It Never Hurts to Ask

As agency officials continue to grapple with issues such as competitive sourcing and an aging federal workforce, they should keep in mind that an increasing number of young Americans are expressing an interest in public service, according to a new Gallup survey to be released today by the Council for Excellence in Government.

As reported by Stephen Barr in yesterday's Washington Post, the survey found that nearly a third of Americans under the age of 30 would seriously consider working for the government if asked by their parents, a teacher, or the next president.  The only problem, according to 60 percent of respondents younger than 30, is that nobody has asked them.

Patricia McGinnis, president and chief executive of the council, says that the survey underscores the "potential for the new president and administration, especially as we have the retirement wave getting under way, to ask people, not just millennials but older people as well, to serve. There's a sense that many would respond and step up, as they did when John F. Kennedy asked."

We at POGO yearn for an influx of public-minded young people seeking to fill the ranks of the federal government. Our biggest concern is that many see working as a "fed" as nothing more than a stepping stone to making big bucks in the private sector, rather than a opportunity to serve as a guardian of the public trust. We need a leader who will once again instill in young Americans the pride of becoming a civil servant.

-- Michael Smallberg

Flawed Thunderbirds Contract Tainted with Improper Influence

Back in May 2006, POGO posted a blog entry about the Air Force improperly steering a $50 million contract to produce large-scale video shows during Thunderbirds Air Demonstration Squadron performances to a company connected to senior Air Force officers. POGO noted that the Department of Defense Inspector General and FBI were investigating the contract, which the Air Force voluntarily terminated after a competing bidder filed a protest.

Almost two years later, the DoD IG has finally released its findings in a redacted 251-page report. The report concludes that Air Force Maj. Gen. Stephen M. Goldfein and others went to improper lengths to steer the contract to Strategic Message Solutions (SMS), an inexperienced and ill-equipped company that tendered a bid twice as expensive as a competing vendor's. SMS also had close contacts with senior Air Force officers and members of the Thunderbirds. The report highlights an Air Force contracting process fraught with improper influence, irregular procedures, glaring conflicts of interest, and an award decision that "did not represent the best value for the Air Force." As it happened, the Thunderbirds fiasco occurred shortly after another major procurement scandal that sent Air Force acquisition chief Darleen Druyun to prison.

The U.S. Attorney's Office in Nevada, home of Nellis Air Force Base and the Thunderbirds, declined to prosecute the case. Goldfein, who is now Vice Director of the Pentagon's Joint Staff, and four other officers not named in the report received administrative punishments.

There has been talk around Washington that IGs, Congress, the GAO, and watchdogs have demoralized government employees and are causing them to leave government service. It's funny that POGO hears from many government employees who support our efforts, who state that their frustration results from government scandals rather than the reporting of them, and who have tried to fix the system from within only to be labeled as troublemakers and the enemy (where is Bunny Greenhouse now?). Taxpayers are also demoralized and many see the federal government transforming into nothing more than a corporate machine that protects special interests rather than the public's interest. The award of the Thunderbirds contract highlights many problems--actual and apparent conflicts of interest, concerns with the revolving door, improper influence in contracting, flawed deals, and wasted money. I would love to see how anyone can blame the DoD IG for conducting its investigation and exposing a deal that wasn't benefiting taxpayers.

-- Neil Gordon and Scott Amey

Bush Legal Eagles Soar To Prestigious Private Roosts

Last week, Legal Times reported that Bush administration lawyers are finding lucrative jobs with private law firms and corporations, where salaries can reach "all the way to comfortably within seven figures," which is far higher than their government salaries. In the last several months, the article notes, more than a dozen executive branch lawyers have struck gold. Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty is now a partner at Baker & McKenzie. Assistant Attorney General Rachel Brand is now at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, where her co-worker is former Bush counsel Reginald Brown. Federal Trade Commission Chairman Deborah Majoras became general counsel at Proctor & Gamble.

Of course, many of these officials came to the administration from the same top-shelf law firms and Fortune 500 companies, so we're merely witnessing a full turn of the revolving door. Before her government service, for example, Majoras was a partner at Jones Day. Former Acting Attorney General Peter Keisler returned to Sidley Austin, which counts at least five other ex-employees still working in the executive branch. Former Department of Homeland Security general counsel Philip Perry jumped back and forth between the administration and global powerhouse Latham & Watkins several times. He tells Legal Times that attracting clients to his firm gets easier with each jump. (Perry's rainmaking skills are no doubt aided by the fact that he is also Vice President Cheney's son-in-law.)

However, some of Bush's legal eagles are having a tougher time cashing in. Sunday's New York Times informs us that since resigning last August, Bush's scandal-tainted former Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, hasn't been able to land a full-time job. By contrast, readers of this blog are all-too-familiar with the good fortune of Gonzales' predecessor, John Ashcroft.

POGO realizes that the revolving door is a complicated issue. People need to be able to earn a living, but government officials should not be allowed to cash in on their positions to the detriment of the public. Federal conflict of interest and ethics laws need to be strengthened so that a proper balance can be maintained.

-- Neil Gordon

Contractors are more than a shadow government

On March 10, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) publicly released Defense Contracting: Additional Personal Conflict of Interest Safeguards Needed for Certain DOD Contractor Employees. That report found that contractors have flooded the Defense Department, accounting for more than 50% of the combined DoD workforce in 15 offices.

Contractor employees are providing custodial and landscaping services as well as services related to preparing budgets, developing and interpreting regulations, creating contract requirements, advising or assisting on award decisions, and determining award fees—all permitted under FAR Subpart 7.503(d).

One problem that arises involves the lack of conflict of interest laws that apply to contractor employees. Although civil servants are governed by many laws and regulations preventing personal conflicts, very few of those restrictions apply to contractor employees.

I realize that some contractors have their own internal policies that might prevent and detect any possible conflicts, but is that enough? Some agencies are including contract clauses that prevent personal conflicts, but is that enough? Federal employees can do jail time for certain violations, while a contractor employee might be suspended or fired. Does the wide gap in both restrictions and penalties jeopardize the integrity of the contracting system—especially when contractor employees support and influence DoD decisions?

-- Scott Amey

McCain Didn't Go in the Tanker

I generally simmer with a level of outrage about Washington goings-on, but the last 48 hours have caused me to boil over. Partisan attacks on Senator John McCain for his yeoman work investigating the Boeing tanker lease are intellectually dishonest. Yes, McCain is running for President, but the partisan attacks shouldn't be pro-corruption. Let's make no mistake about how underhanded the Boeing Tanker Lease deal was. When POGO did its 2002 investigation, Fill 'Er Up: Back-Door Deal for Boeing Will Leave the Taxpayer on Empty, we had no idea of the outright criminal behavior behind it. We just knew the taxpayers were getting screwed. It was Senator McCain's investigation that uncovered the secret deal: a Pentagon official was negotiating jobs for herself and her family with a Boeing executive in exchange for the multi-billion dollar Air Force contract. They both went to jail for it (see here and here).

What are the people who are attacking Senator McCain for his investigation thinking? That it would have been better if he had taken the easy road, held his nose, and looked the other way, as the rest of Congress did--even though the taxpayers would have been the losers? It is a shame that, after the Air Force competition between Boeing and Northrop Grumman/Airbus, a lot of American jobs may be lost, but the alternative is infinitely worse--accepting corruption as a part of doing business.

As Steve Pearlstein of the Washington Post wrote,"the message it would send to every contracting officer in every government agency is that if they know what is good for their careers, they will put political consideration ahead of getting the best value for the American taxpayer."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

-- Danielle Brian

Roger's Ruminations Part I: The Thoughts of a Former Corporate Salesperson to the Federal Government

This is the first in a series of commentaries by a former corporate salesperson responsible for their company's sales to the federal government who shall go by their nom de plume, Roger.  They grew disgusted with the way the revolving door and the ensuing favoritism it breeds has undermined the intent of government contracting -- to harness the strength of the private sector for a fair price to serve the public interest.  Instead, Roger contends that the revolving door contributes to the best-connected, but not always best-qualified, companies getting contracts with dramatically negative consequences for the taxpayer.  --POGO

Rule #1: Pay no attention to the solid gold door

Maybe you got as excited as I did to see John Edwards make stopping the revolving door in government an issue in this year’s Democratic presidential primary campaign. But then did you get disappointed when he then started to talk about the revolving door ONLY in terms of government employees who go on to become lobbyists?

Sure, it would be outstanding to stop the revolving door between government and lobbying firms, but that's really only a small part of the problem.  The scope of the revolving door is much broader, and not well understood outside of the Beltway.  And to most people in Washington itself, the practice is so widespread and so entrenched, it’s rarely questioned, though its scale and pervasiveness is of only recent historical vintage.

For those of us who have ever tried to get our foot in the door in Washington, and have not worked for the federal government know, the greatest problem with the revolving door—or the golden door if you pass through it—is when government employees move into a much higher paying position with a government contractor. Did I say it out loud? Did I break the code?

Trust me, I’ve seen it and its effects.  I’ve been a salesperson for a company that tried to work with the government on numerous occasions, and more often than most people realize, government decision-making is dominated by the interests of the best-connected companies.  It’s not always as blatant as the Darleen Druyun-Boeing tanker lease scandal, where the Air Force’s top acquisition official swung a sweetheart deal Boeing’s way in exchange for jobs she negotiated for herself, her daughter and son-in-law.

  Countless numbers of lower level government employees with power to sway procurement decisions get hired by the same companies they deal with and, for some of these employees, they see their government job as a stepping stone to a more lucrative position in the private sector.

And when you call up a government agency, there’s good chance you’re not even talking to a government worker, but to a contractor employee. Even other Govies don't know exactly who they are talking to.  Even when they email you from a government email address, they still might be employees working for a major company with a profit motive.  It’s an insidious infiltration by contractors into the heart of government decision-making, into the DNA of government itself.

The Government Contractor Mafia, they have there own language, winks, hand signals, and friends on the inside who help them - hoping one day to be tapped, just like the fraternity it is. They laugh at the outsider naive to the real ways of Washington.

"Maybe you should go to the seminar that the SBA gives, they might be able to help you," they so helpfully advise you.  But how can my company compete, when our entrenched competitor sits in a cubicle on the other side of the temporary wall from the government decision maker -- or worse when the competitor is the consultant to the government whose job it is to recommend a new solution?  Sure, I can call on the potential buyer once a week and check in, but how does that compete with being the person who has coffee breaks through the day with the buyer?  Yep, that happened...even as I was trying to give away our technology to that government agency for free.

Rep. Wicker's Unmanned Aerial Pork

On March 22, 2007, Rep. Roger Wicker (R-MS) requested, in a letter to the chair and ranking member (pdf) of House Appropriations, an earmark for a little-known aerospace company to develop an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) project in his district. The company, Aurora Flight Sciences, has been growing rapidly and now looks set to expand further, in part a result of their cozy relationship with Rep. Wicker. The congressman himself may soon get a promotion as well. With the recent announcement of Sen. Trent Lott’s (R-MS) retirement at the end of the year, some speculate that Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour is likely to appoint Rep. Wicker to replace him until a special election is held next November.

The earmark in question ultimately appeared in the FY 2008 Defense Appropriations bill with support on the Senate side from Sen. Lott and Thad Cochran, according to data compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense. Listed under Army Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation (RDT&E), it designated $6 million for Aurora’s Orion High Altitude Long Endurance UAV, which is currently under development in collaboration with Boeing’s Phantom Works office.

Additional research reveals that Rep. Wicker and Aurora have benefited each other for some time now. Aurora funded a plane flight (pdf) in 2005 for Rep. Wicker from their headquarters in Manassas, VA to Starkville, MS. Then during the 2006 elections, Aurora was the top contributor to Rep. Wicker’s campaign, giving a total of $13,000 according to Opensecrets.org. Last but not least, Rep. Wicker’s former chief-of-staff, John Keast, left the congressman’s office in 2006 to work for Cornerstone Government Affairs, where, as of August, he’s been paid $60,000 to lobby Congress on defense appropriations for Aurora.

Aurora’s Orion project began last year at Mississippi State University’s Raspet Flight Research Lab in Starkville, MS. At that time, the company also began construction of a new production facility for Orion UAVs at the Golden Triangle Regional Airport in nearby Columbus, MS. The production facility opened in May of this year and Reps. Wicker and Chip Pickering spoke at the ceremony.

Aurora has won three multi-million dollar federal contracts over the past six months, as pointed out by Rep. Wicker in an Aurora press release last month. At least two, and possibly all three, relate to the Orion project and were awarded by the Army’s Space and Missile Defense Command and the Air Force Research Laboratory.

In addition to the earmark, contracts, and production facility, Aurora has also recently expanded its high-level staff. In June of this year, Dan Brady joined the company as VP of Aerostructures. He formerly worked as a director at Vought Aircraft Industries, managing activities related to Bell and Boeing cargo aircraft (most likely the V-22 Osprey), and prior to that, Brady worked at Northrop Grumman. Last month, former Commander of US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and Army General Bryan “Doug” Brown joined Aurora’s Board of Directors. General Brown had retired from SOCOM earlier this year.

Aurora Flight Sciences, headquartered in Manassas, VA, has facilities located in Virginia, West Virginia, Massachusetts, and Mississippi. According to their most recent contract filings with the Federal Procurement Data Service (FPDS), Aurora has 267 employees and annual revenues of $32,000,000.

-- John Pruett

Air Force No-Work Contract

Something's shady about a non-profit in Pennsylvania and its relationship with the Pentagon, The Washington Post's Robert O'Harrow discovers in a front page article today.  An intelligence contractor as well as non-profit, Commonwealth Research Institute, one of several subsidiaries of Concurrent Technologies Corporation, hired Charles D. Riechers as a "senior technical advisor" while Riechers was out of work and awaiting confirmation to become a senior Air Force acquisition official.  According to O'Harrow, Riechers' job at Commonwealth did not require him to do any work for the company, instead he worked for Sue C. Payton, assistant Air Force secretary for acquisition. 

Commonwealth Research's president, Frank W. Cooper "acknowledged that he hired Riechers at the request of the Air Force. Cooper said he did not know precisely what Riechers did for the government, saying he did not ask because he assumed such information was available only on a 'need-to-know' basis," O'Harrow wrote.

It seems that the Air Force simply backdoored Riechers into either his current job or some other kind of position by using Commonwealth while he waited for confirmation.  Experts say this deal doesn't wash:

Specialists in federal contracting law said Commonwealth Research's arrangement with Riechers may have violated regulations governing how the Air Force is permitted to hire and use contractors, including a prohibition on certain uses of consultants to augment the federal workforce. The prohibition is designed in part to ensure that employees in sensitive government jobs serve the public and not corporate or other outside interests.

This company is getting big, fast.  For example, just "[l]ast year, Commonwealth Research got a $45 million sole-source arrangement to provide reports to the National Security Agency, CIA and other intelligence agencies."  Remember MZM Inc.?  That was another company that blew up in size with intelligence contracts, a fast growing part of the budget.  Another similarity?  Both companies had as their umbilical cords a relationship with a powerful member of Congress sitting on an appropriations committee.  MZM had its Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA), Commonwealth Research and its parent company Concurrent Technologies has Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), chair of the House defense appropriations subcommittee.  Concurrent Technologies is among the largest recipients of congressional earmarks.

Also, besides operating behind a veil of secrecy, Commonwealth Research and Concurrent Technologies get to evade one of the only two sure things most of us can expect in life:

Commonwealth Research and its parent company, Concurrent Technologies, are registered with the Internal Revenue Service as tax-exempt charities, even though their primary work is for the Pentagon and other government agencies. In a recent report Concurrent, also based in Johnstown, Pa., said it was among the Defense Department's top 200 contractors, with a focus on intelligence, surveillance, force readiness and advanced materials.

-- Nick Schwellenbach

What a tangled web we weave

Yesterday, we wrote about the letter House Government Reform and Oversight committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) sent (pdf) to State Department Inspector General Howard J. Krongard, detailing numerous alleged improprieties committed by him.  Among these is the assertion that:

You impeded efforts by your investigators to cooperate with a Justice Department probe into allegations that a large private security contractor was smuggling weapons into lraq. (page 2 of this pdf)

This morning, the AP's Richard Lardner moved the ball forward a bit by identifying that company--Blackwater:

Although the security company was not named in the letter, several senior administration officials confirmed it was Blackwater.

Blackwater is a very politically-connected company, as several have detailed.  More specifically though, the State Dep. IG Howard Krongard's brother is A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard, who formerly was the executive director at the CIA (its number three position--he was replaced with the infamous Dusty Foggo). 

In an article on the revolving door between Blackwater and the revolving door, Harper's Ken Silverstein noted:

Robert Young Pelton, author of the new book,  Licensed to Kill  , says that an early Blackwater contract—a secret no-bid $5.4 million deal with the CIA—came in 2002 after Prince placed a call to Buzzy Krongard, who was then the CIA's executive director.

Buzzy Krongard worked alongside Cofer Black, now Blackwater's vice chairman, who was director of the CIA's Counterterrorist Center until 2002.  After his tenure at the CIA, Cofer Black worked at the State Department as its Ambassador-at-Large — a roving ambassador — for counterterrorism, before going to work at Blackwater in February 2005.

In addition to that, the parent company of Blackwater, the Prince Group, hired former Defense Department Inspector General Joseph E. Schmitz as its chief operating officer and general counsel in 2005 as he was coming under suspicion for also engaging in inappropriate acts that compromised the integrity and independence of the Pentagon Office of Inspector General.   Schmitz was investigated by the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency's Integrity Committee and exonerated, though questions remain about the PCIE investigation, one source tells POGO (more on this hopefully to come).

So, Blackwater's Joseph Schmitz, who knows the ins and outs of IG investigations, works with Blackwater's Cofer Black, who worked with the brother (Buzzy Krongard)--who may have helped Blackwater out early on himself--of the Inspector General (Howard Krongard) responsible for investigating Blackwater.  It's a small world indeed.

Stay tuned.

UPDATE: TPM Muckraker Spencer Ackerman flags us and adds more to the story on Blackwater's influence.

-- Nick Schwellenbach

Just Say No-Bid

Today's Washington Post fronts a story by Robert O'Harrow, its crack investigative reporter who digs deep into the world of government contracting with tales of skirted regulations and uncomfortably cozy connections between the private sector and government.  This story was no exception.

When the Homeland Security Departmen's anti-drug shop needed help developing "a system for measuring the effectiveness of drug-control efforts," a senior official there thought a former colleague of his could help out:

Scott Chronister, a senior official in the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement, reached out to a former colleague at a private consulting firm for advice. The consultant suggested that Chronister's office could avoid competition and get the work done quickly under an arrangement in which the firm "approached the government with a 'unique and innovative concept,' " documents and interviews show.

Wait a second though, didn't the government approach the consultant first?

According to the Federal Acquisition Regulation, it looks like the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement wrongly justified skirting competition since it went to the consultant first.  In other words, the government had to be approached by the contractor with a unique and innovative idea initially to justify bypassing an open competition:

6.302-1  Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements.

(a) Authority.

(1) Citations: 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1) or 41 U.S.C. 253(c)(1).

(2) When the supplies or services required by the agency are available from only one responsible source, or, for DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard, from only one or a limited number of responsible sources, and no other type of supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements, full and open competition need not be provided for.

(i) Supplies or services may be considered to be available from only one source if the source has submitted an unsolicited research proposal that—

  (A) Demonstrates a unique and innovative concept (see definition at 2.101)

Leaving this aside, it's all okay that contractors run the show, says a DHS flack:

...a spokesman for the Homeland Security Department said it was not unusual for a contractor to tell agency officials how to arrange no-bid contracts because contractors sometimes know federal procurement regulations better than federal program managers. [emphasis added]

Shocking?  Perhaps not anymore and that's the problem.  Contractors now know or purport to know the game's rules better than the umpires.  And the umpires have bought into that system.

-- Nick Schwellenbach

Conyers Strips Out Key Ethics Provision

I’m depressed. I really thought ethics reform was going somewhere. Then the House Judiciary Committee slapped me in the face. They stripped a provision in their “ethics reform” package that would have extended the ban for Members of Congress and their staff becoming lobbyists from one year to two.

The reason? Chairman John Conyers said he opposed the ban because it would hinder his ability,”to attracting and retaining top flight staff.” What an INSULT to the dozens of Hill staff I know, let alone Members of Congress, who have absolutely no interest in becoming a lobbyist.  They are there because they love public service. Aren’t those the kind of people we should be attracting to the Hill, rather than those planning, in advance, to cash in on their contacts to become lobbyists?

There is still a chance to re-insert this revolving door ban on the House floor. Let’s hope they get a clue as to the message voters sent in the last election.

-- Danielle Brian

The Nomination of Baroody: "Putting the fox in charge of the henhouse"

The NY Times reported yesterday that Michael Baroody, Bush nominee to head the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), not only worked as a senior lobbyist for the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) but also received a severance payment of $150,000. This “extraordinary payment” was not part of his standard compensation package and highly unusual for an employee leaving voluntarily.

Next Thursday, the Senate Commerce, Science, & Transportation Committee, chaired by Sen. Inouye, has scheduled a hearing to consider Baroody’s nomination, but his confirmation is likely to be a battle. Committee member Sen. Nelson and Senate Majority Whip Durbin have already placed a hold on Baroody’s confirmation and have called on Bush to select a new candidate. Nevertheless, there’s a chance that the President will wait until Congress goes into recess next month and then appoint Baroody without Senate approval.

Regardless of Baroody’s severance package from NAM, the mere fact that he lobbied for the largest trade association under CPSC’s purview should be enough to automatically disqualify him as a candidate to lead CPSC. When called upon to make a decision that favors the public yet negatively affects his former employers, one must question whether he would side with the public good.

Furthermore, as 8 consumer groups have pointed out in a recent white paper (pdf) opposing Baroody’s confirmation, the CPSC is already facing problems in its mission to protect consumer safety:

CPSC’s job today is more challenging than ever. There are more than 27,000 deaths and more than 33 million injuries each year associated with consumer products under CPSC’s jurisdiction. However, since the 1980s, the Commission has been slowly starved of staff and resources. While there has been an exponential increase in consumer products since its creation more than 30 years ago, CPSC’s staff is projected to be cut to 401 full time employees (FTEs) this year – which would be an all-time low and less than half the number of people employed by the agency in the 1970s. Additionally, in real dollars, its budget has plummeted.

With someone like Baroody at the helm of this struggling agency, it’s safe to say that he would do little to strengthen it. The consumer groups list three reasons (pdf) why this would be the case:

He has not demonstrated a commitment to protecting the public from risks to safety;

He oversaw efforts to weaken the CPSC and to undermine safety proposals pending before the Commission as one of the top two executives at the National Association of Manufacturers,

Faced with product safety and public health issues, Mr. Baroody has consistently favored reducing business costs at the expense of consumer protection.

-- John Pruett

Will Congress Slow Their Revolving Door Next Month?

If there’s one area of legislation that members of Congress have more difficulty with than any other, it’s creating stringent ethics rules to govern their own actions. Yet according to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic Caucus chair Rahm Emanuel, their long-awaited ethics and lobbying reform package will make it through the House by the end of May.

WaPo blogger Paul Kane commented earlier this week on the proposed reforms:

Emanuel said the House would have a bill on the floor "in short order," possibly next week. There are still several issues that members are resisting: forcing firms to reveal how much in campaign donations they bundle from their lobbyists and clients to lawmakers; disclosure by public relations firms of grassroots efforts at lobbying that doesn't involve direct contact with Congress and therefore isn't currently disclosed; and an extension of the cooling-off period forbidding members and senior staff from lobbying on Capitol Hill.

Ironically, the main sources of disagreement in the House cited by Kane are the same provisions that public interest groups have agreed are necessary. According to CQ Today, new revolving-door restrictions in particular may face House attempts to weaken them, despite the fact that the Senate has already approved tough language in January:

The Senate has endorsed rules that would require members of Congress to wait two years before directly lobbying their former colleagues, and House leaders have indicated their support. But the Senate bill went further, prohibiting any lobbying “activity,” meaning that former members would not be able to even help lobbying shops influence legislation during the period in which they were refraining from making contacts themselves.

Some House members have balked at the stricter definition, saying it would prevent them from being employed at a lobbying office or law firm even if they did no direct lobbying, according to Democratic House aides involved with the legislation. “Members are pushing back on this . . . It may not be in the House bill,” said Craig Holman, a lobbyist for the watchdog group Public Citizen, who has helped Democratic staff craft the legislation.

Nevertheless, stricter revolving-door rules are much needed, as emphasized this week by former House committee staffer Mark Zachares’s guilty plea for corruption related to the Abramoff scandal. Public Citizen’s online site dedicated to congressional ethics reform also provides information (pdf) on why the new revolving-door provisions are necessary.

Assuming that the Democratic majority lives up to its promises, voters will be able to breathe a sigh of relief on Memorial Day and reflect on how the “culture of corruption” days in Congress are over. Now let’s see it happen.

-- John Pruett

GSA Inspector General: Touche, Ms. Doan

In December of last year, WaPo recorded a quote from General Services Administration head Lurita Doan remarking on the GSA’s Office of Inspector General. She stated, “There are two kinds of terrorism in the U.S.: the external kind and internally, the IGs have terrorized the regional administrators.”

At the time, Doan’s remark comparing the IG’s office to terrorists seemed not only shocking and extreme, but also uncalled for, a little bit left field. Yet hindsight has since revealed that Doan knows a threat when she sees one. The IG has since revealed that Doan herself is the subject of a conflict-of-interest investigation.

Doan’s alleged wrongdoing is a classic example of reverse revolving door corruption. Before joining the GSA, Doan had personal and professional dealings with Public Affairs Group, Inc. President Edie Fraser. After becoming head of GSA, Doan personally awarded a $20,000 no-bid contract to Public Affairs Group for public relations services. After review by GSA contracting officials, it was determined that the contract violated regulations and so it was terminated.

What’s Doan’s justification for her actions? Her comments on procurement rules for a March 12 FCW article sheds some light:

Doan said she doesn’t discount the importance of compliance with contracting rules. At the same time, she added, “we don’t want to spend so much time on being compliant that we don’t get it done.”

Apparently Doan views federal regulations as just one factor to consider when making contracting decisions. Luckily for the public, the IG doesn’t take the issue as lightly. It also looks like a few congressmen don’t either. Just this week, Senators Byron Dorgan and Ron Wyden, responding to the conflict-of-interest charges and also her possible violations of the Hatch Act, called for Doan’s resignation.

-- John Pruett

Lessons from Deepwater

Last week the US Coast Guard announced that it would takeover management of the $24 billion dollar Deepwater program designed to refit the Coast Guard’s fleet after it was discovered that Integrated Coast Guard Systems (ICGS), the Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman partnership, had seriously fumbled the contract.

This week the Deepwater program faces a new problem – namely, the Coast Guard’s ability to effectively manage it. According to a UPI article:

Rand recommended switching control of Deepwater to the Coast Guard. But the think tank did not count on the problems of converting the Coast Guard's 110-foot cutters into 123-footers. The extensions were made to accommodate new equipment and mixed crews, but the eight stretched-out vessels were declared potentially unsafe in high seas and recommended for scrap.

Deepwater had been designed to give Integrated Coast Guard Systems, a joint venture of Lockheed-Northrop Grumman, a high degree of autonomy in running the program. But the Coast Guard is not the U.S. Navy; it is a small service involved in a major overhaul of ships, planes and complex electronics and communications. The Coast Guard does not have the Pentagon's vast pool of contracting officers, accountants and engineers to check the work turned in by ICGS.

The result, witnesses told Congress, was a lack of supervision in which problems were not caught by the Coast Guard.

For starters, the decision to hand over such inherently governmental functions like contract oversight and management should have raised red flags long before now. Yet, as the above quote points out, the Coast Guard lacked the necessary means to accomplish this government function, and thus sought to cut costs by relying on the contractor. It's true that the Coast Guard doesn't have the same resources as the US Navy, but the Pentagon has certainly had its own share of massive screw-ups, most notably with reconstruction contracts in Iraq.

In the Coast Guard's case, the results have been disastrous. Correcting the botched ships that have already been converted will alone cost tens of millions of dollars, not to mention the costs of adding new staff now that the Coast Guard is in charge of the operation.

On a larger level, this debacle raises questions about to what extent the government as a whole has privatized core functions. Federal contracting has increased dramatically under the Bush Administration, roughly doubling during the past five years. Furthermore, many of the top officials in government agencies have worked for many of these contractors and vice versa. WaPo reported last month on Deepwater's revolving door:

Washington's revolving-door laws have long allowed officials from industry giants such as Lockheed, the nation's largest defense contractor, to spend parts of their careers working for U.S. security agencies that make huge purchases from those companies, though there are limits.

But Deepwater dramatizes a new concern, current and former U.S. officials said: how dwindling competition in the private sector, mushrooming federal defense spending and the government's diminished contract management skills raise the stakes for potential conflicts of interest.

Deepwater also illustrates how federal ethics rules carve out loopholes for senior policymakers to oversee decisions that may benefit former or prospective employers. These include outsourcing strategies under which taxpayers bear most of the risks for failure, analysts said.

It should be noted that none of the individuals mentioned in the article have been charged with any wrongdoing in connection to Deepwater. Nevertheless, the Deepwater debacle highlights issues that demand consideration. What are the limits of federal contracting? Have agencies and contractors grown too enmeshed for proper oversight to occur? What are the consequences of corporate consolidation on contract competition?

In what can only be described as twisted irony, Lockheed has since announced an increased sales forecast for the year and Northrop Grumman continues with business-as-usual.

-- John Pruett

The Business of Environmental Protection

In a recent article from in Vanity Fair titled “Texas Chainsaw Management ," Robert F. Kennedy examines this Administration's frightening habit of giving away environmental protection jobs within all departments of the government to business insiders from the industries they have been tasked to regulate.  Citing many examples, including what he calls “the top 12,” which are listed below, Kennedy paints a harrowing picture of an executive branch more concerned with advocating business interests than fulfilling its fundamental job of protecting the citizenry and a civil service which has “entered government not to serve the public interest but rather to subvert the very laws they are charged with enforcing.”

It seems not even mother earth is safe from this administration’s agenda of using government for private gain, and it may be our children who may pay the price.

-- Caleb Rowe

The Top 12

1. Ann Klee (2001–6), general counsel, E.P.A.; counselor to Interior secretary Gale Norton Prior to her government appointments, Klee was a partner at Preston Gates & Ellis, where she worked for clients from the transportation, mining, timber, and waste-management industries on cases involving the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and Superfund.

2. J. Steven Griles (2001–4), deputy secretary, Department of the Interior While employed at Interior, Griles, a former lobbyist for coal, oil, and gas interests, negotiated payments of over $1 million from National Environmental Strategies, a lobbying firm in which he had had a principal interest. Griles's tenure was described by an inspector general as an "ethical quagmire."

3. Lynn Scarlett (2001–present), assistant secretary, then deputy secretary, Department of the Interior Scarlett was previously president of the Reason Foundation, a libertarian think tank. In a 1997 article she wrote, "Environmentalism is a coherent ideology that rivals Marxism in its challenge to the classical liberal view of government as protector of individual rights."

4. Gale Norton (2001–6), secretary, Department of the Interior Norton served two terms as Colorado attorney general before joining a Denver law firm, where she represented numerous developers and lobbied for NL Industries, a paint manufacturer which has been the target of a dozen lawsuits alleging lead poisoning and has been a defendant in lawsuits involving 75 toxic-waste sites.

5. Richard Stickler (2006–present), assistant secretary, Mine Safety and Health Administration As reported by The Charleston Gazette, Stickler "worked for BethEnergy Mines of Pennsylvania for 30 years, worked briefly for Massey and then headed Pennsylvania's Bureau of Deep Mine Safety from 1997 to 2003, when he retired. Stickler's mines had accident rates twice the national average."

6. William Wehrum (2005–present), acting assistant administrator, E.P.A. Wehrum is a former Latham & Watkins lobbyist specializing in Clean Air Act issues. He was involved in crafting lenient rules for power-plant mercury pollution in which a dozen paragraphs were taken from a Latham & Watkins memo.

7. James Connaughton (2001–present), chairman, Council on Environmental Quality Previously a partner at Sidley & Austin, Connaughton represented General Electric and arco in their Superfund toxic-waste fights with the E.P.A.

8. Jeffrey D. Jarrett (2006–7), assistant secretary, Department of Energy Prior to his work in government, Jarrett spent 13 years in the coal-mining industry. In March, he returned to the private sector when the Coal Based Generation Stakeholders Group hired him as its executive director.

9. Francis S. Blake (2001–2), deputy secretary, Department of Energy Blake played a key role in formulating Bush's controversial Clear Skies legislation, meeting with dozens of energy-industry lobbyists in closed-door sessions. Blake has since been named chairman and C.E.O. of Home Depot.

10. William Gerry Myers III (2001–3), solicitor, Department of the Interior Myers has compared federal land-use regulation to "the tyrannical actions of King George." After leaving Interior, Myers rejoined Holland & Hart, where he represents several extractive-industries clients.

11. Rebecca W. Watson (2001–5), assistant secretary, Department of the Interior Watson had a lengthy legal career helping mining- and timber-industry clients. She has ties to the anti-environmental groups Defenders of Property Rights and the Mountain States Legal Foundation.

12. Thomas Sansonetti (2001–5), assistant attorney general, Department of Justice In previous stints at Interior, Sansonetti was involved in the Exxon Valdez settlement and the infamous spotted-owl litigation. He has worked as a lobbyist on behalf of mining and energy interests.

The Influence Dream-Team's Neverending Nightmare

Another Abramoff casualty has pled guilty, Mark Zachares. The AP's Pete Yost reports on a cozy relationship between Zachares and Abramoff. According to AP, Zachares would provide "Abramoff contact information for prospective businesses that would be affected by the creation of the Homeland Security Department" under a "'two-year plan' in which Abramoff would build a homeland security lobbying practice that Zachares ultimately would join." Zachares did this while working for House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for Chairman Don Young. Zachares is not the first aide connected to Don Young to be implicated in the ever-expanding Abramoff scandal. Duane Gibson also worked for Representative Young on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee but ended up as a deputy for Abramoff at his Greenberg Traurig lobbying firm. That sounds eerily familiar.

Gibson was part of the tight knit lobbying Abramoff team. James Grimaldi of the Washington Post noted in 2005 that "Members of that influence dream-team continue to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars as registered lobbyists, often lobbying for former Abramoff clients -- unimpeded by the taint of scandal and revelations of suspicious deal-making in the brash and sometimes salty e-mails exchanged with Abramoff." [Full disclosure: Gibson led a falacious House Resources Committee "investigation" into POGO following our defeat of legislation to prevent collection of fair market royalties for oil industry drilling on federal lands.]

-- Beth Daley

Oil Industry Scofflaws Honored by Interior Department

On April 17, the Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service (MMS) hosts its big annual bash attended by as many as 700 (mostly) oil company executives  where awards are given. It’s a fabulous opportunity for everyone to pat themselves on the back.

Why the government spends taxpayer time and money to throw a big schmooze party for big oil in Houston, TX is a question for all of us to ponder. For more than a year now, the Congress and the public have learned from a series of stories in the news media that all is not right at the MMS. Whistleblowers and the Congress have expressed concern that the agency is too cozy with the oil industry, particularly over the issue of whether the agency is collecting all the drilling fees owed to taxpayers and Native Americans. Tomorrow’s big schmooze-o-rama only feeds into these concerns.

One bad-boy company set to be honored is the infamous Anadarko. One of the largest holders of federal offshore leases in the Gulf of Mexico, Anadarko (then Kerr-McGee) filed suit against MMS in 2006, arguing that it should not have to pay any royalties on offshore leases issued under the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act of 1995. This is a brazen and aggressive legal strategy. If Anadarko wins, the federal government could lose up to $60 billion in royalties. In January 2007, a jury agreed with former MMS auditor Bobby Maxwell that Kerr McGee (now Anadarko) underpaid the government by $7.5 million.

“Corporate Leadership Awards” will also be bestowed upon five Chevron executives. Chevron is another holdout on the issue of paying royalties, specifically on 1998 to 1999 federal offshore leases for which MMS failed to include price thresholds, which require oil companies to pay when the price of oil reaches a certain level.

Two companies – Shell and ConocoPhillips -- have been repeat offenders in the arena of paying what they owe the government and Native Americans in drilling fees, known as royalties. Yet, they are being honored as “Mineral Revenues Stewardship Award Winners.” Go figure.

Shell Exploration and Production

Shell has paid far more in settlements with the Justice Department over royalty underpayments than any other oil company. Earlier this year, former Interior Department Secretary Gail Norton waltzed through the revolving door to set up shop working for Shell again.

2006 - Shell is the subject of two False Claims Act lawsuit filed by two MMS auditors who allege that the company inappropriately deducted $19 million in transportation costs from royalties paid the government.

2003 - Shell agrees to $49 million settlement over unauthorized flaring or venting of gas and failure to properly pay/report royalties.

2001 - Shell agrees to $110 million settlement for oil royalty underpayments in response to a False Claims Act lawsuit filed by whistleblowers and POGO.

2000 - Shell agrees to $56 million settlement in gas royalty underpayments.

ConocoPhillips

Similarly, ConocoPhillips is a repeat offender:

2005 - ConocoPhillips agrees to $21.7 million settlement with MMS over valuation of coalbed methane.

2004 - Burlington Resources (now ConocoPhillips) discloses in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing that underpaid an estimated $76 million (pdf) in gas royalties per pending False Claims Act litigation filed by Jack Grynberg.

2000 - ConocoPhillips agrees to $26 million settlement with Justice Department over oil royalty underpayments.

2000 - Burlington Resources (now ConocoPhillips) agrees to $8.5 million settlement with Justice Department over oil royalty underpayments.

-- Beth Daley

DHS Closes a Conflict-of-Interest Loophole

The Office of Government Ethics, at the request of the Department of Homeland Security, yesterday announced that senior officials leaving the agency would no longer be able to lobby any part of DHS for one year.  This move closes a large loophole in the agency's ethics rules that had allowed senior officials leaving one directorate or section of DHS to lobby other sections of the agency immediately after leaving the agency's employment.

Each year government agencies may request that OGE add or remove a conflict of interest prohibition that applies to positions within or components of an agency. Agencies, including DHS, DoD, Commerce, Energy, Health & Human Services, and Justice have claimed that some of their agency components are so distinct that there is "no potential" for former senior officials who left for the private sector to use "undue influence or [receive an] unfair advantage based on past Government service."

Prior to the DHS rule change, senior officials leaving the Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response, the Directorate of Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection, the Directorate of Science & Technology, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, TSA, the Secret Service, and the Coast Guard were exempt from the one-year lobbying ban and could immediately lobby other parts of DHS. Sound confusing? It is and it's another reason why Congress needs to turn its attention to improving the integrity of the federal government. The new rule takes effect June 6, 2007.

-- Scott Amey

Is This a Stickup?

Climb aboard, the train is leaving the station! Family members are being hired up by railroad interests facing an overhaul of rail safety rules.

"Like every other industry, we felt it was important to have representatives from both the Democratic and Republican side," said Peggy Nasir, spokeswoman for the Association of American Railroads, which hired Shuster, Lipinski, and Sante and Michael Esposito. "We are meeting all the standards we need to meet for lobbying."

The lobbyist hires to which Nasir is referring are: Former Representative Bud Shuster of transportation pork barrel fame and father of sitting Congressman Bill Shuster (R-PA) on the House railroads subcommittee, Former Representative William Lipinski and father of sitting Congressman Daniel Lipinski (D-IL) also on the subcommittee, and the father and brother of majority staff director of the subcommittee, Jennifer Esposito.

An investigation by USA Today last year found that “in 2005 alone, appropriations bills contained about $750 million for projects championed by lobbyists whose relatives were involved in writing the spending bills.” That’s a lotta dough! And makes a few of us wonder, is this a stickup?

-- Beth Daley

Exposing the Dept. of Job Security

Richard Skinner, Inspector General for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and David Walker, Comptroller General with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), appeared today before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to discuss management and contract problems within DHS. The particular programs under scrutiny were the Secure Border Initiative (SBI) and Deepwater, but the hearing also highlighted more fundamental concerns about contracting and transparency in the Department.

In his written testimony (pdf) for a similar hearing yesterday in the House Homeland Security Committee, Walker stated:

...DHS has not made its management or operational decisions transparent enough so that Congress can be sure it is effectively, efficiently, and economically using the billions of dollars in funding it receives annually, and is providing the levels of security called for in numerous legislative requirements and presidential directives. Our work for Congress assessing DHS’s operations has been significantly hampered by long delays in granting us access to program documents and officials, or by questioning our access to information needed to conduct our reviews. We are troubled by the impact that DHS’s processes and internal reviews have had on our ability to assess departmental programs and operations. Given the problems we have experienced in obtaining access to DHS information, it will be difficult for us to sustain the level of oversight that Congress has directed and that is needed to effectively oversee the department, including the level of oversight needed to assess DHS’s progress in addressing the existing transformation, integration, and programmatic challenges identified in this statement.

Walker’s testimony further relates that these sort of impediments were encountered during his investigation of the Deepwater and SBI programs. A Tuesday article by Chris Strohm for the publication CongressDaily looks at one of the main individuals at DHS behind both Skinner and Walker’s investigative difficulties:

Walker said the problem is "systemic" and not the fault of any single individual. But he complained that GAO has had to go through the office of General Counsel Philip Perry. Perry is married to Elizabeth Cheney, a former State Department official who is one of the vice president's two daughters. Walker said it is his understanding that people from Perry's office have to review documents GAO seeks before they are released and selectively sit in on interviews with department employees.

"When you have more lawyers in a meeting than program people, you know you got a problem. Something needs to be done about this," Walker said. "There needs to be an understanding that if the general counsel's office is going to get involved, it's clearly got to be the exception rather than the rule," he added. "Right now the system is structured to delay, delay, delay ... We haven't had a situation where they refuse information but it might take months to get it."

Homeland Security Inspector General Richard Skinner said his investigations have also been hindered. "We're experiencing the same problem," said Skinner, who added his office is "oftentimes" told who they can interview and that it sometimes takes weeks to get documents.

Perry’s questionable behavior extends far beyond nepotism and delaying investigations. He’s also a pro at jumping back and forth between government and the private sector, doing what he can to benefit industry along the way. After Bush became president, Perry moved from being a junior partner at the DC law firm Latham & Watkins to holding the position of Associate-Attorney General for the Department of Justice. He then moved to the Office of Management and Budget as General Counsel, where he had a hand in drafting plans for DHS. In 2003, he returned to Latham & Watkins as a member of their Homeland Security practice group and lobbied on behalf of Lockheed Martin and other companies.

An article by Art Levine in the most recent addition of the Washington Monthly chronicles Perry’s exploits over the course of his career. By the time Perry joined DHS, he was a veteran advocate for the chemical industry and government contractors, and he had also made the right connections in government. Levine states:

Enter Philip Perry. When Michael Chertoff was nominated to head the DHS in 2005, he had asked Perry to join him as the department’s general counsel. The two were not only colleagues at Latham & Watkins but also members of the conservative Federalist Society, and they were of like minds in their general distrust of government regulation of business. By the summer of 2006, as various bills competed for attention, Perry’s services were in great demand. “Industry went back to the well,” says one DHS official.

To no surprise, Perry’s “revolving door” habits haven’t ended with his position at DHS. Secretary Chertoff announced on Jan. 23 that Perry would be resigning from DHS by Feb. 6, presumably to rejoin his old law firm. Although Perry’s exit will undoubtedly be an improvement for DHS accountability, the enormous problems that he had a hand in creating at the Department still remain.

Today’s hearing on DHS is proof of that fact. Members of the House Committee, particularly Reps. Kucinich, Duncan, and Hodes, condemned the extensive underhanded dealings between industry and government officials that have resulted in huge losses for taxpayers. Rep. Duncan proclaimed at one point that the Deepwater and SBI programs are “emblematic” of the contracting problems discussed in yesterday’s NYT editorial.

Furthermore, the GAO and DHS Inspector General’s concerns have kept the Department on GAO's “high-risk” list (pdf), meaning that the stakes involved are high and much remains to be accomplished. As Congress continues with its hearings and investigations, it’s also possible that even more problems and cases of corruption will come to light. Finally, if his past is any prelude to the future, Perry will return to the scene like a villain in a low-budget horror movie sequel.

-- John Pruett

Revolving Doors Spin Democratic

When America's modern system of lobbying, the K Street era, began during the 1970s and 1980s, it was mostly a bipartisan effort. At that time, the private sector faced difficult competition with labor groups within the Democratic Party, so it tended to favor the Republican Party in the long-term. Yet the Democrats still controlled Congress. This balance of political power required that lobbying firms and trade associations seek influence in both parties.

The Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 along with Tom DeLay and Grover Norquist's K Street Project changed that balance. They promised an end to corruption in Washington while simultaneously laying the groundwork a strict alliance between big business and the Republican Party. Nicholas Confessore writes in "Welcome to the Machine," his chronicle of these events for Washington Monthly, that:

...the K Street strategy also provides the GOP with a number of specific advantages. From a machine perspective, such jobs are far more useful than appointive positions in the executive branch. Private sector work has none of government's downside. Political machines thrive on closed-door decision-making; on K Street, there's no other kind. Neither are trade associations subject to inspector generals or congressional oversight; there are no rules against whom you can meet with, no reporters armed with FOIAs. These jobs also make for better patronage. Whereas a deputy undersecretary might earn $140,000, a top oil lobbyist can make $400,000. Controlling K Street also helps Republicans accumulate political talent. Many ex-Clintonites who might have wanted top lobbying positions couldn't get them, and so left Washington for posts at universities, corporations, and foundations elsewhere.

Since the '70s and '80s, Congress has enacted legislation that prohibits former members and senior staff from lobbying (in the case of senior staff, lobbying their former member or committee office) for one year. Democrats have also gained control of both Houses and this month pushed ethics bills extending the ban to 2 years and requiring increased disclosure. But will these measures curtail the revolving door between the public and private sectors? An LA Times story reports:

Many lobby shops have been adding knowledgeable and well-connected Democrats to their rosters, turning away from the so-called K Street Project in which DeLay and other GOP leaders pressured such firms to hire conservatives and dump Democrats.

"One of the lessons is that good lobbying is always bipartisan," said Scott Segal of Bracewell & Giuliani, a lobbying firm that maintained bipartisan credentials despite the GOP pressure.

There are other signs that K Street interests are becoming more bipartisan. The Dallas Morning News states:

In a job-swap frenzy unseen for some time, Democratic congressional aides and former lawmakers are leaping to lucrative lobbying posts, Democratic lobbyists are grabbing for influential jobs in Congress, and advocacy groups are waging bidding wars for the best talent around.

The article describes the case of Sean Kennedy, who worked as a Democratic aide in Congress, left to lobby for AT&T, and now plans to return as a chief of staff for Democratic Senator. A similar report in WaPo that I referenced last week familiarizes readers with Dennis Fitzgibbons, a former Daimler-Chrysler lobbyist who now works as chief of staff for the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

No laws or rules currently restrict former lobbyists from working in Congress, there are virtually no conflict-of-interest requirements, and no reverse revolving door "cooling off" stipulation exists. Similarly, those leaving Congress for the private sector are able to maintain their connections and influence through other avenues not bound by lobbying restrictions, and Democrats are now in high demand.

According to The National Law Journal, law firms are hiring additional lawyers, many of them from Congress, in anticipation of increased investigations and litigation under the new majority.

Having an experienced congressional investigator in the firm's corner is critical, Holland & Knight's Gold said. Former Minnesota Congressman Gerry Sikorski, who spent a decade on the subcommittee on oversight and investigations of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, leads Holland & Knight's government section.

Though we are not yet sure if and what kind of rules they should be subjected to, campaign consultants also remain free from lobbying restrictions despite having worked for members of Congress. The Center for Public Integrity reported last month on their website:

An investigation by the Center for Public Integrity found that increasingly campaign consultants are turning to lobbying once elections are over. And unlike federal legislators and their staff members, who are required to wait a year before lobbying former colleagues, consultants are not bound by rules slowing down the so-called "revolving door" between doing campaign work and lobbying.

A Center computer analysis found 22 firms that do both political consulting and lobbying. This was determined by matching Federal Election Commission reports filed on campaign consultants hired in 2003 and 2004 with federal lobbyist registrations for 2003 through 2006.

These reports indicate that a new change is underway in the business of politics, but what will be the outcome? Will Congress merely return to a more bipartisan system of influence-peddling? Can congressional ethics reforms succeed without vigorously addressing the revolving door issue? And if not, what rules should be put in place? When do migrations between the public and private sectors become conflicts of interest? The revolving door issue raises fundamental questions about who our government truly serves, but solutions are sometimes not as obvious.

-- John Pruett

Over 1,000 Gov Employees Snared by FBI for Corruption

Wow.  The magnitude of public corruption uncovered by the FBI so far is astounding.  Part of FBI Director Robert Mueller's prepared statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

Public corruption is a betrayal of the public’s sacred trust. It erodes public confidence and undermines the strength of our democracy. Unchecked, it threatens our government and our way of life. That is why it is our top criminal investigative priority.

Over the last two years, the FBI has convicted more than 1,060 government employees involved in corrupt activities, to include 177 federal officials, 158 state officials, 360 local officials, and more than 365 police officers. In FY 2005 alone, the Public Corruption Program saw a 25% increase in public corruption cases investigated, resulting in 890 indictments, 759 convictions, and 2,118 cases still pending. There are 622 agents currently working public corruption matters, an increase of 264 since 2002.

As you may know, we've followed some of these cases here on the POGO blog. 

-- Nick Schwellenbach