BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — Investigators have recommended ending an inquiry into campaign contributions made to U.S. Rep. Earl Pomeroy and four other lawmakers during last December’s House debate on a major financial regulation bill.
The North Dakota Democrat said Tuesday he was puzzled about being included in the investigation by the House’s independent Office of Congressional Ethics.
‘‘In this case (investigators) were worried about Wall Street influence, and I voted against Wall Street, and to reform Wall Street,’’ Pomeroy said. ‘‘I didn’t really see where there could possibly be any appearance of anything improper.’’
Davis & Harman LLP, a Washington law firm that represents financial institutions, hosted a fundraising breakfast for Pomeroy’s campaign on Dec. 10. The following day, the House voted 223-202 to approve an overhaul of the nation’s financial regulatory system.
The Senate voted to endorse the legislation, H.R. 4173, last July. President Barack Obama signed it into law on July 21.
Eight House members who were part of the ethics office’s inquiry had campaign fundraisers within a few days of the House’s vote.
Investigators have recommended ending the investigation against Pomeroy and North Carolina Democrat Mel Watt, along with Republicans Jeb Hensarling of Texas, Frank Lucas of Oklahoma and Chris Lee of New York.
Investigators recommended that the House Ethics Committee look into potential rules violations by the other three legislators: Rep. John Campbell, R-Calif.; Tom Price, R-Ga.; and Joseph Crowley, D-N.Y.
Pomeroy said the fundraiser was scheduled in October, and there was no intended link with the House debate on the financial regulatory measure.
‘‘We had no idea what was going to be on the floor,’’ Pomeroy said. ‘‘Essentially, what I didn’t do was have a bouncer at the door, making sure that no one got in that had something (up for a vote) that week.’’
Pomeroy declined to discuss what the Office of Congressional Ethics requested during its probe, and a Washington, D.C., spokesman for the office would not comment on the subject.
‘‘There was never anything there. We gave the information to determine that,’’ Pomeroy said. ‘‘They took plenty of time to work this ... They had my name hanging out there for a long time, and that was, I believe, unfortunate.’’
Pomeroy is running for his 10th term this fall against Republican Rick Berg. A Berg spokesman, Tom Nelson, said Pomeroy should disclose the information that the ethics office requested of him.
‘‘The process should be open and transparent, so the people can make a judgment for themselves,’’ Nelson said in an e-mail message.
Pomeroy said the House does not have ethics rules against raising money from donors on the eve of a House vote that is important to them, Pomeroy said.
‘‘If they want to change the rules, let’s do so prospectively, so we know what they are, and can follow them,’’ Pomeroy said.The ethics investigation’s premise, he said, was that ‘‘you’ve got to basically keep people from attending events ... even if you’re voting against what they’re asking you to vote for.’’
|
|
|
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — Investigators have recommended ending an inquiry into campaign contributions made to U.S. Rep. Earl Pomeroy and four other lawmakers during last December’s House debate on a major financial regulation bill.
The North Dakota Democrat said Tuesday he was puzzled about being included in the investigation by the House’s independent Office of Congressional Ethics.
‘‘In this case (investigators) were worried about Wall Street influence, and I voted against Wall Street, and to reform Wall Street,’’ Pomeroy said. ‘‘I didn’t really see where there could possibly be any appearance of anything improper.’’
Davis & Harman LLP, a Washington law firm that represents financial institutions, hosted a fundraising breakfast for Pomeroy’s campaign on Dec. 10. The following day, the House voted 223-202 to approve an overhaul of the nation’s financial regulatory system.
The Senate voted to endorse the legislation, H.R. 4173, last July. President Barack Obama signed it into law on July 21.
Eight House members who were part of the ethics office’s inquiry had campaign fundraisers within a few days of the House’s vote.
Investigators have recommended ending the investigation against Pomeroy and North Carolina Democrat Mel Watt, along with Republicans Jeb Hensarling of Texas, Frank Lucas of Oklahoma and Chris Lee of New York.
Investigators recommended that the House Ethics Committee look into potential rules violations by the other three legislators: Rep. John Campbell, R-Calif.; Tom Price, R-Ga.; and Joseph Crowley, D-N.Y.
Pomeroy said the fundraiser was scheduled in October, and there was no intended link with the House debate on the financial regulatory measure.
‘‘We had no idea what was going to be on the floor,’’ Pomeroy said. ‘‘Essentially, what I didn’t do was have a bouncer at the door, making sure that no one got in that had something (up for a vote) that week.’’
Pomeroy declined to discuss what the Office of Congressional Ethics requested during its probe, and a Washington, D.C., spokesman for the office would not comment on the subject.
‘‘There was never anything there. We gave the information to determine that,’’ Pomeroy said. ‘‘They took plenty of time to work this ... They had my name hanging out there for a long time, and that was, I believe, unfortunate.’’
Pomeroy is running for his 10th term this fall against Republican Rick Berg. A Berg spokesman, Tom Nelson, said Pomeroy should disclose the information that the ethics office requested of him.
‘‘The process should be open and transparent, so the people can make a judgment for themselves,’’ Nelson said in an e-mail message.
Pomeroy said the House does not have ethics rules against raising money from donors on the eve of a House vote that is important to them, Pomeroy said.
‘‘If they want to change the rules, let’s do so prospectively, so we know what they are, and can follow them,’’ Pomeroy said.The ethics investigation’s premise, he said, was that ‘‘you’ve got to basically keep people from attending events ... even if you’re voting against what they’re asking you to vote for.’’
