HEC And The OCE (LBJ took the IRT...)

Recently, I spotted this at talkingpointsmemo:

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) could face a House Ethics Committee investigation into alleged campaign finance violations during her bid for the Republican presidential nomination last year, the Daily Beast reported Monday. The allegations are currently being investigated by the non-partisan Office of Congressional Ethics, which has about three months to decide whether to recommend cases for further investigation to the Ethics Committee.

And it got me to thinking.

Not about Representative Bachmann - no, I want to let the process finish before commenting on it.  I got to thinking about the process itself.  How does an ethics allegation work its way through the House of Representatives these days?  What's the process?

Representative Mike Doyle, who we've interviewed  before when he was on the House Ethics Committee in 2007, was kind enough to fill us in on some of the details of the process.

First, what's this Office of Congressional Ethics?  What is its relationship to the House Ethics Committee?

The OCE was created on March 11, 2008 by way of H. Res 895. Before that, Doyle said, only members could trigger any sort of investigation by the House Ethics Committee.  And for this, some watchdog groups in DC took issue with the process as it was.  So the OCE was created to make an initial investigation into any ethics violation allegations and, if there's enough evidence to warrant one, then recommend to the House Ethics Committee that it investigate.

The OCE is designed to be non-partisan.  Here's how it's described in HR 895:

The Office shall be governed by a board consisting of six individuals of whom three shall be nominated by the Speaker subject to the concurrence of the minority leader and three shall be nominated by the minority leader subject to the concurrence of the Speaker.

And:

The Speaker and the minority leader each shall appoint individuals of exceptional public standing who are specifically qualified to serve on the board by virtue of their education, training, or experience in one or more of the following fields: legislative, judicial, regulatory, professional ethics, business, legal, and academic.

And:

Selection and appointment of members of the board shall be without regard to political affiliation and solely on the basis of fitness to perform their duties.

And finally:

No individual shall be eligible for appointment to, or service on, the board who:

(I) is a lobbyist registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995;
(II) has been so registered at any time during the year before the date of appointment;
(III) engages in, or is otherwise employed in, lobbying of the Congress;
(IV) is an agent of a foreign principal registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act;
(V) is a Member; or
(VI) is an officer or employee of the Federal Government.

The point of this last part is to show that no member of the OCE board is employed by the government or are members of Congress or is a lobbyist, etc.

So while an allegation is submitted to the OCE, Doyle said, they look into it and still not recommend any HEC action. (This is why I am not commenting on whatever's facing Michelle Bachman.  It could very easily turn out that the OCE makes NO recommendation to the HEC.)  Fair's fair.  Even for her.

If the OCE does recommend that the HEC open an investigation, the HEC has a limited amount of time to investigate.  And if the HEC decides not to investigate, they'd have to issue a report explaining why.

And the OCE could release its report on why it recommended an investigation in the first place.

On the one hand it seems a bit busy to me, but on the other it looks like a way to make sure important allegations of ethics violations aren't conveniently forgotten or ignored.

Thank you for standing up for all Americans, Senator Casey!

 

Casey Statement on Same-Sex Marriage

 

Washington, DC- Today U.S. Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) released the following statement on same-sex marriage:

“When the Respect for Marriage Act (the legislation that repeals the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA]) was first introduced and debated in the Senate in 2011, I began to focus on the issue of same-sex marriage much more intensely than I had before. As a candidate for the Senate in 2006 and 2012, and as a Senator, I have supported civil unions. I also supported strongly the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT), was a leading co-sponsor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), and had stated publicly that I opposed efforts to enact constitutional prohibitions on same-sex marriage. In the six years I have been in the Senate, there have not been any floor votes to repeal DOMA or to legalize same-sex marriage. Both questions have now been argued before the Supreme Court and are being debated across our country. After much deliberation and after reviewing the legal, public policy, and civil rights questions presented, I support marriage equality for same-sex couples and believe that DOMA should be repealed.

As part of my consideration of these issues, I read letters written to me by LGBT Pennsylvanians and their families. These letters included deeply personal statements from people across our Commonwealth and the questions they posed challenged me directly. These stories had a substantial impact on my position on this issue. If two people of the same sex fall in love and want to marry, why would our government stand in their way? At a time when many Americans lament a lack of commitment in our society between married men and women, why would we want less commitment and fewer strong marriages? If two people of the same sex want to raise children, why would our government prevent them from doing so, especially when so many children have only one parent, or none at all? A letter I received from a woman in Southeastern Pennsylvania was particularly compelling:

‘My partner and I are both college educated. I am a stay-at-home mom and part-time kindergarten assistant teacher. I left a full-time position…when my partner gave birth to our twins to be a stay-at-home mom. We went through the process of second parent adoption and are both legal parents to our kids. My partner and I have been in a committed relationship for 18 years. We attend church every Sunday and we own a house, cars, and are truly blessed by our [two children]. As I do a rough calculation and add up the additional money we have paid in taxes compared to a financially similar heterosexual married couple over the last ten years, that amount approaches $100,000! $100,000 dollars would go a long way towards future retirement or in the college education of my kids. More important than the financial inequality to me is the message I send to my kids. My kids have two proud and loving parents who are honest [and] work hard. I want my kids to know they are equal and our family is equal . . . I just want my family to be treated equally and with respect by my state and federal government.’

As a Senator and as a citizen, I can no longer in good conscience take a position that denies her and her family the full measure of equality and respect.

I understand that many Americans of good will have strong feelings on both sides of this issue. I believe elected public officials have an abiding obligation to refrain from demonizing and dividing people for partisan or political gain. Rather, Democrats and Republicans should come together and find areas of agreement to do what’s best for the country, including lesbian and gay Americans.”

Now it's the Supreme's turn:

 

 

Dawn of the Unendorsed Primary

April 2, 2013, Pittsburgh, PA - The sun rose today over a city engulfed in uncertainty and confusion.

Citizens stumbled out of their homes into a landscape which now seemed strangely unfamiliar and almost menacing.

A growing sense of dread turned to outright horror as they realized...

Oh noes! They have to pick a nominee for mayor all by themselves -- without having a candidate endorsed for them by the Allegheny County Democratic Committee!

 

Oh slate card, how you will fail us!

News For This Easter

They're still fighting the good fight in Connellsville over the unconstitutional Ten Commandments monument.

The Rev. Ewing Marietta, a leader for the “Save the Ten Commandments” group in Connellsville, called the battle “ground zero” and said it is time to take a stand.

Marietta made the statement during a meeting Wednesday at the Connellsville Eagles.

Marietta said the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the group that filed a lawsuit to have the Ten Commandments monument removed from the grounds of the Connellsville Junior High, is “trying to destroy our country.”

For those few of you not up to speed on this story, there's a decades old monument in at the Connellsville Junior High School.  It was a gift from the Fraternal Order of Eagles in 1957 and it was a PR tie-in to the Cecil B. DeMille epic, The Ten Commandments.

It's also unconstitutional.  I can't stress that enough.  According to the US Supreme Court in 1980, posting the Ten Commandments on public school grounds "has no secular legislative purpose" and is therefore Unconstitutional.  The decision went on to say that:

The pre-eminent purpose of posting the Ten Commandments, which do not confine themselves to arguably secular matters, is plainly religious in nature, and the posting serves no constitutional educational function.

So let's take a look at what the good Reverend has had to say about why the Commandments needs to stay on public school grounds in Connellsville:

“Our liberties cannot be taken away. They are a gift from God,” Marietta said. “The Ten Commandments are the basis of our laws. If we don't teach our children about the Ten Commandments, someday they will ask why they have to follow the laws of God and our nation.”

Each one of those statements has a problem.

• Liberties are taken away all the time (whether "gifts" from God or not).  Ask anyone who's in jail.  Or in prison.  You can even extend the argument (albeit it's on a much smaller scale) to anyone boarding a plane or a few decades ago anyone drafted into the Armed Forces.
• According to the Constitution (which fails to mention God at all), the Constitution itself is the Supreme Law of the Land.  If anyone can explain how the commandment "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" or the commandment "Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven images." or any of the others has anything to do with the Separation of Powers, or the First Amendment's prohibition (even at it's most narrowly drawn) of a State Religion, please let me know.
• It's this last sentence that's the most trouble for the Marietta.  To see why, just flip his argument over: The posting of the Ten Commandments will enable them to understand that they have to follow the laws of God.  How is that possible in a society governed, in part, by this sentence:

  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Unless he was taken out of context (and there's no reason to think this), the Reverend Ewing Marietta wants the Connellsville school district to impose one particular religious idea onto the entire student body.

This is surprising to me (as I've written before) as his own church's website, on a page titled "What We Believe", in a section describing "Religious Liberty" we read:

Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others.

And:

The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work.

And yet, this is precisely what Marietta wants.  He's free to preach all he wants about the value of the Commandments but he's not free to use the civil authorities to amplify his message to anyone else.

Well, THIS Is New

And what might that be, you ask?

Well, dear friends, it looks like I've been endnoted.  (For those of you bibliographically challenged, an "endnote" is kinda like a "footnote" except it's at the end of a book or a chapter and not at the bottom or foot of a page.)

And where have I been endoted?

Here.  I'm the 88th endnote in chapter 4 of David Lampo's book A Fundamental Freedom: Why Republicans, Conservatives, and Libertarians Should Support Gay Rights.

And who is David Lampo?  From the Huffingtonpost:

He is also the director of publications at the Cato Institute and a member of Log Cabin Republicans.

I was endnoted by a Log Cabin Republican/Cato Institute sort of guy??

While I have to admit that's really not my thing, I also have to admit it's certainly very flattering to see my name on his pages.  The only problem is that I now have to go find a copy of the book to see why I was endnoted in the first place.

All I can tell you is that this was the blog post that was cited - it's a blog post criticizing The Trib editorial board (now that's a surprise!) for calling U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, he who declared California's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, a "liberal activist judge."

Speaking of Cato, my friend Eric, he who writes Da Funk, sent me some links from there that he thought might appeal to my more progressive friends.  Eric and I agree on few things but he's a good guy - very thoughtful and smart.  I just disagree with his politics.  Doesn't mean we can't be friends.

Here's the links:

• Rand Paul may be giving a big boost to immigration reform
• The Iraq War: 10 Years Later
• How Minimum Sentencing Hurts Minorities
• Google's Transparency Regarding National Security Letters

I haven't had a chance to check these out yet but if they trigger a conversation (even if you disagree) then that's a good thing.

The Trib's Got ANOTHER Thing Wrong

It's been recently reported that NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg is using some of his significant wealth to buy some air time to push for gun control.

A recent ad has gotten him into trouble with the editorial board of the Tribune-Review.  Too bad they get some very important details wrong.  Details that completely undermine their argument.

First let's see what the braintrust wrote:

In one of the ads, a supposed common guy outfitted in a flannel shirt, seated on the tailgate of a pickup truck and touting “responsible” gun ownership, violates three fundamental rules of safe gun handling.

As Emily Miller of The Washington Times first reported, the man, with children playing in the background, holds a shotgun in an unsafe position — to his side, when it should be either straight up or down.

Additionally, his finger appears to be on the trigger. Gun safety rules long promoted by that dastardly lobby known as the National Rifle Association (and every other safety group) call for the forefinger — the trigger finger — to point straight ahead, placed above the trigger guard, to prevent accidental firing.

Just as bad, the bolt, or “action,” of the pump-action shotgun being held is closed. Safety demands that a gun not ready to be fired not be loaded. And that's signified by an open action.

Now...let's take a look at that ad (what, didn't they think anyone would check?)

Luckily, Mediamatters has done all the work here.  Here's the image that's so offended Scaife's braintrust.


Mediamatters, doing the reporting work that should have been done at the Trib (I guess they decided not to do it - gee, I wonder why), found another image of the same weapon and the same guy.  Here it is:


You might have to dl the images to see them clearer.  But see that?  You can see there the trigger is in that second image.  Note where it is in relation to the rest of the weapon.  Now take a look at the man's index finger in the top image.

Point being, it's no where near the trigger.

And yet, our friends in the Braintrust said "it appears to be" there.

They must not have checked for themselves.  OR THEY DID and decided to lie to you anyway.

So which is it?  Incompetence or dishonesty?

There's another part of the story that Mediamatters tells us (but Braintrust doesn't).  Here's the Washingtontimes article that's the source of this "story."

And here's what the author says about that weapon being loaded:

The third NRA safety rule is always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use. This means a situation in which the gun is available for immediate use — such as when hunting and a deer could step out at any time or when the firearm is safely stored but ready for quick self-defense as needed.

In the ad called “Family,” the man says that, “My dad taught me to hunt, and I’ll teach my kids. I’ve owned a gun all my life, and I’ll fight for my right to keep it.”

While saying this, he holds the pump-action shotgun with the action (bolt) closed, so it is impossible to know if it is loaded. [Emphasis added.]

Now go back and read what the Braintrust said about this "loaded" weapon.  They certainly want you to think that it's loaded, don't they?  And yet the very same article they're sourcing tells us that there's no way to know whether it is.

Didn't they check?  And if they did, why didn't they tell you?

Again, which is it - incompetence or dishonesty?

Pittsburgh Reacts...

Last night, our friends at WTAE-TV posted a "both sides of the issue" report on the Marriage Equality arguments heard before the Supreme Court.

TAE's coverage frames the story and in doing so (though I am not sure they actually realize this) underscores the faulty nature of the "Traditional Marriage" point of view.  First, there's Gary Van Horn of The Delta Foundation of Pittsburgh

Gary Van Horn: Today I think it's been a roller coaster, up and down...
Mike Clark: Gary Van Horn has been keeping a close eye on what's happening in DC. The President of Pittsburgh's Delta Foundation, encouraged by polls showing the majority of Americans are in favor of same-sex couples getting married.
GVH: 57% of people say they have a relative or close friend that's gay.  So the country's really changing.  People's hearts and minds are changing.  It's a very emotional moment.

Then comes the other half of the frame:

MC: Opponents, though, say it's not about emotion, it's about faith.
Reverend Gary LaPietra: We have no right to tamper with what God has already said.
MC: Reverend Gary LaPietra says God makes the law, not man.
GLP: Doesn't matter what my opinion is, the president's opinion, the Supreme Court's opinion. We have the Supreme Allmighty God who has spoken in the matter. He has defined marriage and God forbid that we change it.

It's interesting to see how each side appeals to authority in supporting his argument.  Van Horn appeals to the collected opinion as shown in some recent polls.  LaPietra, on the other hand, would have none of that.  His authority is The authority - "all mighty God."  Popular opinion in a democracy doesn't matter.  Rule of Law doesn't matter.  The Constitution doesn't matter.  All that matters is how God has defined an institution.

Like this definition:

22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.
23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters,
24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. (Colossians 3:22-24)

But let's get back to TAE:

MC:La Pietra says this is a moral issue, though. A matter of right and wrong, not in the hands of Justices.
GLP: I believe that there is an absolute good, and that good is God. And that final authority is what he says in his word.  That word is immutable, cannot be changed and will not be changed, no matter what laws are written by men.

Wait.  So if the Word of God is immutable and if Paul's letter to the Colossians allows for slavery, then something like this:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Must also be against the Word of God, right?  I mean it's a moral issue, right?  An "absolute good" that cannot be changed "no matter what laws are written by men", right?