There was a new development over the weekend in the ongoing scandal involving Nevada Senator John Ensign. One of Ensign's colleagues, Tom Coburn, is cooperating with the DOJ investigation:

Sen. Tom Coburn is providing information to the Justice Department for its investigation into whether Nevada Sen. John Ensign broke the law in an attempt to keep an affair with a staff member secret, Coburn's office said Saturday.

Coburn discussed his role as counselor to the Republican Ensign in 2008 when Ensign was having an affair with Cynthia Hampton, a former campaign staffer. At the time, Coburn, R-Okla., had advised Ensign to end the affair and was seeking to mediate a dispute with Hampton's husband, Doug.

Politico reported that the "information" includes emails between the Senators.

There's a Senate Ethics Committee of Ensign underway, too. No doubt, this story is far from over.

Today, CREW filed complaints with the Senate Ethics Committee and the House Office of Congressional Ethics, alleging members of Congress who reside or have resided at the infamous C Street House have violated congressional gift rules by paying below market rent.

From press accounts, CREW has found that the following members of Congress have lived or currently live at the house:

• Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS)
• Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK)
• Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC)
• Sen. John Ensign (R-NV)
• Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA)
• Rep. Jerry Moran (R-KS)
• Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC)
• Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI)
• Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN)

The C Street House is a luxurious Capitol Hill residence for members of Congress that is run by C Street Center, Inc. – an entity with ties to the shadowy Fellowship Foundation. Press accounts have claimed that members of Congress who live the house pay only $950 in rent – well below market value for that area. Previous studies found that comparable rental rates for the Capitol Hill area range from $1,700 to over $4,000 a month.

CREW’s complaint explains that by accepting below market rent, members of Congress are violating clear-cut congressional rules that prohibit accepting lodging as a gift and bar members from accepting a gift given because of their official positions. Members may accept gifts given out of personal friendship, but that exception hardly applies here.

Melanie Sloan, CREW’s executive director, said today:

At a time when so many Americans are losing their housing it is surprising to discover that some members of Congress are lucky enough to have a landlord that charges below market rent for fairly luxurious accommodations – and offers housekeeping and meal service to boot. Rarely does someone – particularly a member of Congress – receive something for nothing, so you can’t help but wonder exactly what these members may be doing in return for all of this largess. Of course, this is the reason the gift ban was enacted in the first place. This situation cries out for an immediate ethics inquiry.

Click here to read CREW's complaint to the Office of Congressional Ethics.
Click here to read CREW's complaint to the Senate Ethics Committee.
Click here to read the complaints' accompanying exhibits.

CREW today sent a letter to C-SPAN chairman and CEO Brian Lamb, asking that his network not air tomorrow’s National Prayer Breakfast, or at least properly identify the event’s sponsor as the shadowy religious organization known as “the Fellowship” or “the Family.”

The National Prayer Breakfast is often misconstrued by the public as an official government event, a mistake reinforced by the plethora of presidential seals throughout the room, a yearly presidential address, and an organizing committee of members of Congress. In reality, the event is a recruiting and networking tool for the Family – a cult-like religious organization that has pushed an unorthodox brand of Christianity within powerful political, military and economic circles around the world for 50 years.

The Family is linked – via its infamous C Street House – to highly unethical members of Congress, including Sens. John Ensign (R-NV) and Tom Coburn (R-OK), Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC), Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS), and former Rep. “Chip” Pickering (R-MS). The organization’s members have also been behind the deplorable Ugandan anti-gay legislation calling for the death penalty for anyone convicted of having gay sex.

CREW’s executive director, Melanie Sloan, said:

“The mere fact that C-SPAN, which is dedicated to political coverage, broadcasts the breakfast contributes to the notion that it is an official government event. Viewers see images of a ballroom filled with presidential paraphernalia and high-ranking government officials, and the words ‘National Prayer Breakfast’ appearing on the bottom of their screens. By airing this, C-SPAN may be unwittingly contributing to the false perception the breakfast is government-sponsored and sanctioned. At a minimum, C-SPAN should label the event as sponsored by the Family and provide some context so viewers can fully appreciate what they are seeing: our top government leaders lending legitimacy to a shadowy, intolerant religious organization.”

Today’s letter follows a letter to the president and congressional leadership on Monday calling for a boycott of the event. Click here to read CREW’s letter to C-SPAN, click here to read CREW’s letter from Monday.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) appeared yesterday on ABC News' "This Week" with host George Stephanopoulos. This was a good opportunity for Sen. Coburn to clarify the specific role he played in the controversy surrounding Sen. John Ensign (R-NV).

Unfortunately, it was a wasted opportunity.

Although Coburn admitted that he acted as an intermediary between Doug Hampton and Ensign (who had an affair with Hampton's wife), TPMMuckraker's Zachary Roth writes:

Coburn also seemed to be saying that Hampton lied by telling "Nightline," in an interview to air tonight, there was a negotiation. But Hampton never said that. He only said that Coburn offered to help him negotiate a deal with Ensign. And, crucially, that Coburn suggested having Ensign make a payment to the Hamptons, and help them buy their home.

Coburn never directly says whether those key claims by Hampton are true. And Stephanopoulos never pins him down on it.

If you read the ABC "This Week" transcript, it isn't clear exactly what Coburn claims Hampton is being untruthful about. Coburn's qualified "no" response does not refute Hampton's allegations. It only seems to raise anticipation of what Hampton will say on tonight's ABC "Nightline."

The "C Street House" was the residence of Senator John Ensign (R-NV) for years. The home has achieved notoriety for the wayward practices of some of its current and former inhabitants, including Ensign. Over the weekend, the Las Vegas Sun reported that Ensign has left the building:

Sen. John Ensign has moved out of the C Street house, the Christian home he shared with other elected officials on Capitol Hill that came under scrutiny for its residents’ beliefs and practices and their role in trying to end the Nevada Republican’s affair with a campaign staff member.

The red brick town house emerged this summer as the subject of political intrigue — not only as a pivotal location in Ensign’s affair with Cynthia Hampton, but also that of South Carolina Republican Gov. Mark Sanford, who sought guidance there as he wrestled with his own affair.

As fallout from Ensign’s affair continues with a preliminary Senate Ethics Committee investigation and talk of a possible criminal inquiry by the Justice Department, Ensign decided to move out, not wanting to draw further attention to his longtime home.

Today, CREW provided additional information to the FBI and the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, supplementing the complaints CREW filed against Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) in June based on activities surrounding his affair with a campaign staffer, Cynthia Hampton.

On June 16, 2009, Sen. Ensign confessed he had engaged in an affair with Ms. Hampton, his campaign and PAC treasurer, who was married to Doug Hampton, the Senator’s administrative assistant. A number of legal and ethics violations stem from that affair, which are detailed in CREW’s original complaint, found here.

Today’s letters provide additional information and note new possible violations stemming from Sen. Ensign’s conduct.

A New York Times October 2 story indicates Sen. Ensign illegally helped his former administrative assistant Doug Hampton violate a one-year lobbying ban and then assisted Mr. Hampton’s clients with their legislative agendas. The additional information details how Mr. Hampton failed to register as a lobbyist, and lobbied his former office before the end of the one-year cooling off period. Sen. Ensign assisted Mr. Hampton by finding lobbying clients for him and then meeting with those clients at Mr. Hampton’s behest. Mr. Hampton clearly violated the lobbying ban and Sen. Ensign appears to have conspired with him to violate the ban. Sen. Ensign also may have committed honest services fraud by contacting federal officials at the request of Mr. Hampton.

The New York Times story also refutes Sen. Ensign’s characterization of a $96,000 payment to the Hampton family as a gift from his parents. Mr. Hampton’s contemporaneous notes show the payment was intended as severance. It appears Sen. Ensign described the payment as a gift in order to avoid reporting the payment to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which might have forced him to explain it publicly.

The letter to the Senate ethics committee also asks that Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), who met with Mr. Hampton and at least one of his clients, Allegiant Air, be investigated for his role in helping Mr. Hampton violate the lobbying ban. CREW also asked the committee to investigate Sen. Coburn for lying to reporters when he categorically denied serving as an intermediary in the Hamptons’ efforts to secure restitution from Sen. Ensign. Sen. Coburn admitted to the Times that he brought Mr. Hampton’s request for a $2 million payment to Sen. Ensign, who rejected it.

When we filed the initial complaint, Melanie Sloan said, "Sen. Ensign’s stunning abuse of power shocks the conscience." It's only gotten worse since then. Today, when we filed the additional information,  Melanie said:

To say that Sen. Ensign has shown himself unfit for office could be the understatement of the year. He has proved himself to be a philandering criminal disguised as a U.S. Senator. Sen. Ensign should be investigated by both the FBI and the ethics committee and the committee should also delve into Sen. Coburn’s role in the tawdry affair. The American people deserve to learn the truth about their elected representatives.

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) isn't talking about the scandal involving Senator John Ensign.  He's invoking immunity from his status as an OB/GYN and a church deacon.  But, news reports indicate Coburn was a key adviser to Ensign during the period of Ensign's affair -- and there are many questions.  The Tulsa World thinks Coburn needs to "clear the air."  CREW hopes that both Ensign and Coburn get a chance to testify before the Senate Ethics Committee and to talk at length to the Department of Justice:

Ensign is up to his ears in a sex scandal. His mistress' husband, Doug Hampton, claims that Coburn and others encouraged Ensign to pay off the family. Coburn denies that and says that he only told Ensign to end the affair and go public with it.

In the meantime, Ensign's parents have paid the Hampton family $96,000 in what they claim is mere generosity and concern for the Hampton family.

This is a smarmy affair and we wish that Coburn had not become involved at all. The whole mess will wind up before the Senate Ethics Committee, if not spark a full-blown criminal investigation by the Justice Department.

When it does, Coburn ought to tell what he knows. We respect the doctor-patient relationship and the minister privilege, but this situation doesn't seem to clearly fall under those umbrellas.

Any refusal to answer questions will only cause more controversy. If Coburn really believes that there is privilege then Ensign ought to release him from it.

The truth needs to be told. And Sen. Coburn needs to clear the air.

Ensign really needs to clear the air. 

Federal election reporting requirements are very clear. The Federal Election Campaign Act requires candidate committees to file reports identifying contributors who donate more than $200. It also requires campaign committees to file within 48 hours of receipt, the identity of any contributor who gives $1,000 or more within 20 days of an election (“48-hour reports”). Yet, in violation of these provisions, Sen. Tom Coburn, Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Rep. Marilyn Musgrave all waited to identify some of their contributors until well after the election. For that reason, CREW filed FEC complaints against the campaign committees of those three members today. The complaint and accompanying materials can be found on our website:

Coburn for Senate failed to file, within 20 days of 2004 primary and general elections, an astonishing 202 48-hour reports for a total of $349,100 in contributions that exceeded $1,000. CREW learned of these violations on January 25, 2007, when the FEC released the results of an audit of the campaign committee.

Lincoln Diaz-Balart for Congress failed to disclose the identities of 32 contributors who gave a combined total of $11,800. Notably, one of the contributions the committee failed to report was made by the husband of Rep. Ileana Ros –Lehtinen (R-FL). Because the FEC investigated Rep. Diaz-Balart’s 1998 campaign committee for the same type of violation, it appears that the 2006 violations may be deliberate.

Musgrave for Congress consistently failed to disclose the identities of contributors throughout the 2006 election cycle in four consecutive reports. After receiving each report, the FEC asked Musgrave’s committee to provide the identities of contributors, but the committee failed to respond to two of those requests until after the election. The committee also failed to file ten 48-hour reports for a total of $18,491 in contributions.

CREW's Executive Director, Melanie Sloan, had this to say when we filed the complaints:

Campaign finance laws are not optional. By law, candidates are required to file certain reports with the Federal Election Commission. If candidates don’t want to comply with the law, they shouldn’t run for office. Campaigns are not entitled to hide the identities of their top donors until elections are over. Voters have a right to this information and the FEC should come down hard on campaigns that refuse to provide it. One has to wonder what these candidates were trying to hide from their constituents.

Campaign finance laws are not optional. The FEC needs to enforce the law.