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


   111th Congress 1st 
         Session        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES      Review No.
                                                       09-9064
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

 
                     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-
                                  9064


111th Congress 
 1st Session            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES             Review No.
                                                                09-9064
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

                                                                       

                     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
Kedric L. Payne, Investigative 
    Counsel
                                 REPORT

                           Review No. 09-9064

    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 Marcy Kaptur
    NATURE OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION: Representative Marcy 
Kaptur authored several fiscal year 2009 earmarks for clients 
of PMA Group, Inc. (hereafter ``PMA''). During campaign cycles 
2008 and 2010, Representative Kaptur received contributions to 
her campaign committee from PMA's PAC, PMA employees, the PACs 
of PMA clients for whom she authored earmarks, and the 
employees of those clients.
    If Representative Kaptur 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 Kaptur 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), 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 KAPTUR REQUESTED 
     EARMARKS FOR PMA CLIENTS IN CONNECTION WITH CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS 
     THAT SHE RECEIVED................................................8
          A. Applicable Law, Rules, and Standards of Conduct.....     8
          B. Representative Kaptur's Evaluation of Earmark 
              Requests...........................................    11
          C. Representative Kaptur's Campaign Fundraising........    12
          D. Representative Kaptur's Relationship with PMA.......    13
          E. Perception of Corporate Donors......................    14
          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.......................................16
                 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CITATIONS TO LAW

                           Review No. 09-9064

    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 Kaptur 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.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ 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. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

    2. The allegations that are the subject of this review 
concern Representative Kaptur, a Member of the United States 
House of Representatives from the 9th District of Ohio. 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.'' 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.

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 on September 17, 2009, as provided for 
under H. Res 895. The extension 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 further review and adopted 
these findings on November 20, 2009.
    7. This report and findings in this matter 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 
``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 PMA 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 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 Kaptur;
          (72) Representative Kaptur's Chief of Staff; and
          (73) Representative Kaptur's Deputy Chief of Staff.

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


A. APPLICABLE LAW, RULES, AND STANDARDS 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 individuals employing entity; or
          (2) whose interests may be substantially affected by 
        the performance or nonperformance of the individuals 
        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 
                individuals 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. Sec. 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.

B. REPRESENTATIVE KAPTUR'S EVALUATION OF EARMARK REQUESTS

    26. Representative Kaptur is a Member of the House 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense (hereafter the ``Defense 
Subcommittee''). She has developed an informal process for 
evaluating the various requests that she receives for 
earmarks.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Memorandum of Interview of Representative Marcy Kaptur, 
October 25, 2009 (``Kaptur MOI'') (Exhibit 1 at 09-9064_2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    27. Representative Kaptur explained to the OCE that her 
support for earmark requests is based on her legislative 
priorities, which were developed in 2006. These priorities 
include economic security (e.g., jobs in her district); 
national security (e.g., U.S. energy independence), and 
environmental legacy.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Id.; Email from Representative Kaptur to Staff, dated March 8, 
2006 (Exhibit 2 at 09-9064_5-6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    28. Representative Kaptur's Deputy Chief of Staff manages 
the requests that the office receives for earmarks.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Memorandum of Interview of Representative Kapturs Deputy Chief 
of Staff, October 15, 2009 (``Deputy COS MOI'') (Exhibit 3 at 09-
9064_8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    29. The office usually begins receiving earmark requests 
annually in January.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    30. The initial evaluations of the earmark requests are 
done by Representative Kaptur's staff based on certain 
criteria, including the nature of the project, the 
organizational capabilities of the requesting entity, and the 
relevance of the project to the Defense Subcommittee.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Id. at 09-9064_9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    31. A significant factor in the evaluation process is 
whether the proposed project contributes to economic 
development and jobs.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    32. Representative Kaptur is specifically supportive of 
earmark requests that involve alternative energy sources and 
urban redevelopment.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    33. In contrast, Representative Kaptur is not supportive of 
earmark requests for projects that are not in her district and 
projects without a connection to Ohio.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    34. In addition to evaluating earmarks requests that are 
brought to the office, the office also self-initiates earmark 
requests if the Representative or staff notices certain needs 
in the district.\23\ For example, if there are issues with 
infrastructure, such as dilapidated bridges, Representative 
Kaptur may direct her staff to research any funding assistance 
that may be available.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ Id. at 09-9064_8.
    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    35. After the staff has evaluated the earmark requests, the 
Deputy Chief of Staff meets with Representative Kaptur to 
discuss the staff recommendations. Representative Kaptur 
typically makes changes to the suggestions and may add more 
requests.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Id. at 09-9064_9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    36. The staff revises their suggestions based on 
Representative Kaptur's changes, and then the suggestions are 
sent to her at least one more time for any additional 
changes.\26\ Following any additional changes, the requests for 
earmarks are finalized and submitted to the House 
Appropriations Defense Subcommittee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    37. Representative Kaptur's Deputy Chief of Staff is not 
involved in soliciting campaign contributions for 
Representative Kaptur's campaign. He told the OCE that the 
process for evaluating earmark requests does not include any 
consideration of campaign contributions from the requesting 
entities.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ Id. at 09-9064_10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    38. With respect to specific earmark requests that 
Representative Kaptur submitted on behalf of PMA clients, 
Representative Kaptur explained her rationale for supporting 
the decisions during her interview. She explained in detail the 
origin of the projects and their benefit to her district as 
well as the relationship to her legislative priorities (e.g., 
alternative energy initiatives).\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ Kaptur MOI (Exhibit 1 at 09-9064_3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    39. For example, Representative Kaptur explained that 
Xunlight Corporation existed many years before the PMA firm was 
founded and that she interacts directly with the management of 
the company, not PMA. She supports earmarks for the company 
because it creates new technology related to solar power. In 
addition, the company collaborates with the local university in 
her district. The university's investment in the company 
creates local jobs and helps to keep the company in the 
district.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    40. Similarly, she requested earmarks for Imaging System 
Technology because the company creates jobs in her district 
related to the manufacture of high tech computer screens. 
Representative Kaptur is concerned about the fact that no 
televisions are manufactured in the United States and she 
believes that her support of the company may result in it 
becoming a television manufacturer.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    41. Representative Kaptur also told the OCE that she has 
established relationships with the principals of the companies 
for whom she requests earmarks and in many cases was not aware 
that the companies were represented by PMA.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Id.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. REPRESENTATIVE KAPTUR'S CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISING

    42. During campaign cycles 2008 and 2010, Representative 
Kaptur accepted approximately $56,000 in campaign contributions 
from PMA's PAC and employees and from the PAC and employees of 
PMA clients.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ Contribution amounts are derived from reports filed with the 
Federal Election Commission by Kaptur for Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    43. Representative Kaptur does not have any full time 
campaign staff.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ Memorandum of Interview of Representative Kaptur's Chief of 
Staff, October 15, 2009 (Exhibit 4 at 09-9064_12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    44. Her staff person who was most involved with the 
campaign passed away in early 2009.
    45. Representative Kaptur's Chief of Staff is responsible 
for the hiring of part-time campaign staff during election 
years.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    46. He explained to the OCE that approximately 95 percent 
of the fundraising is done through ``blast'' faxes that the 
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sends out at the 
request of Representative Kaptur's campaign.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    47. The remaining 5 percent of fundraisers are done by 
various hosts who request to hold fundraisers for the 
Congresswoman.
    48. According to Representative Kaptur's Chief of Staff, 
campaign contribution solicitations do not target entities 
requesting earmarks from Representative Kaptur. Solicitations 
are sent to various people who give the office business cards 
throughout the year. These business cards are collected in a 
box and used to make a mailing list. As a result, some of those 
business cards may include entities that have requested 
earmarks.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    49. The campaign typically hosts fundraising events in the 
spring and the fall. The reason for the timing of such events 
is because this is when the Representative is in Washington, 
D.C.

D. REPRESENTATIVE KAPTUR'S RELATIONSHIP WITH PMA

    50. During the time period of the 2008 and 2010 campaign 
cycles, six corporate clients of PMA were awarded earmarks 
requested by Representative Kaptur.
    51. The PMA clients for which Representative Kaptur 
requested earmarks during this period are:
          (a) Imaging System Technology, Inc. ($8,400,000);
          (b) Advanced Concepts & Technologies Intl. 
        ($5,900,000);
          (c) Parametric Technology Corporation ($1,200,000);
          (d) Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc./Teledyne 
        Technologies ($3,200,000); and
          (e) Xunlight Corporation ($2,800,000).\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\ H.R. 3222, Pub. L. 110-116 (2008); H.R. 2638, Pub. L. 110-329 
(2009); and H.R. 3326, 111 Cong. (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    52. Representative Kaptur explained to the OCE that she did 
not know that any of the six were clients of PMA. According to 
Representative Kaptur, her interaction with the companies, if 
any, is directly with management of the companies.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ Kaptur MOI (Exhibit 1 at 09-9064_3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    53. Representative Kaptur's contact with PMA lobbyists was 
limited to approximately once per year, when she saw lobbyists 
at fundraising events.
    54. The staff person who was the primary contact with PMA 
was Representative Kaptur's Deputy Chief of Staff.
    55. Representative Kaptur's Deputy Chief of Staff 
interacted with PMA lobbyists during the appropriations season, 
which began in January. He met with the lobbyists to discuss 
earmark request for their clients.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ Deputy COS MOI (Exhibit 3 at 09-9064_8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    56. During the meetings, the PMA lobbyists did not discuss 
campaign contributions with him. He does not have a role with 
Representative Kaptur's campaign and he does not solicit 
contributions.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\ Id. at 09-9064_9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    57. Representative Kaptur's Deputy Chief of Staff, who 
manages the evaluation process of the earmark requests, told 
the OCE that two (i.e., Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc. and 
Teledyne Controls) of the six companies contacted requested the 
earmark directly and PMA did not represent them before their 
office.\41\ Therefore, he did not consider these two companies 
to be PMA clients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    58. The Deputy Chief of Staff attends Representative 
Kaptur's fundraisers and he has interacted with PMA lobbyists 
during these events. His discussion with the lobbyists may have 
involved the schedule for mark-ups on earmarks, but the 
conversations did not involve suggestions that their earmarks 
should be supported because of campaign contributions.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\ Id. at 09-9064_10.

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

    59. 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.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ Memorandum of Interview of Legislative Affairs Director, 
Teledyne Controls, October 6, 2009 (Exhibit 6 at 09-9064_19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    60. Representative Kaptur and her staff credibly 
articulated a process that separates her legislative activities 
and her campaign fundraising activities. She achieves this 
separation by reducing or eliminating her and her legislative 
staff's exposure to information from the campaign's fundraising 
operation. Similarly, Representative Kaptur's campaign staff is 
isolated from her legislative agenda. As a result, neither the 
campaign nor the legislative staff is aware of what the other 
is doing. In each case, both legislative staff and campaign 
staff corroborated the Representative Kaptur's account.
    61. Representative Kaptur and her staff's descriptions of 
how she operates her campaign and Congressional office 
establish that she attempts to prevent even the appearance that 
the legislative acts are influenced by contributions to the 
campaign. One risk associated with this type of operation is 
the possibility of an appearance of a conflict of interest if, 
out of ignorance, her 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

    62. 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. These documents were 
internal to the companies and there is no evidence they were 
shared with Members.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\ Teledyne PAC Contribution Request (Exhibit 5 at 09-9064_16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    63. 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.
    64. 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.
    65. 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.
    66. 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 either by the Member or by formal 
advice from the Standards Committee declaring the contribution 
acceptable, then a violation may occur.

                            III. CONCLUSION

    67. Representative Kaptur and her staff explained to the 
OCE in detail why she requested earmarks for PMA clients for 
fiscal years 2008 to 2010.
    68. Representative Kaptur's support for the earmarks 
complied with her general policy of requesting earmarks that 
are consistent with her legislative priorities and constituent 
concerns.
    69. Based on the information that the OCE collected during 
this review, the operation of Representative Kaptur's campaign 
is separate from her earmark evaluation process and the 
campaign does not influence her decisions on earmarks.
    70. As a result, there is not substantial reason to believe 
that Representative Kaptur solicited or accepted campaign 
contributions for the earmark requests on behalf of PMA 
clients.
    71. For these reasons, the Board recommends that the 
Standards Committee dismiss the above described allegations 
concerning Representative Kaptur.

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

    72. 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.
    73. 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.
    74. In at least one instance, the OCE had reason to believe 
that 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, 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.
    75. 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.
    76. 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.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5499A.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5499A.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5499A.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5499A.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5499A.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5499A.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5499A.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5499A.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5499A.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5499A.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5499A.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5499A.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5499A.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5499A.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5499A.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5499A.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5499A.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5499A.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5499A.019

