[House Report 111-423]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                 House Calendar No. 167

111th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     111-423

======================================================================




  IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO THE LOBBYING ACTIVITIES OF 
          PAUL MAGLIOCCHETTI AND ASSOCIATES GROUP, INC. (PMA)

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                       COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF

                            OFFICIAL CONDUCT




 February 26, 2010.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed



               COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT

ZOE LOFGREN, California              JO BONNER, Alabama
  Chair                                Ranking Republican Member
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky               MIKE CONAWAY, Texas
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina     CHARLES DENT, Pennsylvania
KATHY CASTOR, Florida                GREGG HARPER, Mississippi
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 MICHAEL McCAUL, Texas

             R. Blake Chisam, Chief Counsel/Staff Director
                  C. Morgan Kim, Deputy Chief Counsel
                 Daniel J. Taylor, Counsel to the Chair
       Kelle Strickland, Counsel to the Ranking Republican Member
                         Marc Borodin, Counsel
                   Frank Davies, Senior Investigator
                  Amelia Johnson, Investigative Clerk



                         LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
                                 Washington, DC, February 26, 2010.
Hon. Lorraine C. Miller,
Clerk, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Ms. Miller: Pursuant to clauses 3(a)(2) and 3(b) of 
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, we 
herewith transmit the attached Report, ``In the Matter of 
Allegations Relating to the Lobbying Activities of Paul 
Magliocchetti and Associates Group, Inc., (PMA).''
            Sincerely,
                                   Zoe Lofgren,
                                           Chair.
                                   Jo Bonner,
                                           Ranking Republican
                                             Member.


                            C O N T E N T S


                              ----------                              

                                                                   Page
 I. INTRODUCTION......................................................1
II. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS..........................................2
III.STATEMENT UNDER RULE 13, CLAUSE 3(c) OF THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF 
    REPRESENTATIVES...................................................5
APPENDIX A: REPORT AND FINDINGS OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL 
  ETHICS REGARDING REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN DICKS (Review No. 09-
  9063)..........................................................     6
APPENDIX B: REPORT AND FINDINGS OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL 
  ETHICS REGARDING REPRESENTATIVE MARCY KAPTUR (Review No. 09-
  9064)..........................................................    42
APPENDIX C: REPORT AND FINDINGS OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL 
  ETHICS REGARDING REPRESENTATIVE JAMES MORAN (Review No. 09-
  9075)..........................................................    80
APPENDIX D: REPORT AND FINDINGS OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL 
  ETHICS REGARDING FORMER REPRESENTATIVE JOHN MURTHA (Review No. 
  09-9099).......................................................   112
APPENDIX E: REPORT AND FINDINGS OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL 
  ETHICS REGARDING REPRESENTATIVE TODD TIAHRT (Review No. 09-
  9012)..........................................................   155
APPENDIX F: REPORT AND FINDINGS OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL 
  ETHICS REGARDING REPRESENTATIVE PETER VISCLOSKY (Review No. 09-
  4486)..........................................................   208
APPENDIX G: REPORT AND FINDINGS OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL 
  ETHICS REGARDING REPRESENTATIVE C.W. BILL YOUNG (Review No. 09-
  1583)..........................................................   252
APPENDIX H: REPRESENTATIVE TODD TIAHRT'S RESPONSE TO THE REPORT 
  AND FINDINGS OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS.............   278
APPENDIX I: REPRESENTATIVE PETER VISCLOSKY'S RESPONSE TO THE 
  REPORT AND FINDINGS OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS......   290



111th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     111-423

======================================================================




               COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT


 
  IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO THE LOBBYING ACTIVITIES OF 
          PAUL MAGLIOCCHETTI AND ASSOCIATES GROUP, INC. (PMA)

                                _______
                                

 February 26, 2010.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

   Ms. Lofgren, from the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                            I. INTRODUCTION

    The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (Standards 
Committee) initiated an investigation in the above-captioned 
matter in the spring of 2009. The investigation was commenced 
and conducted pursuant to Standards Committee Rule 18(a).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Pursuant to Standards Committee Rule 18(a), the Chair and 
Ranking Republican Member of the Standards Committee authorized a 
review of allegations that related to this matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On June 3, 2009, the House of Representatives referred H. 
Res. 500 to the Standards Committee for its consideration.\2\ 
H. Res. 500, if adopted by the House, would have directed the 
Standards Committee to report to the House actions taken 
regarding any misconduct of Members and staff in connection 
with the Paul Magliocchetti and Associates Group, Inc. (PMA), a 
now-shuttered lobbying firm. Because the Standards Committee 
was already investigating the matter that was the subject of H. 
Res. 500, the Standards Committee took no action on the 
resolution and has not reported it back to the House. On June 
11, 2009, the Chair and Ranking Republican Member of the 
Standards Committee issued a public statement acknowledging the 
Standards Committee's ongoing investigation relating to the PMA 
matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\H. Res. 500, 111th Cong. (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Standards Committee continued its investigation into 
allegations related to PMA's lobbying activities and whether 
those allegations implicated issues within the Standards 
Committee's jurisdiction.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\The Standards Committee has jurisdiction over the conduct of 
Members, officers, and employees of the House. See House Rule X, clause 
1(q); House Rule XI, clauses 3(a)(2) and 3(b); and Standards Committee 
Rule 18. It has no jurisdiction to independently investigate private 
entities, such as PMA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Approximately six months later, on December 2, 2009, the 
Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) forwarded to the Standards 
Committee reports and findings in seven separate matters 
involving alleged potential connections between defense 
subcommittee earmarks and campaign contributions.\4\ Each of 
those matters concerned allegations related to the activities 
of PMA. OCE's Board recommended dismissal in five matters. 
Those matters involved Representatives Norman Dicks, Marcy 
Kaptur, James Moran, John Murtha, and C.W. Bill Young. In the 
other two matters, which concerned Representatives Todd Tiahrt 
and Peter Visclosky, OCE's Board recommended that the Standards 
Committee further review OCE's allegations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\OCE's Reports and Findings of Fact and Citations to Law (Reports 
and Findings) regarding the seven matters can be found at the following 
Appendices: Representative Dicks, Review No. 09-9063 (Appendix A); 
Representative Kaptur, Review No. 09-9064 (Appendix B); Representative 
Moran, Review No. 09-9075 (Appendix C); former Representative Murtha, 
Review No. 09-9099 (Appendix D); Representative Tiahrt, Review No. 09-
9012 (Appendix E); Representative Visclosky, Review No. 09-4486 
(Appendix F); and Representative Young, Review No. 09-1583 (Appendix 
G).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In early December 2009, the Standards Committee provided 
Representatives Tiahrt and Visclosky with OCE's respective 
Reports and Findings relating to them and offered each the 
opportunity to respond to OCE's allegations. Representative 
Tiahrt's counsel submitted a response on December 22, 2009, 
which Representative Tiahrt formally adopted by oath or 
affirmation.\5\ On December 28, 2009, Representative 
Visclosky's counsel submitted a response, which Representative 
Visclosky likewise formally adopted by oath or affirmation.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\Representative Tiahrt's response to OCE's allegations against 
him in OCE's Report and Findings can be found at Appendix H.
    \6\Representative Visclosky's response to OCE's allegations against 
him in OCE's Report and Findings can be found at Appendix I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On January 15, 2010, the Chair and Ranking Republican 
Member of the Standards Committee issued a statement announcing 
they had jointly decided to extend the Committee's 
consideration of OCE's transmittals regarding Representatives 
Tiahrt and Visclosky for a 45-day period.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\House Rule XI, clause 3(b)(8)(A), and Standards Committee Rules 
17A(b)(1) and 17A(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This Report resolves both the Standards Committee's 
independent investigation and the seven matters forwarded by 
OCE. The Standards Committee has unanimously determined that 
the evidence presently before the Committee does not support a 
determination that any House Member or employee violated any 
law, regulation, rule or other applicable standard of conduct.
    Accordingly, the Standards Committee hereby closes its 
investigation in the above-captioned matter and dismisses the 
seven matters OCE forwarded to the Standards Committee.

                      II. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

    The Standards Committee's investigation in the above-
captioned matter over the past nine months included extensive 
document reviews and interviews with numerous witnesses. The 
Standards Committee's staff reviewed close to one-quarter of a 
million pages of documents. The investigation covered more than 
40 companies with ties to PMA and more than 25 Member offices. 
It involved interviews with CEOs of companies, and chiefs of 
staff and military legislative aides to Members, among other 
staffers.
    As a result of its own investigation and OCE's seven 
separate Reports and Findings, which were drawn from more than 
79,000 documents, the Standards Committee has reached the 
following findings and conclusions.
    First, the Standards Committee found no evidence that 
Members or their official staff considered campaign 
contributions as a factor when requesting earmarks. The 
Standards Committee further found no evidence that Members or 
their official staff were directly or indirectly engaged in 
seeking contributions in return for earmarks. Rather, the 
evidence showed that earmarks were evaluated based upon 
criteria independent of campaign contributions, such as the 
number of jobs created in the Member's district or the value to 
the taxpayer or the U.S. military, and without Members or their 
official staff linking, or being aware that companies may have 
intended to link, contributions with earmarks.
    Members are elected to serve their constituents and to 
legislate. Under our system of government, these duties may 
include appropriations requests commonly referred to as 
earmarks. However, simply because a Member sponsors an earmark 
for an entity that also happens to be a campaign contributor 
does not, on these two facts alone, support a claim that a 
Member's actions are being influenced by campaign 
contributions.\8\ As the Supreme Court has observed in other 
contexts, ``[t]o hold otherwise would open to prosecution not 
only conduct that has long been thought to be well within the 
law but also conduct that in a very real sense is unavoidable 
so long as election campaigns are financed by private 
contributions or expenditures, as they have been from the 
beginning of the Nation.''\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\See Memorandum attached to Statement of House Comm. on Standards 
of Official Conduct, regarding disposition of the complaint filed 
against Representative Tom DeLay, 108th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2004), at 22. 
Moreover, contributions for the purpose of engendering goodwill with a 
Member because of his or her official position do not run afoul of laws 
covering illegal gratuities and bribery. See United States v. Sun-
Diamond Growers, 526 U.S. 398, 404-408 (1999) (holding that 
establishing a violation of federal gratuity statute requires proof 
beyond a gift given by reason of the recipient's official position, but 
rather must be linked to a specific official act; and establishing a 
violation of federal bribery statute requires proof of a quid pro quo 
involving a specific official act). While the standards of conduct are 
broader than prohibitions under federal criminal statutes, as discussed 
above, the record did not show evidence of any direct or indirect link 
by a Member or their official staff between earmarks and contributions.
    \9\McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257, 272 (1991) (reversing 
conviction for extortion, under 18 U.S.C. 1951, in absence of quid pro 
quo, regardless of whether campaign contributions were legitimate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Second, the Standards Committee's investigation uncovered 
troubling aspects to PMA's conduct. The evidence revealed 
instances in which PMA employed ``strong-arm'' tactics, 
threatening to withdraw financial support or encourage 
businesses to relocate out of a Member's district if Members 
did not reverse policies opposing earmarks. In these instances, 
Members and their staff refused to change their positions and, 
in one case, notified the Standards Committee.
    The evidence also showed that PMA's lobbyists pushed or 
directed company executives to maximize personal or Political 
Action Committee (PAC) campaign contributions and to attend 
specific fundraisers while pursuing earmarks.\10\ However, the 
evidence did not show that Members or their official staff were 
included in discussions or correspondence about, coordinated 
with PMA on, or knew of these strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\To the extent documents referenced contributions amounts, the 
available evidence showed that those specific amounts were driven by 
PMA or internally by companies. No evidence reflected that these 
amounts were determined in consultation with Members or their official 
staff, or with their knowledge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Standards Committee's investigation did find that there 
is a widespread perception among corporations and lobbyists 
that campaign contributions provide enhanced access to Members 
or a greater chance of obtaining earmarks. However, the record 
indicates that Members, by and large, take great care to 
separate their official and campaign functions, particularly 
with respect to earmark requests.\11\ Significantly, the 
evidence showed equal, if not more, instances of companies 
questioning why they had not obtained an earmark after making 
substantial campaign contributions to Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\This finding in this matter is consistent with the Committee's 
historical experience that, with rare exception, ``Members do not 
violate the basic prohibitions that apply in this area, i.e., Members 
do not enter into agreements, either explicit or implicit, to trade 
their votes or other official actions for campaign contributions, and 
Members do not take a particular official action merely because a 
campaign donor has requested them to do so.'' Memorandum attached to 
Statement of House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, regarding 
disposition of the complaint filed against Representative Tom DeLay, 
108th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2004), at 22 (emphasis in original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, with respect to the specific matters forwarded by 
OCE, the Standards Committee found that the evidence in each of 
the seven matters OCE reviewed did not differ materially from 
one case to the next. Each of the subject Members cooperated 
with OCE, providing detailed responses to OCE's requests for 
documents. All but two of the Members and their staff were 
interviewed by OCE. It was in these two matters that OCE found 
``probable cause''\12\ to recommend further review as opposed 
to a ``substantial reason to believe the allegations.'' OCE's 
recommendations in those two matters rested largely upon the 
fact that the Members, for differing reasons, were not 
interviewed.\13\ In any event, neither the evidence cited in 
OCE's findings for the seven Members, nor the evidence in the 
record before the Standards Committee, provides a substantial 
reason to believe the Members violated applicable standards of 
conduct.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\OCE applied this more relaxed standard of review, 
notwithstanding the fact that the two Members appear to have cooperated 
significantly in providing documents and offering OCE testimony, albeit 
in a manner or under conditions different than OCE preferred. 
Representative Tiahrt provided a written statement under oath, subject 
to criminal penalties for perjury, in which he flatly denied all of 
OCE's allegations. Representative Visclosky, through counsel, offered 
to be interviewed by OCE, if OCE provided assurances that those 
portions of an interview that touched upon privileged legislative 
matters be kept confidential within the Legislative Branch. OCE 
apparently did not view this manner of cooperation as sufficient when 
it reached its conclusion that a more relaxed standard was appropriate 
because it ``was unable to obtain information necessary to reach'' that 
``there is a substantial reason to believe the allegations based on all 
the information then known to the Board.'' OCE Rule 9.
    \13\See OCE Findings para.para.1, 56-57, relating to Representative 
Tiahrt (Appendix E); and OCE Findings para.para. 1, 49, 53-54, relating 
to Representative Visclosky (Appendix F). The only discernible 
difference supporting OCE's use of a more relaxed standard appears to 
have been OCE's judgment that these Members failed to cooperate in 
OCE's preferred manner. OCE apparently did not conclude that either 
Representative Tiahrt or Representative Visclosky refused to cooperate. 
OCE Rule 6.
    \14\Indeed, a full examination of the materials did not establish 
probable cause of a quid pro quo, or of illegitimate political 
solicitations by Members or official staff. Nor did the materials 
reviewed establish that Members or their staff had any knowledge of 
links that PMA or companies may have associated between contributions 
and earmark requests. In many instances, Members did not ultimately 
request of the House Appropriations Committee earmarks for projects 
supported by contributors, including, for example, the earmark request 
in fiscal year 2009, that is the heart of OCE's allegations against 
Representative Tiahrt in OCE's Findings and documents appended thereto 
(Appendix E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In light of the foregoing, the Standards Committee, by a 
unanimous vote of its Members, hereby closes its investigation 
in the above-captioned matter and dismisses each of the seven 
OCE matters referenced above, which were forwarded to the 
Standards Committee.
    The Chair is directed, upon providing the notices required 
pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 3(b)(8)(A), and Committee 
Rule 17A(a)(2), to file this Report with the House, together 
with copies of OCE's seven Reports and Findings in this matter, 
along with any responses filed, all of which are made a part of 
this Report and appended hereto.\15\ The filing of this Report, 
along with its publication on the Standards Committee's Web 
site, shall serve as publication of OCE's Reports and Findings 
in this matter, pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 3(b)(8)(A), 
and Committee Rule 17A(b)(3) and 17A(c)(2). No other version of 
OCE's Reports and Findings in this matter is authorized and any 
publication of OCE's Reports and Findings independent of this 
Report is not authorized.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\House Rule XI, clauses 3(a)(2) and 3(b). While the Committee is 
not required to make public OCE's Reports and Findings in this matter 
in which OCE also recommended dismissal, see House Rule XI, clause 
3(b)(8)(B)(i) and Standards Committee Rule 17A(e), the Committee has 
exercised its authority, pursuant to Standards Committee Rule 7, to 
release these materials due to the House's and the public's interest in 
this matter.
    \16\See House Rule XI, clause 3(b)(8)(A); Standard Committee Rule 
17A; and H. Res. 895, Section 1, clause 1(f) (2008) (enacted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. STATEMENT UNDER RULE 13, CLAUSE 3(c) OF THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF 
                            REPRESENTATIVES

    The Standards Committee made no special oversight findings 
in this Report. No budget statement is submitted. No funding is 
authorized by any measure in this Report. 


