Tuesday, June 21, 2005
House Ethics - A little Sanity
Representative Tom Delay has been attacked for accepting trips paid for by Jack Abramoff, a lobbyist with the Seattle law firm of Preston Gates. House Ethics Committee rules permit corporations to pay for travel expenses, but some ethics purists have argued that lawyers representing corporations can not ethically do so even though they are reimbursed by their client.
This struck me as being absurd. I have no problem with a rule that would disallow payment of travel expenses by corporations, labor unions and other entities. That is perfectly defensible. However, permiting such payments directly by corporations et al, but disallowing them by their agents who receive reimbursement seems strange.
It puts the Congressperson in an untenable position. He/she must determine who pays for the travel expenses. If the client pays directly, it can be accepted; if reimbursed, no. Does the rule require the Congressperson to demand copies of payment vouchers, credit card slips or what?
The New York Times indicates that Preston Gates contacted two lawyers with the House Ethics Committee in 1996 for clarification as to the travel rules. According to documents from Preston Gates, Ellen L. Weintraub and John Vargo, the two Ethics Committee lawyers, "told a partner at the firm that it would probably be acceptable for a lobbyist to pay for a lawmaker's travel as long as clients quickly reimbursed the lobbyist."
Tim Pechinpaugh, the partner with Preston Gates who talked to the Ethics Committee lawyers, emailed Mr. Abramoff that Ms. Wientraub had said that "as a practical matter, the ethics cmte expects that lobbyists may sometimes end up paying for travel costs with their credit cards to be reimbursed by the client."
What a breath of fresh air. Of course they do. What rational regulatory scheme would determine otherwise?
The real issue, of course, is whether the client should be permitted to pay such travel costs at all, not whether their lawyers can do so. But that is not the issue before us. The ethics rules, rightly or wrongly, permit such payments.
According to the Times report, "A House ethics manual issued in April 2000 specifically barred the practice." Thus, the House clarified its rules in 2000 in a direction opposite of that suggested by the Ethics Committee lawyers. This clarifies the rule in a direction that introduces great difficulties in administration of travel rules as pointed out above.
However, prior to 2000, the rules were unclear. The Times quotes Jan Baran, a Republican lawyer spicializing in ethics law, as indicating that the documents available indicate that "Preston Gates 'undertook due diligence and that they reasonably relied on those assurances.'" This should provide Mr. Delay and the firm with adequate defenses for charges as to travel prior to April 2000.
# posted by Thomas A. Becket : 7:42 AM
