Top 10 Ethics Issues for 2006

<p><img lign="left" src="files/Top10.gif" /> We have selected what we consider takes the cake for 2006 in terms of Ethics Issues covered by the media... </p>

<h2>Number Ten ' Iraq Oversight ' An under-reported sleeper with potential</h2>

<p>After issuing a series of reports critical of the administration, the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction was killed in a provision buried in the military authorization bill signed in October. The special inspector general's office is run by Stuart Bowen. The New York Times calls Bowen 'a Republican lawyer who worked for George W. Bush both in Texas and in Washington,' and says the office 'is widely respected' for the quality of its work, which exposed unsatisfactory performance by contractors, corruption by occupation officials, poorly planned contracts, understaffed contracting offices, and lax project management. Now, following the November 7 election, Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Russ Feingold, D-Wis. have introduced a measure to restore the office until a date 10 months after 80 percent of Iraq reconstruction funds have been spent. A similar bill was introduced in the House by, D-Mo. The house version would also expand SIGR's authority. The Washington Times reported that an administration source said the State Department had been behind the insertion of a termination date. This story shows perpetually precarious status of meaningful oversight. This story happens to be about a federal oversight body, but it could have as easily been a state or local story. It oversight can't be tamed, it gets the shiv. Look to see what the Special Investigator General does in the coming year.</p>

<h2>Number Nine ' The trial of Bill Campbell - Corruption as Popular Entertainment</h2>

<p>Bill Campbell served as mayor of Atlanta from 1994 to 2002. The media-genic Campbell became a bit of a celebrity. Politically, he fell into disfavor, and legally he fell under suspicion, during his second term largely due to controversial affirmative action programs for the metropolitan area. In August 2004, after a five-year federal investigation into corruption during his years as Mayor, Campbell was indicted by a federal grand jury on a variety of charges including bribery and tax evasion. On March 10, 2006, a federal jury acquitted him on the bribery charge but convicted him on three counts of tax evasion. On June 13 he was sentenced to 30 months in prison, a year on probation, a $6,000 fine, and $60,000 in back taxes. He reported to prison August 21, 2006. The trial was a political soap opera par excellence, and wonderfully covered by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Among other revelations, a glamorous former local news anchor admitted in testimony to a lengthy affair with the married former mayor when he was in office. Even if you can beat part of the rap, you can't beat the ride.</p>

<h2>Number Eight - Sarasota, Fla. 18,000 votes gone missing ' Democracy at Risk</h2>

<p>In Florida's 13th Congressional District Vern Buchanan, the Republican candidate was certified the winner, with 369 more votes than the Democrat, Christine Jennings. But in Sarasota County, which used touch-screen voting machines, almost 18,000 voters - nearly 15 percent of those who cast ballots using the machines ' are shown as not voting for either candidate - this being the most hotly contested race on the ballot, with nationwide interest and control of the House at stake. In neighboring counties the undervote reportedly ranged from 2.2 to 5.3 percent. About a third of those interviewed by the Herald-Tribune newspaper reported that they couldn't find the Congressional race on the screen; more than 60 percent of those interviewed reported that they did cast a vote in the Congressional race - but that this vote didn't show up on the ballot summary page they were shown at the end of the voting process. An Orlando Sentinel examination of other votes cast by those who supposedly failed to cast a vote in the Congressional race shows that they strongly favored Democrats. The 'recount' was meaningless ' the only data is whatever the machines happened to record. This would be story number one in a replay of the 2000 or 2004 Presidential election. I predict the reliability of electronic voting, and its susceptibility to fraud, will be the number one story in a national election coming soon.</p>

<h2>Number Seven - Coingate - One-Party Rule, Lack of Oversight, Cronyism</h2>

<p>Coingate is an investment scandal in Ohio reported in 2005 by the Toledo Blade. According to the Blade, the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation, which provides financial support for workers injured on the job, had invested $50 million in Capital Coin, a rare-coin trading operation run by Tom Noe, an influential Republican fund-raiser. In a related story, the Blade reported that, as the Bureau of Workers' Compensation suffered multimillion-dollar losses in a hedge fund managed by MDL Capital Management, the chief financial officer of the Bureau told another top agency official that he had been told to 'give MDL a break.'' As Paul Krugman of the New York Times puts it: 'At first, state officials angrily insisted that this unusual use of state funds was a good investment that had nothing to do with Mr. Noe's political connections. An accounting investigation revealed, however, that Mr. Noe's claims to be running a profitable business were fictitious: he had lost millions, and 121 valuable coins were missing. . . .Noe's campaign contributions ranged so widely that five of the state's seven Supreme Court justices had to recuse themselves from cases associated with the scandal. . . We're talking about personal payoffs: bargain vacations for the governor's chief of staff at Mr. Noe's Florida home, the fact that MDL Capital employs the daughter of one of the members of the workers' compensation oversight board, and more.' The scandal snowballed through Ohio politics in 2006, and culminated in November with Democrats winning a U.S. Senate seat, picking up a House seat, and winning four of five key statewide offices after 12 years of Republican rule. Ohio being the quintessential swing state, this state-level scandal may have had a national impact.</p>

<h2>Number Six - Ron Gonzales ' Rationalization, and Career Crash</h2>

<p>In June of 2006 Ron Gonzales, the mayor of San Jose, the country's tenth largest city, and Joe Guerra, a top aide, were indicted. Gonzales was charged with conspiracy, bribery, embezzlement and destruction of government documents. Importantly, everyone charged has denied wrongdoing Gonzales should go to trial in the spring, after he has left office. Gonzales contends the arrangement was in the City's interest. In 1998, Gonzales became one of the first Hispanic mayors of a major U.S. city. He was named one of 100 rising stars by the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. In 2000, he addressed the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles. Gonzales once seemed headed for big things on the national stage. Whatever the outcome at trial, that future now seems improbable. The allegations turn on a municipal waste contract with a company called Norcal. The National Legal and Policy Center describes it like this: 'On June 21, Gonzales, chief budget aide Joe Guerra and contractor Norcal Waste Systems were indicted on bribery, conspiracy and public-funds misuse charges relating to an alleged backroom deal. Prosecutors say the mayor back in 2000 guaranteed one of Norcal's subcontractors, California Waste Solutions, the hiring of recycling workers represented by International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 350 rather than those affiliated with a Longshoremen's local. The Teamsters had represented the workers since 1993, and wanted to keep things that way. So did the mayor's office. But there was a complication: money. The Teamster employees stood to receive $10.85 an hour, plus benefits; the Longshoremen, by contrast, had been expected to agree to only $7 an hour. The City allegedly agreed to cover Norcal's extra labor costs, which wound up amounting to $11.25 million. 'Local 350 boss Bob Morales denies the existence of an under-the-table deal. 'How can I be in a secret deal when I went and testified before the entire city council and we lobby everybody and we talk to every staff member?...I cannot concede a secret deal when you talk to everybody who will listen to you,' he said. Mayor Gonzales, he insists, is guilty of nothing more than correcting a faulty assumption held by Norcal when it submitted its original bid. But prosecutors charge that Gonzales, who faces six felony counts, did more than that. In a private 2000 meeting prior to the awarding of the contract, the mayor allegedly expressed his desire to have the Teamsters do the work. The Teamsters got the contract; Gonzales in turn got $10,000 in campaign contributions from Norcal and the Teamsters. This, says, Santa Clara County Deputy Attorney Julius Finkelstein, represented 'a gift of public funds.' 'Gonzales did not benefit personally. However, under California aw a public official does not have to realize personal gain to be subject to bribery charges. The state's legal definition is 'something of present or future value or advantage or a promise to give such a thing that is requested or taken with a corrupt intent that the official's actions will be unlawfully influenced.' That apparently includes campaign contributions. Yet even with this high standard in place, Mayor Gonzales is an innocent man, says his attorney, Allen Ruby. 'There's no case,' Ruby said. 'There's a criminal indictment that alleges multiple, serious ugly felonies, and none of them happened.''</p>

<h2>Number Five - Earmarks ' The Bridge to Nowhere goes on forever.</h2>

<p>In the Congressional budget process, earmarks require spending on special projects chosen by members of congress. Earmarking became big news story in 2005 when $223 million was earmarked to construct a bridge to connect an Alaskan town of 8,900 to an island of 50 inhabitants (saving a short ferry ride). Earmarks are often worth millions of dollars. Significantly, earmarks have evolved beyond the timeless practice of bringing home the bacon for one's constituents, and are now used to curry favor with important lobbies, sometimes with little relationship to the constituents of the sponsor. In 2006, an earmark came to light that linked (soon to be former) Sen. Conrad Burns of Montana to lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The loss of Burn's senate seat on the 2006 election cost Republicans control of the Senate. The earmark was slipped into a 2004 appropriations bill at the last possible moment. It gave the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe $3 million for a new school. Of course, the Saginaw Chippewa aren't from Montana, the state Burns represents -- they're from Michigan. According to NPR: 'Betty Cooper, a member of the Blackfeet Tribal Council, says her Montana tribe could have used the money for its dilapidated boarding dorm, where at-risk Indian children are housed to make sure they get to school. ' 'They tell us to all stand in line and take our turn,' Cooper says. '[Burns] didn't look to us when it was our turn. We were next on the list to get our facility when he put this money to this Michigan tribe.' 'Cooper said that several years ago, the tribe began asking Burns and the rest of the Montana delegation in Congress for help in getting federal funds for their boarding dorm. But even though Burns was chairman of the subcommittee that funds the Interior Department and its Bureau of Indian Affairs, she says the senator gave them no help. Cooper suspects campaign contributions linked to Jack Abramoff influenced the senator. In fact, Burns got more money from Abramoff and his associates than any other lawmaker -- nearly $150,000.' On August 30, 2006, a spokesman for Sen. Ted Stevens, of bridge to nowhere fame, announced that the senator had placed an anonymous hold on the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. The bill would reform the earmarking process in Congress and, among other things, establish a searchable database of all federal government appropriations.</p>

<h2>Number Four - Duke Cunningham - Garden Variety Bribery</h2>

<p>Former Rep. Cunningham's legal troubles started when the San Diego Union-Tribune reported on a lucrative 2003 real estate deal. He sold his Del Mar, Calif., house for the inflated price of $1.675 million to defense contractor Mitchell Wade of MZM Inc. who then sold it at a $700,000 loss nine months later. Cunningham was charged with using his influence to award federal contracts to MZM in return for payoffs. The government's evidence was so overwhelming that on November 28, 2005, Cunningham pleaded guilty to tax evasion, conspiracy to commit bribery, mail fraud, and wire fraud. In addition to the house deal Cunningham admitted receiving a lengthy list of bribes: the free use of a yacht, the 'Duke-Stir', a used Rolls-Royce, antique furniture, Persian rugs, jewelry, and a $2,000 contribution for his daughter's college graduation party. After entering the plea, he announced his resignation from Congress at a teary press conference. On March 3, 2006, Cunningham was sentenced to eight years and four months in prison. This is the longest jail term ever given to a former Congressman. The sentence included forfeiture of corruptly obtained property and an order to pay $1.8 million in restitution. After sentencing, Cunningham asked to see his 91-year-old mother one last time before going to prison. The request was denied. Though Cunningham agreed to cooperate with investigators as a condition of his plea agreement, there have been conflicting reports about his willingness to live up to the bargain. Time magazine has reported that Cunningham had cooperated with law enforcement by wearing a wire before his guilty plea. Who knows? On February 24, 2006, Mitchell Wade pleaded guilty to bribing Cunningham. CIA officials have reportedly opened an investigation into the CIA's No.3 official, Kyle 'Dusty' Foggo, and his relationship with a defense contractor named (but not charged) in the Cunningham plea agreement. Foggo has denied wrongdoing. Foggo resigned from the CIA on May 8. On May 12 FBI officials raided Foggo's home in connection with the scandal. n June 6, 2006, Republican and former congressman Brian Bilbray won the run-off election for Cunningham's seat, narrowly defeating Democrat Francine Busby. On November 7, 2006, Bilbray beat Busby again and retained his seat in the House.</p>

<h2>Number Three - Abramoff, et al. - The Energizer Bunny of scandals</h2>

<p>On March 29, 2006, Jack Abramoff was sentenced to five years and 10 months in prison and ordered to pay restitution of more than $21 million. His prison sentence was the relatively light because of a plea bargain with federal prosecutors, because of his promised cooperation in the federal investigation, and because of numerous testimonials on his behalf by the powerful and well-connected. The U.S. Department of Justice has appointed an entire inter-governmental task force to the continuing investigation into Abramoff's activities. Former Rep. Bob Ney of Ohio has become the first member of Congress to admit to criminal charges in the Abramoff investigation, which has focused on the actions of several current and former Republican lawmakers who had been close to the former lobbyist. Ney resigned from the House of Representatives on November 3. In September Ney's pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to a charge of falsifying financial disclosure forms. Both charges are related to actions taken on behalf of Abramoff's clients in exchange for bribes, as well as separate actions taken on behalf of a foreign businessman in exchange for over $50,000 in gambling sprees at foreign private casinos. Republicans failed to keep Ney's seat. The Abramoff investigation may also have been instrumental in persuading former House majority leader, and the de-facto most powerful member of the House not withstanding the Speaker, Tom Delay to resign from congress and not seek re-election. The Republicans failed to keep Delay's seat. His association with Abramoff was also instrumental in Sen. Conrad Burns loss of his Senate seat, and along with it republican control of the Senate.</p>

<h2>Number Two ' Ethics Reform ' NOT</h2>

<p>The current Congress has been awash in corruption scandals. Former Representative Randy Cunningham is in prison, Former Representative Bob Ney has pled guilty. The former House majority leader, and far and away most powerful member of the House, Tom DeLay, resigned under indictment, and the payoff scandal surrounding the lobbyist Jack Abramoff may ensnare others as well. Former Representative Mark Foley of Florida resigned in disgrace over his conduct toward congressional pages. On the Democratic side, Representative William J. Jefferson of Louisiana faces bribery charges. The most resounding result of all this was what didn't happen: reform. When Jack Abramoff pled guilty on January 3, 2006, to three criminal felony counts in a Washington, D.C., federal court related to the defrauding of American Indian tribes and corruption of public officials it caused a flurry of public reform-mindedness among the congressional elite. The same week, House Speaker Dennis Hastert canceled an overseas trip and rushed back to Washington, proclaiming lobbying reform his highest legislative priority, to be enacted "as soon as possible." We've seen nothing meaningful so far. Moreover, most members of congress thought they could weather the storm. The conventional wisdom before November 7 was that the Ambramoff mess would blow over, and voters were not clamoring for reform. When William Jefferson's congressional office was raided by the FBI, with all the appropriate warrants, congressional leadership's reaction ' and they were of the other party, mind you ' was one of outrage that congressional prerogatives were not being respected. And this from a congress that had willingly abandoned many of its own prerogatives when it came to doing its duty as opposed to protecting its membership. And right up to the very threshold of the November election, Congress sought to circle its wagons around its members rather than face up the breach of trust in the Foley matter. Now Democratic leaders in the House and the Senate, mindful that voters in the midterm election cited corruption as a major concern, say they are moving quickly to finalize a package of changes for consideration as soon as the new Congress convenes in January. Their initial proposals, are pretty weak tea. None of the proposed measures would significantly restrict the practices that led to abuse in the current Congress. Representative John P. Murtha, Democrat of Pennsylvania, dismissed the Democratic leadership's proposals on ethics as 'crap.' And Murtha is hardly the only Democrat who objects to broad changes. It is well to remember that the Republicans took over the House in 1994 promising change, and adopted some of the same policies the Democrats now propose, including a ban on gifts and travel, only to relax the rules later.</p>

<h2>Number One - Mark Foley - Abuse of trust, Hypocrisy, Circling the wagons,</h2>

<p>The Foley scandal provided the political shock of the year. Because of the timing, the synergistic effect of other scandals in the melting-down House of Representatives, the salacious nature of the misdeeds, and the high 'ick-factor,' Foleygate became the perfect storm. Foley's sexually explicit instant-message exchanges with former House pages weren't the real story. The story was and remains what senior House leaders knew of Foley's behavior and when they knew it, and the risibly ineffectual institutional safeguards in Congress. A TIME poll reported that two-thirds of those aware of the scandal believe that the Republican leadership in Congress attempted a cover-up. The scandal may well have been the tipping point of congressional control. And it seems to have a greater impact on the public perception of the ruling party than the Jack Abramoff scandal. The scandal stuttered at the start but quickly picked up speed as the Congressional leadership acted like craven politicians. Speaker Hastert took responsibility (what does mean, anyway ' Will he skip lunch?) while blaming everyone but himself. The general response of the leadership was anything but protective of the underage pages; it was all about protecting the political advantage of incumbents. Then they began turning on each other. Not an attractive sight. Washington Post reported a Pew Research Center poll released on October 5 that indicated no significant change in registered voters' party support before and after the scandal broke. Shortly thereafter, however, as the public got a look at the leadership's antics, Republicans fortunes plummeted. A USA Today/Gallup survey published October 10 showed a 23-point Democratic lead. Among the 29 or thirty seat loss the Republicans suffered on Nov. 7th was Foley's seat.</p>