home about press FAQs forums RSS donate my account
democracy & power
Iran: how to avoid war?
Francis Fukuyama: the “end of history” revisited
Resolution 1325: does it make any difference?
Opening democracy
Africa and democracy
Democracy and Iran
UK election
The future of Turkey
Ukraine: the orange revolution
What is open politics?
Caucasus: regional fractures
Election 2004
My America: Letters to Americans
The UN and the Iraq war
Europe: after the constitution
Future of Europe
Rise of the new right
Think tanks, ideas, politics
What future for Zimbabwe?
A world without monarchy?
Politics of protest
European security
Sorry! The politics of apology
American power & the world
Bush doctrine: right or wrong?
Peer power: reinventing accountability
After Madrid: war, prevention, dialogue?
China
e-Democracy
DIY World
People Flow: Migration in Europe
columns
America inside out
Sidney Blumenthal
Bad Democracy Awards
Tom Burgis
Land of the unfree
Michael Santos
Inside Washington
John C. Hulsman
Our election year
Todd Gitlin
Editor's note
Anthony Barnett
Word from New Delhi
Rajeev Bhargava
Other content
feature articles
web links
stories
Theme editors
David Hayes
Search the theme
link to our rss feed democracy & power ?
Automatically generated advertisements
Corporations: power & responsibility Corporations: power & responsibility
Overview Articles Discussion Links
Interested, enticed, enraged by what you have read? Do something. These links should help. Inclusion of a link does not constitute an endorsement by openDemocracy: we might find that a site adds an interesting dimension to the argument, without agreeing with or approving of it.
If you're passionate about this issue, the first action you should take is to become a supporter of openDemocracy. This is your pledge to ensuring key issues, such as this are continued to be brought to light and discussed in an open manner.
If you have any suggestions for contacts to add to this page please email links@openDemocracy.net
Links
World Business Council for Sustainable Development
A leading international group of transnational corporations who advocate for cooperation between business and government. www.wbcsd.org
CorpWatch
A US based NGO which "counters corporate-led globalization through education and activism". www.corpwatch.org
Transparency International
An international non-governmental organisation devoted to combating corruption. It brings civil society, business, and governments together in a powerful global coalition. www.transparency.org
The Management School for Restorative Business
On a mission to empower students with skillful tools to create wealth through sustainable development. www.restorative-business.org/index.html
home about oD press advertise FAQs privacy policy plaintext site contact us
SourceWatch is an encyclopedia of people, issues and groups shaping the public agenda. It is a project of the Center for Media & Democracy; email bob AT sourcewatch.org
Antispam note: To avoid attracting spam email robots, email addresses on the SourceWatch are written with AT in place of the usual symbol, and we have removed "mail to" links. Replace AT with the correct symbol to get a valid address. We regret the inconvenience this entails. Lobby your government for more effective antispam regulations.
function printit() { if (window.print) { window.print(); } else { var WebBrowser = '
'; document.body.insertAdjacentHTML('beforeEnd', WebBrowser); WebBrowser1.ExecWB(6, 2);//Use a 1 vs. a 2 for a prompting dialog box WebBrowser1.outerHTML = ""; } } Email StoryPrint Story
Flouting the Rule on Lobbyist-Paid Travel
Review finds at least 90 apparent ethics violations
WASHINGTON, June 12, 2006 — It's a cardinal rule in Congress: Lawmakers and their staffers may not take travel paid by registered lobbyists or lobbying firms. The intention is to keep professional influence-peddlers from gaining special access to lawmakers.
However, a review of travel disclosure forms by the Center for Public Integrity found that dozens of congressional travelers appear to have violated this ethics rule in recent years.
Filings for travel from January 2000 through June 2005 show that lawmakers and aides accepted at least 90 trips for which the original reported sponsors or co-sponsors match the names of firms registered with the Senate Office of Public Records to lobby the federal government. The total cost of the travel listed on the original forms was roughly $145,000.
As of April 21, the Center found that about 20 percent of those forms had been amended to indicate that a different set of sponsors paid for the trips.
"After the Abramoff scandal, you would think that every member of Congress or staff who took a trip would go back and look at their forms to see if they also took a trip from a lobbyist," said Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. "[Not doing so] shows a real insensitivity to the implications of the rules and laws."
Ornstein was referring to trips lobbyist Jack Abramoff reportedly financed for former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, and Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio. DeLay, who traveled with Abramoff to Scotland in 2000, resigned from Congress on June 9. Ney, who traveled to Scotland with Abramoff in 2002, is under investigation by federal authorities for alleged favors he performed for Abramoff and his colleagues.
While members or staffers can get waivers to take lobbyist-paid trips from the Senate Select Committee on Ethics or the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, those forms are not publicly available, and officials with both committees either failed to return calls or refused to comment on individual trips.
Although most of the trips identified by the Center's review hardly resemble the lavish excursions associated with Abramoff and DeLay, they suggest a disregard for the ethics standard by the travelers and weak oversight and enforcement by the ethics committees.
A break from the rules
In early January 2000, Angela Ellard, staff director for the House Ways and Means Committee, flew to New York City to speak to business executives at the Chinese consulate.
"After the Abramoff scandal, you would think that every member of Congress or staff who took a trip would go back and look at their forms to see if they also took a trip from a lobbyist. [Not doing so] shows a real insensitivity to the implications of the rules and laws."
— Norman Ornstein, American Enterprise Institute
From the limited information available on Ellard's travel disclosure form, on which she wrote that the trip was to educate the executives "about Chinese accession to WTO [World Trade Organization]," the trip seems fairly routine. Maintaining normal trade relations with China was among the committee's top priorities, and Ellard's form was signed by Bill Archer, the Texas Republican who was its chairman at the time.
While the itinerary seemed ordinary, the sponsor of the trip was not: Ellard listed Powell, Goldstein, Frazer and Murphy, a Washington law firm [clarification] and lobby shop.
At the time of the trip, the firm also was registered as a foreign agent for the Embassy of the People's Republic of China, representing its commercial office on "Chinese accession to the WTO" and other issues, according to its filings with the Justice Department. Like lobbyists, foreign agents are prohibited from financing trips for members or staffers.
Don Carlson, Archer's former chief of staff, said he could not recall the specifics of Ellard's trip, but, "It would be unusual for a trip to be sponsored by a lobbying firm. We normally only traveled on behalf of trade associations."
Mike Daniels, a former partner with the firm, confirmed that it paid for the trip, but dismissed any suggestion of impropriety.
"This was not a lobbying effort." Daniels said. "We did business development for the law firm and for public service. It's not like we were playing golf in Scotland."
Powell Goldstein's foreign agent disclosure form for that period indicates that the firm spent no money on "entertainment or travel" for public officials. Daniels said that although the China Chamber of Commerce in USA organized the symposium, Ellard's role there was not part of his former firm's efforts on behalf of China. Rather, he said, her involvement was intended to promote Powell Goldstein's business.
"We helped arrange the seminar and we paid for Ellard," Daniels said.
House travel rules state that it is "advisable" for a member or aide who is invited on a trip to inquire about the source of funds used to pay for the travel. However, Kenneth Gross, an attorney who has worked extensively on Foreign Agents Registration Act compliance issues, said the congressional ethics rules seem to be stating, "If you screw up, proceed at your own risk."
Ianthe Jackson, spokeswoman for the House Ways and Means Committee, said Ellard would have no comment on the trip.
Ways and Means trips
Firms registered to lobby the federal government also appear to have subsidized some travel of the current Ways and Means chairman, Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Calif., and his staffers. According to disclosure documents, from 2000 through 2004 Thomas signed forms authorizing seven of these trips — more than any member of Congress. All told, disclosure forms indicated that lobbying firms subsidized more than $6,200 worth of travel for the congressman and his aides.
Rep. Bill Archer,
R-Texas
Four of the trips, including one taken by Thomas in April 2002, were reported as having been financed by sponsors named either Clark Consulting or Clark/Bardes Consulting. The firms are one and the same. In addition to managing compensation and company benefit programs, Clark Consulting — formerly known as Clark/Bardes Consulting — is a registered lobbying firm.
Clark's lobbying arm, the Federal Policy Group, hosts a client retreat in Naples, Fla., that has been attended by Ways and Means Committee members and their top aides. The 2003 conference was held at the Ritz Carlton, described in a Clark Consulting invitation letter as a "spectacular resort with a variety of wonderful facilities, including a great spa."
In one case, receipts filed with the travel disclosure form of former subcommittee staff director Jeffrey McMillen indicate that the $1,175 bill for the Naples conference was paid by Clark Consulting. McMillen's invitation letter was signed by Kenneth J. Kies, managing director of the Federal Policy Group.
Thomas' office deferred all calls on the subject to the Ways and Means Committee press office. Jackson, the committee spokeswoman, did not respond to several requests for comment about the Thomas office trips.
Former Republican Sen. Don Nickles of Oklahoma also reported attending the 2003 conference and that his $2,579 in expenses was paid by sponsor Clark Consulting. Nickles, who now runs his own lobbying firm, did not return several calls for comment.
Rep. Bill Thomas,
R-California
Receipts indicate that a lobbyist also appears to have paid for the travel of Jennifer Dunn while the now-retired Republican congresswoman from Washington state was in office.
On April 2, 2001, Dunn traveled to New York City from Washington, D.C., for a gala dinner honoring companies with programs that advance women in business, an event that was attended by 1,800 corporate leaders. During her overnight trip, Dunn spent nearly $900, including airfare.
Ethics filings indicate that the bill for Dunn's trip was paid by Ernst & Young. In addition to its multibillion accounting and auditing operation, the company also is the nation's ninth-largest lobbying firm, according to federal lobbying records for 1998 through 2004 examined by the Center for Public Integrity.
Receipts filed for her night in New York show that Dunn and her business colleagues dined at an exclusive Italian restaurant, was chauffeured in a private limousine, and had a room at the Waldorf-Astoria that cost more than $300 for the night.
The bill for the limousine was signed by Mary Frances Pearson, an Ernst & Young lobbyist and a principal in its Government Relations division. The American Express card used to pay the limousine company was also billed for Dunn's airline ticket, hotel room and lunch, receipts show.
Former Rep. Jennifer Dunn,
R-Washington
Dunn, who now serves as a senior adviser in the Government Affairs group of the firm DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary, did not return several calls seeking comment on the trip.
Questionable Senate trips
While data show that members of the House have committed the majority of the apparent ethics violations, their Senate counterparts also have filed disclosure forms listing questionable sponsors.
In February 2000, then-Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, and his wife Nancy flew to Utah to visit the proposed nuclear disposal site on Goshute Indian reservation land at Skull Valley. Murkowski, now his state's governor, indicated on his disclosure form that the roughly $2,800 in expenses was to be reimbursed by sponsor MGN Inc. That is also the name of a Washington lobbying firm.
Skull Valley is the planned site for a storage facility for up to 40,000 metric tons of commercially produced radioactive waste, though the state of Utah is fighting in court to block it. The project is spearheaded by Private Fuel Storage, a group of eight electric utility companies, which paid MGN nearly $1.2 million to lobby on its behalf from 1998 to 2004, according to a Center analysis of lobbying records.
Murkowski's office did not respond to requests for comment on his trip.
The Center's review already has prompted at least one senator to seek the Senate ethics committee's guidance on the funding of a trip.
In April 2000, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, flew to Arizona to speak at a seminar for the female partners of the law firm Vinson & Elkins. The firm, which was founded in Houston and has expanded into an operation with offices in 11 cities worldwide, is also registered to lobby the federal government. Hutchison's husband, Ray, is an attorney with the firm.
Former Sen. Frank Murkowski,
R-Alaska
Dick Ribbentrop, Hutchison's chief of staff, said the senator received an invitation to the conference from a Vinson & Elkins partner who was not registered to lobby. The invitation, he said, did not make it clear that the law firm was under the same umbrella organization as the firm's lobbying arm — the situation that created the violation.
After Hutchison's office was notified of the Center's findings, the senator disclosed the information in a letter to the ethics committee, according to Ribbentrop. Hutchison's office declined to provide the Center with a copy of the letter.
Ribbentrop said the ethics committee directed Hutchison to reimburse Vinson & Elkins for her $2,746 in sponsored expenses from the three-day trip, plus interest. Hutchison complied, he said, adding that her office plans to publicly disclose a copy of the cancelled check.
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., who in March backed a failed measure to create an independent office to investigate allegations of ethics violations involving lawmakers and lobbyists, called on the ethics panels of both houses to investigate any violations.
"The Ethics Committees have specific rules against lobbyists paying for private travel," Obama said in an e-mailed statement to the Center. "If these rules were violated, then the committees should investigate the trips and determine the appropriate punishment."
Confusion over sponsorship
Twenty of the disclosure forms the Center identified as listing a sponsor with a name matching that of a registered lobbying firm subsequently were amended by the travelers — in some cases years later — to indicate that a different sponsor paid for the trips. Staffers from several congressional offices also indicated in interviews that they had filed or were planning to file amendments.
"The Ethics Committees have specific rules against lobbyists paying for private travel. If these rules were violated, then the committees should investigate the trips and determine the appropriate punishment."
— Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.
The amended sponsor commonly was the lobbying firm's client or parent company. Such sponsorship of trips follows the letter of the ethic rules, if not the spirit, experts say. The difference between lobbying firms and their corporate clients are often so muddied that even members of Congress are unable to make the distinction.
In January 2000, for example, Matt Hill, an aide to Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., traveled to New York for a two-day conference on what his filing described as the "financial perspectives of electricity transmissions." On his disclosure form, Hill reported $1,348 in expenses paid for by the lobbying firm of Balch & Bingham.
When contacted by a reporter from the newspaper The Hill more than five years later, Smith's office amended the form, naming as the sponsors a half-dozen energy companies. One of them, First Energy Corp., has paid Balch & Bingham more than $1.7 million in lobbying fees from 1998 to 2004, according to lobbying records.
Smith's spokesman Chris Matthews said the original form was filled out incorrectly by a staffer. He produced a 1999 letter from the Senate Ethics Committee that backed the claim that the energy companies paid the bill.
"It was a simple paperwork mistake," Matthews said. Matthews acknowledged that Balch & Bingham was a contact for the trip, but said he did not know whether the firm had any other part in the travel.
Sen. Gordon Smith,
R-Oregon
On some disclosure forms, members of Congress or staffers appear to have confused the sponsor with the lobbying firm organizing the trip — even when the firm states explicitly in its correspondence that it is not the sponsor. This seems to be the case with filings for more than two dozen excursions that listed the sponsor or co-sponsor as the Dutko Group.
Dutko, a Washington-based lobbying firm, coordinates an annual technology conference at the Nemacolin Woodlands Resort in southwestern Pennsylvania. The conference appears to be underwritten each year by a host of firms, including Microsoft, Alcatel and AT&T.
This reimbursement structure is outlined in e-mails and other correspondence Dutko executives sent to congressional officials attending the conferences. One staffer included an attachment, indicating that Dutko's role was limited to coordinating the conference. Nonetheless, on almost 30 occasions, members or staffers reported Dutko as the trip's primary or co-sponsor. The Center found that at least five of these forms were later amended to remove Dutko from the sponsor field.
In other cases, members walk a fine line between accepting trips from lobbying firms and their parent companies.
In August 2003, five Republicans and several of their wives traveled to Ireland's Ashford Castle resort for an international trade seminar. On each of their disclosure forms, representatives Clay Shaw of Florida, Howard Coble of North Carolina and Harold Rogers of Kentucky, and senators Smith and Nickles listed the lobbying firm of Kessler and Associates as the sponsor or co-sponsor.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
R-Texas
The five lawmakers then traveled to a conference in London sponsored by the Ripon Educational Fund. Kessler and Associates founder Richard Kessler was on the board of the Ripon Educational Fund and is president of the formerly affiliated Ripon Society.
More than a year and a half later, after they were contacted by a reporter for The Hill, the five members amended their forms, changing the sponsor for the Ireland part of the trip to Kessler and Associates' parent company, Century Business Services.
Matthews attributed the mistake, once again, to a paperwork error.
Pressure to change
Despite strict guidelines that prohibit congressional travelers from taking lobbyist-financed travel, they are not asked to provide any proof that would verify the legitimacy of a trip. Disclosure forms ask only for bare-bones information and relatively few travelers provide receipts. As a result, in many cases it's nearly impossible to prove who, in fact, has paid for the travel.
"The House ethics committee remains an abundant joke. Everyone knows there is no ethics process. Nobody will hold [members] accountable."
— Norman Ornstein, American Enterprise Institute
Even when members amend their disclosure forms, they don't have to supply additional documentation or proof, said Pam Gavin, superintendent of the Senate Office of Public Records, which manages the Senate's travel documents.
But the honor system that long has dictated the rules associated with private travel could be coming to an end.
In late March, the Senate passed a reform bill mandating greater transparency from both lobbyists and lawmakers. Among other measures, the bill would require members to receive advance approval from the Senate Select Committee on Ethics before accepting privately funded travel.
Lobbyists, meanwhile, for the first time would be forced to disclose any travel arrangements they made for a member of Congress, and would be unable to lavish lawmakers with meals and tickets to sporting events — currently permissible under the rules.
The Senate bill would not, however, create an Office of Public Integrity to investigate claims of misconduct.
The House, meanwhile, passed a bill on May 3 sponsored by Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., chairman of the Rules Committee, which would require the ethics committee to recommend changes to the travel rules by June 15. In the interim, members can voluntarily submit information on forthcoming trips to the ethics committee for pre-approval.
Rules Committee spokeswoman Jo Maney said the bill "is an acknowledgement that a problem does exist. It directs the ethics committee to review the rules so that the problems that you discovered do not happen in the future."
The House and Senate now must reconcile their reform bills in a conference committee. Experts argue, however, that the only way to remove the cloud of suspicion hanging over privately financed travel is to adopt a stronger enforcement process.
"The House ethics committee remains an abundant joke," said the American Enterprise Institute's Ornstein. "Everyone knows there is no ethics process. Nobody will hold [members] accountable."
When first posted, a photo of Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio, was inadvertently included with this report, although reference to her had been cut from it in editing. However, disclosure documents she filed are included in a related chart of 90 instances of travel in which the original form listed a sponsor with a name matching that of a firm registered to lobby the federal government.
Clarification: When first posted, this article stated that Powell, Goldstein, Frazer and Murphy is a Washington lobby shop. It is also a law firm.
John Smith, President In 1983, after years of serving as a Technology Consultant and IT Manager for various local govenment agencies, John founded ABC Information Solutions. He saw the need for a local company that...
Jane Smith, Director of Administration and Finance Jane has an extensive background in banking, administration and management. This experience is supplemented by broad skills in customer relationship and...
There is an interesting thing that has exploded in the past 14 hours: a massive blogger protest spanning across political philosophies and party lines against the bankruptcy bill Congress is so eager to pass.
I believe what we're seeing are the beginnings of what might be called "citizen identity" cultivated by the interactive free expression offered by the internet. The MSM can't do this -- even if they wanted to (which I sincerely doubt they ever would). And it's the beginnings of collective realization that the rulers in both parties are more tied and loyal to the corporatocracy, and that We the People are being collectively and thoroughly screwed.
I wrote about this in January and hope it's a topic we can explore here. "Left" and "Right" are stereotypes that are encouraged and perpetuated by the MSM. Our politicians sometimes seem to resist such labels, but ironically those are the ones who are most likely to cater to the interests and welfare of the corporatocracy.
Submitted by Jim Herrmann on Thu, 2005-03-10 20:01.
If the Democrats would stand up and say that they have sinned in the past, but promise if they are put back in power, that they would end the Corporatacracy, or Corporatism, which ever you like, they would be swept back into power with an enormous "mandate" to change business as usual. Perhaps the latest demonstrations of citizen activism, including the Dean campaign, will give Dems the courage to actually cut the cord with the Corporatists. Hey, I like that! Courage to Cut the Cord with Corporatists (CCCC).
80% of people polled say that coporations have too much power over our government and our lives. That's a position that the Dems ignore at their own peril. Perhaps the Dean backbone transplant will provide the tipping point.
but it seems that those in higher places than we, fear this.
I think that it is a no brainer, but lots of smart people think it is very dangerous.
The bright side of this is that I am no longer always the only anti-corporate fruitcake in a conversation. I am also seeing a lot of similar sentiment bubbling up all over the place.
I think it would be a simple reframe of 'big government'.
I am all for going after them, in fact, it has become my personal mission to get rid of corporate personhood: "I am going to take them down!" has been my clarion call for the last several years. After that, it is on to world peace. Nothing like humble goals, eh? :-)
Submitted by Jim Herrmann on Thu, 2005-03-10 20:36.
I have started asking my conservative friends something like, "If a party could convincingly assure you that they were going take away corporate power, would you vote for them?" So far they say yes, but assure me that it will never happen. They believe that the Dems are just as bad as Repugs. I think the big difference is that the Dems are not in power. They don't have as much to lose, and they have much to gain. And their leader understands that corporations are the problem. We need to get the grassroots doing the heavy lifting of framing Corporatism, and the Repugs as Corporatists.
It can happen. 2006 baby! The Dean revolution is coming!
"They're for the powerful, we're for the people!"
-- Al Gore 2000 Acceptance Speech
I saw this post on the Seeing the Forrest Blog and thought it was interesting - how could we punch up the framing on this?:
"Blow To Small Business Creation
I predict that the new bankruptcy bill will have a damping effect on the formation of small businesses, and this will be one more blow to job creation. This bill makes it just too much of a risk to borrow money to open a laundromat or buy a Subway sandwich franchise.
I have a friend who is a dentist. He has been hoping to one day open a practice with his wife, also a dentist. But that takes money. Hearing about the bankruptcy bill, he said this might just clinch it that they won't be opening that private practice. This is what got me thinking about the effect this could have on a national scale, scaring people away from their dream of one day having their own independent business".
Flat list - collapsed Flat list - expanded Threaded list - collapsed Threaded list - expanded Date - newest first Date - oldest first 10 comments per page 30 comments per page 50 comments per page 70 comments per page 90 comments per page
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to a
At ABC Business, we specialize in sales /products/ service/ management/ education to ensure the best possible experience / purchase / results...
Email Story
Print Story
Send Us Your Comments
Citizens Against Corportacracy
Submitted by Jim Herrmann on Thu, 2005-03-10 20:01.
If the Democrats would stand up and say that they have sinned in the past, but promise if they are put back in power, that they would end the Corporatacracy, or Corporatism, which ever you like, they would be swept back into power with an enormous "mandate" to change business as usual. Perhaps the latest demonstrations of citizen activism, including the Dean campaign, will give Dems the courage to actually cut the cord with the Corporatists. Hey, I like that! Courage to Cut the Cord with Corporatists (CCCC).
80% of people polled say that coporations have too much power over our government and our lives. That's a position that the Dems ignore at their own peril. Perhaps the Dean backbone transplant will provide the tipping point.
My thoughts,
Jim
--
http://musicalprogress.org
» login or register to post comments