c-spanshop.org. washington journal continues >> -- host: dave levinthal is editor

and chief of the publication raw story. peer to talk to us about congress and in particular ethical violations --here to talk to us about congress and in particular ethical violations. tell us about the focus of your organization. guest: raw story was founded in 2004. we have an around for a while. raw story is very much about covering news happening in the minute. you can find lots of reporting on their website about everything happening in politics, but in 2023 we want to expand and we went to increasingly do incisive, enterprising, original, investigative journalism that will not just be telling you about things that are in the news environments right now but

also uncovering lots of news you do not know and will not find in any other publication. host: what is your business model? guest: we are an independent news organization. that differentiates us. john burns is the ceo to this day. our funding comes from advertising, subscriptions increasingly, and we have a lot of dedicated readers i was delighted to find out are not only reading a story here and there but day in and day out. host: you bring a strong background in investigative reporting with insider, particularly focused on congressional ethics and the financial trades of members in the past. your latest reporting includes the senate ethics committee and these sort of lack of any enforcement on the senate side. the headline of your peace is --

piece is " senators attempt to explain why other senators -- there is not even a slap on the wrist, dave? guest: as we'll know the senate and house are not lacking -- we all know the senate and house are not lacking for scandals, whether they be financial, or legal. the senate ethics committee on the senate side is there for that very reason to investigate and get to the bottom of matters where another member of congress can lodge a complaint. our analysis of the records available show there have been

1523 complaints of which 204's pond a preliminary investigation by the ethics committee -- 204 spawned a preliminary investigation by the ethics committee. the number was zero. that was shocking to a number of people. our investigation tried to answer, "why is this in the first place?' guest: how does the senate ethics committee function? the house has slap to wrists of members, but here 0 for 2, -- host: --

guest: there has been a lot more action on the house side, including sanctions that have been issued, censures, reprimands in the last few years. you may remember paul gosar, the representative from arizona for a video he had published about alexandria because io cortez, a congresswoman -- alexandria because io cortez alexandria-- -- alexandria ocasio cortez. he was censured for that. others have nothing to do with that. laszlo, r congressional correspondent caught up with two members of the senate ethics committee. this is a very secretary of -- very secretive part of congress.

they're not matter of public record. much of the work being done by the senate ethics committee, a bipartisan body, is done out of public view, behind closed doors. matt was able to talk to 2 of them and, put the question to them "why is this the case? you do not do anything when it comes to putting the screws to members of congress." the democrat from delaware did not want to talk about it. he reserved his right to not talk about it. senator rich from idaho, republican he talked in great detail to us about the work they do. he made the case "we look into these seriously. this is a bipartisan affair. he noted there were seven letters that went out about were letters of admonition where they

admonished members of the senate for things that were found to be either financial or otherwise and said 'do not do that again', " but they are not considered to be a formal sanction or penalty at all. host: dave levinthal is the guest. we are talking about congressional ethics violations. (202) 748-8001 is the line for republicans. it is (202) 748-8000 for democrats and (202) 748-8002 for independents and all others. on the senate side, raw story caught up with abigail spanberger of virginia and talked to her about speaker pelosi trying to pass the stock act. what is the status of the stock

act? guest: those two investigations came together in a way. that has been an issue on the house side all throughout congress. what we are talking about here is the stock trading on congressional knowledge act, which was a law put in act by congress a decade ago in 2012 to police the conflicts of interest of members of congress. the house and senate ethics committees, both of them they are more or less in charge of making sure lawmakers are doing the right thing, but in my previous work at insider where i had been up until a few months ago and continuing on in raw story, we have found dozens of examples of members of congress violating the stock active. many violations have to do with failing to disclose the fact that members are buying and

selling stock in all sorts of different companies. some companies they lobby congress, they are reliant on huge contracts from the federal government. a good example is what we are seeing in the past year with the war in ukraine. we have members of congress voting on a massive bill. they own stock personally and companies, such as boeing, raytheon, and other contractors whose business model is built on the work they do with the federal government and the money they will receive are not based on the actions of congress themselves. host: staff is involved, particularly high-level staff. guest: staff members, chiefs of staff, legislative directors, they can buy and sell stock too.

abigail spanberger is one of a growing members of congress who say " enough is enough. we should ban members of congress and their spouses and children from engaging in this activity in the first place, or at minimum we should force everyone to put their stock assets in a blind trust or somebody else would be managing their money in a formalized way>" nancy pelosi has been in the center of this crucible. she has been reluctant to move forward in pushing for a ban and that was controversial in the democratic caucus. it is a weird bipartisan issue in this sense that abigail spanberger and chip roy agree on effectively nothing but they agree on this issue and are cosponsoring a bill that would do what we described. host: on the voters end of

things, do you look at the voters' view of ethics in congress. i think this would be very much on voters' minds, how much they are beholden to their investments. guest: we found the exact opposite to be true. numerous polls now, there must have been half a dozen done, that put that question to voters. what would you like to see done? republicans, democrats, and independents, in vast majorities on all ends say " congress should ban itself from engaging in that activity." that is the public sentiment you get in fairly rare fashion given that democrats and republicans are usually at opposite ends of

the spectrum. host: dave levinthal is our guest. we will go to diane first and, montebello, california. caller: mr. levinthal, i would like for you to comment on -- there are a lot of properties being purchased by foreign investors, especially in florida, california. it is making homeownership almost impossible for young americans of all races. it is nearly impossible to purchase a first home. many people in the congress have investments in these foreign countries, such as china and other countries. has your organization explored those kinds of conflicts of

interest, especially regarding buying a lot of our land in the united states? host: -- guest: the caller seized on an issue i think we will hear more about in 2023. republicans in congress have raised the issue of foreign ownership of property in the united states. it is an issue we are hearing a little more about. as to the members of congress themselves and the color;s quest -- caller's question about what kinds of properties that members of congress own, we found many members of congress are landlords. we were just talking about stocks. this is real estate. this can manifest itself in a number of different ways from family farms, long-held

homesteads to commercial property that they are getting checks from, from people who rent or lease that property, including a few members of congress who have significant real estate holdings, perhaps something that would be more far afield than a stock holding in a business -- a company doing business in congress. how -- host: how much does a representative or a senator have to reveal on an annual financial statement? guest: as you mentioned, an annual financial statement has to be issued every year by members of congress. holdings, real estate they may have, even cryptocurrency.

there are members of congress who have been playing in the cryptocurrency market, in addition to any book deals they may have, any agreements they may have with random house or whatever publisher they are working with. also debts and stock trades they have made over the course of the year. separate from that they have to file what are called periodic transaction reports and these reports basically list any stocks they have bought or sold. they are supposed to be filed within 45 days of the trade being made but what we found as many members of congress are terrible at doing this for one reason or another either because of negligence are not directing their stock rocher or financial advisor to do so. the public does not see this information they are publicly entitled to. host: if they are buying or

selling land or other property investments do they have to report that,? guest: only on an annual basis. periodic reports apply to stocks, cryptocurrency holdings. host: let's hear from stephen, alexandria, virginia. caller: thanks for raising this issue. i come from the financial services industry. i spent 15 years as a financial service employee for an individual brokerage. we operated -- two points -- we operated under very strict controls. we were not permitted to do any trading that was equivalent to what we were suggesting or what our clientele was doing, so we

were actually being monitored by our employer to make sure that if my client x holds a certain stock, i did not do the same thing or anything like it. there were very strict controls. i think those controls should be imposed upon our government workers. the second thing is that we were, as employees, compensated, rewarded, merited by our ability to achieve certain metrics. i thing to the government should -- i think the government should also operate that way. is the budget passed on time? if we impose those roles on our government workers, we would have a much more functional system. host: dave levinthal?

guest: i spoke with representative abigail spanberger from virginia a couple weeks ago and we published an interview with her on this topic. a point she has made and others who would like to see greater controls is that the rules and regulations for those who work in private industry, corporate industry are much more strict when it comes to the information they have to provide publicly about their personal trades, or the restrictions they have right out of the gate than members of congress. if -- unless congress acts to change the rules of the road as they are written in today than the status quo will be maintained. i should also note too there are problems that are continuing.

we found two members of congress, gerry connolly from virginia, who failed to disclose his stock trades on time. seth moulton, it democrat from massachusetts, same deal. there will likely be others as we go through this year. is there a problem there? demonstrably! members of congress are not following their own current law. what is being grappled with right now is what will congress do, if anything, to ameliorate the situation and make it better so at minimum members of congress are following their pre-existing rules. host: the problem begins with they make their own rules. guest: they do. this is not picking on congress right now but this is an issue that has been very problematic in the executive branch, in the

judiciary, the new york times, sludge. another independent -- host: you mentioned matt laszlo. tell us about other areas of focus your reporters are working on for raw story. guest: we have done a lot of reporting on jordan green. a fantastic reporter on my team published a 5000 word profile about ellie alexander, someone who was instrumental on creating the situation here on january 6, 2021 but has largely been able to avoid any prosecution or legal jeopardy. we talked to him in addition to reporting thoroughly about the situation as it is now. that will be an issue we will be following in 2 it must be

challenged023. host: -- following in 2023. host: it must be hard wanting longform stories in a world where people want short content. guest: very urgent reporting informs the investigations you are doing. you are seeing what people care about, what readers are responding to, what questions they have. we hear from our readers for better or worse. we pay attention and ask questions based on feedback and information we are getting from the people who are coming to raw story. host: susan in rockville, connecticut, democrats' line. caller: i'm calling -- i am a

member of a group. we are mostly older liberal ladies from connecticut. we are reading " madam speaker." we are critical of what the other side are saying, that we are be out of firing her. why does the other side dislike her so much? is itan -- is it an ethics violation what she did when she refused to see the bill about refusing people investing in stock? how -- if we look critically at both sides may be we would make more progress. guest: the caller makes a great

point. if republicans screw up, we will point that out. if democrats screw up we will point that out too. nancy pelosi was a central figure in the saga about personal finances of members of congress because in late december of 2021, she said we live in a free-market economy and members of congress should be able to participate in that economy. agree with it or don't agree but what that set in motion was a lot of anger, and even fury among republicans who are very happy to beat up nancy pelosi over a statement such as that would also many democrats who say we should not be participating in a free market economy as lawmakers because we receive privileged information. we are party to -- we know more

about what is happening in the corporate world than the average american and as a result of having that information as a result of being in that position we should hold ourselves to a different standard. nancy pelosi diddled to mentally say, " democrats, republicans, you can push forward with bills ," but in the end they didn't bring it to the floor. that was ostensibly the decision of house leadership and something nancy pelosi said she wanted. host: a question on the ethics process on twitter asking exactly what happens to congressional officials when they violate ethics? they don't seem to be ever fired just censured. how can change happen if they are only slapped on the wrist

every time? guest: it is very rare to expel a member of congress, but it is something that has happened in u.s. it is very rare. on the house side you have to go back to the representative from ohio, a democrat who was kicked out of congress because of a myriad number of things he had done that were illegal -- host: but he was kicked out after he was indicted. guest: absolutely. you have to do something so egregiously wrong in congress where it gets to the point where it is being debated among your colleagues as to whether you should still continue to serve as a elected member of congress or be kicked out of the body. incredibly rare. there have been censures and reprimands, fines, other types of penalties and sanctions that have been issued over the years.

but as we just talked about, very rare on the senate side in modern history come out more on the house side but it is a protracted process on both the house and the senate side were sometimes it may take years before ultimately one of the ethics committees comes to a conclusion on a member and they have -- no longer have jurisdiction if a member leaves. if somebody resigns under pressure, if they leave congress because they were voted out by voters, effectively an ethics committee investigation will end at that point. host: does a sensor mean anything? does it mean they can't serve on a committee? guest: it depends but it definitely is essential. the body itself has voted on this notion and the member of congress will have to more or

less operate under that cloud for perpetuity until they leave public office. but it is not something where they will automatically lose the committee. it is not something where they will get kicked out. that is a different kind of vote altogether. a lot of people have in the public then left wanting as a result of feeling justice has not been served this intramural process congress has. host: will go next to atlanta. you are on the air. caller: good morning. it should not be surprised there is no ethics in congress. i think we can watch the news and figure that out, that they are not an ethical, good group of folks. i enjoy c-span because of its independent news and i am looking forward to reading some of your news articles and coverage. i'm wondering, is it going to be an apple or a website, a

subscription, is it free? i'm curious also, how are you going to work to make -- maintain the independent title? how are you going to separate yourself from the mainstream picking aside news organizations? host: thanks. c-span.org -- host: -- guest: there are a number of different ways to interface with our news organization. how do we maintain independent? we have editorial independence. we are not owned by some large corporation or anything of that sort. they're saying it is a very flat -- and we are a small organization too. try to be as responsible as we possibly can from our readers and we would love to hear from our readers too. it does differentiate us from other types of organizations out there. host: you mentioned members investing in cryptocurrency and

the headline, a piece last week in mother jones, sam bankman-fried commend the founder of ftx currency indicted for hundreds of illegal campaign donations. he donated in 20 20, aside from naming stadiums he made a lot in campaign donations. what are we hearing? guest: this is going to be a big scandal going forward and it may be one of the biggest campaign-finance related investigations we have had in a long time in u.s. history. just a step back for a moment, i would like to make the point, to the caller's point, that the big issue in congress and with people trying to influence members of congress, a lot of members try to do the right thing only about half of all of congress is engaging actively in cryptocurrency or stock trades. many say i don't think that is right, i'm going to not engage

in the type of activity. yet we do see continued problems with not only the people who are receiving the money but also the people who are giving the money. for better or for worse, we have a system in place that is very laissez-faire. that is in part because of a series of the supreme and federal court decisions that come down. citizens united and the federal elections commission the most notable. it made it easier to donate money, to pump money into the political process and in some cases do so in a way where it is not public information. where is not readily apparent who is the force behind the dollars. sam bankman-fried allegedly is very much at the center of that type of activity that may cause lawmakers and definitely is already causing the public to

reconsider whether the current rules right now are adequate to prevent against illegal activity or the types of money related -- politics and money related activities that is illegal by federal law today. host: on the subject of hearings, toward the end of the hundred eighteenths, --excuse me, 100 17th. any case --chad's hundred 18 will take this up? guest: usually needs on the big and bad happening for congress to get together in a bipartisan fashion, especially with a divided congress, republicans controlling the house and democrats controlling the senate, to move something forward. we have seen that with the stock issue. it is not impossible. it is not to say they will pass some thing different than what exists today but the wheels of progress are in motion on that

and perhaps in a surprising way that would not be typical for congress. campaign-finance is probably a bigger ask at this point. however, a scandal such as this could change the minds of members of congress, especially those who are concerned that they may themselves be tarred by things that may be detrimental to themselves, their party and their colleagues. it is an issue of great self-interest. just like with stock and cryptocurrency, campaign money, the rules are again made by congress. it will take some thing pretty big to get congress to more or less try to restrict its own ability to fund raise and fuel the political money machine which is never ending and always spinning fast. >> to philadelphia, frank on the independent line. go ahead. you're on the air. frank in philly, going once. will move to daniel in seaside,

california. go ahead. caller: good morning. this is -- these are not what these issues --it is not on the guy really thought a lot about. i have a few thoughts in my head right now about it. one of them is that members of congress also have financial needs. like everyone else. everyone is looking for financial security. and of course, themselves regulating is the problem obviously. one thing i'm thinking of is there needs to be some outside body that looks at this stuff because --instead of them looking at themselves because they all sympathize with each other obviously. so what i'm thinking is --i mean, it is not like they decide on whether or not they're going

to help ukraine in order to make money off of it. they saying let's help ukraine and by the way, you're going to make some money if we invest in boeing now and stuff like that. i don't think it is so cut and dry that this is always a good probe quote -- quid pro quo situation. it is just members of congress knowing, having inside information that all of us have. the only problem is they get to vote on whether or not certain things are done, which potentially can make certain companies money, which could cause them to decide to invest. i don't know what the solution is. i just think it is not always so cut and dry and i guess one solution would be not allowing them to regulate themselves. have some sort of outside body doing it. host: appreciate that.

guest: i would agree. every situation is going to be different when it comes to numbers of congress investing their personal money in stocks and companies that are working with government. one example where this became a big issue was in the weeks immediately before the pandemic ripped united states in march of 2020. there were several senators, one who still remains in the senate, dianne feinstein and others who have made trades that were objectively suspect and they were trading in companies that were very pandemic sensitive. we did not know it was going to be bad at that point or how bad it was going to be, if and when it would reach the united states. they were all investigated. they were investigated by the senate ethics committee, in some cases by the department of justice getting involved. nothing became of it in any material fashion but that was

the example of the question that well, the senate and congress had more information about what was going on in the world that was typically coming in and filtering out to the public. were they acting in a way that was under the cold war illegal by buying and selling based on what information they got specifically dust that was unethical or illegal by buying or selling -- host: the republican line. >> yes, i had a question. i was listening to the wars in washington, d.c.. i'm curious, if you are a lobbyist you can --he would say i did that i need 10 trees on my block.

but if eyes a citizen when, give me 10 trees and i can give you 10 thousand dollars, i could be locked up for bribery. but we can tell ukraine, japan how to run their business, but those of philadelphia, pennsylvania, any city across the state, they are not learning this. we can tell anybody how to run this and will not but we can get the goofballs in washington, d.c. to do the right thing. the gentleman call before me sewed about two thousand dollars. we can work a lifetime and never make $20,000 a year. he's got to bring home like 20,000 dollars a month, not counting other benefits, free health care, free car, free airplane ride. if you had me do that in the real world, would be terminated. host: conrad, we will hear from

our guest, thanks for the call. guest: i like talking about philadelphia, other municipalities, the county level. the different levels make their own rules. this type of activity also happens at the state and local level with elected officials engaging in personal financial trades. all of those jurisdictions are going to have the ability to make their own rules of the road, separate and apart from what the federal government is doing. the last few colors -- callers, they said why --the department of justice does have the ability, if there is a width of commonality or something that could be a potential criminal offense, they can investigate. and we have had examples that go john edwards, the former senator and prosocial candidate, a

democrat from north carolina who was investigated by the department of justice for campaign-finance related activities. there are other examples, plenty as well over the past 20 or 30 years. on the house side there is an independent body, the office of congressional ethics, but does exist to be an independent check on congress. the issue with them is that they are more or less an advisory body. they can investigate, they can submit a report on the very detailed to the health and --house ethics committee. they can vote and make recommendations but the recommendations are not binding and the ethics committee will have to choose to bottom-line act on the recommendations of the office of congressional ethics or not. and the stats show clearly that oftentimes they do not. so the senate on the other hand does not have any body even of

that sort, advisor or otherwise, a lot of public affairs advocates and go --good government groups have advocated for the senate having an analogous organization to assist with investigations at work. host: on this office of congressional ethics, members don't serve on that. things are run by career employees, correct? guest: correct. that was by design. the office of congressional ethics would have the half-staff away from the process and not be introduced -- influenced directly by members of congress who may be on--under investigation by the body. whisk a call from sean, independent line. caller: how you doing? you guys always do a great job. i was curious if there is a reset button, you can just get them all.

and start fresh. that was a joke. moreover calling --like the sec. pull of those congress and politicians and etc., these guys don't even enforce their own laws to the congress, senators, the hedge funds and everyone who deals with all of the pension funds and all of our money, the things that really come down to it, all the congressman, why don't they enforce the laws like their supposed to? they don't to it, there are corrupted like all the politicians that are doing this legal stuff. their buddies. who can enforce that? guest: so the exchange commission does play a role. you can talk about a lot of people who are not too happy and

are worried about what they might do. but the sec did get involved in one of the pandemic era stock trade situations. a former congressman republican from north carolina was subject to an sec inquiry, they chose not to go forward it --forward with anything that would headliner sentient him. very high bar that exists within a governmental entity going after in this politicized word -- world that we live in. an elected member of the senate or the house, obviously president or former president of the united states, the classified documents brouhaha that has got donald trump, biden and mike pence and others involved. that is one of those things where the department of justice got a special counsel to get

involved simply because they're so concerned about the almost political liability that comes with assuming like duties --that is politicized. host: you mention the department of justice. they have a division that is overseeing the attorneys and staff to follow what goes on and the results of congressional ethics committees? guest: they do. they have a public integrity division and they have people who specialize in internal government functions. if it is an elected official, and appointed official, a bureaucrat, someone who is working for the government and getting a taxpayer of the paycheck, they would look into that matter. host: one more call, lee in new york, republican line. caller: hi. first off, when dianne feinstein was accused of insider trading

she said it's not my phone my husband did it, that i called about asg. it seems like a social, governing thing that companies arrced to put part of their money into that because --i don't really know why. it seems to be an awful thing. the third thing is if stone is the fcc director, that is very dangerous. host: a couple of things. dave? guest: there is the issue --it would extend to spouses and dianne feinstein was not the one typically trading stocks and her family it was her family. nancy pelosi, she does not trade stocks personally, her husband however trades tens and millions of dollars worth of stocks and

stock options per year. they are a married couple. you would assume that they have the ability if they don't outrightly talk about their own personal household finances. so we can face what every single member of congress and their spouse are doing behind closed doors in private when it comes to talking about their personal finances. but the argument being made by members of punkers and others who would like to ban this practice is that we should air on the side of caution. we should air on the side of getting members of congress out of the stock business along with their spouses soda there's no opportunity for them to engage in activity that would betray the public trust in them as elected officials. host: we will ask viewers and listeners to

start your day with "quarks journal." the only nationally televised show discussing issues across the country. >> gives people to talk about issues they care about. >> join our three-hour live conversation with congressional members. >> c-span is a great institution where speech is sometimes unpopular. >> and washington influencers. >> thanks for being a balanced discussion. nobody does as well as c-span. >> watch "washington journal" live every morning on c-span, c-span now or online at c-span. org. . .

>> the house returns for legislative business at 5:00 eastern time. members will debate a resolution expressing condolences for turkish andyrian earthquake victimsnd later in the week the house will te up legislation requiring the biden administration publish the inflationary impact of any future executive orders. also, a bill to repeal a labor depament rule, allowing retirement plan managers to consider environmental, social, and corporate governance factors inheir investments. watch live coverage of the house here on c-span. >> attorney general merrick garland testifies before the 118th congress. he's expected to be asked about the recent indictment of a former f.b.i. official, as well as several other ongoing justice department investigations. watch live coverage of the senate judiciary committee hearing on c-span3 and watch