California Congresswoman Maxine Waters took a virtually unprecedented step.
She challenged the House Ethics Committee to fully release the entire report on her alleged ethics violation. The charge is that Waters used her influence to get the Treasury to funnel $12 million to One United Bank where her husband once sat on the board of directors and once had owned stock. The bank is a member of the National Bankers Assn., the minority banking assn.
Waters asked the Treasury for a meeting with the NBA in September 2008. This violated the House code of conduct rule that states: Members “may not permit compensation to accrue to the beneficial interest of such individual from any source, the receipt of which would occur by virtue of influence improperly exerted from the position of such individual in Congress.'”
The ethics committee wraps its investigations in a thick cloud of secrecy. It literally takes an act of Congress to get the committee to publicly reveal the details of the case it makes against one of its own. That's the case again with Waters. The committee completed its investigation, and published its eyes- only report on Waters in August 2009.
In this exclusive interview with NAM's Earl Ofari Hutchinson, Waters’ discusses the ethics charges against her, the targeting of Congressional Black Caucus members for ethics violations, the effect on the Democratic Party, her constituents, and the relation to the fall elections.
Interview with Maxine Waters
EOH: The House’s Office of Congressional Ethics charges against you were initially made more than one year ago. Why are they just being made public now?
MW: We have asked the ethics committee the same question. Why has it taken so long to bring the charges? The OCE report was made public just as the House was going into a six-week summer break. That hurt because there’s no real opportunity to contest the charges, and that’s not fair. So that’s why we have publicly demanded that the committee release the full report that contains the specific charges.
EOH: Many wonder because of the long time gap before release, were there any new charges?
MW: There are none. There’s nothing new.
EOH: Do you feel that you and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus are being targeted? MW: I have no idea whether that is the case. True, there’s much speculation about that. I can say that in my case, we challenge the committee that if you have a real case, lay it out, and let’s see what happens.
EOH: Has the House Democratic Leadership, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and the OCE responded to your challenge to disclose?
MW: There’s been no response. We’ll be back in special session the second week of August to vote on a Senate passed aid bill for the states. We intend then to raise the question again about releasing the report.
MW: You’ve asked for a trial. What does that entail?
MW: It’s not really a trial. It’s more an adjudication hearing. The ethics committee members present the information they have. They call witnesses and hear testimony. Our side does the same. Then they weigh everything and make a determination to sustain or dismiss. But it’s the House members sitting in judgment.
EOH: In the report that was released, a representative from Treasury was very specific that at the time you asked for a meeting with the National Bankers Assn., Treasury was getting 70 to 80 calls a day from all financial parties about the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout. Your call was simply one among the many. Why then is it considered now a major offense?
MW: I believe this started with a Treasury employee who was a mentee of Karl Rove (a top GOP operative). He remembered that I had disclosed that my husband sat on the board of directors of One United Bank at one time. He took this public information to the OCE to make it look as if there was a conflict of interest. The committee looked at it and said “aha,” maybe there is a conflict here. And because their investigation is so limited, they came up with the idea that I received some benefit from the meeting that I requested.
EOH: There’s nothing in the 80-page report that shows that you or your husband received any financial benefit from this meeting.
MW: That’s because there was no benefit, and I know that there’s nothing in the report that shows it. One United Bank did not get any immediate help from the Treasury. The bank then went to the private market and got $20 million in loans to help them stabilize their lending. The bank’s investors did not lose anything. The way I see it, the committee took bits from conversation and information between staff members about the economic crisis and the Treasury’s role in it and then pieced them together to try to make something out of it. And it’s not fair.
EOH: House Financial Services Committee chair Barney Frank is quoted as telling you “to stay out of it.”
MW: That’s not true. When I learned that One United Bank was seeking help, I said to Frank that One United is one of your constituents (the bank is headquartered in Frank’s state, Massachusetts) so you should take a look at this. He said “You’re right. They are my constituents. Stay out of it. I’ll take a look at what One United is requesting.” That was said before the TARP bailout even came into existence.
EOH: The media and the committee made Frank’s words to you appear that he was concerned about a potential conflict of interest on your part.
MW: That conversation took place after the September meeting and before TARP came into existence, and it was only in relation to that.
EOH: The charges against you come on the eve of the crucial fall elections. What effect could it have on them?
MW: The Democrats don’t benefit from this so close to the election. It puts them on the defensive. Even if you argue that it seems that the ethics investigation process is working, the Democrats having to defend the process at this time doesn’t help the party. It’s hurtful because it gives the Republicans a chance to say, “See, the Democrats have all those problems over there.” I don’t know if they’ll do that because they’re a lot of Republicans who have been investigated. But there’s nothing positive in this for the Democrats.
EOH: President Obama weighed in on Harlem Congressman Charles Rangel (who also faces ethics charges) and said he should retire with dignity. Has he communicated with you on your ethics charge?
MW: Not at all.
EOH: Has the widespread reporting of the charges hurt or tainted you with your constituents?
MW: We’ve received many calls of support. My constituents know that I’m a strong advocate for small and minority business, and for those who don’t have access. Bank of America, Chase, Citibank, and the Wall Street financial houses, all have access to the Treasury. They can pick up the telephone on a first-name basis and walk into their offices as they please. The day the meeting with the NBA occurred, Treasury officials met with the Big Boys from the banks. My responsibility is to make sure that minority businesses have that same access. My constituents know that I’m always going to be under fire, whether from challenging the CIA on drugs, police brutality or minority businesses, and they understand that.
EOH: Will you take a deal if offered?
MW: No deals! I’m not going to the backroom. Bring it out.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is “How Obama Governed: The Year of Crisis and Challenge” (Middle Passage Press).
Follow Earl Ofari Hutchinson on Twitter: http://twitter.com/earlhutchinson
