NYT — Rangel should step down

I fully agree with the New York Times editor calling for ethics-shortchanged House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel to step down while his ever-mounting financial woes are under investigation.

Actually, I don’t fully agree. This is politics, not a court of law, and I think Champagne Charlie should resign.

Pelosi’s latest shark-jumping moment

Naming disgraced former CIA chair Porter Goss, who knows plenty about lack of ethics, as co-chair of the new Office of Congressional Ethics, is certainly a TV-classic level shark-jump.

Besides Goss, the rest of the board looks like a bunch of retreads and mutual back-scratchers. Meanwhile, Passive Pelosi™ gives us a boatload of PR crapola, joined by her partner in crime, House Minority Leader John Boehner:

“The new Office of Congressional Ethics is essential to an effective ethics process in the House,” Pelosi said in a statement. “With the creation of the Office of Congressional Ethics, we bring a new element of transparency and accountability to the ethics process.”

Madam Speaker, I’ll believe you about the same time I believe the House will actually have an impeachment vote. So much for Congressional ethics, eh?

Charles Rangel — Congressional shakedown artist par excellence, part II

Fresh off getting a New York Times spanking for his plethora of rent-controlled apartments in Harlem, House Ways and Means Chairman Rangel is now the focus of a Washington Post piece about his apparent shakedown of corporations doing business before his committee — and on official letterhead, no less.

Plus, $30 mil ain’t a low-dollar shakedown, and the additional hubris factor of having the place named after yourself makes it more stinky yet. Yes, per one person in the story, he’s crossed a line. But, as the rent control story makes clear, he crossed that line years ago.

You know, it’s kind of hard to campaign against GOP corruption of the likes of Ted Stevens, at the national level, when you have a poster-boy fox guarding the henhouse like Rangel.

Did Reyes use ‘weight’ to help kidnapped relative in Mexico?

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington charges just that, charging that Texas Congressman Silvestre Reyes somehow helped get Erika Possert, whom Reyes described as the aunt of his sister-in-law's son's wife, freed from Mexican captors on payment of ransom.

Behind that story, whether true or not, lies the bitterness of many south Texas families with relatives kidnapped in Mexico who feel Reyes has turned a deaf ear to them in the past. And it sounds to me like that’s the key story.

It doesn’t look like Reyes has any impropriety in the Possert case, but he’s made enough constituents disgruntled they’re more than ready to seize on the appearance of impropriety.

While he’s not likely to lose his seat in this year’s general election, you never know, and I’m sure he’ll get a noteworthy Democratic primary challenger in 2010.

Kay Bailey and Big John Cornyn won’t talk mortgage

In the wake of allegations that Sens. Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad got preferential treatment from Countrywide Financial, The Politico decided to contact all 100 senators and ask them about their mortgages.

At the time of this post, the online political mag was still waiting to hear from about half the Senate, including Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn.

The two of you get sweetheart deals from a friend of Tom DeLay or Jack Abramoff?

That said, nationally, Democrats shouldn’t get too smug. They outnumber Republicans 29-20 among nonrespondent Senators.

House votes to end wives on campaign staffs

Voice vote approval given to a big ethics issue:

Spouses don't belong on campaign payrolls, the House says, voting to end a practice that has benefited some members of Congress for years.

Monday's action follows controversies in which lawmakers added many thousands of dollars to their family incomes by hiring relatives for campaign tasks, even if their qualifications were not always apparent.

But watchdog groups like CREW see dimmer prospects in Senate. Reading between the analytical lines, it seems likely somebody will put a “hold” on the bill.

But, in today’s blogosphere, “holds” have been quickly outed on some major pieces of legislation. This one shouldn’t be any different. So, when it gets to the Senate, let’s be alert.

Too bad House and Senate ethics committees don’t operate like the House of Commons

The Commons’ ethical standards watchdog is recommending MP George Galloway be suspended without pay for 18 working days. And, it would not be the first time such a suspension happened.

Our Congress will adopt such standards in about 200 years or so.

CREW releases Congressional “dirty 96” list — including Ron Paul

These are the Members of Congress who keep family members on some sort of dole, whether a friendly PAC or something else.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington earlier this week released an analysis of the misuse of power by the chairmen and ranking members of all House of Representative committees and subcommittees, as well as top leadership positions, to financially benefit their family members. The new report, Family Affair, names 96 members from 33 states: 41 Democrats and 55 Republicans.

Highlights of the report include:

* 64 paid family members through their campaign committees or PACs (26 Democrats and 38 Republicans);
* 24 have relatives who lobby Congress (10 Democrats and 14 Republicans);
* 19 used their campaign committees or PACs to pay a family business or a business that employs a family member (9 Democrats and 10 Republicans);
* 17 used their campaign funds to make campaign contributions to relatives (11 Democrats and 6 Republicans);
* 15 used their positions to benefit a family member or a family member's client (3 Democrats and 12 Republicans);
* At least 7 paid offspring who ranged from school-age to college-age (all Republicans)

Among the more laughable on the list? “Libertarian” patron saint of limited government Ron Paul; I guess it just shows that past or present third-party officials aren't immune from hypocrisy, either.

None of his relatives worked for the government, 'tis true; just for his campaign committee. It's still a form of benefiting your own family through running for office.

Paul has his daughter on his campaign committee, to the tune of about $49,000 in the 2002 election cycle, and $56,000 in both 2004 and 2006 cycles. A second daughter, and her mother-in-law and father-in-law, got smaller payouts.

The CREW page about the story, including a state-by-state look-up of the “dirty 96,” is here. (PDFs of info on each of the violators.)

Plenty of guilt, including some Democratic, on Mark Foley not getting reported sooner

We establish the Congressional equivalent of the Mendoza line — the Hammer line

The House Ethics Committee has wrapped up a slap-on-the-wrist report on why page-stalking former Florida Congressman Mark Foley wasn’t reported sooner.

The bottom line?

“Failure to exhaust all reasonable efforts to call attention to potential misconduct ... is not merely the exercise of poor judgment; it is a present danger to House pages and to the integrity of the institution of the House.”

But, while more Republicans, such as lame-duck Speaker of the House Denny Hastert, are more guilty, Democrats aren’t scot-free.

The panel said it found that many people on and off Capitol Hill knew about Foley's e-mails, including members of the media. It said the communications directors for the House Democratic caucus and campaign committee had copies of some of his electronic messages last year.

House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi said she knew nothing of this. Well, if she’s serious about ethics reform, here’s her first at-bat inside her own party. We’ll see how serious she is.

And, most ludicrous of all, the panel said it found no violation of House ethics rules. No wonder Congress’ approval rating now sits at 13 percent, and no wonder Public Citizen’s Joan Claybrook is hopping mad.

“While the committee's investigation makes clear that no one alerted either the (page) board or the ethics committee of concerns about Rep. Foley's advances to pages, the report lets all of those investigated off the hook for this utter abdication of their duty.”

Well, we’ll see if Pelosi is serious enough about ethics reform to boost the Congressional approval raiting above 20 percent, or .200 in baseball batting terms. In honor of that magic mark, in reference to baseball’s Mendoza line, and in honor of one of Texas’ most “illustrious” bug-killing Congressmen ever

Deny felonious Congressmen a pension?

That’s what Ralph Nader’s Public Citizen and other groups want Speaker Nancy Pelosi to include in any new Congressional ethics bill.

And I’m hip to that.

A president can lose his or her pension should the Senate vote to convict in an impeachment trial. (The president cannot be criminally tried while in office.) That’s one of the reasons Nixon resigned rather than face impeachment.

So, why shouldn’t Members of Congress, who can be criminally tried, be subject to similar penalty? No good reason for them not to be.

Deny felonious Congressmen a pension?

That’s what Ralph Nader’s Public Citizen and other groups want Speaker Nancy Pelosi to include in any new Congressional ethics bill.

And I’m hip to that.

A president can lose his or her pension should the Senate vote to convict in an impeachment trial. (The president cannot be criminally tried while in office.) That’s one of the reasons Nixon resigned rather than face impeachment.

So, why shouldn’t Members of Congress, who can be criminally tried, be subject to similar penalty? No good reason for them not to be.

Reid land sale — Dems still aren’t “clean as a hound’s tooth” on ethics themselves

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, using a limited liability company, cleared $1.1 million two years ago on a suburban Las Vegas parcel. He bought the land personally in 1998, then sold it to the LLC in 2001 and never disclosed that sale on his annual public ethics filing..

Senate ethics rules require lawmakers to disclose on their annual ethics report all transactions involving investment properties — regardless of profit or loss — and to report any ownership stake in companies.

Kent Cooper, who oversaw government disclosure reports for federal candidates for two decades in the Federal Election Commission, said Reid's failure to report the 2001 sale and his ties to Brown's company violated Senate rules.

“This is very, very clear,” Cooper said. “Whether you make a profit or a loss you’ve got to put that transaction down so the public, voters, can see exactly what kind of money is moving to or from a member of Congress.”

“It is especially disconcerting when you have a member of the leadership, of either party, not putting in the effort to make sure this is a complete and accurate report,” said Cooper. “That says something to other members. It says something to the Ethics Committee.”

Other parts of the deal — such as the informal handling of property taxes — raise questions about possible gifts or income reportable to Congress and the IRS, ethics experts said.

Stanley Brand, former Democratic chief counsel of the House, said Reid should have disclosed the 2001 sale and that his omission fits a larger culture in Congress where lawmakers aren't following or enforcing their own rules.

“It’s like everything else we’ve seen in last two years. If it is not enforced, people think it’s not enforced and they get lax and sloppy,” Brand said.

So, how ethical does Reid think the deal was? Well, the AP story says he hung up the phone when asked for comment.

Remember, Reid still has not given back, or given to charity, campaign contributions he received from Indian tribal clients connected to Jack Abramoff, either. I’ve said it in the past and I’ll say it again, that while the Democrats got a definite improvement over Tom Daschle in a minority leader willing to fight GOP fire with fire, they also got someone who is, well, rough around the edges, and with no signs of smoothing out.

Update: Taking his cues from Josh Marshall, Talking Points Memo’s Paul Kiel laments that “The AP’s John Solomon takes another shot at nailing Harry Reid.

Now, it may be true, as Josh has claimed in the past, that Solomon has some personal bias against Reid.

But, Kiel ignores several facts.

One, this story was co-bylined, also being written by Kathleen Hennessey. Yes, Solomon’s the lead writer, but, when you have multiple writers involved, you’re going to have an editor, or bureau chief in the AP’s case, riding at least a little bit of herd. Even if Solomon is assistant or deputy bureau chief, you have somebody else at least available on the side to integrate what the two writers uncovered on their own if there’s any questions about how it fits together, normally.

Second, it’s not as if John Solomon is churning out anti-Reid stories by the dozen. Sourcewatch lists just two such articles with Reid officially headlined in the past 18 months, before this story.

Third: You know, Josh, Paul, Media Matters, et al, there might just be some fire behind the smoke here. This particular article has nothing to do with Reid-Abramoff connections and plenty to do with the often-shady world of Las Vegas politics. And that’s true even if Solomon’s doing heavy-duty ax-grinding. And, there’s just too much in the article for all of this to be ax-grinding, even if that does explain Reid hanging up on Solomon.