May 7, 2007 – 9:11 p.m.
Republicans have complained for months that the Democrats’ earmark disclosure rules are flawed, and now they have targeted a prominent figure to underscore their point — House Speaker
They note that the rules allowed Pelosi to certify that she had no financial interest in an earmark for repairing a pier even though her husband owns properties nearby.
No one has publicly accused the California Democrat of trying to enrich herself with the $25 million authorization for a larger waterfront redevelopment project that includes San Francisco’s Pier 35.
But Republicans contend that the situation illustrates the limitations of a new requirement that lawmakers certify that they have no financial interest at all in the earmarks they pursue.
The Speaker was able to make her certification without mentioning the properties within a several-block area of Pier 35, which are listed separately on her annual financial disclosure forms.
“Situations like these are precisely why conservatives have stressed that transparency is the best way to make the system work,” said Brad Dayspring, spokesman for the Republican Study Committee. “The public can make up their own mind about Speaker Pelosi, the earmark and whether it benefits the businesses that she profits from in the area, but the key is that they are aware of it.”
The House passed the $15 billion water resources development bill (
Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said his boss complied with the letter and spirit of the new rule and that she is simply trying to represent her constituents.
“There is certainly no intent here to go around the tough new earmark rules that are in place,” he said. “These are requests that are coming from the Port [of San Francisco]. We’re doing what we can to help the port.”
Republicans, however, say the new rule creates confusion for lawmakers when they try to determine whether a home-district project could enhance the value of their assets, even though the House ethics committee has issued guidelines.
The panel recently advised that a “financial interest” in an earmark should be flagged if it is “reasonable to conclude that the provision would have a direct and foreseeable effect on the pecuniary interests of the member or the member’s spouse.” The panel said financial interest would include gains from real estate transactions.
Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, said the new financial certification process puts the onus on lawmakers to ensure that their financial interests do not overlap with their earmark requests.
He said members should disclose anything that falls into a gray area.
“If a legislator thinks that something may look a little dodgy, they should step up to the plate and let people know,” he said. “If they don’t, it’s a lot worse.”
The new House ethics rule adopted in January requires lawmakers who seek earmarks to provide a written statement to the committee of jurisdiction, including their name; the name, address or location of the beneficiary; the purpose of the earmark; and a certification that neither they nor their spouse has a financial interest in the provision.
Pelosi submitted forms to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee certifying that her support for the waterfront project does not create a conflict of interest. In her disclosure form, Pelosi said repairs to Pier 35’s substructure were needed “to enable full cruise ship use of the pier.”
The pier, an old cruise line hub, is located several blocks from two commercial buildings owned at least in part by Pelosi’s husband, Paul.
“If Tiger Woods teed a ball up at Pelosi’s million-dollar rental property, he could easily hit the earmark in two strokes, with a slight draw to avoid the water,” said a senior Republican aide. “I don’t see how the Senate can let these projects stay in the bill with an ethics cloud hanging over them.”
Paul Pelosi has an interest of between $1 million and $5 million in each of the properties and draws annual rental income between $100,000 and $1 million from each, according to the Speaker’s 2006 financial disclosure forms.
The Speaker got a $20 million earmark for the same waterfront redevelopment project placed in a bill in July 2005, but the measure died. The following December, her husband increased his interest in one of the properties in question for an amount between $1 million and $5 million, according to financial disclosure forms.
Port spokeswoman Renee Dunn said the Speaker’s earmark could provide a boost for a local plan to bolster San Francisco’s cruise industry.
She said federal funds would go a long way toward removing the “blight” of piers that are in disrepair and would help attract a private-sector developer to invest in a plan to relocate and upgrade the city’s cruise ship terminal.
The refurbishment of Pier 35 is a relatively small piece of the larger redevelopment project, which is centered on the southeastern waterfront.
Ellen S. Miller, executive director of the Sunlight Foundation watchdog group, said that information should be used to determine the legitimacy of the Pelosi earmark.
“The judgment probably should be made on whether the refurbishment of this particular pier is within the context of the overall redevelopment of the waterfront,” she said. “You have a member who has complied with the spirit, it seems to me, and letter of the new rules.”