Ethics and Politics Intersect in Washington News
Nov 17th, 2008 • Posted in: NewsObama transition leader promises “strictest, most far-reaching ethics rules”; Rangel hires accounting firm in effort to clear his name in ethics probe; Supreme Court takes up case involving judge who refused to recuse himself from a decision despite taking campaign contributions from CEO involved in the suit
WASHINGTON
Ethics issues garnered attention amid all three branches of the U.S. government last week, according to press reports. Among the stories:
- President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team released its ethics code, with transition chief John Podesta promising the “strictest, most far-reaching ethics rules of any transition in history.” According to the Hill, a newspaper covering Congress, Podesta says federal lobbyists, corporations, and political action committees will be barred from contributing to the transition, and lobbyists who work on the transition team will be prohibited from lobbying while they are consulting on the transition. The changeover is expected to employ about 450 people, and while Congress has appropriated $5.2 million for the team, the transition has an estimated budget of $12 million, which will have to be raised via contributions from individuals, the Hill reports.
- New York Democratic congressman Charles Rangel has hired an accounting firm to probe his finances as he attempts to clear his name in the wake of ethics charges. Rangel, who heads the powerful Congressional Ways and Means Committee — which, among other functions, writes tax law — has been under investigation for allegedly failing to report $75,000 in rental income from a beach house he owns, reports New York cable news network NY1. The accounting firm will issue a report to the House Ethics Committee. Rangel has denied any wrongdoing.
- The U.S. Supreme Court will consider banning judges from hearing cases that involve their top campaign contributors. Bloomberg reports that the case involves a West Virginia State Supreme Court justice who participated in rulings that were favorable to a firm headed by an executive who donated $2.5 million to organizations that campaigned for the judge. The judge in question had refused to recuse himself. According to the Bloomberg report, the Supreme Court never has ruled that the Constitution’s due process clause requires recusal when an appearance of conflict of interest is created because of campaign contributions.
Sources: Hill, Nov. 11 — NY1, Nov. 14 — Bloomberg, Nov. 14.
For more information, see: Related Newsline Commentary, Nov. 10 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 10 — Related Newsline Commentary, Nov. 3 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 29 — Related Newsline story, May 29.
Print This Story
Email This Story









[...] more information, see: Related Newsline story, Nov. 17 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 10 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 14 [...]