The House Ethics Committee today released their Statement of Alleged Violation (PDF) against California Rep. Maxine Waters.

After reviewing the statement, CREW's Executive Director Melanie Sloan said:

The facts released today make it increasingly clear that Congresswoman Waters abused her office and she must be held accountable for her actions. The Statement of Alleged Violation released by the House Ethics Committee confirms the congresswoman intervened on behalf of OneUnited Bank despite the fact that she knew her actions constituted a conflict of interest.

In addition, the fact that Rep. Waters' grandson was the person handling this matter on her behalf makes the matter worse. Congress has anti-nepotism rules, which sadly don't rule out members from hiring their grandchildren. Perhaps, however, someone not related to Rep. Waters would have stood up to her and prevented her office from taking action to protect her husband’s investment.

Read CREW's previous statement calling for Rep. Waters to step down as the chair of the Housing and Opportunity Committee here.

Back in January 2008, CREW asked the House Committee on Administration to add grandchildren to the list of relatives members of Congress are not allowed to employ. Click here to read that letter.

"Drain the swamp we did, because this was a terrible place,"--Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

It's a nice talking point, but with two senior members of Congress facing serious ethics charges in the coming weeks this seems a little premature. To be sure, we've come a long way from the days of Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff but now is not the time to give up the fight, or declare mission accomplished.

Fair or not, we live in a time where the terms "crook" and "politician" have become synonymous in the minds of many. It's a sad commentary, but Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Boehner should consider this a challenge, and take steps to improve Congress's image. The upcoming ethics trials of Congressman Rangel and Congresswoman Waters suggest that the House is finally taking ethics seriously, but it is imperative for leaders of both parties to continue to hold members accountable.

If Rep. Rangel and Rep. Waters really do have ethics hearings this fall, it will mark the first time in years that any member of Congress has had his or her feet held to the fire in such a public manner. Clearly though, these are not the only two members to abuse their offices in recent times. While Mr. DeLay did resign in disgrace in 2006, it has actually been more than eight years since the United States Congress expelled a member. In fact, the House Ethics Committee has sat out entirely during most of the recent ethics scandals. The committee never reviewed the conduct of Reps. Duke Cunningham (R-CA), Bob Ney (R-OH), or William Jefferson (D-LA), all of whom ultimately were convicted of crimes for abusing their offices. Most members of Congress, however, whose conduct violates House rules but not criminal law, incur few if any consequences for their misdeeds.

Even some members who lost their seats over ethics issues only four years ago have reappeared on the political horizon. Richard Pombo (R-CA) is running for a different House seat than the one he lost in the 2006 election. Although never convicted of corruption, Rep. Pombo's behavior was nonetheless deplorable. He urged the Interior Department to suspend rules opposed by the wind power industry, which just so happened to have paid Pombo's parents hundreds of thousands of dollars in royalties. He used taxpayer funds to finance a family vacation through our national parks, and he accepted more than $35,000 from disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. These and other ethical lapses earned Pombo a place on CREW's 2006 list of the 20 most corrupt members of Congress and persuaded voters to oust him.

Similarly, former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), is now challenging Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in the Republican Senate primary. Mr. Hayworth, too, was tarred by the Abramoff scandal, receiving more than $100,000 in Abramoff-related donations and repeatedly using Mr. Abramoff's skyboxes to hold fundraisers without reporting the costs to the Federal Election Commission. In addition, Mr. Hayworth's wife served as the sole employee of his PAC and he paid her over 25% of money taken in, while also paying someone else for bookkeeping and fundraising.

For the past five years, CREW has released a list of the Most Corrupt Members of Congress. A review of last year's list of 15 members - 8 Democrats and 7 Republicans - demonstrates that ethical lapses may be the only bipartisan territory in Washington these days. Disappointingly, many of the members who have engaged in misconduct have never been held accountable for their appalling actions. Most have never received so much as a slap on the wrist by the ethics committees and many remain in Congress though voters have been wise enough to throw some of the worst offenders out.

Simply put, Americans deserve better. We deserve leaders who act with honesty and integrity. It is eminently reasonable for us to expect Congress to police itself and appropriately sanction those who do not meet the high ethical standards we are right to demand. Holding Reps. Rangel and Waters responsible for their misconduct is a good start, but considering it is Congress we are talking about, there is sure to be another ethics scandal brewing on the horizon.

Melanie Sloan is CREW's Executive Director. This post was cross-posted on The Huffington Post.

CNN's Jack Cafferty asks: Isn't it past time for the House Ethics Committee to release its findings on Congressman Charlie Rangel? In case you're wondering, the answer is yes.

In the wake of the scandal involving Rep. Mark Souder's affair with one of his Congressional staffers, Roll Call examined whether such action constituted an ethics violation. While it's not in the ethics rules explicitly, there is a standard of behavior that's expected:

Congressional ethics experts say that while the rules do not explicitly prohibit sleeping with a staff member, there are plenty of provisions in the rules that would allow someone in Souder’s position to be punished.

For starters, all Members and employees are required to live by the code of conduct spelled out in the House rules, which begins with the mandate that “A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.”

Several former ethics committee staffers said this edict alone would have been enough to doom Souder because, clearly, a married Member carrying on an affair with a married employee does not “reflect creditably on the House.”

But the House Ethics Manual also points out that prior Congresses have interpreted that rule to focus on “official, rather than personal, conduct.”

Now, of course, the Ethics Committee would actually have to enforce the ethics rules laid out in the manual for it to really matter.

Responding to criticism and an effort by Rep. Jeff Flake to garner additional information, the Chair of the House Ethics Committee, Zoe Lofgren, and the ranking member, Jo Bonner, issued a statement that attempted to explain its actions in the case involving seven House members and the PMA Group. A pdf copy of the statement can be viewed here. Here's an article From The Hill.

The ethics committee addressed a host of resolutions regarding its now closed investigation of seven lawmakers’ ties to PMA Group.

The panel issued a statement explaining the context of its PMA probe Monday night in response to a flurry of resolutions sponsored by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) over the last few months that demanded to know why the committee had closed its case without finding any rules violations.

The explanation is more of a defense, although the Chair and ranking member indicated that there could be further investigation:

The panel defended the five-page report it previously issued on the PMA matter and said it could consider re-opening the cases if new information came to light.

“The Committee’s action to date does not preclude further action related to these matters should new information warranting action become available,” it concluded in a statement issued by Chairman Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) and ranking member Jo Bonner (R-Ala.).

By a 402-1 vote, the House ethics committee was urged to continue its investigation of Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY), even though the congressman has resigned. But did the committee ever hang up its cleats?

That depends on whom you talk to. Some media reports declared the Massa investigation over. But Politico quoted a senior Democratic aide who insisted that the committee had never ended its probe into Massa's alleged misbehavior.

Rep. Massa resigned earlier this week amid charges of having improper physical contact with at least four aides. The congressman acknowledged behaving inappropriately, but he insisted that there was nothing sexual about the contact.

It will be interesting to see what the fallout is from the House ethics committee's recent report admonishing Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY). In admonishing Rep. Rangel, who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee, the ethics panel held him responsible for something the panel said one of his staffers knew about the details of a trip.

Will other members be held accountable for things they don't know about? Rob Walker, an attorney and ex-staffer for the ethics committee told Roll Call:

"I think the (ethics) committee needs to clarify what the standard is for holding Members responsible for the actions of their staff.

"I don’t think the principles enunciated in the subcommittee report are crystal clear enough to give Members sufficient guidance as to when they would be held accountable and when they would not be."

CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan told Roll Call she doesn't believe the committee meant to establish a new standard because doing so, she said:

"... would have to mean that the ethics committee would have to start investigating Members for staff misconduct."

Not likely.

It has been confirmed that the House ethics committee is probing the ties between two congressmen and PMA Group, the now-defunct lobbying firm that was raided by the FBI last year. Those two members are Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-IN) and Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS).

TPMMuckraker reports:

The investigations concern earmarks won by the lawmakers for PMA, and whether they came in return for campaign contributions. Visclosky's former chief of staff, as well as office records, were subpoenaed last year by the FBI. That led to Visclosky temporarily stepping down as chair of an appropriations subcommittee last year.

Only Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) has received more in campaign contributions from PMA and its employees than has Visclosky.

Tiahrt, like Visclosky, serves on the Defense Appropriations subcommittee.

As 2009 draws to a close, CREW is looking back at what quickly became a busy year for ethical lapses in our federal government. Today, CREW released its list of the Top Ten Ethics Scandals of 2009 – a roundup of the year’s most outrageous government scandals.

The unranked list includes:

Believe us – we had a plethora of scandals to choose from.

Melanie Sloan, CREW’s executive director, explained CREW’s hopes for the new year:

It would be nice if 2010 proved to be the year politicians put Americans’ interests above their own, but I won’t hold my breath.

Click here (PDF) to read CREW’s Top Ten Ethics Scandals of 2009.

Nathan Deal is wearing three hats at the moment – U.S. Representative, Republican candidate for Georgia Governor, and the owner of a lucrative auto-salvage business that has become the subject of two House ethics investigations.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported Monday that the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) and the House ethics committee both have inquired about Rep. Deal’s role as owner of Recovery Systems, Inc., which – through a no-bid-contract – has earned the representative a considerable amount of money. CREW asked the OCE to investigate Rep. Deal in August 2009, after the AJC broke the story that he had illegally and unethically intervened in Georgia state politics to preserve his company’s profitable agreement with the state.

Rep. Deal himself has acknowledged the ethics probe, but (predictably) denies any wrongdoing. And in an online chat on his gubernatorial campaign website, he had some choice words about CREW:

"On the subject of CREW, who filed the complaint," Deal wrote, "this is the same liberal organization that continues to attack the Bush administration. As a former Bush administration officials (sic) said they litigate for sport and distort the facts.'"

Melanie Sloan, CREW’s executive director, easily rebuffed the congressman:

"Given the hot water in which Rep. Deal finds himself, it is no wonder he is trying to change the subject," Sloan said. "It is not CREW investigating the congressman, however, it’s the House ethics committee and the Office of Congressional Ethics.”

Rep. Deal is trying to distract the public from his ethics-probe woes by attacking the organization that merely brought the AJC’s scoop to the attention of Congress’s internal ethics watchdog. We don’t view holding our elected representatives accountable to ethics laws as “litigating for sport” and we will not be dissuaded from our mission.

We believe Rep. Deal broke the law. Plain and simple. Do Georgians really want this man to run their state?