PA Democrat discloses wife’s work for law firm, stands to benefit from his trucking bill

Washington Examiner ^ | October 22, 2019 | Alana Goodman

[gattaca]

FULL TITLE: Pennsylvania Democrat discloses wife’s work for law firm that stands to benefit from his trucking bill

Rep. Matt Cartwright amended two years of financial disclosure statements amid allegations that he and his wife would personally benefit from truck insurance legislation he sponsored, according to public records.

The Pennsylvania Democrat has introduced multiple bills to raise the mandatory liability insurance for truck drivers while also holding a multimillion-dollar financial stake in his family law firm that specializes in truck accident-related lawsuits, the Washington Examiner reported last month.

President Trump won Cartwright's northeastern Pennsylvania district by 11 points, and the lawmaker could face a difficult reelection race as Democrats seek to defend their House majority.

Cartwright was hit with two ethics complaints after the report, alleging that he violated House conflict of interest rules by pushing the bills and also failed to disclose his wife’s income from the law firm.

The congressman amended his financial disclosure reports to acknowledge his wife earned income from Munley Law in 2017 and 2018, according to an Oct. 10 filing.

The amendment was filed two days after the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, a conservative watchdog group, submitted a complaint to the Office of Congressional Ethics. The group said Cartwright “failed to disclose his wife’s income from Munley Law” in “apparent direct violation of the Ethics in Government Act.”

The act requires members of Congress to disclose any spousal income “that totaled $1,000 or more from a single source.”

FACT called on the Office of Congressional Ethics to investigate Cartwright’s work on the legislation. “The clear conflict of interest in this case is made worse by the Congressman’s apparent lack of transparency the law requires,” said FACT’s executive director Kendra Arnold in a statement. “The failure to disclose a financial interest, in this case his wife’s income that is directly related to the legislation he sponsored, is highly suspect and needs to be immediately investigated.”

A spokesperson for Cartwright declined to comment.

Cartwright introduced two bills over the summer that would increase the minimum insurance coverage for commercial truck drivers from $750,000 to $4.5 million.

The insurance hike is backed by personal injury lawyers who would be able to collect larger payouts under the law. They claim the current minimum is inadequate for accident victims. Truck industry advocates oppose the change, arguing that it would hurt trucking companies by significantly increasing insurance premiums.

Cartwright and his wife have profit-sharing agreements with Munley Law valued at between $2 million and $10 million, according to Cartwright’s 2018 financial disclosure report. Munley Law, which was founded by Cartwright’s father-in-law, bills itself in advertisements as “the nation’s leading truck accident team."

Cartwright’s wife, Marion Munley, works as an attorney for the firm where she specializes in commercial truck accident-related injury lawsuits. Munley also sits on the board of governors for the American Association for Justice and served as chairman of the organization’s Trucking Litigation Group until July. The trial attorney trade group has been a leading advocate for Cartwright’s legislation, according to lobbying disclosure records.

[ClearCase_guy]

PA Democrat discloses wife’s work for law firm, stands to benefit from his trucking bill

The wording here made me think it was 2 guys. But it's not. The wife is a she. You never know these days.

[wetgundog]

CROOKED, spelled with a (D). Time to vote this Rat out.

[tired&retired]

The district is rated slightly Republican with a Cook PVI of R+1; however, the Democratic incumbent of the old 17th district, Matthew Cartwright, won in 2018.

[tired&retired]

This would be a good seat to swing red in 2020.

[mewzilla]

Wonder what the other 534 members of the House and Senate have been up to....

[tired&retired]

Here is his voting record. Definitely an anti Trump Democrat.

https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/136236/matt-cartwright#.Xa7ryzkpAwA

[tired&retired]

He only got this seat due to redistricting on January 3, 2019.

He is toast in the next election.

[twyn1]

No problem, if you’re a Democrat. No “intent” or something like that, so you aren’t held liable.

[JimRed]

If everyone concerned will benefit from it, no one will be harmed by it and the benefit to the originator is fully disclosed, no problem. We should not avoid good policy decisions because they might benefit someone we’re not too fond of.

[Svartalfiar]

If everyone concerned will benefit from it, no one will be harmed by it and the benefit to the originator is fully disclosed, no problem. We should not avoid good policy decisions because they might benefit someone we’re not too fond of.

But does everyone benefit from it? If you're a trucker/trucking company, and your minimum liability is now SIX times larger, that's probably a what, doubling or so of your insurance premiums? So that'll definitely hurt the truckers. Who have to raise rates, so that'll hurt the shippers. Who have to now absorb or pass on the added shipping costs. So that'll really hurt their growth investment and their shareholders, or it'll just hurt everyone all around if they raise the rates option. It's hard to find an exact number, but shipping/transportation costs are 10-20% of the final cost of most goods.

So who does benefit?
- All the lawyers who sue the trucking companies.
- Cartwright's wife. (Hence Cartwright (D))
- The insurance companies, who will certainly raise rates to more than cover the potentially higher-payout losses.
- The very few people who are entitled to $MM+ damages, although usually the company would be responsible for that anyway, if their insurance level didn't cover it.
- Anyone else...?

[Svartalfiar]

And, I forgot to add my last paragraph - the whole reason this is even an article you're reading is because the bill writer, Cartwright (D), did NOT disclose any benefits he/his spouse would be receiving. In fact, to try to avoid the ethics investigation, Cartwright went back and filed amended disclosures for the past two years, adding in this income specifically.

And there's no plain "I forgot", I don't see how CongressCritters wouldn't get a bunch of training on how to avoid controversies. Either their parties or someone would, I'm sure, walk them through filing these disclosures, how to present to public, and whatnot, specifically to avoid situations like this where there's clear ethics/legal violations.

[JimRed]

But does everyone benefit from it?

I was speaking in general terms, not of that specific bill. As you have stated it, it sounds as if that might cause harm (higher costs), so benefit or not it needs to be closely examined.

Libs will harm the country to win if that's the only way they can win.

[Svartalfiar]

But does everyone benefit from it?

I was speaking in general terms, not of that specific bill. As you have stated it, it sounds as if that might cause harm (higher costs), so benefit or not it needs to be closely examined.

But bills shouldn't even start at that point. Everyone would benefit from a million-dollar each giveaway, right? So why not do that? The starting point for any of these would be, have they even been granted the power to do so? EVERY SINGLE piece of legislation that comes out of the CongressCritters should include a paragraph stating what Constitutional part grants them the power to do what is contained in the bill. Exact, word-by-word references.

Then there's a major legal scholar who wrote a good analysis with I think four points over what makes a good bill. Applicability, narrowness, effectiveness, and no other less intrusive method. Something like that. basically that the gov should only step in when they have the power, there's no other way to do it, and to do it as cleanly and in the least intrusive manner. Of course, most of what comes out of DC doesn't pass half this test probably.

[timestax]

bttt