House Ethics Panel Confirms Investigations of Rush, Whitfield

Whitfield: Poised to pounce on EPA.
Billy House
See more stories about...
Billy House
July 25, 2014, 10:33 a.m.

Without provid­ing de­tails, House Eth­ics watch­dogs con­firmed Thursday they are re­view­ing sep­ar­ate mat­ters in­volving wheth­er Reps. Bobby Rush of Illinois and Ed Whit­field of Ken­tucky vi­ol­ated House rules.

Rush, a Demo­crat, him­self ac­know­ledged in a pub­lished re­port in April in the Chica­go Sun-Times that he was un­der scru­tiny over spend­ing from his cam­paign fund and the hand­ling of a $1 mil­lion grant.

And pub­lished ac­counts, be­gin­ning with a story late last year by Politico, have ques­tioned Re­pub­lic­an Whit­field’s sup­port of con­tro­ver­sial an­im­al-wel­fare le­gis­la­tion pushed by his wife, a re­gistered lob­by­ist with the Hu­mane So­ci­ety of the United States. The group’s le­gis­lat­ive fund has donated at least $8,000 to Whit­field since 2011, when his wife began lob­by­ing for it, ac­cord­ing to the pub­lished re­ports.

In a state­ment, Whit­field re­spon­ded that he was “dis­ap­poin­ted that people with a fin­an­cial in­terest in pending le­gis­la­tion have filed a com­plaint against me for my work on be­half of an­im­als.” He did not ex­plain fur­ther, but thanked the com­mit­tee for not­ing in its an­nounce­ment that ‘“the mere fact of a re­fer­ral … does not it­self in­dic­ate that any vi­ol­a­tion has oc­curred, or re­flect any judg­ment on be­half of the Com­mit­tee.”

“As a re­luct­ant par­ti­cipant in this pro­cess, I, too, will re­frain from mak­ing any fur­ther pub­lic com­ments un­til such time as the Com­mit­tee de­term­ines pub­lic state­ments are ap­pro­pri­ate,” Whit­field said.

Fri­day’s an­nounce­ment from the House Eth­ics Com­mit­tee was the first of­fi­cial con­firm­a­tion that he and Rush were both be­ing scru­tin­ized by the pan­el. The joint state­ment by the com­mit­tee chair­man, Mike Con­away, and the pan­el’s top Demo­crat, Linda Sanc­hez, said the cases were both re­ferred by the Of­fice of Con­gres­sion­al Eth­ics on June 10.

A spokes­wo­man for the OCE, which serves as an in­de­pend­ent watch­dog that serves as an ini­tial vet­ter of eth­ics com­plaints, would not com­ment on its find­ings be­hind the re­fer­rals, provided in re­ports to the Eth­ics Com­mit­tee.

Un­der House rules, the Eth­ics Com­mit­tee now has un­til Nov. 10 to de­cide wheth­er it will ex­pand the two re­views by em­pan­el­ing spe­cial in­vest­ig­at­ive sub­com­mit­tees. These sub­pan­els would form­ally con­sider wheth­er the two law­makers broke House rules and, if so, pos­sibly re­com­mend pun­ish­ment. 

Neither Whit­field’s nor Rush’s of­fice had any im­me­di­ate com­ment Fri­day.

But news of the Rush probe came after the a Sun-Times/Bet­ter Gov­ern­ment As­so­ci­ation in­vest­ig­a­tion late last year re­por­ted that he used cam­paign funds for the Be­loved Com­munity Chris­ti­an Church, where he is a min­is­ter and that he did not re­port rent pay­ments for his cam­paign of­fice, pos­sible eth­ics vi­ol­a­tions.

The Sun-Times/BGA re­port also ques­tioned what had be­come of a $1 mil­lion grant that Rush helped se­cure from tele­com­mu­nic­a­tions firm SBC to launch a tech cen­ter in Chica­go. The re­port said it was un­clear where the money went, and that the tech cen­ter has not ma­ter­i­al­ized. Rush was quoted as telling the news­pa­per “every penny of that money went to­ward pro­grams for the Engle­wood com­munity.”

Whit­field, in the Politico story in Decem­ber, de­fen­ded the in­ter­ac­tion between his con­gres­sion­al du­ties and his wife’s lob­by­ing””and said that any­one who doesn’t like it can file an eth­ics com­plaint against him.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Maher Weighs in on Bernie, Trump and Palin
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

“We haven’t seen a true leftist since FDR, so many millions are coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bernie Sanders; he is the Occupy movement now come to life in the political arena.” So says Bill Maher in his Hollywood Reporter cover story (more a stream-of-consciousness riff than an essay, actually). Conservative states may never vote for a socialist in the general election, but “this stuff has never been on the table, and these voters have never been activated.” Maher saves most of his bile for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, writing that by nominating Palin as vice president “John McCain is the one who opened the Book of the Dead and let the monsters out.” And Trump is picking up where Palin left off.

Source:
×