Rangel Alleged Violations

The House Ethics Committee has unveiled the 13 counts of alleged ethics violations by Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY).  Read through the official document and tell me what you think.

Session

19(f), Rules of the Connnittee on Standards of Official Conduct.

Respondent was Ranking Minority Member of the House Committee on Ways and Means

("Ways and Means Committee") and was a member of the Joint COlmnittee

on Taxation. During the 11 oth and 111tl1 Congresses, Respondent was Chairman of the Ways and

Means Committee. During the first session of the 11 oth and 111 til Congresses, Respondent was

Chainnan of the Joint Committee on Taxation. During the second session of the

110tll and 111th Congresses,

Respondent was Vice-Chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation.

further stated that "I will be exploring with my Congressional

colleagues how best to move this idea through the appropriations process

...."

Rangel Center at the City College of New York ("Rangel Center")

began.

20-page glossy brochure for use in fundraising for the Rangel Center. That

brochure includes a description of the Rangel Center Building. It described the Rangel Center Building as including a

library to house and archive the Respondent's congressional papers, an

archivist/librarian, and a "well-furnished office for Congressman

Rangel."

Respondent sent letters to members of the Subcommittee on Transportation,

Treasury and Housing and Urban Development requesting eannarks in the amount of

$6 million "to help establish a Center for Public Service at the City

College of New York in my Congressional District."

amount of approximately $445,000 to the City College of New York for the

planning, design, and construction of the Center for Public Service was

included in the Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development,

the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations

Act, 2006, Pub. L.

bill became law on November 30, 2005.

Respondent sent letters regarding the Rangel Center to individuals who served

as co-trustees of the Am1 S. Kheel Charitable Trust ("Kheel Trust").

Each of the letters states, "Since we are developing a relationship

between the Ann Kheel Charitable Trust and the City College and City University

of New York, I want to make you aware, tlu'ough this letter and the enclosed

proposal, of the Rangel Center for Public Service as another promising

development at the City College."

Kheel Trust letters were sent on congressional letterhead, bearing the words

"Congress of the United States" and "House

ofRepresentatives."

been a trustee of the Atm S. Kheel Charitable Trust since its inception in

February 2004. The Kheel Trust is a private foundation as defined by 26 U.S.c.

§ 509(a).

Respondent's congressional staff worked with CCNY officials to obtain the grant

from the Kheel Trust for the Ann S. Kheel Scholars Program.

his staff was working with CCNY officials to obtain funds fi'om the Kheel

Trust.

present at all meetings of the Kheel Trust Board of Trustees from its first

meeting on February 19, 2004, tlu'ough June 3,2005.

meetings, the trustees of the Kheel Trust discussed tile CCNY proposal and the

Rangel Center.

Board of Trustees approved a grant to CCNY to fund the AIm S. Kheel Scholars on

June 3, 2005.

Scholars Program has consistently been listed under the "Charles B. Rangel

Center for Public Service" section of the CCNY web site.

consistently represented to Respondent and his staff, potential donors, and

tile public the donation from the Kheel Trust as a grant to the Rangel Center

in its fimdraising for the Rangel Center.

Respondent directed that his congressional staff develop a list of potential

donors to the Rangel Center. This work was done on propeliy of the House of

Representatives, on official House time, and with the use of official House

resources.

Respondent's staff prepared a fonnletter (the "June 2005 letter") to

be sent under Respondent's signature to potential donors to the Rangel Center.

This work was

letter Respondent stated, "I will be exploring with my Congressional

colleagues how best to move this idea through the appropriations process and am

optimistic about securing funds for the plmming phase of the creation of the

Center. I request your advice mId assistance conceming how to approach the

donor community, particularly private and corporate foundations interested in

education. I look fOlward to entering into a dialogue with you on the funding

of the Rangel Center concept in the coming weeks atld months."

letter was sent to over 100 foundations, including, inter alia, the

Verizon Foundation, New Yor1e Life Foundation, The Starr Foundation, Ford

Foundation, AT&T Foundation, Citi Foundation, JPMorgml Chase Foundation, Merrill

Lynch & Co. Foundation, MetLife Foundation, Bristol-Meyers Squibb

Foundation, Goldman Sachs Foundation, and Wachovia Foundation.

letter was sent to several foundations that serve as the philanthropic arm of

related corporations, including, inter alia, Verizon COlllinunications,

Inc. and New York Life Insurance CompmlY.

Ford Foundation expressed to Respondent its interest in leanling more about the

Rangel Center.

Respondent sent a letter to Roger Balmik of The Balmik Foundation regarding the

Rangel Center (the "Bahnik letter").

was written on congressional letterhead. The letter stated, "[ w ]hile I

am disappointed that you will not be able to fund the Charles B. Rangel Center

for Public Service, I thank you for consideration ofmy request."

Respondent sent another round of letters (the "August 2005 letters")

to foundations, which were similar in content to the June 2005 letters.

letters were written on congressional letterhead bearing the words "United

States Congress" and "House of Representatives." Enclosed with

each letter was a "presentation."

2005, Respondent sent a letter to Senator Robert Byrd seeking an earmark in the

amount of $3 million in order "to launch the Charles B. Rangel Center at

the City College of the City University of New York."

2005, Respondent sent a letter to Donald Trump (the "Trump letter")

requesting a meeting to discuss the Rangel Center.

was sent on congressional letterhead bearing a substantial portion ofthe Great

Seal ofthe United States and the words "House of Representatives."

2005 letters were sent on congressional letterhead bearing a substantial

portion of the Great Seal of the United States and the words "House of

Representatives." Enclosed with each letter was a

"presentation."

2005, a meeting occUlTed between Respondent, representatives of the Ford

Foundation, and CCNY officials.

CCNY submitted a proposal to the Ford Foundation (the "December 2005 Ford

Foundation proposal") regarding a potential contribution to the Rangel

Center.

Ford FOUlldation proposal stated that "City College anticipates that the

United States Congress will suppOli this initiative with a seed grant."

Foundation tentatively scheduled a lUllcheon for other foundations regarding

the Rangel Center for May 5, 2006.

the Ford Foundation postponed the luncheon due to concerns about the lack of

funding, including congressional appropriations, for the Rangel Center.

Respondent sent letters to members of the Subcommittee on Transpoliation,

Treasury and Housing and Urban Development requesting earmarks in the amoUllt

of $6 million "to help establish a Center for Public Service at the City

College of New York in my Congressional District."

Respondent sent letters to members of the SubcOlmnittee on Labor, Health and

Human Services, and Education requesting earmarks in the amount of $6

Respondent sent letters to members of the Senate seeking support for an earmark

in the amount of $6 million "to help establish a Center for Public Service

at the City College of New York in my Congressional District."

Respondent suggested that CCNY officials contact AIG regarding the Rangel

Center.

Respondent sent another letter (the "July 2006 letters") to

approximately 47 ofthe foundations he previously solicited, including the Ford

Foundation.

letters were prepared by Respondent's staff. This work was done on property of

the House of Representatives, on official House time, and with the use of

official House resources.

letters were also written on congressional letterhead bearing the words

"United States Congress" and "House of Representatives."

The letters infonned potential donors that Respondent had secured eannarks of

$3.6 million for the Charles B. Rangel Center project.

Respondent had secured, in 2005, one eannark in the amount of $445,000 for the

Rangel Center.

earmarks in the total amount of $3,150,000 for the Rangel Center for fiscal

year 2007 were included in appropriations bills coming out of the respective

subcommittees of jurisdiction. Those eannarks were ultimately not included in

any appropriations bills for fiscal year 2007.

2006, Respondent met with CCNY officials and Eugene Isenberg, CEO of Nabors

Industries, in the offices of Robert Morgenthau, then District Attomey for New

York County to discuss the Rangel Center.

Isenberg pledged a personal contribution of $500,000 to the Rangel Center.

Nabors Industries pledged a matching contribution of $500,000.

Respondent met with Eugene Isenberg and KelU1eth Kies, a federally-registered

lobbyist, at the Carlyle Hotel in New York. They discussed tile issue of

retroactivity oftax provisions related to inverted companies.

Respondent met with Eugene Isenberg at Respondent's office to again discuss the

issue ofretroactivity of tax provisions related to inverted companies.

CCNY officials represented to the Ford Fonndation that tiley had obtained

"the seed money the Congressman promised."

the Ford Foundation encouraged CCNY to submit a proposal for $1 million to fund

academic programs at the Rangel Center.

the Ford Foundation hosted a luncheon (the "Ford Foundation lunch")

to bring together Respondent and CCNY officials with other potential donors to

tile Rangel Center.

letters were prepared by Respondent's staff. This work was done on property of

the House of Representatives, on official House time, and with the use of

official House resources.

Respondent wrote a letter to the Chair of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and

Human Services, and Education requesting eannarks in the amount of $6 million

"to help establish a Center for Public Service at the City College of New

York in my Congressional District."

Respondent wrote a letter to the Chair of the Subconnnittee on TranspOliation

and Housing and Urban Development requesting an eannark "to make

structural and rehabilitation work a [sic] Center for Public Service."

amount of approximately $245,000 for the City College of New York for "the

planning, design, construction, renovation and buildout of a multipurpose

educational facility" was included in the Transportation, Housing and

Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. No.

110-161, 121 Stat 1844 (2007).

amount of approximately $1.915 million for "the City College of New York

for the Charles B.

careers in public

Respondent spoke with Melvin NOlTis, a fonner House employee in Respondent's

district office. NOlTis was then working as a New York state lobbyist for

Verizon Communications, Inc. Respondent requested an update on the status of

the Verizon Foundation donation to the Rangel Center.

Respondent spoke with George Nichols, a federally-registered lobbyist for New

York Life Insurance Corporation, at a breakfast campaign fundraiser. Respondent

requested that New York Life consider contributing to the Rangel Center.

Respondent met with Hank Greenberg, Chainnan of the Board ofthe StalT

Foundation regarding a possible donation to the Rangel Center.

the StalT Foundation approved a grant to the Rangel Center in the amount of

$5,000,000.

Verizon Foundation approved a grant to the Rangel Center in the amount of

$500,000. NOlTis infonned Respondent that the grallt had been approved.

Respondent met with CCNY officials and AIG officials (the "AIG

meeting"), including Edward "Ned" Cloonan, a

federally-registered lobbyist, regarding the Rangel Center. The briefing memo

prepared for Respondent by CCNY stated the objective of the meeting was to

"close $1 OM gift for the Rangel Center to create AIG Hal1."

meeting, a potential donation to the Rangel Center was discussed. AIG raised

concems about a potential donation, including the potential headline risk.

Respondent asked AIG, at least twice, what was necessary to get this done.

occasions during 2005 through 2008, Respondent attended several meetings with

CCNY officials and potential donors. These potential donors included Eugene

Isenberg, Hank Greenberg, David Rockefeller, Donald Trump, the Ford Foundation,

and AIG.

occasions during 2005 through 2008, Respondent and his staff used official

House resources, including telephones, emails, and facsimile machines, to

communicate with CCNY and others regarding fundraising for the Rangel Center.

relevant period, George Dalley, Jim Capel, and Dan Berger were House employees

on Respondent's personal staff. Jon Sheiner was a House employee on the Ways

and Means Committee staff.

relevant period, pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the duties of

the Joint COimnittee on Taxation were the following: (1) to investigate the

operation and effects of internal revenue taxes and the administration of such

taxes; (2) to investigate measures and methods for the simplification of such

taxes; (3) to malce reports to the House Committee on Ways and Means and the

Senate COimnittee on Finance (or to the House and the Senate) on the results of

such investigations and stndies and to ma1ce recommendations; and (4) to review

any proposed refund or credit of income or estate and gift taxes or celiain

other taxes in excess of $2,000,000, as set fOlih in § 6405 of the Internal

Revenue Code.

Rule X, cl. 1(1)(8), the House Ways and Means Committee has jurisdiction over

tax exempt foundations and charitable trusts.

Rule X, cl. 1(t)(2), the House Ways and Means Committee has jurisdiction over

reciprocal trade agreements.

Rule X, cl. 1(t)(3), the House Ways and Means Committee has jurisdiction over

revenue measures generally.

relevant period, issues before Congress affecting foundations included, inter

alia, private foundation payout rules, excise tax rates on investment

income, potential caps on foundation executive pay, IRA charitable rollover

provisions, unrelated business income tax, and other charitable contribution

and charitable governance issues.

relevant period, Nabors Industries lobbied members of the House of

Representatives on tax issues, including retroactivity of corporate inversion

tax treatment.

relevant period, Verizon lobbied members of the House of Representatives on

numerous Issues, including, inter alia, tax Issues related to

telecommunications.

ON BEHALF OF REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES B. RANGEL

an atumal Financial Disclosure statement for calendar year 2006 on June 15,

2007. Respondent was granted an extension to file his Financial Disclosure

statement for calendar year 2006 beyond the May 15, 2007 deadline, atld filed

within that extended deadline.

an atnendment to his Financial Disclosure statement for the calendar year 2006

on December 26,2007.

an annual Financial Disclosure statement for calendar year 2007 on May 14,

2008.

an annual Financial Disclosure statement for calendar year 2008 on August 12,

2009. Respondent was granted an extension to file his Financial Disclosure

statement for calendat' year 2008 beyond the May 15, 2009 deadline, and filed

within that extended deadline.

Financial Disclosure statements contained numerous errors and omissions,

including failure to disclose rental and other unearned income, understating

rental income and other unearned income, failure to disclose earned income,

failure to disclose tratlsactions, failure to disclose cancellation of debt

income, and failure to disclose a reportable position.

Financial Disclosure statements were prepared by members of his congressional

staff.

statements.

113. Respondent owned a brownstone rental unit, located at 74 West 132nd Street in " v:shapes="_x0000_s1026" align="left" height="114" hspace="12" width="687" />

disclosed ownership of the Brownstone on his original Financial Disclosure

Statements for the calendar years 1998 tlrrough 2004.

failed to disclose his rental income from the Brownstone on his original

Financial Disclosure Statements for calendar years 1998, 1999,2000, and 2004.

Respondent's original Financial Disclosure statements related to calendar years

1998 and 1999, the box for "none" under "amount of rental

income" was checked. For calendar year 2000, the boxes under amount of

rental income were left blank.

original Financial Disclosure statements for calendar years 2001, 2002, and

2003 each listed the amount of income derived from the Brownstone rental in the

range of $2,501 -$5,000.

original Federal tax returns reported income from the Brownstone rental as

follows:

Original Tax Retnms

1998 $29,852

1999 $20,449

2000 $28,938

2001 $21,416

2002 $19,603

2003 $23,036

2004 $3,406 " v:shapes="_x0000_s1027" align="left" height="221" hspace="12" width="290" />

financed the purchase through a mortgage. The mortgage was payable over 7 years

at 10.5% interest.

repOlied the purchase of the Pmlta Cana villa on his initial Financial

Disclosure statement for calendar year 1987, although he assigned an incorrect

value to the property. Respondent submitted an amendment to that Financial

Disclosure statement on June 10, 1988, re-categorizing the purchase.

issued a statement on Febrnary 2, 1989, regarding the incorrect valuation on

his original Financial Disclosure statement for the Punta Cana villa, as well

as the associated mortgage and distribution from his retirement account used to

finance the down payment. Respondent stated that he "amended my Financial

Disclosure to include these items as soon as the oversight was brought to my

attention."

received income from a Punta Cana rental pool. The rental pool was detennined

by taking all revenues fi'om the gross rentals of all the units. From that

amount, deductions were made for agent commissions, Dominican Republic taxes,

and a 10% maintenance fee. From that balance, 53% was paid to Punta Cana and

47% was paid to the owners in the rental pool. Each owner's share of the rental

pool payments was determined on a point system, with a 3 bedroom beach villa

receiving 3 points. All of the owner's points were totaled, and each owner's

share of the rental pool income was based on that owner's number of points as a

percentage of all points.

failed to repoli the forgiveness of interest on his Financial Disclosure

statements.

January 1993, Respondent wrote to the Punta Cana Yacht Club requesting

infoTInation about his unit. In that letter, he stated, "As I mentioned to

you, the House Ethics Committee requires the disclosure by members of Congress

of any assets and lU1earned income and while I enjoy a good relationship with

the Committee's Chairman it certainly would be politically embalTassing if I

were unable to provide an accurate accounting of my holdings."

did report ownership of the Punta Cana villa on his original Financial

Disclosure statements for each of calendar years between 1998 through 2008.

failed to report any rental income from Punta Cana on his original Financial

Disclosure statements for calendar years 1998, 1999,2000,2006, and 2007.

failed to report any rental income from Punta Cana on his original Federal

income tax retums for calendar years between 1998 through 2006.

Respondent's original Financial Disclosure statements related to calendar years

1998, 1999, 2006, and 2007, the box for "none" under amount of rental

income was checked. For the year 2000, the boxes under amount of rental income

were left blank.

June 2001, Respondent wrote a letter to the Standards Committee amending his

Financial Disclosure statement for calendar year 2000. In that letter he

stated, "Thank you for calling to inform me of the omission in my recent

Financial Disclosure Statement of information concerning the income derived

during the year 2000 fi·om the two propeliies in New York City

did report income from Punta Cana on his original Financial Disclosure

statements for calendar years 2001 through 2005, but the amounts reported were

incorrect.

reported income from Punta Cana on his original and amended Financial

Disclosure statements, as well as his original and, where applicable, amended

Federal income tax returns as follows:

failed to report earned income from IRA disttibutions on his original Financial

Disclosure statements for calendar years 1998 through 2007.

1998 None Not repOlted $5,001 -$15,000 N/A

1999 None Not reported $2,501 -$5,000 N/A

2000 None per letter amendment Not reported $2,501 -$5,000 N/A

2001 $5,001 -$15,000 Not repOlted $2,501 -$5,000 N/A

2002 $5,001 -$15,000 Not reported $2,501 -$5,000 N/A

2003 $5,001 -$15,000 Not reported $1,001 -$2,500 N/A

2004 $2,501 -$5,000 Not reported $5,001 -$15,000 $5,030

2005 $2,501 -$5,000 Not reported $5,001 -$15,000 $6,280

2006 None Not repOlted $5,001 -$15,000 $8,467

2007 None $7,800 $5,001 -$15,000 $7,800 " v:shapes="_x0000_s1028" align="left" height="298" hspace="12" width="743" />

1998 Congressional FCU IRA $13,333

2000 Congressional FCU IRA $6,144

2001 Congressional FCU IRA $8,693

Menill Lynch IRA $4,235

2002 Congressional FCU IRA $4,177

2004 Congressional FCU IRA $4,438

2005 Congressional FCU IRA $4,486

2006 Congressional FCU IRA $4,187

2007 Congressional FCU IRA $5,509

2008 Congressional FCU IRA $4,893 " v:shapes="_x0000_s1029" align="left" height="274" hspace="12" width="384" />

calendar years 1998 through 2006, and valued in the range of $250,001 -$500,000 for calendar year 2007.

Respondent reported eamings related to the CFCU accounts on his Federal income

tax retums for each ofcalendar years 1998 through 2007. 2) Respondent failed to

report holdings of stocks in corporations in various years including, inter

alia, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, Niagara Mohawk Holdings, Verizon

Communications, PepsiCo, and Yum! Brands. Respondent reported earnings related

to celiain stock transactions on his related Federal income tax returns. For

example, Respondent reported a capital gain associated with the sale of stock

in BellSouth

1998 $15,001 -$50,000 None (sold in 1998) $1,001 -$15,000 N/A N/A N/A

1999 $15,001 -$50,000 N/A $1,001 -$15,000 N/A $1,001 -$15,000 N/A

2000 N/A N/A $1,001 -$15,000 $15,001 -$50,000 $1,001 -$15,000 N/A

2001 N/A N/A $1,001 -$15,000 $1,001 -$15,000 $1,001 -$15,000 N/A

2002 N/A N/A N/A N/A $1,001 -$15,000 N/A

2003 N/A N/A N/A N/A $1,001 -$15,000 N/A

2004 N/A N/A N/A N/A $1,001 -$15,000 N/A

2005 N/A N/A N/A N/A $1,001 -$15,000 N/A

2006 N/A N/A N/A N/A $1,001 -$15,000 $1,001 -$15,000

2007 N/A N/A N/A N/A $15,001 -$50,000 $1,001 -$15,000 " v:shapes="_x0000_s1030" align="left" height="540" hspace="12" width="724" />

Municipal Municipal Municipal Principal Dow

Income Income Fund Protection Jones

Fund! Alliance Fund (B) Fund Select

Bernstein (A) Dividend Income Fund

1998 N/A $1,001 -$15,000 $15,001 -$50,000 N/A N/A

1999 $1,001 -$15,000 $1,001 -$15,000 $15,001 -$50,000 N/A N/A

2000 $1,001 -$15,000 $1,001 -$15,000 $15,001 -$50,000 N/A N/A

2001 $1,001 -$15,000 $15,001 -$50,000 $15,001 -$50,000 N/A N/A

2002 $50,001 -$100,000 $50,001 -$100,000 $15,001 -$50,000 $50,001 -$100,000 N/A

2003 $50,001 -$100,000 $50,001 -$100,000 $15,001 -$50,000 $50,001 -$100,000 N/A

2004 $100,001 -$250,000 $50,001 -$100,000 $15,001 -$50,000 $50,001 -$100,000 $15,001 -$50,000

2005 $100,001 -$250,000 $50,001 -$100,000 $1,001 -$15,000 $50,001 -$100,000 $15,001 -$50,000

2006 $100,001 -$250,000 $50,001 -$100,000 $15,001 -$50,000 $50,001 -$100,000 None

2007 $100,001 -$250,000 $50,001 -$100,000 $15,001 -$50,000 $50,001 -$100,000 N/A " v:shapes="_x0000_s1031" align="left" height="610" hspace="12" width="634" />

September 2008, Respondent filed amended Federal income tax returns for tax

years 2004 tln'ough 2006.

snbsequently filed a second amended Federal income tax return for 2006 and an

amended Federal income tax return for 2007.

to Respondent's Federal income tax returns were necessary to correct errors in

the original income tax returns, including failure to report the income related

to Punta Cana and failure to report other items of income.

disclosed that he was a member of the Board of Directors of "the Kheel

Foundation" or "the Atm

on his Financial Disclosure statements for calendar years 1998 through 2007.

did not disclose on his original Financial Disclosure Statement for calendar

year 2008 that he was a trustee of the Ann S. Kheel Charitable Trust for

calendar year 2008.

144. Respondent has not filed an amended Financial Disclosure Statement for calendar

year 2008. " v:shapes="_x0000_s1032" align="left" height="115" hspace="12" width="686" />

Olnick Organization ("Olnick") is a developer of residential,

commercial and hotel properties in New York City.

Olnick Organization's properties include the Lenox Terrace apartment complex

and other properties in Respondent's congressional district and elsewhere

throughout New York City.

Hampton Management Company ("Hampton") is the propeliy management

company for Lenox Terrace. Hampton is an affiliate of Olnick.

1988, Respondent signed a lease for the use of apartment 16N-P in the Lenox

Terrace apartment complex.

1997, Respondent signed a lease for the use of apartment 16M in the Lenox

Terrace apaJiment complex.

signed an application for the use of apartment IOU in the Lenox Terrace

apaJiment complex ("apartment IOU") indicating

that his son, Steven Rangel, would occupy the apaJiment.

October 1996, Respondent signed a lease for the use of apartment IOU in the

Lenox Terrace apartment complex.

apartment IOU for living purposes.

principal campaign COllli11ittee, Rangel for Congress, and leadership PAC,

National Leadership PAC, occupied aparhnent IOU as

did not enter into any written sublease with Rangel for Congress or National

Leadership PAC.

individual occupied apatiment IOU

November 1996 tln'ough October 2008.

is no evidence that the management of Lenox Tenace permitted the use of any

other rent stabilized apatiments in the complex for solely non-residential

purposes above the first floor.

actions it brought against tenants on primary residency, including those who

improperly sublet their rent stabilized apartments.

brought no action against Respondent for the non-residential use of apartment

IOU.

was included by Olnick on a "special handling list" on which he was

identified as a Member of Congress.

congressional office received complaints from constituents living in Lenox

Terrace regarding legal actions brought against them by Olnick based on primary

residency.

staff, including his District Director, James Capel, worked with Lenox Terrace

management to resolve constituent issues related to primary residency.

7353 of Title 5 of the United States Code provides that no Member "shall

solicit or accept anything of value from a person -(1) seeking official action

from ... the individual's employing entity; or (2) whose interests may be

substantially affected by the perfonnance or nonperfonnance of the individual's

official duties."

Committee on Standards of Official Conduct ("Standards Committee"),

acting pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7353(b), has determined that celiain

solicitations for organizations qualified under § 170( c) of the Internal

Revenue Code are pelmissible. TIlose solicitations are subject to the following

restrictions:

themselves as a Member of Congress, Congressman, Congresswoman, or by using

their leadership title. See 1990 Solicitation Pink Sheet; 1995

Solicitation Pink Sheet; House Rule XXIII,

1997 Solicitation Pink Sheet.

2005 and 2008 Respondent engaged in a pattem of soliciting for donations and

other things of value on behalf of the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Policy at

the City College of New York.

entities solicited were seeking official action from the House and/or had

interests that might be substantially affected by the performance or

nonperfonnance of Respondent's official duties.

conduct was not within the parameters established by the Standards Committee

for solicitations on behalf of charitable organizations.

1 through 175 are reincorporated as if set forth fully herein.

Code of Ethics for Government Service (72 Stat., Part 2, B12, H. Res. 175,

set forth above, Respondent made numerous requests for support of the Rangel

Center. Those requests were directed at entities and individuals whose

interests could be affected by the legislative and oversight activities of

Respondent in his capacity as a Member of Congress.

were made by persons with interests before the Ways and Means Committee.

to the Rangel Center were made at the request of aud as a favor to Respondent.

persons could constme conh'ibutions to the Rangel Center by persons with

interests before the Ways and Means Committee as influencing the perfornlance

of Respondent's govenunental duties.

conduct violated c1anse 5 of the Code of Ethics for GoverlUuent Service.

4 of House Rule XXIII states that a Member "may not

accepts gifts except as provided by clause 5 of rule XXV."

Rule XXV, cl. 5(a)(1)(A)(i) provides that a

Member may not knowingly accept a gift except as provided in that clause.

Rule XXV, cl. 5(a)(2) defines "gift"

as "gratuity, favor, discount, entertainment, hospitality, loan,

forbearance, or other item having monetary value."

solicited contributions for the Rangel Center and the Rangel Center did receive

contributions.

has a personal interest in the Rangel Center in that it will provide him with an office, and allows him to perpetuate his legacy,

including the storage and archiving ofhis

190. Contributions to the Rangel Center constituted indirect gifts attributable to

Respondent.

191. These indirect gifts do not fall within any exception of clause 5 of House Rule " v:shapes="_x0000_s1033" align="left" height="158" hspace="12" width="688" />

3210 of Title 39 provides for the use of franked mail "in order to assist

and expedite the conduct of the official business, activities, and duties of

the Congress of the United States."

Franking Regulations provide specific examples of nonfrankable items, including

the following: "No solicitations for funds for or on behalf of any organization

or person" and "[n]o material that advertises, promotes, endorses or

otherwise provides a benefit to an individual or organization not entitled to

use the frank. This would include cOlmnercial, charitable, non-profit and

political organizations as well as Congressional Member Organizations (CMO) and

advisory boards or task forces." Franking Regulations at 7-8. The

Regulations further provide that "[t]he solicitation of funds for or on

behalf of a private organization, for example, for the purpose of supporting

any charitable, education, religious or political program is not

frankable." Franking Regulations at 12.

used his frank for the benefit of a chatitable organization and for

solicitation of funds.

conduct violated 39 U.S.C. §§

Franking Commission Regulations.

used his fi·ank on materials tllat were not official business.

conduct violated 18 U.S.C. § 1719.

House Office Building Commission's Rules and Regulations Governing the House

Office Buildings, House Garages and the Capitol Power Plant (Feb. 1999) at ~ 4 provide that the "soliciting of alms and contributions

... in any of the areas covered by these regulations is prohibited."

and his staff drafted solicitation letters and pelfonned other work related to

solicitations on property of the House ofRepresentatives.

conduct violated clause 4 of the House Office Building Commission's

Regulations.

Committee on House Administration sets forth the regulations governing the use

of tile Member's Representational Allowance ("MRA") in the Member's

Congressional Handbook ("Member's Handbook").

Member's Handbook provides that "[o]nly expenses the primary purpose of

which are official and representational and which are incIDTed in accordance

with tile Handbook are reimbursable." Member's Handbook at p. 6.

used House employees and other official House resources for work related to the

Rangel Center.

resources included the use of staff time, use of telephones and House email

accounts, other office equipment and supplies, and use of the fi·ank. Those

expenses were paid using the MRA.

use of the MRA to pay expenses related to the Rangel Center was in violation of

tile Member's Handbook and 31 U.S.C. § 1301.

to regnlations adopted pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7353(b), the Standards COlmnittee

has interpreted House Rule XXIII, c1. 11, as prohibiting the use by Members of

the words "Congress of the United States," "House of

Representatives" or "Official Business" on any solicitation.

1995 Solicitation Pink Sheet.

set forth above, Respondent sent letters related to the Rangel Center on

letterhead bearing the words "Congress ofthe United States" and

"House ofRepresentatives."

Ethics in Govenunent Act ("EIGA"), incorporated into the House Rules

by House Rule XXVI, requires all Members to file Financial Disclosure

statements. EIGA at § 101.

102 of the EIGA requires a "full and complete statement" with respect

to several categories, including generally: income and honoraria; unearned

income including dividends, rents, interest and capital gains; gifts; property

used in trade or business or held for investment or the production ofincome;

liabilities; transactions; and reportable positions.

engaged in a pattern of submitting Financial Disclosure statements that were

incomplete and inaccurate.

failed to report numerous items required to be reported under the EIGA during

the period 1998 through 2008.

enoneously reported nmnerous items required to be reported under the EIGA

during the period 1998 through 2007.

amendments to his Financial Disclosure statements for calendar years 1998 through

2007 were not filed within the close of the year in which the original filings

were proffered. Respondent's amendments were not timely.

amendments to his Financial Disclosure statements for calendar years 1998

through 2007 were filed after the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct

("Standards Committee") had established an investigative subcommittee

with respect to Respondent's conduct, including his repOliing of the Pmlta Cana

villa on his Financial Disclosure Statements.

pending action by-the Standards COlmnittee has the effect of discrediting the

quality ofhis initial filings.

amendments to his Financial Disclosure statements for calendar years 1998

tlu'ough 2007 are not entitled to a rebuttable presmnption of good faith.

has failed to establish that the amendments to his Financial Disclosure

statements for calendar years 1998 through 2007 were submitted in good faith.

1 through 232 are reincorporated as if set forth fully herein.

Code of Ethics for Government Service (72 Stat., Part 2, B12, H. Res. 175,

received a rent stabilized residential apartment at Lenox TelTace, which he

used as office space for Rangel for Congress and National Leadership PAC.

terms of the lease for the rent stabilized apatiment provided that the

apartment was to be used "for living purposes only."

accepted the favor or benefit from Olnick under circumstances that might be

construed by reasonable persons as influencing the perfonnance of his

govemmental duties.

conduct violated clause 5 of the Code of Ethics for Government Service.

1 through 240 are reincorporated as if set forth fully herein.

Code of Ethics for Govermnent Service (72 Stat., Part 2, B12 (1958), H.Con.

1 of Title 26 of the United States Code ("Intemal Revenue Code")

imposes a tax on the income of individuals.

61 of the Intemal Revenue Code defines "gross income" to include

"all income from whatever source derived ...."

failure to report rental income related to Punta Cana on his Federal income tax

retums violated the Intemal Revenue Code.

2 of House Rule XXIII states that a Member "shall adhere to the spirit and

the letter ofthe Rules ofthe House and to the rules of duly constituted

committees thereof."

set forth above, Respondent's conduct violated House Rule XXIII, clauses 4 and

11, and House Rule XXVI.

I of House Rule XXIII states that a Member "shall behave at all times in a

manner that shall reflect creditably on the House."

improper solicitations of potential donors to the Rangel Center violated the

Solicitation and Gift Ban, 5 U.S.C. § 7353.

acceptance of favors and benefits from donors to the Rangel Center under

circmnstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as inflnencing the

perfOlmance of his governmental duties violated clause 5 of the Code of Ethics

for Government Service.

knowingly accepted indirect gifts from donors to the Rangel Center in violation

ofthe House gift rule.

improperly used his franking privilege to send solicitations for the Rangel

Center in violation ofpostal laws and the Franking Regulations. Respondent's

use of the franking privilege also violated 18 U.S.C. § 1719, a misdemeanor.

written solicitations for the Rangel Center were prepared on property ofthe

House of Representatives, in violation ofthe House Office Building Commission

Regulations.

misuse of official House resources, including use of his congressional staff,

official telephones and House email accounts, other office equipment and

supplies, and the fi'anking privilege, for work related to the Rangel Center

was in violation of the Purpose Law, 31 U.S.C. § 1301, and the Member's

Handbook.

misnse of congressional letterhead for solicitations on behalf of the Rangel

Center violated the Code of Conduct's letterhead rule, House Rule XXIII, clause

11.

failed, in his Financial Disclosure statements for calendar years 1998 through

2007, to set forth a full and complete statement ofitems required by the EIGA.

The House Ethics Committee has unveiled the 13 counts of alleged ethics violations by Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY).  Read through the official document and tell me what you think. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 111TH CONGRESS 2d Session COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT INVESTIGATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE IN THE MATTER OF REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES ...

About the Author

X