NLPC “blows the whistle” on government officials and interest groups engaged in questionable activities. NLPC has filed formal Complaints with a variety of authorities and regulators, including the Federal Election Commission, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Congressional Ethics Committees.
NLPC supports government integrity in two additional ways: by promoting the First Amendment as the basis for campaign finance reform, and by promoting use of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Mike Soraghan reports in today’s edition of The Hill:
An investigation into a trip taken by members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) is triggering a backlash against the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s signature ethics proposal.
CBC members, frustrated at what they perceive as an accusation by a conservative group that’s been blown out of proportion, last week formed a working group to look at taking on the 2006 resolution that created the OCE.
The junket to sunny St. Maarten took place the weekend after the election in 2008. I attended in order to document violations of House Rules that prohibit corporate sponsorship of travel and hospitality.
The trip was funded by “lead sponsor” Citigroup, a major recipient of bailout funds, which contributed $100,000. Other sponsors included IBM, AT&T, Verizon, Pfizer, Macy’s and American Airlines.
Last week, the Senate passed a resolution apologizing for slavery. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune reported:
The resolution, sponsored by Senator Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, passed on a voice vote. It now moves to the House, where it may meet an unlikely foe: members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Several Caucus members expressed concerns about a disclaimer that states that “nothing in this resolution authorizes or supports any claim against the United States; or serves as a settlement of any claim against the United States.” Those caucus members say the disclaimer is an attempt to stave off reparations claims from the descendants of slaves. “Putting in a disclaimer takes away from the meaning of an apology,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss. (pictured)
NLPC Chairman Ken Boehm will present a paper today at a forum sponsored by the Capitol Hill Chapter of The Federalist Society. It is titled Justice Delayed, Justice Denied: Williams v. Philip Morris, Marshall v. Marshall and the Dangers of Excessive Litigation. Click here to download a 7-page pdf.
Moderated by Quin Hillyer of the Washington Times, the panel will also include Theodore H. Frank of the American Enterprise Institute and Robert Alt of the Heritage Foundation. The event will take place at noon in Room B354 of Rayburn House Office Building in Washington, DC.
According to Boehm:
“Justice delayed is justice denied.” It may be an old legal cliché, but it certainly has its modern proof in two cases remanded by the Supreme Court – Williams v. Philip Morris and Marshall v. Marshall.
These tortuous torts have clogged court dockets for a decade, providing ample
Congressional advocates of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill employed bribery to build support for this legislation when they co-opted several corporations by giving them free carbon dioxide emission credits. However, many businesses are still balking at lending support to a bill that will impose a crushing energy tax on the American people and cost the economy trillions of dollars. Since bribery didn’t work with these recalcitrant companies, Waxman-Markey supporters are trying intimidation.
On June 9, the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing to hear testimony on the Waxman-Markey bill, called the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which would increase the cost of emitting carbon dioxide through an onerous cap on emissions. One of the witnesses was David Sokol, CEO of MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company. Sokol criticized the Waxman-Markey bill because it would result in higher electricity rates for his customers. … Read More ➡
The House ethics committee is investigating an alleged quid pro quo between Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) and an oil company executive, the subject of a lengthy New York Times article published in December.
Eugene Isenberg, the oil executive accused of trying to influence Rangel through a $1 million donation to the education center bearing Rangel’s name, is cooperating with an ethics committee investigation into the matter and predicts that the panel will find no wrongdoing.
The assertion was caught on tape during a conversation with Peter Flaherty of the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative watchdog that has investigated several ethics stories about Rangel. Flaherty approached Isenberg at the company’s annual meeting in Houston last week, taped the conversation and provided The Hill a transcript and audio recording.
NLPC President Peter Flaherty debates Julie Roginsky of Comprehensive Communications Group on June 5, 2009. CNBC’s host is Dennis Kneale.
UPDATE 6/9/09– Ian Swanson of The Hill is reporting:
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said he doesn’t think his intervention on behalf of a General Motors center in his district will lead other lawmakers to do the same thing.
“I don’t think this will lead to a pattern,” said Frank, who convinced GM CEO Fritz Henderson to keep a distribution center in Norton, Mass., open for at least another 14 months.
The intervention has drawn criticism from those who question whether other lawmakers will ask for favorable treatment for GM entities in their states given the government’s pending plan to take a 60 percent ownership stake in the company after it emerges from a managed bankruptcy proceeding.
Barney claimed his intervention is good for the environment:
The Waxman-Markey bill, currently under consideration by several House committees, would impose a huge energy tax on the American people in the name of combating the scientifically unproven global warming threat. The Heritage Foundation estimates the average household will have to pay an extra $1,500 per year for gas and electricity while the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) puts that number at about $1,600.
That is why congressional Democrats and liberal advocates are trying to avoid this unpleasant fact by simply not admitting that the Waxman-Markey bill is a tax increase. They understand that if the public perceives this legislation for what it is – an energy tax – then it will fail.