" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

111TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REVIEW NO. 

09–4486 

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES 

————— 

Report and Findings 

Transmitted to the 

Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 

on December 2, 2009 

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

110th Congress as amended 

December 2009 


steuser on CDPSPC3PFRM with REPORTSE:\Seals\Congress.#13
House of Representatives Office of Congressional Ethics Review No. 09–4486 


steuser on CDPSPC3PFRM with REPORTS
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

54–539 

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

111TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REVIEW NO. 

2009

09–4486 

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES 

————— 

Report and Findings 

Transmitted to the 

Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 

on December 2, 2009 

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

110th Congress as amended 

December 2009 


steuser on CDPSPC3PFRM with REPORTSE:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

OFFICE OF 

CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 

BOARD 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

DAVID SKAGGS, Chair 

PORTER GOSS, Co-Chair 

YVONNE BURKE 

KAREN ENGLISH 

ALLISON HAYWARD 

JAY EAGEN 

WILLIAM FRENZEL 

ABNER MIKVA 

Leo J. Wise, Chief Counsel & Staff Director 

Kedric L. Payne, Investigative Counsel 


steuser on CDPSPC3PFRM with REPORTS
(1) 

REPORT 

Review No. 09–4486 

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 Peter Visclosky 

NATURE OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION: In fiscal year 2009, 

Representative Peter Visclosky authored several earmarks for clients of PMA Group, Inc. (hereafter ‘‘PMA’’). During campaign cycles 2008 and 2010, Representative Visclosky 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. In March 

2008, Representative Visclosky solicited PMA clients for campaign 

contributions and provided them with special access to him and his 

staff one week before authoring their earmarks. 

If Representative Visclosky 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 Visclosky 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 further review 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. 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
(3) 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 3 

A. Summary of Allegations ................................................................... 3 

B. Jurisdictional Statement .................................................................. 3 

C. Procedural History ............................................................................ 4 

D. Summary of Investigative Activity .................................................. 4 

II. REPRESENTATIVE VISCLOSKY SOLICITED PMA CLIENTS FOR 

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND PROVIDED THEM WITH SPECIAL ACCESS TO HIM AND HIS STAFF ONE WEEK BEFORE 

AUTHORING THEIR EARMARKS .......................................................... 8 

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

B. Representative Visclosky’s Staff Instructed PMA Clients to Submit Their Fiscal Year 2009 Earmark Requests to His Office 

by February 15, 2008 ..................................................................... 11 

C. Representative Visclosky’s Campaign Solicited PMA Clients for 

Campaign Contributions on February 27, 2008 ........................... 13 

D. Representative Visclosky Hosted a Fundraiser Specifically for 

PMA Clients and Other Defense Contractors Requesting Earmarks on March 12, 2008 .............................................................. 15 

E. Representative Visclosky Requested Earmarks for PMA Clients 

on March 19, 2008 .......................................................................... 16 

F. PMA Clients’ Perceptions of Link Between Campaign Contributions and Earmark Requests ......................................................... 18 

III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 21 

IV. INFORMATION THE OCE WAS UNABLE TO OBTAIN AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS ............... 22 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
(5) 

1 As per Rule 9 of the OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS, RULES FOR THE CONDUCT OF INVESTIGATIONS 11 (2009), ‘‘in the event the Office is unable to obtain information necessary to reach 

that determination [that there is substantial reason to believe the allegations], but the Board 

does determine there is probable cause to believe the allegations, the Board may refer the matter to the Standards Committee for further review.’’ See also H. Res 895, 110th Cong. § 1(c)(2)(B) 

(2008) (as amended). 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CITATIONS TO LAW 

Review No. 09–4486 

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

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

findings of fact and accompanying citations to law, regulations, 

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

these findings do not constitute a determination of whether or not 

a violation actually occurred. 

I. INTRODUCTION 

A. SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS

1. There is probable cause to believe that Representative Visclosky 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. Because Representative Visclosky, his former Chief of Staff, and his 

former Appropriations Director, have declined to interview with the 

OCE, and because the OCE cannot compel their cooperation, the 

OCE is unable to determine whether there is a substantial reason 

to believe these allegations.1

B. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

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

Representative Visclosky, a Member of the United State House of 

Representatives from the 1st District of Indiana. The Resolution 

the United States House of Representatives adopted creating the 

Office of Congressional Ethics (hereafter ‘‘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 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
6 

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. 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). 

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 

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. 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 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 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 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. 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
7 

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 client 

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. 

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; 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
8 

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

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

Inc.; 

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

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

(43) General Manager, AAR Composites; 

(44) Chief Operating Officer, AAR Composites; 

(45) Chief Executive Officer, Applied Global Technologies; 

(46) Vice President, Applied Global Technologies; 

(47) PAC Treasurer, DRS Technologies; 

(48) President, DRS Technologies; 

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

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

(51) Director, Optimal Solutions & Technologies; 

(52) CEO, Samueli Institute; 

(53) Vice President, Sierra Nevada Corporation; 

(54) Congressional Affairs Director, Sierra Nevada Corporation; 

(55) Assistant to Business Development Director, Teledyne 

Continental Motors, Inc.; 

(56) Business Development Director, Teledyne Continental 

Motors, Inc.; 

(57) PAC Treasurer, Teledyne Controls; 

(58) General Manager, Teledyne Controls; 

(59) Vice President, Teledyne Controls; 

(60) Director of Contracts, Teledyne Controls; 

(61) Contract Administrator, Teledyne Controls; 

(62) Legislative Affairs Director, Teledyne Controls; 

(63) Associate General Counsel, Teledyne Controls; 

(64) President, Teledyne Controls; 

(65) PMA Lobbyist 1; 

(66) PMA Lobbyist 2; 

(67) PMA Lobbyist 3; 

(68) PMA Lobbyist 4; 

(69) PMA Lobbyist 5; and 

(70) PMA Lobbyist 6; 

II. REPRESENTATIVE VISCLOSKY SOLICITED PMA CLIENTS 

FOR CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND PROVIDED THEM 

WITH SPECIAL ACCESS TO HIM AND HIS STAFF ONE 

WEEK BEFORE AUTHORING THEIR EARMARKS 

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 

. . . .’’ 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
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 (‘‘DeLay Report’’). 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 (‘‘Ethics Committee DeLay Report’’). 

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

‘‘(c) Whoever— 

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

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

the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly demands, 

seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of 

value personally for or because of any official act performed or to 

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

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 conVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:24 Mar 02, 2010 Jkt 054539 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 P:\54-539\54-539.TXT 54-539

steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
10 

11 Id. 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). 

tributions are connected in any way with an action taken or to 

be taken in their official capacity.’’ 11

‘‘[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 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
11 

15The Board recognizes that this email is dated prior to March 11, 2008. Nevertheless, this 

event is within the OCE’s jurisdiction because it is directly related to Representative Visclosky’s 

earmark requests that he submitted on March 19, 2008. 16 Email from Shari Davenport to undisclosed recipients, dated January 15, 2008 (Exhibit 1 

at 09–4486–2). 

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

this respect, a campaign or political contribution is treated like 

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

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

gratuities. 

B. REPRESENTATIVE VISCLOSKY’S STAFF INSTRUCTED PMA CLIENTS TO

SUBMIT THEIR FISCAL YEAR 2009 EARMARK REQUESTS TO HIS OFFICE

BY FEBRUARY 15, 2008

26. Representative Visclosky is a member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. 

27. On January 15, 2008,15 Representative Visclosky’s Appropriations Director sent an email to companies that had previously contacted the office regarding defense appropriations requests.16

28. The email notified the recipients that any defense appropriations requests must be submitted to Representative Visclosky’s office by February 15, 2008. 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
12 

17 Id. 18The Board recognizes that this solicitation was sent prior to March 11, 2008. Nevertheless, 

this event is within the OCE’s jurisdiction because it is directly related to Representative Visclosky’s campaign fundraiser that he held on March 12, 2008. 19 Email from Brian Morgan to Mike Niggel, dated February 27, 2008 (Exhibit 2 at 09–4486– 

6). 

29. Recipients of the email included PMA, which in turn forwarded the email to its clients.17

C. REPRESENTATIVE VISCLOSKY’S CAMPAIGN SOLICITED PMA CLIENTS

FOR CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS ON FEBRUARY 27, 2008

30. On February 27, 2008,18 Representative Visclosky’s campaign 

manager sent a campaign contribution solicitation to a select group 

of entities. These entities were those ‘‘requesting support from Rep. 

Visclosky on a Defense issue.’’ 19

31. PMA and PMA clients received this campaign contribution 

solicitation. 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS54539.001
13 

32. The solicitation invited donors to attend a dinner in honor of 

Representative Visclosky at a restaurant in Washington, DC, on 

March 12, 2008. 

D. REPRESENTATIVE VISCLOSKY HOSTED A FUNDRAISER SPECIFICALLY

FOR PMA CLIENTS AND OTHER DEFENSE CONTRACTORS REQUESTING

EARMARKS ON MARCH 12, 2008

33. On March 12, 2008, Representative Visclosky’s campaign 

hosted the dinner in his honor. 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS54539.002
14 

20 Email from Mike Niggel to Brian Morgan, dated February 26, 2008 (Exhibit 3 at 09–4486– 

9). 21The Board recognizes that this dinner occurred prior to March 11, 2008. Nevertheless, this 

is relevant because it explains what was expected to occur at the March 2008 fundraiser. 22 Email from PAC Treasurer, 21st Century Systems, Inc., to Bob Wichlinski, et al., dated February 26, 2008 (Exhibit 4 at 09–4486–11). 

34. The Board notes that Mark Magliocchetti, in his February 26, 

2008 email to ‘‘THEPMAGROUP2K’’, states that the March 12th 

event is for ‘‘Defense’’ and that another Visclosky event will be held 

on April 16th for ‘‘E&W’’.20 The Board infers that ‘‘E&W’’ refers to 

the Energy and Water Subcommittee of the House Appropriations 

Committee. Representative Visclosky is the chairman of this subcommittee and requests earmarks in the appropriations bill reported by the subcommittee. 

35. Representative Visclosky had a similar dinner in March 

2007.21 A PMA client that attended the dinner in 2007 commented 

that the CEO of the defense contractor ‘‘was given the ‘honorary’ 

seat at the head table sitting directly adjacent to Representative 

Visclosky and thus given the opportunity to talk about a variety of 

[the company’s] ongoing and proposed projects.’’ 22


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS54539.003
15 

23 Id. 24The contribution amounts are derived from the reports that Visclosky for Congress and Calumet PAC filed with the Federal Election Commission. 

36. The PMA client further explains to the company’s employees 

that ‘‘this opportunity to spend more than 2 hours with the congressman and his staff (both chief of staff and defense aid) would 

not have been possible without your generous contributions to the 

member and the company’s PAC.’’ 23

E. REPRESENTATIVE VISCLOSKY REQUESTED EARMARKS FOR PMA

CLIENTS ON MARCH 19, 2008

37. In March 2008, Representative Visclosky’s campaign and 

Leadership PAC received campaign contributions totaling approximately $35,300 from PMA clients. This includes contributions from 

the PAC of PMA clients and from employees of PMA clients. The 

contributions were from 21st Century Systems, Inc. ($18,500); Advanced Concepts & Technologies Intl. ($7,000); Planning Systems, 

Inc. ($7,800); and Sierra Nevada Corporation ($2,000).24

38. During the same month, Representative Visclosky’s campaign 

and Leadership PAC received campaign contributions totaling 

$12,000 from PMA’s PAC and the company’s employees. 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS54539.004
16 

25For example, Letter from Representative Peter J. Visclosky to Representative David Obey, 

Chairman, and Representative Jerry Lewis, Ranking Member, of the House Committee on Appropriations, dated March 19, 2008 (Exhibit 5 at 09–4486–13). 26 H.R. 2638, Pub. L. 110–329 (2009). 

39. On March 19, 2008, Representative Visclosky requested earmarks for six PMA clients in letters to Representative David Obey, 

Chairman, and Representative Jerry Lewis, Ranking Member, of 

the House Committee on Appropriations.25

40. The requested earmarks totaled $14,400,000, and were allocated as follows: 

(a) 21st Century Systems, Inc., $2,400,000; 

(b) Advanced Concepts & Technologies Intl., $2,400,000; 

(c) General Atomics, $2,400,000; 

(d) NuVant Systems, Inc., $2,400,000; 

(e) Planning Systems Inc., $2,400,000; and 

(f) Profile Systems, $2,400,000.26

41. The Board notes that the evidence above is primarily relevant to the allegation that Representative Visclosky solicited or 

accepted contributions in a manner which gave the appearance 

that the contributions were linked to an official act. In addition, 

the evidence is relevant to the allegation that Representative Visclosky solicited or accepted contributions in exchange for or because 

of an official act (i.e., the allegations concerning bribery and illegal 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS54539.005
17 

gratuities). However, because the OCE was unable to interview 

Representative Visclosky and his staff, the evidence is incomplete 

as to whether he in fact solicited or accepted contributions in exchange for or because of the earmark requests. As explained in 

Part III, below, the Board finds that the available evidence establishes that there is probable cause to believe that Representative 

Visclosky solicited or accepted contributions in exchange for or because of an official act. 

F. PMA CLIENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF LINK BETWEEN CAMPAIGN

CONTRIBUTIONS AND EARMARK REQUESTS

42. The OCE has acquired evidence that PMA clients seeking 

earmarks from Representative Visclosky linked contributions to his 

campaign to specific legislative acts. 

43. However, whether these documents or the information in the 

documents was shared with Representative Visclosky because he 

declined to interview with the OCE. 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
18 

27 21st Century Systems, Inc. Proposed CY 2008 Congressional Campaign Contributions (Exhibit 6 at 09–4486–15). 

44. 21st Century Systems, Inc. created a table of ‘‘Proposed 

CY2008’’ campaign contributions, which indicates the proposed contribution that the PAC will make followed by the ‘‘possible program’’, which is an earmark that Representative Visclosky requested for fiscal year 2009.27


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS54539.006
19 

28 Email from Vice President, Sierra Nevada Corporation, to John Campbell, dated February 

23, 2007 (Exhibit 7 at 09–4486–18). The Board recognizes that this email is dated prior to 

March 11, 2008. Nevertheless, this is instructive as to the state of mind of the PMA client when 

it contributed to Representative Visclosky in 2008 with a pending earmark request for fiscal 

year 2009. 

45. The Vice President of another company justifies a $20,000 

contribution to Representative Visclosky because ‘‘[w]e have gotten 

over 10M in adds from him.’’ 28


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS54539.007
20 

29 Ethics Committee DeLay Report at 15. 30 Id. 

46. 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. 

47. 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. 

48. 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. 

49. The Board notes that because the OCE was unable to interview Representative Visclosky or his staff, the Board is unable to 

conclude whether the Member was aware or not that the donor 

linked the contribution to an official act. 

III. CONCLUSION 

50. According to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 

(‘‘Standards Committee’’), a ‘‘Member should not participate in a 

fundraising event that gives even the appearance that special 

treatment or special access to the Member in his or her official capacity is being provided to donors.’’ 29

51. Specifically, the Standards Committee has found that a Member’s fundraising efforts warranted a letter of admonition because 

of factors including: (1) the ‘‘timing of the fundraiser’’ before pending legislation; (2) the ‘‘limited number of attendees’’ at the fundraiser; and (3) the ‘‘presence at the fundraiser of two key staff 

members from [The Member’s office]’’.30

52. Based on the information available to the OCE, Representative Visclosky’s actions in March 2008 were similar to those that 

the Ethics Committee admonished in the past because: (1) the timing of the fundraiser was one week before he took official action on 

behalf of the donors; (2) the attendees at the fundraiser were limited to defense contractors with pending earmark requests before 

the Representative Visclosky; and (3) Representative Visclosky’s 

Chief of Staff and Appropriations Director attended the fundraiser. 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
21 

53. Also, the documents the OCE obtained through its investigation show that PMA clients perceived a connection between appropriations requests and campaign contributions to Representative 

Visclosky. Without further information that can only be obtained 

through witness interviews with Representative Visclosky, the 

OCE cannot fully assess his role in or knowledge of what appears 

to be the linking of contributions to the receipt of earmarks. 

54. The Board recognizes that it does not have all of the information necessary to make a determination of whether there is substantial reason to believe that a violation occurred because Representative Visclosky, his former Chief of Staff, and his former Appropriations Director, have declined to interview with the OCE. 

55. However, the Board finds that there is probable cause to believe that Representative Visclosky 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. 

56. For these reasons, the Board recommends that the Standards 

Committee further review the above described allegations concerning Representative Visclosky. 

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 they were withholding it. However, absent the authority 

to subpoena the evidence in possession of the witness, it is impossible for the OCE to verify if information was withheld, but not 

documented. 

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

evidence responsive to 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 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 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 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. 

61. Representative Visclosky declined to provide the OCE with 

an interview. Representative Visclosky produced documents in response to the OCE’s request for information. However, the documents primarily consisted of earmark requests submitted to the 

Member’s office without any clear explanation of how RepresentaVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:24 Mar 02, 2010 Jkt 054539 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 P:\54-539\54-539.TXT 54-539

steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
22 

tive Visclosky and his staff determined which requests that the 

Member supported. In addition, the documents included information from Representative Visclosky’s campaign, much of which is 

publically available from the Federal Election Commission. 

62. Representative Visclosky’s former Chief of Staff, Chuck Brimmer, and his former Appropriations Director, Shari Davenport, declined an interview with the OCE. 

63. The Board makes the recommendation contained in this referral based on the factual record before it. The Board recommends 

the issuance of subpoenas. 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
23
25
26
27
29
31
32
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
48
49
51
52
53