close X
09/9/2016

CoA Institute Investigates Extravagant Taxpayer-Funded Foreign Travel, ‘Over the Top’ Office Renovations by Commerce Dept. Employee

Washington, DC – Today, Cause of Action Institute (CoA Institute) sent a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Department of Commerce Office of Inspector General (OIG) to investigate misconduct by a high-ranking political appointee, including inappropriate travel reimbursements and excessive spending on office renovations.

CoA Institute President and CEO, and former federal judge, Alfred J. Lechner, Jr.: “A high-ranking political appointee at the Department of Commerce must be held accountable for his rampant wasteful spending and misconduct. Reports of taxpayer-funded lavish foreign travel, luxury car service, and ‘over the top’ office renovations raise serious concerns. Such misconduct is beyond inappropriate and could even be criminal.  American taxpayers have the right to know whether such wasteful spending could be a more widespread problem at the agency.”

On September 8, 2016, the Department of Commerce Office of Inspector General (OIG) released a report detailing numerous instances of misconduct and wasteful spending. A high-ranking political appointee appears to have regularly used the U.S. Treasury as a slush fund by staying in luxury hotels and using luxury car services at taxpayers’ expense.

In one case, the employee traveled to Geneva, Switzerland where he stayed at a luxury hotel that cost around $1,150 per night, despite the allowable per diem being $340 per night. He was subsequently reimbursed 150 percent of the standard per diem rate for his entire stay, even though a portion of the trip was for personal travel. During the same trip, one of his staff members stayed in a room at a different hotel that was below the per diem rate.

Taxpayers also footed the bill for the employee to travel in luxury vehicles, including nearly $1,800 for an SUV provided by a luxury hotel during his two-day trip to Boston, Massachusetts.

The employee also spent an excessive amount of taxpayer money on his office renovations, likely violating the Anti-Deficiency Act. Despite Congress limiting office renovations to $5,000, the Department spent more than $50,000 on this political appointee’s office.  Shortly after assuming his role with the Department, the employee instructed his subordinates to make the space “reflective of [his] position.” Some subordinate employees were apparently fearful of losing their position if the renovations were not acceptable. According to the OIG report, renovations included new carpeting “chosen after consultation with an interior maintenance specialist” for a luxury hotel. An administrative official described these renovations as “over the top.”

In order to understand the full extent of the abuses, CoA Institute requests all of the materials compiled by the OIG for its report. The full FOIA request can be found here.

 

Press Release, Media Learn More
09/7/2016

Growing Concern over Controversial Mortgage Settlements

Congress to Consider a Bill to Halt Government Slush Funds

 

On July 13, 2016, Cause of Action (CoA) Institute filed a complaint in the U.S District Court for the District of Columbia against the United States Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The lawsuit seeks records that HUD has failed to produce in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request regarding HUD’s role in the federal government multi-million dollar settlements with three banks over their allegedly faulty mortgage practices.  As CoA Institute continues to investigate and litigate, others are paying attention to these troubling settlements as well.

Last week, prominent Washington Post columnist George Will penned a column calling out the government for using the bank settlements as a slush fund.  Will notes that the government:

allows banks to meet some of their settlement obligations by directing “donations” to various nongovernmental advocacy organizations that serve Democratic constituencies and objectives — organizations that were neither parties to the case nor victims of the banks’ behaviors. These donations are from money owed to the government, money that otherwise would go to the Treasury, money the disposition of which is properly Congress’s responsibility.

And in the Wall Street Journal, Andy Koenig, senior policy adviser at Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, similarly focuses on one of the key facets of these settlements: financial incentives for the banks to fund third party groups:

Most of the deals give double credit or more against the settlement amount for every dollar in “donations.” Bank of America’s donation list—the only bank to disclose exactly where it sends its money—shows how this benefits liberal groups. The bank has so far given at least $1.15 million to the National Urban League, which counts as if it were $2.6 million against the bank’s settlement. Similarly, $1.5 million to La Raza takes $3.5 million off the total amount of “consumer relief” owed by the bank. There are scores of other examples.

To address the growing chorus of concerns over these controversial settlements, the House of Representatives today will consider the “Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2016,” a bill introduced by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)  to prevent any such future settlements. In other words, the bill would prohibit the government from creating a slush fund to direct settlement payments to favored (or any other) outside recipients.  The U.S. House of Representatives has scheduled a vote on this bill for September 7, 2016.

**UPDATE** The House passed the “Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2016” on September 7 by a vote of 241-174.

Blog, Media Learn More
08/31/2016

CoA Institute Investigates Political Pressure in Decision to Withdraw Atlantic OCS from Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Washington, DC – Today, Cause of Action Institute (CoA Institute) sent a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) to find out whether there was political pressure surrounding DOI’s decision to withdraw the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) from its five-year Oil and Gas Leasing Program.

CoA Institute President and CEO, and former federal judge, Alfred J. Lechner, Jr.: “The changing positions of both the Department of the Interior and Senator Kaine raise questions about whether DOI withdrew the Atlantic OCS from the leasing program due to political pressure. Less than one month after Hillary Clinton selected him as her vice presidential running mate, Senator Kaine changed his position and now opposes offshore energy development in the Atlantic. Such an abrupt departure from his previous position, as well as DOI’s decision to disregard strong support for including the Atlantic, raise questions as to why this region was withdrawn from the program.”

Background:

When DOI released its Draft Proposed Program in January 2015, it included one lease sale in the Atlantic Region. The inclusion of the Atlantic in the DPP enjoyed broad support. Members of the congressional delegations from affected East Coast states, including Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, supported the inclusion of the Atlantic Planning Areas.

On March 15, 2016, DOI announced its decision to withdraw the Atlantic Planning Areas from the program. Within months, Sen. Kaine also reversed course and said he opposed offshore energy development, citing objections from the Department of Defense (DoD). DOI, meanwhile, has insisted that the withdrawal of the Atlantic Planning Areas was not predominantly attributable to the DoD.

CoA Institute today requested access to all communications concerning the Atlantic OCS and the 2017-2022 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program between or among DOI and its bureaus, as well as communications about the program between the White House, DoD, and the office of Senator Kaine.

The full FOIA request can be found here.

 

Press Release, Media Learn More
08/26/2016

CoA Institute Probes HHS’s Decision to Use Taxpayer Money to Pay Off Insurance Companies

Washington, D.C. – Cause of Action Institute (CoA Institute) today filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to investigate the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ decision (HHS) to shift money away from taxpayers to pay off insurers.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE FOIA REQUEST

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) established the transitional reinsurance program that requires HHS to make payments to health insurers who enroll high-risk individuals and deposit a portion of the contributions from insurers into the U.S. Treasury. Unfortunately for taxpayers, it appears when HHS collected less funds than required by the ACA, the agency decided to allocate all transitional reinsurance program funding to health insurers, depriving taxpayers of billions of dollars.

CoA Institute President and CEO, and former federal judge, Alfred J. Lechner, Jr.:

“COA Institute seeks to understand why the Obama Administration bailed out insurance companies with money that should have been returned to the U.S. Treasury to benefit taxpayers. Providing insurers with the entire contribution from the transitional reinsurance program is not the intention of section 1341(b)(4) of the Affordable Care Act. American taxpayers have a right to know why the Obama Administration skirted the law and gave money intended for the U.S. Treasury to insurance companies.”

Background:

Section 1341 of the ACA created the transitional reinsurance program. This program requires that HHS collect reinsurance contributions from health insurance providers and third party administrators on behalf of group health plans. In order to comply with the law, HHS was supposed to use those contributions to make payments to health insurers who enroll high-risk individuals and deposit a portion of the contributions in the U.S. Treasury. In total for 2014, 2015, and 2016, taxpayers were scheduled to receive $5 billion. According to the Congressional Research Service, providing the entire contribution from the transitional reinsurance program to health insurance providers is “in conflict with a plain reading of 1341(b)(4).”

CoA Institute requests documents and communications to understand the Obama Administration’s decision to use taxpayer money to pay off health insurance companies. The full FOIA request is available HERE.

Press Release Learn More
08/24/2016

CoA Institute Seeks Records on Clinton Ethics

Washington, DC – Today, Cause of Action Institute (CoA Institute) sent a Freedom of Information Act request to the U.S. Department of State seeking information about Secretary Hillary Clinton’s interactions with the Department’s ethics office.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE FOIA REQUEST

Recently released emails demonstrate that Clinton Foundation donors may have received special access to Secretary Clinton. These emails raise questions about whether she and members of her staff adequately addressed any potential conflicts of interest.

CoA Institute has requested copies of recusals and ethics agreements for Secretary Clinton and members of her staff, as well as any ethics waivers or exemptions they obtained from the State Department’s ethics office. The FOIA request also seeks records of advice the ethics office provided to Secretary Clinton, as well as certain communications with the Office of Government Ethics.

 Cause of Action President and CEO, and former federal judge, Alfred J. Lechner, Jr. issued the following statement:

“The State Department’s Inspector General found that only 53% of senior Department officials completed required annual ethics training in 2012. These findings suggest that Department officials during Secretary Clinton’s tenure did not take even their basic ethics responsibilities seriously. Americans have a right to know whether Secretary Clinton and her aides at the State Department flouted ethics requirements in order to grant special favors to Clinton Foundation supporters.”

Press Release, Media Learn More
08/23/2016

No Accountability at the State Department

The U.S. Department of State has been embroiled in a string of humiliating public relations and accountability scandals.  From former Secretary Clinton’s emails to the Iran ransom payment, the agency has been unable to get past uncomfortable questions about the way it relates to the public.  But it’s the deleting of an embarrassing question-and-answer exchange from the State Department’s public video record of a daily press briefing that was back in the news recently.  This blunder is perhaps the easiest to remedy because all the behavior took place within the agency.  Now nearly three months after the story came to light, the agency is no closer to holding anyone accountable than when it started.

A brief recap.  The State Department initially claimed the Q&A exposing the State Department misleading the country about its negotiations with Iran disappeared from the briefing because of a “glitch.”  This was quickly debunked, yet State Department Spokesman John Kirby repeated the claim during his briefing last week, saying “a glitch is possible here is because of the choppy nature of the cut,” and because there is “no evidence that anybody did this with a deliberate intent to conceal.”

However, Fox News is reporting that a recently completed investigation by the State Department Office of Legal Adviser reveals that “the official who ordered the censorship of a 2013 press briefing — deleting an exchange between a department spokeswoman and a Fox News reporter — specifically mentioned that exchange when ordering the doctoring of the video.”  The Legal Adviser’s report stated “The technician did not recall a reason being given for the edit request, but did believe that the requester had mentioned in the course of the call a Fox network reporter and Iran.  The technician indicated that the requester may also have provided the start and end times for an edit.”  This calls into serious doubt Kirby’s claims that no one acted with intent to conceal information.

When the story first surfaced in June, Cause of Action Institute sent a letter to the Secretary of State and the State Department Inspector General notifying them of their duty to refer this matter to the Attorney General for a potential criminal investigation.  There is no evidence that they have done so.  The State Department’s botched investigation and continued obfuscation is exactly why these matters need to be referred to the Department of Justice.  There’s no accountability at the State Department.

Blog, Media Learn More
08/18/2016

Cause of Action Institute Calls on CFPB to Withdraw Arbitration Rule Based on Junk Science

This week, Cause of Action Institute (CoA Institute) filed a regulatory comment with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), highlighting key problems with CFPB’s proposed Arbitration Rule.  This rule would outlaw mandatory arbitration clauses in certain financial services contracts, leading to more lawsuits and raising costs for consumers.

When an agency proposes a new rule, it is typically required to host a public “notice and comment” period before the rule can be implemented.  This gives the public an opportunity to submit their thoughts on the rule to the agency.  Anyone is eligible to submit a comment.

Agencies are then required to consider the public comments, respond to them if necessary, and implement appropriate changes to the rule itself.  As administrative rules are made outside of the legislative process – meaning the people who pass them are not elected – this is an essential way to gauge public opinion.  This is especially important here, as the Arbitration Rule will affect many Americans’ relationships with their banks, credit card companies, and other financial institutions.

In its regulatory comment, CoA Institute raises legitimate concerns that CFPB based its Arbitration Rule on findings from a study that used bad data and methodology.  All government rules, especially those with drastic effects on the economy, should be founded on sound science and solid reasoning.  Congress and the White House agree. In 2000 Congress passed a law called the Information Quality Act to ensure that agencies use the best methodology available.  The White House issued its own guidance that calls for agencies to have other experts and scientists review their work through a rigorous “peer-review process.”

CoA Institute President and CEO, and former federal judge, Alfred J. Lechner, Jr.: “The study CFPB used to justify its anti-arbitration rule failed to follow appropriate scientific standards, as outlined by both the White House and the Information Quality Act.  Had the agency followed the law and rigorously vetted its study, this ill-advised rule would not have made it this far. Banning arbitration will harm the economy and millions of Americans while enriching a lucky few at law firms. CFPB should halt consideration of this rule until a proper peer-reviewed study has been completed.”

Read Judge Lechner’s op-ed HERE

Read the full regulatory filing HERE

Eric Bolinder is Counsel at Cause of Action Institute.

Media, Blog Learn More