Timing is everything.

After sitting dormant for more than a decade, the House Ethics Committee has roared to life by holding two of the most senior members’ feet to the fire for some pretty serious ethical violations. But one has to wonder — why is the committee acting only now?

To be clear, Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) are in a mess of their own making, and the Ethics Committee is right to charge them. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has long argued that both these members need to be held accountable for their misconduct, should they be found to have committed these violations.

But policing Congress and making sure members of both parties behave in an ethical manner should be an apolitical affair. By holding ethics hearings this fall, right before the midterm election, the ethics process looks political. That serves no one’s interest.

Let’s examine what we know, and when we knew it. In September 2008, Rangel himself asked the House Ethics Committee to investigate the numerous allegations of ethical violations swirling around him all summer — that he had been improperly soliciting donations for the City College of New York’s aptly named Rangel Center, using official congressional letterhead.

The congressman had also failed to pay taxes on rental income from a Dominican Republic villa; maintained four rent-controlled apartments, one used as a campaign office, and submitted numerous error-ridden personal financial disclosure reports.

As for Waters, during the fiscal meltdown at the end of the Bush administration, she used her influence to reach out to then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and demand TARP funding for OneUnited, a bank in which her husband had a financial interest. What’s more, she appointed her grandson, who doubles as her chief of staff, as the point person on this issue.

Treasury officials were reportedly fuming in March 2009, when they learned of Waters’ financial interest in OneUnited. As far as cases go, this is not complicated. Waters appears to have abused her position to advance her personal financial interest. The Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) agreed, and referred the matter on to the Ethics Committee in June of last year.

Given that the Ethics Committee was made aware of Rangel’s violations no later than September 2008 and Waters’ by June 2009, why is the committee making its findings public now?

To avoid politicization, the Ethics Committee does not accept complaints within 60 days of an election. Rangel’s and Waters’ ethics hearings, which cannot start before mid-September at the earliest, are certain to extend into this 60-day window and will undoubtedly effect the midterm elections.

With control of the House likely up for grabs, some -- including Rangel -- have said that Republicans on the Ethics Committee have refused to reach a settlement with Rangel specifically because of a desire to focus national attention on Democrats’ ethics problems and so gain an edge in the election.

But the politicization of the ethics process jeopardizes its legitimacy and undermines its credibility. In the 1990s, ethics charges were filed simply to score political points. In an effort to step back, both parties agreed to a truce, and no ethics complaints were filed.

This left members largely unaccountable -- no matter how egregious their conduct. It led to the scandals involving former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and super lobbyist Jack Abramoff, moving ethics back to the front burner.

Intentional or not, releasing charges against Rangel and Waters so close to the mid-terms lends credence to those who assert that the charges are political. The timing undermines the Ethics Committee’s already weak credibility, and jeopardizes the legitimacy of the ethics process. As a result, we may see members reluctant to buy in to a process they view as a politically motivated. Already, we have heard members of both parties call for the OCE to be dismantled, or at least to have its (limited) power severely reduced.

No organization has called more loudly than CREW for Rangel and Waters to answer for their conduct. In fact, many other members -- including Reps. Pete Visclosky (D-Ind.), Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) and Don Young (R-Alaska) -- should similarly be called out for misconduct.

But in a world where timing is everything, the timing of these hearings does not serve the interests of justice -- or the American people.

Melanie Sloan is CREW's Executive Director. This post was cross-posted on Politico.com.

.

Last Friday, the New York Times reported that with the upcoming departure of White House ethics and transparency “czar” Norm Eisen – who soon heads to Prague as our ambassador to the Czech Republic – the White House has revamped its ethics team by adding new Domestic Policy Council member Steven P. Croley and assigning overall leadership responsibility to White House Counsel Bob Bauer. In the wake of this announcement a number of leading NGOs have questioned the wisdom of these changes, suggesting they will weaken, not strengthen, the President’s vision for a more ethical and transparent government. We agree.

To be clear, CREW has not always agreed with this White House’s approach to both ethics and transparency issues. We have been among the first to criticize its demonization of lobbyists and the slow progress in changing actual agency practices under the Freedom of Information Act and other information statutes. But we have lauded the decision to have a highly placed official within the White House Counsel’s Office with close ties to President Obama take the lead on these issues, a move that proved to be more than mere symbolism. Those of us in the access community know that Norm Eisen will take our calls, listen to and take seriously our suggestions, complaints, and criticisms. And we do not question his commitment to the president’s ideals of a more ethical and transparent government. Mr. Eisen has labored hard to make these ideals a reality, and while much work remains real progress has been achieved.

With White House Counsel Bob Bauer at the helm, however, we have good reason to question whether this course will continue. As the president’s top legal advisor, Mr. Bauer’s plate already is quite full and he can hardly be expected to devote the same energy as has Mr. Eisen on transparency and ethics matters. We at CREW certainly have no expectation Mr. Bauer will be able to take our calls, respond to our frequent emails, or grant us the audience Mr. Eisen so willingly provided. As for new addition Steven P. Croley, his credentials may be impeccable but the transfer of some of Mr. Eisen’s portfolio to him leaves the White House Counsel’s Office with less, not more authority, and adds another bureaucratic level to the process.

Some have cynically suggested these changes are calculated to back-burner issues that have been a mixed bag for this administration, drawing as much criticism as praise. In our view, taking the full-time responsibilities of a high-level White House official and divvying them up suggests ethics, transparency and government reform will get substantially less attention, not more.

.

Spencer Hsu took a look at the impact of the recent Supreme Court case that "gutted an anti-corruption tool favored by federal prosecutors." The case, brought by Ernon executive Jeffery Skilling, cast doubt on the crime of "honest services fraud." There are major ramifications of that decision, including potentially for the Abramoff-related cases that are still pending. 

Combined with an earlier court decision, it's clear that prosecutors need stricter anti-corruption law to fight public corruption. Absent that, members of Congress have less to worry about. And, that's never good:

In their June decision, the justices directed lower courts to reconsider the honest-services fraud convictions of former Enron executive Jeffrey K. Skilling, another business leader and a former state lawmaker.

Elsewhere, attorneys for former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich (D) moved unsuccessfully to delay his trial in Chicago, where he faces charges of honest-services fraud, racketeering, attempted extortion, bribery and conspiracy. Attorneys for former U.S. representative William J. Jefferson (D-La.) may raise the matter in the appeal of his 2009 conviction and 13-year prison sentence for crimes including soliciting bribes, money laundering and racketeering.

"We don't know how many cases may be affected, but this is one of the most-used tools in public corruption investigations," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

Public interest groups say Congress should tighten federal corruption laws, citing court decisions since 2007 that narrowed the types of "official actions" that public servants are barred from performing for people who give them money or gifts. Those rulings also require that prosecutors show more specifically that illegal actions were done in return for money.

"All these things are combining to really give members of Congress . . . much less to fear from watchdogs than 10 years ago," Sloan said.

Legal experts say the effect of the Skilling decision will vary case by case. Prosecutors increasingly turned to honest-services fraud charges in recent years to target patterns of self-dealing and conflicts of interest by government and corporate officials, even without a direct quid pro quo.

On Tuesday, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a complaint with the Justice Department requesting a criminal investigation into the conduct of former Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA). CREW's request followed the release of a report on Deal's conduct by the Office of Congressional Ethics.

This report found "substantial reason to believe" that Deal may have violated ethics rules. Deal resigned to campaign full-time for governor of Georgia. But his resignation hasn't removed the ethics cloud above him. This editorial in today's Washington Post keeps up the heat:

Mr. Deal's conduct is troubling, but even more troubling is the thought that his actions could have remained hidden from Georgia voters if the OCE hadn't taken the unusual step of releasing the report post-resignation

... Mr. Deal told the OCE that he was acting against his financial interest in questioning the planned changes to the Georgia inspection program, which would have benefited him, and he dismissed the findings as "a political witch hunt fueled by Democrats."

... given the bipartisan makeup of the ethics committee, with members appointed in equal number by the House speaker and the minority leader, Mr. Deal ought to come up with a better response.

Deal's abrupt resignation may have been intended as a way to close the books on this ethics issue, but the controversy isn't going away, and it's likely to shape the attitudes of Georgia voters.

One day after Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed complaints with the IRS and FTC, Media Matters of America called on Fox TV host Sean Hannity to respond publicly to the concerns raised in those complaints.

CREW's complaint to the FTC charges that Hannity and the group Freedom Concerts have engaged in illegal and deceptive marketing practices by suggesting that all money generated by ticket sales for the Freedom Concerts (that Hannity promotes) are directed to scholarships for children of killed or wounded members of the armed forces.

CREW’s IRS complaint against Freedom Alliance asks the IRS to consider revoking the group's charitable tax status because Freedom Alliance has engaged in prohibited political activities. The groups also have connections to Lt. Col. Oliver North.

In this press release, Media Matters of America President Eric Burns declared:

"These are serious allegations that Sean Hannity, Oliver North, and their agent must address. Hannity's listeners were told that '100 percent' of their money was going toward scholarships for the children of service members. If, in fact, this is not the case, these donors deserve to know how their money is being spent."

Maybe Nathan Deal thought his hurry-up-and-resign strategy would spell the end of the ethics cloud that surrounded him as he served in the U.S. House of Representatives. But that's not the case.

Today, the non-partisan Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) issued a scathing report today declaring there is "substantial reason" to conclude that ex-Rep. Deal's business dealings violated House rules. The OCE's report follows a 2009 complaint filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). In a statement, CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan said:

"Mr. Deal shouldn’t be able to dodge responsibility for his misconduct by hightailing it out of Congress before he could be held accountable."

Considering that Deal is considered a leading candidate for governor of Georgia, the OCE's report is a big deal. USA Today has more details right here.

Click here for the OCE's report -- beware, it's a huge file.

Click here for the complete statement issued by CREW about the OCE report.

As the investigation of his actions deepens, ethically tainted Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) has begun whining about the media coverage of the scandal. As Politico reports:

The Nevada Republican made the charge as he was being asked whether he’s been subpoenaed in a grand jury probe into the aftermath of his affair. Instead of answering that question, he descended into an extended rebuke of the press — including Politico — for the way it has covered the scandal surrounding him.

“Seeking of the truth should be not only part of the Justice Department and part of our judicial system, but also should be ... a goal of reporters today,” Ensign said. “Unfortunately, too much of our press is ... (1) biased or (2) just about ‘gotcha.’”

On the one hand, Sen. Ensign complains that the press isn't seeking the "truth," but, on the other hand, he sidesteps a simple question about whether he has received a subpoena. If he is so interested in making sure the truth is known, the senator should be willing to answer questions like this.

Unfortunately, whining about the media cannot undo the actions taken by Sen. Ensign in the scandal involving Doug and Cynthia Hampton.

Members of Congress who may have thought months ago that ethics concerns would be a non-factor in this year's election had better think again.

A new survey by the Pew Research Center asked 749 Americans to offer one word to describe how they feel about Congress. Lots of different words were volunteered, but it's interesting that three of the top dozen answers relate either directly or indirectly to members' ethics: corrupt, self-serving and crooked.

More significantly, only one word was used more often than "corrupt" to describe Congress.

South Carolina's ethically tainted governor may not have been forced from office, but his actions will cut into his pocketbook. Late last week, Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) agreed to a legal settlement over ethics issues in which he admits no guilt but pays more than $140,000 in fines and reimbursement.

A portion of this amount will reimburse the state for Sanford's use of state aircraft, high-priced airline tickets and other travel costs.

Also last week, a judge finalized Sanford's divorce from his wife, Jenny.

What is most amazing is that a governor like Sanford who has been so thoroughly discredited can continue to put out press statements with phrases such as this:

"I continue to maintain my belief in the innocence of my actions being judged by the Ethics Commission."

Unbelievable.

Yesterday, Gov. David A. Paterson’s (D-NY) press secretary, announced her resignation. In doing so, Marissa Shorenstein, became the 5th senior-level state official to step down amid the scandal that has cast a cloud over the Paterson administration.

The scandal surrounds what actions Gov. Paterson may have taken to interfere with the legal process in a domestic violence incident involving one of his top aides.

The statement that Shorenstein issued about her resignation was one of those smile-like-you-mean-it statements that are typical in these situations:

"It has been a privilege to serve New York State for the past two years, and I thank the governor for giving me the opportunity to do so.”

I guess social grace precludes someone like Shorenstein from saying, "I was determined not to be the last one to jump overboard before the ship sank."