Office of Congressional Ethics

This week the House voted to establish the Office of Congressional Ethics.  Rep. Holt offers a short description of the new body.  His floor statement explains:

  • The legislation establishes an Independent Office of Congressional Ethics, composed of six members jointly appointed by the Speaker and the Minority Leader. Three of Captiolthe members of the office will be nominated by the Speaker with the concurrence Captiolof the Minority Leader; three members would be nominated by the Minority Leader with the concurrence of the Speaker. The members, who cannot be current Members of the House, Federal employees or lobbyists, would serve four-year terms with one reappointment possible. The Office would have the ability to initiate review by written notice provided by two Office members, one of which must be appointed by the Speaker, the other by the Minority Leader. The Office would have the ability to refer a matter if three members affirmatively vote to move it to the Ethics Committee.

Rep. Capuano has a one-pager.  The office will not undertake any review of a matter before 120 days after the passage of H.Res. 895.  It passed on March 11, 2008.

Rep. William H. Natcher (1909-1994)

Rep. William H. Natcher’s (D-Ky.) notable life is chronicled in his official Congressional biography:

NATCHER, William Huston, a Representative from Kentucky; born in Bowling Green, Warren County, Ky., September 11, 1909; attended the public schools and received high school education at Ogden Preparatory Department of Ogden College, Bowling Green, Ky.; B.A., Western Kentucky State College, Bowling Green, Ky., 1930 and from Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, LL.B., 1933; was admitted to the bar in 1934 and commenced practice of law in Bowling Green, Ky.; Federal conciliation commissioner for the western district of Kentucky in 1936 and 1937; county attorney of Warren County 1938-1950; president of the Young Democratic Clubs of Kentucky 1941-1946; served in the United States Navy 1942-1945; commonwealth attorney for the eighth judicial district of Kentucky 1951-1953; delegate, Democratic National Convention, 1940; elected as a Democrat to the Eighty-third Congress, August 1, 1953, by special election to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Garrett L. Withers; reelected to the twenty succeeding Congresses and served from August 1, 1953, until his death in the naval hospital at Bethesda, Md., March 29, 1994; chairman, Committee on Appropriations (One Hundred Third Congress).

According to the New York Times, “He once said that he wanted his epitaph to read, ‘He tried to do it right.'” 

As far as I know, he’s the last major party nominee for Congress to run and get elected without establishing a principal campaign committee with the FEC.  Reports say he did not accept campaign contributions.  I don’t think he established a campaign committee in 1992 or in 1990, even though, as the Times reports, “he spent $6,768 of his own money to rack up 66 percent of the vote against an opponent who had spent $144,315.  One Republican who tried to unseat him in the 1980’s likened the race to running against God.”

Natcher cast a record 18,401 consecutive votes.

More on personal use

DollarI previously noted a recent case in Tennessee involving personal use of campaign funds.  Federal law and most states ban personal use of campaign funds.  In North DollarCarolina, the Governor has called an extra session of the House to judge the qualifications of Rep. Thomas Wright to continue to serve.  The Select Committee to Investigate Alleged Misconduct/Other Matters in Indictments Re: Rep. Wright collects documents at their website. The details are available in this account by WRAL.    Basically:  “Last week, a six-member House committee recommended expulsion after four days of hearing allegations against Wright about ethical misconduct in how he raised and spent nearly $340,000 in political donations.  Wright also faces a criminal trial on similar allegations later this month in Wake County Superior Court.”  It looks like donations made to a charitable organization were allegedly converted to personal use, not campaign funds.

In New York, “the governor’s lawyers have begun consulting with a campaign finance expert who has long worked for Mr. Spitzer’s political organization to see whether campaign money was spent on the trips, including some as recently as last month, a person briefed on the investigation said.”   WSJ Blog also covers the story.  The relevant statute speaks for itself:

14-130. Campaign funds for personal use.

Contributions received by a candidate or a political committee may be expended for any lawful purpose. Such funds shall not be converted by any person to a personal use which is unrelated to a political campaign or the holding of a public office or party position.

The always interesting Brennan Center Blog notes, after citing the numerous allowances provided under this law, that, “Fortunately for Spitzer’s campaign contributors, he can’t weasel through the personal use loophole because the same section of the election law also states that ‘[c]ontributions received by a candidate or a political committee may be expended for any lawful purpose.’  … Therefore, if Spitzer did use campaign funds to break state or federal law, it would appear that he violated state campaign finance laws.”

Notwithstanding that I might not characterize officeholders seeking to to pay for memorial services for lawmakers who have died as “weasel[ing]” through a loophole, it is hard to disagree.  But it sounds like there may be a lot of costs connected to the activity that were not unlawful by nature, like travel costs, and some of the trips had, to put it delicately, mixed purposes.