Last week, the cable news networks were blanketing their shows with stories about the leaking of a report from the House Ethics Committtee detailing the nearly 30 lawmakers under investigation by the committee. Despite all of the bombast of cable news anchors over the investigations, the totality of the leak is less than meets the eye. Seventeen out of the twenty-nine lawmakers investigated by the committee have already been reported on and a number more had been connected to investigations previously, but their investigation had not previously been reported. In total, only seven investigations were released that were previously unreported, mostly for what would be minor infractions. This amounts to a pretty small amount of unknown investigations for what has turned into a big story.

Importantly, as many are highlighting, the leaked report does show that the Ethics Committee is doing its job. For years, the committee has taken heat for failing to investigate lawmakers and slow-walking those investigations when it does. Despite early clashes, it appear that the new, independent Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) has prompted the committee to investigate and review a number of cases regarding potential ethical misconduct by lawmakers. This is a positive development, however, the leaking may cause problems as many lawmakers are now associated with ethical problems despite the fact that they have not had a full hearing and could well find these ethics complaints dismissed.

On the actual investigations, the biggest information from the leak is that half of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee is under investigation for allegedly trading earmarks for campaign contributions. Previously, the public was aware that federal investigators and the committee were likely looking at Reps. John Murtha, Pete Visclosky and Jim Moran. Now we know that the committee is investigating those three lawmakers plus Reps. Bill Young, Marcy Kaptur, Norm Dicks and Todd Tiahrt. Aside from the probe of Rep. Charlie Rangel, this investigation involves the most serious allegations and could cause trouble for this bipartisan cast of lawmakers. Furthermore, it continues to show that the appropriations process, particularly for defense spending, is a failed process. This is now the third major investigation into defense appropriations in the past five years. Previously, Rep. Duke Cunningham was sentenced to prison for trading earmarks and appropriations for goodies and Rep. Jerry Lewis has been the subject of a similar federal investigation.

The other investigations involve four lawmakers probed for improperly receiving a tax break on their homes in Maryland or the District of Columbia; North Carolina Rep. Heath Shuler is under investigation for a land swap deal; Florida Rep. Connie Mack is under investigation in connection to an earmark for Coconut Road that was submitted by Rep. Don Young; Rep. Joe Barton was under investigation for gifts given to a non-profit that he operates by companies with business before his committee, but he has since been exonerated. All the other lawmakers under investigation have been previously publicly reported.

After passing the cap and trade bill in rush, we are beginning to see what was included in the last hours prior to the vote. According to the Washington Times, the final 300 page amendment to the 1,200 page bill appears to have been filled with sweeteners for wavering congressmen.

The Washington Times reported on the actual contents of the cap and trade manager's amendment -- those 300 pages that dropped at the last second -- and found a sweetener for one lawmaker likely aimed at enticing her to vote for the bill. The bill contained a nearly unintelligable section creating a federally authorized power administration with $3.5 billion in funds to distribute to renewable energy and development projects in Ohio. The power administration was championed by Rep. Marcy Kaptur and its last minute inclusion likely helped obtain her vote and other wavering lawmakers from Ohio.

We have little idea how many sweeteners were added into the 300 page manager's amendment and it is very difficult to determine due to the obscure language used in the amendment. Take, for example, the language of the Kaptur power administration:

SEC. 199. DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR RENEWABLE

POWER BORROWING AUTHORITY. (a) DETERMINATION.—No later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy, in coordination with the Secretary of Commerce, shall—

(1) determine any geographic area within the contiguous United States that lacks a Federal power marketing agency; (2) develop a plan or criteria for the geographic areas identified in paragraph (1) regarding invest- ment in renewable energy and associated infrastruc- ture within an area identified in paragraph (1); and (3) identify any Federal agency within an area in paragraph (1) that has, or could develop, the abil- ity to facilitate the investment in paragraph (2).

(b) REPORT.—The Secretary of Energy, in coordina- tion with the Secretary of Commerce, shall provide the de- terminations made under subsection (a) to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representa- tives. (c) ESTABLISHMENT.—Based upon the determina- tions made pursuant to subsection (a), the Secretary of Energy, in coordination with the Secretary of Commerce, shall recommend to the Committee on Energy and Com- merce of the House of Representatives the establishment of any new Federal lending authority, including authoriza- tion of additional lending authority for existing Federal agencies, not to exceed $3,500,000,000 per geographic area identified in subsection (a)(1).

(d) AUTHORIZATION.—$25,000,000 is authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2010 to carry out the provi- sions of this section.

Now for those looking to see how the last minute changes affect voting behavior, this kind of language isn't helpful at all. There are even more obscure sections of the bill that could contain vote-getting sweeteners. Not that I'm advocating for plain language bills or anything (laws are written in legal language for a reason), but the language in this amendment is particularly -- and likely intentionally -- obtuse.

Of course, one of the biggest problems is that we were given under 24 hours to read these 300 pages of obscure language. So, we are brought reporting after the bill is passed teasing out the actual contents, which appear to include vote-attracting sweeteners. No one could have realistically known what was in the bill, and inserted for whom, before the vote took place.

If you want to see if you can find these sweeteners, please have at it. I spent a good amount of time reading the bill last week (what a concept) and wouldn't mind some help pulling out the choice sections that were inserted to gain specific votes. Here's the pdf. Let me know what you find in the comments. And don't forget to tell your congressman to Read the Bill in the future.