Arguments over European open-access plan heat up; Nature, November 12, 2018

Richard Van Noorden, Nature; Arguments over European open-access plan heat up

"Debate is intensifying over Plan S, an initiative backed by 15 research funders to mandate that, by 2020, their research papers are open access as soon as they are published.

The Europe-led statement was launched in September, but details of its implementation haven’t yet been released. And while many open-access supporters have welcomed Plan S, others are now objecting to some of its specifics.

On 5 November, more than 600 researchers, including two Nobel laureates, published an open letter calling the plan “too risky for science”, “unfair”, and “a serious violation of academic freedom” for the scientists affected; more than 950 have now signed."

Why Scott Pruitt’s living arrangement raises ethics concerns; PBS News Hour, April 3, 2018

PBS News Hour; Why Scott Pruitt’s living arrangement raises ethics concerns

"The controversies and ethical questions surrounding EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt are piling up. Most recently, ABC News reported that Pruitt was occasionally renting a room in Washington from the wife of a lobbyist for the energy industry. William Brangham learns more from Eric Lipton from The New York Times and Kathleen Clark from The University of Washington St. Louis School of Law."

Letter to the Editor "Code Of Ethics", Press & Dakotan, July 13, 2017

Letter to the Editor, George Fournier MD, FACS, Yankton, Press & Dakotan,

Code Of Ethics

"With the current controversy surrounding the permitting of CAFOs [concentrated animal feeding operations] in Yankton County and concerns being voiced about the seeming unethical and almost subliminal way the commissioners and the zoning commission have relaxed zoning laws for proposed CAFOs, I asked the question: Is there a code of ethics and principles that Yankton County commissioners must adhere to in the performance of their duties as commissioners?

A Google search of the topic as well as a search of the county web site fails to specify the code. What is out there is a Commissioners Handbook, authored by the South Dakota Association of County Commissioners (SDACC). I read the second edition. The ethics section is on page 17.

Reading the section several times gives me the sinking feeling that there are potential ethical land mines faced by the commissioners. Two of the five commissioners are officers at a local bank, and a third is described in his bio on the commissioners’ website as, “He runs a diversified operations of alfalfa, soybeans, corn and hogs. Ray sits on many agricultural-related boards and is all about the future of the industry.” Really? Is he also all about the welfare of the citizens who elected him to office?

In the ethics section of the SDACC Commissioner’s Handbook on page 18: “… they should abstain from a vote on issues on which they would profit or enhance a relationship.” Clearly there are potential ethical issues facing our commissioners that need to be cleared up.

Should these three commissioners recuse themselves from voting on CAFO issues to avoid the appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest? It is unsettling to think that Yankton County commissioners could be blatantly violating the code of ethics suggested by their association."

Government Ethics Chief Resigns, Casting Uncertainty Over Agency; New York Times, July 6, 2017

Nicholas Fandos, New York Times; Government Ethics Chief Resigns, Casting Uncertainty Over Agency

"“I don’t think anyone who comes after Walter is going to challenge the White House publicly the way that I think he did,” said Richard W. Painter, who served as ethics counsel for the George W. Bush White House. “It is a great loss.”

Mr. Painter said the administration would do itself a favor by naming a successor with experience in ethics law and a reputation for independence.

A permanent replacement for Mr. Shaub would require confirmation in the Senate, where Democrats would probably use confirmation hearings to raise grievances about what they see as Mr. Trump’s potential conflicts of interest, and Republicans are unlikely to act as a rubber stamp."

Trump Adds More Trademarks in China; New York Times, June 13, 2017

Sui-Lee wee, New York Times; Trump Adds More Trademarks in China

点击查看本文中文版

"President Trump is poised to add six new trademarks to his expanding portfolio in China, in sectors including veterinary services and construction, potentially renewing concerns about his possible conflicts of interest.

The latest trademarks expand Mr. Trump’s business interests in China, the world’s second-largest economy and a country he frequently blamed during the election campaign for the decline in American industrial jobs. Since taking office, he has softened that rhetoric.

He has nevertheless continued to receive approval in China for new trademarks. The country’s trademark office gave the president preliminary approval for six trademarks on June 6, according to the agency’s website.

Under Chinese law, a trademark with preliminary approval is formally registered after three months if the agency receives no objections."

The Ethical Honor System; U.S. News & World Report, June 9, 2017

Joseph P. Williams, U.S. News & World Report; 

The Ethical Honor System

""If people assumed a duck hunting trip would be enough to swing [my] vote," Scalia wrote in a searing, 21-page memo, "the nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined.''

Jeffrey Toobin, a former federal prosecutor and longtime legal analyst for CNN and The New Yorker, concurs. In an essay shortly after Scalia's death, Toobin wrote that he was unperturbed by the ethical questions swirling around Scalia's final vacation, and believes the justices are doing fine by policing themselves.

"If a friend of Scalia wanted to host the Justice for a hunting trip, that also seems unproblematic to me," wrote Toobin. "Justices are allowed to have friends, and they're allowed to enjoy the hospitality of those friends."

[Rep. Louise] Slaughter, the New York congresswoman, strongly objects. 

In April, she introduced to the House – again – the Supreme Court Ethics Act, a bill designed to bring accountability to the high court. She's been pushing the issue since 2013, and the bill has repeatedly stalled, but Slaughter believes the matter is too important to drop.

While lower-court federal judges are bound by a strict ethics code, which requires more thorough reporting, "the Supreme Court is the only one that doesn't have any kind of code to go by," Slaughter said in the NBC interview. "We want the same code of ethics for the Supreme Court that we require for all federal judges. Just as simple as that.""

Ivanka Trump's firm seeks new trademarks in China, reviving ethical concerns; CNN Money, June 5, 2017

Jackie Wattles and Jill Disis, CNN Money; Ivanka Trump's firm seeks new trademarks in China, reviving ethical concerns

"Ivanka Trump's business, which mostly makes clothing and accessories, says the latest trademark applications were filed to block others from profiting off of her name, not because she wants to sell the products in China.

But that's still a problem, says Larry Noble, the general counsel for the nonprofit, nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, a watchdog group.

He said the family's continued ties to their businesses raise questions about whether their profit motives could influence U.S. relations with other countries.

"China knows that to deny these applications would get a negative reaction from the president, and to expedite their approval would get a positive reaction from the president," Noble said."

Why Don’t Supreme Court Justices Have an Ethics Code?; NBC News, April 11, 2017

Rich Gardella, NBC News; 

Why Don’t Supreme Court Justices Have an Ethics Code?

""When we do a Supreme Court justice, we want to know about their background in the law and everything that they know," said U.S. Representative Louise Slaughter of New York, an 87-year-old Democrat. "Nobody ever asks them, 'Are you an honest person?'"

Slaughter has been waging a long battle to pass a bill that she says would make the justices more transparent about and accountable for conduct outside the Court.

"The one thing that we take for granted, and give them the benefit of the doubt," said Slaughter, "is that they're not going to do anything that they would not have done as a federal judge."

Slaughter has been sponsoring legislation since 2013 that would require the nation's highest Court to create and follow a code of ethics.

Her bill is called "The Supreme Court Ethics Act." Last Wednesday, she reintroduced it for the third time.

All other federal judges are subject to a published official "Code of Conduct for United States Judges," which applies to all employees of the Judicial Branch's Administrative Office of the United States Courts. The code includes specific rules about ethics, integrity and even appearances of impropriety relating to outside business and political activities and the acceptance of gifts."

Ousted national security adviser Michael Flynn didn’t sign ethics pledge; PBS NewsHour via Associated Press, March 22, 2017

Stephen Braun and Chad Day, PBS NewsHour via Associated Press; 

Ousted national security adviser Michael Flynn didn’t sign ethics pledge

"President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn did not sign a mandatory ethics pledge ahead of his forced resignation in February, raising questions about the White House’s commitment to the lobbying and ethics rules it imposed as part of the president’s promise to “drain the swamp.”

Flynn “didn’t have the opportunity to sign it,” said Price Floyd, a spokesman for the retired Army general. “But he is going to abide by the pledge” and has not engaged in any lobbying work since leaving the White House that would have violated the pledge, Floyd said."

The day of Trump toilets and condoms in China may have just ended. Here's why that's controversial; Los Angeles Times, March 6, 2017

Jessica Meyers, Los Angeles Times; 
The day of Trump toilets and condoms in China may have just ended. Here's why that's controversial

"Could Trump benefit from the decision?

Some analysts believe investors, wary about the delicate relationship between China and the U.S., will veer away from anything bearing Donald Trump’s name. But two chief ethics lawyers under former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama argue China could still use Trump’s ties to his family empire to influence policies.

They’re part of a lawsuit filed in federal court in New York that alleges the president’s foreign business connections violate the Constitution.

“We should be seriously concerned about Mr. Trump’s ethical standards,” [Haochen] Sun [director of the Law and Technology Center at the University of Hong Kong and a specialist in intellectual property law] said. “The registration carries the message that Trump is still doing business.”

Why Jeff Sessions is in deep trouble; Washington Post, March 2, 2017

Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post; Why Jeff Sessions is in deep trouble

"There are two issues here: Must Sessions recuse himself, and did he mislead the Senate?

As to the first, he cannot be both a subject of inquiry and the investigator. His own conversations are of material interest to the investigation. He has no choice but to recuse himself. “He clearly has to recuse,” Larry Tribe told me. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee (and is a former prosecutor), succinctly told me, “Attorney General Sessions should recuse himself from investigations related to Russian interference in our democracy. He said he would if there was a conflict of interest, and it is clear that there is.”

At least one conservative legal scholar agrees. “It seems to me that he has to recuse himself from the decisions about the investigation into Russian efforts to influence our elections — at the very least to avoid the appearance of a conflict even if nothing untoward happened,” says John Yoo, former Justice Department lawyer in the George W. Bush administration."

The Story Behind Trump’s Chinese Trademark; The Atlantic, February 22, 2017

Jeremy Venook, The Atlantic; 

The Story Behind Trump’s Chinese Trademark

"None of this definitively proves that Trump and China did not execute a straight-up swap, with Trump receiving a trademark and China receiving renewed adherence to the One China Policy. Nor does the mere coincidence of Trump receiving his trademark so shortly after speaking with Chinese President Xi Jinping represent the smoking gun his critics desire. Instead, what the story demonstrates is just how much the president’s financial dealings complicate any understanding of the motivations behind his policy decisions: Whether on purpose or by mere coincidence, the outcome of a decade-long legal dispute is now inextricably linked, in the public imagination if not in fact, to a high-profile question of international diplomacy. And it highlights the way accusations of corruption often exist not in obvious acts of self-dealing or one-to-one trades but in shades of gray, with cross-cutting motives and well-timed coincidences that almost never definitively prove payoffs but that nevertheless continually suggest malfeasance."

From Trump the Nationalist, a Trail of Global Trademarks; New York Times, February 21, 2017

Danny Hakim and Sui-Lee Wee, New York Times; 

From Trump the Nationalist, a Trail of Global Trademarks

"The trademarks are the natural outgrowth of a global-spanning strategy. Like any businessman, Mr. Trump has long sought to protect his brand and products legally with trademarks, whether by registering a board game he once tried to sell, slogans like “Make America Great Again” or simply the name “Trump.”

But the trail of trademarks offers further clues to his international business ties, which leave the president vulnerable to potential conflicts of interest, or at least perception challenges. The Chinese government’s trademark announcement last week came just days after Mr. Trump retreated from challenging China’s policy on Taiwan in a call with China’s president, Xi Jinping.

The Times review of nine databases identified nearly 400 foreign trademarks registered to Trump companies since 2000 in 28 countries, among them New Zealand, Egypt and Russia, as well as the European Union. There are most likely many more trademarks, because there is no central repository of all trademarks from every country. The Trump Organization has been filing trademarks for decades, and has said that it has taken out trademarks in more than 80 countries."

Feinstein: Trump trademark in China may violate Constitution; Politico, February 17, 2017

Kyle Cheney, Politico; 

Feinstein: Trump trademark in China may violate Constitution

"A decision by the Chinese government to grant President Donald Trump a trademark for his brand could be a breach of the U.S. Constitution, a senior Democratic senator warned Friday.

“China’s decision to award President Trump with a new trademark allowing him to profit from the use of his name is a clear conflict of interest and deeply troubling,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) in a statement. “If this isn’t a violation of the Emoluments Clause, I don’t know what is.”

The Emoluments Clause of the Constitution prohibits federal officials — including the president — from accepting payments from foreign governments. Trump’s critics have argued that Trump’s opaque and byzantine business network could run afoul of this principle.

“The fact that this decision comes just days after a conversation between President Trump and President Xi Jinping where President Trump reaffirmed the U.S. policy of ‘One China’ is even more disturbing as it gives the obvious impression of a quid pro quo,” said Feinstein, ranking member of the Judiciary Committee."

Raucous Town Hall In Utah Blasts GOP Rep. Chaffetz Over Trump; Huffington Post, February 10, 2017

Mary Papenfuss, Huffington Post; 

Raucous Town Hall In Utah Blasts GOP Rep. Chaffetz Over Trump

[Kip Currier: Even if the U.S. President is exempt from conflict of interest laws, as Rep. Jason Chaffetz asserts below, he ignores a fundamental underpinning of democracy, the rule of law, and good governance: the need for the public's belief in the integrity of such systems. 

To avoid an "air of impropriety" (i.e. perception that a particular action doesn't look "right" or fair)--to promote the U.S. electorate's faith in the integrity of elected officials to not unduly profit from public service--a U.S. President should voluntarily abide by conflict of interest laws and strive for the highest level of ethical conduct.

A related aside about the Judicial Branch, on the "air of impropriety" rationale for voluntary ethical compliance, transparency, and accountability: conflict of interest arguments have been made about the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, who have continually avoided being bound by a formal ethics code and the Code of Conduct for federal judges that applies to every other federal judge. As Lincoln Caplan's 2015 New Yorker article "DOES THE SUPREME COURT NEED A CODE OF CONDUCT?" persuasively posits:

Impartiality is an essential requirement for a judge. But, as Charles Geyh, the legal scholar who directed the A.B.A. study, wrote, “It is not enough that judges be impartial; the public must perceive them to be so.” Whether a judge is on the highest court in the land or on one of the many others, we are much more likely, in a case where his impartiality has been questioned, to view him as impartial if another judge concludes so after conducting an independent appraisal. That’s crucial to the effectiveness of this country’s courts, which makes it crucial to the soundness of American democracy.]

"“Where do you draw a line in the sand?” asked one woman in the audience regarding Trump’s potential conflicts of interest.

“Everyone has to comply with the law,” Chaffetz responded. “You’re really not going to like this part,” again to boos. “The president, under the law, is exempt from the conflict-of-interest laws.”"

You Could Have Bought A Ticket To Donald Trump’s New Year’s Eve Party; Huffington Post, 12/30/16

Daniel Marans, Huffington Post; 

You Could Have Bought A Ticket To Donald Trump’s New Year’s Eve Party:

"Tickets were on sale for a lavish New Year’s Eve party that President-elect Donald Trump and his family are hosting at the Mar-a-Lago Club this weekend, which once again raises those thorny ethics question that have dogged Trump’s presidential transition.

Mar-a-Lago sold the tickets, the Trump transition team confirmed to Politico. They cost $525 each for members of the Mar-a-Lago Club and $575 for guests. Since Trump himself owns the Palm Beach, Florida, resort, those sales profit him personally. 

Simply buying a ticket could be seen as an effort to curry favor with the president-elect. Those seeking an in-person audience with him also had an incentive to buy since Trump will be there."

Potential Conflicts Around the Globe for Trump, the Businessman President; New York Times, 11/26/16

Richard C. Paddock, Eric Lipton, Ellen Barry, Rod Nordland, Danny Hakim, and Simon Romero, New York Times; Potential Conflicts Around the Globe for Trump, the Businessman President:

"In an interview with The Times on Tuesday, Mr. Trump boasted again about the global reach of his business — and his family’s ability to keep it running after he takes office.

“I’ve built a very great company and it’s a big company and it’s all over the world,” Mr. Trump said, adding later: “I don’t care about my company. It doesn’t matter. My kids run it.”

In a written statement, his spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, said Mr. Trump and his family were committed to addressing any issues related to his financial holdings.

“Vetting of various structures and immediate transfer of the business remains a top priority for both President-elect Trump, his adult children and his executives,” she said.

But a review by The Times of these business dealings identified a menu of the kinds of complications that could create a running source of controversy for Mr. Trump, as well as tensions between his priorities as president and the needs and objectives of his companies."

The ethics rules that apply — and don’t apply — to Trump’s children; Washington Post, 11/14/16

Elise Viebeck and Lisa Rein, Washington Post; The ethics rules that apply — and don’t apply — to Trump’s children:

"There’s been a lot of talk since Friday about President-elect Donald Trump’s decision to give his three eldest children formal positions on his transition team.

Readers have wondered: Is the decision legal? Is it ethical? Does it signal Trump’s intention to involve his children in his administration? And what does it mean that Trump’s children have transition roles just as they are poised to take over the family business?

Let’s clear up some of the confusion. To put it simply, Trump has a lot of flexibility when it comes to staffing his transition. He has less flexibility when it comes to staffing his administration, though ethics experts said it will not be hard for him to bend rules."

A porous ethical wall between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department; Washington Post, 8/14/16

Editorial Board, Washington Post; A porous ethical wall between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department:

"Though it is an exaggeration to claim that Ms. Clinton ran her agency as a pay-to-play operation, the latest unearthed emails from the Clinton State Department nevertheless reveal that the ethical wall she was supposed to have built between herself and her family’s organization was not impermeable enough...

Offering access, even just for sharing information, is providing a favor...

As political scandals go, this is middling, at best.

But it suggests that some donors to the Clinton Foundation may have seen their gifts as means to buy access — and it points to much bigger potential problems. Should Ms. Clinton win in November, she will bring to the Oval Office a web of connections and potential conflicts of interest, developed over decades in private, public and, in the case of her family’s philanthropic work, quasi-public activities. As secretary, she pledged to keep her official world and her family’s foundation separate, and she failed to keep them separate enough. Such sloppiness would not be acceptable in the White House."