Foleygate captured our society's attention for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, judging from the popularity of the "To
Catch a Predator" series on Dateline - this stuff is gold. People are drawn like proverbial moths to this sort of sordid activity. It is why the grocery store shelves are overflowing with glossy, gossipy covers. It sells. Secondly, it is easy to understand. There are no complicated flowcharts to navigate through, there are no secret dealings or covert operations that violate this statute or that code. And finally, it is like a poster child. You know the ones I'm talking about - a little adorable child in a wheelchair that encapsulates the disease from which the child suffers. With his brave little face. Foley resigned, and normally, that would have made it go away. But Foley is the poster child for what is wrong with the "moral" party, the "law and order" party. While visiting scathing criticisms to those that succumb to their impulses and ruin their careers, while showing outrage and incredulous indignation regarding internet predators, this guy is trying to get into teenagers' dorms...making lewd remarks and requests of teenage boys. It smacked then and it smacks now of cover up. Anything to keep the party on top, in front, in power. I hear all day long on hate radio, that it is disgusting how the libs are willing say or do anything to gain back power. But what about those that hide or cover up information to retain power? No commentary about that? The hate radio guys got a special meeting with bush the other day. And it is evident from their sermons on the mount-ed mike that they have been given the green light to do whatever they can possibly do to get their base out to vote. One more time, hannity, tell us about the evil, San Fran. lib Nancy Pelosi.
The following article is not sexy. It is not titillating. But it is just one more block stacked to the point, now, of causing complete collapse. This "status quo", "we've always done it this way", "common practice", "standard practice" crap has to end.
from Mother Jones
The Long Shadow of a Sex Scandal Although Foleygate dominates the news, less salacious ethics violations persist.
In the wake of the Cunningham, Ney, and DeLay scandals, and in these early days of Foleygate, the Republican-controlled Congress has lost any pretense to reform credentials. If recent polls are to be believed, voters have soured on the GOP majority and are ready to entrust Democrats with leadership of one or both houses. But for Democrats—and for anyone who cares about transparency and ethics in government—there’s danger in focusing only on the most egregious cases of congressional mischief. By zeroing in on Congress’s worst rogues, we run the risk of missing the layers of more subtle corruption.
A prime example of this less discernible culture of corruption is Rep. Jeb Bradley, a two-term Republican incumbent from New Hampshire who is virtually assured re-election next month. In 2004, when he ran for his second term in Congress, Bradley allowed his chief-of-staff, Debra J. Vanderbeek, to collect $114,779 in government salary, even as she actively ran his re-election campaign. As early as April 28, 2004, Vanderbeek was identified in press reports as “a spokeswoman for the Bradley campaign.” On at least seven other occasions that year, newspapers quoted or named Vanderbeek as campaign manager or campaign press secretary. But at no time in 2004 did Vanderbeek disappear from Bradley’s payroll. In her lowest-paid quarter, she earned $25,268 in government salary; in the fourth quarter, which encompassed all of October and the beginning of November—that is, peak campaign season—she collected $30,060 in government pay.
Vanderbeek’s total salary for 2004 placed her well above GS-15, Step 10—or, in layman’s terms, the highest step on the federal government’s highest civilian pay-grade. In no quarter did her quarterly salary fall below GS-15 status. In short, Vanderbeek was always a full-time, senior member of Bradley’s government staff.
Tom Anfinson, the financial administrator in Bradley’s government office, told me that it’s standard practice on the Hill for congressmen to shift some of their government staff to the campaign payroll during election season. He also said that it’s “commonplace” for Hill staffers to switch to part-time status, and to split their time and their pay between the government and campaign accounts.
But this isn’t uniformly true. Bradley’s Granite State colleague, Republican Senator Judd Gregg, routinely lends his chief of staff, Joel Maiola, a seasoned and well-respected political operative, to his re-election campaigns and to other statewide GOP campaigns, and in almost every even-numbered year, Maiola scrupulously disappears from Gregg’s government payroll for anywhere between two and six weeks. This is how it should be done. When Maiola isn’t working for the government, he isn’t collecting a paycheck from the taxpayers. Other congressmen are less conscientious about the law and blur the line between their government and campaign offices. But Jeb Bradley and Debra Vanderbeek didn’t blur the line. They crossed it.
Federal law specifically states a congressional employee may not perform campaign work “while the employee is on duty” or “in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties by an individual employed or holding office in the Government of the United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof.” The House Ethics Committee further stipulates that “as to what constitutes a staff member’s ‘own time,’ this is determined by the personnel policies that are in place in the employing office...This free time may include, for example, a lunch period, time after the end of the business day, and annual leave. However, a Member may not adjust the work requirements of the congressional office...”
Anfinson told me that Vanderbeek was drawing about 80 percent of her standard government salary between June and September 2004. This means she should have been logging at least a 32 hours of work each week, during normal business hours. Yet it defies belief that Vanderbeek could manage a $1 million re-election campaign for a one-term incumbent, in a highly competitive state, while also working at least 6.4 hours each day for the federal government.
Moreover, while Anfinson claims that Vanderbeek was paid at 50 percent her normal government salary level between October and early November, she still drew over $30,000 in government pay between October 1 and December 31—roughly the same amount she earned in the first quarter, when she worked full-time for the government. According to Anfinson, the fourth-quarter figure probably included Vanderbeek’s end-of-the-year bonus. But this explanation should raise alarm bells. By granting Vanderbeek a large holiday bonus, Bradley effectively paid her a full-time salary for half-time work.
Bradley’s and Vanderbeek’s unusual arrangement raises other troubling questions. If she conducted campaign phone calls and meetings in Bradley’s government offices, either in Washington or New Hampshire, Vanderbeek violated federal law by using government resources for electioneering purposes. If she ran Bradley’s re-election bid from the campaign office, or from her home, she was effectively a shadow government employee, and was also in violation of federal law. The House Ethics Committee recommends that employees who split their work between the government and a campaign keep careful records of their time at each job. Anfinson told me that Vanderbeek probably kept such a log, but that she was under no obligation to share that with me, or with anyone else. Because Vanderbeek did not return two phone messages left for her at the campaign office, where, as in 2004, she currently spends most of her time, these questions remain unanswered.
Not that Vanderbeek is solely to blame. Clause 8 of House Rule 23 states that “a Member...of the House may not retain an employee who does not perform duties for the offices of the employing authority commensurate with the compensation he receives,” and the Ethics Committee further stipulates that “a “Member is always responsible for ensuring that each of his or her employees performs official duties that are commensurate with the compensation that the employee receives from the House.” Ultimately, the buck stops with Jeb Bradley.
Not only did Vanderbeek collect $114,779 in government salary while managing Bradley’s campaign,he also accepted $3317 in reimbursements for un-itemized campaign expenses. Federal law clearly prohibits congressional employees from contributing to their employing members’ campaigns, and the law further provides that a “contribution is defined as ‘any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.’ With very few exceptions—notably, expenses incurred in campaign travel—a congressional employee may not so much as front her boss’s campaign $5 to buy a ream of copy paper. Unless Vanderbeek and Bradley can produce receipts proving that the $3317 in un-itemized expenses were travel-related, each may be in violation federal law and subject to up to three years of prison time.
In 2004 Bradley’s re-election committee paid Debra Vanderbeek a total of $13,561 in salary, to supplement her $114,779 government salary. Because Vanderbeek earned senior government pay that year, she was required to report all outside income to the Clerk of the House. She didn’t report the campaign income.
5 U.S.C. app 4 § 104 states that the “Attorney General may bring a civil action in any appropriate United States district court against any individual who knowingly and willfully falsifies or who knowingly and willfully fails to file or report any information that such individual is required to report pursuant to section 102. The court in which such action is brought may assess against such individual a civil penalty in any amount, not to exceed $10,000.” Mistakes happen, and it’s possible that Vanderbeek simply forgot to report the campaign income. But the burden should be on her to prove it.
I came across Bradley’s questionable office management while conducting volunteer research work for a Democratic House candidate who lost the September 12 primary to face off against Bradley in the general election. Admittedly, I’m not exactly a non-partisan. But all the information in this article is available in the public record, and New Hampshire voters deserve a full accounting of how their tax dollars are being spent.
So what will happen to Jeb Bradley? Not a lot. He’ll probably win re-election with 58 percent of the vote. Though he has fundamentally misappropriated taxpayer money, next to Mark Foley or Tom Delay, Bradley looks like a boy scout. And who’s to say how many other House members skirt or flout the law, just like Bradley? Surely, there’s little institutional investment in probing such cases.
Herein lies the problem. Sex scandals are easier to digest than subtle, but unforgivable, violations of federal law, and there’s a tendency to dismiss these misdeeds as simply “business as usual.” As long as this is the case, Jeb Bradley will be a safe and unbeatable incumbent, and congressional employees like Debra Vanderbeek will continue to draw full-time pay for part-time work.
Catch a Predator" series on Dateline - this stuff is gold. People are drawn like proverbial moths to this sort of sordid activity. It is why the grocery store shelves are overflowing with glossy, gossipy covers. It sells. Secondly, it is easy to understand. There are no complicated flowcharts to navigate through, there are no secret dealings or covert operations that violate this statute or that code. And finally, it is like a poster child. You know the ones I'm talking about - a little adorable child in a wheelchair that encapsulates the disease from which the child suffers. With his brave little face. Foley resigned, and normally, that would have made it go away. But Foley is the poster child for what is wrong with the "moral" party, the "law and order" party. While visiting scathing criticisms to those that succumb to their impulses and ruin their careers, while showing outrage and incredulous indignation regarding internet predators, this guy is trying to get into teenagers' dorms...making lewd remarks and requests of teenage boys. It smacked then and it smacks now of cover up. Anything to keep the party on top, in front, in power. I hear all day long on hate radio, that it is disgusting how the libs are willing say or do anything to gain back power. But what about those that hide or cover up information to retain power? No commentary about that? The hate radio guys got a special meeting with bush the other day. And it is evident from their sermons on the mount-ed mike that they have been given the green light to do whatever they can possibly do to get their base out to vote. One more time, hannity, tell us about the evil, San Fran. lib Nancy Pelosi.
The following article is not sexy. It is not titillating. But it is just one more block stacked to the point, now, of causing complete collapse. This "status quo", "we've always done it this way", "common practice", "standard practice" crap has to end.
from Mother Jones
The Long Shadow of a Sex Scandal Although Foleygate dominates the news, less salacious ethics violations persist.
In the wake of the Cunningham, Ney, and DeLay scandals, and in these early days of Foleygate, the Republican-controlled Congress has lost any pretense to reform credentials. If recent polls are to be believed, voters have soured on the GOP majority and are ready to entrust Democrats with leadership of one or both houses. But for Democrats—and for anyone who cares about transparency and ethics in government—there’s danger in focusing only on the most egregious cases of congressional mischief. By zeroing in on Congress’s worst rogues, we run the risk of missing the layers of more subtle corruption.
A prime example of this less discernible culture of corruption is Rep. Jeb Bradley, a two-term Republican incumbent from New Hampshire who is virtually assured re-election next month. In 2004, when he ran for his second term in Congress, Bradley allowed his chief-of-staff, Debra J. Vanderbeek, to collect $114,779 in government salary, even as she actively ran his re-election campaign. As early as April 28, 2004, Vanderbeek was identified in press reports as “a spokeswoman for the Bradley campaign.” On at least seven other occasions that year, newspapers quoted or named Vanderbeek as campaign manager or campaign press secretary. But at no time in 2004 did Vanderbeek disappear from Bradley’s payroll. In her lowest-paid quarter, she earned $25,268 in government salary; in the fourth quarter, which encompassed all of October and the beginning of November—that is, peak campaign season—she collected $30,060 in government pay.
Vanderbeek’s total salary for 2004 placed her well above GS-15, Step 10—or, in layman’s terms, the highest step on the federal government’s highest civilian pay-grade. In no quarter did her quarterly salary fall below GS-15 status. In short, Vanderbeek was always a full-time, senior member of Bradley’s government staff.
Tom Anfinson, the financial administrator in Bradley’s government office, told me that it’s standard practice on the Hill for congressmen to shift some of their government staff to the campaign payroll during election season. He also said that it’s “commonplace” for Hill staffers to switch to part-time status, and to split their time and their pay between the government and campaign accounts.
But this isn’t uniformly true. Bradley’s Granite State colleague, Republican Senator Judd Gregg, routinely lends his chief of staff, Joel Maiola, a seasoned and well-respected political operative, to his re-election campaigns and to other statewide GOP campaigns, and in almost every even-numbered year, Maiola scrupulously disappears from Gregg’s government payroll for anywhere between two and six weeks. This is how it should be done. When Maiola isn’t working for the government, he isn’t collecting a paycheck from the taxpayers. Other congressmen are less conscientious about the law and blur the line between their government and campaign offices. But Jeb Bradley and Debra Vanderbeek didn’t blur the line. They crossed it.
Federal law specifically states a congressional employee may not perform campaign work “while the employee is on duty” or “in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties by an individual employed or holding office in the Government of the United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof.” The House Ethics Committee further stipulates that “as to what constitutes a staff member’s ‘own time,’ this is determined by the personnel policies that are in place in the employing office...This free time may include, for example, a lunch period, time after the end of the business day, and annual leave. However, a Member may not adjust the work requirements of the congressional office...”
Anfinson told me that Vanderbeek was drawing about 80 percent of her standard government salary between June and September 2004. This means she should have been logging at least a 32 hours of work each week, during normal business hours. Yet it defies belief that Vanderbeek could manage a $1 million re-election campaign for a one-term incumbent, in a highly competitive state, while also working at least 6.4 hours each day for the federal government.
Moreover, while Anfinson claims that Vanderbeek was paid at 50 percent her normal government salary level between October and early November, she still drew over $30,000 in government pay between October 1 and December 31—roughly the same amount she earned in the first quarter, when she worked full-time for the government. According to Anfinson, the fourth-quarter figure probably included Vanderbeek’s end-of-the-year bonus. But this explanation should raise alarm bells. By granting Vanderbeek a large holiday bonus, Bradley effectively paid her a full-time salary for half-time work.
Bradley’s and Vanderbeek’s unusual arrangement raises other troubling questions. If she conducted campaign phone calls and meetings in Bradley’s government offices, either in Washington or New Hampshire, Vanderbeek violated federal law by using government resources for electioneering purposes. If she ran Bradley’s re-election bid from the campaign office, or from her home, she was effectively a shadow government employee, and was also in violation of federal law. The House Ethics Committee recommends that employees who split their work between the government and a campaign keep careful records of their time at each job. Anfinson told me that Vanderbeek probably kept such a log, but that she was under no obligation to share that with me, or with anyone else. Because Vanderbeek did not return two phone messages left for her at the campaign office, where, as in 2004, she currently spends most of her time, these questions remain unanswered.
Not that Vanderbeek is solely to blame. Clause 8 of House Rule 23 states that “a Member...of the House may not retain an employee who does not perform duties for the offices of the employing authority commensurate with the compensation he receives,” and the Ethics Committee further stipulates that “a “Member is always responsible for ensuring that each of his or her employees performs official duties that are commensurate with the compensation that the employee receives from the House.” Ultimately, the buck stops with Jeb Bradley.
Not only did Vanderbeek collect $114,779 in government salary while managing Bradley’s campaign,he also accepted $3317 in reimbursements for un-itemized campaign expenses. Federal law clearly prohibits congressional employees from contributing to their employing members’ campaigns, and the law further provides that a “contribution is defined as ‘any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.’ With very few exceptions—notably, expenses incurred in campaign travel—a congressional employee may not so much as front her boss’s campaign $5 to buy a ream of copy paper. Unless Vanderbeek and Bradley can produce receipts proving that the $3317 in un-itemized expenses were travel-related, each may be in violation federal law and subject to up to three years of prison time.
In 2004 Bradley’s re-election committee paid Debra Vanderbeek a total of $13,561 in salary, to supplement her $114,779 government salary. Because Vanderbeek earned senior government pay that year, she was required to report all outside income to the Clerk of the House. She didn’t report the campaign income.
5 U.S.C. app 4 § 104 states that the “Attorney General may bring a civil action in any appropriate United States district court against any individual who knowingly and willfully falsifies or who knowingly and willfully fails to file or report any information that such individual is required to report pursuant to section 102. The court in which such action is brought may assess against such individual a civil penalty in any amount, not to exceed $10,000.” Mistakes happen, and it’s possible that Vanderbeek simply forgot to report the campaign income. But the burden should be on her to prove it.
I came across Bradley’s questionable office management while conducting volunteer research work for a Democratic House candidate who lost the September 12 primary to face off against Bradley in the general election. Admittedly, I’m not exactly a non-partisan. But all the information in this article is available in the public record, and New Hampshire voters deserve a full accounting of how their tax dollars are being spent.
So what will happen to Jeb Bradley? Not a lot. He’ll probably win re-election with 58 percent of the vote. Though he has fundamentally misappropriated taxpayer money, next to Mark Foley or Tom Delay, Bradley looks like a boy scout. And who’s to say how many other House members skirt or flout the law, just like Bradley? Surely, there’s little institutional investment in probing such cases.
Herein lies the problem. Sex scandals are easier to digest than subtle, but unforgivable, violations of federal law, and there’s a tendency to dismiss these misdeeds as simply “business as usual.” As long as this is the case, Jeb Bradley will be a safe and unbeatable incumbent, and congressional employees like Debra Vanderbeek will continue to draw full-time pay for part-time work.
Comments