House Ethics ranking member Linda Sánchez (D-Calif.) last week amended four years of personal financial disclosure reports she has filed, correcting details about properties she owns in the District of Columbia and California and adding information about proceeds from a book she authored with her sister, Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.).
In a letter to the committee, Sánchez said she had recently become aware of aspects of her financial disclosures that required amendments, including failing to report assets and liabilities that she was required to disclose. Sánchez wrote that “rather than simply refile the [financial disclosure] or particular pages of each ... I am amending my FDs by letter to provide additional detail about each item in the interest of transparency.”
Sánchez, like all Members of Congress and certain senior-level staffers, is required by federal law to file the annual report that details any income, investments and liabilities. But a recent Roll Call analysis of filings with the Clerk of the House shows that the information provided on initial disclosures is frequently wrong. Last year, three out of 10 House Members had to file amendments for prior disclosures.
Sánchez’s letter, which was delivered to the Ethics Committee on May 9, corrects information provided for the Congresswoman’s finances in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. It adds the value of an investment fund; corrects the address of a property Sánchez previously owned in the District and the mortgage on that property, which has since been sold; and provides the mortgage owed on her personal residence in Lakewood, Calif., where one bedroom is rented out. Members must disclose liabilities related to personal residences if the property also generates rental income.
The letter also provides detail about the publishing agreement Sanchez signed to author the book “Dream in Color: How the Sánchez Sisters Are Making History in Congress” with her sister. Sánchez reports that she had “inadvertently omitted” the publishing agreement on prior disclosures because to date she has “not received any royalty income from the agreement.”