The Rangel item is 41 pages long, online here. The Waters item is 11 pages long, online here.
I have uploaded the Waters item to my public MS Skydrive account folder, in case the CREW downloads disappear as bad links, over time. This link.
Basically, the allegation of an ethics breach is that Waters is claimed to have used her influence to steer TARP pecuniary benefit to a bank in which her spouse held shares which would have suffered in value had the influence not been exerted.
In essence, the principle is that it is unethical to use official legislative power and influence to steer benefit directly or indirectly to a firm in which the individual has a direct or close but indirect personal pecuniary stake.
One expects the Minnesota Senate, and House, would have comparable standards and viewpoints of improper conduct. Presumably the offending member need not own an equity or capital position, but could be an employee or loan creditor misusing influence, and be equally offensive to standards of acceptable good government. Either would indirectly gain something by the pecuniary health of the related entity being sustained, or given a boost.
After reciting factual allegations, the House had three counts against Waters: 1- She did not behave at all times in a manner that would reflect creditably on the House. 2- She used influence in obtaining a personal gain. 3- Her conduct showed special favoritism and misuse of influence.
The exact Rules language differs in wording but that is the gist of the three counts; see, final three pages of the statement of alleged violations, link given, above.
My guess is that a comparable perception of an improper ethics breach might (and in my opinion should) attach to any state or federal legislator using the bill hopper to sponsor something that would allocate money for a purpose that, after passing through intermediary hands, would or very likely might accrue to the pecuniary benefit of the individual or his/her employer; i.e., having a direct or indirect pecuniary position in something the legislative powers are used to bring or attempt to bring about to actually or potentially yield a business or other pecuniary benefit that way.
Misuse of influence would be the nature of such an offense. If use influence is exchanged for some pecuniary benefit to the individual or a closely tied entity, that would be influence peddling. There can be a circumstantial appearance of influence peddling despite what motives an acting legislator might declare or assert as actual intent.
Something as crass as, "You hire me or the firm I work for in some capacity and flow us cash, then I will sponsor legislation helpful or intended to be helpful to you in some pecuniary way," that arguably should be viewed as nothing less than soliciting a bribe.
Anyone disagreeing about the nuances of proper official conduct of lawmakers should post a comment suggesting where my view is too lenient, too severe, or off base.
___________UPDATE__________
Recent online commentary about Rangel and Waters and timing, Politio - here and here.
