Last week, Judicial Watch, filed two separate complaints against New York Senator Hillary Clinton regarding, yet again, inaccurate financial disclosure reporting. The complaints were filed with the United States Senate Select Committee on Ethics and the Department of Justice. According to a Washington Post article, Clinton failed to disclose her position as Secretary/Treasurer of the Clinton Family Foundation on five occasions, in flagrant disregard of the Ethics in Government Act.

Judicial Watch’s Senate ethics complaint, filed on March 1, 2007, notes that Senator Clinton’s failure to comply with disclosure requirements represents “improper conduct that reflects upon the United States Senate.” We’re asking the ethics committee to determine if this was a willful violation of the law. Similarly, JW asked the Attorney General to investigate the matter. Here’s the warning given in the instructions for the Senate’s financial disclosure report:

Failure to File or Falsifying Reports: Knowing or willful falsification of information, or failure to file or report information required to be reported by section 102 of the Act may subject you to a civil penalty of not more than $11,000 and to disciplinary action by the Select Committee on Ethics and/or any other appropriate authority under section 104 of the (Ethics in Government) Act. Knowing and willful falsification of information required to be reported by section 102 of the Act may also subject you to criminal prosecution and sentencing under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 18 U.S.C. 3571.

The Clinton Family Foundation, launched in 2001, enabled the Clintons to write off more than $5 million from their taxable personal income. There seems to be a motive for willful violations of law in that some of the foundation’s business has touched upon issues related to foreign policy and other controversial matters, including a contribution to an individual involved in Senator Clinton’s questionable commodities trading in the 1970s.

Here’s the bottom line: The Senate Ethics Committee and the Department of Justice need to take these important disclosure laws more seriously, as it would appear that some members of Congress believe they can violate them with impunity.

In fact, just a couple of days after filing our Hillary complaint, Judicial Watch filed another Senate Ethics complaint against Indiana Senator Evan Bayh who failed to disclose his role as director of the Evan and Susan Bayh Foundation on his disclosure forms. Senator Bill Frist, Senator Harry Reid, and House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi have all had similar problems with their disclosure reports -- with no real punishments. This has to change.

Obama Snagged in Stock Controversy

Barack Obama, who has made ethics a signature issue in his campaign for president, has once again been forced to answer for his own questionable behavior. This according to the New York Times:

“Less than two months after ascending to the United States Senate, Barack Obama bought more than $50,000 worth of stock in two speculative companies whose major investors included some of his biggest political donors. One of the companies was a biotech concern that was starting to develop a drug to treat avian flu. In March 2005, two weeks after buying about $5,000 of its shares, Mr. Obama took the lead in a legislative push for more federal spending to battle the disease.”

This “legislative push” included a bill sponsored by Obama urging the government to increase stockpiles of antiviral medicines.

Obama had set up a “quasi” blind trust, which enabled him to exert some discretion over his investments in order to ensure there were no conflicts of interest with respect to his work on the Hill. So much for that. Additional concerns arise from the fact that Senator Obama received investment advice from one of his major financial backers.

Obama, with help from Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, amended a bill to increase by $3.8 billion the amount of government funds dedicated to fighting avian flu. At the time, AVI BioPharma, one company in which Obama invested was developing a drug to treat the disease. Moreover, Mr. Obama invested in a satellite company, Skyterra Communications, whose backers have raised more than $150,000 for Obama’s political committees. (One of these individuals is also the subject of an FBI investigation involving public corruption in Albany, NY, the Times reports.)

This is the second time in the last few months that Obama, touted as a politician who floats above the culture of corruption, has found himself at the center of an ethics controversy.

You will recall late last year, Obama was involved in a shady land deal involving another of his political contributors, Antoin “Tony” Rezko, who was later indicted in an unrelated political corruption scandal. After getting caught, Obama said the land deal was a mistake in judgment. But how many more “mistakes in judgment” has Obama made that have yet to come to light? And the American people have to be more than a little concerned with respect to the company Obama keeps (a lesson we learned from the Clintons who surrounded themselves with crooks and then proceeded to operate the most corrupt presidency in American history).

Obama has tried to distance himself from Hillary Clinton, his main competition for the Democratic nomination. But as far as ethics is concerned, developments suggest he may be more like Hillary than he, or his backers, would care to admit.

Guilty Verdict for Libby

I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby was convicted last week for obstruction, perjury, and lying to the FBI in an investigation involving the disclosure of a CIA operative’s identity. While it is expected Libby will seek a new trial, he is scheduled to be sentenced on June 5, and faces a good chunk of prison time.

Here’s my statement:

“This prosecution and conviction are about protecting the integrity of the investigative process. It seems that Libby lied because he was concerned about the political consequences of telling the truth. No one, especially public officials, can be allowed to obstruct justice by lying under oath to grand juries and federal investigators. Despite what the Clintons and their supporters would have us all believe, obstruction of justice and lying to a federal grand jury are serious crimes which deserve to be prosecuted.

"The jury seems to have come to a just conclusion in a difficult case."

Joe Wilson may not be a saint. The White House may have been within its rights to answer his false allegations. There may have been no illegal leaks, and it may have been a bad policy decision to appoint a special counsel -- yet Mr. Libby still had an obligation to be truthful to the grand jury. I agree with President Bush, let’s respect the jury’s decision.

Judicial Watch Files Brief in Support of Hazleton, PA’s Illegal Immigration Enforcement Policies

In another step in the fight against illegal immigration, Judicial Watch filed an amicus curiae brief with a U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania in support of two ordinances enforced by the City of Hazleton attempting to enforce legal action against those who employ and harbor illegal aliens. The plaintiffs, who include unnamed illegal immigrants, are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Puerto Rican Defense Fund, among others.

The Hazleton Illegal Immigration Relief Act prohibits businesses from employing illegal aliens and prohibits renters from allowing illegal immigrants to take up residence in their properties. Judicial Watch argues in its brief that the City of Hazleton’s ordinances are consistent with federal law, and actually assist in achieving the goals and objectives articulated by Congress in enacting federal immigration laws.

Hazleton Mayor Louis Barletta has been a leader in immigration reform through local action. He was also a panelist in our latest educational panel, Local Governments and Illegal Immigration, which addressed the issue.

As Judicial Watch points out in its brief, the purpose of federal immigration laws is to keep illegal aliens from coming here and staying here. This includes prohibiting businesses and individuals from illegally employing and harboring illegal aliens. The ordinances enacted by the City of Hazleton are in complete harmony with federal laws and the intent of Congress. The ACLU and other special interest groups are dead wrong on this issue.

The ACLU, of course, has evidently decided to make a project of helping illegal immigrants avoid the rule of law. The group is also representing illegal immigrants in Judicial Watch’s lawsuit against the Los Angeles Police Department over Special Order 40, a sanctuary policy prohibiting law enforcement officers from inquiring about a person’s immigration status and cooperating with federal immigration officials.

Judicial Watch’s actions in Hazleton, Pennsylvania, and Los Angeles, California, are part of a larger campaign to help enforce our nation’s immigration laws. Please take a few minutes to visit our Internet site, www.judicialwatch.org, to learn more about our programs and legal actions.

Tom Fitton is President of Judicial Watch, a nonpartisan educational foundation that fights government corruption.