In his spare time (no doubt while watching nonstop basketball this weekend), our Creative Director came up with a way to visualize the estimated net worth of the top 16 wealthiest members of Congress. |
LegiStorm - an insanely useful site of congressional information including staffer salaries and other disclosures - has, for the first time, posted PDFs of the personal financial disclosures that some staffers are required to file. For every member of Congress, at least one staffer must file a personal financial disclosure. If a staffer is making the maximum pay, as some chiefs of staff do, they must file a disclosure. Staffers hold a lot of power on Capitol Hill and are often overlooked as recipients of undue influence from outside groups. LegiStorm notes this in their press release:
Most disclosures are relatively mundane and appear to demonstrate those staffers have no discernible potential conflicts of interest, Friedly said. However, hundreds of staffer disclosures reveal ties to interest groups and lobbying firms, either as a past job, a spouse's work or a future employment agreement. Others reveal lucrative side jobs, adding as much as $100,000 or more to their federal pay.
Laura McGann of TPM Muckraker writes about an odd wrinkle in the personal financial disclosure rules that's being advanced by an aide to Sen. Lisa Murkowski to explain her failure to dislcose some property she bought. To briefly recap McGann's story, Murkowski bought some undeveloped land from Bob Penney, a politically connected Alaskan real estate developer (he's quite close to Sen. Ted Stevens). Local realtors consulted by McGann suggest the property might sell on the open market for as much as $300,000. How much Murkowski actually paid is unknown--the transaction price in Alaskan real estate deals are not public, Penney isn't talking and Murkowski didn't list the purchase on her personal financial disclosure form because, her office says, the land is for personal use:
Murkowki's office called the purchase exempt from Senate financial disclosure, citing a clause in the ethics manual which says "property which is held or maintained solely for recreational or personal purposes does not have to be reported." (ethics manual) The committee declined to comment for this story.
"She bought this for personal use just like millions of other people," Danielle Holland said. "My response to your question, times six, is it's for personal use."
May 4, 2007
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker
US House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20514
Dear Madam Speaker:
We are writing to congratulate you on your effort to begin to make the work of the US House of Representatives more transparent, and urge you to take an additional, simple step of ensuring that Members' personal financial disclosure reports are freely available on the Internet as soon as they are made public.
Members of Congress, candidates and certain senior staff have been required to disclose their personal financial interests in publicly available documents since the passage of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. The House Ethics Manual states that, "Public disclosure is intended to provide the information necessary to allow Members' constituencies to judge official conduct in light of possible financial conflicts with private holdings."
Unfortunately, Congress makes House Members' reports "public" only to individuals who can personally go to Cannon House Office building on Capitol Hill. In order to provide for real transparency, Congress should make this information available to all citizens via the Internet by providing it in an online, downloadable, searchable database.
When reporting their personal financial disclosure information, lawmakers should follow the same rules that now apply to lobbyists, campaign committees and 527-organizations which are required to disclose their information electronically.
In addition to upholding the spirit of the law, electronic filing would have benefits for the Members themselves. Lawmakers often inadvertently leave an asset or liability off their forms and have to file an amendment to correct the error. Many of these mistakes, and the bad press that follows them, could be avoided if electronic filing were the norm because a well crafted electronic personal financial disclosure form would be designed to "ask" the person filling it out for information that might be inadvertently omitted.
If you want to go beyond the recent story broken by the Los Angeles Times (which is the subject of a scathing editorial in the Investors Business Daily, and a much more tepid one from the Chicago Tribune), there's no better place to start than Reid's personal financial disclosure forms, which can be found online in PDF format here, at the OpenSecrets site. As you read through them, you'll begin to realize what a daunting task it is to follow the ins and outs of a lawmaker's investments (especially a sophisticated real estate invester like Reid). Here's a footnote Reid offers in his latest financial disclosure form to identify one fo the properties he's invested in: "A government lot located in the South one half of the Southwest one quarter of Section 34, Township 28 South, Range 63 East, MDBM."
In addition to going through Reid's personal financial disclosure forms with a fine tooth comb, you might want to try searching for real estate transactions by "Harry Reid" in some of the real estate databases that are out there (although most of the free ones--Zillow comes immediately to mind--are geared toward residential home sales rather than patches of undeveloped land). Sites like KnowX and Lexis Nexis charge for their information, but tend to have more records. I believe they both offer a la carte searching (that is, you can buy individual records), but this can get pretty expensive pretty quickly.