

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Amid the uproar over the Republican Party's attempt to cripple the Office of Congressional Ethics, a little-noticed rule change was passed that guts an essential element of government oversight.
The rules package included a sentence that read: "Records created, generated, or received by the congressional office of a Member...are exclusively the personal property of the individual Member...and such Member...has control over such records."
The change, first pointed out by OpenSecrets.org and reported by the Fiscal Times on Monday, effectively means that some documents are no longer the property of the U.S. government, giving lawmakers the ability to hide critical information from an oversight investigation.
"Who cares whether a congressional office's budget documents, maintained at taxpayer expense, belong to each individual member, rather than Congress as a body?" asked Ashley Balcerzak, money-in-politics reporter for OpenSecrets. "Maybe the Justice Department, for one. In investigating allegations of public corruption or misuse of funds, criminal investigators frequently need to subpoena such records."
Balcerzak explained:
Usually, the Fifth Amendment and that bit about self-incrimination does not apply to documents per se, according to Mike Stern, former senior counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives from 1996 to 2004. But there is something called an "act of production" privilege, meaning that just producing the document would be incriminating in itself.
That privilege doesn't apply to government agencies or corporations. But if a lawmaker is being investigated for misuse of taxpayer funds and law enforcement authorities subpoena her spending records, under this rule, she can assert the privilege to withhold them; they belong to her, not to Congress.
"There's no cop on the beat," Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, told the Fiscal Times. "We've lost a critical element of independent oversight."
"Why on earth would Congress now create barriers to investigation and subpoenas of a member's spending records?" Krumholz added. "This only benefits the incumbent politicians who passed this rule and those who would flout it, not the system and certainly not the public."
House Republicans made a blatant attempt to gut oversight last week when they voted to "neutralize and reconfigure the Office of Congressional Ethics by stripping its independent authority and making it subservient to the very members of congress it was designed to oversee," as Common Dreams reported at the time. But that effort was thwarted after widespread outrage forced lawmakers to back-track on the plan.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Amid the uproar over the Republican Party's attempt to cripple the Office of Congressional Ethics, a little-noticed rule change was passed that guts an essential element of government oversight.
The rules package included a sentence that read: "Records created, generated, or received by the congressional office of a Member...are exclusively the personal property of the individual Member...and such Member...has control over such records."
The change, first pointed out by OpenSecrets.org and reported by the Fiscal Times on Monday, effectively means that some documents are no longer the property of the U.S. government, giving lawmakers the ability to hide critical information from an oversight investigation.
"Who cares whether a congressional office's budget documents, maintained at taxpayer expense, belong to each individual member, rather than Congress as a body?" asked Ashley Balcerzak, money-in-politics reporter for OpenSecrets. "Maybe the Justice Department, for one. In investigating allegations of public corruption or misuse of funds, criminal investigators frequently need to subpoena such records."
Balcerzak explained:
Usually, the Fifth Amendment and that bit about self-incrimination does not apply to documents per se, according to Mike Stern, former senior counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives from 1996 to 2004. But there is something called an "act of production" privilege, meaning that just producing the document would be incriminating in itself.
That privilege doesn't apply to government agencies or corporations. But if a lawmaker is being investigated for misuse of taxpayer funds and law enforcement authorities subpoena her spending records, under this rule, she can assert the privilege to withhold them; they belong to her, not to Congress.
"There's no cop on the beat," Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, told the Fiscal Times. "We've lost a critical element of independent oversight."
"Why on earth would Congress now create barriers to investigation and subpoenas of a member's spending records?" Krumholz added. "This only benefits the incumbent politicians who passed this rule and those who would flout it, not the system and certainly not the public."
House Republicans made a blatant attempt to gut oversight last week when they voted to "neutralize and reconfigure the Office of Congressional Ethics by stripping its independent authority and making it subservient to the very members of congress it was designed to oversee," as Common Dreams reported at the time. But that effort was thwarted after widespread outrage forced lawmakers to back-track on the plan.
Amid the uproar over the Republican Party's attempt to cripple the Office of Congressional Ethics, a little-noticed rule change was passed that guts an essential element of government oversight.
The rules package included a sentence that read: "Records created, generated, or received by the congressional office of a Member...are exclusively the personal property of the individual Member...and such Member...has control over such records."
The change, first pointed out by OpenSecrets.org and reported by the Fiscal Times on Monday, effectively means that some documents are no longer the property of the U.S. government, giving lawmakers the ability to hide critical information from an oversight investigation.
"Who cares whether a congressional office's budget documents, maintained at taxpayer expense, belong to each individual member, rather than Congress as a body?" asked Ashley Balcerzak, money-in-politics reporter for OpenSecrets. "Maybe the Justice Department, for one. In investigating allegations of public corruption or misuse of funds, criminal investigators frequently need to subpoena such records."
Balcerzak explained:
Usually, the Fifth Amendment and that bit about self-incrimination does not apply to documents per se, according to Mike Stern, former senior counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives from 1996 to 2004. But there is something called an "act of production" privilege, meaning that just producing the document would be incriminating in itself.
That privilege doesn't apply to government agencies or corporations. But if a lawmaker is being investigated for misuse of taxpayer funds and law enforcement authorities subpoena her spending records, under this rule, she can assert the privilege to withhold them; they belong to her, not to Congress.
"There's no cop on the beat," Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, told the Fiscal Times. "We've lost a critical element of independent oversight."
"Why on earth would Congress now create barriers to investigation and subpoenas of a member's spending records?" Krumholz added. "This only benefits the incumbent politicians who passed this rule and those who would flout it, not the system and certainly not the public."
House Republicans made a blatant attempt to gut oversight last week when they voted to "neutralize and reconfigure the Office of Congressional Ethics by stripping its independent authority and making it subservient to the very members of congress it was designed to oversee," as Common Dreams reported at the time. But that effort was thwarted after widespread outrage forced lawmakers to back-track on the plan.