South Carolina has certainly seen its fair share of controversy over the past few years, and today CREW has the state’s latest and greatest in its sights: mystery Senate candidate Alvin Greene.

We just called on the Attorney General of South Carolina, Henry McMaster, to investigate (PDF) whether or not Mr. Greene was induced to run for the Democratic nomination to challenge incumbent Sen. Jim DeMint. Inducing a candidate to run is a blatant violation of South Carolina law.

Mr. Greene originally tried to pay the $10K filing fee with a personal check, which was rejected. He miraculously returned the same day with a new check with the name “Alvin M. Greene for Senate” handwritten as the payer. While he claims this money came from his personal savings account, he has to date refused to confirm this with documentation.

It looks unlikely that Mr. Green had this amount of money on hand. He was discharged from the Army in August 2009 and has been unemployed ever since. What’s more, in November 2009, when charged with obscenity for showing pornography to a USC student, he was assigned a public defender – a service usually reserved only for poor defendants.

CREW also filed a complaint (PDF) with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging that Mr. Greene and three other candidates in the June 8, 2010 South Carolina primary violated the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) and FEC regulations by failing to file mandatory disclosure reports. Gregory Brown, Ben Fraiser, Brian Doyle and Mr. Greene all failed to file their mandatory April 15th Quarterly Report and 12-Day Pre-Primary Reports.

Additionally, Mr. Green failed to file a Statement of Candidacy for himself and a Statement of Organization for his campaign.

CREW’s Executive Director, Melanie Sloan, said today:

The people of South Carolina have a right to fair, transparent and fraud-free elections. Paying candidates to run for office and concealing the sources of campaign funds undermines the integrity of the electoral process and threatens our democracy.

And election law regulations – and their deadlines – exist for a reason. All candidates who are serious about representing the American public in our federal government should be able to perform such simply tasks as filing paperwork on time.

Read CREW’s FEC complaint and the complaint’s exhibits.

Read CREW’s letter to South Carolina Attorney General McMaster.

Last Sunday, on NBC’s "Meet the Press," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) suggested Solicitor General Elena Kagan is in favor of book banning. Given that book banning is more regularly the province of religious conservatives, and Ms. Kagan already has been criticized by the right as too liberal, what’s the basis for this bizarre claim?

It goes back to the Supreme Court oral argument in the controversial Citizens United case. During the argument, Ms. Kagan was asked by Justice Ginsburg, “. . . if Congress could say no TV and radio ads, could it also say no newspaper ads, no campaign biographies? Last time the answer was, yes, Congress could, but it didn’t. Is that – is that still the government’s answer?”

To some laughter Ms. Kagan responded, “The government’s answer has changed, Justice Ginsburg.” Ms. Kagan explained that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has never gone after books. In fact, she stated, “there has never been an enforcement action for books. Nobody has ever suggested – nobody in Congress, nobody in the administrative apparatus has ever suggested that books pose any kind of corruption problem . . .” Ms. Kagan concluded her argument stating, a “book would not count as express advocacy.”

It’s impossible to imagine how Ms. Kagan could have been clearer. Neither she, the FEC, or the Obama administration supports book banning.

Ironically, less than a week earlier when the White House announced Ms. Kagan’s nomination, Sen. McConnell vowed, “Senate Republicans will treat Ms. Kagan fairly.” Distorting a nominee’s statements to claim she favors book banning is fair? Sen. McConnell obviously does not to subscribe to the common definition of the word, apparently preferring the lesser known “throw any dirt you can think of just to see if it will stick.”

Melanie Sloan is CREW's Executive Director

Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sue Lowden is enmeshed in a controversy over a "luxury campaign bus." The question is whether Lowden got the bus as a campaign contribution -- and whether that violates federal law. As you'll see below, CREW's Melanie Sloan thinks so.

From the Las Vegas Sun:

Sue Lowden, a leading Republican contender to challenge Sen. Harry Reid, is being accused by a chief competitor of breaking campaign finance law for accepting a luxury campaign bus as a campaign contribution.

A campaign contributor is “leasing” to Lowden the RV she is using as her campaign bus, according to her campaign. But Lowden’s name is on the title along with the name of the supporter, Carl Giudici, seemingly indicating they co-own the bus.

Campaign finance rules allow in-kind contributions of $2,400 — equal to the cash limit. The contribution of a luxury RV, which commonly costs more than $100,000, would be a violation of the law.

Now, for CREW's take:

Melanie Sloan, a former prosecutor and now executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, took a dim view of the transaction. She said a bus donation would be a clear campaign finance violation.

“He gave it to her. She owns it. She’s on the title, and it’s in her custody and control. It’s an excessive campaign contribution,” she said.

Yesterday, CREW and Louisiana citizen Wayne Jerry Phillips today "filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against the U.S. Dry Cleaning Corporation, Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) and the senator’s campaign committee.

Last week, we posted this item:

The Times-Picayune reported today on the fundraising practices of its home-state Senator David Vitter.  One of Vitter's contributors, Jamal Ogbe, told the paper that he was reimbursed for his contribution to Vitter. That's illegal.

It is illegal under federal campaign finance law. So, CREW plans to file an ethics complaint against the donor who allegedly reimbursed his employees:

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) plans to file the complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) this week in light of a recent report that employees at a California-based dry cleaning company were reimbursed for their donations to Vitter’s Senate campaign last summer.

“It’s a clear violation of campaign finance law,” said Melanie Sloan, the group’s executive director.

Earlier this month the New Orleans Times-Picayune reported that Jamal Ogbe, a former executive with the U.S. Dry Cleaning Corp., said he was reimbursed by the company for his $4,800 contribution to Vitter’s campaign. The company’s employees and their families gave Vitter a total of $33,000 in the hope that he would help them receive federal stimulus money or other government assistance.

The company, which has since filed for bankruptcy, did not respond to a request for comment.

Sloan stresses the case involving Vitter centers on the contributor, not the Louisiana Republican. “It’s really a complaint more against the dry cleaner,” she said. “The question is whether Vitter knew [what was happening].

The RNC's FEC reports continue to yield information about the spending habits of the RNC. The latest nugget, discovered by Samuel P. Jacobs at the Daily Beast, is that the RNC buys its office supplies at the high-end jeweler, Tiffany and Co.:

Many companies turn to Staples or Office Depot for their office needs. Michael Steele’s Republican National Committee gets a little more creative when it comes to keeping the paper clips plentiful. Last year, the Republican National Committee dropped $1044.65 at legendary silver-maker and jeweler Tiffany and Co., for two undisclosed purchases reported to the Federal Election Commission as “office supplies.”

The two purchases, on Dec. 3 and Dec. 22 of last year, were charged to the company in Parsippany, New Jersey, where its manufacturing center is located.

Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said that she thought the purchases were likely “some kind of gifts for donors.” “In this age of frugality, one would expect office supplies to come from Staples, not Tiffany’s,” Sloan said. “I don’t think anybody at the RNC needs Tiffany’s pens.”

Apparently, someone at the RNC thinks somebody needs Tiffany's pens purchased with RNC funds.

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.

CREW filed a Federal Election Commission (FEC) complaint today against Sen. Mary Landrieu’s (D-LA) campaign committee, Friends of Mary Landrieu, Inc., over a mysterious $25,300 “donation” the committee made to the Treasury Department last year according to reports filed with the FEC.

The campaign committee likely discovered it had accepted illegal contributions and, rather than following the normal practice of returning a contribution to its original donor, decided to turn the money over to the Treasury. When Sen. Landrieu’s campaign lawyer Marc Elias was asked to explain the payment, he refused, seeking to protect the identity of the donor.

However, while Friends of Mary Landrieu, Inc. may not be talking, federal campaign finance law is clear – the only time campaign committees can transfer illegal contributions to the Treasury rather than back to the original donor is when that donor:

• is under a Justice Department investigation, or
• has been convicted for making illegal contributions.

And even in those cases, the campaign committee still must make the donor’s identity public. CREW’s complaint alleges that because there has been no suggestion of an ongoing Justice Department investigation into illegal contributions to the Landrieu campaign, the committee improperly turned the money over to the Treasury.

CREW executive director Melanie Sloan said,

We all know politicians don’t give up campaign contributions – much less $25,000 – without a very good reason. It appears Sen. Landrieu’s reason may have been to avoid a scandal or, even worse, a federal investigation into some of her contributions. Our campaign finance laws were designed to ensure transparency. Sen. Landrieu cannot ignore a law she finds inconvenient simply to save herself the embarrassment of acknowledging she received illegal campaign contributions. If Sen. Landrieu did nothing wrong, she has no reason not to come clean with the American people and explain why she turned over $25,000 in contributions to the Treasury.

Click here to read CREW’s FEC complaint.

A decision by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) will allow members of Congress to use campaign funds to pay legal bills for their congressional staffers, including former staffers.  This means campaign dollars are being used to the benefit of House and Senate employees:

Federal regulators ruled for the first time Thursday that campaign funds can be used to help pay the legal bills of current and former congressional staffers.

The Federal Election Commission decided that Rep. Pete Visclosky's campaign committee could be tapped to pay these legal expenses. The Indiana Democrat is under investigation for his ties to a now-defunct lobbying firm, PMA Group. He and members of his current and former staff have been subpoenaed by federal investigators.

The agency previously had allowed campaign funds to be used only for legal expenses of officeholders or candidates. But this time around, the commissioners voted 5-1 in favor of allowing the practice.

FEC Chairman Steven T. Walther was the sole member to vote against the advisory opinion, saying he was concerned that there was not enough information to determine in some cases whether a former staff's legal bills would have been incurred independent of their work for Visclosky.

The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) appears ready to rule that it's permissible for Rep. Peter Visclosky to use his campaign funds to pay the legal fees of his staffers.  Based on this article in the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, it even looks like a former staffer, who became a PMA Group lobbyist, can use those campaign funds for his legal bils. That really just doesn't seem right:

According to news accounts, a federal grand jury is looking into whether PMA Group and its employees gave campaign donations to members of Congress in exchange for receiving money for projects sought by their clients. The FBI raided the PMA offices in November.

Visclosky’s subcommittee has approved projects for PMA’s clients, and Visclosky has received campaign donations from PMA, its clients and its officers. Visclosky’s former chief of staff was one of PMA’s lobbyists.

In its draft opinion, the FEC said Visclosky’s campaign donations may be used for the legal fees of current and former employees as long as the investigations involve Visclosky’s actions as a lawmaker.

Visclosky got permission in June to use his campaign donations for his own legal fees in the case. A report he filed with the FEC in July said he had paid $1,945 to a law firm during the spring.

The FEC Commissioners will vote on this matter on Thursday.  This case is another example of why we need to fix the FEC.