Remember this:

To be fair, honesty was sooo 2006.

Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government broke this bombshell today:

A couple weeks ago, House Member Eleanor Holmes Norton made a fundraising call to a lobbyist. The lobbyist wasn’t available, so Holmes Norton left a voicemail. CLICK HERE FOR AUDIO

To summarize, in the message Democrat Eleanore Holmes Norton repeatedly described herself as a senior official in her party to a lobbyist who she was soliciting campaign donations from. First and foremost, it is a crime to solicit funds from federal property. If these calls were made from Rep. Norton’s Congressional office she is guilty. In addition, Norton repeatedly touts her seniority on committees that are important in this lobbyist’s “sector.” It is painfully clear that Norton was soliciting a quid pro quo. Norton needed the donation to match what Speaker Pelosi required of her, so Norton offered to sell her vote and influence, obviously also a crime.

Nancy Pelosi promised to “drain the swamps” of corruption. She told the country that the Democrats would offer the “most honest and ethical” Congress in history. In reality, the Democrats have been the most secretive and most corrupt Congress in memory. Kickbacks through earmarks to favored groups have been standard operating procedure. Support the Democrats and you’ll get preferential treatment in housing, caring for the salt marsh harvest mouse or your major media conglomerate. It is time to drain the swamps in DC of the obscene corruption of the party of Charlie Rangel, Nancy Pelosi, Chris Dodd and Eleanore Holmes Norotn.

Here is a detailed look at exactly what Rep. Norton said:

Her message raises many concerns.

1. At the very beginning of the message, Holmes Norton notes that the lobbyist:

ha[s] given to other colleagues of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

Beyond being a bit heavy-handed, where did she get this information? Such donations are listed in FEC reports, but it is a violation to use that information to solicit campaign donations.

2. More serious, however, is her frequent mention of her seniority and her Chairmanship of a subcommittee. She is attempting to solicit funds based on her past actions taken in her official capacity in Congress. She is implying to the lobbyist that, should he decline to donate, he will be turning down a senior member of Congress who Chairs a subcommittee highly relevant to his “sector”.

3.  Worse than that, she details her role overseeing a large economic development project in the District, funded by “stimulus” funds. It would appear that either the lobbyist has an interest in this project, or the Congresswoman thinks he does, as she states she is “frankly surprised” the lobbyist hasn’t given to her. Especially, she notes, because of her

long and deep work …in fact it has been by major work on the committee and subcommittee it’s been essentially in your sector

“In your sector.” This raises additional concerns, and we note potentially relevant laws here:

She who promises, directly or indirectly, any government contract or other government benefit (provided for or made possible by any Act of Congress) as a reward for a political contribution shall be guilty of a misdemeanor (18 U.S.C. § 600).

She who attempts to cause anyone to make a political contribution by denying or threatening to deny any government payment or other government benefit (provided for or made possible, in whole or in part, by any Act of Congress) shall be guilty of a misdemeanor (18 U.S.C. § 601).

Then there are the House Ethics rules, according to House Ethics Manual (2008 Edition):

p. 147: “[N]o solicitation of a campaign or political contribution may be linked to an action taken or to be taken by a Member … in his or her official capacity. … The Standards Committee has long advised Members … that they should always exercise caution to avoid even the appearance that solicitations of campaign contributions are connected in any way with an action taken or to be taken in their official capacity. … [A] Member should not sponsor or participate in any solicitation that offers donors any special access to the Member in the Member’s official capacity.”

p. 150: “[A] Member may not accept any contribution that is linked with an action that the Member has taken or is being asked to take. A corollary of these rules is that Members … are not to take or withhold any official action on the basis of the campaign contributions or support of the involved individuals …. Members … are likewise prohibited from threatening punitive action on the basis of such considerations.”

4. We don’t know from where she made this call, but it is a relevant inquiry. It is, after all, illegal to solicit campaign funds on federal property.

As Holmes Norton repeatedly notes on the call, she is a senior member of Congress. She knows or should know all of this. First elected to Congress in 1990, she took her law degree from Yale University and clerked for U.S. District Court Judge Leon Higginbotham before working as an assistant legal director at the ACLU, law professor at NYU, Chairman of the NYC Human Rights Commission, and Chairman of the EEOC. She is a tenured law professor at Georgetown University and serves on the boards of three Fortune 500 companies.

That a Member like Holmes Norton would leave the foregoing voicemail message must be a testament to the kind of pressure Speaker Pelosi has put on her members. Indeed, she acknowledges this in the call:

As the senior member of the um, committee and a sub-committee chair, we have (chuckles) obligations to raise, uh funds. And, I think it must have been me who hasn’t, frankly, uh, done my homework to ask for a contribution earlier. So I’m trying to make up for it by asking for one now, when we particularly, uh, need, uh contributions, particularly those of us who have the seniority and chairmanships and are in a position to raise the funds.