One possible reform would be to introduce a minimum holding period for owning real estate. So except for financial distress, a Congressman would not be allowed to sell real estate less than three years after buying it.

A simpler idea might be to forbid Congressmen to invest in real estate (i.e. buy or sell real estate they don't reside in) while in office.

Also, maybe we could have a House Ethics Committee that is not a joke.

Not to be obnoxious, but I actually think the important question here is, WHO does the actual commuter transit system benefit?
If it actually helps working people in those businesses get back and forth to work, I really don't mind who benefits in terms of property owners.
In Texas, Red McCombs refused to let the state build commuter transit systems (needing transit centers) for years, in order to build up his car businesses, which then enabled him to buy professional sports teams.
With that said, the last paragraph is filled with some excellent links.
I only wanted to make the point that transit centers in and of themselves can be a very positive thing. I've lived in California. They need some commuter transits centers in Corona.

Actually, it would seem very simple to create a rule in which a congresscritter would have to recuse his or herself from even attending a hearing in which there might even be a potential personal gain.

Re: Jan's comment above. From Justin's story:

"A powerful New York City political boss described the gentle art of 'honest graft' more than 100 years ago. In a now-infamous 1905 speech, George Washington Plunkitt, a prominent figure of New York's notoriously corrupt Tammany Hall, defended his practice of making money in real estate using exclusive foreknowledge of where the government was developing parks and other public amenities.

'Ain't it perfectly honest to charge a good price and make a profit on my investment and foresight?' asked Plunkitt. 'Of course, it is. Well, that's honest graft.'"

To the contrary, I believe he WILL "benefit much", cause he knows what he is doing, and has done before. Clicking on the links in the above story leads to history of Calvert making substantial
profit from previous similar deals.

Once upon a time, there used to be a phrase
" avoiding all appearance of impropriety", which was held out as SOP for officials.
'Course that was also the same time self respect had a meaning....

The issue here is not so much the building of the Transit Center, which may be needed, but the use of 'inside information'.

The questions would be, who chose the site for the center (i.e. was he involved in that decision) and when did he purchase the properties.

For example, if the center was to be built on the only open spot on govt land AND he has owned those buildings for 10 years, not so much an issue.

However, if he influenced people to build that specific center there (as in build it there and I get you funding, if you put it over here, no help), OR he purchased the buildings knowing the center was incoming in order to benefit, well thats a whole nother issue.

Mind you I suspect the latter but without data, cannot prove it. Maybe this is a quick project for some of the net sleuths out there.

Maybe somebody's IG needs to look into Mr Robert Cusick and the Office of Government Ethics. Whatever it is that this office is supposed to be doing, it seems to be failing miserably. Mr Cusick's area of expertise, as well as that of his former law firm, seems to be more in the area of mine & minerals management. But, I guess Calvert has his own definition of what constitutes a gold mine.

In light of the AG business, I just can't get too excited about fresh revelations of greed and graft in Washington. It is obvious these bastards, on both sides of the aisle, are lining their pockets as a result of their positions.

But the AG matter is a totally different matter. It goes far beyond the realm of simple criminal greed. The very foundation of this nation is threatened by the criminal actions of this Administration. All other matters pale before the spectre of a biased Justice Department with no regard for the law. The common thieves like Calvert will have no accountability at all, whether it be for robbing a bank, or passing self enriching legislation. And we the people will face prosecution for nothing more than our beliefs, and the expression of them.

Calvert isn't the problem. He's just a symptom.

I am all for cutting graft. I imagine that their were other factors involved with the choice of site. It seems a little unjust to assume that this case was not looked at in more detail. Maybe that is the site the city proposed? A senator from my state might hold property in a city and help fund the priorities of that city. That he had the money and knowledge to invest ahead of plans and help the city move forward is part of the political game left or right. Still this does not seem like a bridge to now where kind of deal.

This is a stretch.

According to this thinking, the Feds can't spend any money on any project within a similar radius of any property owned by Congressmen.

Paul,

Aren't you reaching here? Public transportation is a good thing, there appear to be a ton of other building around there. It's a tiny amount, $5M and if it gets some cars off the streets, then great!

This is NOT the bridge to nowhere.

This is NOT the kind of story I can send to friends to get them hyped up about TPM.

-T

I recall an attempted mini-scandal in the press because Nancy Pelosi supported an earmark that could have benefitted her husband. Despite the fact that the requests for the funds came from local officials.

Even though that mini-scandal was quickly dismissed I'm wondering why her political opponents even thought it was so corrupt (even if benefitting her husband had been the only motivation) given that the ethics committee seems to consider personal benefit irrelevant so long as other wealthy and connected people also benefit?

Oh, but, see, Calvert, WILL be remodeling his kitchen because the value of the property sky-rocketed and he will make a lot of money.

Where the ethics breach comes in, tho, is when Calvert BOUGHT those properties with the earmark IN MIND!

Or is someone going to tell me these properties have been in the Calvert family for generations?

I am sick of the graft!

The important question here is what process was used to determine the need for and location of the center.

If there was an independent process that looked at multiple sites independent of his properties and still found that the greatest good would come from a location near his propertiesm then thats OK. But, if there was either no independent process or other more suitable locations were identified, then we have a serious problem.

You don't address whether or not the location for the Transit Center is actually beneficial to the public. I don't think it's fair to punish someone for real estate forsight. Unless you have more "incriminating" details this is a non-story. Just the kind of whining that makes some people ignore you when you have a REAL case of corruption. And there are MANY of those.
At most, he should have excluded himself from any involvement.

So, using House logic, if Calvert proposed legislation which entitled any US citizen named, "Ken Calvert" to a $100,000 tax-free, government grant, that would not be unethical, since any financial benefit Calvert reaped "would be experienced as a member of a class of citizens named, 'Ken Calvert' in the US." ?? Tell me again why these people call themselves an "ethics" committee, and how brain-dead do members have to be?

Geez, I'm torn here a bit, too. Yes, he's a Republican, therefore automatically suspect. But isn't public transit a good thing, especially if it finds its way into conservative areas of California? This certainly is not on the level of "a bridge to nowhere." Will landing on this guy, no matter how much it may feel good, then be used as an excuse to not fund mass transit in any areas where a lawmaker owns property whose value might be increased?

"How to Lease Federal Land From the Army Corps of Engineers and Avoid Rent" - NYT, March 13, 2003.

It's old news, but the give-away of a valuable 50-year lake concession that Inhofe arranged for his former finance manager was defended as "a benefit to the public" too.

(code word: right. As in: yeah, right.)

This may be one of those rare times when I have to say this may be much ado about nothing. It seems, under the logic demanded here, that any benefit a congressperson brings to their own district will be a benefit to them and the constituents. The question is where to draw the line.

Why are earmarks -- of any kind -- still available to be requested?

That's the primary scandal in this story.

The Dems are becoming the GOP on these issues. If sites like TPM and people like TPM readers don't hold their feet to the fire, who will?

I grew up in this city and I must say that as much as I hate Ken Calvert you guys are making the wrong conclusion here. There is an existing Park and Ride across the street that is only half used on any given day. The train tracks run right along the back side of the property for this transportation center. There is an existing commuter train stop at the location.

This project is actually a boon to the city as the city of Corona is a bedroom community for commuters into Los Angeles and Orange County. The population grew from about 80,000 in 1994 when I moved there with my family to over 150,000 today. This project is sorely needed if we want to increase the use of mass transit, particularly in a city where almost nobody that lives here works in the same city.

Calvert might benefit, but the city of Corona will benefit more. I can tell you right now that over the last few years the part of the city where he has these properties was the best to invest in because it is close to the freeway and in the late 90s was a blighted area that is now going through a renaissance. He might benefit in an increase in property value, but you guys are wrong if you think that personal benefit was the only motivation here. This project will greatly benefit the city of Corona.

These self indulgent reps do nothing that does not benefit them as part of the measure. They use their positions to find where to buy properties knowing what will happen the area eventually, a couple yrs. go by and they put in a shopping center or some such right where they just "happen" to own property. What's worse is that even though these committees know what they are doing they let them get away with it. Never know when they might need the same favor. That's all these people do so they gotta know. When will their constituents get enough of them, including the committee members. Mark the corruption well because possibly there will come a day and a way to end their game.

I hear you, Jan.

"Again, idealist that I am, I still believe innocent until proven a crook. :)"

That Dems don't immediately rush to form a lynch mob is a major component in what separates us from Repubs.

I appreciate your thoughtfulness.

I really don't think we should be discouraging republicans from building public transportation infrastructure. If letting them get rich in the process is what it's gonna take, then so be it.

Ryan@May 18, 2007 12:59 PM

Before I read your post, I had already looked at the proposed site on Google Maps and noticed that it backed up to railroad tracks. I saw what looked to be a small facility for commuters in place with a parking lot and passenger bridge over the tracks.

If your Park 'n Ride is only half-used now, how will a bigger transit center increase use of mass transit?

What services will the transit center provide besides an inddor waiting room for rail riders?

Do you know anything about ownership of the property where the transit center is to be located?

Does Calvert's earmark cover the total cost of the transit center?

Has a contractor been selected yet?

If nothing else, the "usual business" of the insider ethics track appears dubious.
Of course, it's peanuts compared to the transgressions of the top guns.
It's all so pathetic.

Gosh, it's so lucky that Calvert stands to cash in on this earmark!
The question is: if Calvert wasn't going to profit, would Corona have gotten its "transportation center"?

I doubt it.

So we can only look forward to public projects if some well connected people can make out as a result. Otherwise, forget about it.

"Actually, it would seem very simple to create a rule in which a congresscritter would have to recuse his or herself from even attending a hearing in which there might even be a potential personal gain.

"Posted by: Woodhall Hollow
Date: May 18, 2007 10:31 AM"

I'm not certain I understand.

Is the corrolary that most congresspersons should sit on the ethics committee, because it's the one committee from which there wouldn't be a possible personal gain?

Or, in view of the facts of this story, is the corrolary that most congresspersons shouldn't sit on the ethics committee because there would be a possibility of personal gain?

SC = memory. As in, Alberto Gonzales.

"I am all for cutting graft. I imagine that their were other factors involved with the choice of site. It seems a little unjust to assume that this case was not looked at in more detail. Maybe that is the site the city proposed? A senator from my state might hold property in a city and help fund the priorities of that city. That he had the money and knowledge to invest ahead of plans and help the city move forward is part of the political game left or right. Still this does not seem like a bridge to now where kind of deal.

"Posted by: Davinci
Date: May 18, 2007 11:00 AM"

I'm all for bridges to nowhere, so long as their use is limited exclusively to Republicans.

SC = porter. As in, "All aboard!"

"He just LOOKS like a PIG.

"Posted by: tomm9050
Date: May 18, 2007 01:36 PM"

Isn't that the purpose of the Appropriations Committee? To ensure that its members don't suffer from malnutrition?

We can be thankful he doesn't wear lipstick. So it's probably safe to assume he's a born again Christian who serves God by telling us not to violate the Ten Requests, including the one that reads, "Please don't steal, okay?"

SC = snake. As in, He's too fat to be a snake.

House and Senate members need to be able to make legislation that effects their own bottom line. The major thing to consider is did the money get used wisely or not. In the case of an earmark, it is something done by a specific member to benefit a specific constituency, whatever that constituency might be.

The big worry, in my opinion, is that elected officials will be given deals on property to get legislation passed. That is, a city or community or group of realtors might decide to gift some property to a legislator to get a particular piece of legislation into a federal spending bill. And frequently do. The problem then arises as to how to police this sort of thing.

Certainly, if we, the voters, don't keep a good idea on what is going on in our own district AND other districts where OUR money is being spent, things will get worse, not better. We can make sure the money is not ill used. How? That's a really good question.

This is analogous to insider trading. You can buy the stock for legitimate reasons but if you are buying on insider knowledge it is a crime.

In this case the equivalent to insider knowledge is the congresscritter's ability to earmark to benefit their own property.