Mark Critz, a former staffer to the late Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), has asked an ethics panel to release transcripts of interviews conducted with him when the panel was probing earmarks by Murtha.

Critz's request of the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) follows concerns raised by a political rival about Critz's role in those earmarks. The rival, former state Treasurer Barbara Hafer, has since dropped out of the race to fill the House seat that Murtha's death left vacant.

According to Roll Call:

The OCE report, which concluded that Murtha did not take campaign donations into account when providing earmarks for PMA clients, included summaries of interviews with Murtha and several staff members, but Critz’s interview was not included.

Critz’s request is apparently the first of its kind for the Office of Congressional Ethics, which was established in March 2008, and it is not clear whether the subject of an OCE investigation can request the release of documents.

On Tuesday, Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) submitted H. Res. 1147, a resolution that would amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to require members to hold public meetings -- after advance public notice -- to explain earmark requests they intend to submit and to provide a forum for constituent participation.

Rep. Speier’s proposal would advance government accountability by breaking the link between earmarks and campaign contributions, a link forged by the secrecy that typically accompanies earmarks.

CREW applauds Rep. Speier’s efforts to bring transparency to Congress, acting on the well proven adage that sunlight truly is the best disinfectant.

In response to news today that the House Democratic Caucus has decided to ban earmarks, CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan issued this statement:

“CREW applauds House Democrats for finally recognizing that the American public is tired of watching members of Congress trade earmarks for campaign contributions. This is a terrific first step in breaking the link between campaign dollars and legislation.

“It is ironic, of course, that this action follows so close on the heels of the House Ethics Committee’s PMA report, which found no link between contributions and earmarks, but then again no one really believed that anyway.”

According to the Washington Post, Democratic leaders announced the earmark ban at a meeting of the party's caucus. The Post reports that the new rule "forbids private contractors from receiving earmarks."

Rep. David Obey (D-WI), who chairs the House Appropriations Committee, has estimated that the 2010 federal budget for this fiscal year included more than 1,000 earmarks to private companies. Most of these earmarks were part of the Pentagon's annual budget.

According to the Washington Post:

(House) Democrats are pushing for a new rule that would most likely forbid earmarked expenditures to private, for-profit contractors for at least one year. Such businesses reap billions annually in federal grants directed their way by individual lawmakers, particularly from the Pentagon's budget.

House leaders emerged from a meeting Tuesday in the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) ready to push earmark reform as one way to rebut charges that they have been soft on ethics issues.

... According to senior aides familiar with the internal discussions, Pelosi's leadership team has considered calling for a one-year moratorium on all earmarks ...

But the more likely decision, aides said, would be to ask rank-and-file lawmakers to accept a one-year ban on earmarks distributed to for-profit companies ...

Talk is cheap. We'll have to see whether House Democrats are truly committed to bringing this earmark reform proposal to the floor for a vote. And we'll also be looking at how Republicans respond to this issue -- an issue that should be seen as non-partisan.

Four years after news of the Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) scandal broke, the controversy surrounding Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) was handled much more responsibly by House leadership. CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan compares the two sex impropriety scandals in this op-ed at Politico:

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington regularly condemns politicians for disgraceful conduct. It is a rare day when we can praise someone for getting it right. Today is one of those days.

Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) may be ranting to anyone who will listen that House majority leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) forced him out of Congress because he voted against health care reform. But the truth is that Hoyer stood up against sexual harassment of staff members.

In early February, a top Massa aide sought advice from Hoyer about how to handle allegations that Massa had sexually harassed one of his male aides. Hoyer told him to turn the information over to the House Ethics Committee — or Hoyer would report the allegations himself. The staffer told the ethics panel and was interviewed twice by investigators, who also interviewed other top Massa aides.

Contrast Hoyer’s conduct with that of many members of Congress in another recent scandal.

Click here to read the rest of her column.

The controversy surrounding Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) and his hastily announced resignation is taking on a new and bizarre twist. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has called the congressman's claims that a conspiracy forced him out "silly and ridiculous."

Meanwhile, Roll Call provides this snapshot of the work environment inside Rep. Massa's office:

During his weekly radio show Sunday on New York station WKPQ Power 105 FM, Massa, a retired Naval officer, acknowledged that his “salty” language had at times offended members of his own staff.

“I am guilty of using language [that] I am sure that would turn someone’s hair white. But it was in the privacy of my own home and in the privacy of my inner office,” Massa said.

... One incident in January, Massa continued, prompted him to issue a staff-wide memorandum, requiring everyone in his office — himself included — to adhere to “a higher standard” of behavior.

“I said something that was out of bounds. I said, ‘I had to go lick lollipops to raise money.’ Now you can use your imagination to know what I actually said,” Massa recalled. “It was inappropriate. I actually had someone on the staff say, ‘Come on now boss,’ and I said, ‘You’re right, I’m sorry.’”

New York Gov. David Paterson's recent announcement that he would not seek re-election followed allegations that the governor's office may have tried to interfere with a domestic violence case. Yet New York isn't the only state where ethics is making the news.

* In North Carolina, the state commission that regulates alcoholic beverage sales may draft a voluntary ethics code in the wake of stories that raised ethics concerns. According to one newspaper, Gov. Beverly Perdue is pushing the state commission to ban gifts that "might be perceived as swaying booze buying decisions."

* In Utah, legislative leaders have pushed their own ethics bills in hopes of heading off the momentum for ballot initiatives that citizens groups are proposing as ethics reform. In this op-ed column, a business leader cites the state House Majority Leader's recent statement dissing citizen-led reform as proof why an initiative is needed: "Could there be a more resounding endorsement for putting this initiative on the ballot and letting the people of Utah weigh in on this important matter?"

* In Connecticut, a former state prosecutor has agreed to pay a $2,000 fine to settle a complaint brought by the state's ethics office. The state panel stated that L. Mark Hurley violated ethics rules by "using his access to funds paid by . . . defendants for his own personal use."

* In Florida, a Tea Party activist has filed an ethics complaint against a state legislator concerning travel expenses and campaign finance rules.

Amid the fallout over ethics scandals, Slate's Christopher Beam writes that the more things change, the more they stay the same:

When Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006 on a pledge to "drain the swamp" of corruption that is Washington, D.C., it seemed that Republicans would never escape the muck. Now, with November approaching, not only have Republicans reached dry land, they're poised to drown Democrats in their own ethical filth.

What's changed? Very little -- and that's the point. It's not that Republicans have become saints and Democrats have become devils. It's that Democrats are in power.

Beam notes that the staggering setback suffered by Republicans in the 2006 election was due to several scandals surrounding GOP Reps. Tom DeLay, Randy "Duke" Cunningham and others. Beam adds:

The most reliable predictor of which party will find itself enmeshed in scandal is which one is in power.

"I've always called elections the opportunity to throw the bums out and throw a new set of bums in," says Larry Sabato, political analyst and prognosticator extraordinaire of the University of Virginia. "Partisans never believe that. They think their side is golden and the opposition is a bunch of second cousins to Beelzebub."

On NPR's "Morning Edition" today, Cokie Roberts predicted that ethics scandals will have a significant impact on this year's elections.

She also summarized the critical role that ethics scandals have played in recent decades in shifting control of Congress from one party to the other.

Blackwater, the contractor with a tainted public image, has been blasted by the chairman of Senate Armed Services Committee for its "lack of credibility." In a blistering letter to Defense Sec. Robert Gates, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) attacked the company, which is now known as Xe Services.

What angered Sen. Levin was a report that the Pentagon was preparing to award $1 billion in new contracts to the firm formerly known as Blackwater.

Sen. Levin slammed the company's history of allegedly abusive behavior by Blackwater employees, misappropriation of government weapons and other misconduct. Levin also wrote that the firm's practices appear to have "undermined our mission in Afghanistan."

CREW has raised concerns about Blackwater too.