The Update Desk: Don't Let The Door Hit You...

It's been a while since we've heard any news about Erie County's embattled Congressman, Republican Chris Collins.

In fact, it was back in May that we checked in on Collins, the insider-trading, call-your-son-from-the-Rose-Garden (but don't call your daughter) wheeler-dealer.  Here's what was going on back then:

Collins is in the news again, for a couple of reasons. First, the House is going to reopen their ethics investigation into his case, which was suspended back when he was indicted on federal charges. But not to worry -- the House has promised the Department of Justice that they'll not interfere with the criminal case against him.

But the more interesting news about Collins has to do with infrastructure, and taxes. That's right, two things Republicans like to talk about, for different reasons. Infrastructure is good, particularly if it's public/private partnership, which helps their donors, or if it's block grants to states, which the Rs love. And taxes? That's another good topic to talk about too, of course, particularly when they're going down, not up - or not being introduced at all. You know what happens to Rs who get that part wrong. I mean, who can forget "Read my lips - no new taxes!"

Well, he's back, and now news is breaking from his hometown newspaper, the Buffalo News:

WASHINGTON – Rep. Chris Collins resigned Monday, a day before he is expected to plead guilty Tuesday to federal charges stemming from an insider trading scheme that prosecutors first detailed in an indictment nearly 14 months ago.

A spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said her office received Collins' resignation letter Monday. The aide said Collins' resignation will become effective Tuesday.

A new court filing in the case, filed in federal court in Manhattan, shows that U.S. District Court Judge Vernon S. Broderick scheduled a court hearing where Collins – who had pleaded not guilty to all the charges against him – will change his plea.

A new entry on the docket in the case read: "As to Christopher Collins: Change of Plea Hearing scheduled for 10/1/2019 at 3 p.m."

Moments after that docket entry was filed, a second appeared, indicating that Collins' co-defendants – his son Cameron Collins and Cameron Collins' prospective father-in-law, Stephen Zarsky – plan to change their not-guilty pleas as well. A hearing in their case is set for Thursday.

No one has any comment on whether the gang will plead to the original changes, which were scheduled to go to trial in February, or if there are lesser, more palatable charges on the table. Either way, it's good that (after the court date on Tuesday), we'll no longer have Rep. Collins to kick around any more.

You can read all of the veritable pastiche coverage of Collins here.

The Update Desk: Rep. Chris Collins

It's been a while since we've heard much about Rep. Chris Collins (R- Ethically Challenged Erie County). You remember him, right? Insider trading allegations, making a call to his son (but not his daughter!) from the Rose Garden advising him to sell some stock, trying to not run for re-election but not being able to find a way off the ballot, and he ends up winning? Yeah, that guy.

Collins is in the news again, for a couple of reasons. First, the House is going to reopen their ethics investigation into his case, which was suspended back when he was indicted on federal charges. But not to worry -- the House has promised the Department of Justice that they'll not interfere with the criminal case against him.

But the more interesting news about Collins has to do with infrastructure, and taxes. That's right, two things Republicans like to talk about, for different reasons. Infrastructure is good, particularly if it's public/private partnership, which helps their donors, or if it's block grants to states, which the Rs love. And taxes? That's another good topic to talk about too, of course, particularly when they're going down, not up - or not being introduced at all. You know what happens to Rs who get that part wrong. I mean, who can forget "Read my lips - no new taxes!"

Collins, though -- who was the first Congressman to publicly throw his support to Trump, you remember - has different ideas on taxes than most folks in his party. This article, published on HotAir.com, explains his idea on how to fund our much-needed infrastructure updates.

Rep. Chris Collins is urging Congress to double the 18.4-cents-per-gallon gasoline tax, which has not been raised in more than a quarter century. He also wants to double the existing fee that the airline passengers pay per flight. 

Is your head spinning yet?  Doubling the gas tax and the per-flight fee?  A Republican? Here's what Collins said in an interview with The Hill, according to the article.

I not only support increasing the gas tax; I support doubling it. I support doubling the airline passenger fee from $4.50 to $8 or $9. Those are user fees. I won't even call it a tax.

I love when these folks call taxes user fees, don't you? The Democrats do it really well, and the Republicans aren't immune to the name change, either.  They're all so cute.

Collins to Run Again After All

Buffalo-area congressman and Trump first responder Chris Collins is going to be on the ballot for his congressional seat in November after all.

Unfortunately, it seems, trying to get off the ballot under some grand scheme being worked on by Erie County Republicans and Collins could jeopardize his defense against the federal criminal charges filed against him mid-summer, and could have led to a lawsuit by NY Democrats fighting against the plan to replace him on the ballot. It might even have jeopardized his bail, attorneys thought, which negated his earlier statement that he would suspend his campaign:

After extensive discussions with my family and my friends over the last few days, I have decided that it's in the best interests of the constituents of NY-27, the Republican Party, and president Trump's agenda for me to suspend my campaign for re-election to Congress it's in the best interests of the constituents of NY-27, the Republican Party, and president Trump's agenda for me to suspend my campaign for re-election to Congress.

Part of this is because of NY's convoluted election law; he'd only get off the ballot if he was no longer a resident of NY, or nominated for another office, or dead. Something we might want to think about changing in the future,  fellow NY voters...

Speaking of attorneys, it probably shouldn't be shocking to learn that Collins had used campaign funds to pay legal fees related to the insider trading. From this report  in August, we learn (emphasis added)

Since July 2017, Federal Election Commission records show Collins' campaign has been paying up to $60,000 per month in legal services to prestigious law firm Baker Hostetler. The firm is representing Collins in the case.

While it is legal to use campaign funds to pay for legal fees, it's not clear whether Collins' constituents and supporters were aware that donations were being used to assist his legal fight.

Those legal fees covered the time period of two separate House probes, including one by the Office of Congressional Ethics and another by the House Ethics Committee. 

A spokesman for the Collins legal team confirmed that the payments from the campaign were for the investigation by the nonpartisan Office of Congressional Ethics and an ongoing inquiry by the House Ethics Committee. Going forward, the congressman will pay for his legal bills out of his own pocket, the spokesman added. 

That's right -- like a lot of other ridiculous expenses, including steak dinners and golf outings, legal fees can be paid out of campaign funds.

I mean, from an ethical perspective, isn't Collins using campaign funds to pay legal fees kind of like the president using donations to his charitable foundation for his own selfish purposes?

Collins recently did an interview with a Buffalo TV station, noting that he welcomed the FBI when they showed up at his house early one morning back in April, and that he thought when he was talking to them that it was related to the ethics investigations (that started in 2016, he noted). In the interview, he was asked whether he thought he had let his constituents down.

No, again, no allegations against me have a thing to do with my role as a member of Congress. Nor did I ever sell any stock, so I'm holding my head high.

He's right on the latter point -- as his stock is in a trust, he couldn't actually sell any specific stock.

But on the former, I can't disagree more: with two separate ethics investigations, the first finding good reason to refer him for the second one, his ethics have everything to do with his role as a Congressman.

 And voters seem to understand that, apparently; for example, residents in Eden, the likely spot to drop Collins so he wouldn't have to run for his Congressional seat, were not at all excited about that idea.

Car horns honked, eliciting cheers as they drove past the group of protesters standing outside the Eden Town Hall. Signs labeled "fraud," "Collins is a swamp monster," and "Eden not bossed, not bought, not Collins," waved in the air as the crowd marched down to the intersection at Route 62 and East Church Street... The protest is the latest in a series of protests revolving around the Republicans' attempts to get Chris Collins off the November congressional ballot after the congressman suspended his campaign following an indictment for federal insider trading and fraud charges. 

Hopefully, voters in the 27th district will do the right thing in November and not give him a single vote.

The Update Desk: Ethics, Shmethics

Well, well, well.  They blinked, the House Republicans did.

In yesterday's post, I let you know that the House GOP Conference thought it was critically important to relax the ethics investigation process by moving the Office of Congressional Ethics under the House Ethics Committee, and changing its name to the Office of Hiding Stuff Under the Carpet, er, I mean, the Office of Congressional Complaint Review.

The move, termed a surprise by many, was put forward by Virginia's Bob Goodlatte, who is chair of the House Judiciary Committee, as part of a rules-change package.  He had lots of fluttery reasons why it was a good idea for the members: to protect them from bad people like you and me who might perceive an ethical violation and want someone to look at it; to make the process more like a proceeding in a court of law vs. a review by an independent ethics group charged with making sure the House acted appropriately; to make sure that the reports never saw the light of day; and stuff like that.

The biggest reason, of course, was that the OCE came into being during the Nancy Pelosi years, and you know what that means to the Republicans - and, sadly, what it means to Democrats.

So, after the GOP conference did the dirty deed, they were all set for the vote on the full rules package, but this little amendment was pulled.  Why? Because of  #TweetingatDawnDonald.

Now, there are two ways to interpret the President-elect's tweets, and I think you may interpret them differently if you're a fan, or if you're not.

He did not flat out say that Congress shouldn't address this issue - not at all. What he did say is that they shouldn't make it their highest priority. I get the sense that, if this were to come up again in a few months, or even in the next few weeks, the swamp-drainer-in-chief might feel just fine in looking the other way.

But then, he did use the #DTS hashtag, which we, ahem, know Trump will always be trying to do.  Dare I dream?

Ethics, Shmethics

Regular readers of this blog know that I'm generally in favor of anything that makes disclosing ethical issues of elected officials easier and more frequent.

Why?

• We've seen a high number of ethically challenged politicians, and yet it feels like we've barely scratched the surface. 
• In many states, we see the long-sought-after 'trifecta', where the governor and both houses of the state legislatures are under the control of a single party - and we now have the same thing in Washington again as well. 
• Too many of our elected representatives, whether local, state or national, are not term limited. 
• Too many of them are entrenched incumbents and, at least in my neck of the woods, often run unopposed or barely opposed.
• Too many of them are in office by hook or by crook: gerrymandered districts, onerous restrictions on specific voting demographics, and the like.

In my opinion, there are too many opportunities for unethical behavior to go unchecked, and too many reason for the hen house to be completely separate from the foxes. Which is why it's so fascinating to see what's going on in Washington this week. 

According to House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, there's a lot of important stuff for the incoming Congress to do. 

As we embark upon this historic session of Congress, I look forward to advancing real solutions that will reduce government spending, create jobs here at home, protect our communities, and safeguard our freedoms as Americans. The House's priorities for the 115th Congress will focus on the Better Way agenda, which is available online at better.gop. At the top of the agenda is ensuring patients' access to affordable health care by repealing Obamacare and replacing it with patient-centered health care solutions. Another issue that will be front and center is a long overdue overhaul of the tax system... 

Additionally, I am honored to have been chosen to continue my service as Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.  The Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over some of the most important issues facing our country including constitutional freedoms and civil liberties, legal and regulatory reform, competition and anti-trust laws, terrorism and crime, immigration enforcement and reform, and intellectual property protections... I will continue to advance an agenda focused on making America stronger and more competitive. 

Well, I'm darn glad he spelled out his agenda so we can figure out why Goodlatte decided to take the House's ethical hen house and put it in the mouths of the foxes.

I've re-read his statement a couple of times, and I'm torn as to the supporting reason for making this move even before Day One when the 115th Congress is officially sworn in. Could it be intellectual property protections for the unethical ideas of House members? Making America stronger and more competitive by hiding the bad acts of our legislators? It doesn't seem to have anything to do with immigration, or anti-trust laws (unless you consider the 'anti-trust' it fosters among Americans).

No, I think the winner must be those freedoms and liberties. particularly those of House members, now that the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) will become the Office of Congressional Complaint Review, and will be under the auspices of the House Ethics Committee instead of being an independent group.

Goodlatte notes on his web page that the changes will improve the ethics review process. Honest.

The Goodlatte amendment builds upon and strengthens the existing OCE by maintaining its primary area of focus - accepting and reviewing constituent complaints - while improving upon due process rights for individual under investigations, as well as witnesses called to testify.

Further:

Feedback from Members and staff having gone through review by the OCE  has been that those under investigation need increased protection of their due process rights, greater access to basic evidentiary standards, and a process that does not discriminate against them for invoking those rights....

Additionally, because of the sensitive and confidential nature of the investigations, the amendment provides protections against any disclosures to the public or other government entities, and requires that any matter that may involve a violation of criminal law must be referred to the Committee on Ethics for potential referral to law enforcement after an affirmative vote by the Members.  

And we must, of course, protect the members further by providing 'greater certainty' on when investigations start and end and when the Committee is notified, it bars anonymous complaints  and calls for other changes to protect the subject and witnesses.

Republicans have previously tried to limit the OCE, including limiting funding and trying to ensure constitutional rights (Miranda rights?) were protected.  With this amendment passing by a 119 - 74, chances seem good that it'll pass this time.

Kudos to the 74 GOP members who voted against this today, whoever they are - may they find the courage to cast this type of vote again, and again, and again.