Tag: phil gingrey
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

Where Have Ebola’s Fear-Mongers All Gone?

Where Have Ebola’s Fear-Mongers All Gone?

By Doyle McManus, Los Angeles Times (TNS)

Remember Ebola?

Only two months ago, many Americans were gripped by fear of the uncontrollable spread of an apparently incurable disease that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention projected could strike 1.4 million people in West Africa before it came under control.

Amid such reports, it took only one case to touch off near-panic inside the United States: that of Liberian Thomas Eric Duncan after he was misdiagnosed by a Dallas hospital.

In the weeks that followed Duncan’s death, state and local governments reacted — and sometimes overreacted. Several schools barred teachers and children who had visited African countries that were nowhere near the epidemic. In Maine, a teacher was put on leave because she had visited Dallas.

And then election-year politics kicked in.

Members of Congress, mostly Republicans, warned that Ebola could be carried into the country by illegal immigrants or even terrorists, and demanded a ban on travelers entering the United States from the affected countries. Governors scrambled to draft quarantine regulations, producing a showdown between Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey and a nurse he tried to confine to a tent. (The nurse won.)

And now? The crisis is all but forgotten. We’ve moved on.

The epidemic is ebbing in Liberia, but still spreading in Sierra Leone. The World Health Organization estimates there have been about 18,000 cases, including more than 6,300 deaths: tragic numbers, but far below the apocalyptic scenario once predicted.

Only four cases of the disease have been diagnosed in the United States, two of them in people who contracted the disease in West Africa. And we’ve learned that when Ebola is identified early, in a country with a functioning healthcare system, the disease is treatable after all.

“What’s the one word you haven’t heard a politician say since Election Day?” Democratic strategist James Carville asked me a few weeks ago. “Ebola!”

I’m not blaming ordinary people for reacting as they did to a deadly epidemic they’d been told was difficult to stop.

I’m not even blaming governors who scrambled to impose quarantines to stop the spread of a disease they didn’t know much about. Their job was to protect their citizens. And when they discovered that their initial reactions might have been too broad, they pared them back — even Chris Christie.

It’s worth remembering, as well, that the Obama administration initially did a ham-handed job of mastering the crisis. Dr. Thomas Frieden of the CDC started out by assuring the country that the situation was under control — even though it wasn’t, at first.

But there is one list of politicians who still deserve a measure of scorn: the ones who fanned fear for fear’s sake.

This week, those politicians shared in an award they probably didn’t want: the annual “Lie of the Year” prize conferred by PolitiFact, the fact-checking arm of the Tampa Bay Times. They won, the paper said, because they deliberately “produced a dangerous and incorrect narrative” about an important global problem.

Before you dismiss that as another liberal media attack on the GOP, consider this: Last year’s PolitiFact winner for “Lie of the Year” was President Obama, for his promise that under his 2010 healthcare law, “if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it.”

The politicians mentioned in this year’s citation included Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), an ophthalmologist who may run for president.

His advice on Ebola included this warning: “This is an incredibly contagious disease. People in full gloves and gowns are getting it.”

Well, no, as thousands of medical workers in Africa can testify — not when true precautions are in place.

“This is something that appears to be very easy to catch,” Paul added. “If someone has Ebola at a cocktail party, they’re contagious and you can catch it from them.”

Theoretically true — but only if your cocktail party acquaintance is emitting fluids in your direction; Ebola can’t be transmitted by air.

Then there was Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA), another physician, who managed to combine two hot-button issues, Ebola and immigration. Gingrey announced that he had received “reports of illegal migrants carrying deadly diseases such as swine flu, dengue fever and Ebola.”

Other members of Congress speculated that terrorists might infect themselves, sneak into the United States and try to spread the disease in crowded places. PolitiFact carefully said it couldn’t count that as a lie, since it was mere speculation.

But it was surely intended to increase fear. And fear is a powerful emotion, much easier to provoke than to ease.

So now that the acute fear of Ebola has ebbed, we should pause for a moment to thank some Americans who didn’t panic — and, more important, even did something to bring the epidemic closer to an end: the courageous relief workers who went to Africa, not knowing whether they’d be allowed to return home, relief workers that included roughly 3,000 U.S. military personnel who accepted deployment to Liberia as part of their jobs, and whose clinic-building mission will be complete soon. And yes, even those politicians, beginning with President Obama, who didn’t panic.

Photo: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Border Crisis Tests Religious Faith — And Some Fail Badly

Border Crisis Tests Religious Faith — And Some Fail Badly

Flamboyant piety has long been fashionable on the political right, where activists, commentators, and elected officials never hesitate to hector us about their great moral and theological rectitude. Wielding the Scriptures like a weapon, these righteous ’wingers are always eager to condemn the alleged sins of others but reluctant to examine their own. They seem to spend far more time on posturing and preening than spiritual reflection. Rarely does anyone call them out on their failures to fulfill their proclaimed devotion because, in this country, that is considered rude.

But occasionally, something happens that separates the people of faith from the sanctimonious fakers. With thousands of defenseless children now gathered on America’s southern border, seeking asylum from deprivation and deadly violence, something like that is happening right now.

Nobody in the House of Representatives is more vociferous about her reverence for God’s word than Michele Bachmann (R-MN) –the Tea Party queen bee who often has said she believes that America is a “Christian nation.” When Bachmann opened her mouth on television about those hungry and fearful children, she demonized them as “invaders” and incipient criminals who could be expected to rape American women and break American laws.

Then there is Bachmann’s colleague Louie Gohmert (R-TX), whose religious zeal is so overpowering that he cannot restrain himself, even during House proceedings – like that committee hearing last month when he proclaimed his belief that anyone who doesn’t accept Jesus is destined for hell. But when the subject is the innocent kids at the border of his home state, most of whom are girls under 13 years of age, Gohmert speaks of “invasion” and urges the governor of Texas to unilaterally initiate a state of war. Like many of his fellow far-rightists, he stokes rumors that these children are harbingers of disease and gangsterism.

So does Phil Gingrey (R-GA), a medical doctor who went so far as to accuse the young migrants of bringing the Ebola virus – seen only in Africa — with them from Central America. And so does Sandy Rios, the religious-right talk-show host who speaks of the “hope” that the Lord bestowed on her, but warns that we should treat the border children like “lepers.” And so does Ann Coulter, the Church Lady who suspects that all those kids, no matter how small, probably belong to the murderous MS-13 narcotics syndicate.

Now among the theological ideas shared by many of these figures is a fondness for the Old Testament, which they routinely quote to justify cruel strictures against gays, women, and anybody else they wish to suppress. At the moment, however, these Biblical literalists ought to be studying the very plain instruction of Leviticus:

“The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.”

More recently, Pope Francis laid down a clear edict on the border crisis that springs from his own Biblical understanding, urging Americans to “welcome and protect” the children arriving on our border. (He didn’t mention anything about immediate deportations.) The Holy Father expressed deep concern for the “tens of thousands of children who migrate alone, unaccompanied, to escape poverty and violence…in pursuit of a hope that in most cases turns out to be vain”.

“Many people forced to emigrate suffer, and often, die tragically; many of their rights are violated, they are obliged to separate from their families and, unfortunately, continue to be the subject of racist and xenophobic attitudes,” he said. Francis went on to say that only development and security in their own countries would ever stem the flow of migrants heading northward – and that in the meantime, the rest of us should abandon “attitudes of defensiveness and fear, indifference and marginalization.” Attitudes like those displayed by goons waving flags and guns and “Go Home” signs, who don’t care whether these little strangers live or die.

Where are the real Christians? Where are the true people of faith? They may be found in houses of worship near the border and around the country, where people of all political persuasions realize that they are called to feed, clothe, shelter, and heal God’s children, even when they arrive on a bus without papers. If there is a kingdom of heaven, it is these generous souls who will be admitted when they reach its border.

The hypocrites will be sent somewhere else.

Photo: Republican Conference via Flickr

Want more political news and analysis? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!

The 5 Worst Things Politicians Have Said About Migrant Children

The 5 Worst Things Politicians Have Said About Migrant Children

Photo: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Photo: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

The influx of young Central American refugees across the U.S. border is a serious issue that needs a serious policy response. Politicians should be focused on ensuring that these children are treated humanely, and working on sound immigration reform. But, unsurprisingly, many on the right have chosen this time to spout ignorant, offensive rhetoric about these undocumented children.

Here are five of the worst comments politicians have made about migrant children.

 

Arizona congressional candidate Adam Kwasman

Kwasman

Photo via Wikimedia Commons

Kwasman was so desperate to find an excuse to protest the incoming refugees that he thought a bus full of children on their way to a YMCA camp actually was transporting immigrants.

When he saw a yellow school bus pulling up while he was at a protest, he tweeted, “Bus coming in. This is not compassion. This is the abrogation of the rule of law.”

He then told KPNX-TV reporter Brahm Resnik, “I was actually able to see some of the children in the buses. The fear on their faces … this is not compassion.”

It’s unclear why Kwasman would think that giving children a place to sleep and eat is “not compassion.” But it’s also unclear why he thought the children were scared; reporter Will Pitts says the campers were laughing and taking photos of the news crews.

Kwasman didn’t realize his mistake until Resnik had to “break it to [him].”

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX)

Gohmert is using the crisis to make a statement on the War on Women — that is, the war waged by the “criminal aliens” who have entered the United States solely to sexually assault American women.

According to Gohmert, undocumented people have committed 2,993 homicides in the past six years, as well as 7,695 sexual assaults. So obviously these children are headed here to go on a mass-murder rampage.

“You want to talk about a war on women? This administration will not defend the women of America from criminal aliens! By the thousands, and hundreds of thousands,” Gohmert said on the House floor on Tuesday.

“Well, we know thousands. And we know people are coming in by the hundreds of thousands illegally. And this administration wants to talk about other people having a war on women when they will not defend the women that are being sexually assaulted by illegal aliens in this country.”

Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA)

Phil Gingrey

Photo: Republican Conference via Flickr

Last week, Gingrey wrote a letter to the Centers for Disease Control warning that the Central American refugees could bring a plague upon the United States.

“Reports of illegal immigrants carrying deadly diseases such as swine flu, dengue fever, Ebola virus and tuberculosis are particularly concerning,” he wrote.

But there’s no evidence that these children are carrying diseases. Especially not Ebola, which has only ever made people sick in sub-Saharan Africa.

Children in Central America are actually more likely than children in Texas to be vaccinated against infectious disease. According to The Texas Observer, Guatemala has universal health care and 100 percent of children get vaccinated. But in Texas, 1 in 6 children are uninsured, making it harder for their families to pay for vaccinations. Vaccinations which, as it happens, are opposed by Gingrey.

Rep. Rich Nugent (R-FL)

Rich_Nugent,_Official_Portrait,_112th_Congress_2

Photo via Wikimedia Commons

Nugent doesn’t see the unaccompanied minors as children, but as dangerous gang members. Since they come from violent environments, he concludes that they will perpetuate that violence in the United States and should therefore be sent back to their gang-infested countries.

“A lot of these children … quote-unquote … ya know, the first caller mentioned it, ya know, they’re gang members. They’re gang affiliated,” he said on WOCA radio Monday.

“Listen, if you’re 14, 15, 16, 17 years old, and you’re coming from a country that’s gang-infested — particularly with MS-13 types, that is the most aggressive of all the street gangs — when you have those types coming across the border, they’re not children at that point. These kids have been brought up in a culture of thievery. A culture of murder, of rape. And now we are going to infuse them into the American culture. It’s just ludicrous.”

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN)

Bachmann took the irrational fear that migrant children must be dangerous and violent a step further, by actually blaming them for an incident that happened years ago.

“My heart is broken for a female college student in Minnesota who was raped, murdered and mutilated by a foreign national who came into our country,” she said on CNN’s Crossfire on Tuesday. “We had a school bus full of kids in Minnesota — four children were killed on that school bus because an illegal alien driving a van went into that school bus.”

Crossfire co-host Van Jones pushed back. “There are lines that can’t be crossed here,” he said. “I’m sorry, Congresswoman. Are you gonna scapegoat children for the crime of this despicable person?”

According to The Raw Story, Bachmann was likely referring to an accident in 2008, where an illegal immigrant crashed into a bus, resulting in four deaths.

“We should stand with those children, but we should not scapegoat every one of these kids for that despicable crime,” Jones told Bachmann. “You know better as a congressperson than to lay at the feet of these children the acts of a despicable criminal.”

So Bachmann naturally had to bring it back to jobs. “Don’t scapegoat the American people,” she said. “Van, don’t scapegoat the American people right now who are losing jobs.”

The Crossfire interview can be seen above.

Interested in U.S. politics? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!