" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

111TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REVIEW NO. 

09–9012 

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES 

————— 

Report and Findings 

Transmitted to the 

Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 

on December 2, 2009 

and released publicly pursuant to H. Res. 895 of the 

110th Congress as amended 

December 2009 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTSE:\Seals\Congress.#13
House of Representatives Office of Congressional Ethics Review No. 09–9012 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

54–538 

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

111TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REVIEW NO. 

2009

09–9012 

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES 

————— 

Report and Findings 

Transmitted to the 

Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 

on December 2, 2009 

and released publicly pursuant to H. Res. 895 of the 

110th Congress as amended 

December 2009 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTSE:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

OFFICE OF 

CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 

BOARD 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

DAVID SKAGGS, Chair 

PORTER GOSS, Co-Chair 

YVONNE BURKE 

KAREN ENGLISH 

ALLISON HAYWARD 

JAY EAGEN 

WILLIAM FRENZEL 

ABNER MIKVA 

Leo J. Wise, Chief Counsel & Staff Director 

Paul J. Solis, Investigative Counsel 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
(1) 

REPORT 

Review No. 09–9012 

The Board of the Office of Congressional Ethics (hereafter the 

‘‘Board’’), by a vote of no less than four members, on November 20, 

2009, adopted the following report and findings and ordered them 

to be transmitted to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of the United States House of Representatives. 

SUBJECT: Representative Todd Tiahrt. 

NATURE OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION: In Fiscal Year 2009, 

Representative Todd Tiahrt authored earmarks for clients of the 

PMA Group, Inc. (‘‘PMA’’). During campaign cycles 2008 and 2010, 

Representative Tiahrt received contributions to his campaign committee and Leadership PAC from PMA’s Political Action Committee 

(‘‘PAC’’), PMA employees, the PACs of PMA clients for whom he 

authored an earmark, and the employees of those clients. 

If Representative Tiahrt solicited or accepted contributions or 

other items of value in exchange for or because of an official act, 

or solicited or accepted contributions or other items of value in a 

manner which gave the appearance that the contributions were 

linked to an official act, then Representative Tiahrt may have violated 18 U.S.C. § 201(b) (Bribery), 18 U.S.C. § 201(c) (Illegal Gratuities), 5 U.S.C. § 7353 (Gifts), and House Rules and Standards of 

Conduct. 

RECOMMENDATION: The Board recommends that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct further review the above 

allegations. 

VOTES IN THE AFFIRMATIVE: 4 

VOTES IN THE NEGATIVE: 0 

ABSTENTIONS: 2 

MEMBER OF THE BOARD OR STAFF DESIGNATED TO 

PRESENT THIS REPORT TO THE STANDARDS COMMITTEE: 

Leo Wise, Staff Director & Chief Counsel. 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
(3) 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 5 

A. Summary of Allegations ................................................................... 5 

B. Jurisdictional Statement .................................................................. 5 

C. Procedural History ............................................................................ 6 

D. Summary of Investigative Activity .................................................. 6 

II. REPRESENATIVE TIAHRT’S EARMARK PROCESS, CAMPAIGN 

FUNDRAISING, AND RELATIONSHIP TO PMA ................................. 8 

A. Relevant Law, Regulations, Rules or Standards of Conduct ......... 8 

B. Earmark Process ............................................................................... 11 

C. Campaign Fundraising ..................................................................... 13 

D. Relationship to PMA & PMA Clients .............................................. 14 

E. Contributions Linked to Official Acts by Outside Entities ............ 18 

III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 19 

IV. INFORMATION THE OCE WAS UNABLE TO OBTAIN AND 

RECOMMNEDATIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS ....... 19 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
(5) 

1 H. Res 895, 110th Cong. (2008) (‘‘the Resolution’’). 2 Id. at § 1(e) (2008). 

FINDING OF FACT AND CITATIONS TO LAW 

Review No. 09–9012 

On November 20, 2009, the Board of the Office of Congressional 

Ethics (hereafter the ‘‘Board’’ and the ‘‘OCE’’) adopted the following 

findings of fact and accompanying citations to law, regulations, 

rules and standards of conduct (in italics). The Board notes that 

these findings do not constitute a determination that a violation actually occurred. 

I. INTRODUCTION 

1. Representative Tiahrt would not consent to an interview with 

the OCE, nor would he allow members of his staff, the Chief of 

Staff and Military Legislative Assistant (hereafter ‘‘MLA’’), to be 

interviewed by the OCE. 

A. SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS

2. If Representative Tiahrt solicited or accepted contributions or 

other items of value in exchange for or because of an official act, 

or solicited or accepted contributions or other items of value in a 

manner which gave the appearance that the contributions were 

linked to an official act, then Representative Tiahrt may have violated 18 U.S.C. § 201(b) (Bribery), 18 U.S.C. § 201(c) (Illegal Gratuities), 5 U.S.C. § 7353 (Gifts), and House Rules and Standards of 

Conduct. 

B. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

3. The OCE has jurisdiction to review any alleged violation by a 

Member, officer, or employee of the House of any law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to the conduct of such 

Member, officer, or employee in the performance of his duties or 

the discharge of his responsibilities.1 The allegations that are the 

subject of this review concern Representative Tiahrt, a Member of 

the United States House of Representatives from Kansas. The Resolution the United States House of Representatives adopted creating the OCE directs that, ‘‘[n]o review shall be undertaken . . . 

by the board of any alleged violation that occurred before the date 

of adoption of this resolution.’’ 2 The House adopted this Resolution 

on March 11, 2008. Because the conduct under review occurred or 

relates to actions taken after March 11, 2008, review by the OCE 

is in accordance with the Resolution. 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
6 

3 A preliminary review is ‘‘requested’’ in writing by members of the Board of the OCE. The 

request for a preliminary review is ‘‘received’’ by the OCE on a date certain. According to the 

Resolution, the timeframe for conducting a preliminary review is 30 days from the date of receipt of the Board’s request. 4 According to the Resolution, the Board must vote (as opposed to make a written authorization) on whether to conduct a second-phase review in a matter before the expiration of the 30- 

day preliminary review. If the Board votes for a second-phase, the second-phase commences the 

day after the preliminary review ends. 5 Id. at § 1(c)(2)(A)(ii) (2008). 6 The 14-day extension expires after the 45-day second-phase review ends. The 14-day extension does not begin on the date of the Board vote. 

C. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

4. The OCE received a written request for a preliminary review 

in this matter signed by at least two members of the Board on July 

6, 2009. The preliminary review commenced on that date (July 6, 

2009).3 The preliminary review was scheduled to end on August 5, 

2009. 

5. At least three members of the Board voted to initiate a secondphase review in this matter on August 5, 2009. The second phase 

review commenced on August 6, 2009.4 The second-phase review 

was scheduled to end on September 20, 2009. 

6. The Board voted to extend the 45-day second-phase review by 

an additional 14 days on September 17, 2009, as provided for under 

H. Res 895.5 Following the extension, the second-phase review was 

scheduled to end on October 5, 2009.6

7. Representative Tiahrt presented a statement to the Board, 

under Rule 9(B) of the OCE’s Rules for the Conduct of Investigations, on November 9, 2009. 

8. The Board voted to refer the matter to the Committee on 

Standards of Official Conduct for further review and adopted these 

findings on November 20, 2009. 

9. This report and findings in this matter were transmitted to 

the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct on December 2, 

2009. 

D. SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITY

10. Due to the nature of the allegations in this review, the OCE’s 

investigation required the collection of information from a number 

of sources. 

11. The OCE reviewed publically available records of campaign 

contributions to the campaign committees of Members of the House 

Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense from recipients of earmarks during the 2008 and 2010 campaign cycles. The review included campaign contributions to the leadership PACs, if any, of 

these Members. 

12. Specifically, the OCE reviewed campaign contributions to 

these Members from donors that were affiliated with the lobbying 

firm of PMA, i.e., contributions from the PMA PAC, PMA employees, the PACs of corporate clients of PMA and employees of PMA 

clients. 

13. The OCE also reviewed campaign contributions to Members 

of the Defense Subcommittee from PACs of non-PMA clients, and 

employees of non-PMA clients. 

14. Beyond Members of the Defense Subcommittee, the investigation included a review of campaign contributions from PMA clients 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
7 

and non-PMA clients to Representatives who are not on the Defense Subcommittee, but authored defense earmarks PMA clients 

and non-PMA clients. 

15. The OCE requested information from forty PMA clients that 

received earmarks from Members of the Defense Subcommittee for 

fiscal years 2008 to 2010. 

16. All of the PMA clients that the OCE contacted cooperated 

with the investigation, except for two. 

17. Aeroflex and Kimball and Associates are the only PMA clients that refused to cooperate with the investigation. 

18. Thirty-eight PMA clients and Representatives’ offices produced documents totaling approximately 200,000 pages. These 

PMA clients also made witnesses available for interviews upon request of the OCE. 

19. Based on the information discovered during the review of the 

produced documents, the OCE interviewed twenty-six individual 

PMA client witnesses. 

20. In addition, the OCE interviewed six witnesses who were formerly employed as lobbyists with PMA during the 2008 and 2010 

campaign cycles. 

21. In sum, the OCE requested and received documentary, and 

in some cases testimonial, information from the following sources: 

(1) 21st Century Systems, Inc.; 

(2) AAR Composites; 

(3) Advanced Acoustic Concepts; 

(4) Advanced Concepts & Technologies Intl.; 

(5) Aircraft Interior Products; 

(6) Applied Global Technologies; 

(7) Argon ST; 

(8) Boeing Corporation; 

(9) Carnegie Mellon University; 

(10) Coda Octopus Group; 

(11) Concurrent Technologies Corporation; 

(12) Conemaugh Health Systems; 

(13) Cryptek; 

(14) DDL OMNI Engineering; 

(15) DRS Technologies; 

(16) EM Solutions; 

(17) General Atomics; 

(18) General Dynamics; 

(19) Goodrich Corporation; 

(20) Innovative Concepts, Inc.; 

(21) ITT Corporation; 

(22) Lockheed Martin Corporation; 

(23) MobilVox; 

(24) NuVant Systems, Inc.; 

(25) Optimal Solutions & Technologies; 

(26) Parametric Technology Corporation; 

(27) Planning Systems Inc.; 

(28) Profile Systems; 

(29) Prologic, Inc.; 

(30) QTL Biosystems; 

(31) RaySat Antenna Systems; 

(32) Rockwell Collins; 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
8 

(33) Samueli Institute; 

(34) Sierra Nevada Corporation; 

(35) Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc.; 

(36) Teledyne Controls; 

(37) Windber Research Institute; 

(38) Xunlight Corporation; 

(39) Vice President, 21st Century Systems, Inc.; 

(40) Chief Administrative Officer, 21st Century Systems, 

Inc.; 

(41) Vice President for Communications, 21st Century Systems, Inc.; 

(42) PAC Treasurer, 21st Century Systems, Inc.; 

(43) General Manager, AAR Composites; 

(44) Chief Operating Officer, AAR Composites; 

(45) Chief Executive Officer, Applied Global Technologies; 

(46) Vice President, Applied Global Technologies; 

(47) PAC Treasurer, DRS Technologies; 

(48) President, DRS Technologies; 

(49) Chief Operating Officers, Optimal Solutions & Technologies; 

(50) Chief Executive Officer, Optimal Solutions & Technologies; 

(51) Director, Optimal Solutions & Technologies; 

(52) CEO, Samueli Institute; 

(53) Vice President, Sierra Nevada Corporation; 

(54) Congressional Affairs Director, Sierra Nevada Corporation; 

(55) Assistant to Business Development Director, Teledyne 

Continental Motors, Inc.; 

(56) Business Development Director, Teledyne Continental 

Motors, Inc.; 

(57) PAC Treasurer, Teledyne Controls; 

(58) General Manager, Teledyne Controls; 

(59) Vice President, Teledyne Controls; 

(60) Director of Contracts, Teledyne Controls; 

(61) Contract Administrator, Teledyne Controls; 

(62) Legislative Affairs Director, Teledyne Controls; 

(63) Associate General Counsel, Teledyne Controls; 

(64) President, Teledyne Controls; 

(65) PMA Lobbyist 1; 

(66) PMA Lobbyist 2; 

(67) PMA Lobbyist 3; 

(68) PMA Lobbyist 4; 

(69) PMA Lobbyist 5; and 

(70) PMA Lobbyist 6. 

II. REPRESENATIVE TIAHRT’S EARMARK PROCESS, 

CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISING, AND RELATIONSHIP TO PMA 

A. RELEVANT LAW, REGULATIONS, RULES OR STANDARDS OF CONDUCT

22. 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)—Bribery of public officials and witnesses 

‘‘(b) Whoever— 

(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
9 

7 House Ethics Manual (2008) at 79. See also United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers, 526 

U.S. 398, 404 (1999). 8 Memorandum of the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Recommendations for disposition of the complaint filed against Representative DeLay. Accessed online on June 24, 2009 

at http://ethics.house.gov/Investigations/Default.aspx?Section=18. 9 Id. 10 Id. 11 House Ethics Manual (2008) at 147. 12 Memorandum of the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Recommendations for disposition of the complaint filed against Representative DeLay. Accessed online on June 24, 2009 

at http://ethics.house.gov/Investigations/Default.aspx?Section=18. 

accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for: 

(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act . .

. .’’ 

23. 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)—Illegal Gratuities 

‘‘(c) Whoever— 

(1) otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty— 

(B) being a public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as provided by law 

for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly 

demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept 

anything of value personally for or because of any official act 

performed or to be performed by such official or person . . . .’’ 

24. ‘‘An illegal gratuity . . . may constitute merely a reward for 

some future act that the public official will take (and may have 

already determined to take), or for a past act that he has already taken.’’ 7

25. House Rules and Standards of Conduct 

‘‘[T]he scope of the House standards of conduct in this area is 

broader than that of the criminal bribery statute . . . the House 

standards of conduct generally preclude any link between the 

solicitation or receipt of a contribution and a specific official action.’’ 8

‘‘Put another way, there are fundraising activities that do not 

violate any criminal statute but well may violate House standards of conduct.’’ 9

‘‘[T]here are certain proffered campaign contributions that must 

be declined, and certain fundraising opportunities that must be 

forgone, solely because they create an appearance of improper 

conduct.’’ 10

‘‘[N]o solicitation of a campaign or political contribution may be 

linked to an action taken or to be taken by a Member or employee in his or her official capacity.’’ 11 In addition, a Member 

may not accept any contribution that is linked with any specific 

official action taken or to be taken by that Member.’’ 12

‘‘It is probably not wrong for the campaign managers of a legislator . . . to request contributions from those for whom the legislator has done appreciable favors, but this should never be 

presented as a payment for the services rendered. Moreover, the 

possibility of such a contribution should never be suggested by 

the legislator or his staff as the time the favor is done. Furthermore, a decent interval of time should be allowed to lapse so 

that neither party will feel that there is a close connection between the two acts. The Standards Committee has long advised 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
10 

13 Id. 14 Id. 15 Id. at 151 (citing Code of Ethics for Government Service,§ 5). 16 Id. at 151 (citing Code of Ethics for Government Service,§ 10). 17 Id. at 151 (citing Congressional Ethics Reform: Hearing Before the Bipartisan Task Force 

on Ethics, U.S. House of Representatives, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. 113 (1989)). 

Members and staff that they should always exercise caution to 

avoid even the appearance that solicitations of campaign contributions are connected in any way with an action taken or to 

be taken in their official capacity.’’ 13

‘‘[A] Member should not sponsor or participate in any solicitation that offers donors any special access to the Member in the 

Member’s official capacity.’’ 14

‘‘[G]overnment officials should ‘never discriminate unfairly by 

the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether 

for remuneration or not.’’ 15

‘‘ ‘[P]ublic office is a public trust,’ and the public has a right to 

expect House Members and staff to exercise impartial judgment 

in performing their duties.’’ 16

‘‘ ‘Ethics rules, if reasonably drafted and reliably enforced, increase the likelihood that legislators (and other officials) will 

make decisions and policies on the basis of the merits of issues, 

rather than on the basis of factors (such as personal gain) that 

should be irrelevant.’’ 17

26. 5 U.S.C. § 7353—Gifts to Federal Employees 

‘‘(a) Except as permitted by subsection (b), no Member of Congress . . . shall solicit or accept anything of value from a person— 

(1) seeking official action from, doing business with . . . the 

individual’s employing entity; or 

(2) whose interests may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the individual’s official duties. 

(b)(1) Each supervising ethics office is authorized to issue rules 

or regulations implementing the provisions of this section and 

providing reasonable exceptions as may be appropriate. 

(2)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), a Member, officer, or employee may accept a gift pursuant to rules and regulations established by such individual’s supervising ethics office pursuant 

to paragraph (1) 

(B) No gift may be accepted pursuant to subparagraph (A) in 

return for being influenced in the performance of an official 

act.’’ 

27. House Ethics Manual—Soliciting Campaign and Political 

Contributions 

While the federal gift statute (5 U.S.C. § 7353) broadly restricts 

the ability of House Members and staff to solicit things of value 

from virtually anyone, even when no personal benefit to the solicitor is involved, legislative materials concerning the statute 

state that it does not apply to the solicitation of political contributions. Consistent with those materials, the Standards Committee has long taken the position that the restrictions on solicitation set forth in that statute do not apply to political solicitations. However, in soliciting campaign or political contributions, Members and staff are subject to a number of other restrictions, as follows. 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
11 

18 House Ethics Manual (2008) at 150. 19 This process is also on Representative Tiahrt’s website, available at, http://www.house.gov/ 

toddtiahrt/pdf/defense—project—vetting—process.pdf. 20 H.R. 2638, Pub. L. 110–329 (2009). 21 See example in attached Exhibit 1. 

‘‘A Contribution linked to an Official Action May Not Be Accepted 

. . . no solicitation of a campaign or political contribution may 

be linked to any action taken or to be taken by a Member or 

employee in his or her official capacity. 

In a similar vein, a Member or employee may not accept any 

contribution that the donor links to any official action that the 

Member or employee has taken, or is being asked to take. In 

this respect, a campaign or political contribution is treated like 

any other gift, and acceptance of a contribution in these circumstances may implicate a provision of the federal gift statute 

(5 U.S.C. § 7353) or the criminal statutes on bribery and illegal 

gratuities.’’ 18

B. EARMARK PROCESS

28. The Board notes that Representative Tiahrt would not consent to an interview with the OCE, nor would he allow members 

of his staff, including the Chief of Staff, Jeff Kahrs, and the MLA, 

Jim Richardson, to be interviewed by the OCE. Representative 

Tiahrt’s counsel submitted a written memorandum that she prepared and represented was an outline for his process for vetting 

and reviewing appropriations requests.19 However, the Board notes 

that this attorney has no personal knowledge of the earmarks 

under review and therefore, the submitted outline is not considered 

evidence. 

29. During the time period of the 2008 and 2010 election cycles, 

Representative Tiahrt authored three earmarks for PMA clients. 

30. The PMA clients that received earmarks during this period 

are Boeing ($9M) and Aeroflex ($1M and $2.4M).20

31. In response to the OCE’s Request for Information (‘‘RFI’’), 

Representative Tiahrt produced internal documents related to appropriations requests and earmarks. 

32. The documents include emails between entities requesting 

appropriation earmarks and Jim Richardson, Representative 

Tiahrt’s MLA or ‘‘Defense Appropriations Aide.’’ 21


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
12 

33. Representative Tiahrt submitted the following document to 

the OCE which is titled ‘‘Congressman Todd Tiahrt Defense Appropriations Form.’’ 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS54538.001
13 

22 Letter from Todd Tiahrt to Leo Wise, July 31, 2009; Letter from Jeff Kahrs to Leo Wise, 

July 31, 2009; Letter from Jim Richardson to Leo Wise, July 31, 2009. 23 Memorandum of Interview of Teledyne Controls Legislative Affairs Director, October 6, 

2009 (Exhibit 2 at 09–9012—5). 24 Teledyne Controls and Teledyne Continental Motors Inc. are business units of Teledyne 

Technologies Inc. 25 The contribution amounts are from the reports that Representative Tiahrt filed with the 

Federal Election Commission. 

34. In addition, the Board notes the following email that appears 

to describe part of the defense appropriations process. 

35. Representative Tiahrt, Jim Richardson and Jeff Kahrs also 

submitted written, signed statements to the OCE briefly discussing 

their general roles and responsibilities.22 All three denied any 

wrongdoing. The OCE did not request these documents, nor were 

they accepted in lieu of witness interviews. 

36. The Board notes that the Legislative Affairs Director of 

Teledyne Controls, when interviewed by the OCE, stated that Jim 

Richardson, Representative Tiahrt’s MLA, was present at all fundraisers he attended.23

37. Because Representative Tiahrt would not make Jim Richardson available for an interview with the OCE, the Board does not 

know why Richardson was present or, more specifically, whether he 

discussed earmarks with campaign contributors at these fundraisers. 

C. CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISING

38. During the 2008 and 2010 campaign cycles, Representative 

Tiahrt’s campaign committee, ‘‘Kansans for Tiahrt,’’ received $8,950 

in contributions from PMA’s PAC and employees. Kansans for 

Tiahrt and Tiahrt’s Leadership PAC, ‘‘Heart PAC’’ also received 

$32,300 in contributions from Boeing’s PAC and employees. Heart 

PAC also received $2,700 in contributions from AeroPAC. Teledyne 

Technologies Inc.24 PAC has contributed $4,000 corresponding to 

the 2008 election cycle.25

39. In response to the OCE’s RFI, Representative Tiahrt produced internal documents related to fundraising. The documents 

included emails, invitations to fundraisers, and fundraiser flyers. 

However, because Representative Tiahrt did not make himself 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS54538.002
14 

26 See example in attached Exhibit 3. 27 The email was created in February 2008 and discusses contributions and appropriations 

in Fiscal Year 08. 

available for an interview, the OCE has an incomplete factual 

record related to fundraising processes. 

40. Many of the emails submitted to the OCE concerning fundraising were authored by Jeff Kahrs, the Chief of Staff.26

D. RELATIONSHIP TO PMA & PMA CLIENTS

41. The OCE obtained documents in which PMA clients discuss 

making campaign contributions to Representative Tiahrt and also 

discuss the receipt of earmarks authored by Representative Tiahrt. 

42. A February 4, 2008 email 27 contains a statement that the 

‘‘justification’’ for a contribution from the PMA client’s PAC to Representative Tiahrt is a ‘‘follow-on’’ for a $1 million earmark authored by Representative Tiahrt. 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS54538.003
15 

28 The email was created in 2007 and discusses a contribution submitted for the 2008 election 

cycle. 

43. An April 13, 2007 email 28 connects a PAC request with Representative Tiahrt’s interest in supporting a Teledyne project. 

Within the same paragraph, a PAC contribution and Representative Tiahrt’s project support are discussed. Further, the email demonstrates the PAC treasurer’s action based on the request. 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS54538.004
16 

29 Memorandum of Interview of Teledyne Controls PAC Treasurer, October 6, 2009 (Exhibit 

4 at 09–9012—10). 30 Id. at 09–9012—10–11. 

44. In addition, the Board notes that a February 7, 2008 ‘‘Request for TDY–PAC Contribution’’ evidences a similar linkage. 

Teledyne Controls highlights the FY–08 ‘‘plus-up’’ request and $1 

million earmark obtained from Representative Tiahrt. The document also contains a statement that Teledyne Controls intends to 

seek additional project funding for Fiscal Year 09. 

45. When interviewed about the document, the Teledyne Controls 

PAC treasurer stated that he created the form.29 The questions attempt to address how the PAC contribution will benefit Teledyne 

Controls’ business; the questions are listed in order of importance 

to Teledyne Controls.30


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS54538.005
17 

46. Another ‘‘Request for TDY–PAC Contribution,’’ dated March 

28, 2008, contains a statement that MLA Jim Richardson told 

Teledyne that Representative Tiahrt intended to support the funding request. The Board notes that this information is included in 

an internal Teledyne document, the purpose of which is to cause 

the Teledyne PAC to make a contribution to Representative Tiahrt. 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS54538.006
18 

31 Memorandum of Interview of Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc. Business Development Director, October 5, 2009 (Exhibit 5 at 09–9012—15). 32 Id. 33 Memorandum of Interview of Teledyne Controls Legislative Affairs Director, October 6, 

2009 (Exhibit 2 at 09–9012—5). 34 See examples in attached Exhibit 6. All screen captures displayed within the findings of 

fact are contained in attached Exhibit 7. 

47. When interviewed about the role of earmarks in PAC decisions, Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc.’s Business Development 

Director stated that Teledyne would be more likely to support the 

campaigns of those Members that supported the company; however 

the witness stated that he never engaged in a ‘‘quid pro quo’’ during his time as a lobbyist. The witness stated that in his experience, Members are very careful about separating legislative actions 

from campaign actions. He stated that no Member has ever ‘‘leaned 

on him’’ for contributions.31

48. Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc.’s Business Development 

Director stated that he has a ‘‘familiar’’ relationship with Representative Tiahrt and that he has personally received several telephone calls from Representative Tiahrt himself soliciting campaign 

contributions. These calls occurred roughly two to three years ago. 

During these calls, the witness stated that Representative Tiahrt 

never discussed a Teledyne project.32

49. The Board notes that the witness’ statements are inconsistent with the content of the Teledyne emails and PAC documents referenced in findings 42, 43, 44, and 46. 

50. When interviewed, Teledyne Controls’ Legislative Affairs Director stated that he recalled attending a fundraiser for Representative Tiahrt and told Representative Tiahrt about the specifics of 

one of the company’s projects.33

51. The OCE has also obtained documents that discuss meetings, 

briefings, and other communications between Representative 

Tiahrt, his staff, and former PMA employees concerning earmarks 

and fundraising.34 E. CONTRIBUTIONS LINKED TO OFFICIAL ACTS BY OUTSIDE ENTITIES

52. The OCE found evidence that entities seeking earmarks from 

Members of Congress appear to have linked contributions to Members’ campaigns and/or PACs to specific legislative acts. 

53. The federal gift statute, 5 U.S.C. § 7353, prohibits the solicitation or acceptance of anything of value from a person seeking official action from or doing business with the House, or from someone whose interests may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of a Member’s, Officer’s or staff member’s 

official duties. The statute also provides that the Committee on 

Standards of Official Conduct may enact reasonable exceptions to 

the prohibition. According to the Ethics Manual, the Standards 

Committee has long taken the position that the restrictions on solicitation set forth in the statute do not apply to political solicitations. However, Members and staff are subject to a number of other 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS54538.007
19 

restrictions regarding the solicitation of campaign or political contributions under the rules of the House. 

54. Under House rules, a Member or employee may not accept 

any contribution that the donor links to any official action that the 

Member or employee has taken, or is being asked to take. If a donor’s contribution is linked to any official action, it is treated like 

any other gift and may be subject as such to the federal gift statute 

and the criminal statutes on bribery and illegal gratuities. 

55. The Board notes that the examples provided in the Ethics 

Manual of instances where a Member may be in violation of the 

House’s rule against accepting a contribution linked to an official 

action are all instances in which the Member has some degree of 

knowledge of the link. As a result, it stands to reason that it is unlikely a violation of the rule could occur unless and until a Member 

is aware of the link and does nothing to remedy the situation. 

56. The Board notes that because the OCE was unable to interview Representative Tiahrt or his staff, the Board is unable to conclude whether the Member was aware or not that the donor linked 

the contribution to an official act. 

III. CONCLUSION 

57. Given that the documents the OCE has obtained through its 

investigation show potential connections between appropriations 

requests from former PMA clients and campaign contributions from 

the same clients to Representative Tiahrt, without further information that can only be obtained through witness interviews, the OCE 

cannot fully assess Representative Tiahrt’s role in the former clients’ intentions to make contributions based on receipt of earmarks. In the event that the OCE is unable to obtain information 

necessary to reach this determination, and there is probable cause 

to believe the allegations based on obtained evidence, the Board 

may refer the matter to the Standards Committee for further review. The Board finds that the evidence gathered in the OCE’s review supports a finding of probable cause. 

58. For the above reasons, the Board recommends that the 

Standards Committee further review the above described allegations concerning Representative Tiahrt. 

IV. INFORMATION THE OCE WAS UNABLE TO OBTAIN AND 

RECOMMNEDATIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS 

59. The OCE was unable to interview Representative Tiahrt, 

Representative Tiahrt’s Chief of Staff, or Representative Tiahrt’s 

MLA. 

60. In every instance, the OCE asked the recipient of an OCE 

RFI to identify any information they withheld and the reason they 

were withholding it. However, absent the authority to subpoena the 

evidence in possession of the witness, it is impossible for the OCE 

to verify if information was withheld, but not documented. 

61. In some instances documents were redacted or specific information was not provided. For instance, DRS Technologies provided 

evidence responsive to the OCE’s RFI but indicated they would not 

provide any information regarding their ‘‘Legislative Strategy.’’ 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
20 

62. In at one least instance, the OCE had reason to believe a witness withheld information requested, but did not comply with the 

OCE’s request that they identify what was being withheld. Specifically Boeing represented that they had fully cooperated. However, 

Boeing indicated that they had no electronic mail responsive to the 

OCE’s RFI. The OCE then received, from another source, electronic 

mail to and from Boeing that were in fact responsive to the OCE’s 

request. 

63. The Board also notes that while the OCE was able to interview six former employees of PMA that provided general information on PMA and its business practices, many remaining former 

employees either refused to consent to interviews or did not return 

calls from the OCE. In addition, the OCE was unable to obtain any 

evidence within PMA’s possession. 

64. The Board recommends that the Standards Committee seek 

releases from or issue subpoenas to Representative Tiahrt, Representative Tiahrt’s Chief of Staff, Representative Tiahrt’s MLA. 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
21
23
25
27
28
29
31
33
35
36
37
39
41
42
43
45
47
48
49
50
51
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61