Skip to main content
Home
Campaign Legal Center
Main Menu

Header

  • The Latest
  • Issues
    • Campaign Finance
    • Ethics
    • Redistricting
    • Voting Rights
  • Cases & Actions
  • About
    • Staff
    • Trustees & Advisors
    • Careers
    • Support Our Work

Header Secondary

  • Contact CLC
  • Media Center
  • Get Updates
  • Search
  • Donate

Filter by Type

  • Article (253)
  • Case / Action (47)
  • (-) Document (584)
  • (-) Media Mention (0)
  • Press Release (226)

Filter by Issue Area

  • Campaign Finance (1581)
  • (-) Ethics (194)
  • (-) Redistricting (399)
  • Voting Rights (635)

Filter by Document Type

  • Decision (53)
  • Document (531)

Filter by Case/Action Status

Displaying 581 - 584 of 584 Results

Bartlett v Strickland Decision

Decision
Date
June 4, 2015

Bartlett v Strickland Amicus Brief

Document
Date
June 4, 2015

Public Citizen Report: The Case for Independent Ethics Agencies

Document

This analysis finds that the work of the Office of Congressional Ethics has had a dramatic impact on the activity and accountability of the House Ethics Committee. As shown below, the number of disciplinary actions taken by the House Ethics Committee – though certainly not large in overall numbers – increased drastically in the six short years that OCE has been operating as compared to the full previous decade of the Committee’s history. From 1997 through 2005, the House Ethics Committee issued only five recorded disciplinary actions against Members or staff of the House. From 2006 through 2008, the three years highlighted by the Abramoff scandal that resulted in nearly two dozen convictions or guilty pleas by the Department of Justice,2 the House Ethics Committee again issued only five disciplinary actions. But the House Ethics Committee has issued 20 disciplinary actions between 2009 and 2014, largely done with the help of the investigations and transparency of OCE. [See Appendix A, “Congressional Ethics Enforcement: From Decade of Inaction to OCE Period of Accountability.”] 

Wolfson v. Concannon: Order of the Ninth Circuit to Rehear Case En Banc

Decision
Case
Wolfson v. Concannon

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a) and Circuit Rule 35-3. Judges McKeown and Murguia did not participate in the deliberations or vote in this case.

Pagination

  • First page «
  • Previous page ‹
  • …
  • Page 26
  • Page 27
  • Page 28
  • Page 29
  • Current page 30

Footer menu

  • About CLC
    • Staff
    • Board & Advisors
    • Careers
  • Support Our Work
    • Our Donors
    • Financials
  • Toolkits and Resources
    • DemocracyU
    • Stop Secret Spending
    • Restore Your Vote

Footer Social

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Footer Secondary

  • Contact CLC
  • The Latest
  • Media Center
© Campaign Legal Center 2020

Footer Legal

  • Privacy Policy