Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke reportedly will be investigated for urging Alaska's U.S. senators to vote for repeal of the Affordable Care Act or face the consequences of less federal support.
Editor's note: This updates with details from the OIG letter.
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, who leaned on Alaska's U.S. senators in a bid to secure their votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act, will be investigated by his department's Office of Inspector General for possible ethical and/or legal violations.
Secretary Zinke placed phone calls to U.S. Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan late last month to urge them to vote for repeal or be prepared for a little less help from Interior on issues key to Alaska.
"I'm not going to go into the details, but I fear that the strong economic growth, pro-energy, pro-mining, pro-jobs and personnel from Alaska who are part of those policies are going to stop," Sen. Sullivan, who voted for repeal, told the Alaska Dispatch News in describing his conversation with Secretary Zinke. "I tried to push back on behalf of all Alaskans. … We're facing some difficult times and there's a lot of enthusiasm for the policies that Secretary Zinke and the president have been talking about with regard to our economy. But the message was pretty clear."
Sen. Murkowski was one of three Republicans to vote against repeal. The others were Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Susan Collins of Maine.
OIG staff sent letters late Thursday to both U.S. Reps. Raul Grijalva and Frank Pallone, the top Democrats on the House committees on natural resources and energy, respectively, to announce that they would look into what the Democrats perceived as threats against the senators.
Rep. Grijalva had asked the OIG on July 27, the day after Secretary Zinke called the senators, to investigate the matter.
The phone calls, the Arizona Democrat said at the time, were "an alarming sign of how far the administration’s ethical standards have fallen and how irresponsible the Interior Department has become."
The letter sent to the representatives was short and brief, essentially a confirmation that OIG would look into Rep. Grijalva's concerns.
"You requested that the Office of Inspector General for DOI investigate this matter and address a number of potential legal and ethical violations," said the letter, a copy of which the Traveler obtained Friday evening. "The OIG is undertaking a preliminary investigation into this matter. We will advise you about what further action the results of this inquiry lead the OIG to take."
Comments
We shall see. The "fake news" Washington Post reported this:
But David J. Hayes, a former Interior Department deputy secretary under both Presidents Obama and Clinton, said Zinke's reported threat "deserves careful scrutiny" under U.S. law restricting members of the executive branch from lobbying Congress on pending legislation even if it turns out to be legal.
"Based on my experience and understanding, cabinet officials have some leeway to lobby Congress under the Anti-Lobbying Act so long as they are acting 'within their area of responsibility," Hayes said. "Here, however, it appears that Zinke was lobbying for a health-care bill, not on an Alaska-related issue within Interior's area of responsibility. Even more troubling, as the basis for his health-care lobbying pitch, he reportedly put the discharge of his statutory responsibilities in Alaska in play."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2017...
The Anti-Lobbying Act, the law in question, is 18 U.S.C. 1913.
The Office of Legal Counsel within the Department of Justice has interpreted the statute (The Anti-Lobby Act) based on its underlying purpose, which is to restrict the use of appropriated funds for large-scale, high-expenditure campaigns to solicit pressure on government officials in relation to pending or proposed legislative matters on behalf of an Administration position.
https://ethics.od.nih.gov/topics/lobbying.htm
Two phone calls would hardly constitute "the use of appropriated funds for large-scale, high-expenditure campaigns"
That sound you hear is goal posts moving and Gish galloping.
Though that wild places and ecbuck think that this sort of bullying is totes normal says an awful lot about them, at least.
Yes Toxie you are trying to move the goal post from " large-scale, high-expenditure campaigns" to routine discussions between the administration and members of Congress. Why must those on the left focus on non-consequential minutiae rather than the issues, i.e getting rid of the self imploding Obamacare and putting in something that works.
Toxie - no one ever said that Zinke was good at trying to try to heavy them. Of course, he has a DOA product in Trumpcare. Millions losing coverage is not helping people. As a retired healthcaree professional, I can tell you I know of many who are now insured, and in fact alive, because of the ACA and who are terrified at living under the profit-motivated Trumpians.
Few if any would "lose" coverage. Of course when Obamacare collapses, everyone will lose coverage.
Sorry. During my nursing career I saw real people bleed and die, and learned to care about it. Meanwhile you became much better than I at reading profit and loss statements. I'm comfortable with my viewpoint, and wouldn't feel comfortable in my own skin if I had yours.
And, despite what Alex Jones, Sean Hannity, Breitbart, et al tell you, millions are currently at threat of losing their health coverage. The ACA is not perfect, but it is so much better than what we had prior. To you, it is headlines and politics. To me, I can give names and diagnoses. Go way and stop faking like you care.
No Rick, read the CBO report rather than the complicit media headlines or Alex Jones, Sean Hannity or Breitbart, none of which I listen to. The vast majority of those that will "lose" their insurance according to the CBO wont "lose it" at all. Absent the mandate they will use their own free will to not purchase insurance. There isn't a single person that is recieving vital healthcare today that would not have received it under the prior system nor after the repeal of Obamacare. The farther you take the receiver of healthcare away from the payer of healthcare, the more expensive healthcare is going to get and the less sustainable any insurance system will be.