GOP Rep Accuses Speaker O’Brien of Ethics Violations

In an open letter to the chairman of the House Ethics Committee, GOP state Rep. Steve Vaillancourt asks if Speaker Bill O’Brien “and his minions” violated two provisions of the New Hampshire General Court Ethics Guidelines involving coercion and lack of openness.

The first provision Vaillancourt cites is the Principle On Independent Objective Judgment which states, “Legislators should employ independent objective judgment in performing their duties, deciding all matters on merits free from conflicts of interest and both real and apparent improper influences.”

To me, this means that all legislators must put the interests of the Constitution and the people who elected us ahead of party interests. To me, this means that bullying, coercion, or intimidation by party leaders to change votes would constitute a conflict of interest. [emphasis added]

Vaillancourt details several instances of O’Brien’s coercion and intimidation, the most recent which occurred during the debate over the House redistricting plan.

In an absolute stunning development, an amendment … passed by a margin of 170-153. This was not what the Speaker and Republican leadership wanted, so the Speaker immediately called a recess for a caucus. While I don’t feel at liberty to detail what went on in the caucus, in my opinion there was blatant intimidation, coercion, arm twisting, whatever word or phrase you might choose to use. …

I ask for your clarification as to how much coercion is allowed before it would be in violation of the ethics provision I noted here. Clearly, as we learn in testimony from the Emerson bill, intimidation has been at record level this year. It seems to me that the Speaker and his minions and those who have failed to employ independent objective judgment are guilty of ethics violations many times over, but then I’m not a lawyer.

The second ethics provision Vaillancourt cites is the Principle of Accountability which reads, “Legislators should assure that government is conducted openly, equitably and honorably in a manner that permits the citizenry to make informed judgments and hold government officials accountable.”

Others have charged, and I am beginning to agree, that most of the House redistricting process was not “conducted openly”. … An investigation, sadly, would likely show that much of the redistricting work was done behind closed doors by non-elected officials. … Clearly, others were secretly involved. Clearly, these others ignored what little public input there was. The question is how much secrecy is allowed before violation of Section III occurs. Certainly, words have meaning, and if meaning is to be followed, can such secrecy be acceptable?

Guinta Repays Loans, Questions Remain Unanswered

Former New Hampshire GOP chair Fergus Cullen notes Congressman Frank Guinta has begun repaying the $355,000 in personal loans to his campaign fund. Cullen has the details wrong when he writes that Guinta repaid $19,500 during the past three months, but the gist of the piece is on target.

Guinta actually wrote himself a $19,500 check from his campaign fund on December 30, 2010. The payment was originally listed (hidden?) under “Other Disbursements” in his 2010 Year-End FEC report. On July 15, 2011, Guinta filed an amended 2010 Year-End report that correctly identified the payment as a “Repayment Of Loans Made or Guaranteed by the Candidate.”

Regardless of exactly when Guinta wrote himself the check, Cullen is rightly troubled by the disclosure.

[D]onors to Guinta’s re-election campaign are effectively giving money to a sitting elected official for his personal use.

While many candidates loan personal funds to their campaigns, repayment is less common. Former Congressman Jeb Bradley and Governor John Lynch are among the New Hampshire candidates whose personal loans to campaigns were never repaid, in part to avoid the potential conflicts of interest that can arise when campaign contributions become personal payments.

And Cullen reminds us that Guinta has never convincingly answered the ethical questions that arose over the loans.

The source of these funds has been subject to considerable speculation ever since Guinta filed an amended personal disclosure statement a year ago that listed a previously undisclosed bank account containing between $250,000 and $500,000.

Skeptics wondered how the Guintas, who by all outward appearances lived a modest middle class lifestyle, accumulated such savings, or how anyone could have forgotten about such an account when listing assets on disclosure statements.

Amen.

Reps. Bass and Guinta Targeted for Ethical Lapses

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) began calling New Hampshire voters today to remind us of the ethical scandals involving our congressmen. The calls are part of the DCCC’s “Drive to 25” initiative to pick up the 25 seats needed to win back the House majority in 2012.

Voters in the First Congressional District will be told of Guinta’s “mysterious bank account” that he used to help finance his campaign.

Did you know that Representative Guinta was under investigation for funding his campaign with hundreds of thousands of dollars from a mysterious bank account that magically appeared right before last year’s election?

Well, now that bank account has disappeared again, raising troubling new questions about Representative Guinta and his campaign’s finances.

Calls to Bass’ constituents will describe his close ties to and investments in the biomass industry.

Did you know that Congressman Charlie Bass used his office to help his family’s company increase their profits?

Congressman Bass helped his nephew lobby the Secretary of Energy for tax credits and tried to cover it up. Then Bass tried to profit from the scheme himself by investing up to a million dollars in the company.

The calls both end with a request to call the Congressman’s district office and complain.

Bass Faces New Questions Over Biomass Investments

Roll Call has obtained a document that raises new questions about New Hampshire Congressman Charlie Bass’ investments in the biomass industry.

Bass strenuously denied allegations during the 2010 race that he had facilitated a 2006 meeting between then-Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman and Steven Walker, the CEO of a New Hampshire biomass firm known as New England Wood Pellet. Walker is married to Bass’ niece.

Bass also faced questions during the campaign about his stock holdings in that company, worth about $500,000, and about the timing of his purchase.

But a letter obtained by Roll Call shows that in 2006, during his first stint as a Congressman, Bass made a direct invitation to Bodman to come to New Hampshire and suggested “a schedule that would highlight the contributions” of the state’s alternative energy firms. The letter also touted Bass’ legislative work to promote alternative fuels.

The letter, says Roll Call, is likely to reignite the controversy over Bass’ ties to New England Wood Pellet.