So is the House ethics committee really giving out all these undocumented approvals of various sketchy financial arrangements — ones that the ethics committee won’t confirm because they won’t answer questions about specific cases? That’s what we’ve heard from Rep. Doolittle (R-CA) and Rep. Lewis’ (R-CA) staffer Jeffrey Shockey.
Now we hear this from a Democratic Hill staffer …
Just my two cents: what [Shockey’s representative] is saying really does not make sense. During the EXACT SAME TIME PERIOD, our office had questions about whether our boss could serve on an advisory board of an activist group. We called the ethics committee and asked. The response: “hmmmm. That seems a little complicated. We would be more comfortable researching it and giving you a written opinion. It sounds like it could be OK, but we can’t really give a definitive response without processing an advisory opinion.” I would assume the questions about his severance package were at least as complicated as our question and would have received the same response.
Then, we had to wait. I called every couple of weeks to follow up. All told, we waited about three months before the response was received.
So, in my opinion, there is no way the ethics committee would have given an oral approval for something like this.
Anyone else up on the Hill want to chime in on this? We find it pretty difficult to believe that someone wouldn’t ask for an opinion in writing, or something they could point to, if they were really trying to be sure they had a go-ahead. But let us know.
Late Update: Hmmm a long-time TPM Reader who’s a campaign finance lawyer in DC doesn’t buy this either …
In a word: bullshit. If Shockey didn’t get a written opinion from the House Ethics Committee then the Committee didn’t approve his arrangement. Anyone who has ever dealt with the professional staff on the Ethics Committee will tell you that if you call and make an oral request for advice they will give you they best guidance they can given the facts presented, but that their oral advice doesn’t constitute Ethics Committee approval for any proposed course of action. Rep. Lewis shouldn’t have allowed Shockey to begin work without a formal written advisory opinion from the Ethics Committee. Of course, the Ethics Committee probably would have prohibited any contacts between Copeland, Lowrey and Shockey, not just lobbying contacts by Shockey’s wife while employed by Copeland, Lowrey, so I guess we know why no one ever pushed for that written opinion . . . .
