Tag: conflict of interest
Richard Burr, healthcare legislation

Sen.Burr Pushes Healthcare Industry Legislation While Trading Its Stocks

Reprinted with permission from ProPublica.

In his 15 years in the Senate, Richard Burr, a North Carolina Republican, has been one of the health care industry's staunchest friends.

Serving on the health care and finance committees, Burr advocated to end the tax on medical device makers, one of the industry's most-detested aspects of the 2010 Affordable Care Act. He pushed the Food and Drug Administration to speed up its approval process. As one of the most prominent Republican health care policy thinkers, he has sponsored or co-sponsored dozens of health-related bills, including a proposal to replace “Obamacare." He oversaw the implementation of major legislation to pump taxpayer money into private sector initiatives to address public health threats. “The industry feels very positive about Sen. Burr," the president of North Carolina's bioscience trade group said during Burr's last reelection campaign. “He's done a stellar job."

Read NowShow less
House Passes Law To Impose Ethics Rules On Ivanka And Jared

House Passes Law To Impose Ethics Rules On Ivanka And Jared

House Democrats on Friday passed a sweeping new bill aimed at making elections freer and fairer by making Election Day a holiday, promoting automatic voter registration, ending gerrymandering, and protecting election equipment from foreign attackers.

But also included in that bill is an amendment that would make Trump’s daughter and son-in-law, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, adhere to White House ethics laws. It’s part of the bill’s other anti-corruption provisions, which would force presidential and vice presidential candidates to release their income tax returns.

Both Kushner and Ivanka Trump currently serve as unpaid advisers in the White House. Ethics experts raised concerns that their roles were ethically suspect, as Trump’s two family members could “avoid the ethics, conflict-of-interest and other rules that apply to White House employees.”

Eventually, Kushner and Ivanka Trump said they were becoming official White House employees, though still unpaid, in order to comply with federal ethics rules.

However, this new amendment would codify into law that ethics laws will apply to “unpaid employees of the Executive Office of the President and the White House.”

The amendment was introduced by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), who said in a speech on the House floor her amendment will “ensure that conflicts of interest do not interfere in the operations of our government.”

“I come to the floor today to speak on this amendment that simply requires unpaid government employees to comply with the same ethics rules as paid employees,” Jayapal said. “President Trump has exploited this ethics loophole for his daughter Ivanka Trump and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who both work in the White House. Requiring your daughter and your son-in-law to be subject to the same ethics rules as everyone else is simply basic common sense.”

Of course, Senate Republicans — led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) — have no intention of bringing the broader bill that includes the amendment to a vote, absurdly claiming that a bill making access to voting easier for all Americans is a “power grab.

Really, McConnell just seems scared that his party can’t win without voter suppression tactics — and that this sweeping bill would hamper Trump’s ability to hide his conflicts of interest.

Published with permission of The American Independent.

IMAGE: Donald Trump speaks as his son-in-law Jared Kushner (L), daughter Ivanka listen at a campaign event at the Trump National Golf Club Westchester in Briarcliff Manor, New York, U.S., June 7, 2016. REUTERS/Mike Segar/File Photo

New Report: Trump Organization Minting Money On Ethically Dubious Deals

New Report: Trump Organization Minting Money On Ethically Dubious Deals

When not desperately auctioning off access to the president’s family, the Trump Organization is still finding other ethically questionable ways to cash in on Donald Trump’s presidency.

A new report by Public Citizen shows evidence of an “alarming … array of interest groups trying to cozy up to Trump by spending money at his properties.”

“Donald Trump entered office with the most blatant and potentially corrupting conflicts of interest in the history of American politics, and things only got worse from there,” said Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen.

“Business is booming at the Trump International Hotel in D.C., not because of the décor, but because corporations and foreign governments want to curry favor with the president.”

On paper, Trump Jr., along with his brother Eric, are in charge of the Trump Organization. However, Donald Trump has refused to divest from or sell off his family businesses, and thus still profits from individuals and entities that visit Trump properties.

Foreign governments aren’t the only groups spending money in the hopes of currying favor with Trump. Companies are getting in on the action as well.

The National Mining Association and Chamber of Commerce have plunked down bags of money at Trump properties, even though (or perhaps because) they have substantial policy interests that can be addressed by the executive branch.

One private prison company is already reaping rewards. According to the Washington Post, executives and wardens from GEO Group, which runs private prisons, “gathered for four days of meetings, dinner receptions and golf outings at the luxurious 800-acre Trump National Doral, [following] an intense effort by GEO Group to align itself with the president and his administration.”

After that expenditure, GEO group — which also gave $225,000 to a pro-Trump super PAC and $250,000 to Trump’s inaugural committee — “secured the administration’s first contract for an immigration detention center, a deal worth tens of millions a year.”

Members of Congress are also among those hoping to buy favorable treatment from Trump. More than 30 political candidates or political organizations are listed in Public Citizen’s report.

California’s Dana Rohrabacher says he raised more than $100,000 at the fundraiser he held at the Trump International Hotel. The congressman’s staff insisted there were no unethical motivations, simply that Trump’s “properties are set to a standard that is very elegant.”

(Recent health inspection reports from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago property in Florida found 15 health violations in the club’s two main kitchens.)

Other members of Congress, including Senators Bob Corker (R-TN) and John Kennedy (R-LA), also spent campaign funds at Trump properties.

Not a single penny from Democrats was spent at any of Trump’s businesses or properties.

In a chicken-and-egg type quandary, it is unclear whether Trump’s rampant corruption is driving his unpopularity at home and abroad, or if his unpopularity is forcing him to turn to rampant corruption to make a buck. Whatever the case may be, Trump’s conflicts of interest raise unprecedented ethical, legal, and national security concerns that must be addressed.

Donald Trump gestures next to an architectural rendering of The Trump Organization’s $200 million redevelopment of the iconic Old Post Office building into a luxury hotel, in Washington September, 2013. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

Confusion Surrounds Conflict Of Interest Cases In Congress

Confusion Surrounds Conflict Of Interest Cases In Congress

By Hannah Hess, CQ Roll Call (TNS)

WASHINGTON — Congressional investigators closed the 113th Congress with two reports touching on one of the murkiest subjects in the ethics manual: financial conflicts of interest.

Investing in companies tied to their home districts can help members understand the impact federal government decisions have on the private sector, but those ventures sometimes create a risk to their reputation.

“A congressman should zealously represent his constituents — he just can’t be one of them,” said Craig Engle, head of the political law group at Arent Fox LLP. He served as general counsel to the National Republican Senatorial Committee for five years, counseling candidates on laws related to elections and holding office, before moving to private practice.

“If you really want to make money, be a businessman,” he said in an interview. “If you want to make a difference, be a congressman. But you can’t be both at the same time.”

House rules prohibit members from using their seats to build their personal fortunes. The Code of Ethics bars people in government service from dishing out special favors and privileges, or accepting special benefits that might influence their job performance.

Following tricky decisions related to corruption allegations against Democratic Reps. Shelley Berkley of Nevada and Maxine Waters of California, the House Ethics Committee acknowledged that the House needs clearer guidance on conflict of interest rules.

In May 2013, the committee appointed a bipartisan group to study matters related to the disclosure and handling of personal financial interests in the chamber. No public recommendations have been released by the panel, consisting of Indiana Republican Susan W. Brooks and Florida Democrat Ted Deutch, but committee staff continue to field questions on the rules, and investigate alleged violations.

“If you go to the government to ask its advice, you should be able to rely upon that advice,” Engle said. That principle helped save one congressman, and condemn another.

In the case of Rep. Tom Petri, the committee found the Wisconsin Republican sought and relied upon its advice related to his advocacy on behalf of Oshkosh Corp. and Manitowoc Co., two firms based in his district in which he owned hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of stock. Although informal, staff-level advice is not a shield from future sanctions, congressional offices should be able to rely on the guidance, the report reasoned.

In five other instances where Petri used his position in Congress to help the companies but didn’t seek guidance, the committee determined his conduct was consistent with previous advice or didn’t raise concerns. The panel determined it would be “inequitable” to sanction Petri after his office had “proactively and repeatedly consulted with the committee staff on whether and how Petri could lawfully and properly engage in official actions on behalf of entities in which he had a financial interest.”

The 17-term congressman heralded the bipartisan committee’s Dec. 11 report as effectively clearing his name before his final term expired.

Retiring Rep. Phil Gingrey received a final report from the panel that was far less positive for his legacy. The Ethics Committee issued a report and letter scolding him for trying to help the Bank of Ellijay, a now-failed financial institution in which he owned stock. The Georgia Republican also occupied a seat on the bank’s board of directors.

Gingrey’s office helped arrange meetings with high-ranking Treasury Department officials and influential lawmakers for bank representatives, who wanted to talk about the Troubled Assets Relief Program. During the probe, Gingrey told investigators he was aware of a conflict of interest and knew he needed to be “very, very careful,” but the committee noted he still did not try to avoid the situation.

In chastising Gingrey, the committee relied upon guidance from 2009 that made clear members could not take official action on behalf of non-constituents in cases where they had financial interest. Although Gingrey’s lawyer tried to assert confusion surrounding conflict of interest rules, the panel found no ambiguity.

One part of the Dec. 11 report served as a reminder that this was not Gingrey’s first encounter with conflict of interest rules. In 2007, he sought guidance on whether his campaign could hire his daughter as a fundraising consultant. He was informed that he could do so, but was cautioned to “avoid situations in which even an inference might be drawn suggesting improper action.”

Photo: Republican Conference via Flickr