It seems like basic principle to me. According to Senate ethics rules, Members of the U.S. Senate, and their families, cannot benefit personally and financially from legislative decisions they make. Senator Feinstein, apparently, either doesn’t agree with this principle, or she has chosen to ignore it.

Here’s a recap of a controversy surrounding Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) that’s been percolating over the last few weeks: As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee’s subcommittee on military construction, Feinstein reviewed military construction government contracts. Some of the projects reviewed by Feinstein’s subcommittee were ultimately awarded to URS and Perini, companies then owned by Feinstein’s husband, Richard Blum. (Overall, Perini holds $2.5 billion worth of military contracts, most of which were non-competitive bids.)

While the Pentagon ultimately awards military contracts, there is a reason for the review process. The Senate’s subcommittee on Military Construction’s approval carries weight. Senator Feinstein, therefore, likely had influence over the decision making process. How much influence? That’s what Judicial Watch aims to find out. (Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Department of Defense.)

Now, Feinstein, who resigned from the subcommittee last year, claims she consulted the Senate Ethics committee on the matter. The “guidance