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.
"Why on earth would Congress now create barriers to investigation and subpoenas of a member's spending records?" (Photo: AP with overlay via Common Dreams)
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, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. 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. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - 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.