“I certainly support the need to prevent certain sensitive, personal, classified, or law enforcement information from being disclosed under FOIA,” Udall wrote in his letter. “But I also believe it is extremely important that we do not attempt to protect our citizens by lying to them.”

Under the new regulation, government officials could simply tell citizens that the records they’re looking for don’t exist, when in fact the records do exist. A “no record” response, writes Udall, is very likely to head off any further inquiry. Yet all parties would know that the “no records” response could well be a lie. The regulation would erode trust and rightly lead to legal action on the part of skeptical investigators of all stripes.

Udall suggests an alternative approach drafted by government watchdog and civil liberties groups– the ACLU, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and Open The Government– where government agencies could instead simply inform requestors that the documents they seek, if they exist, “are not subject to the disclosure requirements established by the Freedom of Information Act.”

Such an approach would be effective as well as “truthful and informative,” writes Udall.

Concerns expressed among the public, media and watchdog organizations prompted the justice department to keep the comments period on the proposed regulation open longer than planned. That period closed last week. Udall’s letter is a personal response aimed to throw additional weight behind calls to rethink the new regulation.

The history behind the debate is one of tug of war between the right to information and the need to protect government sources and secret investigations. It’s also a history of the battle to ensure that checks and balances between branches of government can operate effectively.

Criminal organizations, for example, have worked the FOIA system for years. They submit information requests and, based on the varied responses of the government agencies, try to uncover the identity of informants. A “No records exist” kind of response regarding, say, a “Johnny Fingers” would mean Fingers was no snitch. A “Will not confirm or deny” kind of response regarding, say, a “Leftie Knuckles” would suggest Knuckles couldn’t be trusted.

Yet, in the post-9/11 era, government agencies have become increasingly brash in denying information to all sorts of requestors– including those with no intention of whacking informants– and in flatly lying to requestors and to judges tasked with reviewing paper trails meant to detail the reason for request denials.

In a case heard this past spring titled Islamic Shura Council of Southern California, et al. v. FBI, the FBI lied to the plaintiffs about the existence of documents and then lied to the district court judge as well. When the fact came out that the documents did exist, it was clear that judicial review of national security document hoarding had been seriously eroded.

As the judge in the case put it, the information the FBI delivered to the court was “blatantly false.” It was a fundamental breech in accountability laws, he said.

“The Government’s… submission raised a very disturbing issue,” the district judge wrote in the Islamic Shura case. “The Government asserts that it had to mislead the Court regarding the Government‟s response to Plaintiff’s FOIA request to avoid compromising national security. The Government’s argument is untenable. The Government cannot, under any circumstance, affirmatively mislead the Court. The United States Constitution entrusts the Judiciary with the power to determine compliance with the law. It is impossible for the court to determine compliance with the law and to protect the public from Government misconduct if the Government misleads the Court. The Court simply cannot perform its constitutional function if the Government does not tell the truth.”

If 16.6 is accepted the way it stands, the kind of legal breech on display in Islamic Shura would be written into standard procedures.

Below view Udall’s letter to Attorney General Holder and a fairly comprehensive brief on the matter filed to the Department of Justice by the ACLU.

Letter to Attorney General Holder on the Freedom of Information Act

FOIAACLUbrief

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Though it was widely rumored that Buchanan would run for Senate, the Sarasota Republican ended speculation last week, saying he preferred to keep his current seat as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Launching a campaign against a three-term incumbent may seem no easy feat, but Fitzgerald’s rival has become a rich target. Buchanan has been plagued by allegations of campaign fraud in recent months, and cited in numerous complaints alleging he pressured employees to donate to his various congressional campaigns. Though Buchanan himself was never fined over the allegations, his ex-business partner (whom Buchanan once purportedly referred to as his “golden child”) was fined, to the tune of $67,9000, for reimbursing employees that donated to Buchanan’s 2006 and 2008 campaigns.

In August, the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington called on the FBI to investigate Buchanan over the allegations. Last week, a Venice retiree filed her own complaint with the Office of Congressional Ethics, also requesting an investigation of Buchanan.

Fitzgerald alluded to the allegations while announcing his candidacy to the St. Petersburg Times this morning:

“Instead of focusing on creating jobs or helping families struggling to make ends meet, Congressman Vern Buchanan has tried to end Medicare and protect tax giveaways for big oil while running from one scandal to the next,” said Fitzgerald, to the Times.  “His tarnished leadership in a perfect example of what is wrong with Washington, and it’s time for him to go.”

Venice retiree Donna Cubit-Swoyer has filed a complaint with the Office of Congressional Ethics, requesting an investigation of Rep. Vern Buchanan, R-Sarasota.

Buchanan has been plagued with rumors of campaign fraud in recent years. In June, his former business partner was fined nearly $68,000 for reimbursing employees who donated to Buchanan’s 2006 and 2008 campaigns. That business partner alleges Buchanan himself orchestrated the scheme. At least 14 other lawsuits have made similar allegations.

Cubit-Swoyer’s complaint highlights recently filed court documents as a “basis to believe that Rep. Buchanan may have violated federal law and House standards of conduct by making untruthful statements to the Federal Election Commission in a matter involving illegal conduit contributions to his campaign.”

In an email, Cubit-Swoyer writes that she has no connection with Buchanan, other than that she is one of his constituents.

“I am disturbed by the allegations of Vern Buchanan’s contribution scheme,” she writes. “I expect my elected representatives to hold to the highest possible ethical standard. Everything I have read about Congressman Buchanan’s actions gives me reason to believe that he was less than truthful and brought disgrace upon himself and the Congress.”

According to the complaint, the Office of Congressional Ethics “has jurisdiction to investigate any allegation that a Member, officer or employee of the House, on or after March 11, 2008, has violated a law, rule, regulation or other standard of conduct in effect at the time the conduct occurred and applicable to the subject in the performance of his or her duties or the discharge of his or her responsibilities.”

View the full complaint:

Buchanan Suit – signature document _img-928154228_ –

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has released its annual report on the “most corrupt” members of Congress. Making the list for the third time is Florida’s own Vern Buchanan, R-Sarasota.

“Witness tampering, obstruction of justice, and bribery are all in a day’s work for the ethically challenged Rep. Vern Buchanan,” reads the report. “The Sarasota congressman orchestrated an elaborate scheme that forced his employees to contribute to his campaign, ensuring they would be illegally reimbursed with corporate money.”

In August, CREW filed an FBI complaint against Buchanan, asking that the Bureau investigate him on charges of witness tampering, obstruction of justice and bribery, based largely on a deposition of one of his former business partners, Sam Kazran.

As extensively reported by The Florida Independent, Kazran has made startling allegations against his former partner — including the charge that Buchanan pressured employees into donating to his 2006 and 2008 congressional campaigns, reimbursed them with funds from his car dealership, and later tried to bribe Kazran into signing an affidavit stating his innocence. Interviews with other former employees back up Kazran’s testimony.

Florida Rep. David Rivera, R-Miami, also made CREW’s “Most Corrupt” list.

On Wednesday, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (aka CREW) sent a letter to the FBI, asking that the Bureau launch a thorough investigation into Buchanan, R-Sarasota. Buchanan has long been dogged by rumors of campaign fraud and the release of a sworn deposition by one of his former business partners, Sam Kazran, further highlights the alleged improprieties. #

Buchanan has yet to comment on CREW’s FBI complaint (a spokesperson has continued pointing the finger at Kazran), but he has been busy trying to sell his $4.49 million yacht. (According to the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, Buchanan sold the boat Wednesday, thanks to all of the attention.) The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is now using the yacht sale to highlight Buchanan’s ethics issues. #

The DCCC recently penned a faux ad for the luxury boat on Craigslist: #

IN WAKE OF MOUNTING ETHICS INVESTIGATION
MUST SELL LUXURY YACHT #

2004 110 FOOT LUXURY YACHT
ONLY $4,490,000 (Loophole Protected) #

• Asking Price of $4,500,000 But Can Be Reimbursed by Employer and Friends
• VIP Stateroom Used for Wining and Dining Guests Such as Speaker John Boehner
• Previous Bankruptcy Does Not Disqualify You
• Takes No Responsibility for Condition. The Business Partner Did It. #

Please Contact Congressman Vern Buchanan at (941) 951-6643 (Serious Inquiries Only) #

With estimated assets of $77 million, Buchanan is the 10th richest member of Congress. And though over a dozen people have accused Buchanan of campaign schemes (which involved pressuring employees to donate to his campaigns, then reimbursing them with funds from his various car dealerships), the Federal Election Commission fined his former business partner (Kazran) nearly $68,000. Kazran has long maintained that, while he was aware that reimbursements were being made, he had no idea they were illegal and he was operating under the direction of Buchanan who, at the time, was a majority owner in their dealership. #

The Florida Independent first made Kazran’s deposition to the Federal Election Commission public (along with an interview with Kazran) in a piece published on July 29. Buchanan argues that he is the one who brought the matter to the attention of the FEC, but Kazran claims he is only attempting to save himself. In its complaint, CREW alleges that Buchanan “attempted to influence Mr. Kazran’s testimony in the FEC investigation, thereby obstructing it.” #

CREW has also asked the House Office of Congressional Ethics to conduct an inquiry into Buchanan. #

“The more you learn about Rep. Buchanan, the more morally bankrupt he appears,” said CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan in a press release. “Not content with merely coercing employees to participate in a conduit contribution scheme, he offered a former business partner nearly $3 million to lie under oath about it.” #

Kazran has alleged that Buchanan tried to force him to sign an affidavit, clearing the congressman of ties to the reimbursement scheme. Kazran refused to sign that affidavit, but did supply the Independent with a copy. #

Two of Buchanan and Kazran’s former employees backed up Kazran’s allegations that Buchanan pressured his partners and employees to donate to his 2006 and 2008 campaigns, then later reimbursed them with funds from the dealership, Hyundai of North Jacksonville. The FEC fined Kazran nearly $68,000 for the donations. Kazran freely admits he knew about the reimbursements, but was unaware that it was illegal. #

Buchanan, meanwhile, has long maintained that he knew nothing of what the FEC called an “extensive, ongoing scheme” and has placed the blame solely on Kazran. #

“Faced with an investigation of a widespread illegal reimbursement scheme at his dealership, Rep. Buchanan tried to insulate himself from the allegations by coercing one of his former partners into committing perjury,” reads the CREW complaint. “Rep. Buchanan’s apparent conduct would establish a prima facie case that Rep. Buchanan attempted to tamper with a witness and obstruct an agency proceeding. As a result, CREW respectfully requests that the FBI immediately commence an investigation into this matter.” #

The CREW complaint: #

CREW FBI complaint against Rep. Vern Buchanan_ R-Sarasota – #

U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) topped the list of 11 federal lawmakers and one governor, Barton was second and Johnson fifth. Texas and California were the only states on the list to be represented by a pair of lawmakers. (Read about Bachmann’s selection in our sister publication The Minnesota Independent.)

In addition to Barton’s June 2010 description of a government “shakedown” of BP while oil was still gushing from the Deepwater Horizon platform in the Gulf of Mexico, CREW also highlighted a Dallas Morning News report showing that Barton had made nearly $100,000 in a natural gas deal involving a significant political donor, and while Barton was ranking Republican on the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee. Barton later apologized for his apology to BP, but he defends the natural gas deal as a legitimate business transaction.

Barton is set to find out Tuesday whether he will secure a second stint as chair of the House Energy committee, according to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

CREW also skewered Barton for actions by his Joe Barton Family Foundation, which solicited donations from corporations for the local Boys and Girls Club in 2005 and 2006 — the problem, according to CREW, was that the foundation asked corporations to donate the money directly to the Boys and Girls Club in the foundation’s name, rather than accepting contributions and then passing them to the charity, thereby avoiding congressional lobbying disclosure requirements.

According to CREW, the Barton Foundation employed similar techniques in 2008 and 2009 regarding donations to Meals on Wheels.

Barton defeated Democratic challenger David Cozad by a margin of 66-31 percent in November.

Meanwhile, Johnson took flak from CREW for awarding dozens of Congressional Black Caucus Foundation scholarships (collectively worth more than $31,000) to family members and a top staffer’s children — first reported by the Morning News.

Despite strict anti-nepotism rules by the CBCF, Johnson awarded scholarships to two grandsons, two great-nephews and children of a congressional aide over five years. After the details were made public, Johnson repaid the scholarship money.

The scholarship controversy goaded D Magazine to dub Johnson “the worst grandmother in America,” and prompted the Morning News to endorse Republican challenger pastor Stephen Broden over Johnson. However, the Morning News later withdrew its endorsement of Broden (who often makes inflammatory statements, including that abortion providers target African Americans) after the pastor said violent overthrow of the government is “on the table” if elections do not produce a change in leadership. (Note: The Morning News endorsed Barton for re-election.)

Johnson ended up winning reelection over Broden by a margin of 76-22 percent.

Barton and Johnson weren’t the only controversy-plagued Texas incumbents who coasted to victory: Other lawmakers who won despite being embroiled in ethics issues include state Rep. Joe Driver (R-Garland) — accused of ‘double-dipping’ for travel expenses from his official and campaign accounts; state Rep. Linda Harper-Brown (R-Irving) — who was driving a brand-new Mercedes owned by her husband’s employer, a TxDOT contractor; and state Rep. Charles “Doc” Anderson (R-Waco) — who was slapped with federal liens for failing to pay $70,000 in back taxes.

Driver said he simply made a mistake. Harper-Brown returned the vehicle and said she didn’t do anything wrong. Anderson said he had been in a dispute with the IRS and had paid all the money.

Barton, Johnson, Driver and Harper-Brown are all legislators from the Dallas-Fort Worth region.

In response, CREW’s Director Melanie Sloan released the following statement:

“Senator Ensign had an extended affair with a campaign staffer, who happened to be married to his chief of staff Doug Hampton, fired them both, and had his parents pay them off without properly reporting it to the Federal Election Commission. He then conspired to help Mr. Hampton to set up a lobbying business to lobby his own office, in violation of federal law. So what exactly are the things that Senator Ensign is being accused of that he did not do?”

There’s not much more to add to that.

CREW claims its study is based on research of “news articles, blogs and public records to find those candidates who have engaged in criminal or unethical conduct.” Though the list is not complete — CREW is now asking readers to submit additional nominees — the Florida Senate race is the only one at present to have more than one candidate listed. Other candidates to make the list include infamous South Carolina Senate candidate Alvin Greene (D), Washington Senate candidate Dino Rossi (R) and Missouri Senate candidate Roy Blunt (R).

Crist, Meek and Rubio have all certainly had their share of controversy over the course of this campaign.

Crist and Rubio in particular have been tainted by scandals involving the state Republican Party. Crist has taken hits for his ties to former state party chair Jim Greer, who was arrested June 2 on charges he set up a shell company to shave off party revenue for his personal use. Rubio’s campaign built an ad around the Greer connection, though Rubio has had his share of party scandals too. He is implicated in an FBI-IRS-U.S. attorney investigation into officials’ misuse of party-issued American Express cards and is accused of using earmarks for financial gain, among other alleged misdeeds CREW cited.

Meanwhile, Meek has taken hits for monetary ties his mother and a former chief of staff have to Dennis Stackhouse, a South Florida developer who’s been charged with fraud. Meek apparently steered federal funding to the very development project Stackhouse’s fraud charges stem from.

The only other major candidate in the race, billionaire Jeff Greene (D), may also be facing an ethics issue now. The Associated Press reported today that Greene paid $4,000 to Jon Ausman, a Floridian member of the Democratic National Committee, for “political consultation and strategy” a day after Ausman sent out an e-mail asking people to take a survey that would help him decide whether to endorse Meek or Greene for the Democratic Senate nomination. Six days after that, Ausman endorsed Greene.

The two most recent polls of the race — from Public Policy Polling and Ipsos/Reuters — show Crist leading, with Rubio a close second and either Democrat trailing well behind.

Members of the committee voted 38.5 to 7.5 — some members of the committee only get one-half of a vote — to reject a formal protest from Greene’s opponent, former state representative and judge Vic Rawl, that sought to overturn the election results based on concerns that flaws in the state’s voting machines may have produced significant irregularities in the election results. Greene defeated Rawl 59-41 percent in the June 8 election.

Rawl’s lawyer, Truett Nettles, called up witnesses ranging from Rawl campaign manager Walter Ludwig to a trio of primary voters to make the case for what Nettles called “the real math” — evidence that voting machines in the state were flawed enough on June 8 to render the published results untrue. No representative for Greene’s campaign was present at the hearing, though state party chair Carol Fowler told the body she and other party leaders had strongly encouraged him to attend and present his case.

Ludwig testified that he believed, based on an extensive analysis of the results, that “this election misfired.” He went on to debunk several theories the press and politicians had used to explain Greene’s victory, even citing studies conducted by FiveThirtyEight.com and Swing State Project.

Several experts testified on their own findings about the state’s voting machines. Duncan Buell, a computer science professor at the University of South Carolina, saying that people should view the machines with “an enormous amount of skepticism.”

Several members of the committee said during a public deliberation session that they were deeply conflicted on the case.

“I believe what happened last Tuesday was deeply flawed,” said state Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, a member of the Democratic National Committee. “I know there is a lot of anger in here. What’s important to me is winning in November.”

During an impromptu press conference following the meeting’s adjournment, Rawl said he will not appeal the board’s decision.

“This is the only opportunity that I had to bring it before a group of people who have the best interest of the Democratic Party and the state of South Carolina in their hearts and minds,” he said. “I appreciate the opportunity to present it. I did present it to the best of my ability and the best ability of my staff.”

The board’s decision means that three challenges to Greene’s candidacy have gone down to defeat.

Two other challenges remain open at this point.

The watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission against Greene and three other Democratic candidates over their failure to file mandatory campaign financial disclosure forms. An FEC spokesman told TWI that the commission has received the complaint.

The Associated Press reported that state Rep. Chip Limehouse (R) asked the state police to investigate how Greene paid his filing fee. State police told the AP they are reviewing the request.

Updated at 1:23 p.m. on June 18.