Congressional Code of Ethics

Prohibition Against Use of One’s Position With the House for Personal Gain

It is fundamental that a Member, officer, or employee of the House may not use his or her official position for personal gain, including any gain that would accrue to the individual in the form of compensation for outside employment activities. A key provision of the House Code of Official Conduct (House Rule 23, cl. 3) provides that a House Member, officer, or employee may not receive compensation and may not permit compensation to accrue to his beneficial interest from any source, the receipt of which would occur by virtue of influence improperly exerted from his position in Congress.

As noted in the debate preceding adoption of this rule, an individual violates this provision if he uses “his political influence, the influence of his position . . . to make pecuniary gains.”1 Members and staff, when considering the applicability of this provision to any activity they are considering undertaking, must also bear in mind that under a separate provision of the Code of Official Conduct (House Rule 23, cl. 2), they are required to adhere to the spirit as well as the letter of the Rules of the House. In any event, the Standards Committee routinely advises Members and staff to avoid situations in which even an inference might be drawn suggesting improper conduct.

In addition, the Code of Ethics for Government Service, which applies to House Members, officers, and employees, provides (at ¶ 5) that a federal official should never accept “benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance” of official duties. The Committee found that this standard was violated, for example, when a Member persuaded the organizers of a privately held bank to sell him stock while he was using his congressional position to promote authorization for the establishment of the bank.2 The Member also sponsored legislation to remove restrictions on the development of property in which he had a personal financial interest. Thus, the Member was found to have wrongly used his official position for personal benefit.

In the same vein, the Code of Ethics for Government Service affirms (in ¶¶ 8 and 10) that “public office is a public trust,” and provides that a federal official should “[n]ever use any information coming to him confidentially in the performance of governmental duties for making private profit.”

One of the purposes of these rules and standards is to preclude conflicts of interest. Although the term “conflict of interest” may be subject to various interpretations in general usage, under federal law and regulation, this term “is limited in meaning; it denotes a situation in which an official’s conduct of his office conflicts with his private economic affairs.”3 The ultimate concern “is risk of impairment of impartial judgment, a risk which arises whenever there is a temptation to serve personal interests.”4

These rules and standards are applicable in a wide range of circumstances relating to outside employment. When there is a potential for a conflict of interest to arise in connection with one’s outside employment or other activities, it would be advisable to consult with the Standards Committee before accepting the position. For example, a conflict of interest may arise when the prospective outside employer is an entity with interests before Congress. In no event may a Member, officer, or employee participate in lobbying or advising on lobbying of either Congress or the Executive Branch on behalf of any private organization or individual, even on an uncompensated basis, as that would conflict with a Member’s general obligation to the public.5 Other circumstances that implicate these rules and standards of conduct are discussed below, regarding receipt of excessive compensation, Member official activities on matters affecting their personal interests, outside employment of one’s spouse, conflict-of-interest concerns for staff members, and seeking future employment.

With regard to the outside employment of a staff person, it may be possible for conflict-of-interest concerns to be alleviated through a requirement that the staff person have no involvement in any matter coming before the congressional office that would be of interest to his or her outside employer. However, in some circumstances, such a requirement either is not feasible or would not be sufficient to satisfy the applicable rules and standards. In those circumstances, there may be no alternative to the staff person declining or terminating the outside employment.

Example 1. A newly-hired legislative assistant in a Member’s office who had worked for a consulting and lobbying firm in Washington wishes to continue to work for that firm on a part-time basis. His congressional pay is below the senior staff rate. The federal issues on which he would work for the firm are different from those for which he has responsibility in the congressional office, and he would not engage in any lobbying for the firm. Notwithstanding the proposed limitations on his work for the firm, he may not accept any part-time employment with that firm, as it would violate the general principle that Members and staff are not permitted to lobby Congress.

Example 2. A Member is considering hiring an individual who is a professional grant writer to research and handle constituent grant requests in his district office. The individual would like to continue to operate her grant-writing business on a part-time basis. Because there would likely be, at a minimum, an appearance of use of her official position for personal gain in such circumstances, she must discontinue her outside business upon accepting employment in the congressional office.

Example 3. An outside organization that operates a congressional internship program offers a congressional staff member part-time employment as director of that program. Because such a position would likely require use of contacts and information gained through the individual’s employment with the House, the offer must be declined.

At times a Member or staff person wishes to engage in outside employment that involves the selling of goods or services. On the basis of the rules and standards of conduct set out above, a Member should not undertake any outside employment that would involve the Member personally in the selling or endorsement of any goods or services. On the same basis, at a minimum, any staff person who engages in sales may not solicit purchases from either (1) any non-congressional person with whom the employee came into contact through the congressional office or who has interests before the congressional office, or (2) any subordinate staff in his or her congressional office. In addition, in soliciting sales, House employees may not, directly or indirectly, identify themselves as congressional staff, refer to their congressional duties, or otherwise make use of their status as a congressional employee.

The Standards Committee is available to advise Members, officers, and employees on the applicability of the rules and standards of conduct in other specific circumstances.

Source:click here

I knew this was conflict of interest on Congressman Rogers' part. This is big.

Rogers and Rogers: one sees to its passage the other makes sure its profitable

Congressman Mike Rogers R-Michigan


Kristi Clemens Rogers



Oh Look, Rep. Mike Rogers Wife Stands To Benefit Greatly From CISPA Passing...

from the no-conflict,-no-interest dept

It would appear that Rep. Mike Rogers, the main person in Congress pushing for CISPA, has kept rather quiet about a very direct conflict of interest that calls into serious question the entire bill. It would appear that Rogers' wife stands to benefit quite a lot from the passage of CISPA, and has helped in the push to get the bill passed. It's somewhat amazing that no one has really covered this part of the story, but it highlights, yet again, the kind of activities by folks in Congress that make the public trust Congress less and less.

It has seemed quite strange to see how strongly Rogers has been fighting for CISPA, refusing to even acknowledge the seriousness of the privacy concerns. At other times, he can't even keep his own story straight about whether or not CISPA is about giving information to the NSA (hint: it is). And then there was the recent ridiculousness with him insisting that the only opposition to CISPA came from 14-year-old kids in their basement. Wrong and insulting.

Of course, as we've noted all along, all attempts at cybersecurity legislation have always been about money. Mainly, money to big defense contractors aiming to provide the government with lots of very expensive "solutions" to the cybersecurity "problem" -- a problem that still has not been adequately defined beyond fake scare stories. Just last month, Rogers accidentally tweeted (and then deleted) a story about how CISPA supporters, like himself, had received 15 times more money from pro-CISPA group that the opposition had received from anti-CISPA groups.

So it seems rather interesting to note that Rogers' wife, Kristi Clemens Rogers, was, until recently, the president and CEO of Aegis LLC a "security" defense contractor company, whom she helped to secure a $10 billion (with a b) contract with the State Department. The company describes itself as "a leading private security company, provides government and corporate clients with a full spectrum of intelligence-led, culturally-sensitive security solutions to operational and development challenges around the world."

Hmm. Sounds like a company like that would benefit greatly to seeing a big ramp up in cybersecurity FUD around the globe, and, with it, big budgets by various government agencies to spend on such things. Indeed, just a few months ago, Rogers penned an article for Washington Life Magazine all about evil hackers trying to "steal information." In it, there's a line that might sound a wee-bit familiar, referring to the impression of hackers as being "the teenager in his or her parent's basement with bunny slippers and a Mountain Dew." Apparently, both of the Rogers really have a thing about teens in basements. The article is typical FUD, making statements with no proof, including repeating the NSA's ridiculous allegation that hackers have led to the "greatest transfer of wealth in American history." It's such a good line, except that it's completely untrue. The top US companies have recently admitted to absolutely no damage from such attacks. The article also lumps in "hacktivists" like Anonymous, as if they're a part of this grand conspiracy that needs new laws.

Tellingly, in the print version of Washington Life that this article appeared in, which you can see embedded below, you'll note that there's a side bar right next to her article about the importance of passing cybersecurity legislation in Congress. Guess what's not mentioned anywhere at all? The fact that Kristi Rogers, author of the fear-mongering article, happens to be married to Rep. Mike Rogers, the guy in charge of pushing through cybersecurity legislation. That sure seems like a rather key point, and a major conflict of interest that neither seemed interested in disclosing. Oh, and Kristi Rogers recently changed jobs as well, such that she's now the "managing director of federal government affairs and public policies" at Manatt a big lobbying firm, where (surprise, surprise) she's apparently focused on "executive-level problem solving in the defense and homeland security sectors." I'm sure having CISPA in place will suddenly create plenty of demand for such problem solving.

A few months ago, on one of his FUD-filled talks about why we need cybersecurity, Rogers claimed that it was all so scary that he literally couldn't sleep at night until CISPA was passed due to an "unusual source" threatening us. The whole statement seemed odd, until you realize that his statement came out at basically the same time as his wife's fear-mongering article about cybersecurity. I guess when your pillow talk is made up boogeyman stories about threats that don't actually exist, it might make it difficult to fall asleep.

Either way, even if we assume that everything here was done aboveboard -- and we're not suggesting it wasn't -- this is exactly the kind of situation that Larry Lessig has referred to as soft corruption. It's not bags of money shifting hands, but it appears highly questionable to the public, leading the public to trust Congress a lot less. At the very least, in discussing all of this stuff, when Mrs. Rogers is writing articles that help the push for CISPA, it seems only fair to disclose that she's married to the guy pushing for the bill. And when Mr. Rogers is pushing for the bill, it seems only right to disclose that his wife almost certainly would benefit from the bill passing. And yet, that doesn't seem to have happened... anywhere.

Source:click here

Protest CISPA: click here

Sounds like conflict-of-interest to me and that is very illegal. We should call them on it. It looks like this son of a bitch is going to kill our privacy rights by giving them as an anniversary gift. Fuck him,let's stop him.