re: Massie is Consistent: He called for Release of Names in Congressional Hush Fund

It is indeed.

quote:

---

I don’t understand the hate for him and Paul on this board. As far as I can tell they are the most honest and principled politicians of late. I don’t always agree with them, but I respect them.

---

Same. Massie is the same libertarian-leaning Republican he has always been since being elected and re-elected several times. He is a fiscal hawk and opposes foreign spending...including on wars.

He is also consistently for transparency in government.

You are still attempting to use logic and critical thinking with binary thinkers.

quote:

---

I do not believe their own law protects them from us. Under what basis do they get to shield themselves? Cannot be national secrets.

---

Very reasonable. Ask the Speaker of the House if anything can be done.

Dude you are clearly binary thinking!

You are very welcome.

quote:

---

Massie is Consistent: He called for Release of Names in Congressional Hush Fund

---

lets do it.
List them all, and investigate.

If they broke the law, arrest + prosecute +incarcerate+civil restitution to victim(s)

not complicated..

quote:

---

quote:
He doesn't know who they are

Oh, I gotcha. So he’s making pretty huge assertions and insinuations and in some instances all out accusations, i.e. conclusions, about something that he doesn’t even know whether or what exists. He’s making a huge show about “releasing names” that he isn’t even sure about what he’s demanding.
quote:
Even if he did, House Ethics rules prevent disclosure absent some convoluted procedure

Now that’s a pretty specific assertion that could only be the case if one is already fully aware of the documented basis of the assertion, and can readily point it out to the rest of us. I would certainly appreciate you sharing that (any such relevant rules on point) - thanks in advance.

---

I thought about going back and forth copying and pasting the relevant provisions, but it's late and I doubt any amount of documentation will matter to you, so here's ChatGPT's explanation:

#####


Rep. Thomas Massie cannot lawfully release the names of members of Congress who have used what’s commonly called the “congressional slush fund” (formally, payments made under the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA)) because of binding statutory confidentiality rules and House ethics constraints, not because the information doesn’t exist.

Here’s the breakdown:
1. The law requires confidentiality
Under the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, claims alleging workplace violations (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, etc.) that result in settlements or awards are handled through the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (OCWR).
The CAA mandates confidentiality for:
The identity of claimants
The identity of respondent Members or offices
The contents of settlements and awards
This confidentiality is written into statute and reinforced by OCWR rules. A Member of Congress has no authority to unilaterally override it.

2. Massie does not possess the underlying records
Massie does not personally hold the settlement files.
The records are controlled by:
The OCWR
House administrative offices
Even Members serving on committees do not receive named settlement files unless authorized by law or formal House action.
Without lawful access, Massie cannot disclose names even if he wanted to.

3. House Ethics rules prohibit disclosure
Even if a Member somehow learned names through official channels:
Disclosing protected information would likely violate:
House Rule XXIII (Code of Official Conduct)
Ethics guidance on misuse of nonpublic information
Violations could trigger ethics investigations, sanctions, or censure.
So Massie would be exposing himself to serious consequences.

4. NDAs and settlement protections still apply
Many settlements include non-disclosure provisions designed to protect:
Victims’ identities
Due-process rights
Sensitive employment records
A Member publicly naming alleged offenders could:
Breach statutory protections
Invite defamation claims
Undermine victims’ privacy

5. Why Congress can release names—but hasn’t (yet)
Only Congress as a body can change this:
By amending the CAA to require name disclosure
Or by passing a House resolution ordering disclosure of respondent Members’ names

Notably:
Congress has already required aggregate reporting of payouts
But it has stopped short of mandating name disclosure
That decision reflects institutional self-protection—not individual Member discretion.

Bottom line
Massie can’t release the names because federal law forbids it, he doesn’t control the records, and doing so would violate House ethics rules.
That’s why his (and others’) strategy has been to change the law or force disclosure through formal congressional action, rather than naming individuals himself.

He’s only consistent in his complaining. Hes in a position of power. Why doesn’t he do something rather than just tweet shite?