The July House Ethics Committee weekly summary report the Washington Post reported on last month is now available here. Wikileaks posted the document.

It makes for interesting reading, not just the snapshot of how the ethics committee works, fielding calls from the mundane to the pretty interesting, but that such a large number of members of Congress are either being investigated by the Committee or potentially being investigated. The document also offers further evidence that the newly created Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) is taking their job seriously and vigorously looking at various tips.

Other interesting pieces: As the Washington Post reported, the PMA investigation is ongoing (at least as of August), DOJ is involved and Ethics is looking at the acceptance of items of value in exchange for official acts in the case of seven Appropriators. Additionally DOJ continues to look at Rep. Mollohan (also reported by the Post) and there is a preliminary fact gathering regarding Rep. Sanford Bishop’s earmarks for the Muscogee County Junior Marshalls program, which employed his stepdaughter (related to a financial interest). That means OCE is looking at at least 9 members of Approps and half of the Defense Approps Subcommittee. Lawmakers also continue to run afoul of taking homestead tax deductions for their DC area residence (in these cases Maryland, but in the past it has also been DC) while their primary residence is in their district.

I’m sure there is more, and some of the background from the various staff activities make for interesting reading. And if anyone thought that offering losing amendments on the floor is a fool’s errand, one of the staffers listed as an activity “researching Flake amendments” under his Defense spending work.

And while the volume of Ethics Committee work is impressive, we are eager to see what comes out of it. Earmarks are part and parcel of the pay to play system here in Washington, and not surprisingly, investigations into them make up a major part of the Committee’s workload. But the proof will be in the pudding.