Landry focuses on Bachmann's links on her official website and her abuse of taxpayer-funded mailings (franking).
There are several posts on Dump Bachmann about how Bachmann's office abuses her franking privileges.
Has Bachmann run afoul of other ethics rules?
From the comments:
While we’re asking about her Personal Financial Disclosure form, we might also ask where the figure is from her family farm profits on her 2008 form. It’s been incomplete since she filed it. You know — the Bachmann family farm that has collected over $250,000 in federal farm subsidies.
...and then there's this likely ethics violation posted here last month:
Bachmann performed a service to a big campaign donor - she wrote a letter (on official stationery) in support of a pardon request for Frank Vennes Jr., an action that raises obvious suspicions whether there was a "pay for play"... adding to the appearance of impropriety - Vennes was not a constituent.
From ethics.house.gov website:
Because a Member’s obligations are to all constituents equally, considerations such as political support, party affiliation, or campaign contributions should not affect either the decision of a Member to provide assistance or the quality of help that is given. While a Member should not discriminate in favor of political supporters, neither need he or she discriminate against them. As this Committee has stated:
The fact that a constituent is a campaign donor does not mean that a Member is precluded from providing any official assistance. As long as there is no quid pro quo, a Member is free to assist all persons equally.26
An individual’s status as a donor may, however, raise an appearance of impropriety. The Senate Select Committee on Ethics has expressed the issue as follows:
The cardinal principle governing Senators’ conduct in this area is that a Senator and a Senator’s office should make decisions about whether to intervene with the executive branch or independent agencies on behalf of an individual without regard to whether the individual has contributed, or promised to contribute, to the Senator’s campaigns or other causes in which he or she has a financial, political or personal interest. . . .
Because Senators occupy a position of public trust, every Senator always must endeavor to avoid the appearance that the Senator, the Senate, or the governmental process may be influenced by campaign contributions or other benefits provided by those with significant legislative or governmental interests. Nonetheless, if an individual or organization has contributed to a Senator’s campaigns or causes, but has a case which the Senator reasonably believes he or she is obliged to press because it is in the public interest or the cause of justice or equity to do so, then the Senator’s obligation is to pursue that case. In such instances, the Senator must be mindful of the appearance that may be created and take special care to try to prevent harm to the public’s trust in the Senator and the Senate. This does not mean, however, that a Member or employee is required to determine if one is a contributor before providing assistance.27
The Senate Committee concluded that “established norms of Senate behavior do not permit linkage between . . . official actions and . . . fund raising activities.”28 .House Members, too, should be aware of the appearance of impropriety that could arise from championing the causes of contributors and take care not to show favoritism to them over other constituents..
Assisting Non-Constituents
On occasion a Member’s publicized involvement in legislation or an issue of national concern will generate correspondence from individuals outside the district. A private citizen may communicate with any Member he or she desires. However, the Member’s ability to provide assistance to such individuals is limited.
The statute that establishes the Members’ Representational Allowance provides that the purpose of the allowance is “to support the conduct of the official and representational duties of a Member of the House of Representatives with respect to the district from which the Member is elected.”29 This statute does not prohibit a Member from ever responding to a non-constituent. In some instances, working for non-constituents on matters that are similar to those facing constituents may enable the Member better to serve his or her district. Other times, the Member may serve on a House committee that has the expertise and ability to provide the requested help. Of course, if a Member has personal knowledge regarding a matter or an individual, he or she may always communicate that knowledge to agency officials. As a general matter, however, a Member should not devote official resources to casework for individuals who live outside the district. When a Member is unable to assist such a person, the Member may refer the person to his or her own Representative or Senator.
You can download a copy of the handbook HERE (PDF), or you can go to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct website for more info,
No comments:
Post a Comment