IEC Journal

Scholarly Analysis of 18 U.S.C. 207(A)(1)

Allen B. Coe's Air Force Law Review article entitled “18 U.S.C. 207(A)(1) 'Lifetime Representation Ban' Opinions:  A Lifetime’s Work for Agency Ethics Officials and Advisors” is available. Thanks to Mark Stone for the tip.

Query re: Defined Benefit Plans

An IEC member asks:

Has anyone reviewed various corporate defined benefit pension plans and determined that they are entitled to a regulatory waiver under OGE criteria?

Years ago OGE had published a list of certain corporate pensions that met this goal, but it's apparently no longer available. Does anyone have it?

If you have an answer, forward to the "Contact Us" link at left and we will post. Let us know whether to keep your name anonymous.

Controversy Over Ethics Pledge Waivers

A Politico story discusses the controversy over waivers of the Obama ethics pledge. Here's an excerpt:

Robert Cusick, director of the Office of Government Ethics, told POLITICO he did not know definitively how many ethics waivers had been granted, but he said “there’s been no great surge of waivers.”

Unlike waivers, which have to be approved by White House ethics lawyer Norm Eisen and are on file at the White House, letters of recusal are kept at the agency employing the official and are more difficult to track, Cusick said.

Cusick, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush in 2006 to a five-year term, said Obama’s ethics order has taxed his agency’s capacity. “We have quite a number of things that we’re required to do under the ethics executive order, which we’re still gearing up for,” he said.

Nonetheless, he disagreed with Grassley’s contention that the administration has not lived up to its promises of openness when it comes to the ethics order.

Thanks to Paul Bergstrand for the lead. We live or die by reader contributions, and appreciate those like Paul who help us keep this site fresh and useful.

DoD Guidance for Consultants & Advisory Committee Members

The Department of Defense Standards of Conduct Office has issued a nine-page document entitled “An Ethics Guide for Consultants and Advisory Committee Members at the Department of Defense.” The first paragraph describes the purpose and scope:

At the Department of Defense (DoD), we are fortunate to have many experts and industry leaders from outside of the Government to provide advice to the Secretary as consultants or members of an advisory committee. Because many of you retain extensive links to Defense industries or other organizations related to national security, it is important that you understand potential conflicts of interest that may arise from your appointment to this Department. Recognizing your demanding schedules, this guidance only briefly summarizes those statutes and regulations most likely to affect you, and does not describe each element or exception.

Thanks to Mark Stone for the tip.

CLE: Conflicts of Interest, Gifts and Lobbyists

The Capitol Hill Chapter of the Federal Bar Associationis hosting a May 29 program two-hour Professional Responsibility Symposium for Government attorneys on “Conflicts of Interest, Gifts, and Lobbyists” at the Library of Congress. Their web site has details (scroll down) and a registration form.

Anti-Lobbyist Rule Hits Non-Profits, Public Interest Groups

A Washington Post story examines the effect of Obama's strict ethics guidelines on public interest groups. Here's an excerpt:

Kenneth A. Gross, a lobbying law expert at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, said the rules have "demonized lobbyists, even in the public interest sector."

"The breadth of the policy definitely excludes people who they probably weren't intending to exclude," Gross said. "It's very hard to do this sort of thing with a scalpel, and there's always going to be a lot of collateral damage when you use a hammer."

One example is the Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest, which no longer lives up to its name. The group filed papers terminating its registration as a lobbying group one day after Obama issued the new ethics guidelines in January. 

Update on Obama Ethics Order

The White House blog has an entry from Norm Eisen, special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform on the President's ethics Executive Order. An excerpt:

Because the rules are so stringent, it is important to have reasonable exceptions in case of exigency or when the public interest so demands.  That is why the Order provides that a waiver of the restrictions may be granted when it is determined "(i) that the literal application of the restriction is inconsistent with the purposes of the restriction, or (ii) that it is in the public interest to grant the waiver."  Sec. 3(a).  The Order goes on to explain that the "public interest" may include, but is not limited to, exigent circumstances relating to national security or to the economy and that de minimis contact with an executive agency shall also be cause for a waiver.  Sec. 3(b).   As we discuss below, this provision was intended to be used sparingly, and has been so used.

Early Waiver of Obama Revolving Door Rule

The Obama administration's decision to waive its new lobbyist restrictions so former Raytheon lobbyist William J. Lynn could receive an appointment as Deputy Secretary of Defense is proving to be controversial. Washington Wire, an online component of the Wall Street Journal, has an item about the move:

Sen. John McCain, who lost to Obama in the November election, was less than happy with the waiver. “I am disappointed in President Obama’s decision to waive the ‘revolving door’ provisions of the executive order for Mr. Bill Lynn,” McCain said in a statement. “While I applaud the president’s action to implement new, more stringent ethical rules, I had hoped he would not find it necessary to waive them so soon.”

Another example was POGO, which was not happy, either.

Hawaiian Conference Has Lost Luster

In this morning's Washington Post, Al Kamen notes that government official attendance is down this year at the "legendary annual conference of the American Association of Airport Executives in Hawaii ... the aviation event of the year, now wrapping up at the lovely Hapuna Beach Prince Hotel in Kona." The professionally cynical Kamen adds "Well, maybe next year, when all this ethics stuff dies down."

Edited Jan. 17 to correct grammatical error.

Opening Arguments in Safavian Retrial

Government Executive has a story about the first day of former GSA contracting official David Safavian's retrial. Here's an excerpt:

Prior to the trip, Safavian solicited the opinion of a GSA ethics officer about the appropriateness of accepting free travel from Abramoff. Safavian told the ethics officer that Abramoff "did not have business with GSA" and that he worked only on Capitol Hill.

The ethics officer wrote that Safavian could accept the trip for free. Nonetheless, before the trip began, Safavian wrote Abramoff a check for $3,100, a figure Abramoff allegedly suggested would cover Safavian's portion of the costs.

"Safavian was the only person who wanted to pay his fair share," Sauber said.

Prosecutors, however, argued that Safavian knew $3,100 would not cover his portion of the excursion, which ultimately cost a combined $150,000.

Edmonds added that Abramoff's "lobbying" of Safavian for the two GSA properties was tantamount to doing business with the agency. That information, he said, should have been passed along to the ethics officer before the trip.

"The evidence will confirm the simplicity of this case," Edmonds said. "It's about a public official lying about what's going on."

The information Safavian shared with Abramoff was not secret, nor was it valuable, defense attorneys said. The post office was not up for bids and the White Oak land was highly contaminated and was not suitable for a school, they noted.

Safavian's attorneys maintained that Abramoff did not have business with the GSA because the lobbyist did not have a contract with the agency. Sauber plans to call government witnesses who will corroborate Safavian's interpretation of "doing business."