Ethics Case Shrouds a GOP Star

Committee will determine whether to investigate McMorris Rodgers further

U.S. Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers
National Journal
Billy House
March 23, 2014, 7:56 a.m.

The House Eth­ics Com­mit­tee is set to an­nounce by Monday night wheth­er it will in­vest­ig­ate Re­pub­lic­an Con­fer­ence Chair­wo­man Cathy Mc­Mor­ris Rodgers to de­term­ine wheth­er she vi­ol­ated an ob­scure House rule on the way to win­ning a top party lead­er­ship spot.

The 44-year-old from Wash­ing­ton is the No. 4-ranked Re­pub­lic­an lead­er in the House and a rising polit­ic­al star. The bi­par­tis­an Eth­ics Com­mit­tee will likely draw cri­ti­cism if it presses the case — and also if it doesn’t.

“It’s all the more in­ter­est­ing be­cause you have a former mem­ber of her own staff mak­ing the al­leg­a­tions,” said Melanie Sloan, ex­ec­ut­ive dir­ect­or of Cit­izens for Re­spons­ib­il­ity and Eth­ics in Wash­ing­ton.

At the cen­ter of the case is Mc­Mor­ris Rodgers’s former press spokes­man, Todd Winer, who was on her staff at the time of the lead­er­ship race but now serves as com­mu­nic­a­tions dir­ect­or for Rep. Raul Lab­rador, an Idaho Re­pub­lic­an. The charges in­volve claims that Mc­Mor­ris Rodgers com­mingled cam­paign and of­fi­cial House funds to win a slim ma­jor­ity in her lead­er­ship race against Rep. Tom Price of Geor­gia in late 2012.

News that the Eth­ics Com­mit­tee was re­view­ing the mat­ter of­fi­cially sur­faced in Feb­ru­ary, just a week after Mc­Mor­ris Rodgers grabbed the na­tion­al spot­light as her party’s choice to give the GOP re­sponse to Pres­id­ent Obama’s State of the Uni­on Ad­dress.

The case was re­ferred in Decem­ber from the in­de­pend­ent Of­fice of Con­gres­sion­al Eth­ics, which con­duc­ted its own re­view.

Mc­Mor­ris Rodgers’s cur­rent staffers in­sists there was no wrong­do­ing, and her law­yer, El­li­ot Berke, dis­missed the fact that the OCE re­ferred the case. He even took a swipe at the Of­fice of Con­gres­sion­al Eth­ics it­self, sug­gest­ing that “the OCE reg­u­larly refers mat­ters to the House Eth­ics Com­mit­tee for fur­ther re­view” and call­ing it “an un­for­tu­nate rite of pas­sage for many mem­bers of Con­gress.”

“Such re­views are vir­tu­ally auto­mat­ic,” Berke said, “and as the com­mit­tee al­ways points out, do not in­dic­ate that any vi­ol­a­tion has oc­curred, or re­flect any judg­ment on be­half of the com­mit­tee.”

Mc­Mor­ris Rodgers’s of­fice had no com­ment head­ing in­to Monday.

The OCE’s ini­tial find­ings still have not been made pub­lic, al­though they may be re­leased Monday. Sloan says it re­mains dif­fi­cult for those out­side the in­vest­ig­a­tion to in­de­pend­ently gauge its mer­its.

At the time of the lead­er­ship race, Mc­Mor­ris Rodgers was already the con­fer­ence vice chair, the highest-rank­ing wo­man serving in House GOP lead­er­ship. She also served as the li­ais­on between Mitt Rom­ney’s pres­id­en­tial cam­paign and House Re­pub­lic­ans. But her as­cen­sion to the chair­man­ship was any­thing but as­sured.

Price was then the Re­pub­lic­an Policy Com­mit­tee chair­man — the No. 5 lead­er­ship job — and a former Re­pub­lic­an Study Com­mit­tee chair­man. He had a deep well of sup­port from con­ser­vat­ive mem­bers of the con­fer­ence.

Dur­ing her cam­paign to win over GOP col­leagues, Mc­Mor­ris Rodgers mailed a pack­et to each of them, tout­ing her role in com­mu­nic­at­ing the con­ser­vat­ive agenda in TV ap­pear­ances and say­ing she “raised over $1,000,000 to the NR­CC, con­trib­uted over $300,000 to can­did­ates, and traveled to 51 con­gres­sion­al dis­tricts in 22 states.”

Winer told in­vest­ig­at­ors that she broke the rule against com­ming­ling cam­paign and of­fi­cial House re­sources. But sources sym­path­et­ic to Mc­Mor­ris Rodgers have sought to de­pict him as a dis­gruntled former em­ploy­ee, who was un­happy about not get­ting the job as the House Re­pub­lic­an Con­fer­ence com­mu­nic­a­tions dir­ect­or.

Winer did not re­turn a tele­phone call or an email to dis­cuss the case.

The Eth­ics Com­mit­tee has op­tions in how it handles the case. It could simply drop the mat­ter. Or it could an­nounce that it’s found enough to take its in­quiry to the next level, which would be to em­pan­el a spe­cial in­vest­ig­at­ive sub­pan­el to de­term­ine wheth­er there was a vi­ol­a­tion.

Whatever the out­come, Sloan said that cases like this must be taken ser­i­ously. “This is not just a rite of pas­sage,” she said.

What We're Following See More »
1.5 MILLION MORE TUNED IN FOR TRUMP
More People Watched Trump’s Acceptance Speech
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

Hillary Clinton hopes that television ratings for the candidates' acceptance speeches at their respective conventions aren't foreshadowing of similar results at the polls in November. Preliminary results from the networks and cable channels show that 34.9 million people tuned in for Donald Trump's acceptance speech while 33.3 million watched Clinton accept the Democratic nomination. However, it is still possible that the numbers are closer than these ratings suggest: the numbers don't include ratings from PBS or CSPAN, which tend to attract more Democratic viewers.

Source:
×