Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has come under fire, including from Judicial Watch, for his controversial relationship with mortgage giant Freddie Mac in the years after the former House Speaker left Congress. The issue is especially sensitive in Florida, which has been described as “ground zero” of the housing crisis. Voters take to the polls in the “sunshine state” today in the Republican primary. (Judicial Watch does not endorse or oppose candidates for office.)

Gingrich initially said in debates and press interviews that Freddie Mac paid his company as much as $25,000 per month for his services as a “historian.” He has since switched that term out for the more standard “consultant.” But the documents released by the Gingrich campaign suggest he may have been more than a “consultant.”

Politico reports:

New details from Newt Gingrich’s contracts worth $1.6 million with Freddie Mac show that the Republican hopeful wasn’t just a boardroom consultant, but served as a high-profile booster for the beleaguered organization. He even gave a rallying speech to dozens of the group’s political action committee [PAC] donors in the spring of 2007.

Shortly after the “rah, rah” speech, as one source described it, Gingrich gave an interview for the Freddie Mac website, where he supported the group’s model at length. The interview is no longer on Freddie’s site.

Gingrich said in the interview that Freddie has “made an important contribution to home ownership and the housing finance system,” even though many Republicans revile it.

And so these records seem to suggest that Gingrich, who described the Freddie Mac business model “insane” on the campaign trail, had a different tale to tell when Freddie Mac was filling his corporate bank account.

(more…)

The Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), the most important ethics reform for the House in a generation, appears to be safe from being disbanded for now. While Republican leadership has never liked the idea of the OCE, this was the right thing to do.

Of course, the OCE’s work will be for naught if the House Ethics Committee ignores its recommendations, which is exactly what happened last week in the per diem scandal.

In March 2010, Judicial Watch sent a letter to the OCE requesting a full investigation of members of Congress who illegally pocket leftover per diem travel funds. (House rules mandate all leftover per diem funds be returned.)

“In the least, there is evidence of a general misunderstanding among lawmakers that unused per diems may be converted for personal use. At worst, members may be illegally pocketing taxpayer funds,” Judicial Watch stated in its letter of complaint, while noting it is a federal criminal offense to convert public money for personal use.

The OCE did its job well — investigating the matter and recommending the House Ethics Committee pursue its own investigation. The OCE investigation focused on six Members of Congress: Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL); Rep. G.K. Butterfield ( D-NC); Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY); Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL); Rep. Solomon Ortiz (D-TX); and Rep. Joe Wilson, (R-SC). But that’s not going to happen.

(more…)

Most Americans, I’m certain, would say it is highly unethical (and potentially criminal) for a U.S. Senator to cut a deal to help out a convict in exchange for cash and favors, and then lie on official financial disclosure forms to cover up the scandal.  But not according to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics (or the Senate Ethics Committee, as it is commonly known).

On December 20, 2010, the Committee mailed us a letter dismissing a Judicial Watch ethics complaint filed against outgoing Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT).  (Our “efficient” government postal service took seven days to deliver the first-class letter sent from eight blocks away!)  Our complaint alleges Dodd assisted a longtime friend and associate to obtain a reduced sentence and ultimately a full presidential pardon from President Clinton for tax and securities crimes, in exchange for gifts, including a sweetheart mortgage deal that he failed to properly disclose on his Senate Financial Disclosure forms.

Here’s an excerpt from the Senate Ethics Committee’s one-page response, signed by John C. Sussman, the Chief Counsel and Staff Director:

The Committee has carefully evaluated the allegations and information in your complaint. … After considering all of the information before it, the Committee has determined that there is not sufficient substantial credible evidence of improper conduct or violation within its jurisdiction to warrant further action by the Committee.

(more…)

As long as the Democrats continue to control Congress, we’ll have to endure an endless procession of initiatives for the federal government to take over industry after industry. Health insurance and college loans went under federal hegemony with passage of a single bill, known as “ObamaCare.”

Now, a new bill, referred to by the name of its chief sponsor, the ethically challenged Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, aims to consolidate a federal takeover of the nation’s entire network of financial institutions.

As Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute notes:

Does the bill, as [Republican Senate leader Mitch] McConnell said, “institutionalize too big to fail?” Of course. There can’t be any reasonable doubt about this. The bill authorizes the Fed to regulate all non-bank financial institutions that are “systemically important” or might cause instability in the U.S. financial system if they failed. . . .

The market will see immediately that the government has created Fannie Maes and Freddie Macs in every sector of the financial system where these large companies are designated for Fed regulation, including insurance companies, hedge funds, finance companies, bank holding companies, securities firms, and any other kind of financial institution the government wants to regulate. Since these firms will be too big to fail, they will be seen in the market—as Fannie and Freddie were seen—as ultimately backed by the government and thus safer firms to lend to than small firms that are not government backed. This will permanently distort the financial market, favoring large companies over small ones, and eventually force a consolidation of each market where these firms exist into a few large competitors operating under the benign supervision of the government.

In other words, this is another huge step toward fascistic corporatism, completing a de facto government takeover of today’s nominally “private” financial firms. These corporations would be reduced to the status of politically managed public utilities.

(more…)