Faces steep battle to stay in Congress

by Brian Leubitz

If we had never seen Top-2 pass, Laura Richardson would be a lame duck right now.  Instead, after a 60-40 “shellacking” at the hands of Janice Hahn in a newly redistricted seat, she has another shot in the November election.  Not a good shot, mind you, but a shot.  But the odds are looking ever dimmer, especially after this bit of news:

Representative Laura Richardson, Democrat of California, has agreed to be reprimanded by the House and pay a $10,000 fine for compelling her Congressional staff members to work on her 2010 campaign.

The House Ethics Committee recommended the punishment in a biting report issued on Wednesday.(NY Times)

Now Richardson hasn’t exactly had a great record with ethics in the past, just check out her tag page here for a few snippets of her history. But an official reprimand will do no help in her November campaign.  

The actual incidents are basically what you would expect from this kind of charge. Richardson assigned her staff to make phone calls on her behalf, or scout her opponent, etc.  And then to compound things, she tried to cover her tracks. The official reports describes this:

In sum, Representative Richardson’s submission continues the approach she has taken in this matter from the outset: an utter absence of true remorse for her misuse of official resources and, equally as significant, for what she has put her staff through, as well as a near total deflection of responsibility for this matter.

From maintaining her property to dealing with foreclosures, Richardson has been something of a “distraction” for the California Democratic delegation. Janice Hahn, for whatever flaws she may have, makes a far better representative of and for the district.

Laura Richardson is back in the news again for unpleasantness, with a vicious resignation letter from her district scheduler suggesting pretty clearly that there’s an ethics investigation ongoing. In November, it was reported that Richardson staffers were interviewed around allegations that Richardson had improperly forced staffers to volunteer on her campaign. At the time, Richardson said “There is no ethics investigation. They just had somebody interviewing my staff.” Richardson strongly pushed back elsewhere, denying that she was again the target of an ethics inquiry, but the letter suggests there may be more going on:

I am also hurt because on more than one occasion I was asked to do a task or coordinate an eventthat was on the ethical borderline and not in my job description; things that I was never properly trained on or warned about, and later caused me to be deposed by an ethics investigator with a lawyer present.

The letter also discusses “repeated emotional abuse and constant conflict” in a “toxic and hostile work environment,” so it certainly seems like there’s something unpleasant going on here. The initial, uncorroborated report cited extraordinarily high staff turnover in Richardson’s office, and a range of concerns about management style.

As the Calitics team has chronicled in the past, Laura Richardson has a long history of ethically questionable behavior. Most notably, allegations of preferential treatment on foreclosures, allowing property to fall into dramatic disrepair, failing to disclose loans, and a particularly pricy car allowance.

Not to mention, as is often the case in safe districts, Richardson’s initial election was not exactly a shining beacon of democratic idealism. She essentially won a seat in Congress for life by garnering less than 12,000 votes and under 38% in the special election primary for the open seat, and has kept up a steady stream of headlines for ethical problems ever since. The whole combination has already sparked speculation about a potential replacement, although that seems more than a few steps down the line. It is, however, probably a good occasion to re-consider why less than 12,000 people are able to install someone in Congress effectively for life — especially given this illustration of what it can mean.

Laura Richardson has been playing with fire since the day she moved up from Long Beach to Sacramento, and her rapid rise to DC powered by her playing with mortgage debt always caused suspicion. For her part, Rep. Maxine Waters’ troubles are a bit less clear, and honestly, less convincing.  From the LA Times:

The House Ethics Committee announced Thursday that it had voted unanimously to establish panels to investigate whether Southern California congresswomen Maxine Waters and Laura Richardson had violated the law or broken House rules.

In its statement, the committee said it was looking into whether Richardson had received a “gift” or “preferential treatment” from Washington Mutual after her Sacramento house was sold at a foreclosure auction, only to have the lender take it back and return the two-story house to her. It also said it was investigating whether the Long Beach Democrat failed to list real estate, liabilities and income on her financial disclosure forms.

*** *** ***

Massachusetts-based OneUnited Bank received $12 million in bailout funds three months after Waters (D-Los Angeles) helped arrange a meeting between the bank and other minority-owned financial institutions and the Treasury Department. Waters is a senior member of the congressional committee overseeing banking. Waters’ husband, Sidney Williams, served on the bank board until early last year and held investments in the bank worth at least $350,000, according to the congresswoman’s financial disclosure report.

Now whatever you can say about Rep. Waters, you cannot deny that her excuse on this one, that she has a long history of advocating for minority banks, was true.  She’s had her run-ins on ethics before, but she’s no John Doolittle squirreling money away.  Nearly every bank received bailout funds, and the $12 million hardly seems like a number that is out of proportion with the size of the bank.  But, in the end, this inquiry is probably for the best for everybody. Best to just air it all out and move past this rather than just hiding it away.

As for Ms. Richardson, well, there is a lot of bad looking circumstantial evidence out there. At a time when foreclosures are an all too common story, she was able to get her house back in a somewhat mysterious fashion. I’ll be very interested to see what happens with this story, and I’ll certainly be following to see if there is a serious primary challenger.

A new initiative organized by Howie Klein, Jane Hamsher, fellow Calitician Dante Atkins and myself to verbally and financially reward Congressmembers who pledge to vote down any healthcare bill that does not include the public option is catching fire today.  The objective is to use carrots as well as sticks to achieve progressive goals.  As I said in the diary kicking off this intiative at DailyKos:

Human beings are psychologically predictable creatures, much like Pavlov’s famous canine.  We do respond well to punishment, but we respond just as well if not better to positive reinforcement.  Do nothing but beat a dog with a stick, and the dog is likelier to be aggressive than lovingly loyal.  Do nothing but scream at a child, and the child will eventually fail to respond to her abusive parent.  Senators and Representatives, no matter how elevated, are still just people: the rules of psychological conditioning still apply.  If all we can do is scream at people who don’t do what we want, eventually no one will listen to us at all.

Utilizing Jane Hamsher’s signatory list, Howie Klein set up an ActBlue page called They Took the Pledge.  Spurred on by Jane Hamsher’s post, my dkos diary, Dante’s dkos diary, and Howie Klein’s efforts at Blue America PAC, the online effort has raised over $60,000 since this morning, becoming ActBlue’s top fundraising page.  And the media has begun to take note, with stories on CBS Online, Politico, and The Plum Line.

On the list are 13 deserving CA Legislators who could use your dollars and/or words of encouragement:

Judy Chu (CA-32)

Sam Farr (CA-17)

Bob Filner (CA-51)

Mike Honda (CA-15)

Barbara Lee (CA-09)

Grace Napolitano (CA-38)

Laura Richardson (CA-37)

Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)

Linda Sanchez (CA-39)

Jackie Speier (CA-12)

Maxine Waters (CA-35)

Diane Watson (CA-33)

Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)

If you have the resources, please consider donations to our excellent California legislators.  For those who can’t chip in, DFA has a thank you action item to thank our healthcare heroes.

With an approach that uses more carrots and less sticks, hopefully we can encourage others in California and across the country to join these brave progressive leaders.

Laura Richardson isn’t the most beloved Democratic Congresswoman around here, or really anywhere. Since she’s been elected she’s received a lot more attention for her foreclosure problems than for her actual work in Congress. Given that she’s dangerously close to making the Most Corropt Members List you’d think she would try to do everything possible to avoid making news for this foreclosure issue.

But no, after getting one story in the LA Times about the poor condition of her home in Sacramento, she never got around to hiring somebody to water the lawn and trim the weeds:

But two years later, he doesn’t feel so lucky. The congresswoman’s house is abandoned and in disrepair, “a blight on the neighborhood,” Bailey said. He thinks the way that Rep. Laura Richardson (D-Long Beach) has treated her Sacramento home tells far more about her than her voting record.

“I wouldn’t want anyone that irresponsible to represent me,” said Bailey, like Richardson a liberal Democrat. “What I don’t get is how she has the time to visit with Fidel Castro but doesn’t have time for her own house. If you can’t manage your own household, you probably shouldn’t get involved in international affairs.”

Ouch! Perhaps if she weren’t so busy leaning on big banks to get her homes back and voting in favor of telecom immunity, she would have time to hire somebody to take care of her houses.

So the first quarter of fundraising for the 2010 cycle ended, and this week the reports were filed.  Swing State Project has a good roundup.  Here’s what I found interesting:

• In CA-48, Beth Krom had an unusually strong quarter, considering she entered the race in the middle of it.  She raised $63,000 for the quarter, actually beating the incumbent, John Campbell, who raised $55,000.  Now, in 2008 candidates like Nick Leibham and Debbie Cook beat their incumbent counterparts in fundraising repeatedly, but had major disadvantages in cash on hand because the incumbents had assembled war chests from prior fundraising.  And that’s the case here too – Campbell has $300,000 CoH, while Krom has $61,000, a 5-to-1 advantage.  But to beat Campbell so early in the cycle shows a lot of potential.

• Debbie Cook, Charlie Brown and Bill Durston basically raised no money in the quarter, dampening any expectation that they will run again in their respective districts.  Durston raised $9,000, but that was probably all before he hinted at dropping out due to medical troubles.

• In CA-44, Bill Hedrick may be getting national attention, but he’s not raising national numbers, and if he continues to put up $14,000 for a quarter, the D-Trip will either walk away or look for another challenger.  I respect the hell out of Hedrick but he’s got to do better than that.

• CA-37 is absolutely ripe for a primary challenge.  Noted deadbeat Laura Richardson raised a paltry $28,500, as an incumbent, and her $39,000 cash on hand is dwarfed by $363,000 in debt.  We deserve better than Laura Richardson in that very blue district.

• Jerry McNerney put up a $275,000 quarter in CA-11.

• His numbers weren’t spectacular, but Palm Springs Mayor Steve Pougnet is drawing some attention for his challenge to Mary Bono Mack in CA-45.  This is another “Obama Republican” district, and Pougnet, a gay father of two, has an interesting profile for the district and a proven record in the community.  This one bears watching.

The Center for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) does an annual Most Corrupt Members of Congress List. It's usually chock full of California's Republican Delegation.  Of the 19 California Republicans in Congress, 4 of them are on the list. For those of you keeping score at home, that's 21%. Ouch. The 4 Congressmen?

Ken Calvert
John Doolittle
Jerry Lewis
Gary Miller

That's a motley crew now isn't it? It's the same crew that we've seen on that list for quite a few years.  And, after Doolittle is replaced (hopefully by the always friendly Charlie Brown), we'll see one of the most corrupt, Doolittle, drop off the list.  It's probably for the best, as he's getting a little too close to the indictments for comfort.

Unfortunately, a California Democrat joins the list, which I'm pretty sure is a first. (UPDATE: Apparently Maxine Waters has been on the list in the past) Rep. Laura Richardson has joined the list as a “dishonorable mention.” CREW points to Ms. Richardson's very bizarre, and embarassing, real estate transactions:

 Because it is unusual for someone with such a deplorable credit history to be repeatedly approved for mortgages, the House ethics committee should investigate whether: (1) Rep. Richardson received a preferential loan in violation of House rules; (2) whether she had received other favorable treatment from lenders in the past; and (3) what, if any, official actions she may have traded to acquire these preferential terms. The House ethics committee should also consider whether Rep. Richardson’s failure to include her mortgages on her financial disclosure forms violates House rules.
    
In addition, the committee should examine the timing of Rep. Richardson’s most recent default and the $77,500 she loaned her congressional campaign committee.  By funneling money that should have gone to pay her mortgage and property taxes to her congressional campaign, Rep. Richardson engaged in conduct that does not reflect creditably on the House.

Well, here's hoping that this can be resolved in a way that lifts the cloud over the California Democratic delegation.

Sitting to my right is Elizabeth Badger, the Founder/Chair of the Minority Outreach Committee.  This is her first convention and she is here as an Obama delegate.  Oh and says that her kids better be behaving, even though she is away.  

Rep. Laura Richardson just sat on my left and immediately said everything was off the record, but then Elizabeth, referring to herself as just a mere delegate said she wasnt relevant.

Congresswoman Richardson insisted I take this down and said “Everyone is relevant, absolutely.  It is going to take every single one of us to win this thing.

This is my first convention, we are all in this together.”

This too is my first convention.  My uncle Jay was one of the original few bloggers in 2004 and I am doing my best to carry on the tradition.

The Pepsi Center is filling up.  American flags have been passed out.  The signs people are waving are all hand made pro-Obama ones, though “Change We Can Believe In” printed ones are making their way around.  My toe is tapping to “Respect” while Rep. Richardson and Elizabeth dance on either side of me.  Just about everyone here is grinning, snapping pictures and/or playing on their phones.

Can you believe this?

First Rep. Laura Richardson was having problems making house payments, defaulting six times over eight years.

Then after a bank foreclosed on her Sacramento house and sold it at auction in May, the Long Beach Democrat made such a stink that Washington Mutual, in an unusual move, grabbed it back and returned it to her.

This week, in the latest chapter in the housing saga, the Code Enforcement Department in Sacramento declared her home a “public nuisance.”

The city has threatened to fine her as much as $5,000 a month if she doesn’t fix it up.

Neighbors in the upper-middle-class neighborhood complain that the sprinklers are never turned on and the grass and plants are dead or dying. The gate is broken, and windows are covered with brown paper.

“I would call it an eyesore,” said Peter Thomsen, a retired bank executive who lives nearby.

I think “embarrassing” is the best word for it.  Laura Richardson has no need or use for a home in Sacramento anymore, and in her letter to supporters trying to give an alibi for her recent conduct, she says that she isn’t rich and doesn’t have a second income to afford her lifestyle.  Then why the useless home in Sac’to that’s become decrepit?

If this was the only thing wrong with Richardson, it’d be enough, frankly.  But the fact that she voted to sink the Fourth Amendment and provide amnesty for lawbreaking to the telecoms in the FISA bill means that her votes are as embarrassing as her home upkeep.  It’s really unacceptable to have her as a representative of this state, honestly.

This Laura Richardson (CA-37) loan default story is growing.  The Hill is reporting that she’s had three homes in default and is currently renegotiating with her lender to save one of them.  It seems like she’s engaging in what amounts to a pyramid scheme – buying new homes with little money down, and at the same time loaning her campaigns for state Assembly and Congress tens of thousands of dollars.  So the money that would be used to pay off the loan is paying for her political upward mobility.

A third home that Richardson borrowed heavily to move into in Sacramento was sold at auction earlier this month — at a $150,000 loss to the bank that issued her the $535,000 loan. …

Even as that was happening, ethics watchdogs were crying foul over Richardson’s personal finances and questioning how she was able to lend her campaign to Congress $77,500 in the midst of multiple home loan defaults. …

Federal Election Commission (FEC) reports show that Richardson loaned her campaign a total of $77,500 — in three installments — between June and July of 2007.

Richardson’s year-end FEC filing showed that her campaign still had $331,000 worth of debt but $116,000 cash-on-hand. …

Meredith McGehee, policy director for the Campaign Legal Center, said it would be reasonable for the FEC to look into the timing of the loan against the timeline of Richardson’s home loan defaults.

“In situations like this it’s very important for whoever loaned her the money to demonstrate that they treated her equitably, not favorably,” McGehee said. “Otherwise, you’re getting into a situation of a corporate underwriting of a campaign.”

It was pretty clear last year, when Richardson ran a divisive, racially-toned campaign to win the Congressional seat against State Senator Jenny Oropeza, based in part on saying how this was “our” seat (referring to African-Americans), that she was potentially bad news.  This confirms it.  I won’t defend her because these types of financial improprieties are unaceeptable.  Getting behind on one loan because it’s a fact of life that you need to practically go broke to win a political campaign is one thing.  But this to me looks like a series of efforts to possibly use borrowed money and plow it into political activities.  And that’s wrong.  I don’t think she’s in danger of losing her primary next week, but she should be.