Talk:House banking scandal

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) Events(s).

450 Representatives

How could the scandal have involved 450 representatives as the article claims, the House only has 435 members at any given time, to be true, all House members would have to have done this and then some! Did former House members have banking privledges that maybe were abused, thats the only way that statistic would make sense, if thats the case, then the sentence needs to be reworded to express that. 70.188.130.152 (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC) Jason D.[reply]

"a sample of 39 months" implies that the investigation covered more than one term of Congress. This link says "At least 355 members (out of 435) had overdrawn their accounts" which implies the figure relates to those in a single term. Being overdrawn on an account within the bank's terms and conditions is a very common practice, especially when deposits haven't been credited in time (although with modern computer instant payments this is a declining issue), and it's unsurprising if most reps were overdrawn at one point or another. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

This article is titled "Rubbergate" (expressing POV?) and notes that the scandal is also referred to as the "House banking scandal". There is no Wikipedia page for the latter.

Which is the more common name for this scandal? A Google search finds 473 hits for "Rubbergate", 916 hits for "House bank scandal", and 13200 hits for "House Banking Scandal". A search for "house bank" and "scandal" finds 20700 hits, so it does seem that the mahority of all references to the scandal use the term "House bank scandal".

I suggest renaming this article to "House banking scandal", and adding a redirect for "House bank scandal". --RichardMathews 19:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree. This completely out of line with standard NPOV article naming. Derex 19:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV and unsourced statements

This article has many problems. It's littered with POV terminology ("abusers," "looked the other way," "misappropriation of House funds"), and its sourcing is inadequate. What, exactly, did Russ plead guilty to? Neither the article nor the references provided says. Where's the reference that supports the contention that "77 Representatives resigned or did not run for reelection as a result of the scandal?" It's a mess, badly in need of cleanup.--RattBoy 13:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of Congressional Post Office Scandal?

The Merge tag says, "It has been suggested that Congressional Post Office Scandal be merged into this article or section." I strongly oppose any such action. The Post Office Scandal was a true "scandal," in which laws were broken and people served time. The banking "scandal" was arguably not a true scandal. It was an agreement by a group of people to pool their money, in order to address their personal finances. It had the "smell" of scandal, but the page lists no proof that the activities were illegal—not that I've seen, at any rate.

If there's a connection between the Post Office Scandal and the bank "scandal," the connection should be described in both articles.--RattBoy 13:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of articel title?

A appreciate that the articel is now at the better title then "Rubbergate", however by itself it isn't terribly obvious what "house" is being discussed here, moreso because the word "House" is first in the title. Would "United States House banking scandal" or "United States House of Representatives Bank scandal" be workable? The last I suspect would be preferred, as it includes the title of the institution in question, IMAO. 68.39.174.238 00:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Boxer?

How come she isn't listed? I think she should be... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.211.241 (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Boxer was, indeed, both a member of the House during that episode and had 87 overdrafts honored by the House Bank.

According to Jeffrey Schmalz in the New York Times ("The House Bank; House Bank Overdrafts Add to Voters' Outrage," March 16, 1992)

"Representative Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat who listed 87 overdrafts and is running for the United States Senate, issued a statement that "in painful retrospect, I clearly should have paid more attention to my account."

She said she had written a check to the Deficit Reduction Fund of the United States Treasury representing the $15 that a regular bank would have charged for each overdraft."

As to why Sen. Boxer isn't mentioned, she wasn't named specifically by the House Ethics Committee as the Members of Congress who were specifically named were, but voluntarily disclosed her overdraft status and paid a representative overdraft fee to the US Treasury's Deficit Reduction Fund (see above).

To name Senator Boxer specifically would (to maintain a Neutral Point of View article) require we name ALL the Representatives (over 450) who had House Bank overdrafts; this wouldn't add a great deal to the value of the article and would imply wrongdoing which has not been proven in her case.loupgarous (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

asterisks

I don't think that the asterisks introduced into the table in this article (by edit) are appropriate. It implies that these congress-folks were ousted by their constituents due to the "rubbergate scandal", but no citations for that are offered. As such, I'm removing them. 24.177.124.161 (talk) 03:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Overdraft protection" and how it is explained in the context of the article

The original article stated "Many U.S. banks, like the House Bank, offered overdraft protection to checking account holders."

This is a fact, but it's not the entire story, and sounds like the overdrafts on the House Bank checking accounts are being explained away - it could be argued that this part of the article is not NPOV (however, I give the author of that statement credit for complete good faith; it's a contentious point on which reasonable people may differ.) Moreover, there's no specific source for that statement.

I have added the following sentences which prevent the argument being made that we somehow are covering for the House Bank, its lending practices, or the people mentioned by the House Ethics Committee (since a Wikipedia article isn't a forum to discuss their innocence or guilt beyond sourced statements):

"However, the overdrafts in a regular bank's overdraft protection program are always secured by either a line of credit with the bank extended under standard lending protocols (including interest charges, if any), linkage of the protected checking account to another account with the necessary funds to pay the overdraft, such as a savings account, or charges made to a credit card held by the depositor. [7]

Prior to and during the House Bank overdraft scandal, the security for the overdrafts in the House Bank was the Member of Congress' next paycheck, as posted to his or her checking account in a pencil ledger system. In the aftermath of the House Bank overdraft scandal two credit unions, one for the House and one for the Senate provide banking services to Members of Congress and the general public, with no special treatment for Members of Congress.

These credit unions existed long before the scandal. However, the Office of the House Sergeant-at-Arms had offered a much more convenient clearing house for Members of Congress' checks, and overdraft protection was managed in a much more lenient (and less expensive) manner than through the credit unions or, for that matter, any chartered bank.[8]"

The sources of this information are [7] the Wikipedia article "Overdraft." and [8] Holden Lewis (February 22,2000). [-http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/chk/20000222.asp "Congress comes down from the hill to bank with the rest of us"]. bankrate.com. Retrieved 30 January 2013.

All sources have been entered in the article reflist as of now.loupgarous (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on House banking scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081010140100/http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/abramoff-case-has-lawmakers-scared/20051221033709990001 to http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/abramoff-case-has-lawmakers-scared/20051221033709990001

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]