H. Rept. 111-423 - IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO THE LOBBYING ACTIVITIES OF PAUL MAGLIOCCHETTI AND ASSOCIATES GROUP, INC. (PMA)111th Congress (2009-2010)
PDF(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)Tip?
House Calendar No. 167
111th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 111-423
======================================================================
IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO THE LOBBYING ACTIVITIES OF
PAUL MAGLIOCCHETTI AND ASSOCIATES GROUP, INC. (PMA)
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF
OFFICIAL CONDUCT
February 26, 2010.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed
COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT
ZOE LOFGREN, California JO BONNER, Alabama
Chair Ranking Republican Member
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky MIKE CONAWAY, Texas
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina CHARLES DENT, Pennsylvania
KATHY CASTOR, Florida GREGG HARPER, Mississippi
PETER WELCH, Vermont MICHAEL McCAUL, Texas
R. Blake Chisam, Chief Counsel/Staff Director
C. Morgan Kim, Deputy Chief Counsel
Daniel J. Taylor, Counsel to the Chair
Kelle Strickland, Counsel to the Ranking Republican Member
Marc Borodin, Counsel
Frank Davies, Senior Investigator
Amelia Johnson, Investigative Clerk
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
Washington, DC, February 26, 2010.
Hon. Lorraine C. Miller,
Clerk, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. Miller: Pursuant to clauses 3(a)(2) and 3(b) of
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, we
herewith transmit the attached Report, ``In the Matter of
Allegations Relating to the Lobbying Activities of Paul
Magliocchetti and Associates Group, Inc., (PMA).''
Sincerely,
Zoe Lofgren,
Chair.
Jo Bonner,
Ranking Republican
Member.
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
I. INTRODUCTION......................................................1
II. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS..........................................2
III.STATEMENT UNDER RULE 13, CLAUSE 3(c) OF THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES...................................................5
APPENDIX A: REPORT AND FINDINGS OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL
ETHICS REGARDING REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN DICKS (Review No. 09-
9063).......................................................... 6
APPENDIX B: REPORT AND FINDINGS OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL
ETHICS REGARDING REPRESENTATIVE MARCY KAPTUR (Review No. 09-
9064).......................................................... 42
APPENDIX C: REPORT AND FINDINGS OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL
ETHICS REGARDING REPRESENTATIVE JAMES MORAN (Review No. 09-
9075).......................................................... 80
APPENDIX D: REPORT AND FINDINGS OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL
ETHICS REGARDING FORMER REPRESENTATIVE JOHN MURTHA (Review No.
09-9099)....................................................... 112
APPENDIX E: REPORT AND FINDINGS OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL
ETHICS REGARDING REPRESENTATIVE TODD TIAHRT (Review No. 09-
9012).......................................................... 155
APPENDIX F: REPORT AND FINDINGS OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL
ETHICS REGARDING REPRESENTATIVE PETER VISCLOSKY (Review No. 09-
4486).......................................................... 208
APPENDIX G: REPORT AND FINDINGS OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL
ETHICS REGARDING REPRESENTATIVE C.W. BILL YOUNG (Review No. 09-
1583).......................................................... 252
APPENDIX H: REPRESENTATIVE TODD TIAHRT'S RESPONSE TO THE REPORT
AND FINDINGS OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS............. 278
APPENDIX I: REPRESENTATIVE PETER VISCLOSKY'S RESPONSE TO THE
REPORT AND FINDINGS OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS...... 290
111th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 111-423
======================================================================
COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT
IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO THE LOBBYING ACTIVITIES OF
PAUL MAGLIOCCHETTI AND ASSOCIATES GROUP, INC. (PMA)
_______
February 26, 2010.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed
_______
Ms. Lofgren, from the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
I. INTRODUCTION
The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (Standards
Committee) initiated an investigation in the above-captioned
matter in the spring of 2009. The investigation was commenced
and conducted pursuant to Standards Committee Rule 18(a).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Pursuant to Standards Committee Rule 18(a), the Chair and
Ranking Republican Member of the Standards Committee authorized a
review of allegations that related to this matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 3, 2009, the House of Representatives referred H.
Res. 500 to the Standards Committee for its consideration.\2\
H. Res. 500, if adopted by the House, would have directed the
Standards Committee to report to the House actions taken
regarding any misconduct of Members and staff in connection
with the Paul Magliocchetti and Associates Group, Inc. (PMA), a
now-shuttered lobbying firm. Because the Standards Committee
was already investigating the matter that was the subject of H.
Res. 500, the Standards Committee took no action on the
resolution and has not reported it back to the House. On June
11, 2009, the Chair and Ranking Republican Member of the
Standards Committee issued a public statement acknowledging the
Standards Committee's ongoing investigation relating to the PMA
matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\H. Res. 500, 111th Cong. (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Standards Committee continued its investigation into
allegations related to PMA's lobbying activities and whether
those allegations implicated issues within the Standards
Committee's jurisdiction.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\The Standards Committee has jurisdiction over the conduct of
Members, officers, and employees of the House. See House Rule X, clause
1(q); House Rule XI, clauses 3(a)(2) and 3(b); and Standards Committee
Rule 18. It has no jurisdiction to independently investigate private
entities, such as PMA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately six months later, on December 2, 2009, the
Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) forwarded to the Standards
Committee reports and findings in seven separate matters
involving alleged potential connections between defense
subcommittee earmarks and campaign contributions.\4\ Each of
those matters concerned allegations related to the activities
of PMA. OCE's Board recommended dismissal in five matters.
Those matters involved Representatives Norman Dicks, Marcy
Kaptur, James Moran, John Murtha, and C.W. Bill Young. In the
other two matters, which concerned Representatives Todd Tiahrt
and Peter Visclosky, OCE's Board recommended that the Standards
Committee further review OCE's allegations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\OCE's Reports and Findings of Fact and Citations to Law (Reports
and Findings) regarding the seven matters can be found at the following
Appendices: Representative Dicks, Review No. 09-9063 (Appendix A);
Representative Kaptur, Review No. 09-9064 (Appendix B); Representative
Moran, Review No. 09-9075 (Appendix C); former Representative Murtha,
Review No. 09-9099 (Appendix D); Representative Tiahrt, Review No. 09-
9012 (Appendix E); Representative Visclosky, Review No. 09-4486
(Appendix F); and Representative Young, Review No. 09-1583 (Appendix
G).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In early December 2009, the Standards Committee provided
Representatives Tiahrt and Visclosky with OCE's respective
Reports and Findings relating to them and offered each the
opportunity to respond to OCE's allegations. Representative
Tiahrt's counsel submitted a response on December 22, 2009,
which Representative Tiahrt formally adopted by oath or
affirmation.\5\ On December 28, 2009, Representative
Visclosky's counsel submitted a response, which Representative
Visclosky likewise formally adopted by oath or affirmation.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Representative Tiahrt's response to OCE's allegations against
him in OCE's Report and Findings can be found at Appendix H.
\6\Representative Visclosky's response to OCE's allegations against
him in OCE's Report and Findings can be found at Appendix I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 15, 2010, the Chair and Ranking Republican
Member of the Standards Committee issued a statement announcing
they had jointly decided to extend the Committee's
consideration of OCE's transmittals regarding Representatives
Tiahrt and Visclosky for a 45-day period.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\House Rule XI, clause 3(b)(8)(A), and Standards Committee Rules
17A(b)(1) and 17A(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Report resolves both the Standards Committee's
independent investigation and the seven matters forwarded by
OCE. The Standards Committee has unanimously determined that
the evidence presently before the Committee does not support a
determination that any House Member or employee violated any
law, regulation, rule or other applicable standard of conduct.
Accordingly, the Standards Committee hereby closes its
investigation in the above-captioned matter and dismisses the
seven matters OCE forwarded to the Standards Committee.
II. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Standards Committee's investigation in the above-
captioned matter over the past nine months included extensive
document reviews and interviews with numerous witnesses. The
Standards Committee's staff reviewed close to one-quarter of a
million pages of documents. The investigation covered more than
40 companies with ties to PMA and more than 25 Member offices.
It involved interviews with CEOs of companies, and chiefs of
staff and military legislative aides to Members, among other
staffers.
As a result of its own investigation and OCE's seven
separate Reports and Findings, which were drawn from more than
79,000 documents, the Standards Committee has reached the
following findings and conclusions.
First, the Standards Committee found no evidence that
Members or their official staff considered campaign
contributions as a factor when requesting earmarks. The
Standards Committee further found no evidence that Members or
their official staff were directly or indirectly engaged in
seeking contributions in return for earmarks. Rather, the
evidence showed that earmarks were evaluated based upon
criteria independent of campaign contributions, such as the
number of jobs created in the Member's district or the value to
the taxpayer or the U.S. military, and without Members or their
official staff linking, or being aware that companies may have
intended to link, contributions with earmarks.
Members are elected to serve their constituents and to
legislate. Under our system of government, these duties may
include appropriations requests commonly referred to as
earmarks. However, simply because a Member sponsors an earmark
for an entity that also happens to be a campaign contributor
does not, on these two facts alone, support a claim that a
Member's actions are being influenced by campaign
contributions.\8\ As the Supreme Court has observed in other
contexts, ``[t]o hold otherwise would open to prosecution not
only conduct that has long been thought to be well within the
law but also conduct that in a very real sense is unavoidable
so long as election campaigns are financed by private
contributions or expenditures, as they have been from the
beginning of the Nation.''\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\See Memorandum attached to Statement of House Comm. on Standards
of Official Conduct, regarding disposition of the complaint filed
against Representative Tom DeLay, 108th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2004), at 22.
Moreover, contributions for the purpose of engendering goodwill with a
Member because of his or her official position do not run afoul of laws
covering illegal gratuities and bribery. See United States v. Sun-
Diamond Growers, 526 U.S. 398, 404-408 (1999) (holding that
establishing a violation of federal gratuity statute requires proof
beyond a gift given by reason of the recipient's official position, but
rather must be linked to a specific official act; and establishing a
violation of federal bribery statute requires proof of a quid pro quo
involving a specific official act). While the standards of conduct are
broader than prohibitions under federal criminal statutes, as discussed
above, the record did not show evidence of any direct or indirect link
by a Member or their official staff between earmarks and contributions.
\9\McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257, 272 (1991) (reversing
conviction for extortion, under 18 U.S.C. 1951, in absence of quid pro
quo, regardless of whether campaign contributions were legitimate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the Standards Committee's investigation uncovered
troubling aspects to PMA's conduct. The evidence revealed
instances in which PMA employed ``strong-arm'' tactics,
threatening to withdraw financial support or encourage
businesses to relocate out of a Member's district if Members
did not reverse policies opposing earmarks. In these instances,
Members and their staff refused to change their positions and,
in one case, notified the Standards Committee.
The evidence also showed that PMA's lobbyists pushed or
directed company executives to maximize personal or Political
Action Committee (PAC) campaign contributions and to attend
specific fundraisers while pursuing earmarks.\10\ However, the
evidence did not show that Members or their official staff were
included in discussions or correspondence about, coordinated
with PMA on, or knew of these strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\To the extent documents referenced contributions amounts, the
available evidence showed that those specific amounts were driven by
PMA or internally by companies. No evidence reflected that these
amounts were determined in consultation with Members or their official
staff, or with their knowledge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Standards Committee's investigation did find that there
is a widespread perception among corporations and lobbyists
that campaign contributions provide enhanced access to Members
or a greater chance of obtaining earmarks. However, the record
indicates that Members, by and large, take great care to
separate their official and campaign functions, particularly
with respect to earmark requests.\11\ Significantly, the
evidence showed equal, if not more, instances of companies
questioning why they had not obtained an earmark after making
substantial campaign contributions to Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\This finding in this matter is consistent with the Committee's
historical experience that, with rare exception, ``Members do not
violate the basic prohibitions that apply in this area, i.e., Members
do not enter into agreements, either explicit or implicit, to trade
their votes or other official actions for campaign contributions, and
Members do not take a particular official action merely because a
campaign donor has requested them to do so.'' Memorandum attached to
Statement of House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, regarding
disposition of the complaint filed against Representative Tom DeLay,
108th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2004), at 22 (emphasis in original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, with respect to the specific matters forwarded by
OCE, the Standards Committee found that the evidence in each of
the seven matters OCE reviewed did not differ materially from
one case to the next. Each of the subject Members cooperated
with OCE, providing detailed responses to OCE's requests for
documents. All but two of the Members and their staff were
interviewed by OCE. It was in these two matters that OCE found
``probable cause''\12\ to recommend further review as opposed
to a ``substantial reason to believe the allegations.'' OCE's
recommendations in those two matters rested largely upon the
fact that the Members, for differing reasons, were not
interviewed.\13\ In any event, neither the evidence cited in
OCE's findings for the seven Members, nor the evidence in the
record before the Standards Committee, provides a substantial
reason to believe the Members violated applicable standards of
conduct.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\OCE applied this more relaxed standard of review,
notwithstanding the fact that the two Members appear to have cooperated
significantly in providing documents and offering OCE testimony, albeit
in a manner or under conditions different than OCE preferred.
Representative Tiahrt provided a written statement under oath, subject
to criminal penalties for perjury, in which he flatly denied all of
OCE's allegations. Representative Visclosky, through counsel, offered
to be interviewed by OCE, if OCE provided assurances that those
portions of an interview that touched upon privileged legislative
matters be kept confidential within the Legislative Branch. OCE
apparently did not view this manner of cooperation as sufficient when
it reached its conclusion that a more relaxed standard was appropriate
because it ``was unable to obtain information necessary to reach'' that
``there is a substantial reason to believe the allegations based on all
the information then known to the Board.'' OCE Rule 9.
\13\See OCE Findings para.para.1, 56-57, relating to Representative
Tiahrt (Appendix E); and OCE Findings para.para. 1, 49, 53-54, relating
to Representative Visclosky (Appendix F). The only discernible
difference supporting OCE's use of a more relaxed standard appears to
have been OCE's judgment that these Members failed to cooperate in
OCE's preferred manner. OCE apparently did not conclude that either
Representative Tiahrt or Representative Visclosky refused to cooperate.
OCE Rule 6.
\14\Indeed, a full examination of the materials did not establish
probable cause of a quid pro quo, or of illegitimate political
solicitations by Members or official staff. Nor did the materials
reviewed establish that Members or their staff had any knowledge of
links that PMA or companies may have associated between contributions
and earmark requests. In many instances, Members did not ultimately
request of the House Appropriations Committee earmarks for projects
supported by contributors, including, for example, the earmark request
in fiscal year 2009, that is the heart of OCE's allegations against
Representative Tiahrt in OCE's Findings and documents appended thereto
(Appendix E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of the foregoing, the Standards Committee, by a
unanimous vote of its Members, hereby closes its investigation
in the above-captioned matter and dismisses each of the seven
OCE matters referenced above, which were forwarded to the
Standards Committee.
The Chair is directed, upon providing the notices required
pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 3(b)(8)(A), and Committee
Rule 17A(a)(2), to file this Report with the House, together
with copies of OCE's seven Reports and Findings in this matter,
along with any responses filed, all of which are made a part of
this Report and appended hereto.\15\ The filing of this Report,
along with its publication on the Standards Committee's Web
site, shall serve as publication of OCE's Reports and Findings
in this matter, pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 3(b)(8)(A),
and Committee Rule 17A(b)(3) and 17A(c)(2). No other version of
OCE's Reports and Findings in this matter is authorized and any
publication of OCE's Reports and Findings independent of this
Report is not authorized.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\House Rule XI, clauses 3(a)(2) and 3(b). While the Committee is
not required to make public OCE's Reports and Findings in this matter
in which OCE also recommended dismissal, see House Rule XI, clause
3(b)(8)(B)(i) and Standards Committee Rule 17A(e), the Committee has
exercised its authority, pursuant to Standards Committee Rule 7, to
release these materials due to the House's and the public's interest in
this matter.
\16\See House Rule XI, clause 3(b)(8)(A); Standard Committee Rule
17A; and H. Res. 895, Section 1, clause 1(f) (2008) (enacted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. STATEMENT UNDER RULE 13, CLAUSE 3(c) OF THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
The Standards Committee made no special oversight findings
in this Report. No budget statement is submitted. No funding is
authorized by any measure in this Report.
