A Question of Ethics: A Year in Congressional Ethics Retrospective
The final 2011 installment of A Question of Ethics looks back at the year's big stories in government ethics.
A Question of Ethics: Can Capitol Hill Staffers Work on Campaigns?
As campaign season heats up, the issue of whether Hill staffers may work on campaigns becomes increasingly important. Yes, staffers may work on campaigns. But, doing so carries risks.
A Question of Ethics: Rules May Tighten on Invites From Lobbyists
The Office of Government Ethics recently proposed significant changes to the rules prohibiting gifts to executive branch employees. If the changes become law, the biggest impact could be felt by organizations that employ lobbyists. For such organizations, the changes would eliminate the often-utilized "widely attended gathering" exception to the gift ban. The latest Question of Ethics examines this proposed change.
A Question of Ethics: John Edwards Case Tests Campaign Finance Law
Anyone involved in federal capaign finance should keep a close eye on the charges currently pending against John Edwards. The case against Edwards has the potential to stretch the definition of campaign contribution further than ever before -- and with criminal liability. Read more in the latest A Question of Ethics.
A Question of Ethics: Is Ethics Training Required for Lobbyists?
Federal law does not formally require lobbyists to undergo Congressional ethics training. Nonetheless, there are good reasons for lobbyists to do so. Likewise, organizations that employ lobbyists should consider ethics training programs. The latest Question of Ethics examines why.
A Question of Ethics: Cover-Ups, Not Adultery, Cause Legal Problems
There are lots of reasons for politicians not to engage in adultery. Moral and political reasons should be obvious. Add "legal" to the list. Although no federal law prohibits adultery, it can lead to serious legal problems, as shown by the investigations of John Ensign and John Edwards. Read more in the current A Question of Ethics.
A Question of Ethics: Are All Communications With Lawyers Privileged?
There is an important lesson within the sixty-eight pages of the report recently released by the Senate Ethics committee regarding the investigation of former Senator John Ensign. Not all communications with attorneys are protected by the attorney-client privilege. When Members include staffers in communications with attorneys, they run the risk that the attorney-client privilege will not apply. To understand why, see the latest Question of Ethics.
A Question of Ethics: May Members' Offices Promote Relief Efforts?
Private organizations play a significant role in raising money for disaster relief and other humanitarian efforts, but Members of the House and Senate are prohibited from promoting the efforts of such organizations when it would entail the use of official resources. The latest Question of Ethics explains the limitations on the use of official resources and discusses ways that Members and staffers can contribute to worthy causes without running afoul of the ethics rules.
A Question of Ethics: Employees Can Be Liable in Donation Schemes
A recent internal investigation by the Fiesta Bowl renews concerns about attempts to circumvent the limitations on corporate campaign contributions by reimbursing employees for contributions made in their own names. Liability for such schemes can extend even to the employees who agree to make such contributions, often under pressure from their employers. The latest Question of Ethics examines the potential liability of these employees.
A Question of Ethics: Members' Travel Expense Process Poses Risks
Karl Rodney of the Carib News Foundation was recently charged with making false statements to Congress in connection with the sponsorship of several Members' travel to conferences in the Carribbean. Federal prosecutors allege that he failed to disclose corporate sponors on the sponsor certification form submitted to the House Ethics Committee. The latest Question of Ethics examines the stakes for individuals and companies that want to pay for a House Member's travel expenses.
Add this blog
