Democratic House Approprations Committee lobbied by Chairman’s son

Two weeks ago, House Committee on Oversight Ranking Member Darrel Issa (R-CA) raised the issue that House Appropriations Commtitee Chair David Obey’s son had lobbied the committee on stimulus issues. Craig Obey is a lobbyist at the National Parks Conservation Association, and the association denied it to the Washington Times:

Tom Hill, legislative representative for NPCA, said the group, including the younger Mr. Obey, refrains from lobbying Mr. Obey or his office to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest.

Obey’s office denied it to a local paper:

But a spokeswoman for the lawmaker, Kirstin Brost, said Obey’s son does not lobby his father’s panel. And the idea for the park funding actually came from U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., who chairs an appropriations subcommittee on the environment.

Turns out that these are simply lies. And the lies are refuted by the ethics filings that registered lobbyists are required to file.

In 2008, Craig Obey was registered to lobby on behalf of the NPCA on a number of appropriations bills.

Issa’s staff at the House Oversight Committee compiled all of these into a staff report, which is after the jump. Pages 7 and 8 have pictures of the actual filings that demonstrate this.

2.10.09 House Oversight Committee Minority Staff Report on NPCA

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

What will Michael Steele do with the presidential primary calendar?

The power of the chairman to impact the future of the party is, to a degree, limited. Michael Steele will be able to attract a range of people that other candidates may not have been able to. But there is one area in which  the Chairman’s race for the Republican National Committee will have significant power. He will pick the committee that sets the next primary calendar.

RNC rule 10(d), added this year, creates a "Temporary Delegate Selection Committee" which Steele "shall convene …  as soon as practicable after the 2009 Republican National Committee Winter Meeting", at which he was elected.  The Committee will make a recommendation to the full RNC, which must approve or reject it on a 2/3rds vote of the full committee by the Summer meeting of 2010, to complete the process before the presidential nomination contest begins in full. (the full text of the rule is after the jump)

The key thing is that Steele picks 11 of the members and will have almost complete control over the committee, if he wants it. What will Michael Steele do? What will Michael Steele want? This could be a major legacy of his term as chairman. It will complete before he has to run for re-election in 2011, and it will probably mark the beginning of Presidential maneuvering. Also, given the differences between RNC and DNC rules, whatever deal that Steele cuts with the Democrats on this will likely be long-standing. 

Region Member Defeated
Northeast David Norcross (NJ) Ron Kaufman (MA)
South John Ryder (TN) Morton Blackwell (VA)
Midwest Pete Ricketts (NE) Bob Bennett (OH)
West Fredi Simpson (WA) Ron Nehring (CA)

The remaining four members were elected at the Winter Meeting. The elected members, their regions, and who they defeated are in the table. For people who follow, the RNC, these are interesting. Norcross and Ryder are two old RNC hands, while Ricketts and Simpson are new. My understanding is that the issue in the West was simply an anti-California one, while Bennett, the author of this rule, was rejected partly over this rule and the way that the issue was handled at the Convention.

The complete rule 10(d) and an embed of the complete RNC rules are after the jump.

 

There shall be a temporary committee to review the timing of the election, selection, allocation, or binding of delegate and alternate delegates pursuant to Rule No. 15(b) of these rules to the 2012 Republican National Convention. The Temporary Delegate Selection Committee shall be composed of fifteen (15) members, which shall include one (1) member of the Republican National Committee from each of the four (4) regions described in Rule No. 5, elected by the members of the Republican National Committee from each region at the 2009 Republican National Committee Winter Meeting; further, the chairman of the Republican National Committee will appoint three (3) additional members of the Republican National Committee and six (6) Republicans who are not members of the Republican National Committee. The chairman and general counsel of the Republican National Committee shall serve as ex-officio voting members. The chairman of the Republican National Committee shall convene the Temporary Delegate Selection Committee as soon as practicable after the 2009 Republican National Committee Winter Meeting. The Temporary Delegate Selection Committee shall make any recommendations it deems appropriate concerning additions to Rule No. 15(b) of these rules, provided that such additions shall preserve the provisions of Rule No. 15(b) adopted by the 2008 Republican National Convention, which shall be voted upon without amendment by the Republican National Committee at the 2010 Republican National Committee Summer Meeting and which shall require a two-thirds (2/3) vote to be adopted. Any action adopted would take effect sixty (60) days after passage. The Temporary Delegate Selection Committee shall disband following the 2010 Republican National Committee Summer Meeting.

Republican National Committee Rules, Adopted 2008

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Business & Legal republican national

 

Did Hilda Solis violate BCRA, in addition to House ethics rules?

The DC Examiner noted that there could be another, even more serious issue with Hilda Solis. Recall that she was on teh board of Americans Right at Work (ARW), serving as its treasurer, a position with fiduciary responsibilities, in violation of House ethics rules. However, this 501(c)4 also filed electioneering documents with the FEC:

But ARW also spent thousands of dollars on television spots described by the group in its report to the FEC as "electioneering communications." Since as treasurer, Solis is required to approve all ARW spending, she must have signed off on the spots. This may well put her and ARW in violation of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002. Among the Republicans targeted by ARW were incumbents Norm Coleman, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Gordon Smith, and John Sununu. The anti-Sununu ad, for example, cost ARW $169,225 to air in New Hampshire, while another $69,105 paid for airing an anti-Coleman spot in Minnesota. So ARW clearly spent funds, with Solis’ knowledge and approval "in connection with an election for federal office." Again, as treasurer, Solis could hardly have been in a ceremonial or passive participant.

It appears that this was clearly illegal.

So Obama’s nominee violated the law and House ethics to participate in an organization. She is also closely linked to the most demonstrably corrupt union in America. And her husband doesn’t pay his taxes.

Clearly, these are very solid grounds to reject her for a position in the Cabinet.

NJ-GOV: GOP Christie up 6 over Dem incumbent Corzine

 This is one that we need to pay attention to. Republican Chris Christie is up 6, 42-36, over incumbent Democratic Governor Jon Corzine.

Save Jersey pulls the real highlights:

On the day Chris Christie officially kicks off his campaign for Governor, his campaign is boosted by news of a poll that shows him as the strongest challenger to Governor Jon Corzine. While neither candidate breaks 50% in the ballot test, Corzine is carrying a 50% disapproval rating. Even further, 54% of New Jerseyans say that Corzine does NOT deserve a second term. Christie leads Corzine among independent voters 49%-24% (a margin that would ensure victories in Bergen and Middlesex). 

 Jim Geraghty has more at the Campaign Spot.

VA: Tomorrow could be a good day for Steele and a bad day for Kaine

Swing State Project sees tomorrow’s special election to fill Rep. Gerry Connelly’s seat as a proxy fight and preview of the fall Republican and Democratic gubenatorial match up:

 

If the Dem wins, I expect we’ll see all kinds of competing claims over who deserves credit. Of course, the GOP will just say that the Dems should have won, and they’d be right – Fairfax went 60-39 for Obama. On the other hand, a loss or even a close call will lead to predictable recriminations and give Virginia Republicans a dose of momentum they certainly don’t deserve. Regardless of who wins our gubernatorial primary, that’s something the Dems can’t afford.

There is, potentially, another interpretation. Perhaps it is a proxy fight between Tim Kaine and Michael Steele. Certainly the VA GOP is at a low point (hopefully). But the VA Democratic Party should be riding high, and Tim Kaine, both the Dem governor of Virginia and Chairman of the DNC, would suffer a huge black eye from a GOP victory, which is not out of the question.

In January, an 80-20 district, District 46, was won by the Democrats by only 16 votes. This may be found to be the beginning of the end of one of the Democratic candidates for governor:

This is a bad sign for Brian Moran and Alexandria Democrats no matter what the end result is, this is one of the most democratic districts in the state (75% for Obama, 80% for Warner, and 73% for Kaine) and the margin is razor thin!

We have a chance tomorrow to scalp another Democrat and help Pat Herrity pull this off. Michael Steele would get to go on TV and claim that "the comeback starts now" with him.

It would be a great symbolic rallying moment for the GOP and a wonderful way to start Steele’s chairmanship. 

 

 

Hilda Solis long-time SEIU ally; supported in Dem primary in 2000 against incumbent

Hilda Solis and Xavier Becerra were both picked for Barack Obama’s cabinet in positions that are intensely important to the labor movement, Secretary of Labor and US Trade Representative, respectively. Both also come from Los Angeles, the home of the largest and most systematic case of labor crime currently being investigated, that of Tyone Freeman, formerly the head of the LA chapter of SEIU. This has been well documented by the LA Times’ Paul Pringle.

So I asked myself, how close is Solis to SEIU? Turns out pretty close. In 2000, Solis beat 71  year old Democratic incumbent Matt Martinez in a contested primary. In 1999, Solis received two donations from the SEIU. That is, in a Democratic primary, against an incumbent Democrat, she got SEIU’s endorsement and money.

First, she received $5k, the maximum, from SEIU’s national PAC:

She also received $250 from SEIU’s Sacramento lobbyist:

One can only assume that she got logistical support on the ground too.

I would also note that TPM’s write up of "labor leaders hail Obama’s pick" quotes only one union leader, Andy Stern the head of SEIU, and even gives a picture of Stern, rather than Solis in the story.

Sounds like SEIU got their candidate. So how close is Solis to Stern and Freeman? Are these relationships going to come up in the confirmation hearings?

Mismanaged public pension funds demand taxpayer bailout

In October, I wrote about the problems caused by signficant investment losses in CalPERS, the California Public Employees Retirement System. At that point CalPERS had lost 20% of its value in 4 months and was going to state and local tax-payers to demand that they make up the hole in their investments.

Well, they screwed up, and they are back asking for more money. Not only did they lose invested money, but they were actually leveraged up, so they did particularly badly. From the WSJ:

Calpers in recent weeks said it expects to report paper losses of 103% on its housing investments in the fiscal year ended June 30. That’s because Calpers invested not only its own money, but billions of dollars of borrowed money that must be repaid even if the investment fails. In some deals, as much as 80% of the money invested by Calpers was borrowed.

Now, obviously, it is terrible thwhen at any investor loses their shirts. But it seems that this is just blatant risk mismanagement, shifting assets to higher-risk investment vehicles:

But Calpers has targeted less money in bonds, and about double the allocation to private-equity investments and real-estate deals, than the average public pension fund, according to Calpers documents and an industry survey. …

Since the average rate applies to Calpers’s entire housing portfolio, some individual deals used as much as 80% borrowed money, Mr. McCook recalls. That level is more aggressive than many pension funds or land developers would use, industry consultants and developers say.

So how do they fill the gap? The tax-payer:

Calpers is now warning California’s cities, towns and schools that they may have to cough up more money to cover the retirement and other benefits the fund provides for 1.6 million state workers. Some towns are already cutting municipal services, and at least one is partly blaming the Calpers fees.

Let’s get this straight. The pension managers mismanage their money by engaging in more risky investments, the investments go under, and now the people of California have to foot the bill so that public employees don’t have to suffer?

What about the rest of us? Why do public employees deserve to get bailed out, but not the rest of the pension holders?

Stopping this has got to be a political winner. If I were a California activist, I would be pushing a ballot measure that would require a referendum to approve any additional taxes to fill gaps in CalPERS.

More ideas for transparency and ethics

Mark Tapscott notes my post on ethics and proposes some more ideas that would involve real pain for legislators and their staff:

First, apply the Freedom of Information Act to Congress. Most Americans resent that Congress passes laws it expects the rest of us to abide by but exempts itself. Ending the 42-year-old congressional FOIA exemption would be a major step in the right direction and one that would call the Democrats bluff on the transparency issue.

Second, require Members and their key personal and committee staff members (chiefs of staff, legislative directors, committee staff directors, legal counsels, possibly others) to maintain online daily calendars recording names and titles of all participants in meetings concerning any proposed legislation or expenditure of federal funds.

Third, abolish the absurd categorical values in the annual financial disclosures required of Members. Show us the money, the shares, the property, the consideration, Congressman. Require the same level of disclosure for key staff members included in the second suggestion.

I have also heard the idea of limiting lobbying by spouses or family of members, an issue that is coming up in Barack Obama’s transition.

Next time we debate corporate tax cuts, quote Barney Frank

Barney Frank thinks that companies are people too:

"No, we’re not propping up companies," Frank insists. "That’s your mistake. We’re propping up individuals. The world doesn’t consist of companies. The world are people. The country is people. And yes, it is possible to argue that the government…"

So next time we try to cut corporate taxes to help our competitiveness, don’t let him tell you that you are just trying to help companies.

Time to strike with a Republican transparency and ethics agenda

With Rod Blagojevich and Charlie Rangel in the news and under pressure from the media, now is the time for the House and Senate GOP caucuses to push a real transparency and ethics agenda. On January 6th, both Houses will meet and begin the work of passing rules. We need to have some specific proposals, and this is not something that I follow well. Furthermore, the GOP ought to shoot big here. Frankly, we aren’t going to run Congress for a while, so let’s max this out.

Imagine some proposals:

First, in both bodies, allow individuals to submit ethics complaints and require the various ethics committees to officially reject complaints.

Second, faster and more complete campaign finance proposals. All contributions down to $5, or even just all contributions, should be disclosed. Electronic contributions should be disclosed within 72 hours and checks should be disclosed within 72 hours of deposit. These would be real-time disclosed on the FEC website. This would solve the problem that the Sunlight Foundation and others have tried to address with S. 223.

Third, put video of all publicly accessible business meetings online. I am sure that C-SPAN and Google would be happy to help. I know that many committees keep video of markups, but release neither the video nor transcripts.

Fourth, I am sure that there are things that are specific to disclosure of financial interests that we have learned out of the Rangel affair. Through that in.

Only the second item needs to be implemented in law. If it got to Barack Obama’s desk, he would have to sign it, and it would be embarassing.

The others can be the basis of a rules fight at the beginning of the session. Make these new Democrats who ran on ethics vote against transparency and for their leadership or against their leadership.

Furthermore, let’s seperate Obama from the Demcratic Congress. Let’s praise his transparency measures, like disclosing meetings of his transition teams, while smacking the Congressional majorities around.