Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Norm Dicks (D-WA) - CREW's Most Corrupt Members of Congress

    Uploaded by

    CREW
    361 views4 pages
    CREW’s eighth report on congressional corruption names 20 members of Congress – 12 members who engaged in serious misconduct and 8 members whose misdeeds earned them a dishonorable mention. Most members on CREW’s list violated the law and all flagrantly ignored the rules. For the majority, there have been few consequences. There was no shortage of candidates for CREW’s list this year, and 11 of the 20 members are joining it for the first time. In addition, one member, Rep. David Rivera (R-FL), has been under investigation by no fewer than six separate authorities – quite the rap sheet for a freshman. Others, including Reps. Michael Grimm (R-NY), Greg Meeks (D-NY), and Vern Buchanan (R- FL), are also fending off inquiries on multiple fronts. Nine members violated campaign finance or personal financial disclosure rules. At least 14 members apparently are or have been under investigation either by the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), the House or Senate ethics committees, the Federal Election Commission (FEC), or law enforcement agencies. Members on the list have steered campaign donations and taxpayer money to themselves and their families, concealed the source of campaign funds, traded campaign contributions for official action, and abused their positions. The 2012 list arrives as Americans’ contempt for Congress appears to be reaching all- time highs. A July 2012 Gallup poll found reducing corruption in the federal government was the second-highest priority for the next president to address. It followed only creating good jobs, and ranked higher than other significant concerns such as reducing the deficit and dealing with terrorism. Meanwhile, the lack of ethics enforcement is fueling a loss of confidence as voters grow weary of seemingly endless scandals. By highlighting congressional misdeeds, CREW hopes to bring about change and help rebuild the public trust. These problems are not new, but they are urgent. The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision has unleashed an unprecedented flood of money into politics, providing new opportunities for corruption, and the investigative bodies responsible for making sure government acts in the best interests of the public must do a better job. The president needs to nominate new commissioners to the FEC and make sure they’re willing to enforce the law. Further, the House should retain the OCE and Congress must reform its ethics process, rendering it more transparent and accountable to the people. Until then, CREW will continue to hold members of Congress accountable – and call for change.

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    CREW’s eighth report on congressional corruption names 20 members of Congress – 12 members who engaged in serious misconduct and 8 members whose misdeeds earned them a dishonorable mention. Most members on CREW’s list violated the law and all flagrantly ignored the rules. For the majority, there have been few consequences. There was no shortage of candidates for CREW’s list this year, and 11 of the 20 members are joining it for the first time. In addition, one member, Rep. David Rivera (R-FL), has been under investigation by no fewer than six separate authorities – quite the rap sheet for a freshman. Others, including Reps. Michael Grimm (R-NY), Greg Meeks (D-NY), and Vern Buchanan (R- FL), are also fending off inquiries on multiple fronts. Nine members violated campaign finance or personal financial disclosure rules. At least 14 members apparently are or have been under investigation either by the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), the House or Senate ethics committees, the Federal Election Commission (FEC), or law enforcement agencies. Members on the list have steered campaign donations and taxpayer money to themselves and their families, concealed the source of campaign funds, traded campaign contributions for official action, and abused their positions. The 2012 list arrives as Americans’ contempt for Congress appears to be reaching all- time highs. A July 2012 Gallup poll found reducing corruption in the federal government was the second-highest priority for the next president to address. It followed only creating good jobs, and ranked higher than other significant concerns such as reducing the deficit and dealing with terrorism. Meanwhile, the lack of ethics enforcement is fueling a loss of confidence as voters grow weary of seemingly endless scandals. By highlighting congressional misdeeds, CREW hopes to bring about change and help rebuild the public trust. These problems are not new, but they are urgent. The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision has unleashed an unprecedented flood of money into politics, providing new opportunities for corruption, and the investigative bodies responsible for making sure government acts in the best interests of the public must do a better job. The president needs to nominate new commissioners to the FEC and make sure they’re willing to enforce the law. Further, the House should retain the OCE and Congress must reform its ethics process, rendering it more transparent and accountable to the people. Until then, CREW will continue to hold members of Congress accountable – and call for change.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    361 views4 pages

    Norm Dicks (D-WA) - CREW's Most Corrupt Members of Congress

    Uploaded by

    CREW
    CREW’s eighth report on congressional corruption names 20 members of Congress – 12 members who engaged in serious misconduct and 8 members whose misdeeds earned them a dishonorable mention. Most members on CREW’s list violated the law and all flagrantly ignored the rules. For the majority, there have been few consequences. There was no shortage of candidates for CREW’s list this year, and 11 of the 20 members are joining it for the first time. In addition, one member, Rep. David Rivera (R-FL), has been under investigation by no fewer than six separate authorities – quite the rap sheet for a freshman. Others, including Reps. Michael Grimm (R-NY), Greg Meeks (D-NY), and Vern Buchanan (R- FL), are also fending off inquiries on multiple fronts. Nine members violated campaign finance or personal financial disclosure rules. At least 14 members apparently are or have been under investigation either by the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), the House or Senate ethics committees, the Federal Election Commission (FEC), or law enforcement agencies. Members on the list have steered campaign donations and taxpayer money to themselves and their families, concealed the source of campaign funds, traded campaign contributions for official action, and abused their positions. The 2012 list arrives as Americans’ contempt for Congress appears to be reaching all- time highs. A July 2012 Gallup poll found reducing corruption in the federal government was the second-highest priority for the next president to address. It followed only creating good jobs, and ranked higher than other significant concerns such as reducing the deficit and dealing with terrorism. Meanwhile, the lack of ethics enforcement is fueling a loss of confidence as voters grow weary of seemingly endless scandals. By highlighting congressional misdeeds, CREW hopes to bring about change and help rebuild the public trust. These problems are not new, but they are urgent. The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision has unleashed an unprecedented flood of money into politics, providing new opportunities for corruption, and the investigative bodies responsible for making sure government acts in the best interests of the public must do a better job. The president needs to nominate new commissioners to the FEC and make sure they’re willing to enforce the law. Further, the House should retain the OCE and Congress must reform its ethics process, rendering it more transparent and accountable to the people. Until then, CREW will continue to hold members of Congress accountable – and call for change.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 4

    MOST CORRUPT: REPRESENTATIVE NORM DICKS Representative Norm Dicks (D-WA) is an eighteen-term member of Congress, representing Washingtons 6th

    congressional district. Rep. Dicks is the ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee. His ethics issues stem from directing public money to benefit his son. Puget Sound Partnership The Puget Sound Partnership is a Washington state environmental agency charged with cleaning up and protecting Puget Sound. 1 In 2007, Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire (DWA) appointed Rep. Dicks son, David Dicks, to be the partnerships executive director. 2 Mr. Dicks held the job until 2010, and his most recent salary was $129,057 per year. 3 Mr. Dicks initial appointment came seven months after Rep. Dicks assumed the chairmanship of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, which controls federal funding for environmental projects. 4 While chairman of that panel, Rep. Dicks pushed to increase the federal governments annual contribution to the Puget Sound Partnership from $20 million in 2008 to $50 million in 2010.5 Rep. Dicks allocated the money to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and said he instructed the agency to create a competitive process so the money would be spent fulfilling the action agenda for Puget Sound. 6 The Puget Sound Partnership, though, was the agency responsible for carrying out the action agenda. 7 EPA records show the partnership actually received part of the money through noncompetitive agreements and grants for which they were the only applicant, not through competitive bidding. 8 In addition to the EPA funding, Rep. Dicks earmarked $1.82 million directly to the partnership in fiscal year 2008. 9

    1 2

    http://www.psp.wa.gov/pressreleases/partnership_release.php?id=961. John Dodge, Rep. Dicks Son to Head Puget Sound Group; Gregoire Taps Seattle Environmental Lawyer for Director Position, The Olympian, August 15, 2007. 3 http://data.spokesman.com/salaries/state/all-employees/?q=dicks; Joel Connelly, David Dicks: Out at Puget Sound Partnership into UW Post, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, November 10, 2010. 4 Appropriations: Byrd, Obey Name Cardinals to Rule Spending Process, Environment and Energy Daily, January 5, 2007; Kimberly Kindy, Earmark Investigation: Rep. Norm Dicks and Puget Sound, Washington Post, February 7, 2012. 5 http://www.house.gov/list/speech/wa06_dicks/morenews1/pugetsoundincrease.shtml; Kara Rowland, Exclusive: Rep. Dicks Boosts Funds For Sons Project, Washington Times, June 25, 2009; http://house.gov/list/speech/ wa06_dicks/morenews1/intconf.shtml; Kindy, Washington Post, Feb. 7, 2012. 6 Kindy, Washington Post, Feb. 7, 2012. 7 Id. 8 Id.; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/capitol-assets/public-projects-private-interests/. 9 Id.

    Watchdogs, meanwhile, raised questions about how the partnership spent public money during David Dicks tenure. The Washington state auditor found that the organization circumvented state contracting laws, exceeded its purchasing authority and made unallowable purchases with public funds, incurring costs without clear public benefit. 10 The state auditor singled out a $19,999 no-bid contract for legal services with the law firm K&L Gates. 11 Washington state law requires contracts for $20,000 or more to be submitted for public bidding. 12 The state auditor told the Washington Post it seemed to him the Puget Sound Partnership was looking for a way to direct that contract without opening it to competition. 13 The partnership eventually paid K&L Gates $51,498 after amending the contract several times. 14 During the 2008 and 2010 election cycles, employees of K&L Gates and the firms political action committee (PAC) donated $23,750 to Rep. Dicks campaign committee. 15 The state auditors findings prompted the EPA to review a random sample of two years worth of the Puget Sound Partnerships contracts dating back to 2007. 16 The EPA found a near total lack of certification that the partnership had actually received the goods and services it had paid for, and said the shortcomings demonstrated a fundamental systemic weakness of the partnerships internal controls. 17 The EPA required the partnership to return more than $120,000 as a result of its review. 18 University of Washingtons College of the Environment The College of the Environment at the University of Washington is the schools center for environmental learning. 19 David Dicks has been the director of strategic partnerships and civic engagement at the college since 2010. 20 The position is part-time, and Mr. Dicks earns $75,000 a year. 21 In fiscal year 2010, Rep. Dicks earmarked $4 million to the Puget Sound Ecosystem Research Initiative at the University of Washingtons College of the Environment. 22

    10

    Accountability Audit Report, Washington State Auditors Office, Puget Sound Partnership, Report No. 1003598, May 12, 2010. 11 Id.; Kindy, Washington Post, Feb. 7, 2012. 12 Accountability Audit Report, Washington State Auditors Office, May 12, 2010. 13 Kindy, Washington Post, Feb. 7, 2012. 14 Accountability Audit Report, Washington State Auditors Office, May 12, 2010. 15 http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&type=C&cid=N00007918&newMem= N&recs=100; http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&type=C&cid= N00007918&newMem=N&recs=100. 16 John Ryan, EPA Yanks Puget Sound Partnership Funds, KUOW, October 21, 2011; Kindy, Washington Post, Feb. 7, 2012. 17 Ryan, KUOW, Oct. 21, 2011. 18 Kindy, Washington Post, Feb. 7, 2012. 19 http://coenv.washington.edu/about/mission.shtml. 20 Connelly, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Nov. 10, 2010. 21 Id.; Editorial, A Needless Shadow Over Puget Sound Cleanup Efforts, Tacoma News Tribune, February 12, 2012. 22 http://www.legistorm.com/earmark/56359.html; http://coenv.washington.edu/admingateway/communications /newsletter/2009/vol1no1.shtml.

    Potential Violations Official Action for Personal Gain Members of the House are prohibited from taking any official actions for the prospect of personal gain for themselves or anyone else. 23 House members are directed to adhere to 5 C.F.R. 2635.702(a), issued by the U.S. Office of Government Ethics for the Executive Branch, which provides: An employee shall not use or permit use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office in a manner that is intended to coerce or induce another person . . . to provide any benefit, financial or otherwise, to himself or to friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity. By funneling federal funds to the state environmental agency at which his son served as executive director, and later to the university program at which his son was an official, Rep. Dicks may have used his position for his sons personal gain. Unfairly Discriminating By Dispensing Special Favors The Code of Ethics for Government Service provides that government officials should: Never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not; and never accept for himself or his family, favors or benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of his official duties. 24 By funneling federal funds to the state environmental agency at which his son served as executive director, and later to the university program at which his son was an official, Rep. Dicks may have dispensed special privileges to his sons employers in violation of the Code of Ethics for Government Service. Conduct Not Reflecting Creditably on the House House Rule 23 requires all members of the House to conduct themselves at all times in a manner that reflects creditably on the House. 25 This ethics standard is considered to be the most comprehensive provision of the code. 26 When this section was first adopted, the Select
    House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Memorandum For All Members, Officers and Employees, Prohibition Against Linking Official Actions to Partisan or Political Considerations, or Personal Gain, May 11, 1999. 24 72 Stat., Part 2, B12, H. Con. Res. 175, 85th Cong. (adopted July 11, 1958); House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, House Ethics Manual, p. 20 (110th Cong., 2d Sess., 2008 ed.). 25 Rule 23, cl. 1. 26 House Ethics Manual, p. 12.
    23

    Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of the 90th Congress noted it was included within the Code to deal with flagrant violations of the law that reflect on Congress as a whole, and that might otherwise go unpunished. 27 This rule has been relied on by the committee in numerous prior cases in which the committee found unethical conduct including: the failure to report campaign contributions, 28 making false statements to the committee, 29 criminal convictions for bribery, 30 or accepting illegal gratuities, 31 and accepting gifts from persons with interest in legislation in violation of the gift rule. 32 By funneling federal funds to the state environmental agency at which his son served as executive director, and later to the university program at which his son was an official, Rep. Dicks may have engaged in conduct that does not reflect creditably on the House.

    House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Report Under the Authority of H. Res. 418, H. Rep. No. 1176, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. 17 (1968). 28 House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative John J. McFall, H. Rep. No. 951742, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 2-3 (1978) (Count 1); In the Matter of Representative Edward R. Roybal, H. Rep. No. 95-1743, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 2-3 (1978). 29 House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Charles H. Wilson (of California), H. Rep. No. 95-1741, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 4-5 (1978); H. Rep. No. 95-1743 (Counts 3-4). 30 House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Michael J. Myers, H. Rep. No. 96-1387, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 2, 5 (1980); see 126 Cong. Rec. 28953-78 (Oct. 2, 1980) (debate and vote of expulsion); In the Matter of Representative John W. Jenrette, Jr., H. Rep. No. 96-1537, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 4 (1980) (member resigned); In the Matter of Representative Raymond F. Lederer, H. Rep. No. 97-110, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. 4, 16-17 (1981) (member resigned after Committee recommended expulsion). In another case, the Committee issued a Statement of Alleged Violation concerning bribery and perjury, but took no further action when the member resigned (In the Matter of Representative Daniel J. Flood, H. Rep. No. 96-856, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 416, 125-126 (1980)). 31 House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Mario Biaggi, H. Rep. No. 100506, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. 7, 9 (1988) (member resigned while expulsion resolution was pending). 32 House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Charles H. Wilson (of California), H. Rep. No. 96-930, 96th Cong. 2d Sess. 4-5 (1980); see 126 Cong. Rec. 13801-20 (June 10, 1980) (debate and vote of censure).

    27

    You might also like