Do the congressional gift rules apply at all anymore?        I’m not sure whether that’s a rhetorical question or not. But it’s one that’s been rattling through my head for a month now, ever since I read the Glen Justice July 6 New York Times article on Signatures, the swanky D.C. eatery partly owned by power-lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Signatures, as you probably know (no doubt some of you more directly than others), was Abramoff’s virtual workplace, the nerve center of his high-flying pay-for-play operation, which Abramoff used to hand out free meals to lawmakers and fellow lobbyists whose friendship he was trying to cultivate.

The article identified four sitting members of Congress who allegedly dined free of charge, in more or less open contravention of the House gift rules.

These four Congressmen Freemeals were Reps. Tom DeLay (R-Texas), John Doolittle (R-Calif.), Bob Ney (R-Ohio) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.). Each was identified, either through documents or in allegations by former Signatures employees, as having repeatedly accepted free meals on Abramoff’s tab.
Let’s recap a few examples.

In April 2002, Signatures records show, Majority Leader DeLay scheduled a dinner and reception for 16 at the restaurant. The event was organized by Tony Rudy, DeLay’s former staffer, who was then working for Abramoff. But DeLay’s disclosure records show no record of payment for the event.

DeLay seems to have been too busy to take much advantage of his free-mealer privileges. But there was at least a May 2002 dinner with his wife and four others that Abramoff’s e-mails show DeLay got free of charge.

Something similar happened with Ney. He held a fundraiser for 18 at the restaurant in April 2002 — again, arranged by a former staffer who was then working for Abramoff. And again, as with DeLay, there’s no record in Ney’s filings that the event was ever paid for.

Unlike DeLay, however, Ney seems to have had plenty of time to take advantage of his free-mealing privileges. According to the Times, Ney “frequently ate and drank without paying as he spent evenings talking with lobbyists and congressional staffers.” And Signatures employees said much the same about Doolittle and Rohrabacher.

Now, what caught my attention about these allegations was not so much the charges themselves as the fact that in the Times article none of the four could really even be bothered to deny them.

When asked, each merely stipulated, without going into specifics, that whatever happened must have been in accord with House rules. When they bothered to get into specifics, they suggested that their free meals came under the exemption for gifts from personal friends.

In other words, the answers from each amounted to some combination of “So what?” and “So prove it!”

Rohrabacher is a case in point. By his own recollection (which I trust is, shall we say, conservative) he got free meals from Abramoff once or twice a month. Now, considering that Signatures sells a steak that costs $70, I’ll be conservative myself and estimate that means Rohrabacher was getting at least $100 of free food from Abramoff every month. Over one congressional cycle, that’s $2,400.

Rohrabacher’s excuse? He and Jack were friends. And besides, he tried to take Abramoff out to eat from time to time to make up for it.

So is that OK? Not really. The gift rules make explicit provision for cases in which “friends” are also lobbyists. The rules say those are the cases in which members have the “most reason to be concerned about whether a gift is offered for a reason other than personal friendship.” If the gift is paid for by the “friend’s” business rather than personally (which was the case with the free meals at Signatures), “it is likely that the gift is based on business concerns, rather than personal friendship.”

Rohrabacher’s reference to picking up the tab for Abramoff from time to time is undoubtedly a nod to the exception for “reciprocal giving.” But even if all the exceptions apply, the rules still say that gifts over the value of $250 need to get approval from the standards committee. And it seems as though Rohrabacher went way over that number.

All of this is simply a way of saying that it’s been a month since allegations surfaced in the national paper of record claiming that four sitting members of Congress were more or less flagrantly violating the House gift rules. To date, there’s been virtually no follow-up in the press.

The lawmakers in question have barely bothered to deny the allegations. And not one has been called upon to address the specifics of the charges rather than blandly saying that, whatever happened, they’re confident they did nothing wrong.

Yes, I know the ethics committee isn’t open for business. And I know there are bigger instances of corruption in the news than four free-mealing congressmen.
But like I said up top, do the House gift rules even apply anymore? If they’re so flagrantly violated and the violators can’t even be bothered to address the allegations, isn’t the answer pretty obviously no?

Marshall is editor of talkingpointsmemo.com. His column appears in The Hill each week.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it