The framers worried about corruption. Their words may now haunt the president.; The Washington Post, July 27, 2018

Editorial Board, The Washington Post; The framers worried about corruption. Their words may now haunt the president.

"The government is certain to appeal, and the matter will probably be settled in a higher court. Nonetheless, the judge’s ruling opens the way for fact-finding to proceed in the case against Mr. Trump, meaning the plaintiffs may now seek financial records of his hotel and business — as well as his tax returns, which the president has refused to divulge.

In cutting through the definitional underbrush, it’s fair to think of the emoluments clauses as the means by which the framers intended to impede corruption and ensure officials would be beholden to the public interest, not private interests. Mr. Trump has seemed heedless of such distinctions. This lawsuit could change that."

Reminder: the Trump International Hotel is still an ethics disaster; Vox, August 11, 2017

Carly Stirin, Vox; Reminder: the Trump International Hotel is still an ethics disaster

"Who’s spending all that money at the hotel? Since visitation records are not made public, The Washington Post sent reporters to the hotel every day in May to try to identify people and organizations using the facilities.

What they found was a revolving door of powerful people holding galas in the hotel’s lavish ballrooms and meeting over expensive cocktails with White House staff at the bar.

They included Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), whom Politico recently called "Putin’s favorite congressman”; Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA), who chairs the General Services Administration, the Trump hotel's landlord; and nine other Republican Congress members who all hosted events at the hotel, according to campaign spending disclosures obtained by the Post. Additionally, foreign visitors such as business groups promoting Turkish-American relations and the Romanian President Klaus Iohannis and his wife also rented out rooms.

Ethics experts — including the former top government ethics official who resigned last month — say this is exactly what they were worried about in a Trump presidency."

Think Tank Scholar or Corporate Consultant? It Depends on the Day; New York Times, 8/8/16

Eric Lipton, Nicholas Confessore, and Brooke Williams, New York Times; Think Tank Scholar or Corporate Consultant? It Depends on the Day:

"Intense advocacy by a think tank scholar is not notable in itself, but Mr. Eisenach, 58, a former aide at the Federal Trade Commission, has held another job: as a paid consultant for Verizon and its trade association.

And he has plenty of company.

An examination of 75 think tanks found an array of researchers who had simultaneously worked as registered lobbyists, members of corporate boards or outside consultants in litigation and regulatory disputes, with only intermittent disclosure of their dual roles.

With their expertise and authority, think tank scholars offer themselves as independent arbiters, playing a vital role in Washington’s political economy. Their imprimatur helps shape government decisions that can be lucrative to corporations.

But the examination identified dozens of examples of scholars conducting research at think tanks while corporations were paying them to help shape government policy. Many think tanks also readily confer “nonresident scholar” status on lobbyists, former government officials and others who earn their primary living working for private clients, with few restrictions on such outside work."