[House Prints, 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


   111th Congress 1st 
         Session        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES      Review No.
                                                       09-9063
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

 
                     OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS

                         UNITED STATES HOUSE OF

                            REPRESENTATIVES

                               ----------                              

                          Report and Findings

                           Transmitted to the
               Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
                          on December 2, 2009
          and released publicly pursuant to H. Res. 895 of the
                       110th Congress as amended

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13


                             December 2009
 House of Representatives Office of Congressional Ethics Review No. 09-
                                  9063

111th Congress 
 1st Session            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES             Review No.
                                                                09-9063
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

                                                                       

                     OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS

                         UNITED STATES HOUSE OF

                            REPRESENTATIVES

                               __________

                          Report and Findings

                           Transmitted to the

               Committee on Standards of Official Conduct

                          on December 2, 2009

          and released publicly pursuant to H. Res. 895 of the

                       110th Congress as amended

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13


                             December 2009
                               OFFICE OF
                          CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS
                                 BOARD
                 United States House of Representatives
                     One Hundred Eleventh Congress

DAVID SKAGGS, Chair
PORTER GOSS, Co-Chair
YVONNE BURKE
KAREN ENGLISH
ALLISON HAYWARD
JAY EAGEN
WILLIAM FRENZEL
ABNER MIKVA

                                 ------                                

Leo J. Wise, Chief Counsel & Staff 
    Director
Elizabeth A. Horton, Investigative 
    Counsel
                                 REPORT

                           Review No. 09-9063

    The Board of the Office of Congressional Ethics (hereafter 
the ``Board''), by a vote of no less than four members, on 
November 20, 2009, adopted the following report and ordered it 
to be transmitted to the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct of the United States House of Representatives.
    SUBJECT: Representative Norman Dicks
    NATURE OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION: In Fiscal Year 2009, 
Representative Norman Dicks authored several earmarks for 
clients of PMA Group, Inc. (hereafter ``PMA''). During campaign 
cycles 2008 and 2010, Representative Dicks received 
contributions to his campaign committee and ``Leadership PAC'' 
from PMA's PAC, PMA employees, the PACs of PMA clients for whom 
he authored earmarks, and the employees of those clients.
    If Representative Dicks solicited or accepted contributions 
or other items of value in exchange for or because of an 
official act, or solicited or accepted contributions or other 
items of value in a manner which gave the appearance that the 
contributions were linked to an official act, then 
Representative Dicks may have violated 18 U.S.C. Sec. 201(b) 
(Bribery), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 201(c) (Illegal Gratuities), 5 U.S.C. 
Sec. 7353 (Gifts to Federal Employees), and House Rules and 
Standards of Conduct.
    RECOMMENDATION: The Board of the Office of Congressional 
Ethics recommends that the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct dismiss the above allegations.
    VOTES IN THE AFFIRMATIVE: 6
    VOTES IN THE NEGATIVE: 0
    MEMBER OF THE BOARD OR STAFF DESIGNATED TO PRESENT THIS 
REPORT TO THE COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT: Leo 
Wise, Staff Director & Chief Counsel.
                           TABLE OF CONTENTS

  I. INTRODUCTION.....................................................5
          A. Summary of Allegations..............................     5
          B. Jurisdictional Statement............................     5
          C. Procedural History..................................     5
          D. Summary of Investigative Activity...................     6
 II. THE OCE UNCOVERED NO EVIDENCE THAT REPRESENTATIVE DICKS REQUESTED 
     EARMARKS FOR PMA CLIENTS IN CONNECTION WITH CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS 
     THAT HE RECEIVED.................................................8
          A. Relevant Law, Regulations, Rules or Standard of 
              Conduct............................................     8
          B. Earmark Process.....................................    11
          C. Campaign Fundraising................................    12
          D. Relationship with PMA...............................    13
          E. Perception of Corporate Donors......................    13
          F. Contributions Linked to Official Acts by Outside 
              Entities...........................................    14
III. CONCLUSION......................................................15
 IV. INFORMATION THE OCE WAS UNABLE TO OBTAIN AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 
     THE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS.......................................15


                 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CITATIONS TO LAW

                           Review No. 09-9063

    On November 20, 2009, the Board of the Office of 
Congressional Ethics (hereafter the ``Board'') adopted the 
following findings of fact and accompanying citations to law, 
regulations, rules and standards of conduct (in italics). The 
Board notes that these findings do not constitute a 
determination of whether or not a violation actually occurred.

                            I. INTRODUCTION

A. SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS

    1.  There is not substantial reason to believe that 
Representative Dicks solicited or accepted contributions or 
other items of value in exchange for or because of an official 
act, or solicited or accepted contributions or other items of 
value in a manner which gave the appearance that the 
contributions were linked to an official act.

B. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

    2.  The allegations that were the subject of this review 
concern Representative Norman Dicks, a Member of the United 
States House of Representatives from the 6th District of 
Washington. The Resolution the United States House of 
Representatives adopted creating the Office of Congressional 
Ethics (hereafter the ``OCE'') directs that, ``[n]o review 
shall be undertaken . . . by the board of any alleged violation 
that occurred before the date of adoption of this resolution.'' 
\1\ The House adopted this Resolution on March 11, 2008. 
Because the conduct under review occurred after March 11, 2008, 
review by the Board is in accordance with the Resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ H. Res. 895, 110th Cong. Sec. 1(e) (2008) (as amended).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

    3. The OCE received a written request for a preliminary 
review in this matter signed by at least two members of the 
Board on July 6, 2009. The preliminary review commenced on that 
date.\2\ The preliminary review was scheduled to end on August 
5, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ A preliminary review is ``requested'' in writing by members of 
the Board of the OCE. The request for a preliminary review is 
``received'' by the OCE on a date certain. According to H. Res. 895 of 
the 110th Congress (hereafter ``the Resolution''), the timeframe for 
conducting a preliminary review is 30 days from the date of receipt of 
the Board's request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    4. At least three members of the Board voted to initiate a 
second phase review in this matter on August 5, 2009. The 
second phase review commenced on August 6, 2009.\3\ The second-
phase review was scheduled to end on September 20, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ According to the Resolution, the Board must vote on whether to 
conduct a second-phase review in a matter before the expiration of the 
30-day preliminary review. If the Board votes for a second-phase, the 
second-phase begins when the preliminary review ends. The second-phase 
review does not begin on the date of the Board vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    5. The Board voted to extend the 45-day second-phase review 
by an additional 14 days, as provided by the Resolution, on 
September 17, 2009. Following the extension, the second-phase 
review was scheduled to end on October 5, 2009.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Id. at Sec. 1(c)(2)(A)(ii) (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    6. The Board voted to refer the matter to the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct for dismissal and adopted these 
findings on November 20, 2009.
    7. This report and findings were transmitted to the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct on December 2, 2009.

D. SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITY

    8. Due to the nature of the allegations in this review, the 
OCE's investigation required the collection of information from 
a number of sources.
    9. The OCE reviewed publically available records of 
campaign contributions to the campaign committees of Members of 
the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense (hereafter the 
``Defense Subcommittee'') from recipients of earmarks during 
the 2008 and 2010 campaign cycles. The review included campaign 
contributions to the leadership political action committees 
(hereafter ``PACs''), if any, of these Members.
    10. Specifically, the OCE reviewed campaign contributions 
to these Members from donors that were affiliated with the 
lobbying firm of Paul Magliocchetti and Associates Group, Inc. 
(hereafter ``PMA''), i.e., contributions from the PMA PAC, PMA 
employees, the PACs of corporate clients of PMA (hereafter 
``PMA clients'') and employees of PMA clients.
    11. The OCE also reviewed campaign contributions to Members 
of the Defense Subcommittee from PACs of non-PMA clients, and 
employees of non-PMA clients.
    12. Beyond Members of the Defense Subcommittee, the 
investigation included a review of campaign contributions from 
PMA clients and non-PMA clients to Representatives who are not 
on the Defense Subcommittee, but authored defense earmarks for 
PMA clients and non-PMA clients.
    13. The OCE requested information from forty PMA clients 
that received earmarks from Members of the Defense Subcommittee 
for fiscal years 2008 to 2010.
    14. All of the PMA clients that the OCE contacted 
cooperated with the investigation, except for two.
    15. Aeroflex and Kimball and Associates are the only PMA 
clients that refused to cooperate with the investigation.
    16. Thirty-eight PMA clients and Representatives' offices 
produced documents totaling approximately 200,000 pages. These 
PMA clients also made witnesses available for interviews upon 
request of the OCE.
    17. Based on the information discovered during the review 
of the produced documents, the OCE interviewed twenty-six 
individual PMA client witnesses.
    18. In addition, the OCE interviewed six witnesses who were 
formerly employed as lobbyists with PMA during the 2008 and 
2010 campaign cycles.
    19. In sum, the OCE requested and received documentary, and 
in some cases testimonial, information from the following 
sources:
          (1) 21st Century Systems, Inc.;
          (2) AAR Composites;
          (3) Advanced Acoustic Concepts;
          (4) Advanced Concepts & Technologies Intl.;
          (5) Aircraft Interior Products;
          (6) Applied Global Technologies;
          (7) Argon ST;
          (8) Boeing Corporation;
          (9) Carnegie Mellon University;
          (10) Coda Octopus Group;
          (11) Concurrent Technologies Corporation;
          (12) Conemaugh Health Systems;
          (13) Cryptek;
          (14) DDL OMNI Engineering;
          (15) DRS Technologies;
          (16) EM Solutions;
          (17) General Atomics;
          (18) General Dynamics;
          (19) Goodrich Corporation;
          (20) Innovative Concepts, Inc.;
          (21) ITT Corporation;
          (22) Lockheed Martin Corporation;
          (23) MobilVox;
          (24) NuVant Systems, Inc.;
          (25) Optimal Solutions & Technologies;
          (26) Parametric Technology Corporation;
          (27) Planning Systems Inc.;
          (28) Profile Systems;
          (29) Prologic, Inc.;
          (30) QTL Biosystems;
          (31) RaySat Antenna Systems;
          (32) Rockwell Collins;
          (33) Samueli Institute;
          (34) Sierra Nevada Corporation;
          (35) Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc.;
          (36) Teledyne Controls;
          (37) Windber Research Institute;
          (38) Xunlight Corporation;
          (39) Vice President, 21st Century Systems, Inc.;
          (40) Chief Administrative Officer, 21st Century 
        Systems, Inc.;
          (41) Vice President for Communications, 21st Century 
        Systems, Inc.;
          (42) PAC Treasurer, 21st Century Systems, Inc.;
          (43) General Manager, AAR Composites;
          (44) Chief Operating Officer, AAR Composites;
          (45) Chief Executive Officer, Applied Global 
        Technologies;
          (46) Vice President, Applied Global Technologies;
          (47) PAC Treasurer, DRS Technologies;
          (48) President, DRS Technologies;
          (49) Chief Operating Officers, Optimal Solutions & 
        Technologies;
          (50) Chief Executive Officer, Optimal Solutions & 
        Technologies;
          (51) Director, Optimal Solutions & Technologies;
          (52) CEO, Samueli Institute;
          (53) Vice President, Sierra Nevada Corporation;
          (54) Congressional Affairs Director, Sierra Nevada 
        Corporation;
          (55) Assistant to Business Development Director, 
        Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc.;
          (56) Business Development Director, Teledyne 
        Continental Motors, Inc.;
          (57) PAC Treasurer, Teledyne Controls;
          (58) General Manager, Teledyne Controls;
          (59) Vice President, Teledyne Controls;
          (60) Director of Contracts, Teledyne Controls;
          (61) Contract Administrator, Teledyne Controls;
          (62) Legislative Affairs Director, Teledyne Controls;
          (63) Associate General Counsel, Teledyne Controls;
          (64) President, Teledyne Controls;
          (65) PMA Lobbyist 1;
          (66) PMA Lobbyist 2;
          (67) PMA Lobbyist 3;
          (68) PMA Lobbyist 4;
          (69) PMA Lobbyist 5;
          (70) PMA Lobbyist 6;
          (71) Representative Norman Dicks;
          (72) Press Secretary for Norman Dicks;
          (73) Military Legislative Assistant for Norman Dicks;
          (74) District Director for Representative Norman 
        Dicks;
          (75) President of Helen Milby & Co.; and
          (76) Employee of Helen Milby & Co.

 II. THE OCE UNCOVERED NO EVIDENCE THAT REPRESENTATIVE DICKS REQUESTED 
EARMARKS FOR PMA CLIENTS IN CONNECTION WITH CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS THAT 
                              HE RECEIVED


A. RELEVANT LAW, REGULATIONS, RULES OR STANDARD OF CONDUCT

    20. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 201(b)--Bribery of public officials and 
witnesses
          ``(b) Whoever--
          (2) being a public official or person selected to be 
        a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly 
        demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive 
        or accept anything of value personally or for any other 
        person or entity, in return for:
                  (A) being influenced in the performance of 
                any official act. . . .''
    21. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 201(c)--Illegal Gratuities
          ``(c) Whoever--
          (1) otherwise than as provided by law for the proper 
        discharge of official duty--
                  (B) being a public official, former public 
                official, or person selected to be a public 
                official, otherwise than as provided by law for 
                the proper discharge of official duty, directly 
                or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, 
                accepts, or agrees to receive or accept 
                anything of value personally for or because of 
                any official act performed or to be performed 
                by such official or person. . . .''
    22. ``An illegal gratuity . . . may constitute merely a 
reward for some future act that the public official will take 
(and may have already determined to take), or for a past act 
that he has already taken.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ House Ethics Manual (2008) at 79. See also United States v. 
Sun-Diamond Growers, 526 U.S. 398, 404 (1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    23. House Rules and Standards of Conduct
          ``[T]he scope of the House standards of conduct in 
        this area is broader than that of the criminal bribery 
        statute . . . the House standards of conduct generally 
        preclude any link between the solicitation or receipt 
        of a contribution and a specific official action.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Memorandum of the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, 
Recommendations for disposition of the complaint filed against 
Representative DeLay. Accessed online on June 24, 2009 at http://
ethics.house.gov/Investigations/Default.aspx?Section=18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          ``Put another way, there are fundraising activities 
        that do not violate any criminal statute but well may 
        violate House standards of conduct.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          ``[T]here are certain proffered campaign 
        contributions that must be declined, and certain 
        fundraising opportunities that must be forgone, solely 
        because they create an appearance of improper 
        conduct.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          ``[N]o solicitation of a campaign or political 
        contribution may be linked to an action taken or to be 
        taken by a Member or employee in his or her official 
        capacity.'' \9\ In addition, a Member may not accept 
        any contribution that is linked with any specific 
        official action taken or to be taken by that Member.'' 
        \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ House Ethics Manual (2008) at 147.
    \10\ Memorandum of the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, 
Recommendations for disposition of the complaint filed against 
Representative DeLay. Accessed online on June 24, 2009 at http://
ethics.house.gov/Investigations/Default.aspx?Section=18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          ``It is probably not wrong for the campaign managers 
        of a legislator . . . to request contributions from 
        those for whom the legislator has done appreciable 
        favors, but this should never be presented as a payment 
        for the services rendered. Moreover, the possibility of 
        such a contribution should never be suggested by the 
        legislator or his staff as the time the favor is done. 
        Furthermore, a decent interval of time should be 
        allowed to lapse so that neither party will feel that 
        there is a close connection between the two acts. The 
        Standards Committee has long advised Members and staff 
        that they should always exercise caution to avoid even 
        the appearance that solicitations of campaign 
        contributions are connected in any way with an action 
        taken or to be taken in their official capacity.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ House Ethics Manual (2008) at 147.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          ``[A] Member should not sponsor or participate in any 
        solicitation that offers donors any special access to 
        the Member in the Member's official capacity.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          ``[G]overnment officials should never discriminate 
        unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or 
        privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or 
        not.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Id. at 151 (citing Code of Ethics for Government Service, 
para. 5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          `` `[P]ublic office is a public trust,' and the 
        public has a right to expect House Members and staff to 
        exercise impartial judgment in performing their 
        duties.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Id. at 151 (citing Code of Ethics for Government Service, 
para. 10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    24. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7353--Gifts to Federal Employees
          ``(a) Except as permitted by subsection (b), no 
        Member of Congress . . . shall solicit or accept 
        anything of value from a person--
          (1) seeking official action from, doing business with 
        . . . the individual's employing entity; or
          (2) whose interests may be substantially affected by 
        the performance or nonperformance of the individual's 
        official duties.
          (b)(1) Each supervising ethics office is authorized 
        to issue rules or regulations implementing the 
        provisions of this section and providing reasonable 
        exceptions as may be appropriate.
                  (2)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), a Member, 
                officer, or employee may accept a gift pursuant 
                to rules and regulations established by such 
                individual's supervising ethics office pursuant 
                to paragraph (1)
                  (B) No gift may be accepted pursuant to 
                subparagraph (A) in return for being influenced 
                in the performance of an official act.''

    25. House Ethics Manual--Soliciting Campaign and Political 
Contributions

          While the federal gift statute (5 U.S.C. 7353) 
        broadly restricts the ability of House Members and 
        staff to solicit things of value from virtually anyone, 
        even when no personal benefit to the solicitor is 
        involved, legislative materials concerning the statute 
        state that it does not apply to the solicitation of 
        political contributions. Consistent with those 
        materials, the Standards Committee has long taken the 
        position that the restrictions on solicitation set 
        forth in that statute do not apply to political 
        solicitations. However, in soliciting campaign or 
        political contributions, Members and staff are subject 
        to a number of other restrictions, as follows.
          A Contribution linked to an Official Action May Not 
        Be Accepted
          . . . no solicitation of a campaign or political 
        contribution may be linked to any action taken or to be 
        taken by a Member or employee in his or her official 
        capacity.
          In a similar vein, a Member or employee may not 
        accept any contribution that the donor links to any 
        official action that the Member or employee has taken, 
        or is being asked to take. In this respect, a campaign 
        or political contribution is treated like any other 
        gift, and acceptance of a contribution in these 
        circumstances may implicate a provision of the federal 
        gift statute (5 U.S.C. Sec. 7353) or the criminal 
        statutes on bribery and illegal gratuities.
    26. Based on the facts collected by the OCE, the Board 
concludes there is not substantial reason to believe the 
allegations that are the subject of this review.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Rule 9 of the OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS, RULES FOR THE 
CONDUCT OF INVESTIGATIONS 11 (2009) provides that ``[t]he Board shall 
refer a matter to the Standards Committee for further review if it 
determines there is a substantial reason to believe the allegation 
based on all the information then known to the Board.''

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. EARMARK PROCESS

    27. Representative Norman Dicks represents the 6th 
Congressional District of Washington.
    28. Representative Dicks is a Member of the House Committee 
on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Defense.
    29. The process for handling Representative Dicks' requests 
for earmarks for the Subcommittee on Defense is managed by 
Representative Dicks' Military Legislative Assistant.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Memorandum of Interview of Representative Norman Dicks, July 
31, 2009, (``Dicks' MOI'') (Exhibit 1 at para. 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    30. When vetting earmark requests, Representative Dicks' 
Military Legislative Assistant reviews each request for 
``soundness'' and the ability to bring value to the 
military.\17\ He also reviews the history of the project 
because Representative Dicks places a priority on completing 
prior projects.\18\ Representative Dicks' Military Legislative 
Assistant informed the OCE staff that Representative Dicks 
prefers to see that companies have created a program of record 
and that they have received funding from sources other than 
earmarks.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Memorandum of Interview of Representative Norman Dicks' 
Military Legislative Assistant, July 30, 2009, (``MLA MOI'') (Exhibit 2 
at para. 7).
    \18\ Id.
    \19\ Id. at para. 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    31. In a particular cycle, Representative Dicks' office 
receives an average of 120-150 national and non-national 
earmark requests.\20\ Approximately one-third of the requests 
are for national programs and two-thirds of the requests are 
for non-national projects.\21\ A national request project has 
the support of the President, non-national projects are non-
established programs of record in the Department of 
Defense.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Id. at para. 7.
    \21\ Id.
    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    32. Representative Dicks' Military Legislative Assistant is 
responsible for separating the national program requests from 
the non-national project requests and creating a two-tiered 
list of the non-national project requests.\23\ The first tier 
of the non-national projects list includes projects that 
received support in the past and the second tier includes the 
remaining requests.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ Id. at para. 20.
    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    33. After the list is created, Representative Dicks' 
Military Legislative Assistant schedules meetings for 
Representative Dicks with representatives of the companies that 
have submitted requests.\25\ Representative Dicks meets with 
each company's representative for a briefing on each 
request.\26\ The meetings are generally attended by a company 
official and at times the company's lobbyist and a program 
manager from the Department of Defense.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Dicks' MOI (Exhibit 1 at para. 2).
    \26\ Id.
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    34. Representative Dicks asks each company representative 
for the names of the individuals that they are working with at 
the Department of Defense so that he can check with the 
Department to ensure that the agency is interested in the 
project.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ Id. at para. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    35. Representative Dicks informed the OCE staff that he has 
served on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense for 31 
years and that he has always evaluated each request to 
determine if it was a meritorious project, whether it would 
diversify the economy of his district, and whether it would 
build up the private sector economy.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ Id. at para. 4, 5.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISING

    36. During the time period of the 2008 and 2010 campaign 
cycles, Representative Dicks accepted approximately $56,000 in 
campaign contributions from PMA's PAC and employees and from 
the PAC and employees of PMA clients.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ Contribution amounts are derived from reports filed with the 
Federal Election Commission by Norm Dicks for Congress and Retain the 
Majority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    37. Representative Dicks informed the OCE staff that he 
does very little fundraising; he does not review FEC filings to 
determine who has contributed to his campaign; and he does not 
make campaign calls.\31\ He explained that he had not been in a 
competitive race since 1982, and therefore, he did not have to 
spend his time fundraising.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Id. at para. 14, 15.
    \32\ Id. at para. 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    38. Representative Dicks Press Secretary informed the OCE 
staff that Representative Dicks' office did not have an 
internal policy regarding contributions and earmark 
requests.\33\ He explained that Representative Dicks did not 
know who made contributions or when contributions were made to 
his campaign.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ Memorandum of Interview of Representative Norman Dicks' Press 
Secretary, July 31, 2009, (``Press Secretary MOI'') (Exhibit 3 at para. 
4).
    \34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    39. Representative Dicks' campaign fundraising is primarily 
handled by Helen Milby & Company.\35\ The company handles all 
of the Congressman's fundraising events that are held in 
Washington, DC.\36\ The company does not handle the events that 
are held in his district.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ Memorandum of Interview of Representative Norman Dicks' 
Fundraising Consultant, July 31, 2009, (``Consultant MOI'') (Exhibit 4 
at para. 2).
    \36\ Id.
    \37\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    40. Representative Dicks typically holds two fundraising 
breakfasts per year.\38\ One is held early in the year and the 
other is held at the end of the year.\39\ The campaign also 
holds a spring or fall event at the Washington Athletic Club 
and an event in August at the Kiona Lodge in the Congressman's 
home state.\40\ There is also an event held in Tacoma, 
Washington and several smaller events, such as receptions, that 
are held at various times of the year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ Dicks' MOI (Exhibit 1 at para. 7).
    \39\ Id.
    \40\ Id. at para. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    41. Representative Dicks' PAC, the National Organization to 
Retain the Majority, was established on June 16, 2008.\41\ 
Fundraising for the PAC is handled by Representative Dicks' 
fundraising consultant.\42\ The fundraising consultant holds 
approximately one fundraising event per month for the 
Congressman.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\ Id. at para. 11.
    \42\ Consultant MOI (Exhibit 4 at para. 2).
    \43\ Id. at para. 5.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. RELATIONSHIP WITH PMA

    42. During the time period of the 2008 and 2010 campaign 
cycles, four corporate clients of PMA were awarded earmarks 
requested by Representative Dicks.
    43. The PMA clients that received earmarks during this 
period are:
          (a) Concurrent Technologies Corp. (Requested, 
        $11,400,000)
          (b) 21st Century Systems, Inc. (Requested, 
        $3,200,000)
          (c) Advanced Acoustics Concepts (Requested, 
        $2,800,000)
          (d) Planning Systems, Inc. (Requested, $2,400,000) 
        \44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\ H.R. 3222, Pub. L. 110-116 (2008); H.R. 2638, Pub. L. 110-329 
(2009); and H.R. 3326, 111 Cong. (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    44. Representative Dicks informed the OCE staff that he 
knew Mr. Paul Magliocchetti and that he saw him at social 
events and possibly at some fundraisers.\45\ He further stated 
that there was no one person at PMA that he dealt with more 
than any other.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\ Id. at para. 13.
    \46\ Id. at para. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    45. Representative Dicks' Military Legislative Assistant 
informed the OCE staff that he rarely dealt with Mr. 
Magliocchetti and that he normally met with Mr. Sean Fogharty 
or Ms. Julie Giardino.\47\ He further stated that 
Representative Dicks had expressed the view that PMA had dealt 
with the office in a professional matter.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\ MLA MOI (Exhibit 2 at para. 8).
    \48\ Id. at para. 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    46. Representative Dicks' Military Legislative Assistant 
further stated that for the last two earmark cycles, 
Representative Dicks wanted to reduce the office's number of 
earmark requests and wanted the office to only focus on those 
projects that were located in his district.\49\ He also 
informed the OCE staff that Concurrent Technologies Corp., 21st 
Century Systems, Inc., Advanced Acoustics Concepts, and 
Planning Systems Inc. all have offices located in Bremerton, 
Washington.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\ Id. at para. 5.
    \50\ Id. at para. 9-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    47. Representative Dicks informed the OCE staff that in his 
review of earmark requests, he looks to see if the military is 
interested in the project, if the company has a presence in his 
District, and whether the request is for a meritorious 
project.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\ Dicks' MOI (Exhibit 1 at para. 3-4).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. PERCEPTION OF CORPORATE DONORS

    48. There is evidence that the commercial entities seeking 
earmarks from Members of Congress believe that a political 
donation to the Member has an impact on the Member's decision 
to author an earmark for that donor.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \52\ Century Systems, Inc. Proposed CY 2008 Congressional Campaign 
Contributions (Exhibit 5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    49. Representative Dicks credibly articulated a process 
that separates his legislative activities and his campaign 
fundraising activities. Representative Dicks has achieved this 
separation by reducing or eliminating his and his legislative 
staff's exposure to information from the campaign's fundraising 
operation.\53\ Similarly, to the extent Representative Dicks 
has campaign staff or retains a professional fundraiser, his 
campaign staff and professional fundraiser are isolated from 
his legislative agenda.\54\ As a result, neither the campaign 
nor Representative Dicks' legislative staff is aware of what 
the other is doing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\ Dicks' MOI (Exhibit 1 at para. 15).
    \54\ MLA MOI (Exhibit 2 at para. 18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    50. Representative Dicks explained to the OCE that he 
operates his campaign and Congressional office in this manner 
to prevent even the appearance that his legislative acts are 
influenced by contributions to his campaign or PAC. One risk 
associated with this type of operation is the possibility of an 
appearance of a conflict of interest if, out of ignorance, the 
Member's campaign accepts a contribution near in time to a 
legislative act that impacts the individual or entity making 
the contribution. This potential for an appearance of a 
conflict may explain why companies requesting an earmark appear 
to think that a contribution to the respective campaign or PAC 
affects the ultimate receipt of the earmark. The House Ethics 
Manual is unclear as to what obligations, if any, are placed on 
a Member to discourage or disabuse a company of that 
impression.

F. CONTRIBUTIONS LINKED TO OFFICIAL ACTS BY OUTSIDE ENTITIES

    51. In several instances, the OCE uncovered evidence that 
commercial entities seeking earmarks from Members of Congress 
appear to have linked contributions to Members' campaigns and/
or PACs to specific legislative acts.\55\ These documents were 
internal to the companies and there is no evidence they were 
shared with Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\ Century Systems, Inc. Proposed CY 2008 Congressional Campaign 
Contributions (Exhibit 5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    52. The federal gift statute, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7353, prohibits 
the solicitation or acceptance of anything of value from a 
person seeking official action from or doing business with the 
House, or from someone whose interests may be substantially 
affected by the performance or nonperformance of a Member's, 
officer's or staff member's official duties. The statute also 
provides that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
may enact reasonable exceptions to the prohibition. According 
to the Ethics Manual, the Standards Committee has long taken 
the position that the restrictions on solicitation set forth in 
the statute do not apply to political solicitations. However, 
Members and staff are subject to a number of other restrictions 
regarding the solicitation of campaign or political 
contributions under the rules of the House.
    53. Under House rules, a Member or employee may not accept 
any contribution that the donor links to any official action 
that the Member or employee has taken, or is being asked to 
take. If a donor's contribution is linked to any official 
action, it is treated like any other gift and may be subject as 
such to the federal gift statute and the criminal statutes on 
bribery and illegal gratuities.
    54. The Board notes that the examples provided in the 
Ethics Manual of instances where a Member may be in violation 
of the House's rule against accepting a contribution linked to 
an official action are all instances in which the Member has 
some degree of knowledge of the link. As a result, it stands to 
reason that it is unlikely a violation of the rule could occur 
unless and until a Member is aware of the link and does nothing 
to remedy the situation.
    55. The Board finds nothing in the factual record to 
indicate the Member was aware that the donor linked the 
contribution to an official act. As such, the Board concludes 
there is not a substantial reason to believe that a violation 
of either 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7353 or the applicable House rules 
occurred. However once the Member becomes aware of the link, if 
the matter is not remedied by either the Member or by formal 
advice from the Standards Committee declaring the contribution 
acceptable, then a violation may occur.

                            III. CONCLUSION

    56. For these reasons, the Board recommends that the 
Standards Committee dismiss the above described allegations 
concerning Representative Dicks.

 IV. INFORMATION THE OCE WAS UNABLE TO OBTAIN AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 
                       THE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS

    57. In every instance, the OCE asked the recipient of an 
OCE request for information to identify any information they 
withheld and the reason for doing so. However, absent the 
authority to subpoena the evidence in possession of the 
witness, it is impossible for the OCE to verify if information 
was withheld, but not documented.
    58. In some instances documents were redacted or specific 
information was not provided. For instance, DRS Technologies 
provided evidence responsive to the OCE's Request for 
Information but indicated they would not provide any 
information regarding their ``Legislative Strategy.''
    59. In at least one instance, the OCE had reason to believe 
a witness withheld information requested, but did not comply 
with the OCE's request that they identify what was being 
withheld. Specifically, Boeing Corporation represented that 
they had fully cooperated. However, the Boeing Corporation 
indicated that they had no electronic mail responsive to the 
OCE's Request for Information. The OCE then received, from 
another source, electronic mail to and from Boeing Corporation 
that were in fact responsive to the OCE's request.
    60. The Board also notes that while the OCE was able to 
interview six former employees of PMA that provided general 
information on PMA and its business practices, many remaining 
former employees refused to consent to interviews. In addition, 
the OCE was unable to obtain any evidence within PMA's 
possession.
    61. The Board makes the recommendation contained in this 
referral based on the factual record before it. Given its 
recommendation to dismiss, the Board does not recommend the 
issuance of subpoenas, but recognizes that the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct may determine otherwise.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5498A.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5498A.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5498A.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5498A.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5498A.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5498A.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5498A.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5498A.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5498A.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5498A.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5498A.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5498A.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5498A.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5498A.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5498A.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5498A.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5498A.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5498A.018

