Ethics probe may have a political price

Several lawmakers who are reportedly under investigation by the House Ethics Committee could pay a political price in 2010.
 
The Washington Post reported Thursday that dozens of members, including several on the defense appropriations subcommittee, have been examined by the ethics committee, and many of them face potentially difficult races next year.
 

But Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), said time – along with the history of a toothless ethics process – is on their side.
 
“The real question is, what will the ethics committee do about any of these things?” said Sloan, whose organization annually lists the most corrupt members of Congress. “The election is a little ways off, and unless more comes out and there’s more to say,” these members can say that nothing has come of the investigations.
 
Longtime Reps. John Murtha (D-Pa.) and Bill Young (R-Fla.) are both on the subcommittee and both represent swing districts. They also have both been targeted this cycle by the opposition party, with mixed success.
 
Young is being not-so-subtly targeted for retirement, as he hasn’t committed to running in 2010. Democrats have recruited a state senator, Charlie Justice, to challenge him, and the confluence of circumstances could give him an incentive to call it a career.
 
Murtha has battled through controversy before – and survived a tough GOP challenge in 2008 -- but the ethics investigation will at least serve as a reminder for voters a year before the 2010 election. Republicans feel they could have a chance against Murtha if businessman Tim Burns is willing to write a big check for his campaign.
 
Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.), who is not on the subcommittee, is in a similar situation. He turned away a challenge in 2006 even after it was reported that he was under federal investigation.
 
The Post reported that the Justice Department earlier this year asked the ethics committee to suspend its probe of Mollohan, apparently because federal investigators are still looking into him. Republicans recently signed up state Sen. Clark Barnes to run against Mollohan.
 
Another member of the subcommittee who was listed in the Post report, Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), is trailing in his Senate primary with Rep. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) in both money and polling. Being connected to an ethics investigation probably won’t help him.
 
Tiahrt said in a statement that he has no reason to believe he is under investigation.
 
“We are not sure what the document referenced by the Washington Post contains but obviously would be eager to see a copy, especially given that several false and misleading inferences could be made by reading the article,” he said.
 
Moran campaign manager Aaron Trost seized on the story, saying: “This is a serious issue that needs to be resolved.”
 
Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) could also pay a price. A July ethics committee memo reportedly said the committee was “preparing recommendations” involving Shuler’s role in a land swap deal between a development he had invested in and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) – a situation that was already under local scrutiny.
 
Shuler served on a subcommittee with TVA oversight at the time of the deal, and the TVA’s inspector general said in June that there was an appearance of favoritism in the process. Hendersonville Mayor Greg Newman is running against Shuler.
 
Sloan pointed out that Shuler won his seat in 2006 in large part thanks to ethics questions about the incumbent, Rep. Charles Taylor (R-N.C.).
 
“That’s not a good place to be,” she said.
 
Other members listed who face 2010 challenges include Reps. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.), Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.). Bishop has reportedly been cleared.
 
Sanchez and Bishop are being targeted by Republicans. Harman faces a repeat primary challenge, which was initially spurred by reports of a federal wiretap on which she offered favors in exchange for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC) support for the House Intelligence Committee chairmanship.
 
Most of the potentially vulnerable members being looked at are Democrats, and the party has already dealt with plenty of questions about members like Murtha and Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.).
 
Murtha and another defense appropriations subcommittee member, longtime Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-Ind.), were revealed to be under federal investigation earlier this year. Visclosky is unlikely to face serious opposition.
 
The situation that has ensnared those two members and now apparently other members of their subcommittee is into connections between campaign contributions and earmarks.
 
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.) was asked about the perception problems Thursday, before the Post report. He said Democrats have taken large steps to create transparency, specifically in the earmark and ethics processes.
 
“We have made some dramatic changes that the Republicans refused to make,” Van Hollen said, adding: “They, unfortunately, have many cases where they are vulnerable on this.”