From Roll Call:

May 2010, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi took to a podium in the Capitol to introduce a half-dozen economic experts she had convened for a meeting on how to jump-start the economy. The group had met for several hours with top Democratic leaders, and Pelosi invited them to speak publicly on their perspectives on economic growth.

What Pelosi did not mention is that one of the men in the group was her son’s boss and a partner with her husband in more than a half-dozen investments, including one that generated more than $100,000 in income for the Speaker’s family last year.

It was the fourth time since 2007 that Pelosi had invited San Francisco investment banker William Hambrecht to be part of an economic policy forum on the Hill and the third time she appeared at a podium with him to speak to reporters. At none of those events did the then-Speaker reveal her financial ties to Hambrecht, and House rules did not require her to do so.

(more…)

From Gallup:

PRINCETON, NJ — Sixty-four percent of Americans rate the honesty and ethical standards of members of Congress as “low” or “very low,” tying the record “low”/”very low” rating Gallup has measured for any profession historically. Gallup has asked Americans to rate the honesty and ethics of numerous professions since 1976, including annually since 1990. Lobbyists also received a 64% low honesty and ethics rating in 2008.

(more…)

In response to Peter Schweizer’s shocking revelations in Throw Them all Out, I organized a call for the resignation of our local Congressman, Spencer Bachus. I was in good company, flanked by conservative giants Andrew Breitbart and Stephen K. Bannon, as well as Business Insider and other Tea Party folks who recognize the urgent need to clean our proverbial house before attempting to sell it in 2012. Despite Bachus’s alleged improprieties, I knew my protest would engender some pushback; I was surprised, however, to see the direction from which it came.

Some Republicans whispered foul, suggesting that I should instead “pick on a liberal like Nancy Pelosi, or even Obama.” When asked, they elaborated that even if the Congressman leveraged his position to gamble against the American economy or bought based upon sensitive, inside information, “at least he’s a reliable conservative vote.”

A reliable conservative vote is necessary. But it is far from sufficient.

Voting in accordance to the wishes of one’s district is a rote activity that any halfwit could perform. Of course, politicians have to vote representative of their districts or risk being voted out; the American electorate understands that fact. However, there is a stark contrast between Congressman Bachus and Senator Jim DeMint, Governor Walker, and Congressman Paul Ryan, three exemplars of voting based on principled leadership, rather than political expediency. The difference can be more insidious than it might seem at first glance. This holds true on both the federal and local levels.

It is easy to “vote right” for your district. Nancy Pelosi wins her district, as do most representatives, not because they are right on the issues, but because they vote in accordance with their districts enough that any “rogue” votes are understated or in small proportion to the ones that please their constituents. Politicians don’t always vote their district out of conviction, but often only because political expedience. Of course, there are ways to “vote right” and kill things behind the scenes. Worse, there are ways for a politician to look perfect on paper, yet behind the scenes sabotage the very votes they publicly support. Our most corrupt elected officials commit the most egregious and invisible act: publicly claiming to fight for something, while secretly cutting deals with other voting members behind the scenes to kill it, or worse, giving it mere lip service but expending zero political capital to pass the bill.

(more…)

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) internal document excerpted below supports the allegation that Obama appointee John Lund has told union officials to ignore federal investigators and deal with him personally.  His actions irreversibly taint criminal investigations and subvert employee protections in favor of union bosses, while raising the prestige of his labor consultant team in Wisconsin.

Above is the internal OLMS Regional Director meeting minutes that confirm what my source has been telling me. (PGHDO = Pittsburgh District Office)  What Lund is doing, is much more than fixing parking tickets; he is interfering with potentially serious criminal charges.

As Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) Director, Lund heads the office primarily responsible for criminal investigations regarding union embezzlement. A union’s failure to file its union financial disclosure report in a timely manner automatically prompts a series of actions taken by the DOL personnel. A financial report delinquent more than 90 days is usually followed-up personally by DOL investigators.  But, ‘former’ labor union consultant Lund has short-circuited normal procedures; he is literally telling union officials “not to deal with OLMS investigators” and “send the reports directly to” him.

The office Lund heads is responsible for investigating and reviewing union financial reports and union official conflict-of-interest disclosures. The office functions somewhat similar to the   Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) but for unions rather than businesses.

If you will, imagine Lund as an SEC Director, giving corporations the same instructions do “not to deal with SEC investigators, just deal with me directly.”   Congress and the Inspector General would rush to investigate, and the media would provide full coverage of every detail.  Speculation would be rife within the media, and generate frequent headlines.  The union officials who went see Lund would be under the microscope as well as their unions. Their financial records for the past decade would be reviewed and each questionable trip to Las Vegas or Australia would be questioned.

More importantly, union members and those forced to pay dues to these unions would likely be painted as victims that they are.  Perhaps the press would even look back at the last three years of union disclosure elimination that John Lund has orchestrated that has no benefit for the rank-and-file.  No, Lund has been systematically dismantling union financial disclosure and union boss conflict-of-interest reporting to the benefit of his union boss clients. (more…)

Yesterday, I wondered how Nancy Pelosi and her husband were able to participate in Visa’s IPO in March 2008. It is very difficult for an individual investor to participate in IPOs, especially those which are heavily ‘oversubscribed’ as Visa’s was. It was the hottest IPO of the year, drawing what one analyst described as “extreme demand.” So, this tidbit from Newsweek’s story on Visa’s campaign to curry favor with Pelosi caught my attention:

Separately, Pelosi’s husband, Paul, a major investor in California, got a lucrative phone call from his personal broker—a pre-screen invite in March 2008 to take part in Visa’s $17.9 billion public stock offering, at the time one of the hottest stock offerings in an otherwise soft market. The initial-public-offering price was $44 per share and was limited to institutional investors and a group of specially selected individuals. Almost $18 billion was made available in public stock to preselected investors. Paul Pelosi made the cut.

Wait, what? He was called and ‘invited’ to purchase shares in the IPO? Seriously? Let’s isolate one particular sentence from this graph:

The initial-public-offering price was $44 per share and was limited to institutional investors and a group of specially selected individuals.

Specially selected individuals? Selected by whom? And, for what reasons, specifically?

(more…)

Last night, 60 Minutes aired its report on possible insider trading by Members of Congress. A principal focus of the report was House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and her participation in an IPO of Visa, one of the hottest IPOs in recent years. Reporter Steve Kroft questioned Leader Pelosi recently at a press conference about her investment and its possible impact on credit card legislation before the House during her term as Speaker.

I will have much more to say on this soon, as the legislative maneuvering around the recent credit card bill is a rich narrative and suggests there may be something to Kroft’s suspicions. For now, though, I have a more fundamental question: How did Nancy Pelosi get access to Visa’s IPO in the first place?

Participation in a stocks IPO, i.e. Initial Public Offering, is one of the more sought after trades on Wall Street. Often, an IPO investor is able to get into a stock at a relatively low price and realize an almost immediate gain once trading commences, especially if the IPO is “hot” or, rather oversubscribed, meaning more investors wanted shares than were available. Visa’s IPO was blockbuster-level “hot.” As reported by The New York Times:

Visa‘s blockbuster initial public offering is currently oversubscribed for its expected trading start on March 20, Scott Sweet of the research firm IPO Boutique told MarketWatch.

Mr. Sweet told the publication that the I.P.O. is drawing “extreme demand.”

It is very difficult for any individual investors to participate in an IPO, as most of the shares are reserved for major brokerage clients, institutional investors and pension funds. It is so difficult, in fact, the SEC has published an “FAQ” on why it is so difficult for individual investors to participate in IPOs:

(more…)

From CBS News:

Martha Stewart went to jail for it. Hedge fund honcho Raj Rajaratnam was fined $92 million and will go to jail for years for it. But members of Congress can do the same thing -use non-public information to make stock trades — and there’s no law against it. Steve Kroft reports on how America’s lawmakers can legally make tidy profits on information only they know, simply because they won’t pass a law against themselves. The report will be broadcast on Sunday, Nov. 13 at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Among the revelations in Kroft’s report:

(more…)

According to Senate rules Members of the U.S. Senate can neither simply “keep the change” and pocket the unused portions of their travel per diems nor use them to buy gifts for campaign donors. That seems like common sense to me. These per diems, after all, are paid for by the taxpayers. Judicial Watch filed an ethics complaint with the U.S. Senate’s Select Committee on Ethics in March 2010 after press reports documented widespread abuse of travel per diems by individual Members.

JW’s efforts appear to have paid off…at least in part.

On June 3, 2011, the Senate Ethics Committee sent a “Dear Colleague” letter to all U.S. Senators and staff to make certain they “understand and adhere to the rules on unused per diem,” following our complaint. The Senate Ethics Committee refused, however, to hold accountable individual Members of Congress referenced in press reports documenting per diem abuse.

According to a June 8, 2011, Senate Ethics Committee letter to Judicial Watch:

…based upon review of the information you have provided, it appears that your complaint lacks merit and further Committee action is not appropriate with respect to this matter. The Committee, however, has recently circulated a “Dear Colleague” letter to ensure that all Members and staff, especially those who are new to the Senate, understand and adhere to the rules on unused per diem. [Emphasis added]

(I find it difficult to understand how the Committee can in one breath say there’s nothing to investigate regarding the per diem scandal and then in the next indicate that it had taken action to address the issue.)

(more…)

This week I filed a lawsuit against the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), in federal district court in the District of Columbia on behalf of The American Tradition Institute’s Environmental Law Center. On the heels of obtaining a court order last month compelling the University of Virginia to produce the long-sought ‘Hockey Stick’-related records, ATI’s transparency project now seeks to force NASA to release ethics records for taxpayer-funded global warming activist Dr. James Hansen, specifically those pertaining to his outside employment, revenue generation, and advocacy activities.

What we are trying to determine is whether NASA approved Hansen’s widespread, well-documented, high-profile and, it turns out, extremely lucrative “outside employment and other activities”, permission for which must be obtained in writing, in advance. Public financial disclosures and other documents reveal that he has received at least $1.2 million in the past four years, more than doubling his taxpayer-financed salary.

You may have seen Monday’s Washington Post front page article, titled in the print edition “Deliver the sound bite, watch donors eat it up: incendiary comments can light a fire under candidates’ fundraising”. As we demonstrate in our complaint, the connection seems to exist elsewhere in government, too.

That is, although we removed from the final version a reminder of Hansen’s escalation to knee-jerk invocation of Nazi analogies, this remains a key point about this gusher of outside income. All of which comes on top of — and, more troubling, is all “related to” and is sometimes even according to his benefactors expressly for — his taxpayer-funded employment.

(more…)

From The National Journal:

The House’s independent ethics office is looking into sexual-harassment claims leveled months ago against Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., the Wall Street Journal is reporting.

Citing sources familiar with the inquiry, the investigation, which began at least a month ago, is being conducted by the independent Office of Congressional Ethics and not the House Ethics Committee.

(more…)

From The Associated Press:

So far, House Democratic leaders haven’t publicly demanded Rep. Anthony Weiner resign after admitting he sent suggestive photos of himself in his underwear via Twitter and then lied about it to everyone within earshot. But they’ve made it clear they’d appreciate it if he’d go away. And soon.

In statements within an hour of Weiner’s stunning admission on Monday, not a single Democrat volunteered support for the man long mentioned as a possible future mayor of New York. And notably, none chose to comment on his defiant vow: “I am not resigning.”

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the party leader, said she was “disappointed and saddened.” She and other Democrats called for an ethics committee investigation to determine whether Weiner had broken any House rules.

Other Democrats said they agreed.

(more…)

From CBS News:

New York City Congressman Anthony Weiner has not asked the FBI or U.S. Capitol Police to investigate a bizarre Twitter incident in which a lewd photo of a man’s groin was sent to his 45,000 followers from his account.

Weiner told CBS News Congressional Correspondent Nancy Cordes in an interview Wednesday he has asked a law firm and an Internet security operation to “give advice” on the situation.

He said, “I don’t believe this is a federal case, I don’t believe that this is a capital crime. I believe this is a bit of mischief.”

But why is Weiner so seemingly reluctant to involve law enforcement authorities in the case?

On “The Early Show” Thursday, CBS News Legal Analyst Jack Ford said if he’s not pursuing official assistance in this situation, it’s about not getting wrapped up official statements.

“If I’m a lawyer, and I’m representing a politician, in general, it’s not against the law to lie to the media. It’s not against the law to lie to your constituents. It is against the law to lie to law enforcement authorities,” he said. “Martha Stewart went to jail not for insider trading, but for lying. Barry Bonds gets charged, goes to trial, not for using steroids – for lying about it. So if I’m a lawyer looking at a case such as this, I’m going to be real careful before I let my clients talk to law enforcement authorities, because I don’t want to find my client, you know, jammed up here criminally because, despite what happened here, they’re not telling the truth.” (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…)

They’re emailing each other?

The New York Daily News reported Thursday that “Mayor Bloomberg’s top deputies went to great lengths to help those trying to build a mosque at Ground Zero – even drafting a letter to the community board for them, newly released documents show. City Hall on Thursday released a flurry of emails between its brass and Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam pushing to build a mosque near the sensitive site, and his supporters.”

It’s worse than we imagined.

The release of these documents, emails and various exchanges between Mayor Bloomberg’s office and the radical Imam Rauf and his motley crew of Islamic supremacists shows evidence of collusion, inappropriate political support for the Ground Zero mega mosque, and favoritism given to the project.

The newly released documents show that Mayor Bloomberg’s office went to extraordinary lengths for the radicals trying to build a mega mosque at Ground Zero — even writing a letter to the Community Board for them. Is it any wonder that Rauf and his wife Daisy Khan were so confident at the hearings about whether the nineteenth-century building they’re going to tear down to build the mega-mosque should be designated a landmark?

At one of those hearings last May, those in opposition to the Ground Zero mosque were in the vast majority in the audience, and were having none of the nonsense being served up by the Community Board itself. From the very beginning the board was only presenting pro-mosque speakers, from elected officials to board members – although I was allowed to speak early after writing on my card that I wanted to speak about “outreach.” After I spoke, they closed the public remarks down for about an hour. After the lopsided vote in favor of the mosque, printed remarks were distributed from the Manhattan Borough President congratulating the Board for its vote.

How did he know how the Board would vote? Was the fix in from the start? The newly released emails certainly give that impression.

(more…)

The ethics trial of recently reelected Rep. Charlie Rangel begins this morning. Rep. Rangel will represent himself. The Sunlight Foundation has live coverage of the trial.

From the very beginning I argued that the public should reserve judgment about Rod Blagojevich.  The Chicago Tribune had the openness to run two of my op-eds recommending suspension of judgment—“Fitzgerald comments crossed ethical line” (Jan. 15, 2009) and “Reign of everyday hypocrisy”  (April 10, 2009).

U. S. Atty Patrick Fitzgerald’s inflammatory comments at his Dec. 9, 2008, news conference—where he stated that Blagojevich’s conduct was “appalling” and that he had gone on a “political crime spree”—were entirely out of bounds.  Finding Blagojevich guilty on only one of 24 counts is some “crime spree.”  Maybe Fitzgerald confused Mr. and Mrs. Blagojevich with Bonnie and Clyde.

Worse, Fitzgerald poisoned the well of public opinion, leading to a zeitgeist of public frenzy—what the 19^th Century Scottish essayists called “schwarmerei,” a swarming herd conformity throughout the country and an animating spirit that precludes reserving judgment.

At the time, I received the following letter on Jan. 22, 2009, from Edward Genson, who had been Blagojevich’s initial counsel:

“I would like to commend you for your opinion piece in the Chicago Tribune on January 15^th and thank you for highlighting Patrick Fitzgerald’s ethical misstep.  Even in the face of this schwarmerei against Blagojevich, Fitzgerald still has to produce enough evidence to indict—imagine the schwarmerei against Fitzgerald if he fails!”

Fitzgerald had gotten away with it with Scooter Libby, whom he knew committed no crime but who perjured himself in subsequent testimony.  And the Conrad Black case does not reflect well on Fitzgerald.

(more…)

WASHINGTON (AP) – A House investigative committee on Thursday charged New York Rep. Charles Rangel with multiple ethics violations, dealing a serious blow to the former Ways and Means chairman and complicating Democrats’ election-year outlook.

The panel did not immediately specify the charges against the Democrat, who has served in the House for some 40 years and is fourth in seniority. The charges by a four-member panel of the House ethics committee sends the case to a House trial, where a separate eight-member panel of Republicans and Democrats will decide whether the violations can be proved by clear and convincing evidence.

The timing of the announcement ensures that a public airing of Rangel’s ethical woes will stretch into the fall campaign, and Republicans are certain to make it an issue as they try to capture majority control of the House. Speaker Nancy Pelosi had once promised to “drain the swamp” of ethical misdeeds by lawmakers in arguing that Democrats should be in charge. (more…)

In a June 14th editorial entitled “Politicizing the Fed,” the Wall Street Journal sheds light on one of the dubious regulations of the upcoming financial reform bill.  The Journal states:

The biggest underreported threat comes from Subtitle I, Section 1801 of the House financial reform bill titled “Inclusion of Minorities and Women; Diversity in Agency Workforce.” Sponsored by California Democrat Maxine Waters, the provision requires each federal financial agency, the Fed Board of Governors and the 12 regional Fed banks to “establish an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion.”

So what else is new, you say? Don’t the feds already dictate racial and gender hiring? Yes, they do, through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and assorted other federal laws. As a matter of racial and gender diversity, the Waters provision is at best redundant.

But Ms. Waters and the House are hunting bigger game—to wit, the political allocation of credit.

[...]

The House provision makes that very clear by making each diversity officer a Presidential appointee who must be confirmed by the Senate.The post, says the bill, will be “comparable to that of other senior level staff.”  The post, says the bill, will be “comparable to that of other senior level staff.”

The law says this diversity czar will “ensure equal employment opportunity and the racial, ethnic and gender diversity” of the work force and senior management of these institutions. More ominously, this creature of Congress and the White House will also be charged with “increas[ing] the participation of minority-owned and women-owned businesses in the programs and contracts” of each agency and conducting “an assessment” of stated inclusion goals.

Mull over that one for a minute. Having recently lived through a financial mania and panic caused in part by political pressure for “affordable housing,” Congress will now order regulators to allocate credit by race and gender.

In an article I wrote on February 28th entitled “Fiscal Death by Welfare,” I argued: “I believe that as the downturn goes on the government will blame the banks for the lack of economic growth and force them to allocate credit to chosen political entrepreneurs and other bad credit risks…”  I truly wish I had been wrong in my assessment.

(more…)