" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

111TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REVIEW NO. 

09–9064 

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. 09–9064 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with 
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

55–499 

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

111TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REVIEW NO. 

2009

09–9064 

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 

KEDRIC L. PAYNE, Investigative Counsel 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with 
(1) 

REPORT 

Review No. 09–9064 

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 Marcy Kaptur 

NATURE OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION: Representative 

Marcy Kaptur authored several fiscal year 2009 earmarks for clients of PMA Group, Inc. (hereafter ‘‘PMA’’). During campaign cycles 2008 and 2010, Representative Kaptur received contributions 

to her campaign committee from PMA’s PAC, PMA employees, the 

PACs of PMA clients for whom she authored earmarks, and the 

employees of those clients. 

If Representative Kaptur 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 Kaptur 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 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 

KAPTUR REQUESTED EARMARKS FOR PMA CLIENTS IN CONNECTION WITH CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS THAT SHE RECEIVED ...................................................................................................... 8 

A. Applicable Law, Rules, and Standards of Conduct ........................ 8 

B. Representative Kaptur’s Evaluation of Earmark Requests ........... 11 

C. Representative Kaptur’s Campaign Fundraising ........................... 12 

D. Representative Kaptur’s Relationship with PMA .......................... 13 

E. Perception of Corporate Donors ....................................................... 14 

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 ............... 16 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with 

bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with 
(5) 

1 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.’’ 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. 09–9064 

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 

Kaptur 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.1

B. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT 

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

Representative Kaptur, a Member of the United States House of 

Representatives from the 9th District of Ohio. 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.’’ 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 on September 17, 2009, as provided for under 

H. Res 895. The extension 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 further review and adopted these 

findings on November 20, 2009. 

7. 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 

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 ‘‘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 PMA 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 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 Kaptur; 

(72) Representative Kaptur’s Chief of Staff; and 

(73) Representative Kaptur’s Deputy Chief of Staff. 

II. THE OCE UNCOVERED NO EVIDENCE THAT REPRESENTATIVE KAPTUR REQUESTED EARMARKS FOR PMA CLIENTS IN CONNECTION WITH CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS 

THAT SHE RECEIVED 

A. APPLICABLE LAW, RULES, AND STANDARDS 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— 

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


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. 

(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 

individuals employing entity; or 

(2) whose interests may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the individuals 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 individuals 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 06:50 Jan 11, 2013 Jkt 055499 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\55499.XXX 55499

bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with 
11 

15Memorandum of Interview of Representative Marcy Kaptur, October 25, 2009 (‘‘Kaptur 

MOI’’) (Exhibit 1 at 09–9064l2). 16 Id.; Email from Representative Kaptur to Staff, dated March 8, 2006 (Exhibit 2 at 09– 

9064l5–6). 17Memorandum of Interview of Representative Kapturs Deputy Chief of Staff, October 15, 

2009 (‘‘Deputy COS MOI’’) (Exhibit 3 at 09–9064l8). 18 Id. 19 Id. at 09–9064l9. 20 Id. 21 Id. 22 Id. 23 Id. at 09–9064l8. 24 Id. 25 Id. at 09–9064l9. 

cumstances may implicate a provision of the federal gift statute 

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

gratuities. 

B. REPRESENTATIVE KAPTUR’S EVALUATION OF EARMARK REQUESTS 

26. Representative Kaptur is a Member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense (hereafter the ‘‘Defense Subcommittee’’). She has developed an informal process for evaluating 

the various requests that she receives for earmarks.15

27. Representative Kaptur explained to the OCE that her support for earmark requests is based on her legislative priorities, 

which were developed in 2006. These priorities include economic 

security (e.g., jobs in her district); national security (e.g., U.S. energy independence), and environmental legacy.16

28. Representative Kaptur’s Deputy Chief of Staff manages the 

requests that the office receives for earmarks.17

29. The office usually begins receiving earmark requests annually in January.18

30. The initial evaluations of the earmark requests are done by 

Representative Kaptur’s staff based on certain criteria, including 

the nature of the project, the organizational capabilities of the requesting entity, and the relevance of the project to the Defense 

Subcommittee.19

31. A significant factor in the evaluation process is whether the 

proposed project contributes to economic development and jobs.20

32. Representative Kaptur is specifically supportive of earmark 

requests that involve alternative energy sources and urban redevelopment.21

33. In contrast, Representative Kaptur is not supportive of earmark requests for projects that are not in her district and projects 

without a connection to Ohio.22

34. In addition to evaluating earmarks requests that are brought 

to the office, the office also self-initiates earmark requests if the 

Representative or staff notices certain needs in the district.23 For 

example, if there are issues with infrastructure, such as dilapidated bridges, Representative Kaptur may direct her staff to research any funding assistance that may be available.24

35. After the staff has evaluated the earmark requests, the Deputy Chief of Staff meets with Representative Kaptur to discuss the 

staff recommendations. Representative Kaptur typically makes 

changes to the suggestions and may add more requests.25

36. The staff revises their suggestions based on Representative 

Kaptur’s changes, and then the suggestions are sent to her at least 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with 
12 

26 Id. 27 Id. at 09–9064l10. 28Kaptur MOI (Exhibit 1 at 09–9064l3). 29 Id. 30 Id. 31 Id. 32 Contribution amounts are derived from reports filed with the Federal Election Commission 

by Kaptur for Congress. 33Memorandum of Interview of Representative Kaptur’s Chief of Staff, October 15, 2009 (Exhibit 4 at 09–9064l12). 34 Id. 

one more time for any additional changes.26 Following any additional changes, the requests for earmarks are finalized and submitted to the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee. 

37. Representative Kaptur’s Deputy Chief of Staff is not involved 

in soliciting campaign contributions for Representative Kaptur’s 

campaign. He told the OCE that the process for evaluating earmark requests does not include any consideration of campaign contributions from the requesting entities.27

38. With respect to specific earmark requests that Representative Kaptur submitted on behalf of PMA clients, Representative 

Kaptur explained her rationale for supporting the decisions during 

her interview. She explained in detail the origin of the projects and 

their benefit to her district as well as the relationship to her legislative priorities (e.g., alternative energy initiatives).28

39. For example, Representative Kaptur explained that Xunlight 

Corporation existed many years before the PMA firm was founded 

and that she interacts directly with the management of the company, not PMA. She supports earmarks for the company because 

it creates new technology related to solar power. In addition, the 

company collaborates with the local university in her district. The 

university’s investment in the company creates local jobs and helps 

to keep the company in the district.29

40. Similarly, she requested earmarks for Imaging System Technology because the company creates jobs in her district related to 

the manufacture of high tech computer screens. Representative 

Kaptur is concerned about the fact that no televisions are manufactured in the United States and she believes that her support of the 

company may result in it becoming a television manufacturer.30

41. Representative Kaptur also told the OCE that she has established relationships with the principals of the companies for whom 

she requests earmarks and in many cases was not aware that the 

companies were represented by PMA.31

C. REPRESENTATIVE KAPTUR’S CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISING 

42. During campaign cycles 2008 and 2010, Representative Kaptur accepted approximately $56,000 in campaign contributions from 

PMA’s PAC and employees and from the PAC and employees of 

PMA clients.32

43. Representative Kaptur does not have any full time campaign 

staff.33

44. Her staff person who was most involved with the campaign 

passed away in early 2009. 

45. Representative Kaptur’s Chief of Staff is responsible for the 

hiring of part-time campaign staff during election years.34


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with 
13 

35 Id. 36 Id. 37 H.R. 3222, Pub. L. 110–116 (2008); H.R. 2638, Pub. L. 110–329 (2009); and H.R. 3326, 111 

Cong. (2009). 38Kaptur MOI (Exhibit 1 at 09–9064l3). 39Deputy COS MOI (Exhibit 3 at 09–9064l8). 40 Id. at 09–9064l9. 

46. He explained to the OCE that approximately 95 percent of 

the fundraising is done through ‘‘blast’’ faxes that the Democratic 

Congressional Campaign Committee sends out at the request of 

Representative Kaptur’s campaign.35

47. The remaining 5 percent of fundraisers are done by various 

hosts who request to hold fundraisers for the Congresswoman. 

48. According to Representative Kaptur’s Chief of Staff, campaign contribution solicitations do not target entities requesting 

earmarks from Representative Kaptur. Solicitations are sent to 

various people who give the office business cards throughout the 

year. These business cards are collected in a box and used to make 

a mailing list. As a result, some of those business cards may include entities that have requested earmarks.36

49. The campaign typically hosts fundraising events in the 

spring and the fall. The reason for the timing of such events is because this is when the Representative is in Washington, D.C. 

D. REPRESENTATIVE KAPTUR’S RELATIONSHIP WITH PMA 

50. During the time period of the 2008 and 2010 campaign cycles, six corporate clients of PMA were awarded earmarks requested by Representative Kaptur. 

51. The PMA clients for which Representative Kaptur requested 

earmarks during this period are: 

(a) Imaging System Technology, Inc. ($8,400,000); 

(b) Advanced Concepts & Technologies Intl. ($5,900,000); 

(c) Parametric Technology Corporation ($1,200,000); 

(d) Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc./Teledyne Technologies 

($3,200,000); and 

(e) Xunlight Corporation ($2,800,000).37

52. Representative Kaptur explained to the OCE that she did not 

know that any of the six were clients of PMA. According to Representative Kaptur, her interaction with the companies, if any, is 

directly with management of the companies.38

53. Representative Kaptur’s contact with PMA lobbyists was limited to approximately once per year, when she saw lobbyists at 

fundraising events. 

54. The staff person who was the primary contact with PMA was 

Representative Kaptur’s Deputy Chief of Staff. 

55. Representative Kaptur’s Deputy Chief of Staff interacted 

with PMA lobbyists during the appropriations season, which began 

in January. He met with the lobbyists to discuss earmark request 

for their clients.39

56. During the meetings, the PMA lobbyists did not discuss campaign contributions with him. He does not have a role with Representative Kaptur’s campaign and he does not solicit contributions.40

57. Representative Kaptur’s Deputy Chief of Staff, who manages 

the evaluation process of the earmark requests, told the OCE that 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with 
14 

41 Id. 42 Id. at 09–9064l10. 43Memorandum of Interview of Legislative Affairs Director, Teledyne Controls, October 6, 

2009 (Exhibit 6 at 09–9064l19). 44Teledyne PAC Contribution Request (Exhibit 5 at 09–9064l16). 

two (i.e., Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc. and Teledyne Controls) 

of the six companies contacted requested the earmark directly and 

PMA did not represent them before their office.41 Therefore, he did 

not consider these two companies to be PMA clients. 

58. The Deputy Chief of Staff attends Representative Kaptur’s 

fundraisers and he has interacted with PMA lobbyists during these 

events. His discussion with the lobbyists may have involved the 

schedule for mark-ups on earmarks, but the conversations did not 

involve suggestions that their earmarks should be supported because of campaign contributions.42

E. PERCEPTION OF CORPORATE DONORS 

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

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

an earmark for that donor.43

60. Representative Kaptur and her staff credibly articulated a 

process that separates her legislative activities and her campaign 

fundraising activities. She achieves this separation by reducing or 

eliminating her and her legislative staff’s exposure to information 

from the campaign’s fundraising operation. Similarly, Representative Kaptur’s campaign staff is isolated from her legislative agenda. 

As a result, neither the campaign nor the legislative staff is aware 

of what the other is doing. In each case, both legislative staff and 

campaign staff corroborated the Representative Kaptur’s account. 

61. Representative Kaptur and her staff’s descriptions of how 

she operates her campaign and Congressional office establish that 

she attempts to prevent even the appearance that the legislative 

acts are influenced by contributions to the campaign. One risk associated with this type of operation is the possibility of an appearance of a conflict of interest if, out of ignorance, her 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 

62. 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. These documents were internal to 

the companies and there is no evidence they were shared with 

Members.44

63. 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 someVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:50 Jan 11, 2013 Jkt 055499 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\55499.XXX 55499

bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with 
15 

one 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. 

64. 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. 

65. 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. 

66. 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 either by the 

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

III. CONCLUSION 

67. Representative Kaptur and her staff explained to the OCE in 

detail why she requested earmarks for PMA clients for fiscal years 

2008 to 2010. 

68. Representative Kaptur’s support for the earmarks complied 

with her general policy of requesting earmarks that are consistent 

with her legislative priorities and constituent concerns. 

69. Based on the information that the OCE collected during this 

review, the operation of Representative Kaptur’s campaign is separate from her earmark evaluation process and the campaign does 

not influence her decisions on earmarks. 

70. As a result, there is not substantial reason to believe that 

Representative Kaptur solicited or accepted campaign contributions 

for the earmark requests on behalf of PMA clients. 

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

Representative Kaptur. 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with 
16 

IV. INFORMATION THE OCE WAS UNABLE TO OBTAIN 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS 

72. 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. 

73. 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. 

74. In at least one instance, the OCE had reason to believe that 

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, 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. 

75. 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. 

76. 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. 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with 
17 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with Insert graphic folio 23 55499A.001

EXHIBIT 1 
18 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with Insert graphic folio 24 55499A.002

CONFIDENTIAL 

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

IN RE: 

REVIEW No.: 

DATE: 

LOCATION: 

TIME: 

PARTICIPANTS: 

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MEMORANDUM OF INTERVIEW 

Representative Marcy Kaptur 

09-9064 

October 15, 2009 

Office of Representative Kaptur 

2186 Rayburn HOB 

12:45 p.m. to 2 p.m. (approximatcly) 

Kedric L. Payne 

Paul Solis 

Nathan Facey 

Steve Katich 

SUMMARY: Representative Marcy Kaptur is a Member ofthe United States House of 

Representatives and represents the 9th District of Ohio. She was interviewed pursuant to Review 

No. 09-9064. The OCE requested an interview with Representative Kaptur on July 10,2009, 

and she consented to an interview. Representative Kaptur made the following statements in 

response to our questioning: 

I. Representative Kaptur was given an 18 USC. § 1001 warning and consented to an 

interview. She signed a written acknowledgcment of the waming, which will be placed 

in the case tile in this review. 

2. Representative Kaptur describes her support for certain appropriations requests as 

"legislative priorities" and not "earmarks". 

3. Her ideas on legislative priorities come from ber constiruents and she incorporates these 

ideas into legislation. 

4. She also takes local ideas and incorporates them into national projects. 

5. The factors she considers when evaluating eamlarks are her legislative priorities, which 

are listed in a document that her office created in 2006. 

6. Alternative energy technology is one of her priorities. She is also concerned with 

tangible goods, such as industry and agriculture. 

7. If a proposed project docs not lit her priorities, she does not support it with an earmark. 

MOl - Page 1 of2 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL EnnCS 
19 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with Insert graphic folio 25 55499A.003

CONFIDENTIAL 

Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. g95 of the 1 10th COnb'TeSS as Amended 

8. The oftice receives hundreds of requests fOf eamlarks. 

9. Representative Kaplnr is not looking for major business to suppon. Instead, she is 

interested in supporting ideas. She also focuses on helping undeveloped industry sectors. 

10. She is familiar with the corporate clients of the PMA Group, Jnc. (hereafter "PMA") for 

which she requested eamlarks. However, she did not personally recall that they wefe 

represented by PMA because she interacted with management of the companies directly. 

11. Representative Kaplnr did not know that Imaging System Technology was a client of 

PMA. She supported an eannark for the company because they created technology for 

pJasma sereens. She is concerned that televisions are no longer manulactured in the 

United States and her hope is that the technology could increase the country's presence in 

the industry. 

12. Teledyne Controls is a company that collaborates with the university in her district and 

she meets with the company approximately once per year. She interacts with 

management ofTcledyne Controls directly and not through PMA. She supported the 

company because it is a local project. 

]3, Parametric Teclmology Corporation was a company that requested an earnla,.k in 

conjunction with the Ohio National Guard. Representative Kaptur remembers the 

company as being aftiliatcd with the Ohio National Guard and not PMA. 

14. Xunlight Corporation is a company that Representative Kaplnr recalls as existing well 

before PMA. She supports the company because it works in conjunction with the local 

university to create solar power technology. The company also keeps jobs in her district. 

15. Representative Kaplnl' did not interact with PMA concerning earmarks that she requested 

for PMA clients, 

This memorandum was prepared on November 18, 2009, based on the notes that the OCE staff 

prepared during the interview with Representative Kaplnr on October 15, 2009. I certify that this 

memorandum contains all pertinent matter di;ctls,ed with Representative Kaptur on October 15, 

2009. 

Kedric L Payne 

Investigative Counsel 

MOI-Pagc20f2 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 
20 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with Insert graphic folio 26 55499A.004

EXHIBIT 2 
21 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with Insert graphic folio 27 55499A.005

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Hello Kedric, 

Katich, Steve 

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11 :58 AM 

Payne, Kedric 

Agenda - ThemesiPriorities .. .to be incorporated into all press, letters, op ends, fioor 

statements, leg initiatives, project announcements etc 

Looking over my notes from last week and realized I had intended to send the attached document we 

discussed. As you can see, it is a member driven outline of priorities that we assign to initiatives in 

which the office will becomes involved. Our measuring stick, if you will. 

Please advise what else may be required. 

Thanks, Kedric. 

From: l<aptur, Marcy 

Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 1:17 PM 

To: l<aptur - All Staff 

Subject: FW: 2006 Agenda - Themes/Priorities. .. to be incorporated into all press, letters, op ends, floor statements, leg 

initiatives, project announcements etc 

From: l<aptur, Marcy 

Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 8:38 PM 

To: l<aptur, Marcy 

Ce: Katich, Steve; SZemraj, Roger 

Subject: Agenda - Themes/Priorities .•• to be incorporated into all press, letters, op ends, floor statements, leg initiatives, 

project announcements etc 

Restoring America's Promise •••• Restoring America's Independence 

Economic Security 

o Create and Retain Good Jobs through Economic Development 

~-. Invest in Jobs and Firms in AmericalDistrict 

--- Balance the Budget 

--- Make Pensions and Health benefits secure 

--- Refonn Unfair Trade Agreements 

.-- Modetnize Transportation Systems (Seaway, Airports, Roadways. Rail) 

--- Support Local, Value-Added Agriculture and Rural Life 

--- Empower Small Business 

--- Encourage Self-Help or Faith·Based Community Orgs. to Sponsor Human Development! Housing Projects 

_.- Upgrade Historic and Downtown Neighborhonds 

National Security 
22 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with Insert graphic folio 28 55499A.006

o Defend America and Protect the Homeland 

~-- Modernize defense systems, including Guard and Reserve 

-~- Provide finest training and equipment to Armed Forces, and our local first responders police/fue 

--- Meet our obligations to veterans' health care and benefits 

o Restore America's. Energy Independence 

--- Make our coasta1 region the ftrst "green community" in the United States 

--- Spur projects that restore energy independence 

-- Conven local public transit and public fleets to renewable energy to spur an industry 

-- Brand our region as "America's New Age Auto Center" ;invent new prototype vehicles/power systems 

Environmental Legacy 

o Champion Conservation/Stewardship of Nat') Resources (water, land, air, fish, wildlife and nat'l systems) 

--- Enhance environmental assets/Coastal OhiolLake Erie Islands as Midwest's Hilton Head/Cape Cod 

-- Improve Maumee River to Ft. Wayne Heritage Corridor 

--- Protect our region's fresh water through watershed inventory and reservoir enhancements 

Human Development 

o Advance human progress 

--- Make education excellent and affordable to children and people orall ages and from all walks ofllfe 

--- Strengthen and Protect Social Security and Medicare 

--- Completely revamp the confusing Rx Prescription Drug plan; allow for negotiated pricing as does Dept. VA 

--- Make health insurance affordable fO£ small business and the uninsured (our bill) 

Expand research on serious Menta1 Illness as unexplored horizon of neuro-chemical and genetic interface 

--- Emphasize prevention and intervention projects for at risk youth through Justice and Education systems 

Clean Up Political Corruption 

o Reform Campaign Finance to severely cap spending 

o Require free time for candidates as a condition of Fee licensing 

o Ban high ranking government officials from working for foreign interests upon 1eaving public service, 5 years for 10bbying Congress 

World Peace 

o Build bridges internationally through people to people exchanges, development, and education 

o Emphasize foreign language and intercultural education for our students 

o Create an U.S. Institute for Democracy and Development dedicated to such international efforts (replace WESTNIS) 
23 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with Insert graphic folio 29 55499A.007

EXHIBIT 3 
24 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with Insert graphic folio 30 55499A.008

CONFIDENTIAL 

Sllbject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of Ii. Res. 895 ofthe 11 Oth Congres, as Amended 

INRE: 

REVIEW#: 

DATE: 

LOCATION: 

TIME: 

PARTICIPANTS: 

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MEMORANDUM OF INTERVIEW 

Representative Kaptur's Deputy Chief of Staff 

09-9064 

October IS, 2009 

Office of Representative Kaptur 

2186 Rayburn HOB 

11 a.m. to 12 p.m. (approximately) 

Kedric L. Payne 

Paul Solis 

SUMMARY: Representative Kaptur's Deputy Chief of Stall" (hereafter the "witness") was 

interviewed pursuant to RevIew 09-9064. 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: 

J. 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 

for this review. 

2. The witness is responsible for managing Representative Kaptur's eamlark requests for 

the House Appropriations Committee. 

3. The earmark request process occurs during the appropriations "season", which begins in 

January. The earmark requests are initiated in one of two ways. One way is that the 

project is self-initiated by the office if the staff or Member recognizes a specific need in 

the district. 

4. For example, Representative Kaptur may see a road or bridge in the district in need of 

repair and she may request that her statI'research any possible funding for repairing the 

problem. Also, Representative Kaptur's constituents may approach her informally in the 

district and suggest federal assistance for certain projects and Representative Kaptur may 

relay these ideas to her staff to research. 

5. The other way that thc earmark request process begins is that an entity or individual 

contacts the office with a formal request for a specific project. 

6. All earmark requests are evaluated on certain criteria, which include the organizational 

capabilities of the requesting entity. 11\0 staff also considers the priorities of 

M01- Page 1 of 3 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHTCS 
25 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with Insert graphic folio 31 55499A.009

CONFIDENTIAL 

Subj~~t' to the NondISclosure Provisions of If Res. 895 ,;rille I 10th Con,,-re,s as Amended 

Representative Kaptur which arc alternative energy initiatives and urban redevelopment. 

ln addition, the project's impact on jobs is important. The earmark request also must be 

consistent with the requirements of the committee. For example, the request must fall 

under a category such as justice or educational. The overall goal is to support economic 

development and jobs. 

7. [fan eammrk requests is not from an entity located in Representative Kaptur's district 

and the project does not have any connection with the state, the stall'does not recommend 

the project to Representative Kaptur. 

8. The witness meets with those requesting entities in the office to discuss their projects. 

Such meetings included those with PMA Group, Inc. (hereafter "PMA") and its clients. 

9. After researching the projects and mecting with the requesting entities, the witness and 

another staff person, Matt Kaplan, meet with Representative Kaptur to discuss staff 

recommendations for earmarks. 

10. The meeting about the earmark requests is usually detailed and may extend for a few 

hours. Representative Kaptur adds her comments to the earmark requests and she may 

also include additional earmark requests. 

11. The revised earmark requests arc sent to staff for additional research and then the staff 

sends the revisions back to Reprcsentative Kaptur. 

12. Once the requests arc finalized, they arc sent to the Appropriations Committee. 

13. The witness did not Imow that a few of PM A's clients were represented by PMA because 

the companies had a history with Representative Kaptur's office and contacted staff 

directly. Specifically, Teledyne Controls, and Kimball & Associates worked directly 

with the omcc. 

14. During his interaction with PMA about eannark requests for their clients, PMA employees 

did not mention campaign contributions or their prior support for Representative Kaptur. 

15. The witness has no role in the campaign and does not solicit contributions for the 

campaign. He attended fUndraisers for the Member and he spoke with PMA 

representatives at these fundraisers. The conversation was limited to exchanging 

information about the process and schedule for mark-ups. 

16. PMA did not have any discussions about the witness suggesting I1mt an earmark should 

be approved because of campaign contributions and Representative Kaptur would have 

beell very angry if anything like that ever happened. 

MOT - Page 2 of3 OFFICE OF CONGRESSJONAL ETHICS 

09-9064-' 
26 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with Insert graphic folio 32 55499A.010

CONFIDENTIAL 

This memorandum was prepared on November 19, 2009, based on the notes that the OCE staff 

prepared during the interview with the witness on October 15, 2009. j certify that this 

memorandum contains all pertinent matter discussed with the witness on October IS, 2009. 

Kedric L Payne 

Investigative Counsel 

MOI-Pagc30f3 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL EnnCS 

09-90&UO 
27 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with Insert graphic folio 33 55499A.011

EXHIBIT 4 
28 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with Insert graphic folio 34 55499A.012

CONFIDENTIAL 

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

TNRE: 

REVIEW#: 

DATE: 

LOCATION: 

TIME: 

PARTICIPANTS: 

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENT A nVES 

MEMORANDUM OF INTERVIEW 

Representative Kaptur's Chief of Staff 

09-9064 

October 15,2009 

Office of Representative Kaptur 

2J86 Rayburn HOB 

10 a.m. to j I a.m. (approximately) 

Kedric L. Payne 

Paul Solis 

SUMMAR Y: Representative Kaplur's Chief of Staff (hereafter the "witness") was interviewed 

pursuant to Review No. 09-9064. The OCE requested an interview \vith the witness on July 10, 

2009 and he consented to an interview. The witness made the following statements in response 

to our questioning: 

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

signed a \vritten acknowledgement oftbe warning, which will be placed into the case file 

in this review. 

2. The witness is based out of Representative Kaptur's district office. He is not greatly 

involved in earmark requests that are sent to Representative Kaptur. He is involved in 

fundraising for Representative Kaptur's canlpaign but tbere is no full time campaign 

staIT. He is also responsible for hiring the part-time staff for the campaign. 

3. The vast majority (i.e .• 95%) of the fundraising events held by tbe campaign arc 

organized through "blast" faxes that the campaign has the Democratic Congressional 

Campaign Committee send to its donor lists. Solicitations are also sent to various visitors 

to the office who leave their business cards. The business cards are collected in a box 

ami the infomlation becomes part orlbe office's mailing list. The business cards may 

include entities that have requested earmarks. 

4. 111c remaining fundmising events are hosted by dOllors who contact the campaign and 

ask to hold such fundmiscrs. 

MOl- Page 1 of2 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 
29 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with Insert graphic folio 35 55499A.013

CONFIDENTIAL 

Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions ofH. Res. 895 of the 11 OIh Con,,'1css as Amended 

5. The campaign typically has fundraising events in the spring and the falL According to 

the witness the timing of these events is based on the presence of Representative Kaptur 

in Washington unlike other times of the year. 

6. The office receives approximately 100 camlark requests per year. 

7. The witness does not handle any evaluation of the earmark requests. Instead, he scnds 

requests that are received in the district office to the appropriate legislative assistant that 

handles the particular request. 

8. The facts that are considered when evaluating eam13rk requests arc the capacity of the 

company to perfonn the project and the relevancy ofthe project with Representative 

Kaprur's legislative priorities. 

This memorandum was prepared on November 18. 2009, based on the notes that the OCE staff 

prepared during the interview with the witness on October 15, 2009. I certify that this 

mcmorandum contains alt pertinent matter discussed with the witness on October 15, 2009. 

Kedric L. Payne 

Investigative Counscl 

MOl - Page 2 of2 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 
30 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with Insert graphic folio 36 55499A.014

EXHIBIT 5 

09-9064_14 
31 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with Insert graphic folio 37 55499A.015

Request for TDY-PAC Contribution 

.Re(Juestor: John BruHn, Vl', Washinglon ()peratioll~ 

Company: TeJetlyne Brown Engineering 

For eontribution~ (rom tbt mY.PAC, Ibe following should be prllvided: 

1. Candidate Name: Marcy Kaptur 

2. PoJjtical Party: Democmt 

3. Current Office fIeld: 911> l)istrid; U.s. Representative (OH) 

4. Candidate Address: P.O. Box S99 

Toledo, OU 43697 

5 •. Purpose ofOisbll.rsement(*): 'Request from member 

6. Office Sought: ReJection 

7. Iadicate irfor Primary, General or Other (des(~ribe): (;clleml 

8.· Indicate date of eledion: November 2008 

9. Date of Disbursement: Immediute 

10. Check Payable to: Kapturfor Congress 

11. Amount of Disbursement! $.1 ,000.00 

12. Pnwide au 10 or }i'EC # (or fhe Candidate: COOl54625 

13. Telepbone Number of Candidate: 419~693~OO78 

14. Illdicate who should receive the signed check and by wbat date: 

John BmuD, as soon as possible. 

15. Jndicate if a late colltribution report is ncee8,.'1ary: No 

If n«eS8"n'. provide the appropriate f<?E!!!. !!! r'cl!0rt thc contriblltion. 

• Provide lIny and alllitc.tatUrc or fund-raising request informution from the candidate 

TDY003G1 

09-?tI/i4_15 
32 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with Insert graphic folio 38 55499A.016

Page 2 

Request for TDY-PAC Contribution 

Candidate Name: Marcy Kaptur 

Jndicat~ why supporting the candidate is consistent with tbe mission of 

TDY":PAC 

In what <!apacit)l docs the candidate serve in their political tol'" (as a committee 

member/appropriatioos fun~lion etc?)? 

Comnoinee on Appropriatioos: Suooommilroc 011 o.f=; Subc<:>mmittee on Transportation, 

Housing and Urban Development alld Related Agencies; Subeommittee on AQiclllture. Ruml 

Dt:velopmenl, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencks. 

How irnpotf<int is me candidate's sponsOl:Sl.ip .ny I'rogranl$ we ale involved in? 

Represents the district where Teledyne Turbine Engines is located, and IS a member of lite 

""bcommiltee allocating Defense fullding. 

How hie are Ute program., if any. the en"didate supports? 

N/A 

Who is tbe competition Ii". the programs'? 

N/A 

What dollar rev..,ue does the program bring to Teledyne Technol<>gies? 

Upward oUIOO ,"il1ion. 

is the eaooi<llll<) io a position II) IJIwfi.lly innlletlce the funding or tlte ultimate a'_dt .... recipietll 

<~f the g(..wernment? 

Absolutely. 

Has TOY int(;raeted wilh too el>IIdida!e in the past'l 

Yes. 

An)l other infOrmation tbat is ",levant 

C:\OOCUMF .... l\mrudyIl..OCAL'H~remp\nutes~lJ261K""'lu< PAC RequestA<lc OSlO4lOO 9:S!} AM 
33 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with Insert graphic folio 39 55499A.017

EXHIBIT 6 
34 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with Insert graphic folio 40 55499A.018

CONFIDENTIAL 

Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions ofB. Res. 8950fthe 110th Congress as Amended 

IN RE: 

REVIEW#s: 

DATE: 

LOCATION: 

TIME: 

PARTICIPANTS: 

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENT A TIVES 

MEMORANDUM OF INTERVIEW 

Legislative AtTairs Director for Teledyne Controls 

09-1583; 09-4486; 09-9063; 09-9064; 09-9075; 09-9099 

October 6, 2009 

Teledyne Controls 

501 Continental Boulevard 

El Segundo, CA 90245 

2 p.m. to 3 p.m. (approximately) 

Kedric L. Payne 

Omar Ashmawy 

Melanie Cibik 

David Berardinelli 

SUMMARY: The Legislative Affairs Director for Teledyne Controls (hereatler the "witness") 

was interviewed pursuant to the above referenced Review Numbers. The OCE requested an 

interview with the witness on July 22. 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 wamingand 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 has been employed with Teledyne Controls since .1996. He is responsible 

for researching potential projects when: the company can compete for business. 

3. He is involved with the company's political action committee (hereafter "PAC"), which 

he helped to create in 2001. He promotes the PAC within the company and is responsible 

for arranging the payroll deductions for the PAC. 

4. The reason for establishing the PAC was to support the Members of Congress who 

supported the company's business objectives. The PAC is for business development and 

access to Members. 

5. PMA advised the company with setting up the PAC and the idea was that the PAC would 

assist with putting the company on the radar of Members who could assist the company 

with federal funding, specifically defense appropriations. 

MOl - Page 10f2 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 

09-966-U8 
35 


bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with Insert graphic folio 41 55499A.019

CONFIDENTIAL 

SubJect to the Nondisclosure Provisions ofB. Res. 895 of the II Oth Congress as Amended 

6. By contributing, the company's representatives attended fundraisers and could see the 

members of Congress and discuss the palh of pOlcnliallegislation. 

7. PJI,1A's advice on how the PAC should contribute was based on the past support the 

Representative provided to the company and the committee on which they served. 

8. The specific amount that PMA recommended for the contributions was based on the 

amount of money that the Member was trying to raise. 

9. For example, the witness attended a timdraiser for Representative Murtha and he was 

able to speak to the Member and he believes that he intluenced him in a "good way". 

10. PMA did not suggest that Members were pressuring companies to make contributions. 

Howevcr, he could deduce that the level of contributions had an impact on obtaining 

eatmarks from PMA's perspective. PMA did not specifically say that you must contribute 

to get an eannark. 

I I. When making contributions, the witness says that it docs go through your mind whether 

you are buying influence. 

12. PMA advised the company's PAC on one occasion not to contribute because there would 

be no face time with the Member. 

13. The witness recalls attending the fundraiser for Representative Tiahrt. The witness told 

Representative Tiahrt about the specifics of the company's project. The witness also 

attended a fundraiser at a hockey g3me for Representative Tiahrt. Representative 

Tiahrt's Military Legislative Assistant attended all of the fundraisers. 

This memorandum was prepared on November J 9, 2009, based on the notes that the OCE staff 

prepared during the interview with the witness on October 6, 2009. 1 certifY that this 

memorandum contains all pertment matter discussed with the witness on October 6, 2009. 

Kechic L. Payne 

Investigative Counsel 

MOT - Page 2 of2 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS