Print ArticleIssues of integrity in the legislative process cover many aspects. Those who we elect have a responsibility to dutifully dispense there duties with integrity. Public officials have a critical responsibility and the need for accountability is great given the present circumstances in politics. We should expect more from our public officials than we do ourselves simply due to the nature of their responsibilities. They must remember public service is a public trust. Recent polls show that the approval rating for Congress is lower than that of the President. This is not a good thing and recent issues such as profiting from legislation does not help the opinion the public has of how Congress conducts business. To expand further recent reports have indicated that government officials are profiting from legislation enacted for their home district and/or their state. This raises many questions and is the reason for this article.
Before continuing this article, I wish to commend the U.S. House of Representatives for establishing and maintaining an ethics manual, which applies to members, officers and staff of the House of Representatives. The manual is quite a lengthy document at 456 pages. The ethics manual was completely revised in 2008 the first since 1992. The key to any document of such magnitude lies in the enforcement of the rules and policies written within. This article will not focus on the individuals currently identified with this activity but the process and conditions involved. This article is being written not to condemn any particular individual but address circumstances, which to most appear to be a violation of ethical principles for our legislative representatives.
The remaining paragraphs will discuss some of the current rules applicable to the issue of profiting from legislation and reference the specific text in the House of Representatives Ethics Manual, which appear to be applicable for this issue. References will be identified and discussed with links and/or pages identified where the text can be located in the ethics manual. While I do not have a problem with representatives, making a profit from land they own but how that profit is achieved. The discussion in the next few paragraphs will address conditions which, would appear to be a violation of the rules cited and when they would not. Links to the house ethics rules are provided below:
http://www.house.gov/Ethics/Ethicforward.html.
www.house.gov/ethics.
While this article is focusing on the ethics rules in the U.S. House of Representatives, the same questions should be raised if it is found that Senators have profited from legislation in their home state.
The issue of profiting from legislation involves the practice of earmarks, which seems to be a never-ending practice in Congress. I have previously written two articles relating to the subject of earmarks, which can be found on the American Chronicle web site with my other articles. The focus of these articles involved the integrity of continuing the practice of earmarks and the integrity of rejecting a ban for one year on this practice in this election year. Earmarks are not necessarily bad but the purpose of the earmarks is what comes into question. The practice of earmarks should be discontinued permanently. The main principle involved in this statement is that any legislation must or should have enough merit to stand-alone. Legislation, which cannot meet this one criteria is not worthy of being enacted. Any legislation should contain integrity of purpose to provide efficient use of the funds available. Many earmarks or pork barrel legislation are incorporated by amendment to major legislation. There are many cases where these amendments have no relationship to the principle legislation and should not be a part of it.
Recent events in the news have identified that some Congressmen have profited from legislation passed for their districts or state. I am not against Congressmen making a profit from property, which they own but how the profit is achieved. This is where the issue raises questions. I am not going to discuss details of any specific incidents but the remainder of this article will identify some requirements for the U.S. House of Representatives under their ethics manual.
The first reference in the ethics manual refers to the requirement for an annual financial disclosure (House rule 26). This information can be found on pages 6 and 247-248. Other pages involved are 254-257 and involves the income requirement as part of the annual financial disclosure. The pages identified above and the specific information addressed can be found below:
"House rule 26 clause I requires the Clerk of the House to publish a report each August 1 compiling all Member Financial Disclosure Statements filed by June 15 of that year."
"In addition, statutes and House rules restrict income from outside financial interests or govern aspects of the business dealings or investments of House Members and employees, as follows"
The specific statutes, which I feel are involved with the profiting from legislation issue, are note below. They can be found on pages 248-249 of the House ethics Manual.
"Members and employees of Congress may not use their official positions for personal gain."
"Members and employees should never use any information received confidentially in the performance of governmental duties as a means of making private profit."
"Members and employees should not engage in any business with the federal government, either directly or indirectly, that is inconsistent with the conscientious performance of their congressional duties."
I wish to commend those organizations that have brought the issue of profiting from enacted legislation for any representative´s home districts to the public´s attention. The specific requirements above cite requirements, which may or may not have been violated in the current events. Incidents involving ethical principles affects the opinion the public has of their elected officials. Whether the requirements cited above were violated the appearance causes the public to lose confidence in the way Congress conducts business. It was reported that the ethics committee ruled that it was ethical for a Congressman to earmark money for a project that he would personally benefit from—so long as others were making money to. I agree that it is not a violation for a Congressman to make money from land they own but to do it with earmarks raises many questions. I respect the process involved in investigating potential ethics rules violations by the ethics committee. I am not condemning the decision to accept the principle of making a profit from land but earmarking funds to an area in which a Congressman personally benefits financially raises doubts. Actions as to what are allowed within the house ethics rules and whether a reasonable person would consider them ethical does not give the public a good impression.
It is a difficult task to criticize actions without knowing the details but the principle involved in profiting from legislation within a Congressman´s district raises many ethical questions. Again, I am not against any Congressman making a profit on land they own if there was a true risk involved in purchasing the land. I do have a problem with the fact if the decision involved prior knowledge or plans to enact legislation, which was known prior to the purchase. The profiting from legislation also raises questions of character.
When a person purchases land there is a risk involved if it is for investment purposes. However, if that risk is minimized by inside information then it becomes a problem. Any time a public official has prior knowledge of planned actions and uses that information to make a profit it is a violation of ethical principles. This is not meant to imply this condition exist in the current issues being raised with specific individuals. I commend the ethics committee for taking the initiative to review the issue raised by actions of specific individuals.
Another portion of the ethics manual involves specific requirements for the identification of transactions under the financial disclosure requirements. The requirements identified below were taken from the ethics manual pages 254-257 and are presented verbatim.
"Unearned income refers to income derived from property held for investment or the production of income, such as real estate, stocks, bonds, savings accounts, and retirement accounts. Any asset held for such an investment purpose must be disclosed if it either was worth more than $1,000 at the close of the calendar year or it generated income of more than $200 during the year.35. Where the value of an item is difficult to determine, a good faith estimate of fair market value may be used."
"The identity of the property, in addition to its category of value,36 must be
specified. Each company in which stock worth over $1,000 is held must be listed
separately. Except in limited circumstances, the filer must disclose the specific
contents of any investment account, private retirement account (e.g., a 401(k) or
IRA), or education savings account (i.e., a ―529 plan‖). In other words, the EIGA requires disclosure of each asset held within such an account that meets the value or income tests described above. Disclosure of real property should include a description sufficient to permit its identification (e.g., street address or plat and map location)."
The requirements identified above are an important element in the ethics manual and I again commend the House of Representatives for enacting this portion of their ethics manual. This kind of detailed requirement should provide upfront information as to any financial interest Congressmen would have regarding the enactment of specific legislation.
The main principle involved in this article is the issue of profiting from enacted legislation connected to a representative´s district and land he owns within that district. Owning property involves some risk as to the potential future value. Problems arise when individuals know information that is not public knowledge to make a profit. Government officials, especially the members of Congress are privy to information, which is not available to the public, and when they use that information and make a profit it is a violation of ethical principles. Similar principles are involved with insider trading and the stock market. It is wrong for those involved with the stock market to use information to help their clients and/or themselves to avoid losses on stock they own. The main point raised in this article is using information to make a profit for which others do not have the same opportunity to do so with the same information.
Earmark legislation is a principle method utilized to gain funds for a representative´s district and is a good one in that it brings money for specific causes. Many local government officials lobby Congress for funds for specific projects in their area and this fact has been identified in the current issue with specific representatives. The rules in the ethics manual discussed in this article is only a portion of what members of Congress, officers and their employees must follow. I urge other individuals who read this article to check out the ethics manual for the U.S. House of Representatives. It is important for all individuals to understand the rules in place for Congress to avoid ethical issues in conducting their responsibilities. Knowing the requirements helps an individual to decide for himself or herself if proper action is being taken when ethical issues surface.
In closing I wish to commend again the House of Representatives for the extensive ethics manual they have created and revised this calendar year. The extent of the manual appears to leave nothing to chance. It attempts to identify any situation, which may present itself to members, officers and employees where they must make a decision. Purchasing property with the intent to propose legislation in my view is unethical. The length of the present ethics manual is extensive and though it may be long, I feel the House has overall done a great job in trying to address any ethical issues. The important part is to enforce what they have created.
Before continuing this article, I wish to commend the U.S. House of Representatives for establishing and maintaining an ethics manual, which applies to members, officers and staff of the House of Representatives. The manual is quite a lengthy document at 456 pages. The ethics manual was completely revised in 2008 the first since 1992. The key to any document of such magnitude lies in the enforcement of the rules and policies written within. This article will not focus on the individuals currently identified with this activity but the process and conditions involved. This article is being written not to condemn any particular individual but address circumstances, which to most appear to be a violation of ethical principles for our legislative representatives.
The remaining paragraphs will discuss some of the current rules applicable to the issue of profiting from legislation and reference the specific text in the House of Representatives Ethics Manual, which appear to be applicable for this issue. References will be identified and discussed with links and/or pages identified where the text can be located in the ethics manual. While I do not have a problem with representatives, making a profit from land they own but how that profit is achieved. The discussion in the next few paragraphs will address conditions which, would appear to be a violation of the rules cited and when they would not. Links to the house ethics rules are provided below:
http://www.house.gov/Ethics/Ethicforward.html.
www.house.gov/ethics.
While this article is focusing on the ethics rules in the U.S. House of Representatives, the same questions should be raised if it is found that Senators have profited from legislation in their home state.
The issue of profiting from legislation involves the practice of earmarks, which seems to be a never-ending practice in Congress. I have previously written two articles relating to the subject of earmarks, which can be found on the American Chronicle web site with my other articles. The focus of these articles involved the integrity of continuing the practice of earmarks and the integrity of rejecting a ban for one year on this practice in this election year. Earmarks are not necessarily bad but the purpose of the earmarks is what comes into question. The practice of earmarks should be discontinued permanently. The main principle involved in this statement is that any legislation must or should have enough merit to stand-alone. Legislation, which cannot meet this one criteria is not worthy of being enacted. Any legislation should contain integrity of purpose to provide efficient use of the funds available. Many earmarks or pork barrel legislation are incorporated by amendment to major legislation. There are many cases where these amendments have no relationship to the principle legislation and should not be a part of it.
Recent events in the news have identified that some Congressmen have profited from legislation passed for their districts or state. I am not against Congressmen making a profit from property, which they own but how the profit is achieved. This is where the issue raises questions. I am not going to discuss details of any specific incidents but the remainder of this article will identify some requirements for the U.S. House of Representatives under their ethics manual.
The first reference in the ethics manual refers to the requirement for an annual financial disclosure (House rule 26). This information can be found on pages 6 and 247-248. Other pages involved are 254-257 and involves the income requirement as part of the annual financial disclosure. The pages identified above and the specific information addressed can be found below:
"House rule 26 clause I requires the Clerk of the House to publish a report each August 1 compiling all Member Financial Disclosure Statements filed by June 15 of that year."
"In addition, statutes and House rules restrict income from outside financial interests or govern aspects of the business dealings or investments of House Members and employees, as follows"
The specific statutes, which I feel are involved with the profiting from legislation issue, are note below. They can be found on pages 248-249 of the House ethics Manual.
"Members and employees of Congress may not use their official positions for personal gain."
"Members and employees should never use any information received confidentially in the performance of governmental duties as a means of making private profit."
"Members and employees should not engage in any business with the federal government, either directly or indirectly, that is inconsistent with the conscientious performance of their congressional duties."
I wish to commend those organizations that have brought the issue of profiting from enacted legislation for any representative´s home districts to the public´s attention. The specific requirements above cite requirements, which may or may not have been violated in the current events. Incidents involving ethical principles affects the opinion the public has of their elected officials. Whether the requirements cited above were violated the appearance causes the public to lose confidence in the way Congress conducts business. It was reported that the ethics committee ruled that it was ethical for a Congressman to earmark money for a project that he would personally benefit from—so long as others were making money to. I agree that it is not a violation for a Congressman to make money from land they own but to do it with earmarks raises many questions. I respect the process involved in investigating potential ethics rules violations by the ethics committee. I am not condemning the decision to accept the principle of making a profit from land but earmarking funds to an area in which a Congressman personally benefits financially raises doubts. Actions as to what are allowed within the house ethics rules and whether a reasonable person would consider them ethical does not give the public a good impression.
It is a difficult task to criticize actions without knowing the details but the principle involved in profiting from legislation within a Congressman´s district raises many ethical questions. Again, I am not against any Congressman making a profit on land they own if there was a true risk involved in purchasing the land. I do have a problem with the fact if the decision involved prior knowledge or plans to enact legislation, which was known prior to the purchase. The profiting from legislation also raises questions of character.
When a person purchases land there is a risk involved if it is for investment purposes. However, if that risk is minimized by inside information then it becomes a problem. Any time a public official has prior knowledge of planned actions and uses that information to make a profit it is a violation of ethical principles. This is not meant to imply this condition exist in the current issues being raised with specific individuals. I commend the ethics committee for taking the initiative to review the issue raised by actions of specific individuals.
Another portion of the ethics manual involves specific requirements for the identification of transactions under the financial disclosure requirements. The requirements identified below were taken from the ethics manual pages 254-257 and are presented verbatim.
"Unearned income refers to income derived from property held for investment or the production of income, such as real estate, stocks, bonds, savings accounts, and retirement accounts. Any asset held for such an investment purpose must be disclosed if it either was worth more than $1,000 at the close of the calendar year or it generated income of more than $200 during the year.35. Where the value of an item is difficult to determine, a good faith estimate of fair market value may be used."
"The identity of the property, in addition to its category of value,36 must be
specified. Each company in which stock worth over $1,000 is held must be listed
separately. Except in limited circumstances, the filer must disclose the specific
contents of any investment account, private retirement account (e.g., a 401(k) or
IRA), or education savings account (i.e., a ―529 plan‖). In other words, the EIGA requires disclosure of each asset held within such an account that meets the value or income tests described above. Disclosure of real property should include a description sufficient to permit its identification (e.g., street address or plat and map location)."
The requirements identified above are an important element in the ethics manual and I again commend the House of Representatives for enacting this portion of their ethics manual. This kind of detailed requirement should provide upfront information as to any financial interest Congressmen would have regarding the enactment of specific legislation.
The main principle involved in this article is the issue of profiting from enacted legislation connected to a representative´s district and land he owns within that district. Owning property involves some risk as to the potential future value. Problems arise when individuals know information that is not public knowledge to make a profit. Government officials, especially the members of Congress are privy to information, which is not available to the public, and when they use that information and make a profit it is a violation of ethical principles. Similar principles are involved with insider trading and the stock market. It is wrong for those involved with the stock market to use information to help their clients and/or themselves to avoid losses on stock they own. The main point raised in this article is using information to make a profit for which others do not have the same opportunity to do so with the same information.
Earmark legislation is a principle method utilized to gain funds for a representative´s district and is a good one in that it brings money for specific causes. Many local government officials lobby Congress for funds for specific projects in their area and this fact has been identified in the current issue with specific representatives. The rules in the ethics manual discussed in this article is only a portion of what members of Congress, officers and their employees must follow. I urge other individuals who read this article to check out the ethics manual for the U.S. House of Representatives. It is important for all individuals to understand the rules in place for Congress to avoid ethical issues in conducting their responsibilities. Knowing the requirements helps an individual to decide for himself or herself if proper action is being taken when ethical issues surface.
In closing I wish to commend again the House of Representatives for the extensive ethics manual they have created and revised this calendar year. The extent of the manual appears to leave nothing to chance. It attempts to identify any situation, which may present itself to members, officers and employees where they must make a decision. Purchasing property with the intent to propose legislation in my view is unethical. The length of the present ethics manual is extensive and though it may be long, I feel the House has overall done a great job in trying to address any ethical issues. The important part is to enforce what they have created.
view author's RSS feed
