" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

111TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REVIEW NO. 

09–9063 

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 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with E:\Seals\Congress.#13
House of Representatives Office of Congressional Ethics Review No. 09–9063 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with 
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

55–498 

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

111TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REVIEW NO. 

2009

09–9063 

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 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with E:\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 

ELIZABETH A. HORTON, Investigative Counsel 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with 
(1) 

REPORT 

Review No. 09–9063 

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 ordered it to be transmitted 

to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of the United 

States House of Representatives. 

SUBJECT: Representative Norman Dicks 

NATURE OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION: In Fiscal Year 2009, 

Representative Norman Dicks authored several earmarks for clients of PMA Group, Inc. (hereafter ‘‘PMA’’). During campaign cycles 2008 and 2010, Representative Dicks received contributions to 

his campaign committee and ‘‘Leadership PAC’’ from PMA’s PAC, 

PMA employees, the PACs of PMA clients for whom he authored 

earmarks, and the employees of those clients. 

If Representative Dicks 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 Dicks may have violated 18 U.S.C. § 201(b) (Bribery), 18 U.S.C. § 201(c) (Illegal Gratuities), 5 U.S.C. § 7353 (Gifts to Federal Employees), and House 

Rules and Standards of Conduct. 

RECOMMENDATION: The Board of the Office of Congressional 

Ethics recommends that the Committee on Standards of Official 

Conduct dismiss the above allegations. 

VOTES IN THE AFFIRMATIVE: 6 

VOTES IN THE NEGATIVE: 0 

MEMBER OF THE BOARD OR STAFF DESIGNATED TO 

PRESENT THIS REPORT TO THE COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT: Leo Wise, Staff Director & Chief 

Counsel. 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with 

bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with 
(3) 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

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

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

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

C. Procedural History ............................................................................ 5 

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

II. THE OCE UNCOVERED NO EVIDENCE THAT REPRESENTATIVE 

DICKS REQUESTED EARMARKS FOR PMA CLIENTS IN CONNECTION WITH CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS THAT HE RECEIVED ...................................................................................................... 8 

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

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

C. Campaign Fundraising ..................................................................... 12 

D. Relationship with PMA .................................................................... 13 

E. Perception of Corporate Donors ....................................................... 13 

F. Contributions Linked to Official Acts by Outside Entities ............ 14 

III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 15 

IV. INFORMATION THE OCE WAS UNABLE TO OBTAIN AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS ............... 15 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with 

bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with 
(5) 

1 H. Res. 895, 110th Cong. § 1(e) (2008) (as amended). 

2 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 H. 

Res. 895 of the 110th Congress (hereafter ‘‘the Resolution’’), the timeframe for conducting a preliminary review is 30 days from the date of receipt of the Board’s request. 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CITATIONS TO LAW 

Review No. 09–9063 

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

Ethics (hereafter the ‘‘Board’’) 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 of whether or not a violation actually occurred. 

I. INTRODUCTION 

A. SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS 

1. There is not substantial reason to believe that Representative Dicks 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. 

B. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT 

2. The allegations that were the subject of this review concern 

Representative Norman Dicks, a Member of the United States 

House of Representatives from the 6th District of Washington. The 

Resolution the United States House of Representatives adopted creating the Office of Congressional Ethics (hereafter 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.’’ 1 The House adopted this Resolution on March 11, 

2008. Because the conduct under review occurred after March 11, 

2008, review by the Board is in accordance with the Resolution. 

C. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

3. 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.2 The preliminary review was scheduled to end on August 5, 2009. 

4. At least three members of the Board voted to initiate a second 

phase review in this matter on August 5, 2009. The second phase 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with 
6 

3 According to the Resolution, the Board must vote 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 begins when the preliminary review ends. The second-phase 

review does not begin on the date of the Board vote. 4 Id. at § 1(c)(2)(A)(ii) (2008). 

review commenced on August 6, 2009.3 The second-phase review 

was scheduled to end on September 20, 2009. 

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

an additional 14 days, as provided by the Resolution, on September 

17, 2009. Following the extension, the second-phase review was 

scheduled to end on October 5, 2009.4

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

Standards of Official Conduct for dismissal and adopted these findings on November 20, 2009. 

7. This report and findings were transmitted to the Committee 

on Standards of Official Conduct on December 2, 2009. 

D. SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITY 

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

investigation required the collection of information from a number 

of sources. 

9. The OCE reviewed publically available records of campaign 

contributions to the campaign committees of Members of the House 

Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense (hereafter the ‘‘Defense 

Subcommittee’’) from recipients of earmarks during the 2008 and 

2010 campaign cycles. The review included campaign contributions 

to the leadership political action committees (hereafter ‘‘PACs’’), if 

any, of these Members. 

10. Specifically, the OCE reviewed campaign contributions to 

these Members from donors that were affiliated with the lobbying 

firm of Paul Magliocchetti and Associates Group, Inc. (hereafter 

‘‘PMA’’), i.e., contributions from the PMA PAC, PMA employees, the 

PACs of corporate clients of PMA (hereafter ‘‘PMA clients’’) and 

employees of PMA clients. 

11. The OCE also reviewed campaign contributions to Members 

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

employees of non-PMA clients. 

12. Beyond Members of the Defense Subcommittee, the investigation included a review of campaign contributions from PMA clients and non-PMA clients to Representatives who are not on the 

Defense Subcommittee, but authored defense earmarks for PMA 

clients and non-PMA clients. 

13. The OCE requested information from forty PMA clients that 

received earmarks from Members of the Defense Subcommittee for 

fiscal years 2008 to 2010. 

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

with the investigation, except for two. 

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

16. 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. 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with 
7 

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

produced documents, the OCE interviewed twenty-six individual 

PMA client witnesses. 

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

campaign cycles. 

19. 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; 

(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; 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with 
8 

(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; 

(70) PMA Lobbyist 6; 

(71) Representative Norman Dicks; 

(72) Press Secretary for Norman Dicks; 

(73) Military Legislative Assistant for Norman Dicks; 

(74) District Director for Representative Norman Dicks; 

(75) President of Helen Milby & Co.; and 

(76) Employee of Helen Milby & Co. 

II. THE OCE UNCOVERED NO EVIDENCE THAT REPRESENTATIVE DICKS REQUESTED EARMARKS FOR PMA CLIENTS 

IN CONNECTION WITH CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS THAT 

HE RECEIVED 

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

20. 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, 

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. . . .’’ 

21. 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)—Illegal Gratuities 

‘‘(c) Whoever— 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with 
9 

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

U.S. 398, 404 (1999). 6Memorandum 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. 7 Id. 8 Id. 9 House Ethics Manual (2008) at 147. 

10Memorandum 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. 11 House Ethics Manual (2008) at 147. 

(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. . . .’’ 

22. ‘‘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.’’ 5

23. 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.’’ 6

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

violate any criminal statute but well may violate House standards of conduct.’’ 7

‘‘[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.’’ 8

‘‘[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.’’ 9 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.’’ 10

‘‘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 

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.’’ 11


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with 
10 

12 Id. 13 Id. at 151 (citing Code of Ethics for Government Service, ¶ 5). 14 Id. at 151 (citing Code of Ethics for Government Service, ¶ 10). 

‘‘[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.’’ 12

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

the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether 

for remuneration or not.’’ 13

‘‘ ‘[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.’’ 14

24. 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.’’ 

25. 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. 

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 cirVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:48 Jan 11, 2013 Jkt 055498 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\55498.XXX 55498

bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with 
11 

15 Rule 9 of the OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS, RULES FOR THE CONDUCT OF 

INVESTIGATIONS 11 (2009) provides that ‘‘[t]he Board shall refer a matter to the Standards 

Committee for further review if it determines there is a substantial reason to believe the allegation based on all the information then known to the Board.’’ 16Memorandum of Interview of Representative Norman Dicks, July 31, 2009, (‘‘Dicks’ MOI’’) 

(Exhibit 1 at ¶ 2). 17Memorandum of Interview of Representative Norman Dicks’ Military Legislative Assistant, 

July 30, 2009, (‘‘MLA MOI’’) (Exhibit 2 at ¶ 7). 18 Id. 19 Id. at ¶ 21. 20 Id. at ¶ 7. 21 Id. 22 Id. 23 Id. at ¶ 20. 24 Id. 25Dicks’ MOI (Exhibit 1 at ¶ 2). 

cumstances may implicate a provision of the federal gift statute 

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

gratuities. 

26. Based on the facts collected by the OCE, the Board concludes 

there is not substantial reason to believe the allegations that are 

the subject of this review.15

B. EARMARK PROCESS 

27. Representative Norman Dicks represents the 6th Congressional District of Washington. 

28. Representative Dicks is a Member of the House Committee 

on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Defense. 

29. The process for handling Representative Dicks’ requests for 

earmarks for the Subcommittee on Defense is managed by Representative Dicks’ Military Legislative Assistant.16

30. When vetting earmark requests, Representative Dicks’ Military Legislative Assistant reviews each request for ‘‘soundness’’ and 

the ability to bring value to the military.17 He also reviews the history of the project because Representative Dicks places a priority 

on completing prior projects.18 Representative Dicks’ Military Legislative Assistant informed the OCE staff that Representative 

Dicks prefers to see that companies have created a program of 

record and that they have received funding from sources other than 

earmarks.19

31. In a particular cycle, Representative Dicks’ office receives an 

average of 120–150 national and non-national earmark requests.20

Approximately one-third of the requests are for national programs 

and two-thirds of the requests are for non-national projects.21 A national request project has the support of the President, non-national projects are non-established programs of record in the Department of Defense.22

32. Representative Dicks’ Military Legislative Assistant is responsible for separating the national program requests from the 

non-national project requests and creating a two-tiered list of the 

non-national project requests.23 The first tier of the non-national 

projects list includes projects that received support in the past and 

the second tier includes the remaining requests.24

33. After the list is created, Representative Dicks’ Military Legislative Assistant schedules meetings for Representative Dicks with 

representatives of the companies that have submitted requests.25

Representative Dicks meets with each company’s representative for 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with 
12 

26 Id. 27 Id. 28 Id. at ¶ 3. 29 Id. at ¶ 4, 5. 30 Contribution amounts are derived from reports filed with the Federal Election Commission 

by Norm Dicks for Congress and Retain the Majority. 31 Id. at ¶ 14, 15. 32 Id. at ¶ 14. 33Memorandum of Interview of Representative Norman Dicks’ Press Secretary, July 31, 2009, 

(‘‘Press Secretary MOI’’) (Exhibit 3 at ¶ 4). 34 Id. 35Memorandum of Interview of Representative Norman Dicks’ Fundraising Consultant, July 

31, 2009, (‘‘Consultant MOI’’) (Exhibit 4 at ¶ 2). 36 Id. 37 Id. 38Dicks’ MOI (Exhibit 1 at ¶ 7). 39 Id. 40 Id. at ¶ 8. 

a briefing on each request.26 The meetings are generally attended 

by a company official and at times the company’s lobbyist and a 

program manager from the Department of Defense.27

34. Representative Dicks asks each company representative for 

the names of the individuals that they are working with at the Department of Defense so that he can check with the Department to 

ensure that the agency is interested in the project.28

35. Representative Dicks informed the OCE staff that he has 

served on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense for 31 

years and that he has always evaluated each request to determine 

if it was a meritorious project, whether it would diversify the economy of his district, and whether it would build up the private sector economy.29

C. CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISING 

36. During the time period of the 2008 and 2010 campaign cycles, Representative Dicks accepted approximately $56,000 in campaign contributions from PMA’s PAC and employees and from the 

PAC and employees of PMA clients.30

37. Representative Dicks informed the OCE staff that he does 

very little fundraising; he does not review FEC filings to determine 

who has contributed to his campaign; and he does not make campaign calls.31 He explained that he had not been in a competitive 

race since 1982, and therefore, he did not have to spend his time 

fundraising.32

38. Representative Dicks Press Secretary informed the OCE staff 

that Representative Dicks’ office did not have an internal policy regarding contributions and earmark requests.33 He explained that 

Representative Dicks did not know who made contributions or 

when contributions were made to his campaign.34

39. Representative Dicks’ campaign fundraising is primarily 

handled by Helen Milby & Company.35 The company handles all of 

the Congressman’s fundraising events that are held in Washington, 

DC.36 The company does not handle the events that are held in his 

district.37

40. Representative Dicks typically holds two fundraising breakfasts per year.38 One is held early in the year and the other is held 

at the end of the year.39 The campaign also holds a spring or fall 

event at the Washington Athletic Club and an event in August at 

the Kiona Lodge in the Congressman’s home state.40 There is also 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with 
13 

41 Id. at ¶ 11. 42 Consultant MOI (Exhibit 4 at ¶ 2). 43 Id. at ¶ 5. 44 H.R. 3222, Pub. L. 110–116 (2008); H.R. 2638, Pub. L. 110–329 (2009); and H.R. 3326, 111 

Cong. (2009). 45 Id. at ¶ 13. 46 Id. at ¶ 6. 47MLA MOI (Exhibit 2 at ¶ 8). 48 Id. at ¶ 24. 49 Id. at ¶ 5. 50 Id. at ¶ 9–12. 51Dicks’ MOI (Exhibit 1 at ¶ 3–4). 

an event held in Tacoma, Washington and several smaller events, 

such as receptions, that are held at various times of the year. 

41. Representative Dicks’ PAC, the National Organization to Retain the Majority, was established on June 16, 2008.41 Fundraising 

for the PAC is handled by Representative Dicks’ fundraising consultant.42 The fundraising consultant holds approximately one 

fundraising event per month for the Congressman.43

D. RELATIONSHIP WITH PMA 

42. During the time period of the 2008 and 2010 campaign cycles, four corporate clients of PMA were awarded earmarks requested by Representative Dicks. 

43. The PMA clients that received earmarks during this period 

are: 

(a) Concurrent Technologies Corp. (Requested, $11,400,000) 

(b) 21st Century Systems, Inc. (Requested, $3,200,000) 

(c) Advanced Acoustics Concepts (Requested, $2,800,000) 

(d) Planning Systems, Inc. (Requested, $2,400,000) 44

44. Representative Dicks informed the OCE staff that he knew 

Mr. Paul Magliocchetti and that he saw him at social events and 

possibly at some fundraisers.45 He further stated that there was no 

one person at PMA that he dealt with more than any other.46

45. Representative Dicks’ Military Legislative Assistant informed the OCE staff that he rarely dealt with Mr. Magliocchetti 

and that he normally met with Mr. Sean Fogharty or Ms. Julie 

Giardino.47 He further stated that Representative Dicks had expressed the view that PMA had dealt with the office in a professional matter.48

46. Representative Dicks’ Military Legislative Assistant further 

stated that for the last two earmark cycles, Representative Dicks 

wanted to reduce the office’s number of earmark requests and 

wanted the office to only focus on those projects that were located 

in his district.49 He also informed the OCE staff that Concurrent 

Technologies Corp., 21st Century Systems, Inc., Advanced Acoustics Concepts, and Planning Systems Inc. all have offices located in 

Bremerton, Washington.50

47. Representative Dicks informed the OCE staff that in his review of earmark requests, he looks to see if the military is interested in the project, if the company has a presence in his District, 

and whether the request is for a meritorious project.51

E. PERCEPTION OF CORPORATE DONORS 

48. There is evidence that the commercial entities seeking earmarks from Members of Congress believe that a political donation 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with 
14 

52 Century Systems, Inc. Proposed CY 2008 Congressional Campaign Contributions (Exhibit 

5). 53Dicks’ MOI (Exhibit 1 at ¶ 15). 54MLA MOI (Exhibit 2 at ¶ 18). 55 Century Systems, Inc. Proposed CY 2008 Congressional Campaign Contributions (Exhibit 

5). 

to the Member has an impact on the Member’s decision to author 

an earmark for that donor.52

49. Representative Dicks credibly articulated a process that separates his legislative activities and his campaign fundraising activities. Representative Dicks has achieved this separation by reducing 

or eliminating his and his legislative staff’s exposure to information 

from the campaign’s fundraising operation.53 Similarly, to the extent Representative Dicks has campaign staff or retains a professional fundraiser, his campaign staff and professional fundraiser 

are isolated from his legislative agenda.54 As a result, neither the 

campaign nor Representative Dicks’ legislative staff is aware of 

what the other is doing. 

50. Representative Dicks explained to the OCE that he operates 

his campaign and Congressional office in this manner to prevent 

even the appearance that his legislative acts are influenced by contributions to his campaign or PAC. One risk associated with this 

type of operation is the possibility of an appearance of a conflict of 

interest if, out of ignorance, the Member’s campaign accepts a contribution near in time to a legislative act that impacts the individual or entity making the contribution. This potential for an appearance of a conflict may explain why companies requesting an 

earmark appear to think that a contribution to the respective campaign or PAC affects the ultimate receipt of the earmark. The 

House Ethics Manual is unclear as to what obligations, if any, are 

placed on a Member to discourage or disabuse a company of that 

impression. 

F. CONTRIBUTIONS LINKED TO OFFICIAL ACTS BY OUTSIDE ENTITIES 

51. In several instances, the OCE uncovered evidence that commercial entities seeking earmarks from Members of Congress appear to have linked contributions to Members’ campaigns and/or 

PACs to specific legislative acts.55 These documents were internal 

to the companies and there is no evidence they were shared with 

Members. 

52. 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 

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

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

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


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with 
15 

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. 

54. 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. 

55. The Board finds nothing in the factual record to indicate the 

Member was aware that the donor linked the contribution to an official act. As such, the Board concludes there is not a substantial 

reason to believe that a violation of either 5 U.S.C. § 7353 or the 

applicable House rules occurred. However once the Member becomes aware of the link, if the matter is not remedied by either the 

Member or by formal advice from the Standards Committee declaring the contribution acceptable, then a violation may occur. 

III. CONCLUSION 

56. For these reasons, the Board recommends that the Standards Committee dismiss the above described allegations concerning 

Representative Dicks. 

IV. INFORMATION THE OCE WAS UNABLE TO OBTAIN 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS 

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

request for information to identify any information they withheld 

and the reason for doing so. 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. 

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

evidence responsive to the OCE’s Request for Information but indicated they would not provide any information regarding their ‘‘Legislative Strategy.’’ 

59. In at least one 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 Corporation represented that they had fully cooperated. However, the Boeing Corporation indicated that they had 

no electronic mail responsive to the OCE’s Request for Information. 

The OCE then received, from another source, electronic mail to and 

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

request. 

60. 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 refused to consent to interviews. In addition, the OCE 

was unable to obtain any evidence within PMA’s possession. 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with 
16 

61. The Board makes the recommendation contained in this referral based on the factual record before it. Given its recommendation to dismiss, the Board does not recommend the issuance of subpoenas, but recognizes that the Committee on Standards of Official 

Conduct may determine otherwise. 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with 
17 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with Insert graphic folio 22 here 55498A.001

EXHIBIT 1 
18 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with Insert graphic folio 23 here 55498A.002

CONFIDENTIAL 

Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions ofH. Res. 895 of the I 10th Congress as Amended 

fNRE: 

REVIEW#: 

DATE: 

LOCATION: 

TIME: 

PARTICIPANTS: 

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MEMORANDUM OF INTERVIEW 

Representative Norman Dicks 

09-9063 

July 31, 2009 

Office of Representative Norm Dicks 

2467 Rayburn House Omce Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

10 a.m. (approximately) 

Elizabeth Horton 

Omar Ashmawy 

Stan Brand 

Andrew Herman 

SUMMARY: Representative Norman Dicks represents that 6th District o[Washington state. He 

was interviewed pursuant to Review 09-9063. The OCE requested an interview with 

Representative Dicks on July 10, 2009, and he consented to an interview. Representative Dicks 

made the following statements in response to our questioning: 

I. Representative Dicks was given an 18 U.S.C. § 1001 warning and consented to an 

interview. Representative Dicks signed a written acknowledgement of the warning, 

which will be placed in the case file in this review. 

2. Representative Dicks stated that his Military Legislative Assistant (hereafter "MLA") 

reviews the requests for federal funding. When a partial I ist has been put together, 

Congressman Dicks then tells his MLA to schedule meetings with the companies making 

the request because he "wants to see these p~'Ople" and he "wants to talk to them directly." 

These meetings are attended by a company official andlor the program manager from the 

Department of Defense. A lobbyist docs not always attend the meeting. 

3. During these meeting the Member asks the company representatives who they are working 

with at the Department of Defense and generally he looks to see if the military wants the 

project. He also looks for companies with a presence in his District. When thcy get a final 

list of requests, they send it to the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. 

4. Representative Dicks said that he has served on the Appropriations Subcommittee on 

Defense for 31 years and tried to evaluate these requests to determine if it is a good, 

meritorious project. 

MOT - Page 1 of3 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 
19 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with Insert graphic folio 24 here 55498A.003

CONFIDENTIAL 

Subjecl to the Nondisclosure Provisions ofH. Res. 895 of the 1 10th Congress as Amended 

5. One of his major goals as a Congressman is to diversify the economy of his district and 

build up the private sector economy. 

6. Regarding PMA, there was no one employee that the Congressman dealt with more than 

any other employee. 

7. Regarding fundraisers, he usually held two breakfasts, one early in the year and one in 

the fall. There was no particular reason for this except that it seems to work. 

8. An event is held at the Washington Athletic Club in the district. There is also an event at 

the Kiona Lodge that is held in August, it is a community event. The Congressman's 

fundraisers work on it, but members of the community put it together. A local 

businessman helps organize the August event. 

9. In addition there is a fundraising event in Tacoma and there are smaller receptions as well. 

10. The only private company fundraising event that was held was sponsored by Lockheed. 

II. Representative Dicks' political action committee (hereafter "PAC") is new. It was 

created in the last few years (on June 16,2008). 

12. Representative Dicks stated that out of 12 appropriation bills, over 50% of the companies 

seeking funding do not have lobbyists. 

13. Representative Dicks stated that he did not have a personal relationship with Paul 

Magliocchetti, he only saw him at events or fundraisers. 

14. Representative Dicks stated that he does very little fundraising and that he had not been 

in a competitive race since 1982. He further stated that he does not make calls to solicit 

campaign contributions ~ he never has, he has been in officc over 30 years, and that 

won't change. 

15. Representative Dicks stated that he doesn't look at FEC filings to see who contributes 

and that he is not aware of who is contributing or what amounts are being contributed. 

He sees people at fundraising events and assumes they have contributed something if 

they are attending the event but otherwise he would not know whether any contribution 

was made or the amountthal was made. The Congressman doesn't know how much 

someone has paid since people don't always give what the campaign asks for to attend a 

particular event. Representative Dicks stated that he would never know about a 

contribution that was mailed to the campaign. 

16. Representative Dicks stated that if anyone asked for an earmark at a fundraising event, he 

would have that person removed from the event. 

MOl ~ Page 2 of3 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 
20 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with Insert graphic folio 25 here 55498A.004

CONFIDENTIAL 

Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions ofH. Res. 895 of the 1 10th Congress as Amended 

This memorandum was prepared on September 8, 2009, based on the notes that the aCE staff 

preparcd during the interview with Representative Dicks on July 31,2009. I certify that this 

memorandum contains all pertinent matter discussed with Representative Dicks on July 31,2009. 

Elizabeth Horton 

Investigative Counsel 

MOl - Page 3 of3 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 
21 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with Insert graphic folio 26 here 55498A.005

EXHIBIT 2 
22 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with Insert graphic folio 27 here 55498A.006

CONFIDENTIAL 

Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the II Oth Congress as Amended 

INRE: 

REVlEW#: 

DATE: 

LOCATION: 

TIME: 

PARTICIPANTS: 

OFFICE OF CONGRESS[ONAL ETHICS 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MEMORANDUM OF I~TERVIEW 

Representative Norman Dicks' Mi[itary Legis[ative Assistant 

09-9063 

July 30, 2009 

Office of Representative Norman Dicks 

2344 Rayburn House Omce Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

10:[5 a.m. - 11:10 a.m. (approximately) 

Elizabeth Horton 

Omar Ashmawy 

Stan Brand 

Andrew Herman 

SUMMARY: Representative Norman Dicks' Military Legislative Assistant (hereafter the 

"witness") was interviewed pursuant to Review 09-9063. The OCE requested an interview with 

the witness on July 10, 2009, and he consented to an interview. The witness made the following 

statements in response to our questioning: 

1. The witness was given an 18 U.S.c. § 1001 warning and consented to an interview. The 

witness signed a written acknowledgement of the warning, which will be placed in the 

case filc in this review. 

2. Every year the timing of earmark requcsts is dictated by the Appropriations Committee. 

The Defense Subcommittee sets its own deadlines as well. The office doesn't have to 

inform the entities requesting earmarks as the word gets out and they become aware of 

the deadlines on their own. 

3. Generally speaking, specific omces, like Representative Dicks' omce, will set a deadline 

approximately two weeks before the committee's deadline. This allows for time to 

review the requests, interact with the Member, and get ready to present the requests to the 

committee. There arc standard types of information that the committee requests from 

Members' offices. Congressman Dicks' omce has typically followed the committee's 

standards without asking [or additional information. Other office may ask for more 

information such as the number of jobs a particular earmark will create or thc number of 

employees an entity has. 

MOl - Page 1 of 4 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 
23 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with Insert graphic folio 28 here 55498A.007

CONFIDENTIAL 

Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the II Oth Congress as Amended 

4. The office will receive inquiries from a lot of people asking for the office's deadline 

followed by a request for an appointment to present their request. These appointments are 

usually attended by both a representative ofthe company and a lobbyist. An appointment 

attended by just a lobbyist is the exception. The same is true even for small companies. 

5. Ultimately, the Member decides which requests to support. When asked what 

Congressman Dicks based his decision on, the witness stated that he could only say that 

in the last two cycles, the Congressman told him they needed to reduce the number of 

projects. In this most recent cycle, in addition to reducing the number of projects, the 

Congressman said he wanted to focus on only those projects that are very local to the 

district. Previously, some of the projects were not in his district but elsewhere in the 

Peugeot Sound region. The witness said that he did not know if the Congressman had 

requested any earmarks for projects outside the Peugeot Sound region. 

6. There was no specific discussion between the witness and the Congressman as to why he 

had made the decision to reduce the number of requests and focus on his district, but the 

witness's theory was that it had something to do with the additional serutiny of earmarks 

and that the leadership of the House of Representatives had said that the number of 

earmarks should be reduced. 

7. When vetting the requests, the witness would look at what the office had done with a 

particular project in the past, placing a priority on completing a project that had already been 

started. He also would ask if it sounds like a solid projeet that would bring value to the 

military. In a particular cyele the office receives an average ofl20-l50 national and nonnational requests. An example of a national request is a Boeing project that has the support 

of the President, such as the Boeing P-8 Poseidon aircraft. Non-national projects arc nonestablished programs of record in the Department of Defense. Approximately 113 of the 

requests are for national programs and 2/3 of the requests are for non-national projects. 

8. There were a handful of companies that made annual requests and lobbyists he saw on a 

more regular basis. He would regularly speak with or meet with Sean Foggerty, a lobbyist 

who worked for PMA at the time, in particular. He also would often speak with Julie 

Giardino, another former PMA lobbyist. The four companies that regularly make requests 

are Concurrent Technologies Corporation, 21st Century Systems, Inc, Advanced Acoustics 

Concepts and Planning Systems Inc. Each of these companies was represented by PMA. 

9. Concurrent Technologies is located in Bremerton, Washington but is headquartered in 

Pennsylvania. The office located in Bremerton employs 40-45 people that work on 

analysis. The earmark Representative Dicks authored for Concurrent Technologies 

related to work performed by the employees in Bremerton. 

MOl - Page 2 of 4 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 
24 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with Insert graphic folio 29 here 55498A.008

CONFIDENTIAL 

Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 1 10th Congress as Amended 

10.21 Century also has an office in Bremerton, which employs roughly 5-15 employees. 

The company is headquartered in Nebraska. The employees in Bremerton have some 

direct participation in projects as well as serving a broader dedicated function for the 

company at large in areas such as quality assurance. A couple of the employees work on 

sub-systems for ship security. 

II. Advanced Acoustic Concepts also has an office in Bremerton which employs 5-10 

people. The company has a long history of working with the Navy on "ASW" systems 

based with aircraft carriers. 

12. Planning Systems Inc. has an office in Bremerton that employs approximately 12 people. 

The company is working on an initiative to help make submarine navigation more efficient. 

13. When mecting about earmarks requcsted by these companies sometimes the witncss 

would meet with a PMA lobbyist and a company representative and sometimes with just 

a PMA lobbyist. The Congressman would sometimes attend the meeting as well. 

14. The committce's deadline is typically at thc end of March or early April, but it depends 

on what timeline they think they will have to get requests to the full committee. 

15. The witness explained that some companies do not get their request in by the committee's 

deadline. One such company, Angeles Composite Technologies, was represented by 

someone who was not a professional lobbyist and did not know the appropriations 

process. The company approached the offiee because it felt that it could be a potential 

supplier to the military and, therefore, could bring jobs to the district. However, due to 

the lack of knowledge on the part of the individual representing the company, the 

company missed the deadline for submitting their request. Ultimately, the company came 

back to ask about a supplemental request. The office instead had the company talk with 

Lockheed directly. 

16. The witness stated that the office generally follows up with companies who have requested 

funding; however, he felt that doing so led some companies to think that they are in line to 

receive funding when in fact they are not. 

17. The witness rarely met with Mr. Paul Magliocchetti. He usually met with Mr. 

Magliocchetti's employees instead. On 1 or 2 occasions Mr. Magliocchetti met with the 

member on matters that had nothing to do with these particular carmarks in qucstion. 

18. The witness had previously attended fundraisers for Congressman Dicks' campaign. One 

example was a lunch for Lockheed executives. He did not recall any specific request to 

attcnd the lunch but assumed he'd attend to answer any oftheir questions. Otherwise he did 

not volunteer lor the campaign had no knowledge of contributions made to the campaign. 

MOl - Page 3 of 4 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 
25 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with Insert graphic folio 30 here 55498A.009

CONFIDENTIAL 

Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions ofH. Res. 895 of the I 10th Congress as Amended 

19. The witness was not aware of any office policy regarding the timing of legislative action 

and the solicitation or receipt of a contribution to the campaign. 

20. The witness stated that he was responsible for creating the list for earmark requests for 

the office. He would separate the national requests from the non-national requests. The 

first cut generally included projects that were supported in the past because they were 

typically worth considering. The second tier included the remaining requests so that the 

Congressman was aware of what was submitted to the office. Representative Dicks then 

would make adjustments to the list. His emphasis was on the district. 

21. The witness stated that Representative Dicks had a strong affinity for Boeing when 

reviewing national requests and that he liked to see funding for non-national requests go 

to companies that had delivered on projects in the past. The witness explained that 

Representative Dicks liked to see companies "graduate" and have programs of record that 

receive funding through other sources. 

22. The witness stated that Representative Dicks changed the funding list about 20% of the time. 

23. The witness stated that he could not say whether during the last cycle of earmarks that PMA 

affected Representative Dicks' judgment on the selection of companies to receive funding. 

However, he had the impression that clients of PMA were viewed in a negative light 

24. The witness stated that he had heard Representative Dicks express the view that PMA 

had dealt with him and the office in a professional manner. 

25. The witness stated when he first started he would run his decisions by George Behan but 

that he now worked directly with the Congressman. 

This memorandum was prepared on August 26,2009, based on the notes that the OCE staff 

prepared during the interview with the witness. I certify that this memorandum contains all 

pertinent matter discussed with the witness on July 30, 2009. 

Elizabeth Horton 

Investigative Counsel 

MOT - Page 4 of 4 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHTCS 
26 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with Insert graphic folio 31 here 55498A.010

EXHIBIT 3 
27 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with Insert graphic folio 32 here 55498A.011

CONFIDENTIAL 

Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the II Oth Congress as Amended 

INRE: 

REVIEW#: 

DATE: 

LOCATION: 

TIME: 

PARTICIPANTS: 

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MEMORANDUM OF DITERVIEW 

Representative Norm Dicks' Press Secretary 

09-9063 

July 3 I, 2009 

Office of Representative Norm Dicks 

2467 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

II a.m. (approximately) 

Elizabeth Horton 

Omar Ashmawy 

Stan Brand 

Andrew Herman 

SUMMARY: Representative Norm Dicks' Press Secretary (hereafter the "witness") was 

interviewed pursuant to Review 09-9063. The OCE requested an interview with the witness on 

July 10, 2009, and hc consented to an interview. The witness made the following statements in 

response to our questioning: 

1. The witness was given an 18 U.S.c. § 1001 warning and consented to an interview. He 

signed a written acknowledgement of the warning, which will be placed in the case file in 

this review. 

2. The witness's role in the earmark process was to assure all the Legislative Assistants in 

the office knew the general area of interest the Member had had over the years. He also 

oversaw the various types of requests and made sure that the office mctthe committee 

deadlines. 

3. When the office's current Military Legislative Assistant (hereafter "MLA") was first 

hired, the witness sat in on a lot of the meetings, but he has not done so in several years. 

He is aware though that Representative Dicks wants to be briefcd on the rcquests and that 

these meetings typically arc between the member, the MLA, a representative from the 

company and their lobbyist. 

4. The office does not have any internal policy regarding a timing relationship between a 

contribution and an earmark request. The office wouldn't do it and will not do it. 

Congressman Dicks does not know about contributions. There is no policy to make sure 

contributions are not accepted around legislative acts that may relate to the entity or 

MOl - Page t of2 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 
28 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with Insert graphic folio 33 here 55498A.012

CONFIDENTIAL 

Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the II Oth Congress as Amended 

individual making the contribution. Congressman Dicks has two separate tracks -

political and official. 

5. The decision making regarding earmarks is exclusively between the Member and the 

MLA. The witness is aware of what is going on because he sees everything sent to the 

committee. 

6. He did not interact with PMA employees regarding defense appropriations. He knew Paul 

Magliocchetti from his time on the Appropriations Committee and he knew a few people 

who worked for Mr. Magliocchetti, but he did not have any meetings with any PMA 

employees regarding defense. He met with some people on energy and telccom issues. 

7. The witness attends all the Member's fundraisers with few exceptions. He also takes a 

couple of afternoons off for two to three weeks every year to help raise money for the 

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Representative Dicks does not make 

caUs for campaign contributions. They are not in a competitive district. The witness is 

not tasked with calling any specific individuals. He generaUy attends breakfast events, 

dinners and receptions. 

8. The only company sponsored fundraiser he could recaU was one held by Lockheed 

Martin. The CEO wanted to hold a lunch for the Member. The witness thought they just 

wanted to get to know the Congressman personally. 

9. GeneraUy, Helen Milby generates the caUlists. The witness's only influence is when he 

knows of a retirement (i.e. to take someone off a list) or he gives Ms. Milby a business 

card. The witness does not have to do more as Ms. Milby "does all that." 

10. At the fundraisers, the witness has not heard any discussion about earmarks. He stated 

that any such talk would be inappropriate and that he or Representative Dicks would say 

as much. If someone wanted to come to a fundraiser to talk about a project, he would tell 

them to make an appointment to talk to the MLA. 

This memorandum was prepared on August 26, 2009 based on the notes that the OCE staff 

prepared during the interview with the witness on July 31, 2009. I certify that this memorandum 

contains aU pertinent matter discussed with the witness on July 31, 2009. 

Elizabeth Horton 

Investigative Counsel 

MOl - Page 2 of2 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 
29 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with Insert graphic folio 34 here 55498A.013

EXHIBIT 4 
30 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with Insert graphic folio 35 here 55498A.014

CONFIDENTIAL 

Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions ofH. Res. 895 of the llOth Congress as Amended 

INRE: 

REVIEW#: 

DATE: 

LOCATION: 

TIME: 

PARTICIPANTS: 

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MEMORANDUM OF I:STERVIEW 

Representative Norman Dicks' Fundraising Consultant 

09-9063 

July 31, 2009 

Office of Representative Norm Dicks 

2467 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

12:30 p.m. (approximately) 

Elizabeth Horton 

Omar Ashmawy 

Stan Brand 

Andrew Herman 

SUMMARY: Representative Norman Dicks' Fundraising Consultant (hereafter the "witness") 

was interviewed pursuant to Review 09-9063. The OCE requested an interview with the witness 

on July 10,2009, and she consented to an interview. The witness made the following statements 

in response to our questioning: 

1. The witness was given an 18 U.S.C. § 1001 warning and consented to an interview. The 

witness signed a written acknowledgement of the warning, which will be placed in the 

case file in this review. 

2. Her company is the external fundraising consultant for Congressman Dicks. They do all 

of the Member's fundraising except for what is done in the district. 

3. She sets up events, sends out emails, collects the money, and sends it along to the 

campaign. In doing this, she uses a general Washington, DC PAC list that she uses for all 

her clients. 

4. While at first the campaign provided her with narnes from their database, the campaign 

staff does not really help with developing the list anymore. She generates the list she uses. 

5. She tries to do one fundraising event for Congressman Dicks a month. Her only 

interaction with his staff is to coordinate a date with his scheduler. After a date is 

coordinated, she "takes it and runs with it." 

MOI- Page 1 of2 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 
31 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with Insert graphic folio 36 here 55498A.015

CONFIDENTIAL 

Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions ofH. Res. 895 of the I 10th Congress as Amended 

6. She does some smaller events and some larger events for the Congressman. The larger 

events include about IOO-ISO people and the smaller events have about 10-25 attendees. 

The smaller events typically take the form of receptions, dinners or breakfasts. 

7. When planning a larger event she will invite everyone, but when planning a smaller event 

she will sometimes utilize "hosts" or focus on a particular community such as the arts 

community. the defense community or the healthcare community. Typically there is a 

defense community event about once a quarter. 

8. The witness was brought on as a consultant because the Congressman liked her and 

wanted to have a professional fundraising staff. Fundraising, however, is not a huge 

priority for him. She has to beg the Congressman for dates to hold events. She has 

encouraged him to focus more on national fundraising, but he has refused. 

9. The witness was shown an email from Elizabeth Trigs regarding a PMA contribution. 

The witness said that she was never told to not accept money from former PMA 

employees, but it seemed like it was prudent. When some of the former PMA employees 

started a new group, Flagship. she was not sure if they were legitimate so she emailed 

George Behan to see what he thought. She was told it was ok to accept the contribution. 

This memorandum was prepared on September 8, 2009, based on the notes that the OCE staff 

prepared during the interview with the witness on July 31, 2009. I certify that this memorandum 

contains all pertinent matter discussed with the witness on July 3 I, 2009. 

Elizabeth Horton 

Investigative Counsel 

MOI- Page 2 of2 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 
32 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with Insert graphic folio 37 here 55498A.016

EXHIBITS 
33 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with Insert graphic folio 38 here 55498A.017

CONFIDENTIAL 

Pmposed C1'1(108 

«mgressiomll Compfligll COlltributiolts 

21CS!·OCE00002566 
34 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with Insert graphic folio 39 here 55498A.018

CONFIDENTiAL 

A. V\:yck" d;fft.:r~ b('t',·vecn House membcr~ and Scna1(!r~ 

For HOllS~ nl~l1\bers, (yde ;: >'~ars (200] &. 20(8) 

• Fur Senatnui_ a. cyde their 6 year term which 15 ~taggered (Re-;.:ail lha1 1 

Drtbe Senate is up lor re-election I.!very ::: ),!">urs 

\b,imum cuntributions alloived-

-.'< $-46{lO/cvcle -I;))" \j{.'mberfSenG.l.or·::' n.>eiz~ctlon Camp~lJ.g,n 

'_~ 550fHih'alendar yc:u· {{.'II' M?mbt;r's l('(l(krship P:\C 

.,. *' Anticipat(' ::.;ing!e ttmdrais0r event ---~S20K 

21 CSI·OCE00002569