Lakota Nation withdraws from U.S. treaties

Yesterday, a group of Indians from the Lakota Nation announced that it has withdrawn from all U.S. treaties and will be issuing its own passports and driver's licenses and creating a tax-free state where non-Native Americans are welcome to move so long as they renounce their U.S. citizenship. They've stated that they will be filing liens against the properties within their territory which have been illegally homesteaded, and have contacted the governments of Bolivia, Chile, and Venezuela seeking recognition.

You can find a map of the Lakota Nation territory here, with more detail and explanation here. It covers western North and South Dakota and Nebraska, and eastern Montana and Wyoming.

This declaration of independence was made yesterday by Russell Means, leader of the American Indian Movement (who was nearly the 1988 Libertarian Party candidate for president instead of Ron Paul), and is based on many years of U.S. government failure to live up to its treaties with Indian tribes. But Means actually has no authority to speak for the Oglala Sioux (the Lakota tribe he is a member of), since he did not win the 2005 election for president of the tribe, though he unsuccessfully contested it.

I haven't seen any specific mention with regard to the Lakota Nation's action of the case of Cobell v. Kempthorne, a lawsuit which has been in federal court since 1996. This lawsuit is over the U.S. Department of the Interior's mismanagement of Indian land lease trust funds, in which they've lost the accounting records for 118 years of data about $13 billion in funds and its accumulated interest, which the plaintiffs would like to see returned to them. (I previously mentioned this lawsuit two years ago as one of the issues former Arizona Rep. J.D. Hayworth was on the right side of.) Eloise Cobell is a member of the Blackfeet tribe of Montana.

Mention has been made, however, of a 1980 U.S. Supreme Court decision which awarded the Lakota $122 million in compensation for the land that had been taken from them in violation of treaties, but not any land. The Lakota refused the award, which has accrued interest bringing it close to $1 billion today.

A few from CREW's list of corrupt politicians given the boot

Of CREW's list of the twenty most corrupt politicians in Congress, seven or eight will no longer be in office next term. While it is extremely disappointing that so many sleazy politicians get re-elected, it is at least gratifying that the re-election rate for incumbents on this list is significantly lower than average.

Sen. Conrad Burns' (R-MT) race against Jon Tester is still too close to call, but Tester has a slight lead.
Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) has retired, and will be replaced by Bob Corker (R).
Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) was voted out, and will be replaced by Bob Casey, Jr. (D).
Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO) was re-elected.
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA) was re-elected.
Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) was re-elected.
Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL) was re-elected.
Rep. Katharine Harris (R-FL) failed in her attempt to win a position in the Senate, defeated by Bill Nelson (D).
Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) was re-elected.
Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) was re-elected.
Rep. Gary Miller (R-CA) was re-elected (and unopposed in the general election).
Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV) was re-elected.
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) was re-elected.
Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA) was voted out, and will be replaced by Jerry McNerny (D).
Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ) was re-elected.
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) was re-elected.
Rep. John Sweeney (R-NY) was voted out, and will be replaced by Kirsten Gillibrand (D).
Rep. Charles Taylor (R-NC) was voted out, and will be replaced by Joseph Shuler (D).
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) was re-elected.
Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) was voted out, and will be replaced by Joe Sestak (D).

CREW's dishonorable mentions also saw two removals from a list of five:

Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT) was re-elected.
Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) was re-elected.
Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) was voted out, and will be replaced by Harry Mitchell (D).
Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) was re-elected.
Rep. Don Sherwood (R-PA) was voted out, and will be replaced by Carney (D).

Arizona election results

The good news: Arizona did not elect aspiring theocrat Len Munsil (who was soundly defeated by incumbent Governor Janet Napolitano), got rid of corrupt Congressman J.D. Hayworth (replacing him with former Tempe Mayor Harry Mitchell), narrowly voted down an amendment to the state Constitution to ban gay marriage and anything "similar to" it, and voted in favor of greater protections against eminent domain abuse.

The bad news: Arizona re-elected Sen. Jon Kyl and Rep. Rick Renzi, approved the creation of a new bureaucracy to continually raise the minimum wage (the main effect of which is to reduce teen employment; it has negligible positive effects for low wage earners, versus something that would genuinely be effective like reducing payroll taxes), passed the worse of the two anti-smoking measures, banned probation for methamphetamine abuse offenses, and passed all of the anti-illegal immigration measures (declaring English the official language, prohibiting illegal immigrants from posting bail or being awarded certain kinds of damages in court, and limiting educational services to illegal immigrants).

Teenager Jarrett Maupin (Al Sharpton, Jr.) was elected to the Phoenix Union High School District Board in Ward 2. Maupin, who was a member of the Republican club at Brophy College Prep before switching schools to St. Mary's and becoming a Democrat and protege of Sharpton, charged that Brophy students demonstrated their racism by referring to "blackboards."

Congress grants president the right to torture, indefinitely detain

Today the Senate, following the House, voted to legalize the right for the government to engage in physical interrogation techniques that most people would consider to be torture and to detain individuals permanently without criminal charges by designating them "unlawful enemy combatants," even if they are U.S. citizens who have never left the country. As Glenn Greenwald puts it, Congress has legalized tyranny.

Both of Arizona's Senators (John McCain and Jon Kyl) voted for the bill, S. 3930.

Arizona's Representatives voted as follows on the detainment bill, H.R. 6166 (the Senate bill is S. 3930):

In favor:

Jeff Flake (R-District 6)
Trent Franks (R-District 2)
J.D. Hayworth (R-District 5)
Jim Kolbe (R-District 8)
Rick Renzi (R-District 1)
John Shadegg (R-District 3)

Against:

Raul Grijalva (D-District 7)
Ed Pastor (D-District 4)

Once again, a completely partisan vote in which the Republicans demonstrate their disregard for this constitutional republic. You can find the complete House vote results here.

UPDATE September 29, 2006: Ed Brayton has more at Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

The founders of this country would have found this grounds for revolution.

UPDATE October 1, 2006: I fully expect the courts to overturn this, since the U.S. Constitution allows only two conditions for the temporary suspension of habeas corpus in Article I, Section 9 ("when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it").

It is also worth noting that there is some simplification, above. The designation of "unlawful enemy combatant" (UEC) in the bill is made by "a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense."

Also see Richard Epstein's testimony to the Senate (PDF) urging them to kill this bill, which they disregarded.

Arizona Representatives' Votes on the PERA Bill

The U.S. House of Representatives voted to pass H.R. 2679, the "Public Expression of Religion Act," which denies plaintiffs the ability to recover legal costs in a challenge against government violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause. The effect of this bill is to make it more difficult for anyone to fight cases where the government violates the U.S. Constitution by instituting mandatory religious practices, by making those legal cases different from all others. In other words, any Representative voting in favor of this is implicitly advocating that governments be able to engage in unconstitutional religious activity and avoid the consequences and penalties that currently can result when they do. It seems to me that a Congressman who supports a bill to make it easier for government to get away with violations of the Constitution is a Congressman who is acting contrary to their oath of office.

Arizona Representatives who voted for reducing penalties and deterrence for unconstitutional theocracy by voting for the PERA Bill:

Jeff Flake (R-District 6)
Trent Franks (R-District 2)
J.D. Hayworth (R-District 5)
Jim Kolbe (R-District 8)
Rick Renzi (R-District 1)
John Shadegg (R-District 3)

Those who voted consistently with their oaths of office by voting against the PERA Bill:

Raul Grijalva (D-District 7)
Ed Pastor (D-District 4)

That's a partisan vote, and the Republicans continue to express their disregard for the U.S. Constitution and religious liberty.

You can find the full House roll call here.

For further information on this bill, see Ed Brayton's commentary at Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

Mandating lower fuel prices is neither environmentally nor economically sound

Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano has a petition on her website to send to President Bush to ask him to ask Congress to take legislative action to mandate lower gasoline prices. This makes no sense. The best way to reduce dependence on gasoline and oil is for the prices to go up, not down. We're taxing imports of Brazilian ethanol from sugar in order to promote corn-based products raised in the U.S., at the behest of companies like corporate welfare pig Archer Daniels Midland--how about stopping that? The Economist has frequently argued (most recently in its issue this month on climate change) that the U.S. should follow Europe's lead by increasing taxes on gasoline as well as providing incentives to shift to alternative energy.

Ellen Simon, a Democratic Party candidate from Sedona running against corrupt politician Rick Renzi in Arizona's District 1, has "protecting the environment" on her list of issues, but she's also pushing Napolitano's "lower gas prices" petition. Why, Ellen? (BTW, thanks for the link to my Renzi/Hayworth post.)

Rick Renzi, J.D. Hayworth make list of most corrupt Congressmen

Rep. Rick Renzi (Republican, Arizona District 1) has made the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington's list of the 20 most corrupt members of Congress. Renzi has engaged in self-dealing, sponsoring legislation that has funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to his father's business, ManTech International of Fairfax, VA. His father is an executive vice president at ManTech, which also has offices in Sierra Vista, AZ. A more detailed report on Renzi's ethical lapses may be found here (PDF).

The other Congressmen on the list, with links to more information:

• Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT)
• Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN)
• Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)
• Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO)
• Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA)
• Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA)
• Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL)
• Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL)
• Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA)
• Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
• Rep. Gary Miller (R-CA)
• Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV)
• Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO)
• Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA)
• Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ)
• Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX)
• Rep. John Sweeney (R-NY)
• Rep. Charles Taylor (R-NC)
• Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA)
• Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA)

Rep. J.D. Hayworth (Republican, Arizona District 5) makes a "dishonorable mention" for his Jack Abramoff connections and payment of $145,212 to his wife through his PAC. Hayworth's report may be found here (PDF).

• Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT)
• Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL)
• Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ)
• Rep. John Murtha (D-PA)
• Rep. Don Sherwood (R-PA)

Hat tip to Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

Jeff Flake's anti-earmark pork-fighting amendments

Congressman Jeff Flake (R-AZ District 6) proposed 19 amendments in order to force yes-or-no votes on earmarks in a bloated appropriations bills. They were all defeated by a wide margin, but the result produced a scoring of members of the House of Representatives who support earmarks and those who don't. (Each amendment proposed removing funding for a particular earmark, so a YES vote on each amendment is an anti-pork, anti-earmark vote; a NO vote is to keep the earmark.)

The specific earmarks were:

House Vote 190 - Dairy education in Iowa ($229,000)
House Vote 191 - Hydroponic tomato production in Ohio ($180,000)
House Vote 192 - National Grape and Wine Initiative ($100,000)
House Vote 204 - Virginia Science Museum ($250,000)
House Vote 205 - Juniata Locomotive Demonstration ($1,000,000)
House Vote 277 - Swimming pool in Banning, CA ($500,000)
House Vote 278 - “Facilities” in Weirton, West Virginia ($100,000)
House Vote 279 - Multipurpose facility in Yucaipa, California ($500,000)
House Vote 280 - Strand Theater Arts Center in Plattsburgh, New York ($250,000)
House Vote 298 - Mystic Aquarium in New London, Conn. ($1,000,000)
House Vote 299 - The Jason Foundation in Ashburn, VA ($1,000,000)
House Vote 302 - Northwest Manufacturing Initiative ($2,500,000)
House Vote 303 - Lewis Center for Education Research ($4,000,000)
House Vote 304 - Leonard Wood Research Institute ($20,000,000)
House Vote 334 - Arthur Avenue Retail Market ($150,000)
House Vote 335 - Bronx Council for the Arts in Bronx, N.Y. ($300,000)
House Vote 336 - Johnstown Area Regional Industries ($800,000)
House Vote 337 - Fairmont State University ($900,000)
House Vote 338 - Tourism Development Association in Kentucky ($1,000,000)

Here's how Arizona's Representatives fared:

19 out of 19 NO (anti-earmark):
Flake (R, AZ District 6)
Franks (R, AZ District 2)
Hayworth (R, AZ District 5)
Shadegg (R, AZ District 3)

0 out of 19 NO (pro-earmark):
Grijalva (D, AZ District 7)
Kolbe (R, AZ District 8)
Pastor (D, AZ District 4)
Renzi (R, AZ District 1)

I'm sorry to see that my representative, Ed Pastor, voted in full support of these earmarks, though it does seem to me that both all YES and all NO votes are suggestive of a failure to judge them on individual merit. I do find an all YES (anti-earmark) vote more principled, as the practice of inserting earmarks has been an "invitation to corruption" (as Talking Point Memo puts it).

Flake plans to continue challenging every earmark that does not include the name of a sponsor, and posts an "egregious earmark of the week" on his website under the "earmark reform" category.

Bush's veto of the stem cell bill

As everyone knows, Bush's first veto ever was of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, to authorize federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, on the ridiculous basis that this research involves killing "boys and girls."

As Scott Rosenberg points out at Salon:

Here is why Bush's position is a joke: Thousands and thousands of embryos are destroyed every year in fertility clinics. They are created in petri dishes as part of fertility treatments like IVF; then they are discarded. If Bush and his administration truly believe that destroying an embryo is a kind of murder, they shouldn't be wasting their time arguing about research funding: They should immediately shut down every fertility clinic in the country, arrest the doctors and staff who operate them, and charge all the wannabe parents who have been wantonly slaughtering legions of the unborn. But of course they'll never do such a thing. (Nor, to be absolutely clear, do I think they should.) Bush could not care less about this issue except as far as it helps burnish his pro-life credentials among his "base."
...

If Bush believes destroying embryos is murder, let him take a real stand against it. If he doesn't, he shouldn't make it harder for the thousands of embryos that are being discarded anyway to be used for a valuable purpose that could improve real lives.

That's why Bush's stem cell position isn't Solomonic -- it's craven. His upcoming veto is an act not of moral leadership but of hypocrisy. And the cost of this hypocrisy, assuming Congress can't muster the votes for an override, will be borne by everyone who dreams of new cures for awful illnesses.

The House vote to override the veto failed by 51 votes, 235-193. Arizona's Representatives did not follow partisan lines on this--voting to override the veto were Flake (R), Grijalva (D), Kolbe (R), and Pastor (D). Voting against were Franks (R), Hayworth (R), Renzi (R), and Shadegg (R).

Back in May of last year when the House passed the bill, Grijalva, Kolbe, and Pastor voted for it, while Flake, Franks, Hayworth, Renzi, and Shadegg voted against it as the Eagle Forum insisted.

In the Senate, where it passed yesterday on a vote after sitting there for over a year, Kyl voted against the bill and McCain voted for it. No surprise there.

(Thanks to John Lynch at stranger fruit for the voting info and the reference to Rosenberg.)

UPDATE July 19, 2006: I've corrected the above to put Franks' vote back on the expected side and remove my comments of surprise about his vote. I'm still surprised by Flake's vote to override the veto.

U.S. House votes to place limits on judiciary

Yahoo headlined this story "House votes to keep 'under God' in pledge," but that's not accurate. The House passed a bill (H.R. 2389, the "Pledge Protection Act of 2005," on a vote of 260-167) which prohibits the courts from hearing challenges to the presence of "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, which strikes me as an unconstitutional action by the Congress. (Congress does have the power in Article I, Section 8 "To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court" and "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof," which gives them at least some powers of regulation (to the extent that it is "necessary and proper") over the courts. But circumscribing the topics which the Supreme Court can address would seem to me to be something only the Constitution can do. Any constitutional scholars care to comment?

Missouri Rep. Todd Akin is quoted in the story saying, "We're creating a fence. The fence goes around the federal judiciary. We're doing that because we don't trust them."

Yet it's Congress, more than the courts, that can't be trusted to be remotely responsible, rational, respectful of the Constitution, or of the people. We'd be much better off putting a fence around the Congress, such as by ending the First Amendment after the fifth word.

"Under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance by act of Congress in 1954 for explicitly religious reasons (to distinguish the U.S. from the godless communists in the Soviet Union), and the U.S. Supreme Court avoided making a ruling on the issue in Michael Newdow's case by throwing the case out on a technicality--the issue of standing, since he didn't have custody of his daughter. He's currently pursuing the case through the courts again with other plaintiffs.

All but one of Arizona's Republican Representatives signed on as sponsors of the House bill: Trent Franks, Jeff Flake, J.D. Hayworth, Rick Renzi, John Shadegg. The one Republican exception was Jim Kolbe (R); the two Arizona Democrats, Raul Grijalva and Ed Pastor, did not. I suspect their voting went along these same lines.

The Senate version of this bill is S. 1046, introduced by Arizona Senator Jon Kyl. While the House bill attracted 197 sponsors, the Senate bill has only attracted 16 and Senator John McCain is not among them. The Senate bill is stalled out in the Judiciary Committee.

Arizona's Representatives on banning Internet gambling

The U.S. House of Representatives has voted to ban Internet gambling (HR 4411) by imposing new requirements on banks and credit card processors to prohibit them from transferring money to offshore online gambling companies. This will drive up their costs, which they will pass along to consumers. The online gambling companies will set up shell companies to accept the payments, and it will be a never-ending arms race that will not stop online gambling.

The bill that passed was not consistent from a moral basis for banning gambling, as it carved out exceptions for horse racing and state lotteries. In other words--this was a bill that Jack Abramoff would have loved.

Arizona's Representatives voting in favor of the ban: Trent Franks, J.D. Hayworth, Rick Renzi, John Shadegg (all Republicans).
Arizona's Representatives voting against the ban: Jeff Flake (R), Raul Grijalva (D), Jim Kolbe (R), Ed Pastor (D).

(Hat tip to The Agitator. I second his question about why the heck the Washington Post gives a vote breakdown by Representative's astrological sign.)

Arizona Representatives on the Flag Desecration Amendment

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives voted in favor of House Joint Resolution 10 to amend the U.S. Constitution to limit the scope of the First Amendment by banning the desecration of the flag. The resolution passed, 286-130, with 18 not voting. The voting went more-or-less along party lines, with Republicans going 209-12-10, Democrats 77-117-8, and Independents 0-1-0. The Senate has yet to vote on it.

To their credit, three of Arizona's Republican Representatives showed a willingness to buck the party line, accounting for a quarter of the Republicans who opposed the measure. Their votes went as follows:

In favor: Franks (R), Hayworth (R), Renzi (R)
Opposed: Flake (R), Grijalva (D), Kolbe (R), Pastor (D), Shadegg (R).

In a recent post at Dispatches from the Culture Wars, Ed Brayton quoted from and commented on an essay from Jonathan Alter:

I inherited my one litmus test from my father, Jim Alter, who flew 33 harrowing missions over Nazi Germany during World War II. My father is not just a veteran who by all odds should not have survived. He is a true patriot. His litmus test is the proposal to amend the Constitution to ban flag burning, which will come up for a vote next week in the U.S. Senate. For dad--and me--any member of Congress who supports amending the Bill of Rights for the first time in the history of this country for a nonproblem like flag burning is showing serious disrespect for our Constitution and for the values for which brave Americans gave their lives. Such disrespect is a much more serious threat than the random idiots who once every decade or so try (often unsuccessfully) to burn a flag.

I'll go even further than that. Hell, I'll go a lot further than that. If you're the kind of person who supports a ban on flag burning, that fact alone is enough to brand you, in my view, as either a demagogue or someone weak-minded enough to be led by demagogues who play on your most shallow and childish emotional responses. Like the flag itself, the flag burning amendment is purely symbolic. And anyone who would throw away free speech rights for symbolic achievement has no business being in any political office in this country.

I second Brayton's sentiment. Let's get rid of Arizona's demogagues, Franks, Hayworth, and Renzi.

Verified Voting Bill in the House (HR 550)

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has teamed up with Verified Voting to try to get members of the U.S. House of Representatives to sign up as co-sponsors of HR 550, the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2005, which was re-introduced in the House in February. This bill would require that electronic voting include a paper receipt and the capacity for manual recounts, ensure that disabled and those who don't speak English as their native tongue are capable of voting, and enhances security requirements for electronic voting systems. The latter requirements include disclosure and certification of source code, prohibition of the use of wireless connections, and a number of other provisions which appear to me to be reasonable requirements for security. The bill authorizes expenditure of $150M for fiscal year 2006 to enable states to meet these requirements.

Arizona Reps. Grijalva and Pastor have already signed on as co-sponsors. Hayworth, Flake, Kolbe, Renzi, Shadegg, and Franks have not.

To send a request to your Representative to support his bill, you can use the EFF's support site.

Congress approves renewal of expiring PATRIOT Act provisions

After months of wrangling, Congress has approved the renewal the 16 expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act by making 14 of them permanent and extending the other two by four years. The renewal also includes things like fighting methamphetamine abuse. This version of the bill is the last one passed by the House on December 14 of last year, so none of the delay accomplished anything to improve it.

A few reforms were included--libraries can't be subpoenaed without a court approval, recipients of subpoenas don't have to provide the names of their attorneys, and individuals subject to gag orders can challenge the orders--after waiting a year.

The Senate is considering passing an additional requirement that targets of "sneak-and-peek" searches be notified within seven days.

The bill, HR 3199, the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act, was passed by an 89-10 vote in the Senate. Both of Arizona's Senators, Kyl and McCain, voted in favor of it. The ten no votes were from Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Byrd (D-WV), Feingold (D-WI), Harkin (D-IA), Jeffords (I-VT), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Murray (D-WA), and Wyden (D-WA). Sen. Inouye (D-HI) did not vote.

The House passed the bill on December 14, 2005 with a 251-174 vote, the details of which are here. Arizona's Representatives voted along party lines: For: Flake (R-6th), Franks (R-2nd), Hayworth (R-5th), Kolbe (R-8th), Renzi (R-1st), Shadegg (R-3rd), Against: Grijalva (D-7th), Pastor (D-4th).

J.D. Hayworth to keep donations from Indian tribes

Arizona Congressman J.D. Hayworth (in his sixth term, if you can believe it) has come out near the top of legislators who have received campaign contributions from "Indian tribes and others connected with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff."

I actually agree with Hayworth that he should feel under no obligation to return donations from the tribes, and I agree with many of the stances he has taken supporting them, especially with regard to the case of Cobell v. Norton. This is a case that has been going on since 1996 (with underlying issues going back to the 19th century), when Elouise Cobell of the Blackfeet Nation of Montana filed a federal lawsuit to get a proper accounting of what the Department of Interior (DOI) has been doing with funds collected from leases of land held in trust for American Indians. In the course of the lawsuit, it has been found that the DOI intentionally destroyed records (and allowed others to be destroyed by the elements) and covered it up, did not maintain records with proper security (which led to DOI websites being removed from the Internet as a result of an injunction).

On the other hand, Hayworth has held multiple fundraisers in sports stadium skyboxes owned by Abramoff, the value of which he failed to report to the Federal Election Commission, for which he refunded money to two tribes and filed amended FEC reports. If specific evidence of other failings along these lines--or of actual bribe-taking--is found, Hayworth should be nailed to the wall. The fact that he has had extensive involvement with Abramoff is itself reason to scrutinize his dealings carefully, as it's a sign that he is either a poor judge of character or doesn't care about who he associates with (it could be either, since he isn't the sharpest blade in the drawer and is one of the biggest blowhards in Congress).

When Hayworth first ran for Congress, he signed up for a dialup account at Primenet, the Arizona ISP where I worked at the time. His campaign manager said that if he won the election, he would be sure to remain a Primenet customer for quite some time. Shortly after his election, the account was cancelled.