Does everyone do it but nobody tells?

Posted by LegiStorm on Friday, October 16, 2009

Former congressional aide Kevin Ring secured a hung jury in a corruption trial yesterday by claiming that showering gifts on members of Congress and their staff is the normal way of doing business in Washington. So how many precious gifts have been disclosed by congressional aides? Precious few, it turns out.

Our review of thousands of disclosures of congressional staff reveals only a handful of gifts that have been disclosed in recent years. Congressional rules require disclosure of all gifts greater than $50 and bans many kinds of gifts.

A common reason stated for receiving gifts has been for a wedding. When Rep. Danny Davis (D-Ill.) staffer Richard Boykin got married in 2006, he received several gifts, including $500 from one of his boss's campaign contributors and $500 in china from long-time and well-known lobbyist Bernie Robinson (although Boykin did not disclose him as such). Gifts from lobbyists are banned by House rules.

Before leaving for a top post at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, staffer Margaret Peterlin reported receiving various gifts from a lobbyist, Dan Keniry. But that was in the context of them dating, and they later married.

Last year, David Nelson of the House Energy and Commerce Committee reported receiving a $350 wedding gift from Bruce Downey, CEO of Barr Pharmaceuticals. Nelson was the lead investigator in the generic drug scandal nearly two decades ago and Barr reaped millions of dollars in benefits from blowing the whistle on its competitors. Downey, who served as outside counsel to the company at the time, later hired Nelson.

A select group of staffers disclose that they received gifts from their boss. Joanne Anton is one of those lucky few. She and her two children have each received $10,000 gifts from Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), the former retail magnate, in each of the past three years, or $90,000 total. His aide Paul Bock's two children each received $7,500 for the past three years as well.

But absent from the record is any widespread pattern of lobbyist gift-giving. Ring's attorneys say it happens all the time. The disclosures of staffers say it doesn't.

Ring was indicted in September of last year on a variety of corruption charges related to the Jack Abramoff scandal. Ring was charged with conspiring to give gifts to public officials in order to get those officials to take actions that would be favorable to his lobbying clients. Gifts included fundraising assistance, golf outings, food, drink, tickets to events and employment opportunities at Ring's lobbying firm. Prosecutors alleged that these gifts constituted bribery, while defense attorney Andrew Wise said that Ring was just using the "traditional tools of the lobbying practice."

After jury deliberations went on for more than a week without producing a verdict on any of the counts against Ring, the judge declared a mistrial. Lawyers from both sides will have the opportunity to interview jurors in advance of a possible retrial.

Flag comment as inappropriate

One comment so far

Posted by charlieham42 on 10/28/2009 05:22 PM EDT
I may very cynical, but I don't believe much is done in politics just to solve problems of the country in general, and if it is, it is without regard to unintended consequences. Politicians are in it for power, status, and greed. Having friends is very important, and ingratiation is a good way to get "friends". Even if one does not think about it directly, voting against a friend is not easy, especially if one wants to get reelected. Being in politics is corrupting, no matter how altruistic one starts out. Quid pro quo need not conscious, its just something you do to help someone who has helped you, and it can be in contradiction to your principles.

Leave a reply

Registered users can receive email notification of comments placed on this page. Sign in to an existing account or register for a new account.

» LegiStorm Blog