Republican Doug LaMalfa, who represents California’s First Congressional District, is a member of the House Transportation Subcommittee on Highways and Transit and is the chief sponsor of a bill that would eliminate the 12 percent excise tax on the sale of heavy trucks, tractors, and trailers. According to the findings section of the bill, the tax adds between $12,000 and $22,000 to the cost of a heavy truck, tractor, or trailer.
While he promotes his bill and deals with related issues on the Transportation Committee, LaMalfa is simultaneously CEO of family business LaMalfa Trucking, a position that is uncompensated according to the representative’s financial disclosure.
As blatantly conflicted as it may seem for LaMalfa to push legislation that would benefit his family business, there is very little stopping House members from using their public offices to further their private business interests. The House ethics rules say that members should not use their positions to make pecuniary gains, but the Ethics manual states that legislation that benefits a whole class or group of businesses — for example, trucking companies — is exempted from the conflict-of-interest restrictions.
Sludge has found through reviewing lawmakers’ outside affiliations and their official actions in Congress that representatives routinely promote legislation that benefits their private companies. About one quarter of representatives hold outside positions. Examples uncovered by Sludge include a rep with dozens of LLCs who sponsored a bill to lower taxes on LLCs (Vern Buchanan) and a mining company officer who authored a bill to allow resource extraction companies to avoid disclosing payments made to foreign governments (Bill Huizenga). Other private companies affiliated with members of Congress are in industries such as agriculture, finance, pharmaceuticals, and media.
Several provisions in House Democrats’ omnibus campaign finance, voting, and ethics policy bill, H.R. 1, seek to limit representatives’ conflicts of interest.
Under the bill, members would no longer be allowed to serve on the board of directors of for-profit companies. The change would impact at least 15 members of the House, according to Sludge’s review of financial disclosures, but it would not affect the dozens of representatives like LaMalfa who hold positions at companies besides board seats. Corporate board members in the House include Cherry Hill Wine & Spirits director, president, secretary and treasurer Rep. David Trone (D-Maryland) and Renzel Boulevard Car Wash director, president, secretary and treasurer Rep. Roger Williams (R-Texas). This prohibition already exists for U.S. senators according to the Senate Code of Official Conduct.
Government ethics expert Craig Holman of Public Citizen told Sludge contributing reporter Justin Glawe previously that members currently on corporate boards could potentially evade the provision by dissolving their boards and forming LLCs. “H.R. 1 would not apply to most LLCs, and those [members] that it would apply to, I would expect to evade the rule,” Holman said.
Another section of H.R. 1 would add new conflict of interest language, similar to the language in House and Senate rules, to federal statute:
“No Member, officer, or employee of a committee or Member of either House of Congress may knowingly use his or her official position to introduce or aid the progress or passage of legislation, a principal purpose of which is to further only his or her pecuniary interest, only the pecuniary interest of his or her immediate family, or only the pecuniary interest of a limited class of persons or enterprises, when he or she, or his or her immediate family, or enterprises controlled by them, are members of the affected class.”
It’s unclear at this stage what the impact of this provision would be, according to Holman. “The impact entirely depends on the definition of ‘limited class,’ Holman said. “It likely does not mean an industry or even a class of persons. It is impractical, for instance, to ban a lawyer/lawmaker from promoting legislation that would affect the legal profession. But how does one narrow that exemption down to a very limited class of persons?”
H.R. 1 is co-sponsored by all House Democrats except for 16 of them who have so far declined to sign on, and no House Republicans. It is expected to be passed by the House in the coming weeks, but its future in the Senate is less certain. Democrats hold the tie-breaking vote in the Senate for a bare majority, but it takes 60 votes to stop a filibuster or bypass a threatened filibuster under current rules. Republicans are expected to filibuster the bill, which includes provisions like small-dollar campaign finance matching funds and enhancements to voting access.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.