Andy We Have Heard on High

In my Wondering, on Wednesday (v15) post the other day, I did my first 'Cuomo Carol', Here Comes Andy Claus.

Here's another one, Andy We Have Heard On High:

Andy we have heard on high, 

Sweetly pumping up our State

We, the people, in reply

Echoing our hoped update:

Ethics, in Albany next year;

Ethics in Albany next year!

Shelly, won't you go along?

Give me what I want - reform!

Public financing's sweet song

I'll make $120K the norm.

Ethics, in Albany next year;

Ethics, in Albany next year!

Go to Andy, make your plea

He's the one who rules these days;

Come, adore on bended knee,

Maybe then you'll get your raise.

Ethics, in Albany next year;

Ethics, in Albany next year!

See him on the Second Floor

Andrew, Lord of the Empire

SAFE Act, gambling, so much more

Higher office? He does aspire!

Ethics, in Albany next year; 

Ethics, in Albany next year!

Ethics, in Albany next year;

Ethics, in Albany next year!

Ethics Defections

It's hard to imagine that it was just over four months ago that I talked about the real problem with the Trump administration. It was not Russia, I said.

The Trump administration, in its infancy, is a swamp.

It's the kind of swamp where everything that is officially called out as being unethical is either an accident or, more commonly, completely ignored. This is particularly true if the notification comes from the Office of Government Ethics. (More on that in a minute)

It's that, and more.

The Trump administration is a swamp of people who think that running America is the same as running a big old family business. One where obfuscation and diversion and dismissal and deflection are the norm. One where, knowingly or ignorantly, rules are skirted, or it's pretended that there are no rules. Where the moral compass is provided by the man in the mirror, or by the same man in the corner office, or by other members of the family, or handpicked associates, without external scrutiny.

Chant with me: #DraintheSwamp #DraintheSwamp.

Hui Chen was, until late June, the Compliance Counsel in the Department of Justice's Criminal Fraud Division. I'm familiar with Chen and her work from my day job, where I have the opportunity to research best practices in the world of ethics and compliance.

Her arrival at the DOJ back in 2015 was incredibly well received by experts, consultants and thought leaders in the ethics and compliance world. After all, Chen had come from the practitioner side of the house, having worked at both Pfizer and Microsoft. Real world experience is what she brought to the table, in how she helped evaluate companies, their E+C programs, and issues of noncompliance.

Until she quit, several days ago, and several months before her contract was up. In a Linked In post, Chen provided some insight on why she left. Here's an excerpt:

First, trying to hold companies to standards that our current administration is not living up to was creating a cognitive dissonance that I could not overcome. To sit across the table from companies and question how committed they were to ethics and compliance felt not only hypocritical, but very  much like shuffling the deck chair on the Titanic. Even as I engaged in those questioning and evaluations, on my mind were the numerous lawsuits pending against the President of the United States... Those are conducts I would not tolerate seeing in a company, yet I worked under an administration that engaged in exactly those conduct(s). I wanted no more part of it.

Now, some have questioned whether Chen's politics - she's participated in protests wearing 'Resist' clothing and holding a sign exhorting people to support the Constitution (the nerve!) - were the real reason why she left. And, she did indicate future plans include helping elect ethical candidates for public office.

But all of that notwithstanding, in the final analysis, I believe she walked the walk and talked the talk.

It's hard for me to imagine that Donald Trump would still be employed at any company I've worked for - not the family owned business, not the industry leader, and not my current employer. Not because of his politics, but because his behavior, his words, and his actions are inconsistent with anything any of these companies would consider ethical. So are the behaviors, words and actions of many he chose to bring into the government.

As the folks at Radical Compliance pointed out,

In the corporate world, if a CEO under investigation for misconduct violations fired the in-house counsel investigating him, the board would have his scalp. We would all be attending our compliance industry conferences, lecturing ourselves about best practices, and saying that the compliance officer at that organization should take the brave step and resign.

At the top of the post, I mentioned the Office of Government Ethics. We've heard more about, and from, that group since Trump won the election I think, than ever before.

Earlier today, the OGE's director, Walter Shaub Jr, tendered his resignation, effective on July 19th. In an interview, Shaub noted

There isn't much more I could accomplish at the Office of Government Ethics, given the current situation. OGE's recent experiences have made it clear that the ethics programs needs to be strengthened. 

Indeed, they do.

How long before others follow Chen and Shaub out of government service and into arenas where differences can be made?

Democratic Overreach: HR 1 Edition

I mentioned in this week's Sunday School Extra Credit post that I agreed with Wyoming's Sen. John Barrasso when he said

You know, we have a 50/50 Senate. That's what the American people sent to Washington with the vice president breaking the tie. You know, George, that ought to be a mandate to move to the middle. So we ought to do things that actually can get broad, bipartisan support... 

He's right: we should focus on what's critical, not on trying to cram through laundry lists of stuff that are, at best, remotely related to the issue at hand. And that's what happened with HR-1, the For the People Act; it's an 800-page behemoth of a bill being sold as a voting rights package. 

Several provisions apply to people who don't even get elected, to people who are already in office - and, let's be clear, to preventing another Donald Trump presidency. The voting rights provisions would be a heavy lift on their own, but with the add-ons, chances are slim to none that this'll pass the Senate without a VP tie-breaker or a filibuster change. 

Folks at the non-partisan Brennan Center for Justice, who support the bill, say the bill "...would make it easier to vote in federal elections, end congressional gerrymandering, overhaul federal campaign finance laws, increase safeguards against foreign interference, strengthen government ethics rules, and more." 

The voting-related provisions have a lot of value - and some overreach, too. (Info below links to the Brennan Center's exhaustive summary.)

Title I — Election Access This title aims to modernize voter registration and take other steps to improve voting access in federal elections. 

Title II — Election Integrity This title would address restoration of the full protections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and several other pressing voting rights issues, and also seeks to curb partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts. 

Title III — Election Security This title aims to improve the security of U.S. election infrastructure to counter the threat of foreign interference.

Here are several sections of the bill that aren't related to voting rights.

Title IV — Campaign Finance Transparency The provisions in this title aim to increase campaign finance transparency, deter corruption, and prevent foreign money from infiltrating U.S. elections.

Title V — Campaign Finance Empowerment The provisions in this title aim to counter the harmful effects of Citizens United v. FEC and related court decisions by empowering small donors and taking other steps to help working- and middle-class candidates run for office. 

Title VI — Campaign Finance Oversight This title aims to improve the administration and enforcement of campaign finance rules and take other steps to counter corruption. 

Title VII — Ethical Standards This title would, among other things, require new ethical standards for Supreme Court justices and presidential appointees, bolster enforcement of rules governing foreign agents operating in the United States, and strengthen lobbying disclosure rules. 

Title VIII — Ethics Reforms for the President, Vice President, and Federal Officers and Employees This title would create a variety of new ethics requirements for executive branch officials, including the president and vice president, and bolster enforcement of ethics rules in the executive branch. 

Title IX — Congressional Ethics Reform This title addresses legislative branch ethics.

Title X — Presidential and Vice Presidential Tax Transparency This title would require sitting presidents, vice presidents, and major-party candidates for those offices to disclose their tax returns. 

Are the ethics, oversight, and transparency provisions important? Of course they are, from an overarching, lofty goal perspective. Should we be concerned about political appointees, lobbyists, and foreign influence? Of course we should be. 

But do those have the same immediate impact as do admittedly partisan restrictions and limitations on voting? 

Of course they don't. And, with some 250 voting-related bills under consideration around the country, we should be much more focused on the latter. When we get the voting stuff straightened out, let's pick what's next, and go after that.

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.

More Term Limits, Please.

Governor Cuomo is using his executive budget-making powers to force the legislature into a corner on ethics reform. Among other things, according to his 30-day budget amendments, he would:

• eliminate the $172 per diem paid to each legislator when they're in Albany, and instead have them file expense reports just like state employees are required to do;
• disclose all outside income over $1,000; not allow any compensation in connection with a bill or resolution; not refer lobbyists to any business the lawmaker is affiliated with; require lawyers, real estate agents and some others to provide a description for and the source of compensation; disclose any compensation of over $5,000 from a client/customer, as well as disclosing who the client/customer is, the work performed, and whether the services were related to any pending legislation; 
• change the rules so that pensions can be forfeited by those folks who were elected before the pension forfeiture law was passed in 2011; and make it possible for prosecution of legislators for filing a false instrument (such as their disclosure statement), including a ban on holding office for five years or more;
• expand the disclosure requirements on communications made with a certain number of days of a general, special, or primary election.

These budget amendments are in addition to or add clarity to changes the Sonofa Gov outlined earlier in February. And, in theory, these changes are fine.  I'm all for disclosure, and I've long been a proponent of eliminating the per diem  After all, we pay these folks $79,000+ per year; do we also have to pay them for showing up?

I have a few issues, however, with his approach.  This is the same governor, after all, who set up a fake Moreland Commission on ethics, and shut it down as soon as it got close to his end of the hall.  He's ignoring existing ethics venues that are already in place, which he could easily work to strengthen rather than ignoring them.

Further, I have a strong distaste for politicians who link unrelated items together (ethics and the state budget?) and for those who think that they're more important than the process as a whole, which is exactly what Cuomo is doing. I mean, what's your tolerance for a CEO who threatens to shut down the whole shebang if he doesn't get his way?

And have we been shown, in any way at all, that ethics reform is more important than the business of New York?  I don't believe we have.

Not only that, but his changes don't get at the heart of the issue, which is this: entrenched politicians, the ones who are around year after year after decade after decade, are really the cause of the ethics problem. It's the power that goes with all of that time in office, the power which is so attractive to outside influencers, and so susceptible to outside influence. If you have no power, you're harder to bribe.

Someone like Shelly Silver, for example, with his decades-long career, his big staff, fancy office, ability to bring legislation to the floor (or keep it from the floor), the ability to 'motivate' other members of the legislature to go along, and in return get nice assignments, bigger lulus, and so on -- that's the guy you want to have your hooks in if you're unethical, or as some like to say, "playing by the rules."

How do we stop them? Term limits.

Itemizing campaign contributions is good, eliminating the per diem is good, forfeiting pensions is good, but those things won't stop the madness that is inherent with entrenched politicians.

These were not intended to be lifetime jobs; people who think they are, are the problem.  And when they've been there so long that even the strongest made-in-New-York shoe horn is not enough to shake them loose, we need more than Cuomo's suggested reforms.

We need term limits. We need level playing fields so that all of the people who are elected to serve have a chance to do that, on equal footing with their gentle brothers and sisters from districts across the state.  We can no longer continue to have the system turned on its head by people who are allowed to stick around forever, who accumulate and wield a ridiculous amount of power based simply on longevity.

As we learned in seventh or eight grade, power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

More term limits, please.

Sunday School 1/15/17

Just a quick look at a couple of hot topics on the Sunday morning news shows, with visits to only two classrooms this morning.

Reince Priebus was on NBC's Meet the Press and again on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, talking about John Lewis and about Russia.

On MTP, he noted that Lewis, an icon of the civil rights movement, was wrong to have said that Donald Trump is not a legitimate president "five days before he puts his hand on the Bible" at his inauguration. Priebus reiterated the latest mantra from the Trump camp.

I also think that the Clinton folks wasted a billion dollars of their donors' money and they've got a lot to answer for.

Yeah, I crack up every time I hear this - Kellyanne Conway has used this line a couple of times. Great line, means nothing, but it's a great line.

Anyway, he agreed that the Russians hacked the DNC but that

...none of this would be happening if Hillary Clinton would have simply not used a personal server in violation of federal law.

Todd completely ignored that comment - Clinton's email server had nothing to do with the Russian hack - and instead asked if that 'excused' a foreign government from trying to interfere in our election. Priebus answered

We've never - of course not. All of it's wrong. China's wrong. Russia's wrong. Iran's wrong. All of these entities are wrong for doing what they've done. But back to John Lewis. For him then to say, which no intelligence official is saying, that Donald Trump was elected illegitimately is irresponsible...

Priebus made similar comments on TWwGS when Stephanopoulos asked if it was harder for Dems to come together even though they lost, after Trump's tweets about Lewis.

..John Lewis stood up and said in an interview that Donald Trump was not a legitimate president. It's insanity. And it's wrong. And DNI director Clapper said as much many, many times, that there is no evidence any outcome of the election was changed. 

Some might disagree with Reince's comments; I'll take a look at that in a sidebar later.

I'll add in one more comment about the Russia stuff and John Lewis, from Helene Cooper who was on the panel on MTP. Cooper, a Pentagon correspondent for the NY Times (a media outlet currently on Trump's 'good list' - emphasis on currently), put things in perspective on a couple of fronts.

There's a way to say, "I disagree with John Lewis," without calling Atlanta a crime-infested hell hole. There's a way to disagree with someone, as you saw Reince Priebus just do, as other people have disagreed with John Lewis,without going on a Twitter tantrum. And that's the sort of thing that you do not expect from a commander-in-chief.

 And I think this goes back to what Jeff  (Goldberg, of The Atlantic) was saying. We're now five days out from Donald Trump taking control of the greatest country on Earth. The idea that the president of the United States is going to be having tantrums on Twitter whenever somebody gets under his skin I think is frightening to a lot of people.

 Hear, hear.

Also on TWwGS, there was a conversation about ethics, or what passes as ethics, and who is or should be looking at ethics, particularly Presidential ethics.

We all know, having been told countless times by the Trump team and by the media, that the 'ethics rules don't apply' to the President, and that any efforts Trump makes to separate himself from his business interests here and abroad are voluntary and from the good of his heart. Because, as he told us at his press rally,

So I could actually run my business, I could actually run my business and run government at the same time.

I don't like the way that looks, but I would be able to do that if I wanted to. I would be the only one to be able to do that. You can't do that in any other capacity. But as president I could run the Trump Organization, great, great company, and I could run the company - the country. I'd do a very good job, but I don't want to do that. 

Anyway. The Office of Government Ethics is not thrilled with Trump's only stepping aside and telling his boys not to talk to him about the business as a conflict-clearing solution.

Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz is less concerned with Trump's actions. Trump filed his financial disclosures, as the law requires, and sure, that emoluments clause is in the Constitution, but what the heck, no big deal there, even though several of Chaffetz's peers are concerned and have asked House Speaker Paul Ryan to get some info so they know whether the emoluments clause is being violated, on day one, as they say.

Stephanopoulos: Another possibility, you have oversight of the general services administration, which holds the lease for the Trump Hotel, which of course the president will still own even though it goes into the Trust. And then page 103 of the lease agreement says that no elected official of the government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia shall be admitted to any share of part of this lease or to any benefit that may arise therefrom. So, the agreement seems to preclude ownership by any government official, like the president, doesn't it?

Chaffetz: I did sign a letter with Elijah Cummings a number of weeks ago and asked for a copy of that contract. I don't know that we have received the final copy of that contract.

Stephanopoulos: But is that something you're going to be looking at?

Chaffetz: I started that a few weeks ago. 

So it would seem - and it would seem as well that Chaffetz has no interest in seeing that investigation through to its logical conclusion.

Today's lesson, however, has come to its logical conclusion.

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.

Sunday School 3/27/22: Extra Credit

In this week's Sunday School we heard from a Right Winger and a Woke Lefty on issues unrelated to regime change and ethics. For your Extra Credit, we're going to look at the latter, starting with three guests John Dickerson had on Face the Nation. 

First up? Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Dammit, I'm a Republican; Trump is a Menace). The bulk of their conversation was about the Ginni Thomas texts, the January 6th Committee, and the Supreme Court. (Full disclosure: Thomas and her husband, Justice Clarence Thomas, recently received one of my Dirty Snowpile awards.)

Kinzinger wouldn't officially confirm or deny the texts existed, since they were leaked, but he said the Committee's bottom line was to get the facts and share them with us.

We're going to get to the bottom of this. And as we're seeing in Ukraine, people are willing to die for democracy. We at least have to be willing to put careers on the line for the same cause.

He's got a point there...  Sadly, he didn't offer much of value, other than his lack of confidence that Mark Meadows, the recipient of the texts in question, has been fully forthcoming. There's a reason why he's been turned over to the DOJ for a potential contempt prosecution.

I mean, he was cooperating with us for a little bit, and then... to make Donald Trump happy, he stopped cooperating. We gave him plenty of space to come back to resume that. He has not. And, in fact, he's waived executive privilege a thousand times by presenting us what he already has. So, no, I'm not convinced he's handed over everything to us. 

Next up? Bob Woodward (WaPo) and Robert Costa (CBS), who broke the story the texts. Dickerson asked for an explanation on the importance of the messages. Woodward compared them to Watergate, which was tampering on the front end of the election process. This is different because "they come after the election is over." 

Costa noted this "campaign, spearheaded by then-president Trump," crossed all three branches of government "in at least tangential ways." It wasn't just pressuring Pence and Congress to overturn the results, and pressuring the states to invalidate the votes.

... you had the executive branch doing everything possible to have a legal challenge that would maybe go all the way, as Trump said, to the Supreme Court. This was Trump pulling every lever of power. And one of those levers, it appears to be...his own chief of staff at least communicating on legal strategy with the spouse of a justice.

Woodward said that Chief Justice John Roberts "really has grounds for being worried" about the Court being seen as political. He pointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett's "remarkable speech" a few months back, 

She said, I want to prove to you that we are not a bunch of partisan hacks in the Supreme Court. And she said justices - all justices - must be hyper vigilant to make sure they're not letting personal biases creep into their decision since justices and judges are people, too. So, she made it very clear that this hypervigilance should be the condition in which justices operate.

And yet, we have Ginni Thomas and Mark Meadows texting about 'war' and 'good vs. evil' and 'not giving up' in their efforts to overturn the election, and Justice Thomas not recusing himself from January 6th-related cases... 

Costa appreciated the Committee's frustration by Meadows and what else he might have, and that includes any texts with Ginni Thomas after the end of November. I agree; it seems weird they would suddenly end. After all, she attended the Stop the Steal rally, until her feet got cold, and allegedly has ties with some of the groups behind the event. 

That said, The Committee has "done hundreds of interviews. They have thousands of pages of documents" from cooperating witnesses,

but they still feel in many ways they do not have enough. Steven Bannon has refused to cooperate. Mark Meadows has now refused to cooperate. So, the question facing ...Kinzinger and others is, where is the John Dean who's going to put the hand in the air and start outlining all of these different facets?

 Woodward said "there are always surprises," so it possible there's a John Dean out there. And

remember, the January 6th committee, in a filing in California, has said they have a good-faith conclusion that Trump and people around him engaged in a full-fledged criminal conspiracy to overturn the election. They rule this as criminal. 

And just yesterday, that judge ruled it was "more likely that not" that Trump "corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021." 

Costa said the "real test" for the Committee is whether they give Thomas a chance to speak voluntarily, or if they subpoena her. And, he said, it's not just about her conversations with Meadows. 

We just don't have the full picture at this point about her relationship with Justice Thomas and his knowledge of her exchanges with the chief of staff.

Ain't that the truth. 

Finally, let's hear just a bit from Sen. Cory Booker (D-No One's Going to Steal My Joy!), who chatted with What's-his-name on Meet the Press.  In addition to talking about the #KBJ hearings, the host brought up the text thing, using former AG Loretta Lynch and the meeting on the tarmac with Bill Clinton as an example of someone recusing themselves, and asked if Justice Thomas "should follow the Loretta Lynch precedent?" 

Booker ignored that example; instead, he offered a relevant one: Justice Elena Kagan.

Out of 70-some cases, she recused herself over 20 times... not necessarily because she was conflicted, but because she understood that even the appearance of impropriety would delegitimize the Court. And the Court needs that legitimacy in this nation. So clearly, Justice Thomas should have recused himself. That's not even at question here. (Emphasis added.)

He said he's frustrated with the Court "as a whole, that they have not taken better measures to police themselves." That includes holding lower courts to ethics rules that they "don't put upon themselves." And, he gave one my favorite examples of shady ethics: justices giving paid speeches to partisan groups that may have direct matters, or amicus briefs, before the Court.

There are a lot of ethics rules that they do not, have not put upon themselves that are just common sense and ultimately lead to a delegitimized court. And I think that they need to use this Thomas affair as an opportunity to change their ethics rules.

He didn't add "or we'll change the rules for them" - but that possibility is already on the table, as it should be.

See you around campus. Unless you need to recuse yourself for something. 

Meanwhile, Back in Albany (v21)

(Nathaniel Brooks/NY Times photo)

Five years ago today, I did a post on campaign finance reform at the request of a right-leaning Facebook friend (yes, as a left-leaning centrist, I have those -- and I hope you, too, engage with folks on the other side of the ideological line on whatever social media platforms you use).

The post addressed not only taking care of things as the national level, but also at the meanwhile, back in Albany level.

I was reminded of that post and others today when I was going through my writing research pile and found an article from mid-July about the Legislature coming back for a special session to take care of ethics reform.

The New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) called for the special session mentioned in the article, to get the Sonofa Gov, the Democratic-controlled Assembly and the (barely) Republican-controlled Senate together to get something done on a handful-and-a-half of proposals, including:

• the 'database of deals' that would track all taxpayer subsidies received by a corporation, how many jobs were created, the cost per job and so on -- all about transparency with this one.
• limiting campaign contributions by the governor's appointees, and from vendors and contractors doing business with the state. Notably missing? Limiting contributions by appointees of the Legislature, such as on commissions and authorities, many of which include members appointed by the Gov, the Assembly and the Senate. 
• restoring oversight by the state comptroller on spending related to the CUNY, SUNY and other 'centralized' contracts, which was removed several years ago. This bill would also prohibit state contracts from being 'passed through' state agencies or affiliated organizations.
• budget transparency, via an independent stage budget office, which would make it harder for non-specific lump sum spending to be hidden away somewhere in the budget.
• getting rid of JCOPE, the ridiculously ineffective Joint Commission on Public Ethics and also the Legislative Ethics Committee and replacing them with an independent watchdog agency. 
• closing the LLC loophole which allows campaign contribution limits to be bypassed by donating through limited liability companies. This baby's been around since 1996, and has withstood repeated attempts to talk about limitations.
• limiting outside income for legislators and executive branch employees.

In my opinion from five years ago, and just as strongly today, I do not believe they're going far enough. Several things are missing, including these:

• term limits, something I think we need at every level
• limiting fundraisers during the legislative session (here's a great read from 2016 on the same subject)
• taking campaign donations only from actual human beings, and only then from folks who live within the legislative district.
• limiting how campaign contributions can be used, including no personal use, no out of district use, and how to handle them when the politician leaves office
• limiting or legitimizing franked mail, one of my least favorite legislative perks.

Since it's been a full month since the article on the special session was published, I think they're safe -there's no chance the Leg will come back to tackle ethics or anything else. 

Instead, they can spend the next several weeks roaming around their districts, as they do every election year, telling us how they take this stuff seriously. 

Seriously. 

Meanwhile Back in Albany (v9)

Nathaniel Brooks/NY Times

The beat goes on in Albany, it surely does.

The last few times we talked about doings in New York's capital, it was all about good people, and full time vs. part time, and pay raises for our lawmakers.

They may or may not be good people, you see, because from what we heard (and hear) all along when it comes to paying elected officials is that the salary is too low to get good people involved. Which means, I guess, instead of having the best legislature, we have the best legislature we can entice for a piddly wage that's more than $20K over the median for the state, plus travel, per diem and, in a whole lot of cases, cases a leadership lulu.

Anyway -- the tripartite Commission on Legislative, Executive and Judicial Compensation - a group of representatives of the State Senate, State Assembly, and Governor's Cuomo's office, made their decision on the judiciary, giving judges and district attorneys (who work full time, by the way) a nice raise. But when it came time to make a decision on the legislature, commissioners and executives, no deal was done: the Commission rules require agreement by all three parties, and our Sonofa Gov's representatives said no.

So, where are we today?  Well, see, the Governor -- who is the only one of the Three Amigos still standing, and who has ethically-challenged people very close to him, who sleeps well at night because he knows he's doing the right thing, and who started and abruptly ended a big darn deal Moreland Commission on ethics -- wants to do something about ethics reform in Albany.

The best way to do that, apparently, is to have the Legislature come back for a special session so they can chat, and wheel-and-deal, and pass a bill on ethics reform, and a bill to either authorize a pay raise, or authorize the Commission to come back to the table at some defined future point so that they can give the Leg a raise.

Now, of course, everyone involved says this is no quid pro quo, tit for tat, play for pay for play kind of deal. It's about "getting the people's work done," and of course, "it's not a deal if everyone agrees"  and stuff like that.

And while it appears the reason for the special session may move from Let's-do-ethics-reform-in-return-for-a-raise to Let's-help-the-homeless-in-return-for-a-raise, I admit to some curiosity here.

• Isn't urgently helping the homeless something that could be done for the $172 per diem and cents-per-mile, without having to dangle a carrot in front of these folks? 
• Maybe we really do need to get some better people in the Legislature, if they won't come back to do urgent homelessness legislation without getting something in return?
• Aren't these folks, who desperately need us to agree that they're full timers to justify their raise, shooting themselves in the foot by refusing to work on important stuff like this in the off-season?

I'm not normally a huge fan of time flying by, but in this case, I hope that it does -- we do NOT need a special session that results in giving legislators a raise. Period. I don't want them to come to agreement on any deal, because the cards were already dealt to give them a raise, and they got a losing hand.

If they're unhappy with the salary and benefits they receive, they know where their district are -- and it's in their districts they should stay for the last two weeks of December.

The Dirty Snowpile Awards for 2013

All the big Hollywood award shows are over, Ben Affleck has shaved off his beard, and the good, bad, and ugly of fashion have been all been identified. And now, as the temperature here in Syracuse heads north of 60 degrees, it's time for the Dirty Snowpile Awards. I'm sure this year's winners will be just as proud as those from  2010 and 2011  to receive this prestigious honor.

So where do we start?  We had a lot of material to choose from, no question about that -- and we have a repeat winner or two this time around, some 'defending champions', if you will.  Here goes:

The 'Put an Idiot Bumper Sticker on your Own Forehead' Dirty Snowpile goes to John Sununu, for his engaging and idiotic appearance with Soledad O'Brien on CNN.  Sununu, who suggested O'Brien put an Obama bumper sticker on her forehead, was trying to make a point by referencing an actual document - the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) assessment on the costs of repealing the
Affordable Care Act - and pretending it said the ACA cut Medicare benefits by over $700 billion.  This was not the case, but it didn't matter to Sununu - say something loud enough and often enough and people will believe you.  Unless it's Soledad O'Brien, who actually read the CBO letter and called Sununu on the lie- er, misstatement.

The 'Groucho Marx' Dirty Snowpile goes to National Rifle Association (NRA) Executive Director Wayne LaPierre, for embodying the oft-cited Groucho quote about belonging to a club that would have him as a member. LaPierre, by his comments after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings, his statements after other mass shootings that it was 'too soon' to talk about them, and his inflammatory statements since then, has done more to fan the flames of gun control advocates than the horrific shootings themselves.  The NRA would do themselves a favor if they found another mouthpiece.


The 'Talk Less, Do More' Dirty Snowpile goes to jointly to Congress and President Obama. All of them need to get to work.  Recent attempts at playing nice (Obama taking Senate Republicans to dinner, or having lunch with House Republicans) are fine but we don't need any more photo ops. We know what you all look like, we know what you think is important -- but we don't need photo opportunities, we need real opportunities.  Remember what they say: "you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need." Now's the time to try.

On a related note, the 'Who the (Heck) are You' Dirty Snowpile goes to the handful of people who still approve of Congress.  Approval rates have fluctuated a bit over the past several months, but I don't remember when it was even as high as 20%. I'm reminded of when we were kids, not excited about eating our vegetables.  Dad would tell us there were starving kids in other countries who would love to have our food, one day, my brother challenged him to name one. Can anyone name one of these 'approvers'?

And then we have the 'Wading Through Roe v. Wade' Dirty Snowpile to, well, to everyone - male or female, Democrat or Republican - who said anything about rape and abortion in the last election cycle.  We had Akin  and women's bodies 'shutting that thing down' and Mourdock with 'God's intent' and jokes about aspirin being a contraceptive and Louise Slaughter with her Nazi references -- it's all nonsense.  If people want to try and legislate abortion away, so be it -- it will be up to the courts, ultimately, to decide whether any new law are legal. In the meantime, can we please just stop letting the stupid people talk about it?


The thing about dirty snowpiles is, the dirtier they are, the longer they stick around. Sometimes it feels like that with our elected officials, doesn't it? It's a pretty good thing that you can control the budget of the agency you formed to investigate your own allegedly bad behavior, isn't it? Kind of makes it hard for that agency to do a good job, when with the stroke of a pen the funding can be cut. But that's the way it works for the Congressional Ethics Office, under the House Ethics Committee.  And speaking of ethics, say goodbye to Jesse Jackson Jr. (and his wife) who agreed to fess up to stealing money from campaign contributors. Let's give these folks the 'House (of Cards) Ethics' Dirty Snowpile; this one looks ready to tumble over any minute.

And what about the Presidential contest last year? Lots of Republicans, fighting each other, and in the end they all lost. Not because they were bad, but because of which one of them won. And so, the 47% Dirty Snowpile goes to none other than Mitt Romney. We all remember the 47% comment, right? That, and all those gifts that Obama gave to voters. Yeah, that's what it was, the 47% and those stinking gifts.

Albany has its own set of issues, apart from the fun that everyone has in Washington.  Here in New York, we have Andrew Cuomo, that Sonova Governor, who was elected fairly easily.  Now, apparently, he thinks he's the Supreme Commander of the Empire (State -- you're the Governor of the Empire State, Andrew). It doesn't, but apparently no one's told him that yet.

Cuomo earned One Man in a Room Dirty Snowpile. Cuomo blew a perfectly good opportunity to craft legitimate gun legislation; he shot it all to hell, actually, by pushing an emergency bill, and by not focusing on the things that people generally agree on. Instead, the NY SAFE Act, shoved down the throats of New Yorkers, satisfies no one.  Typos and bad law passed under cover of darkness (led by the Transparency Governor) don't make NY SAFE.  They make us look like morons.

And speaking of morons. The 'My Future's So Bright, I Have to be a Republican' Dirty Snowpile goes to State Senator Malcolm Smith, the sitting Democrat who tried to bribe his way into the Bloomberg Post as a Republican. I'm not sure whether this says more about his creativity or the foolishness of his partners in crime, so anxious to have any politician in their pocket they'd take one of any stripe.

There will be more to fall as Preet Bharara, the rising star US Attorney for the Southern District of NY, continues to investigate. And that will be a good thing for all of us who lose a little bit of faith in the system each and every year.

Sadly, I could hand out as many awards as there are dirty snowpiles here in Syracuse during an average spring. And even though temps are starting to get up there, we do still have a couple of dirty snowpiles left in town.  So, I'll do one more -- we'll have an even 10 this year.

The 'Make Mine a Single' Dirty Snowpile goes to local State Senator John DeFrancisco, for applauding himself for not double-dipping (retiring to collect a pension and continuing to collect a salary as a legislator at the same time).   While some think it's laudable that he chose not to double-dip, DeFrancisco's comments when questioned by a reporter left a few things to be desired.  He started out OK, noting that he wasn't really retired, and I agree that seems pretty simple and straightforward.  But then, he added

If I get hit by a car tomorrow and I died, it would be a $100,000 benefit, which is probably about two years pension and then my wife has nothing further. That's a real concern. 

Yeah, that's a real concern for everyone who works, Senator, including the taxpayers who support your $113,000 salary and who will be paying the $50,000 pension you've earned on your part-time job.  But we're glad you're taking care of yourself first, we really are.

And with that, the snow shovel is in the shed until next winter.

PPOD 1/8/17: Mitch McConnell

I'm beside myself this morning!

Mitch McConnell, that bastion of all that is Kentucky and good and wholesome and American and traditional, and a model of selfless public service, has apparently suffered an overwhelming memory loss.

Look at this tweet!

Mitch has apparently forgotten the rules he demanded the Democrats follow when preparing to hold hearings on the nominees of the first black president.

Those folks, boy, they sure needed to be vetted and the Senate, boy, they sure had an obligation to ensure that the Ranking (Rankest?) member's demands were met.  Here's what he said in his letter to his friend Harry Reid, who was Majority Leader back in the heady days of 2009 when the Dems held Congress and the White House:

The Senate has the Constitutional duty to provide its Advice and Consent on Presidential nominees, a duty which we take seriously. In consultation with our Ranking Members, we reaffirm our commitment to conduct the appropriate review of these nominations, consistent with the long standing and best practices of committees, regardless of which political party is in the majority. These best practices serve the Senate well, and we will insist on their fare and consistent application.

 And I laughed and laughed, because Mitch McConnell could be my Pet Peeve of the Day, or PPOD, just about every time he opens his mouth.

• The man is an abject failure - I mean, he couldn't even prevent Barack Obama from being a two-term president and that was his highest priority back in the day. Why Kentuckians keep sending him back is beyond me.
• He acknowledged back during the primaries that Trump didn't know much about the issues, and needed to 'stick to the script' to avoid saying things out loud that McConnell himself found "vehemently" objectionable.
• He will not recuse himself from hearings on his own wife, Elaine Chao, tapped by Trump for Transportation Secretary, leading me to wonder whether a person with no ethics could have a conflict of interest. 

It appears the GOP-controlled Senate is rushing things - and that could only happen with McConnell's direct leadership. According to Walter Shaub Jr,, head of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE),

I am not aware of any occasion in the four decades since OGE was established when the Senate held a confirmation hearing before the nominee had completed the ethics review process.

And yet, McConnell's Senate already has hearings scheduled beginning this week, including the one for his wife. Which is even more interesting when you note that his friendly, tradition-laced smackdown memo to Reid was dated February 12, 2009.

So, let's go slow on the maybe-not-an-American black guy's appointments, but let's get a move on for the dumb white guy's appointments? What's the hurry? Worried that folks will wake up and realize what they've done?

As McConnell seems confused in the picture above, let's remind him what tradition demands:

1. The FBI background check is complete and submitted to the committee in time for review and prior to a hearing being held.
2. The OGE letter is complete and submitted to the committee in time for review and prior to a committee hearing
3. Financial disclosure statements (and tax returns for applicable committees) are complete and submitted to the committee for review prior to a hearing being noticed.
4. All committee questionnaires are complete and have been returned to the committee. A reasonable opportunity for follow-up questions has been afforded committee members, and nominees have answered, with sufficient time for review prior to a committee vote. 
5. The nominee is willing to have committee staff interviews, where that has been the practice.
6. The nominee has had a hearing.
7. The nominee agrees to courtesy visits with members when requested.
8. The nominee has committed to cooperation with the Ranking Member on requests for information and transparency.

And finally,

There will be additional requirements, honoring the traditions of the Senate, for judicial nominees. These common-sense standard and long standing practices will ensure that the Senate has the opportunity to review a nominee's record and make an informed decision prior to a vote.

We have perhaps the most potentially 'conflicted' set of nominees every assembled - billionaire businessmen and women; people with extensive business ties to foreign countries, including new Most Favored Nation Russia and the Most Favored Nation Possible, Israel, and positions about those two countries that on the surface at least appear contradictory with long standing American positions; we have people tapped to lead governmental departments they have suggested be eliminated, and more.

And, remember, they have been tapped to serve by someone uniquely unqualified to be president, even by Republican standards.

McConnell could slow this down, But he won't.

For all of these reasons, Mitch McConnell is my PPOD for today. 

Twisted Trumpian Logic

So, I know it's only Tuesday and usually I save the head-scratching for Wednesday, but I've gotta tell you, I'm so confused trying to stick with the president's logic.

You know, logic that says when things are going well, we need tens of billions of dollars but when things are going well, we don't need to do anything at all. Or something - like the two scenarios below.

We have seen significant change at our southern border since Trump was elected. In 2017, arrests for illegal crossings were at a 46-year low, and arrests away from the border are up by 25%. Fewer people are trying to come across illegally, we're told, because they fear they'll be apprehended. And arrests of non-criminal aliens - those whose illegal status is the their only crime - have risen 42% and arrests of MS13 gang members are up 82%. Sounds pretty good, right? And the president, fairly, takes credit for this.

And then there's Russia. The president decided yesterday that there was no need to increase sanctions because things were already going OK, and the law authorizing the sanctions was deterrent enough. Never mind that the bill authorizing the sanctions was passed with only five nays combined in the House and Senate; and pay no attention to the purposefully misunderstanding of the purpose of the legislation, which was to punish Russia for interfering in our election. And further never mind CIA head Mike Pompeo counting on additional Russian interference in future elections.

I haven't seen a significant decrease in their activity. I have every expectation that they will continue to try and do that, but I'm confident that America will be able to have a free and fair election, and that we will push back in a way that is sufficiently robust that the impact they have on our election won't be great.

So, let's recap: the actual deterrent being seen on immigration demands a $25,000,000,000 solution, but actual interference by Russia does not warrant any penalty? One of those things is not like the other. And the president's logic is a load of hooey.

Or, here's another one -- the whole biased/unbiased, conflict/no conflict, ethics/no ethics thing going on with a particular FBI guy.

You know Andrew McCabe, the Deputy Director of the FBI who was pushed out yesterday, after facing the wrath of Trump for months, including, we're told, the president telling McCabe to ask his wife what it felt like to be a loser?  Yeah, seems his wife lost an election in Virginia, even after receiving a boatload of money from a super PAC run by then-Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe.

Now, you and I might focus on the fact that boatloads of money are available to support a candidate for statewide office, or any office for that matter. But not Trump: he focused on the fact that McAuliffe, in addition to being a former Syracusan, is an FOB - friend of Bill (Clinton) and, of course, an FOH - friend of Hillary, too.

So, you see, it's impossible - IMPOSSIBLE - for McCabe to be impartial in his job, because of  Comey emails Hillary his wife.  It's an automatic disqualifier, don't you see - a bona fide conflict of interest, plain as the orange hair on Trump's head!

As are these many conflicts of interest or ethical challenges, which go unnoticed - or worse, denied - by the Trumpeters, their legal teams, and the current Office of Government Ethics:

• taxpayers enriching the president's coffers by paying higher than market rate rent in Trump Tower 
• taxpayers enriching the president's coffers by Trump properties renting golf carts to the Secret Service for when he's very busy working
• private citizens buying access to and enriching the president's coffers through their membership at Mar-a-Lago, including photo ops with the guy who carries the nuclear football, and pictures of the government in action the public dining room
• citizens and companies (both foreign and domestic), foreign government representatives, and lobbyists enriching the president's coffers and currying favor by staying at his Washington DC hotel, or playing golf at his properties
• Kellyanne Conway promoting Ivanka Trump's clothing line on national TV
• the president promoting "his" winery in Charlottesville VA
• then candidate Trump paying $25K to Florida's Attorney General, at the same time she was contemplating joining a multi-state legal action against him
• Trump using his foundation to pay legal bills, use other people's money to make donations for which he took credit, and more

I could go on (and on and on) with these. And yes, it goes without saying that Democrats aren't immune to the influence of money -- you'll never get an argument from me on that. However, this is about specific situations, many of which are unique to the man currently occupying the Oval Office. 

The absurdity of this president pretending that he and his family, Cabinet members, advisers, and the like are pure as the driven snow, while suggesting that a career FBI guy is compromised because his wife ran for office?

That's a way more bigly bigger load of hooey.

What Would You Do?

Regular readers know I'm a fan of ethics -  particularly when it comes to politicians. But 'ethics' is not a political thing - it's a human thing.

Some things are pretty black and white to me, but may not to everyone else. Or, to others, but not at all to me. There's a whole lot of gray out there, and that's where it gets interesting.

I'm also a fan of how people make decisions - all kinds of decisions, not just on ethical questions.  And that's what I hope we can get into, in a non-judgmental way, with this new WWYD series.

Here's how our friends at Merriam-Webster talk about ethics:

The discipline...  Moral duty and obligation...  A theory or system of moral values...  A guiding philosophy...

Similar to the philosophy behind the WWJD bracelets, the point of the WWYD posts is to think and maybe talk about how we make decisions on questions or situations that might have an ethical connotation. Maybe we'll talk about something ripped from the headlines; maybe it's something that popped into mind from a recent post here, or maybe, like today's question, it's a situation I faced myself.. 

I was looking for a contractor to do some work for a family member. In seeking bids for the work, we reached out to a few contractors I was familiar with, as well to one or two recommended by friends who had similar work done at their homes.  

We received bids from a few of them, including a gentleman who offered us two prices: one if the work was done on the books, and one that was substantially lower if the work was done off the books.

His on-the-books bid was roughly comparable to the other bids we received from contractors who included the tax in their price.

What would you do?

1.  Hire this contractor at the off-the-books price.
2.  Hire this contractor at the on-the-books price.
3.  Hire one of the other contractors.

Did you see or think about an ethical question here? Have you faced a similar situation? How did you decide what to do?