The Center for Public Integrity

WASHINGTON (AP) — The elderly and other vulnerable homeowners are losing their homes because they owe as little as a few hundred dollars in back taxes, according to a report from a consumer group.

Outdated state laws allow big banks and other investors to reap windfall profits by buying the houses for a pittance and reselling them, the National Consumer Law Center said in a report being released Tuesday.

Local governments can seize and sell a home if the owner falls behind on property taxes and fees. The process helps governments make ends meet at a time when low property values and the weak economy are squeezing tax revenue.

But tax debts as small as $400 can cause people to lose their homes because of arcane laws and misinformation among consumers, says John Rao, the report's author and an attorney with NCLC.

The consequences are "devastating for individuals, families and communities," Rao said. He said states should update laws so speculators can't profit from misinformed homeowners and people who have difficulty managing their finances.

The rules for property tax sales can be confusing, especially to elderly people who can't keep track of their finances and people in minority-heavy communities that were targeted by subprime lenders. Here's how it works:

— The government files a public document called a tax lien saying that it can seize the property if the taxes remain unpaid.

— If the taxes aren't paid, the government auctions the lien to investors. Past investors include JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and people who respond to Internet get-rich schemes, the report said. Homes typically are sold at steep discounts.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A new report finds that law enforcement agencies in the U.S. made more than 1.3 million requests for customers' cellphone records last year.

It's an alarming surge over previous years, reflecting the increasingly gray area between privacy and technology.

Sprint says it received about 500,000 subpoenas in 2011. Requests are increasing annually at Verizon and T-Mobile. And AT&T has a dedicated team of more than 100 workers whose job it is to handle police requests.

Cellphone carriers say they usually require warrants to hand over information, but not in emergencies, such as when there's an immediate threat to someone's life.

The information was collected by Massachusetts Rep. Ed Markey. He said laws need to be updated to ill protect people's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches using modern technology.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A new law will let companies contribute billions less to their pension funds. And some people are concerned that that could weaken the plans millions of Americans rely on for retirement.

Yet with numerous companies already dropping or curtailing their pension plans, many of the same critics say it is even more important to avoid giving firms a reason to limit or jettison remaining pension benefits by forcing them to contribute more than they say they can afford. Some also say the changes will probably have little impact on the enormous $1.9 trillion in estimated pension fund assets.

The concerns underscore a harsh reality for unions and consumer advocates: When it comes to battling over pensions, the fragile economy of 2012 gives the business community a lot of leverage.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The former Countrywide Financial Corp., whose subprime loans helped start the nation's foreclosure crisis, made hundreds of discount loans to buy influence with members of Congress, congressional staff, top government officials and executives of troubled mortgage giant Fannie Mae, according to a House report.

The report, obtained by The Associated Press, said that the discounts — from January 1996 to June 2008, were not only aimed at gaining influence for the company but to help mortgage giant Fannie Mae. Countrywide's business depended largely on Fannie, which at the time was trying to fend off more government regulation but eventually had to come under government control.

Fannie was responsible for purchasing a large volume of Countrywide's subprime mortgages. Countrywide was taken over by Bank of America in January 2008, relieving the financial services industry and regulators from the messy task of cleaning up the bankruptcy of a company that was servicing 9 million U.S. home loans worth $1.5 trillion at a time when the nation faced a widening credit crisis, massive foreclosures and an economic downturn.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee also named six current and former members of Congress who received discount loans, but all of their names had surfaced previously. Other previously mentioned names included former top executive branch officials and three chief executives of Fannie Mae.

"Documents and testimony obtained by the committee show the VIP loan program was a tool used by Countrywide to build goodwill with lawmakers and other individuals positioned to benefit the company," the report said. "In the years that led up to the 2007 housing market decline, Countrywide VIPs were positioned to affect dozens of pieces of legislation that would have reformed Fannie" and its rival Freddie Mac, the committee said.

A South Carolina state senator who blocked an effort earlier this year to limit anonymous campaign spending by third-party groups is singing a slightly different tune now that a shadowy group is opposing one of his political allies.

Sen. Lee Bright, a Republican from Roebuck, appeared at a news conference in Sumter last week to support businessman Tony Barwick, who is facing a GOP runoff election for a Senate seat on June 26.

In recent weeks, a group calling itself SC Conservative Reform Council has popped up and spent several thousand dollars on direct mail and radio ads in support of Barwick’s opponent, Wade Kolb.

The reform council does not appear on the S.C. Ethics Commission website, where other political action committees do, nor is it registered with the S.C. Secretary of State, as are corporations and nonprofits.

Groups influencing elections in South Carolina, such as the SC Conservative Reform Council, do not have to disclose who is bankrolling them or how much money they are taking in or spending, as a result of 2010 federal court ruling in Florence, S.C. And Bright recently helped quash legislative efforts to reinstitute some sort of  disclosure rules and spending limits for such groups.  

The federal case revolved around a seemingly mundane slice of minutiae — how the word “committee” is defined under South Carolina law. But the effects of the ruling were far-reaching indeed, opening the floodgates for untraceable political spending in the Palmetto State by many independent groups seeking to influence elections.

Candidate Kolb says he does not know who is behind the SC Conservative Reform Council.    

Its only disclosure: a UPS box number in a city outside the district where the race is taking place.

In these troubled economic times, it is perhaps not surprising that the federal government is a bit touchy on the question of just how many limousines it owns and operates. But now it turns out that even defining a limousine is a complex topic worthy of a government memo.

Just over a year ago, based on information in the annual Fleet Report issued by the General Services Administration, the Center for Public Integrity reported that the number of limousines owned by government agencies rose 73 percent from 2008 to 2010, to a total of 412. It was clear from the responses of government officials that a limo increase was not something the Obama Administration was anxious to take credit for.

In fact, at the time, a GSA spokeswoman asserted that the limo numbers in its own report were not reliable. “The categories in the fleet report are overly broad, and the term ‘limousine’ is not defined,” she said. The spokeswoman concluded that GSA “cannot say that its report accurately reflects the number of limousines.”

It’s now come to light that six weeks after the story ran, the GSA sent a memo to federal agencies with new guidance on what — exactly what — constitutes a limousine.

According to the memo, some agencies had reported vehicles that weren’t so classy — even shuttle buses — as limos, which a GSA spokesman said skewed the 2010 numbers.

A limo, the GSA memo states, “is a vehicle with a lengthened wheelbase, generally driven by a dedicated driver” with possible customization, including “privacy panels” and stretching for capacity and comfort. “Vehicles, including shuttle buses, without the aforementioned characteristics should not be reported as limousines,” the memo says.

Longtime Charleston Mayor Joe Riley had run a lot of high-minded races in this coastal city known for charm and manners, so nothing really prepared him for the bare-knuckle politics he faced in a re-election bid last fall. A shadowy group popped up seemingly out of nowhere and spent an untold amount of secret money to pummel Riley’s record in support of one of his rivals.

None of the mayor’s opponents declared allegiance to the anonymous group that funded TV ads, flyers and a slick website called “The Riley Files” that read like a private investigator's report. The website came complete with images of manila folders titled “Crony Capitalism” and “Misplaced Priorities” along with photos of the mayor paper-clipped to them.

No one ever found out who was behind the group calling itself Citizens for a Better Charleston. That's because new rules in South Carolina meant the group did not have to file paperwork with the state or disclose what it was doing, how much it was spending, where its money was coming from and who was bankrolling it.

The mayor won his re-election campaign, but the victory came with a few bruises — and a lesson: in the realm of money and politics, things had changed dramatically in the Palmetto State.

In the past, an independent entity attempting to influence an election — like Citizens for a Better Charleston — would have had to file disclosure paperwork as a “committee” with the state’s ethics agency, allowing a bit of sunlight to shine on its work. 

But not anymore.

In 2010, a little-noticed ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Terry Wooten in Florence, S.C., kicked the regulatory teeth out of a key statute in the state’s campaign finance laws and opened the floodgates for untraceable political spending by many of the groups seeking to influence elections. 

As the California legislature gears up to vote on the state budget, Republicans are demanding  greater transparency in the process, citing a C- grade for the budgeting process from  the State Integrity Investigation. California ranked 4^th out of all 50 states overall with a grade of B-.

On Monday, Republicans called for a 48-hour public review of the budget plan, allowing time for citizens to voice their concerns to representatives before it goes to a vote. Lawmakers face a constitutional deadline to approve a budget for the new fiscal year by this Friday;  the fiscal year kicks off July 1. California Democrats control both legislative chambers, as well as the governor’s office.

“While Democrats talk about openness and accountability, all we have seen from them are smoke-filled rooms and back-room deals, shutting out taxpayers and the news media,” Senate Republican Leader Bob Huff (R-Diamond Bar) and Assembly Republican Leader Connie Conway (R-Tulare) stated in a press release. “Budgets thrown together behind closed doors or passed in the middle of the night are one of the main reasons why California is facing chronic deficits today.”

Sabrina Lockhart, communications director for Assembly Leader Conway, said that California’s grades on the State Integrity Investigation “bolstered our opinion that more transparency is needed,” but she also noted that Republicans have sought open government legislation for years.

Among their proposals: Bills to increase legislative transparency, eliminate late-night legislative sessions and promote an open and honest budget process.

A Republican state senator in South Carolina known for championing ethics reform legislation has gone down in an upset primary election here.

Mike Rose, a close follower of the State Integrity Investigation — which gave South Carolina an F — had planned to introduce a series of reform measures based on the report next year.

That won't happen.

Earlier this week, challenger Sean Bennett, 44, roundly beat Rose, of Summerville, with a grassroots campaign that raised $17,000, compared to the $60,000 that Rose, a 64-year-old former Judge Advocate General’s Corps officer, had in his coffers.

It will be the first time Bennett, a financial planner, has held elected office. He won with 60 percent of the vote. No Democrat has filed to run in the general election held in November.

The defeated Rose served in South Carolina's Senate from 1988 to 1996. After more than a decade out of office, he ran again in 2008 and has served since then.

Months ago, the state's Republican treasurer, Curtis Loftis, was eating lunch with Rose when John Crangle, who runs South Carolina’s state's chapter of Common Cause, approached the table.

“You'll never see a piece of ethics legislation without his name on it,” Crangle told Loftis, gesturing to Rose.

Crangle was the only lobbyist for South Carolina's last ethics overhaul bill, which passed in 1991.

Ethics issues in South Carolina government may have reached a new tipping point. 

The state's Republican governor, Nikki Haley, is the subject of an investigation by a legislative ethics panel that is looking into whether she illegally lobbied as a legislator.