Paul Blumenthal : Sunlight Foundation

Grounded:

by Paul Blumenthal May 19, 2006 5:01 pm

According to the Associated Press, Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH) is no longer flying the really friendly skies:

An Ohio lawmaker whose travel is under scrutiny stopped accepting paid trips for himself and his staff shortly after questions were raised about who funded his trip to Scotland with lobbyist Jack Abramoff. After accepting 131 trips worth $234,775 in 4 1/2 years, Rep. Bob Ney and his staff haven't let a private outside group pay for their travel since June 14, 2005, according to an Associated Press review of travel disclosure forms Ney's office filed with the House clerk.

Some seats in Congress are famous and carry strong traditions. There is the Daniel Webster desk and the Jefferson Davis desk. There is the New York Senate seat currently occupied by Hillary Clinton that was previously occupied by equally well-known out-of-staters with strong personalities Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Robert Kennedy. But what about seats of infamy? I believe we may have one on the House Appropriations Committee. When Randy "Duke" Cunningham resigned his seat in Congress and was subsequently sent to prison for his role in a sweeping bribery scandal he also left a seat on the Appropriations Committee, a seat from which he did a lot of his dirty work. That seat remained open until Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) resigned his leadership post after being indicted on money laundering charges. DeLay immediately took Cunningham's seat on the Appropriations Committee. DeLay later announced that he was going to resign from Congress after one of his top former aides pled guilty to charges in another Congressional scandal, the one that involved Tom DeLay's "best friend" Jack Abramoff, his former press secretary Michael Scanlon, his former chief of staff Ed Buckham, and lots of money. CongressDailyPM reports that the front-runner for this tainted seat is Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA). Who knows how the seat will corrupt Calvert? Oh wait a second. He's already involved in some dubious actions (noted previously here). From CongressDailyPM:

The Los Angeles Times reported Monday that Calvert made a significant profit off an empty four-acre tract bought last year after steering an $8 million earmark near the area to build a highway, and $1.5 million to boost commercial development. Those earmarks were included not in an appropriations bill, but in last's year's $286.4 billion highway reauthorization bill. Calvert and a business partner bought the lot for $550,000, and sold it for $985,000 a few months after the bill became law -- a 79 percent increase in value.

Now that is a sweet deal he's got going for him. Imagine the kind of stuff that Calvert can earmark near his land holdings when he's on the Appropriations Committee. Maybe the seat doesn't corrupt people, it just attracts unseemly types. Or it could go the other way considering Cunningham seemed like an upstanding guy when he came to Congress. One of those chicken or the egg things I guess.

Feds Open Investigation into Baby Jesus, Four “Wise” Men:

by Paul Blumenthal May 19, 2006 3:43 pm

A couple of days ago North Carolina State Rep. Drew Saunders (D-Mecklenberg) stated his support for "an amendment to the legislative ethics bill that lowers the monetary threshold on gifts lawmakers may receive from neighbors and state employees" by saying this:

"Even baby Jesus accepted gifts and I don't believe it corrupted him."

Afternoon News:

by Paul Blumenthal May 19, 2006 3:15 pm

I'm confused. First, Duke Cunningham is said to not be cooperating with the federal investigation into bribery by defense contractors. Now he states, through his lawyer, that he will cooperate fully with a House Ethics Committee investigation and has been cooperating all along with the federal investigation. So, what's the deal here?
We do know that Mitchell Wade, the contractor convicted of bribing Duke Cunningham, is talking to prosecutors. The Boston Globe looks into who he might be talking about. Two lawmakers, who both received illegal campaign contributions from Wade and tried, one successfully and the other unsuccessfully, to secure federally earmarked funds for his MZM, Inc., look like ready targets for this expanding investigation. They are Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA), who successfully earmarked funds for an MZM office in his district, and Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL), who, after dining with Wade to the tune of $2,800, attempted to insert an earmark that would established an MZM site in her district.
That loophole is so big I could fit a few hundred million dollars through it. (Wall Street Journal)
The Torch is back! Former Sen. Robert Torricelli (D-NJ) is back in the news, and as you would expect it's bad news for the Torch. The Financial Times reports that Torricelli is now being connected to the UN oil for food scandal. Just recently I read a piece about how Torricelli was still a player and was doling out advice to Democratic Senators and consultants. That will probably stop if this report proves true. I think the guy might become even more radioactive than he used to be.
TPM Muckraker reports on the Democrats' choice to have Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) as the top Dem on the House Intelligence Committee. "That's right: Pelosi wants to replace House Intel Committee Ranking Member Jane Harman (CA) with Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL), who "was forced to surrender his job as a federal judge after being indicted in 1981 on bribery charges," as the LA Times reports it. He beat the rap, but "was impeached in 1988 by the House for conspiracy and making false statement" in connection to the case."
On the emergency supplemental front Mark Tapscott reports that there may be a victory at hand with the Senate agreeing to "cap spending in the emergency spending bill for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and Gulf Coast hurricane recovery to $94.5 billion."

An Answer to Ellen’s Question:

by Paul Blumenthal May 19, 2006 12:27 pm

Earlier this morning at Sunspots Ellen asked whether the Republicans who voted to take back tax incentives from oil and gas companies received less money from the oil and gas interests than those voting yes. As she noted the average intake of oil and gas money by a Republican in the 2006 election cycle is $11,645 versus $4,331 for a Democrat. So, is Ellen's hunch right? Did these 66 Republicans receive less money on average than their party mates who voted against the tax incentive repeal? The answer is yes. The average amount received from the oil and gas industry by these Republicans is $5,727, almost exactly half of what an average Republican received. Looking at the members who voted it is obvious why many of them did. The majority of these lawmakers come from eastern, midwest, and northeastern states with high traffic volume and high gas prices. Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, Illinois, and Michigan stand out. Both Republican House members from New Hampshire voted for the incentive repeal as did the two Republicans from Maryland and all of the Republicans from Connecticut. Florida led the southern states with the most members voting for the repeal at seven. This most likely reflects anger at the oil and gas industry for trying to open up the waters off of Florida's coast to new drilling. There are a couple of lawmakers voting for repeal that are completely unexpected. The one jumps off the page at you is House Resources Chairman Richard Pombo (R-CA), known as a scourge to environmentalists and the best friend of oil and gas companies. Pombo topped all of the "Yea" Republicans with $66,200, which made him ninth overall (House and Senate) in oil and gas contributions. Why would Pombo backtrack all of a sudden? Perhaps it's California's sky high gas prices and the fact that his district is filled with commuters. But politics may be the best explanation. Pombo is facing his first serious challenge in both the Republican primary, from Endangered Species Act author Pete McCloskey, and in the general as Democrats have decided to target the Central Valley congressman. Taking a look at the list of Republicans voting here one can see that a number of them are expected to face grueling campaigns this year. CQ Politics lists 21 of these 66 Republicans as out of the "Safe Republican" category. I think that the mix of these factors - a tough political climate, a lack of pressure form large campaign contributors, and pressure from constituents - leads these Republicans to buck their leadership and vote against a well known ally.

House Ethics Committee vs. Justice Department:

by Paul Blumenthal May 19, 2006 10:24 am

On Wednesday, the House Ethics Committee announced that it was launching two probes into lawmakers and a third probe wide-ranging probe into possible violations by staffers and other lawmakers in the Duke Cunningham scandal. However, these probes may interfere with the current investigations that the FBI and Department of Justice Public Integrity Unit have underway. The Washington Post looks at whether the Ethics Committee is too late to the game:

The Justice Department has traditionally opposed such parallel inquiries by congressional committees for fear that lawmakers might complicate its collection of testimony and information. The Senate's ethics panel, for instance, regularly steps aside when another enforcement agency is looking into the behavior of senators. But House officials indicated yesterday that they hope the continuing conversations between the Justice Department and the ethics committee will avert conflicts. A spokesman for the department declined to comment.

It is doubtful that the Justice Department is happy about this development. Previously, Justice had asked the House and Senate Ethics Committees to steer clear of any investagtion relating to Jack Abramoff. The House's investigation into Bob Ney, who is alleged to have accepted things of value from Abramoff in exchange for favorable action, clearly goes against Justice's recommendations. A March article in Roll Call notes that the ethics committee's rule 15(f) states that the committee "may defer action on a complaint against a Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives when the complaint alleges conduct that the Committee has reason to believe is being reviewed by appropriate law enforcement or regulatory authorities, or when the Committee determines that it is appropriate for the conduct alleged in the complaint to be reviewed initially by law enforcement or regulatory authorities." An expert interviewed in the Post article states, "I can't imagine that they will pursue subpoenas and testimony and get in the way of the Justice Department; that hasn't happened in the past."

Air Force Generals in FBI Probe:

by Paul Blumenthal May 19, 2006 9:26 am

The top ranking Air Force General and his predecessor are under federal investigation for allegedly steering a contract for the aerial performance Thunderbirds to a friend, who is a retired Air Force General, according to Reuters:

The FBI investigation began after complaints from Air Force insiders and a rival company whose bid was for half the amount, the network said. The contract was canceled earlier this year when the Air Force General Counsel questioned the "integrity of the process" and the involvement of four-star generals, ABC said. The case was referred to the Inspector General for the Department of Defense, and the FBI later joined the investigation, it said.

Evening News:

by Paul Blumenthal May 18, 2006 5:43 pm

Sen. Mel Martinez may not like this Miami Herald article that shows how $250,000 in campaign contributions is connected to the felonious lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Former White House procurement officer and Abramoff e-mail buddy David Safavian "was dealt a series of setbacks by a federal judge Wednesday," according to Roll Call. The judge ruled that jurors can hear allegations that Safavian gave Abramoff "confidential government information about one of his clients" and "that jurors can be told the full cost of a controversial Scotland golf junket that Safavian took part in during August 2002." Can they also be told the purpose of that trip: Golf Golf Golf Golf!!!!! (more from TalkLeft)
This anti-Al Gore movie ad is the perfect example of how big business operates through front groups. This one just seems completely over the top, beyond the realms of reason. I mean this ad is hanging in the outer regions of the universe. Seriously how many people in the world are pro-emissions? I love Josh Marshall's vision of the pro-emissions crowd: "I have this image in my mind of connoisseurs with their noses by a muffler. Nice bouquet? Mmmmm. Bahrain 1974." An e-mailer to Josh provides his take: "With their new ad anti-global warming ads, I think we can safely call May 18, 2006 the day the oil companies lost it completely."

Death Knell of the K Street Project:

by Paul Blumenthal May 18, 2006 12:47 pm

Franklin Foer over at The Plank pronounces that the K Street Project is headed the way of Tom DeLay. That is, down the elevator shaft. Foer provides an anecdote from his office building:

TNR shares its building with a lobbying outfit that was a prime cog in K Street Project machine. (Yes, our office space is that sweet.) This firm contains several of DeLay's ex- staffers. But apparently, their juice has dried up. Riding down in the elevator, I heard the firm's head kvetching about how DeLay's downfall had been bad for business. "We're hurting," he moaned. "The whole industry is hurting." Hopefully, the hurt has just begun.