), the connection between those PMA Group clients that contributed money to Visclosky's campaigns and the earmarks they received is clearly evident. The visualization below -- created by our terrific designer Kerry Mitchell -- shows how connected the earmarks are to the receipt of campaign contributions. Click on the image for a larger version:

Note: Due to the lack of earmark disclosure prior to 2007, earmark data is only reliable for the last two fiscal years -- FY2008 and FY2009. Thus, while showing ten years of campaign contribution data, we cannot show ten years of earmark data. There is little doubt that the earmark numbers would be dramatically higher had there been earmark disclosure prior to 2007.