More Questions For Rep. Aaron Schock

Thanks in part to his own Instagram account, Rep. Aaron Schock is facing more questions about his spending on travel and personal expenses. Via the Chicago Tribune:

Illinois Rep. Aaron Schock, a rising Republican star already facing an ethics inquiry, has spent taxpayer and campaign funds on flights aboard private planes owned by some of his key donors, The Associated Press has found. There also have been other expensive travel and entertainment charges, including for a massage company and music concerts. The expenses highlight the relationships that lawmakers sometimes have with donors who fund their political ambitions, an unwelcome message for a congressman billed as a fresh face of the GOP. The AP identified at least one dozen flights worth more than $40,000 on donors' planes since mid-2011. The AP tracked Schock's reliance on the aircraft partly through the congressman's penchant for uploading pictures and videos of himself to his Instagram account. The AP extracted location data associated with each image then correlated it with flight records showing airport stopovers and expenses later billed for air travel against Schock's office and campaign records. Asked for comment, Schock responded in an email on Monday that he travels frequently throughout his Peoria-area district "to stay connected with my constituents" and also travels to raise money for his campaign committee and congressional colleagues.

A DC-based watchdog group has already filed two ethics complaints against Schock.

Schock Reacts To Ethics Complaint By Quoting Taylor Swift: "Haters Gonna Hate"

You can stop the looping by clicking the image.

Watchdog Group Files Ethics Complaint Against Schock Over Downton Office

Via the Washington Post:

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) wasted little time asking the Office of Congressional Ethics to investigate whether Schock (R-Ill.) broke House rules by accepting professional interior design work for free. House Ethics rules prohibit lawmakers from accepting free “gifts of services.” “Rep. Schock may wish he could escape to an earlier era, but the Office of Congressional Ethics needs to ensure he doesn’t outrun the rules of this one,” Anne Weismann, CREW’s interim executive director said in a statement. Since his office was exposed, Schock has claimed he’s never seen “Downton Abbey” – the British soap opera that, as the Guardian points out, runs on public television. (Republicans aren’t big fans of government-subsidized TV.) Whether his new digs are deemed unethical or not, the flashy decor sure bucks stuffy Capitol Hill norm. Lady Mary would be proud.

He's never seen the show. Riiight.

ALABAMA: SPLC Files Judicial Ethics Complaint Against Judge Roy Moore

From the Southern Poverty Law Center:

The SPLC today filed a judicial ethics complaint against Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore over his public statements urging the governor and Alabama judges to defy federal law and enforce Alabama’s ban on same-sex marriages. The complaint was filed with the Judicial Inquiry Commission of Alabama, which could recommend that Moore face ethics charges in the Alabama Court of the Judiciary. That court removed Moore from the office of chief justice 12 years ago after he refused to comply with a federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state judicial building.

“Moore is once again wrapping himself in the Bible and thumbing his nose at the federal courts and federal law,” said SPLC President Richard Cohen. “As a private citizen, Moore is entitled to his views. But as the chief justice of Alabama, he has a responsibility to recognize the supremacy of federal law and to conform his conduct to the canons of judicial ethics.”

Moore vowed in the letter to stand with Gov. Robert Bentley to “stop judicial tyranny” following a federal judge’s ruling in Mobile last week that overturned the ban. The order is on hold until Feb. 9, but Moore’s letter encouraged probate judges to disobey it once it is in effect. The letter, which was written on state Supreme Court letterhead, was sent to the governor Tuesday and released to the media. In an interview with WSFA following the letter’s release, Moore threatened “a confrontation” with the federal courts.

It was the SPLC's 2003 complaint that first got Moore booted off the Alabama Supreme Court. He was reelected in 2012. Read the SPLC's complaint.

MAINE: Ethics Commission Extends Deadline For NOM To Disclose Donors

Via the Bangor Daily News:

The Maine Ethics Commission gave the National Organization for Marriage a reprieve Wednesday on disclosing the donor list from its 2009 campaign against same-sex marriage in Maine. But the five-person commission did not back down on its demand for the national organization to pay a $50,250 fine for violating the state’s campaign finance and disclosure laws.

Jonathan Wayne, the commission’s executive director, said Wednesday the commission unanimously approved a temporary delay on the disclosure of the national organization’s donors because the group has pledged to take its case to the Maine Superior Court, which would likely allow NOM to keep its donor list private while the case is active. The vote to uphold the fine was also unanimous.

Meanwhile, according to Wayne, NOM has filed complaints against two other national groups, the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, which supported same-sex marriage in Maine in 2009, for either not registering as political action committees or not disclosing donors. Those complaints will be considered by the commission at its July 31 meeting.

(Tipped by JMG reader Seth)

Cuccinelli Vs McDonnell

Today's installment of GOP infighting comes out of Virginia, where anti-gay Attorney General (and gubernatorial candidate) Ken Cuccinelli has demanded a special legislative session on political ethics, something that scandal-plagued and anti-gay Gov. Bob McDonnell (shockingly) does not want.

With McDonnell (R) embroiled in a gifts scandal, the Republican candidate to succeed him said Virginia cannot wait until the legislature reconvenes in January to tighten the state’s lax disclosure requirements. “Trust is something that is easy to lose and hard to recover,” Cuccinelli said in an interview with The Washington Post. “I think the longer we let this go, the more difficult it is for Virginians to achieve the level of faith in their government that I think they’re accustomed to. And I think that’s something we can achieve if we move quickly.” Cuccinelli’s chief deputy told the governor in a face-to-face meeting Monday that the attorney general would publicly urge him to call the special session. After the meeting, a spokesman for the governor said he sees no need for it. Cuccinelli’s move puts more space between the attorney general, who has been touched by the scandal, and the governor, who has been consumed by it.

Cuccinelli, who last month launched a website in support of his campaign to reinstate anti-sodomy laws, presently trails former DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe by several points in polls for the governor's race.

RELATED: Speaking of ethics, there have been many calls for Cuccinelli to resign as other state attorneys general have historically done once they announced their candidacy for governor. He has refused even though he holds a large stock interest in a company currently suing the state over a tax dispute.  Cucinelli has a long and vile history of blocking LGBT rights in Virginia, including supporting a ban on gay adoptions. In 2011 he declared that God had personally placed him in office to fight President Obama.

On The Ethics Of Journalism

Yesterday the New York Post published a terrifying full-page front cover photo of a man who had just been pushed onto the subway tracks by an apparently mentally ill person. In the photo, the downtown-bound Q train is about twenty feet away from the victim, who was killed instantly a moment later. The Post has since come under widespread criticism for publishing the photo.

Forbes spoke to John Long of the National Press Photographers Association:

The question of whether the New York Post was right to publish Abbasi’s photo is, says Long, “another issue altogether.” Newspapers have an obligation to publish images, even horrifying ones, that might affect public debate over important issues. He cites photos of killed U.S. soldiers or drowned bodies in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. “Those pictures ran because we as a society could learn from them and make decisions for society,” he says. A photo of a man about to be hit by a subway wouldn’t seem to rise to that level, he says. “If I was the night editor, I don’t think I’d run it.” However, he adds, “it’s a contract between a paper and its readers, and it’s different from paper to paper. The New York Post is not known for its subtlety in taste decisions.”

The New York Times today republished the photo, telling Gothamist afterwards that it would have been a disservice to their readers to question the ethics of the Post without providing the image itself.  Gothamist asks: "Is it right to use 'asking a question' about whether a news outlet should publish a controversial photograph as an opportunity to re-run that very picture (and reap its inevitable page views)? Or is this beneath the level of moral rectitude we expect Times' bloggers to embody?"

Your opinions, please.

Ethics Complaint For Clarence Thomas

Several members of Congress have filed a formal ethics complaint against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas because of his wife's prominent role with the Tea Party.

"Public records demonstrate a failure by Justice Thomas to exercise the care expected of a Supreme Court Justice," the letter says. "Not only did Justice Thomas fail to report at least $1.6 million in income from his wife's employer, but the very public role played by his wife as co-founder, president and CEO of Liberty Central clearly merits investigation considering that federal law bars judges from participating in any matter in which their impartiality could be questioned. "The very public role played by his wife in opposing healthcare reform, and Justice Thomas’ insinuations in public speeches that he supports her positions, raises clear questions about the appearance of bias," it continues.

People For The America Way add:

The strikes against Thomas’ record are numerous. He has relationships with wealthy corporate benefactors such as Harlan Crow who have given him valuable gifts such as a Bible worth $19,000 and seed money for his wife’s Tea Party group, he has attended Koch-sponsored fundraisers, and he has failed to recuse himself from cases where briefs were filed by an organization (the arch-conservative American Enterprise Institute) that had provided him a valuable gift.

Keith Olbermann On His Suspension

Maddow On Olbermann's Suspension

Rachel Maddow says she understands NBC's rule, but that Olbermann should be un-suspended at once. Maddow devotes a large portion of the segment to ticking off a long list of candidates stumped for on the air by Fox News hosts.

NBC News Suspends MSNBC Host Keith Olbermann Over Campaign Donations

NBC News has indefinitely suspended MSNBC host Keith Olbermann over political donations his employers say he made in violation of their ethics policy.

The announcement came in a one-sentence statement from MSNBC-TV President Phil Griffin: “I became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay.” The donations were first reported by the Politico website earlier in the day. Olbermann acknowledged the donations in a statement to Politico, saying he gave the maximum legal donation of $2,400 to Arizona Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords and Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, who waged an unsuccessful campaign for the U.S. Senate against Tea Party standard-bearer Rand Paul.

According to Politico, Olbermann's donations to Grijalva and Giffords came on October 28th, the same day both candidates appeared on his show. NBC's ethics policy reads:

"Anyone working for NBC News who takes part in civic or other outside activities may find that these activities jeopardize his or her standing as an impartial journalist because they may create the appearance of a conflict of interest. Such activities may include participation in or contributions to political campaigns or groups that espouse controversial positions. You should report any such potential conflicts in advance to, and obtain prior approval of, the president of NBC News or his designee."

Olbermann notes that he has never urged anybody, publicly or privately, to make campaign donations to any candidate.

Quote Of The Day - Randy Cohen

"As partners cultivate romance, and particularly as they move toward erotic involvement, there are things each should reveal, things they would not mention to a casual acquaintance — any history of S.T.D.’s, for example, or the existence of any current spouse. Even before a first kiss, this person should have told you those things that you would regard as germane to this phase of your evolving relationship, including his being transgendered. Clearly he thought you’d find it pertinent; that’s why he discreditably withheld it, lest you reject him." - New York Times ethics columnist Randy Cohen, telling a reader that she has the right to out a transgender man who didn't reveal his trans status to her before they dated.

Bilerico's Dr. Jillian Weiss strongly disagrees.

Mr. Cohen, who has no reputable credentials in the field of ethics, suggests that transgender people have a responsibility to out themselves on a first date, and implies that their failure to do so is morally wrong. He compares transgender history to the case of sexually transmitted disease and adultery. He suggests, however, that notifying the local community via handbills or having local clergy announce it from the pulpit would be inappropriate. This is dangerous nonsense. Hundreds of transgender people are murdered every year, and more subjected to violence, many from partners and potential partners. What is morally wrong and reprehensible is lending the credence of The New York Times to this idea.

WaPo Watch

Via Media Matters:

The Washington Post published in its news pages an article by The Fiscal Times -- "an independent digital news publication reporting on fiscal, budgetary, health-care and international economics issues" -- that promoted the creation of a task force to reduce the deficit in part through cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. But the Post did not disclose that the Times is funded by conservative billionaire Peter G. Peterson, whose organizations have long advocated reducing the deficit through entitlement cuts and have called for the creation of such a commission.

(Tipped by JMG reader Aaron)

Palin Ethics Probe #19

The savior of the GOP just keeps digging a deeper hole.

An independent investigator has found evidence that Gov. Sarah Palin may have violated ethics laws by trading on her position in seeking money for legal fees, in the latest legal distraction for the former vice presidential candidate as she prepares to leave office this week. The report obtained by The Associated Press says Palin is securing unwarranted benefits and receiving improper gifts through the Alaska Fund Trust, set up by supporters. An investigator for the state Personnel Board says in his July 14 report that there is probable cause to believe Palin used or attempted to use her official position for personal gain because she authorized the creation of the trust as the "official" legal defense fund.

Most of the previous ethics violations charges against Palin have been dismissed.

Influence Peddling Scandal Rocks Washington Post

The Washington Post has just canceled an event with lobbyists amid an explosive scandal that they'd been selling the lobbyists access to powerful politicians and their own reporters and editors. Politico has the story:

Washington Post Publisher and Chief Executive Officer Katharine Weymouth said today she was cancelling plans for an exclusive "salon" at her home where, for as much as $250,000, the Post offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, nonconfrontational access to "those powerful few": Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and even the paper’s own reporters and editors.

The astonishing offer was detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he felt it was a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its “health care reporting and editorial staff." With the newsroom in an uproar after POLITICO reported the solicitation, Weymouth and Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli both said they were not aware of the flier.

“This should never have happened,” Weymouth told Post media reporter Howard Kurtz. “The fliers got out and weren't vetted. They didn't represent at all what we were attempting to do. We're not going to do any dinners that would impugn the integrity of the newsroom." Brauchli told Kurtz he was "appalled" by the plan." It suggests that access to Washington Post journalists was available for purchase," Brauchli told Kurtz. The proposal "promises we would suspend our usual skeptical questioning because it appears to offer, in exchange for sponsorships, the good name of The Washington Post."

A lobbyist is rightfully chastising journalists for poor ethical practices. Bizarro world! Do we believe the WaPo's story that this just a case of a poorly written flier?

The Case Of The Tuna Sandwich

Supermarkets around the nation throw out tons of edible food every day to comply with expiration rules. An entire "freegan" movement has sprung up in which people dumpster-dive behind these stores to rescue the most usable items. Here in NYC, an interesting discussion has arisen because Whole Foods fired an employee for theft after he set aside a garbage-destined tuna sandwich in order to eat it at the end of his shift. The case has made it to the state's unemployment court.

Initially, New York State ruled that the tuna sandwich episode was misconduct, based on Whole Foods’ statement about the trash. In New York, as in other states, employers’ unemployment insurance rates are based on the amount of the benefits their former workers collect, giving them an incentive to limit the number of employees who receive unemployment. Mr. Reese challenged the ruling in January. “I knew what they said was wrong,” said Mr. Reese, who earned $11.50 an hour. His version of the story: He was throwing out 30 sandwiches at the end of the shift, and he put the tuna sandwich aside on the counter in plain view. When the supervisor confronted him about it, he said it was going to be thrown out and he was going to eat it. The supervisor then threw the sandwich out. Two days later, Mr. Reese was fired.

Was it really theft if the sandwich was meant for the garbage? Was it theft if the employee didn't actually get to eat it? I understand that some employees would definitely abuse any system in which they were allowed to have expired items. But at least there has got to be a lawsuit-safe way for Whole Foods to get that expired-but-edible food to the homeless. Don't some stores do this already?

The Right To Die

To great controversy, yesterday British television aired a film titled Right To Die?, which showed a terminally-ill man committing suicide on camera. The film raises the usual questions about euthanasia and assisted-suicide, although the man did the job on his own, albeit with an audience in the room.

The scene is difficult to watch, even for viewers inured to the subject of dying by a steady diet of violent Hollywood and television fare. Craig Ewert, a former computer scientist from Chicago, is shown lying in bed with his wife at his side while he takes barbiturates. He asks for a glass of apple juice to mask the bad taste and help him swallow. Then he uses his teeth to turn off his ventilator — and dies on camera.

Britain's obsession with reality television reached new heights — or depths — Wednesday night with the broadcast of the assisted suicide of the 59-year-old terminally ill American at a Swiss clinic. Showing the final moment of death had long been a final taboo, even for no-holds-barred British TV, where sex and violence are common, and the broadcast unleashed debate on an issue that strongly divides public opinion. Photographs of Ewert's final moments dominated Britain's newspaper front pages Wednesday — "SUICIDE TV" screamed one tabloid — and prompted a debate in Parliament, where Prime Minister Gordon Brown was quizzed about the propriety of the decision to air the program.

Could such a sensible program ever air in America? Terri Schiavo, anyone? Many gay men my age have had a role in helping lovers, roommates, and friends end their suffering. It isn't easy, but to my mind it's perhaps the single greatest kindness you can show somebody you love.

Ron Paul Takes Money From Hate Group

Republican candidate Ron Paul has accepted a $500 campaign donation from Don Black, founder and head of Stormfront, a white supremacist organization. A spokesman for Paul said, "If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money. Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom."

Black told the Palm Beach Post, "We know that he's not a white nationalist. He says he isn't and we believe him, but on the issues, there's only one choice."

So, do you take money from idiots because, as Ron Paul's spokesman said, "That's $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does." I wonder what Paul's rah-rah man thinks about this.

UPDATE: Here's Sullivan's take: "There are plenty of reasons to be perturbed when loons and hate-mongers support a candidacy. But this game of guilt-by-association can be played endlessly. I tend to place greater emphasis on loons and hate-mongers that candidates actively seek out. Pat Robertson is a loon and an anti-Semite and a vicious homophobe who blamed Americans for 9/11. Giuliani didn't receive some unsolicited money from him; he actually stood on a platform and embraced him. Why one standard for Paul and another for Giuliani? If Obama embraced Louis Farrakhan as a supporter, you think Goldfarb and Kirchick would be silent? They'd have a cow because it's unthinkable. But naked bigotry is more than thinkable in today's GOP: it's integral to it. What's the difference between Farrakhan and Robertson? I can't see any."