After electoral drubbing, Democrats must now deal with ethics trials
By Susan Crabtree
11/03/10
The Hill
Fresh from a stinging midterm election defeat, House Democrats must quickly face another embarrassing spectacle: public trials for two of their most prominent members.
Reps. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), two senior House veterans, have opted to fight the separate ethics charges in public ethics trials set to take place later this month and extend into the first week of December.
Drawing criticism from Republicans, House ethics chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) last month announced the trials would occur after the elections. Rangel’s will commence Nov. 15 and the Waters trial will start Nov. 29.
To make matters worse for a party still reeling from their losses, Rangel, who is known for his colorful and rambling speeches, could decide to represent himself at the hearing. The Rangel’s trial would undoubtedly attract a lot of attention from the cable news shows.
“It’s like we’re kicking ourselves in the stomach when we’re already down,” one House Democratic staffer griped. “I’m not looking forward to it.”
Rangel and his attorney, Leslie Berger Kiernan, and her legal team parted ways in October, leaving little time before the Nov. 15 trial for another lawyer to take the case and prepare.
There’s an outside chance that the ethics committee could decide to postpone Rangel’s hearing because he no longer has legal representation, a delay some ethics experts say would be fair.
“I don't see how Rangel’s [trial] can happen since he does not have counsel and any new lawyer will need time to prepare,” said Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “It seems nearly certain Rangel’s trial will have to be postponed --- due process concerns.”
Waters is more eager to get her trial done so Sloan anticipates it will go forward as planned.
“I can't imagine how delaying would help the Ds,” she said. “I imagine they will want to get this behind them as quickly as possible.”
Rangel did not return a request for comment and a Waters spokesman declined to comment. The ethics committee does not discuss internal decisions about ongoing ethics cases and did not return a request for comment.
Under committee rules, Lofgren has the sole authority to schedule or delay the hearings as long as she wants, but other watchdogs said the ethics committee cannot afford any more bad press related to its handling of the Rangel and Waters matters.
“[Lofgren] is not at all likely to delay the hearings further,” said Craig Holman of Public Citizen. “Additional delays would reflect poorly on the committee itself and provide no benefit to either congressional caucus.”
Republicans have no sympathy for Democrat’s plight, because, they argue, their leaders had a choice of whether to move forward with the trials in July but decided to push them off until after the election for public relations purposes.
They also remember how Democrats capitalized on the 2006 October scandal involving then-Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) and inappropriate electronic messages to former pages. At the time, Democrats said it proved that Republicans had lost their way on ethics.
“There is no purer symbol of the arrogance of power than Democrats holding these hearings after the elections,” said Doug Heye, spokesman for the Republican National Committee. “It perfectly encapsulated why voters are tired of Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi’s [D-Calif.] rule.”
Democrats fired back, arguing that the Rangel and Waters ethics issues hardly compare to scandals during Republican control of the House, including the Foley scandal, and the wide-ranging corruption probe of Jack Abramoff that landed the lobbyist and one GOP member (Rep. Bob Ney (Ohio)) in jail and implicated several former aides.
“There is not one shred of evidence that voters are in any way motivated by these allegations,” said Brandi Hoffine, spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee. “…There’s no comparison whatsoever between these allegations and the scandal-racked Republican Congress of 2006.”
Some Democrats contacted for this article who declined to speak on the record lashed out at Republicans for their ethics record.
“It takes a lot of chutzpah coming from the same party that impeached President Clinton during [a] lame duck [session] and the same GOP leaders who proudly presided over a non-existent ethics process....Democrats strengthened the house ethics process, Republicans subverted it," remarked one Democratic aide.
It’s difficult to quantify just what kind of impact the Rangel and Waters scandals had on Tuesday’s disappointing Democratic losses, but longtime political observers argue that ethics scandals are packing more of a punch in recent years then they had some 10 or 15 years ago.
“We’ve seen in the past when the Democrats took over they found that the ethics issues were more salient than many believed previously,” said Meredith McGehee of the Campaign Legal Center. “…To some degree the Republicans have used the Rangel and Waters matters effectively to paint a picture that the Democrats are not the change they sold us on.”
McGehee believes that younger voters in their 40s and 50s grew up watching the Watergate scandal and its fallout and take ethics issues more seriously than the previous generation.
“As politics has become cleaner – you don’t see the bags of cash being handed over anymore – there’s still a recognition that politics still seem to be doing backroom deals even when you pass new rules and laws [to crack down on it],” she said.
Some Democrats on Capitol Hill strongly reject any notion that the Rangel and Waters matters had anything to do with individual Democratic defeats, citing jobs and the difficulty of maintaining a majority in Congress in a midterm election after controlling all three branches of government. One aide specifically noted that most of the ads featured Pelosi, not Rangel and Waters.
“It’s ridiculous to say that,” one Democratic aide shot back. “If that were the case, there would be ads running all over the country [highlighting the investigations]. House Republicans made the conscious decision not to make this a big deal because they have their own skeletons in their closet…people are concerned about one thing: jobs.”
democrats
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Democrats in Violation
A SENIOR Democratic Congresswoman, law degree, professor of law at Georgetown, and a Congresswoman since 1990 ... has, at the very least violated quite a few ethical duties in the following phone conversation. Perhaps even several laws ...
The lobbyist apparently didn't see eye to eye with her, or this would never have been released!
Whether Reid, Pelosi, Waters, Rangel, Jefferson ... the Democrats have a real pantheon of ethical violators. Makes the Republicans look less weaselly.
DEMOCRATS IN A PANIC
This is, uh, Eleanor Norton, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton. Uh, I noticed that you have given to uh, other colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I am a, um, Senior Member, a twenty year veteran and am Chair of the Sub-committee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management. I’m handling the largest economic development project in the United States now, the Homeland Security Compound of three buildings being built on the uh, old St. Elizabeth’s hospital site in the District of Columbia along with uh, fifteen other, uh, sites here for, that are part of the stimulus .
I was, frankly, uh, uh, surprised to see that we don’t have a record, so far as I can tell, of your having given to me despite my uh, long and deep uh, work. In fact, it’s been my major work, uh, on the committee and sub-committee it’s been essentially in your sector.
I am, I’m simply candidly calling to ask for a contribution. As the senior member of the um, committee and a sub-committee chair, we have (chuckles) obligations to raise, uh funds. And, I think it must have been me who hasn’t, frankly, uh, done my homework to ask for a contribution earlier. So I’m trying to make up for it by asking for one now, when we particularly, uh, need, uh contributions, particularly those of us who have the seniority and chairmanships and are in a position to raise the funds.
I’m asking you to give to Citizens for Eleanor Holmes Norton, PO Box 70626, DC, 20024. I’ll send you a follow-up note with appreciation for having heard me out. Thanks again.
dems
The lobbyist apparently didn't see eye to eye with her, or this would never have been released!
Whether Reid, Pelosi, Waters, Rangel, Jefferson ... the Democrats have a real pantheon of ethical violators. Makes the Republicans look less weaselly.
DEMOCRATS IN A PANIC
This is, uh, Eleanor Norton, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton. Uh, I noticed that you have given to uh, other colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I am a, um, Senior Member, a twenty year veteran and am Chair of the Sub-committee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management. I’m handling the largest economic development project in the United States now, the Homeland Security Compound of three buildings being built on the uh, old St. Elizabeth’s hospital site in the District of Columbia along with uh, fifteen other, uh, sites here for, that are part of the stimulus .
I was, frankly, uh, uh, surprised to see that we don’t have a record, so far as I can tell, of your having given to me despite my uh, long and deep uh, work. In fact, it’s been my major work, uh, on the committee and sub-committee it’s been essentially in your sector.
I am, I’m simply candidly calling to ask for a contribution. As the senior member of the um, committee and a sub-committee chair, we have (chuckles) obligations to raise, uh funds. And, I think it must have been me who hasn’t, frankly, uh, done my homework to ask for a contribution earlier. So I’m trying to make up for it by asking for one now, when we particularly, uh, need, uh contributions, particularly those of us who have the seniority and chairmanships and are in a position to raise the funds.
I’m asking you to give to Citizens for Eleanor Holmes Norton, PO Box 70626, DC, 20024. I’ll send you a follow-up note with appreciation for having heard me out. Thanks again.
dems
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Dems: The Rules Apply, Just Not to Us ... it's all Bush's fault
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson violated rules, steered scholarships to relatives
12:35 AM CDT on Sunday, August 29, 2010
By TODD J. GILLMAN and CHRISTY HOPPE / The Dallas Morning News
Longtime Dallas congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson has awarded thousands of dollars in college scholarships to four relatives and a top aide's two children since 2005, using foundation funds set aside for black lawmakers' causes.
The recipients were ineligible under anti-nepotism rules of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, which provided the money. And all of the awards violated a foundation requirement that scholarship winners live or study in a caucus member's district.
Johnson, a Democrat, denied any favoritism when asked about the scholarships last week. Two days later, she acknowledged in a statement released by her office that she had violated the rules but said she had done so "unknowingly" and would work with the foundation to "rectify the financial situation."
[It is amazing what they unknowingly do - whether Republican or Democrat. Our money, our laws - they serve us, not the other way around.]
Initially, she said, "I recognized the names when I saw them. And I knew that they had a need just like any other kid that would apply for one." Had there been more "very worthy applicants in my district," she added, "then I probably wouldn't have given it" to the relatives.
Her handling of the scholarships puts a rare spotlight on the program and how it is overseen. Caucus members have great leeway in how they pick winners and how aggressively they publicize the awards. Some lawmakers promote the program online, for instance, while Johnson does not.
Philanthropy experts said such lax oversight of scholarship money doesn't match the standards for charities.
The foundation – which is supported by private and corporate donations, not taxpayer money – provides $10,000 annually for each member of the Congressional Black Caucus to award in scholarships. Each gets to decide how many ways to split the money and whether to create a judging panel, choose personally or delegate the task.
Johnson, a former chairwoman of the caucus who has served on the board that oversees the foundation, said she wasn't fully aware of the program rules and emphasized that she didn't "personally benefit."
In her interview with The Dallas Morning News, on Wednesday, Johnson said "hundreds of kids got scholarships since I have been here." Her district covers much of southern Dallas County, including many of the area's less affluent precincts.
"The most that any kid normally gets is from $1,000 to $1,200. ... If it was a secret or if I was trying to hide it, I wouldn't have done it," she said.
The foundation's general counsel, Amy Goldson, said Saturday that the scholarships Johnson awarded violated eligibility rules regarding relatives and residency and are "of great concern."
The program "operates on an honor system," so the foundation hadn't known that money went to Johnson's relatives, she said. But when a recipient fails to meet eligibility requirements or "misrepresents their eligibility, the scholarship funds must be returned."
Further, Goldson said, the failure of a lawmaker or aides to follow eligibility rules "is a violation of the letter and spirit of [the Foundation's] requirements."
"It is inappropriate for a lawmaker to certify the award of a scholarship to a relative in a situation where the lawmaker or their staff is involved in the selection of the recipient," she said.
Apart from the residency requirements, the scholarship rules state that students must have a 2.5-grade-point average, but there are no explicit judging criteria.
Johnson awarded nine to 11 scholarships a year from 2005 to 2008, the most recent years for which information was available. Each of those years, three or four winners were related to her or her district director, Rod Givens. Johnson said she divided the available funds equally among recipients, and every qualified applicant got a scholarship.
The foundation asks applicants to certify that they aren't related to those associated with the caucus or the foundation, but it does not specify which relationships that includes.
Scholarships have gone to two of the congresswoman's grandsons, Kirk and David Johnson; to two of her great-nephews, Gregory and Preston Moore; and to Givens' son and daughter. Givens did not respond to requests for comment, and none of the scholarship recipients could be reached.
'Not ... proper'
Daniel Borochoff, president of the American Institute of Philanthropy, said that, ideally, scholarship and grant decisions should be made by disinterested arbiters, preferably on the basis of excellence or need.
Johnson's system "is not an appropriate or proper way to distribute scholarship funds," he said.
"It's totally fine if the congressman or -woman wants to reach inside their own pocket and give, but to use money that people got tax deductions on to then benefit their family – it would just be setting up nonprofit organizations to get tax benefits to put their kids through college. It would wreck the whole system if that kind of thing were allowed," Borochoff said.
He said a scholarship with so few criteria for recipients would normally attract dozens if not hundreds of applicants if it were well publicized.
"There should be outrage because there are probably students who are more deserving and more needy of the funds," Borochoff said.
The combined scholarship total for the six students over four years was less than $20,000, based on Johnson's accounting of the scholarships. That appears to be less than half the total Johnson awarded over that time. Of 43 scholarships her office awarded between 2005 and 2008, 15 went to relatives of Johnson or Givens, according to foundation annual reports.
Johnson, in the interview Wednesday, dismissed concerns about the propriety of giving to her relatives or her staffers.
"We look at the kids that apply, look at their qualifications, and if they have the application there with all the ingredients, we try to help," she said. "I doubt if there is anybody in my district going to question me giving $1,000 to a kid to help him with college."
The congresswoman, 74, who is expected to handily win a 10th term this fall over a relatively unknown Republican, said flatly that there was no favoritism for her aide's children or for her grandsons or great-nephews.
"Same application. Same requirements," she said.
Rules clear, lawyer says
The Congressional Black Caucus consists of one U.S. senator and 41 House members – among them Johnson and two other Texans, Reps. Sheila Jackson Lee and Al Green, both of Houston. All are Democrats.
The foundation is a separate, nonprofit charitable organization whose board at any time includes only a few caucus members.
The foundation, which awarded $716,000 to 556 students last year, has been criticized for spending less on scholarships than on galas and conferences that allow lobbyists to rub elbows with influential lawmakers. Fundraising for the caucus itself and its members is tightly regulated, but the closely related foundation faces few restrictions.
In 2002, Johnson chaired the caucus and served on its board.
She continued to serve on the foundation board through 2005 – a year when both great-nephews and grandson Kirk Johnson received scholarships through her office, despite a rule explicitly forbidding awards to relatives of foundation board members.
Goldson, the foundation attorney, said the rules make clear that applicants cannot be related to any member of the black caucus, the foundation's staff, directors, members of its corporate advisory council or any sponsor, a list that includes scores of major companies. "Any misrepresentation will result in disqualification of the application," she said.
Each caucus member who participates in the foundation's scholarship program is responsible for publicizing the competition locally. Some do so more aggressively than others. Many list the opportunity on their official U.S. House websites, often under a tab dedicated to "students."
Johnson's website makes no mention of the scholarships.
"This has been going on long before there was any websites," she said. "We send information to the high schools. I haven't known anybody who didn't know about it, to tell you the truth."
Counselors at four southern Dallas high schools didn't return calls last week to discuss the matter.
Selection process varies
The foundation raises the funds, sets requirements and provides application forms. But the process for picking winners varies among lawmakers.
Apart from the GPA of at least 2.5, students must submit personal and financial information, a transcript, letters of recommendation, an essay on goals, and a copy of their federal student aid report to their local member of the Congressional Black Caucus.
Johnson said aides in Dallas – where Givens is her senior aide – review applications and forward to her all those that qualify.
"When they come to this office, there's hardly much decision to be made. We find out how many applicants, how much money, divide it up, send it in," she said. "I've not given any money where there was no need. And I don't think a $1,000 scholarship's going to do too much, but it helps when you need it."
Johnson's assets – not counting a blind trust that owns a newsstand concession at Dallas Love Field – amounted to less than $97,000 in 2008. Her wealth puts her in the bottom quarter of House members, according to Center for Responsive Politics data. Apart from her $174,000-a-year congressional salary, she reported a $35,000 pension for her previous service in the state Legislature, and $22,000 from Social Security last year.
In doling out their scholarship money, some lawmakers pick one winner, others as many as 18.
Johnson gave out nine scholarships in 2005, 11 in 2006 and 10 in 2007. Every qualified applicant got a piece of the pie, she said, though her office did not provide details on the number of applications submitted each year.
Johnson said she never asked the foundation or anyone else if it was acceptable for her to award scholarships to relatives.
"It's never come up with me," she said. "But let me just say this: None of these people are my immediate family. Immediate family doesn't include grandchildren."
'As best I could'
But the Johnsons, Moores and Givenses weren't eligible under other foundation rules requiring recipients to reside or go to school in a congressional district represented by a member of the Congressional Black Caucus.
None of the six lived or attended school in Johnson's district. They lived in districts represented by white Republicans.
The Johnsons lived in Plano, in a district represented by Rep. Sam Johnson (no relation). The Moores lived in Manor, near Austin, Rep. Michael McCaul's district. The Givenses, who live in Mesquite, are represented by Rep. Jeb Hensarling.
The recipients' colleges – Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Baylor in Waco, Texas Christian in Fort Worth, Texas State in San Marcos and Sam Houston State in Huntsville – also fall outside any district held by a caucus member.
"I haven't seen those rules," Johnson said, "but let me just say this: I take the responsibility for as many kids as I can help in the North Texas area."
Even though her grandchildren grew up near Austin, she added, there was nothing untoward about giving scholarships to students outside her district.
"There have been many others," she said, including a student from Oklahoma , whom she helped at the request of Sen. James Inhofe, a conservative Republican.
District residency, Johnson said, has never been a critical factor in her selection process.
"I've tried to use it as best I could, but when there's a needy kid living outside my district, and somebody recommends or calls and asks for help, I try to give it if I can, and I've been doing it 18 years," she said.
"If there had been very worthy applicants in my district, then I probably wouldn't have given it" to relatives, she added. "But, when you have enough money to give one additional scholarship and that person's well-qualified, I have never considered it a violation of anything to give a little help."
James Ferris, director of the Center on Philanthropy and Public Policy at the University of Southern California, said most nonprofits seek to avoid even the perception of conflicts of interest by establishing review boards to help make selections on scholarships or grants.
They avoid sole decision makers.
"In this case, it sounds like the power to make those grants rests in one person," he said. "The member can allocate it without any kind of oversight or checks and balances. That's sort of the nub of the problem."
Ferris said the system invites skepticism.
"Basically, it's whether you're using money that was raised in the public interest for private gain," he said.
dems in charge
12:35 AM CDT on Sunday, August 29, 2010
By TODD J. GILLMAN and CHRISTY HOPPE / The Dallas Morning News
Longtime Dallas congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson has awarded thousands of dollars in college scholarships to four relatives and a top aide's two children since 2005, using foundation funds set aside for black lawmakers' causes.
The recipients were ineligible under anti-nepotism rules of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, which provided the money. And all of the awards violated a foundation requirement that scholarship winners live or study in a caucus member's district.
Johnson, a Democrat, denied any favoritism when asked about the scholarships last week. Two days later, she acknowledged in a statement released by her office that she had violated the rules but said she had done so "unknowingly" and would work with the foundation to "rectify the financial situation."
[It is amazing what they unknowingly do - whether Republican or Democrat. Our money, our laws - they serve us, not the other way around.]
Initially, she said, "I recognized the names when I saw them. And I knew that they had a need just like any other kid that would apply for one." Had there been more "very worthy applicants in my district," she added, "then I probably wouldn't have given it" to the relatives.
Her handling of the scholarships puts a rare spotlight on the program and how it is overseen. Caucus members have great leeway in how they pick winners and how aggressively they publicize the awards. Some lawmakers promote the program online, for instance, while Johnson does not.
Philanthropy experts said such lax oversight of scholarship money doesn't match the standards for charities.
The foundation – which is supported by private and corporate donations, not taxpayer money – provides $10,000 annually for each member of the Congressional Black Caucus to award in scholarships. Each gets to decide how many ways to split the money and whether to create a judging panel, choose personally or delegate the task.
Johnson, a former chairwoman of the caucus who has served on the board that oversees the foundation, said she wasn't fully aware of the program rules and emphasized that she didn't "personally benefit."
In her interview with The Dallas Morning News, on Wednesday, Johnson said "hundreds of kids got scholarships since I have been here." Her district covers much of southern Dallas County, including many of the area's less affluent precincts.
"The most that any kid normally gets is from $1,000 to $1,200. ... If it was a secret or if I was trying to hide it, I wouldn't have done it," she said.
The foundation's general counsel, Amy Goldson, said Saturday that the scholarships Johnson awarded violated eligibility rules regarding relatives and residency and are "of great concern."
The program "operates on an honor system," so the foundation hadn't known that money went to Johnson's relatives, she said. But when a recipient fails to meet eligibility requirements or "misrepresents their eligibility, the scholarship funds must be returned."
Further, Goldson said, the failure of a lawmaker or aides to follow eligibility rules "is a violation of the letter and spirit of [the Foundation's] requirements."
"It is inappropriate for a lawmaker to certify the award of a scholarship to a relative in a situation where the lawmaker or their staff is involved in the selection of the recipient," she said.
Apart from the residency requirements, the scholarship rules state that students must have a 2.5-grade-point average, but there are no explicit judging criteria.
Johnson awarded nine to 11 scholarships a year from 2005 to 2008, the most recent years for which information was available. Each of those years, three or four winners were related to her or her district director, Rod Givens. Johnson said she divided the available funds equally among recipients, and every qualified applicant got a scholarship.
The foundation asks applicants to certify that they aren't related to those associated with the caucus or the foundation, but it does not specify which relationships that includes.
Scholarships have gone to two of the congresswoman's grandsons, Kirk and David Johnson; to two of her great-nephews, Gregory and Preston Moore; and to Givens' son and daughter. Givens did not respond to requests for comment, and none of the scholarship recipients could be reached.
'Not ... proper'
Daniel Borochoff, president of the American Institute of Philanthropy, said that, ideally, scholarship and grant decisions should be made by disinterested arbiters, preferably on the basis of excellence or need.
Johnson's system "is not an appropriate or proper way to distribute scholarship funds," he said.
"It's totally fine if the congressman or -woman wants to reach inside their own pocket and give, but to use money that people got tax deductions on to then benefit their family – it would just be setting up nonprofit organizations to get tax benefits to put their kids through college. It would wreck the whole system if that kind of thing were allowed," Borochoff said.
He said a scholarship with so few criteria for recipients would normally attract dozens if not hundreds of applicants if it were well publicized.
"There should be outrage because there are probably students who are more deserving and more needy of the funds," Borochoff said.
The combined scholarship total for the six students over four years was less than $20,000, based on Johnson's accounting of the scholarships. That appears to be less than half the total Johnson awarded over that time. Of 43 scholarships her office awarded between 2005 and 2008, 15 went to relatives of Johnson or Givens, according to foundation annual reports.
Johnson, in the interview Wednesday, dismissed concerns about the propriety of giving to her relatives or her staffers.
"We look at the kids that apply, look at their qualifications, and if they have the application there with all the ingredients, we try to help," she said. "I doubt if there is anybody in my district going to question me giving $1,000 to a kid to help him with college."
The congresswoman, 74, who is expected to handily win a 10th term this fall over a relatively unknown Republican, said flatly that there was no favoritism for her aide's children or for her grandsons or great-nephews.
"Same application. Same requirements," she said.
Rules clear, lawyer says
The Congressional Black Caucus consists of one U.S. senator and 41 House members – among them Johnson and two other Texans, Reps. Sheila Jackson Lee and Al Green, both of Houston. All are Democrats.
The foundation is a separate, nonprofit charitable organization whose board at any time includes only a few caucus members.
The foundation, which awarded $716,000 to 556 students last year, has been criticized for spending less on scholarships than on galas and conferences that allow lobbyists to rub elbows with influential lawmakers. Fundraising for the caucus itself and its members is tightly regulated, but the closely related foundation faces few restrictions.
In 2002, Johnson chaired the caucus and served on its board.
She continued to serve on the foundation board through 2005 – a year when both great-nephews and grandson Kirk Johnson received scholarships through her office, despite a rule explicitly forbidding awards to relatives of foundation board members.
Goldson, the foundation attorney, said the rules make clear that applicants cannot be related to any member of the black caucus, the foundation's staff, directors, members of its corporate advisory council or any sponsor, a list that includes scores of major companies. "Any misrepresentation will result in disqualification of the application," she said.
Each caucus member who participates in the foundation's scholarship program is responsible for publicizing the competition locally. Some do so more aggressively than others. Many list the opportunity on their official U.S. House websites, often under a tab dedicated to "students."
Johnson's website makes no mention of the scholarships.
"This has been going on long before there was any websites," she said. "We send information to the high schools. I haven't known anybody who didn't know about it, to tell you the truth."
Counselors at four southern Dallas high schools didn't return calls last week to discuss the matter.
Selection process varies
The foundation raises the funds, sets requirements and provides application forms. But the process for picking winners varies among lawmakers.
Apart from the GPA of at least 2.5, students must submit personal and financial information, a transcript, letters of recommendation, an essay on goals, and a copy of their federal student aid report to their local member of the Congressional Black Caucus.
Johnson said aides in Dallas – where Givens is her senior aide – review applications and forward to her all those that qualify.
"When they come to this office, there's hardly much decision to be made. We find out how many applicants, how much money, divide it up, send it in," she said. "I've not given any money where there was no need. And I don't think a $1,000 scholarship's going to do too much, but it helps when you need it."
Johnson's assets – not counting a blind trust that owns a newsstand concession at Dallas Love Field – amounted to less than $97,000 in 2008. Her wealth puts her in the bottom quarter of House members, according to Center for Responsive Politics data. Apart from her $174,000-a-year congressional salary, she reported a $35,000 pension for her previous service in the state Legislature, and $22,000 from Social Security last year.
In doling out their scholarship money, some lawmakers pick one winner, others as many as 18.
Johnson gave out nine scholarships in 2005, 11 in 2006 and 10 in 2007. Every qualified applicant got a piece of the pie, she said, though her office did not provide details on the number of applications submitted each year.
Johnson said she never asked the foundation or anyone else if it was acceptable for her to award scholarships to relatives.
"It's never come up with me," she said. "But let me just say this: None of these people are my immediate family. Immediate family doesn't include grandchildren."
'As best I could'
But the Johnsons, Moores and Givenses weren't eligible under other foundation rules requiring recipients to reside or go to school in a congressional district represented by a member of the Congressional Black Caucus.
None of the six lived or attended school in Johnson's district. They lived in districts represented by white Republicans.
The Johnsons lived in Plano, in a district represented by Rep. Sam Johnson (no relation). The Moores lived in Manor, near Austin, Rep. Michael McCaul's district. The Givenses, who live in Mesquite, are represented by Rep. Jeb Hensarling.
The recipients' colleges – Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Baylor in Waco, Texas Christian in Fort Worth, Texas State in San Marcos and Sam Houston State in Huntsville – also fall outside any district held by a caucus member.
"I haven't seen those rules," Johnson said, "but let me just say this: I take the responsibility for as many kids as I can help in the North Texas area."
Even though her grandchildren grew up near Austin, she added, there was nothing untoward about giving scholarships to students outside her district.
"There have been many others," she said, including a student from Oklahoma , whom she helped at the request of Sen. James Inhofe, a conservative Republican.
District residency, Johnson said, has never been a critical factor in her selection process.
"I've tried to use it as best I could, but when there's a needy kid living outside my district, and somebody recommends or calls and asks for help, I try to give it if I can, and I've been doing it 18 years," she said.
"If there had been very worthy applicants in my district, then I probably wouldn't have given it" to relatives, she added. "But, when you have enough money to give one additional scholarship and that person's well-qualified, I have never considered it a violation of anything to give a little help."
James Ferris, director of the Center on Philanthropy and Public Policy at the University of Southern California, said most nonprofits seek to avoid even the perception of conflicts of interest by establishing review boards to help make selections on scholarships or grants.
They avoid sole decision makers.
"In this case, it sounds like the power to make those grants rests in one person," he said. "The member can allocate it without any kind of oversight or checks and balances. That's sort of the nub of the problem."
Ferris said the system invites skepticism.
"Basically, it's whether you're using money that was raised in the public interest for private gain," he said.
dems in charge
Monday, March 8, 2010
Massa and the Rahm
A bitter and angry man. Caught at unethical behavior, and forced to resign, as is the right thing to do. So off Charlie Rangel goes into ... oops, it wasn't Charlie Rangel, it was someone else and Charlie is still around.
"Rahm Emanuel is son of the devil's spawn, Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) said. "He is an individual who would sell his mother to get a vote. He would strap his children to the front end of a steam locomotive."
Rep. Massa describes a confrontation with Emanuel in a shower: "I am showering, naked as a jaybird, and here comes Rahm Emanuel, not even with a towel wrapped around his tush, poking his finger in my chest, yelling at me."
democrats
"Rahm Emanuel is son of the devil's spawn, Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) said. "He is an individual who would sell his mother to get a vote. He would strap his children to the front end of a steam locomotive."
Rep. Massa describes a confrontation with Emanuel in a shower: "I am showering, naked as a jaybird, and here comes Rahm Emanuel, not even with a towel wrapped around his tush, poking his finger in my chest, yelling at me."
democrats
Friday, February 26, 2010
Please San Francisco - Vote Her Out
Naturally. If his bad deeds didn't create a national security problem, he is ok. Good lord, for 12 years - everytime Democrats attacked a Retardican for their miserable failings, ethical lapses, they went from 0 to quit or be censured/expelled ...
Amazing.
Pelosi Says Rangel Admonishment 'Not Good,' but Stops Short of Calling for Him to Resign
House Speaker Downplays Seriousness of Embattled Ways and Means Chairman's Admonishment
By JACQUELINE KLINGEBIEL
WASHINGTON, Feb. 26, 2010
ABC News
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi conceded that embattled Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel's recent admonishment from the House Ethics Committee was "not good," but seemingly downplayed its seriousness in a network exclusive interview on ABC News' "This Week," saying "it was not a something that jeopardized our country in any way."
House speaker downplays Rep. Rangel's situation, tune into "This Week" for more.During a press conference this morning, Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters that the Ethics Committee report was an indictment of the congressman's staffers, not Rangel's, D-N.Y.
But in the "This Week" interview set to air Sunday, the speaker of the House seemed to strike a different tone.
"The fact is, is that what Mr. Rangel has been admonished for is not good," Pelosi told ABC's Elizabeth Vargas. "It was a violation of the rules of the House. It was not something that jeopardized our country in any way. So it remains to be seen what the rest of the work of the committee is. And I hope it will be soon. But again, it's independent and they ... go at their own pace."
Pelosi made clear she did not want to "interfere in a political way" when asked if Rangel should step down for charges made this week that he violated House gift rules by accepting corporate-funded trips to the Caribbean. Instead, Pelosi agreed officials should wait for the full recommendations given by the independent, bipartisan House ethics committee before going any further.
Democrats
Amazing.
Pelosi Says Rangel Admonishment 'Not Good,' but Stops Short of Calling for Him to Resign
House Speaker Downplays Seriousness of Embattled Ways and Means Chairman's Admonishment
By JACQUELINE KLINGEBIEL
WASHINGTON, Feb. 26, 2010
ABC News
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi conceded that embattled Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel's recent admonishment from the House Ethics Committee was "not good," but seemingly downplayed its seriousness in a network exclusive interview on ABC News' "This Week," saying "it was not a something that jeopardized our country in any way."
House speaker downplays Rep. Rangel's situation, tune into "This Week" for more.During a press conference this morning, Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters that the Ethics Committee report was an indictment of the congressman's staffers, not Rangel's, D-N.Y.
But in the "This Week" interview set to air Sunday, the speaker of the House seemed to strike a different tone.
"The fact is, is that what Mr. Rangel has been admonished for is not good," Pelosi told ABC's Elizabeth Vargas. "It was a violation of the rules of the House. It was not something that jeopardized our country in any way. So it remains to be seen what the rest of the work of the committee is. And I hope it will be soon. But again, it's independent and they ... go at their own pace."
Pelosi made clear she did not want to "interfere in a political way" when asked if Rangel should step down for charges made this week that he violated House gift rules by accepting corporate-funded trips to the Caribbean. Instead, Pelosi agreed officials should wait for the full recommendations given by the independent, bipartisan House ethics committee before going any further.
Democrats
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Charles Rangel: Corrupted to the Core
If he was a Republican ... would we know more about this, would we have heard more, would there be demands from the Democrats to censure him or calls for his resignation?
He is even more reason we should have citizen legislators ... not professional crooks.
September 3, 2009
Rangel-ing: Charlie Pays 'Angels' In Ethics Probe
Harlem Congressman Gave Campaign Contributions To 3 Dems On Ethics Committee Charged With Investigating Him
NEW YORK (CBS) ― CBS 2 HD has learned of more alleged back-door dealings and political power peddling by Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel.
The reigning member of Congress' top tax committee is apparently "wrangling" other politicos to get him out of his own financial and tax troubles.
Here's a look at Charlie's so-called "angels" involved in his ethics investigation.
Congressman Rangel has been arrogant in refusing to discuss how, as the man who writes this country's tax laws, he failed to report over $1 million in outside income and $3 million in business transactions as required by the House, lapses under investigation by the House Ethics Committee.
"I recognize that all of you have an obligation to ask questions knowing that there's none of you smart enough to frame it in such a way that I'm going to respond," Rangel said.
There may be a reason for Rangel's arrogance. CBS 2 HD has discovered that since ethics probes began last year the 79-year-old congressman has given campaign donations to 119 members of Congress, including three of the five Democrats on the House Ethics Committee who are charged with investigating him.
Charlie's "angels" on the committee include Congressmen Ben Chandler of Kentucky, G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina and Peter Welch of Vermont. All have received donations from Rangel.
Only Welch sees something wrong with being financial beholden to Charlie.
"In an abundance of caution, he has returned all campaign contributions from Mr. Rangel," said spokesman Bob Rogan, Welch's Chief of Staff.
It amounted to nearly 20 grand.
Experts say the congressman's largess makes him crazy like a fox.
"Certainly money does make friends and influence people and perhaps make him a little bit more popular and at this particular moment that might help," said pundit Micheline Blum of Baruch College.
"Buying insurance, you know? Don't bite the hand that's feeding you. Clearly he sees himself as having a problem and he is contributing to members who might look favorably," added Doug Muzzio of Baruch.
Congressman Rangel has said he expects the House Ethics Committee to rule quickly on the ethical charges that are being brought against him. The problem is he's been saying the same thing for well over a year.
Rangel's office did not return a request for comment on the question of whether the congressman thought members receiving donations from him should step aside and let others rule on the ethics charges.
Democrats
He is even more reason we should have citizen legislators ... not professional crooks.
September 3, 2009
Rangel-ing: Charlie Pays 'Angels' In Ethics Probe
Harlem Congressman Gave Campaign Contributions To 3 Dems On Ethics Committee Charged With Investigating Him
NEW YORK (CBS) ― CBS 2 HD has learned of more alleged back-door dealings and political power peddling by Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel.
The reigning member of Congress' top tax committee is apparently "wrangling" other politicos to get him out of his own financial and tax troubles.
Here's a look at Charlie's so-called "angels" involved in his ethics investigation.
Congressman Rangel has been arrogant in refusing to discuss how, as the man who writes this country's tax laws, he failed to report over $1 million in outside income and $3 million in business transactions as required by the House, lapses under investigation by the House Ethics Committee.
"I recognize that all of you have an obligation to ask questions knowing that there's none of you smart enough to frame it in such a way that I'm going to respond," Rangel said.
There may be a reason for Rangel's arrogance. CBS 2 HD has discovered that since ethics probes began last year the 79-year-old congressman has given campaign donations to 119 members of Congress, including three of the five Democrats on the House Ethics Committee who are charged with investigating him.
Charlie's "angels" on the committee include Congressmen Ben Chandler of Kentucky, G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina and Peter Welch of Vermont. All have received donations from Rangel.
Only Welch sees something wrong with being financial beholden to Charlie.
"In an abundance of caution, he has returned all campaign contributions from Mr. Rangel," said spokesman Bob Rogan, Welch's Chief of Staff.
It amounted to nearly 20 grand.
Experts say the congressman's largess makes him crazy like a fox.
"Certainly money does make friends and influence people and perhaps make him a little bit more popular and at this particular moment that might help," said pundit Micheline Blum of Baruch College.
"Buying insurance, you know? Don't bite the hand that's feeding you. Clearly he sees himself as having a problem and he is contributing to members who might look favorably," added Doug Muzzio of Baruch.
Congressman Rangel has said he expects the House Ethics Committee to rule quickly on the ethical charges that are being brought against him. The problem is he's been saying the same thing for well over a year.
Rangel's office did not return a request for comment on the question of whether the congressman thought members receiving donations from him should step aside and let others rule on the ethics charges.
Democrats
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Obama: We will have the most ethical and transpare .... [well, not quite] ... nt administration .... [Just like Bill]
Transparency, transparency, transparency.
W.H. team discloses TARP firm ties
Kenneth P. Vogel
April 3, 2009
Politico.com
Lawrence Summers, a top economic adviser to President Barack Obama, pulled in more than $2.7 million in speaking fees paid by firms at the heart of the financial crisis, including Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America Corp. and the now-defunct Lehman Brothers.
He pulled in another $5.2 million last year from D.E. Shaw, a hedge fund for which he served as managing director from October 2006 until joining the administration.
Thomas E. Donilon, Obama’s deputy national security adviser, was paid $3.9 million last year by the power law firm O’Melveny & Myers to represent clients, including two firms that received federal bailout funds: Citigroup and Goldman Sachs. He also disclosed that he’s a member of the Trilateral Commission and sits on the steering committee of the supersecret Bilderberg group. Both groups are favorite targets of conspiracy theorists.
And White House Counsel Greg Craig last year earned $1.7 million in private practice representing an exiled Bolivian president, a Panamanian lawmaker wanted by the U.S. government for allegedly murdering a U.S. soldier and a tech billionaire accused of securities fraud and various sensational drug and sex crimes.
Those are among the associations detailed in personal financial disclosure statements released Friday night by the White House. The income reported on the forms mostly covers 2008 and in some cases the beginning of 2009.
Presidential appointees are required to disclose information about their income, assets and investments, and those of their spouses and dependent children, within 60 days of starting work. And the disclosure forms filed by many appointees to top agency jobs have been available for public inspection for some time, thanks to the federal Freedom of Information Act.
But the White House is largely exempt from the act, and Obama press aides dragged their feet on reporters’ requests for the disclosure documents filed by officials in the Executive Office of the President.
Craig disclosed that his work for Williams & Connelly included representing Pedro Miguel Gonzalez Pinzon, a Panamanian lawmaker who allegedly murdered a U.S. soldier in 1992, as well as Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, a former Bolivian president who has lived in exile since 2003, when clashes between protesters and the Bolivian military killed an estimated 70 people and wounded hundreds more.
During the presidential campaign, Craig, then serving as a senior foreign policy adviser to Obama, drew flak for representing Sanchez de Lozada.
Craig also listed among his clients Henry Nicholas, founder of microchip maker Broadcom, who is facing securities fraud charges in an alleged stock option backdating plot. In June, the government unsealed an indictment also detailing a raft of drug and prostitution charges, which Craig called “a kitchen-sink attack on Dr. Nicholas.”
Valerie Jarrett, a senior Obama aide, reported $852,000 in salary and deferred compensation from Habitat Executive Services, a Chicago real estate development and management firm, plus nearly $350,000 in director’s fees from groups including the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago and USG Corp.
She also indicated that she served as vice-chairwoman of the committee seeking to lure the 2016 Olympics to Chicago, which paid a public relations firm owned by Obama political guru David Axelrod and to which White House social director Desiree Rogers, another member of the Obama’s inner circle, donated more than $100,000.
Other forms showed that White House ethics lawyer Norm Eisen earned $1.3 million from the firm in which he was a partner, Zuckerman Spaeder, and press secretary Robert Gibbs earned $156,000 from Obama’s presidential campaign and also owns a pair of rental properties in Alexandria, Va., worth as much as $1 million.
This is how THEY are different?
Obama
W.H. team discloses TARP firm ties
Kenneth P. Vogel
April 3, 2009
Politico.com
Lawrence Summers, a top economic adviser to President Barack Obama, pulled in more than $2.7 million in speaking fees paid by firms at the heart of the financial crisis, including Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America Corp. and the now-defunct Lehman Brothers.
He pulled in another $5.2 million last year from D.E. Shaw, a hedge fund for which he served as managing director from October 2006 until joining the administration.
Thomas E. Donilon, Obama’s deputy national security adviser, was paid $3.9 million last year by the power law firm O’Melveny & Myers to represent clients, including two firms that received federal bailout funds: Citigroup and Goldman Sachs. He also disclosed that he’s a member of the Trilateral Commission and sits on the steering committee of the supersecret Bilderberg group. Both groups are favorite targets of conspiracy theorists.
And White House Counsel Greg Craig last year earned $1.7 million in private practice representing an exiled Bolivian president, a Panamanian lawmaker wanted by the U.S. government for allegedly murdering a U.S. soldier and a tech billionaire accused of securities fraud and various sensational drug and sex crimes.
Those are among the associations detailed in personal financial disclosure statements released Friday night by the White House. The income reported on the forms mostly covers 2008 and in some cases the beginning of 2009.
Presidential appointees are required to disclose information about their income, assets and investments, and those of their spouses and dependent children, within 60 days of starting work. And the disclosure forms filed by many appointees to top agency jobs have been available for public inspection for some time, thanks to the federal Freedom of Information Act.
But the White House is largely exempt from the act, and Obama press aides dragged their feet on reporters’ requests for the disclosure documents filed by officials in the Executive Office of the President.
Craig disclosed that his work for Williams & Connelly included representing Pedro Miguel Gonzalez Pinzon, a Panamanian lawmaker who allegedly murdered a U.S. soldier in 1992, as well as Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, a former Bolivian president who has lived in exile since 2003, when clashes between protesters and the Bolivian military killed an estimated 70 people and wounded hundreds more.
During the presidential campaign, Craig, then serving as a senior foreign policy adviser to Obama, drew flak for representing Sanchez de Lozada.
Craig also listed among his clients Henry Nicholas, founder of microchip maker Broadcom, who is facing securities fraud charges in an alleged stock option backdating plot. In June, the government unsealed an indictment also detailing a raft of drug and prostitution charges, which Craig called “a kitchen-sink attack on Dr. Nicholas.”
Valerie Jarrett, a senior Obama aide, reported $852,000 in salary and deferred compensation from Habitat Executive Services, a Chicago real estate development and management firm, plus nearly $350,000 in director’s fees from groups including the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago and USG Corp.
She also indicated that she served as vice-chairwoman of the committee seeking to lure the 2016 Olympics to Chicago, which paid a public relations firm owned by Obama political guru David Axelrod and to which White House social director Desiree Rogers, another member of the Obama’s inner circle, donated more than $100,000.
Other forms showed that White House ethics lawyer Norm Eisen earned $1.3 million from the firm in which he was a partner, Zuckerman Spaeder, and press secretary Robert Gibbs earned $156,000 from Obama’s presidential campaign and also owns a pair of rental properties in Alexandria, Va., worth as much as $1 million.
This is how THEY are different?
Obama
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Losercrats: Self-Destructing?
Analysis: Democrats self-destructing over ethics
By LARRY MARGASAK
February 19, 2009
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration and the new Congress are quickly handing over to Republicans the same "culture of corruption" issue that Democrats used so effectively against the GOP before coming to power.
Freshman Sen. Roland Burris, D-Ill., is only the latest embarrassment.
Senate Democrats accepted Burris because they believed what he told them: He was clean. Burris now admits he tried to raise money for Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who authorities say sought to sell President Barack Obama's former Senate seat.
"The story seems to be changing day by day," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Wednesday.
The political mess for the Democratic Party, however, isn't Burris' conduct alone; it's the pattern that has developed so quickly over the past few months.
_The chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., is the subject of a House ethics investigation. It's partly focused on his fundraising practices for a college center in his name, his ownership financing of a resort property in the Dominican Republic and his financial disclosure reports.
_Federal agents raided two Pennsylvania defense contractors that were provided millions of dollars in federal funding by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.
_Blagojevich was arrested Dec. 9 on federal charges, including allegations he schemed to sell the Senate seat to the highest bidder.
_Tom Daschle, the former Senate majority leader from South Dakota, abandoned his bid to become health and human services secretary and the administration's point man on reforming health care; and Nancy Killefer stepped down from a newly created position charged with eliminating inefficient government programs.
Both Daschle and Killefer had tax problems, and Daschle also faced potential conflicts of interest related to working with health care interests.
_Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was confirmed after revealing he had tax troubles.
_Obama's initial choice for commerce secretary, Bill Richardson, stepped aside due to a grand jury investigation into a state contract awarded to his political donors.
_While the Senate voted overwhelmingly to confirm William Lynn as deputy defense secretary, Obama had to waive his ethics regulations to place the former defense lobbyist in charge of day-to-day operations at the Pentagon.
The No. 2 Senate Democrat, Richard Durbin of Illinois, expressed his anger about the Burris case Wednesday while he was on an official visit to Greece.
"I do believe that the public statements made by Mr. Burris to this point have raised questions ... as to the nature of his relationship with the former governor and the circumstances surrounding his appointment," Durbin said.
Reid said in Nevada, "Now there's some question as to whether or not he told the truth."
Where to go next? Reid had no answer.
"What I think we have to do is just wait and see," the Senate leader said.
Senate Democrats now may be trapped in their own ethics system. Disciplinary action against a senator usually requires a long investigation by the Senate's ethics committee. While a preliminary inquiry on Burris is under way, that's only the first early step. And, with ongoing criminal investigations in Illinois, the committee probably would have to postpone any action — as it usually does — to avoid interference.
In 2006, Republicans lost control of the House after Democrats effectively used a "culture of corruption" theme against them.
The final scandal broke shortly before the election, when it was revealed that then-Rep. Mark Foley, a Florida Republican, sent sexually suggestive e-mails and explicit instant messages to teenage boys who had served as House pages.
Republicans were further harmed when it was disclosed that several of their members were aware of the problem and failed to take action.
Democrats, who've been in control of both Congress and the White House less than two months now, are lucky on one point. The next congressional election is nearly two years away.
EDITOR'S NOTE _ Larry Margasak has covered Congress, including major ethics investigations, since 1983
losercrats
By LARRY MARGASAK
February 19, 2009
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration and the new Congress are quickly handing over to Republicans the same "culture of corruption" issue that Democrats used so effectively against the GOP before coming to power.
Freshman Sen. Roland Burris, D-Ill., is only the latest embarrassment.
Senate Democrats accepted Burris because they believed what he told them: He was clean. Burris now admits he tried to raise money for Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who authorities say sought to sell President Barack Obama's former Senate seat.
"The story seems to be changing day by day," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Wednesday.
The political mess for the Democratic Party, however, isn't Burris' conduct alone; it's the pattern that has developed so quickly over the past few months.
_The chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., is the subject of a House ethics investigation. It's partly focused on his fundraising practices for a college center in his name, his ownership financing of a resort property in the Dominican Republic and his financial disclosure reports.
_Federal agents raided two Pennsylvania defense contractors that were provided millions of dollars in federal funding by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.
_Blagojevich was arrested Dec. 9 on federal charges, including allegations he schemed to sell the Senate seat to the highest bidder.
_Tom Daschle, the former Senate majority leader from South Dakota, abandoned his bid to become health and human services secretary and the administration's point man on reforming health care; and Nancy Killefer stepped down from a newly created position charged with eliminating inefficient government programs.
Both Daschle and Killefer had tax problems, and Daschle also faced potential conflicts of interest related to working with health care interests.
_Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was confirmed after revealing he had tax troubles.
_Obama's initial choice for commerce secretary, Bill Richardson, stepped aside due to a grand jury investigation into a state contract awarded to his political donors.
_While the Senate voted overwhelmingly to confirm William Lynn as deputy defense secretary, Obama had to waive his ethics regulations to place the former defense lobbyist in charge of day-to-day operations at the Pentagon.
The No. 2 Senate Democrat, Richard Durbin of Illinois, expressed his anger about the Burris case Wednesday while he was on an official visit to Greece.
"I do believe that the public statements made by Mr. Burris to this point have raised questions ... as to the nature of his relationship with the former governor and the circumstances surrounding his appointment," Durbin said.
Reid said in Nevada, "Now there's some question as to whether or not he told the truth."
Where to go next? Reid had no answer.
"What I think we have to do is just wait and see," the Senate leader said.
Senate Democrats now may be trapped in their own ethics system. Disciplinary action against a senator usually requires a long investigation by the Senate's ethics committee. While a preliminary inquiry on Burris is under way, that's only the first early step. And, with ongoing criminal investigations in Illinois, the committee probably would have to postpone any action — as it usually does — to avoid interference.
In 2006, Republicans lost control of the House after Democrats effectively used a "culture of corruption" theme against them.
The final scandal broke shortly before the election, when it was revealed that then-Rep. Mark Foley, a Florida Republican, sent sexually suggestive e-mails and explicit instant messages to teenage boys who had served as House pages.
Republicans were further harmed when it was disclosed that several of their members were aware of the problem and failed to take action.
Democrats, who've been in control of both Congress and the White House less than two months now, are lucky on one point. The next congressional election is nearly two years away.
EDITOR'S NOTE _ Larry Margasak has covered Congress, including major ethics investigations, since 1983
losercrats
Friday, November 14, 2008
Obama team to descend on federal agencies - and ethics
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
November 12, 2008
Obama team to descend on federal agencies
Lobbyists get cold shoulder in new staffing
Barack Obama has banned lobbyists from his presidential transition team, which starting Monday will drop in on 100 government agencies for extensive reviews, while the president-elect makes Cabinet selections from Chicago.
The Obama team also attempted Tuesday to repair damage after a leak about the first private meeting between Mr. Obama and President Bush. Transition leader John Podesta said he personally called the White House to smooth over matters.
Mr. Podesta also publicly vouched for the administration’s assertion that Mr. Bush had not withheld support for economic aid legislation contingent on the passage of a freetrade deal with Colombia, calling such reports “not accurate.”
Mr. Podesta, who served as White House chief of staff under President Clinton, told reporters at the transition headquarters in Washington that there would be direct talks between Mr. Obama and potential appointees, but hinted that no Cabinet announcements would be made before Thanksgiving.
Going into great detail about the massive and rapidly moving transition, Mr. Podesta said Mr. Obama wants the process to be the most open in history. “These are the strictest ethics rules ever applied,” he said.
November 12, 2008
Obama team to descend on federal agencies
Lobbyists get cold shoulder in new staffing
Barack Obama has banned lobbyists from his presidential transition team, which starting Monday will drop in on 100 government agencies for extensive reviews, while the president-elect makes Cabinet selections from Chicago.
The Obama team also attempted Tuesday to repair damage after a leak about the first private meeting between Mr. Obama and President Bush. Transition leader John Podesta said he personally called the White House to smooth over matters.
Mr. Podesta also publicly vouched for the administration’s assertion that Mr. Bush had not withheld support for economic aid legislation contingent on the passage of a freetrade deal with Colombia, calling such reports “not accurate.”
Mr. Podesta, who served as White House chief of staff under President Clinton, told reporters at the transition headquarters in Washington that there would be direct talks between Mr. Obama and potential appointees, but hinted that no Cabinet announcements would be made before Thanksgiving.
Going into great detail about the massive and rapidly moving transition, Mr. Podesta said Mr. Obama wants the process to be the most open in history. “These are the strictest ethics rules ever applied,” he said.
[Note to self: In secret meetings, matters discussed are not secret - splash all over newspapers, BUT in next sentence, claim to be adhering to the most strict ethics rules ever conceived of by mortal man.]
The Obama transition team also bars its workers from receiving gifts.
[Note to world - the limit on gifts is $50. Anything more needs to be reported. That can be a box of fruit!]
By the way - when Obamessiah fails and his administration is found to be littered with liars and lobbyists, I do hope Democrats own up to their ... I cannot even conceive of what they should own up to ... being naive? That isn't even close. being stupid and naive, foolish, stupid, and naive? Ok - dangerous, foolish, stupid, and naive!
Obama
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Too Late.
At what point do you realize it is too late - in a class, work, home life. As a student, when do you realize there is no hope for a good grade. As an employee - when do you realize, or do you, that everything has gone to hell and it is the end and now you await the moment, the anticlimax. At home - what is the moment you realize that the relationship or marriage is over - is there one moment and do we know it.
In science, is there one moment we can pin it down to when we knew that everything had changed. When science took a leap without looking into the unknown and we are now playing catch up and failing miserably? Can we, is there, do we know or is it something more uneventful, it just happens and we meander on for weeks and months until the anticlimax drops ... and we never realized that specific moment.
I was thinking about families today, and the importance that societies, throughout history, have placed on the family. I was also considering those moments when the family unit was weakened as a political or authoritative unit, and the resulting political repercussions.
Whether Mussolini or the Emperor Qin - the family is something to be denied and reduced in importance in order that all may gaze upon the leader as their father, and source of sustenance. Perhaps we can trace attempts to install fascist states, to attempts at undermining the family structure and its importance, creating the extended family, where everyone raises the child and parents are simply the biological donors. Perhaps we are able to trace the rise of fascism in any state, at any time, to this social development. Perhaps.
Perhaps in science we will be able to trace our god-complex back to Dolly. We are after all Humans and we control our environment, our planet, our futures ... we are Humans. Makes sense to me that we have god-complexes, and Dolly is as good a place to begin as any. Maybe it is Korea, or maybe it is in England. Maybe it will be shown, in the future, that it all began in Newcastle and I do not mean their beer.
April 2, 2008. Time Online headline: We have created human-animal embryos already, say British team.
Embryos containing human and animal material have been created in Britain for the first time, a month before the House of Commons votes on new laws to regulate the research.
A team at Newcastle University announced yesterday that it had successfully generated “admixed embryos” by adding human DNA to empty cow eggs in the first experiment of its kind in Britain.
"experiments of Frankenstein proportion"
Written by Mark Henderson, Science Editor
In science, is there one moment we can pin it down to when we knew that everything had changed. When science took a leap without looking into the unknown and we are now playing catch up and failing miserably? Can we, is there, do we know or is it something more uneventful, it just happens and we meander on for weeks and months until the anticlimax drops ... and we never realized that specific moment.
I was thinking about families today, and the importance that societies, throughout history, have placed on the family. I was also considering those moments when the family unit was weakened as a political or authoritative unit, and the resulting political repercussions.
Whether Mussolini or the Emperor Qin - the family is something to be denied and reduced in importance in order that all may gaze upon the leader as their father, and source of sustenance. Perhaps we can trace attempts to install fascist states, to attempts at undermining the family structure and its importance, creating the extended family, where everyone raises the child and parents are simply the biological donors. Perhaps we are able to trace the rise of fascism in any state, at any time, to this social development. Perhaps.
Perhaps in science we will be able to trace our god-complex back to Dolly. We are after all Humans and we control our environment, our planet, our futures ... we are Humans. Makes sense to me that we have god-complexes, and Dolly is as good a place to begin as any. Maybe it is Korea, or maybe it is in England. Maybe it will be shown, in the future, that it all began in Newcastle and I do not mean their beer.
April 2, 2008. Time Online headline: We have created human-animal embryos already, say British team.
Embryos containing human and animal material have been created in Britain for the first time, a month before the House of Commons votes on new laws to regulate the research.
A team at Newcastle University announced yesterday that it had successfully generated “admixed embryos” by adding human DNA to empty cow eggs in the first experiment of its kind in Britain.
"experiments of Frankenstein proportion"
Written by Mark Henderson, Science Editor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments