WILL A CHANGE OF ETHICS LAWS PROMPT RESIGNATIONS FROM CORRUPT CONGRESSMEN LIKE JERRY LEWIS, KEN CALVERT, GARY MILLER, ETC?

Virtually all the significant growth in California is hours away from the big cities, most of it in Southern California's Inland Empire. There phenomenal rates of growth are registered year after year in Riverside and San Bernardino counties. There is virtually no Democratic Party infrastructure in these counties and, politically, these areas have been left to rot in a red, red hell. San Bernardino and Riverside counties are divided between Buck McKeon (CA-25), David Dreier (CA-26), Jerry Lewis (CA-41), Gary Miller (CA-42), Joe Baca (CA-43), Ken Calvert (CA-44), and Mary Bono (CA-45). Baca, a Latino, is the only Democrat rep in the area. He is also the only moderate and one of the only members of the congressional delegation from the area who didn't wind up on CREW's list of the 20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress in the U.S.. Of the 20 most corrupt, San Bernardino and Riverside have the biggest concentration of ethical sleaze in the entire country, boasting advanced corruption investigations for Jerry Lewis, Ken Calvert, and Gary Miller.

This is especially interesting in light of the prediction by CBS correspondent Gloria Borger (on yesterday's Chris Matthews show) that there will be "mass resignations from House members who are now saying they can’t afford to live here unless they’re bought and paid for by lobbyists; they're going to leave." Friday the House overwhelmingly passed a bill that will make it more difficult for members of Congress to trade favors for financial support from lobbyists employed by wealthy companies.


Zack Space, who replaced Republicrook Bob Ney, convicted last year of corruption and currently residing in a federal penitentiary in West Virginia, ostensibly spoke for 396 members who voted for the legislation, when he said "It is absolutely imperative that we break this circle of deceit that exists, that has existed, between lobbyists, their wealthy clients and this legislature." I say "ostensibly" because many of the most corrupt members of Congress felt compelled to support the bill, not just the aforementioned Gary Miller, Jerry Lewis and Ken Calvert and 2 crooks whose papers were recently seized by the FBI [Rick Renzi (R-AZ) and John Doolittle (R-CA)] but also K Street darlings from both sides of the aisle like Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Denny Hastert (R-IL), Brian Bilbray (R-CA), John Boehner (R-OH), Virgil Goode (R-VA), and other ethically challenged members like Tom Feeney (R-FL), Doc Hastings (R-WA), William Jefferson (D-LA), Heather Wilson (R-NM). Patrick McHenry (R-NC) and Paul Gillmor (R-OH).

At least Don Young (R-AK), one of the most corrupt members of the House-- on a level with Jerry Lewis and John Doolittlee-- was honest enough to vote against the bill. H R 2316, Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, now moves on to the Senate, where it is viewed as being weak and unthreatening enough to pass.

Friday's Washington Post refers to the weeks of yeoman's work it took to convince some of the more corrupt Democrats-- particularly Emanuel and Hoyer-- to go along with the bill. The Post conveniently glosses over the success the K Streeters had in weakening the final bill.

Party leaders and new lawmakers worked until the day before the vote to sway some longtime members who had balked at the proposals. It took weeks of persuasion by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other key lawmakers to convince recalcitrant Democrats -- among them some members of the speaker's inner circle.

The new proposals, which in the end passed overwhelmingly, would expand the information available about how business is done on Capitol Hill and make it available online. They would provide expanded, more frequent and Internet-accessible reporting of lobbyist-paid contributions and sponsorships, and would for the first time impose prison terms for criminal rule-breakers. They would also require strict new disclosure of "bundled" campaign contributions that lobbyists collect and pass on to lawmakers' campaigns. Yesterday's legislation passed 396 to 22...

The House in January passed rules banning gifts, meals and travel from lobbyists. The rules also require sponsors of pet spending projects, known as earmarks, to identify themselves and certify that they have no financial interest in them.

Many of the most corrupt members deeply resented DCCC Chair Chris Van Hollen's anti-bundling measure and there were rumors on Capitol Hill that his insistence on the inclusion-- with backing from Pelosi-- came close to rupturing his relations with his DCCC predecessor, Rahm Emanuel and with the House Majority Leader, who is every bit as corrupt and unscrupulous as Emanuel (and GOP leaders past and present), Steny Hoyer. "The bundling reports, filed quarterly and posted online, would mean 'much more visibility of conduct that has typically occurred undetected because current law doesn't cover it or the FEC has been spotty in its enforcement,' said Kenneth A. Gross, an ethics attorney at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. On the floor yesterday, the bundling provision survived a Republican vote to send it back to committee when lawmakers passed an amendment making the bundling rule apply to political action committees."

Good government types see it as a tiny step in the right direction although it just tinkers with a thoroughly corrupt system around the edges. While the Republican leadership and slimy Democrats like Emanuel and Hoyer were fighting against even these modest infringements on their "right" to plunder, good government types like Mike Capuano (D-MA) were furious that the legislation didn't go nearly far enough. The bill doesn't even start to address the real problems undermining American democracy-- "the millions I have to raise to run for office."

"They've started to drain the swamp, and we commend the Democratic leadership and the freshmen members of Congress who pushed hardest for this," said Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause. "But there's still a lot of work to do to prove that this Congress is serious about cleaning up Washington."

A story in today's NY Times, about where the pols of both parties get their dough, goes a long way towards proving that it isn't that serious.

Comedy in ethics: Even if Rep. Paul "Shecky" Gillmor's deal isn't exactly illegal, does it really live up to his standard of "pretty much aboveboard"?

Sometimes, frankly, digging through the Annals of Republicrookery is just plain depressing. All those arrogant, out-of-control, greed-besotted scumbags stealing every damn thing they can get their grubby paws on, thinking--usually correctly--that they can get away with just about anything.

Today, however, our Washington Post "In the Loop" pal Al Kamen shares a tale that's going to have you howling with laughter. It may not, strictly speaking, involve Republicrookery, although I'd like to hear the thinking of some competent state and federal legal authorities on the subject. But it sure tells us just how low our public sevants, and in particular the Republican ones, have set their ethical bar.

My favorite line: the congressman telling the Toledo Blade that his deal is transparent because the paper succeeded in tracing it back to him. Never mind that it took the services of a diligent investigative reporter, unearthing details that were clearly not meant to be unearthed. The very fact that the congressman got caught proves, apparently, that it's all okay!

This isn't quite the kid who kills his parents asking for mercy on account of he's an orphan, but it's up there. From now on, Paul Gillmor, you'll always be "Shecky" to us.

Caution: If you have had recent surgery or any other condition that makes heavy laughter medically contra-indicated, do not, repeat do not, read this piece.

Congressman Says Home Purchase
Was 'Pretty Much Aboveboard'

Rep. Paul Gillmor (R-Ohio) has a nifty new 3,751-square-foot, four-bedroom house in suburban Columbus, Ohio, next to a golf course designed by the great Arnold Palmer.

The $1 million house has some unusual characteristics. It's not in his congressional district, but sits about 90 minutes away from the condo that he uses as his official residence.

Even more curious is that Gillmor's name appears nowhere on the property records. The Toledo Blade, after some fine digging by reporter Joshua Boak, found that the owner is Zenith Holding & Trading Corp.

That, in turn, is a subsidiary of a Columbus law and lobbying firm -- Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease -- whose PAC has contributed $6,500 to Gillmor's campaigns since 1997.

The firm sent the paper a letter saying that Zenith has the property in trust "at the request of, and for the benefit of" Gillmor, who paid the mortgage and taxes.

Gillmor's office initially declined to confirm the address, saying Capitol Police suggested for security that lawmakers not give out such information, the paper reported.

But Gillmor acknowledged that he retained Zenith to buy the property on his behalf.

"There's nothing unethical or unusual," he told the paper. "It's all pretty much aboveboard." He said the deal was transparent because the Blade was able to trace it back to him, the paper said.

In a follow-up letter to the newspaper, Gillmor said he considers the properties outside his district to be "only real estate investments." Why this purchase? "I just felt like it," he told the Blade. "I don't have to explain why I moved to a different house."

"Pretty much"?

ONE FINAL THOUGHT: WILL THERE BE A SPECIAL ELECTION
IN OH-05, OR ARE CANDIDATES MERELY LINING UP FOR 2008?

In Representative Gillmor's above-cited follow-up letter to the Toledo Blade, it's possible to have one's attention diverted by his concise, witty explanation for purchases he describes as "only real estate investments": "I just felt like it." Indeed. However, there is a danger that too little consideration may then be given to the following sentence: "I don't have to explain why I moved to a different house."

Now, I'm not a lawyer, but when the congressman says, "I moved to a different house," surely that means that he has, you know, moved to a different house. No, the congressman certainly doesn't owe anyone an explanation for his desire to move. Except maybe his constituents, who unlike the congressman all live inside Ohio's 5th Congressional District. That's what makes them his constituents--or, rather, used to make them his constituents, since he has told the Blade clearly that he has moved out of OH-05.

Can we assume that final preparations are under way to announce the congressman's resignation? I suppose perhaps there's some paperwork to take care of?

Now I stress that I'm not a lawyer, and perhaps it really is legal for the congressman to continue representing a district he no longer resides in--though again it would be nice to hear competent legal opinion on the question. Surely, though, the congressman is preparing an announcement (admittedly a mere formality) stating the obvious: that he will not be running for reelection.

I mean, it can't possibly be legal for him to run for a House seat he himself has acknowledged he doesn't live in, can it?