Feathered nests

The federal government’s executive branch publicly releases details about the fines it collects from employees who file financial documents late, but when it comes to reporting the personal financial interests of Congressional members and staffers, an entirely different standard applies.

The 2012 STOCK Act requires lawmakers and staff earning at least $132,552 a year in 2021 to report stock trades of more than $1,000 within 30 days of the transaction.  They are only required to disclose the values of their trades in broad ranges.

Those who miss filing deadlines are supposed to pay a late fee of $200 the first time, with increasingly higher fines if they continue to be late.  Penalty payment rests on an ‘honor system’, and violators can apply for a waiver that excuses them from the penalty.

• Tom Rust, chief counsel for the House Ethics Committee, an independent investigative agency, declined to comment on who had or hadn’t paid fines.

• Congress’ Legislative Resource Center declined to comment on whether the office received late fees… or even if it kept records of such payments.

In the absence of public documents, it is left largely to investigative reporting to ferret out violators.   Insider found that:

• 57 members of Congress and at least 182 of the highest-paid Capitol Hill staffers were late in filing during 2020 and 2021.  Of these, 19 declined to answer whether they’d paid a penalty. Ten who said they’d paid their fines declined to provide proof receipts or cancelled checks.

• The US Treasury Department found “”no matches”” when asked under the Freedom of Information Act for evidence of fine payments by 22 members of Congress known to have recently violated the STOCK Act.

NPR has documented at least 69 cases of failure to report among member of Congress (30 Democrats, 39 Republicans).  The number of trades per Member range from a handful to 700, and their value from $5,000 to $17.53 million.  Three in ten trades were conducted in the name of a spouse or dependent child.  Stocks traded included petroleum, aerospace, and pharmaceuticals (including Pfizer during COVID).

In the House, the Committee on Ethics decides whether to pursue the Office of Congressional Ethics’ findings.  It has the power to reprimand lawmakers, discipline staffers, or do nothing at all.  No similar investigative office exists on the Senate side.

Sen. Chris Coons, who chairs the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, declined to comment.

While there are no reports showing how often the Office of Congressional Ethics investigated financial-disclosure matters before the STOCK Act’s passage, attorney Kedric Payne – who worked in the office at the time – said nothing changed after lawmakers passed the law.

“There was just nobody paying attention to it.

No one was filing complaints.”

A former investigative counsel in the same office said, under condition of anonymity, “The enforcement of the financial-disclosure requirements is virtually nonexistent.”

Virginia Canter, the chief counsel at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said Congress’ laissez-faire approach to the STOCK Act “sends the message that they are held to a lesser standard than other government employees, and that they are above the law.”

The effect of the process is to leave the public in the dark, let Congress off the hook, and render the STOCK Act toothless.

Tyler Gellasch, a fellow at Duke University School of Law, is calling for Congress to pass a measure that would require lawmakers to use a third party, such as a blind trust, to participate in trading stocks, and to require same-day filing of file disclosure forms for each transaction, including the exact amount, day, and time.

“If you are a member of Congress, you have this duty to not take advantage of information you learned because of your job.”