But 16 months later, the Minnesota Legislature ended its session Thursday without a vote to put Right to Work to the voters. The bill has been attached to, then detached from, other legislation. It’s been introduced, and reintroduced. But Republicans won’t give it an up-or-down vote in either house. Just after 2 a.m. on April 27, Republican Rep. Mark Buesgens made a last-ditch attempt to transfer Right to Work from the Commerce Committee, where it had stalled, to the Rules Committee. But Republican colleagues tabled his motion by a 118-to-9 vote. Republican Sen. Michelle Benson, who pushed for the bill’s passage, says it’s now a lost cause until next year’s session.

What happened? In interviews with the Associated Press last month, a spokesperson for the Minnesota Senate majority leader called right-to-work “such a divisive issue.” GOP state Rep. Tony Cornish cited the prospect of “millions of dollars coming in from other states, and thousands of people. Buses emptying out, banners, people camping.” In other words: the fear of becoming the next Wisconsin.

Minnesota AFL-CIO president Shar Knutson says that the year’s high-profile battles in other states had had “a large impact” in discouraging Minnesota Republicans.  “You’ve seen what’s happened in Wisconsin and Ohio,” says Knutson. “There’s a lot of money that goes in, a lot of volunteers, a lot of people out on the streets working hard. So yeah, I’d be nervous if I were them too.” Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s attack on collective bargaining provoked a 17-day occupation of the state capitol and landed him a recall election next month; Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s assault was overturned by voters in a 61-to-39 referendum vote.

Sen. Benson says that the threat of union payback at the ballot box “was enough to divide our caucus.” She attributes her colleagues’ reticence to their “justified concern that the unions, with their massive coffers, will come after people in swing districts.” Asked about the impact of Wisconsin and Ohio, Benson says that “Minnesota is not Wisconsin,” but grants that “Nothing occurs in a vacuum.” Wisconsin and Ohio, says Benson, show that “the unions are afraid of the change that is happening in this country, and they will work vigorously against any attempt to cause them to step back from their current position.”

The ranks of now-reluctant Republicans — call them the Cold Feet Caucus — extends beyond Minnesota. In February, the House Commerce and Energy Committee in deep-red South Dakota voted to kill a bill that would have banned collective bargaining for public workers. The AP reported that Rep. Brian Liss, the bill’s main sponsor in the House, blamed his colleagues’ votes on fears for reelection. Ten days earlier, one of the bill’s Senate sponsors, Republican Stan Adelstein, announced he was withdrawing his support and would oppose the bill instead. “Further study,” Adelstein said in a statement, “has shown me that South Dakota is NOT Wisconsin, and passage of this bill into law would cause grievous harm.” Adelstein may have meant that South Dakota didn’t need the same labor relations “reform” that Wisconsin did. But his constituents could be forgiven for inferring a different message from his all-caps contrast: I’m not a Walker-style Republican.

The presumptive GOP nominee for Washington state governor is also taking pains to send a “What, Me Walker?” message. Last month, in audio obtained by Politico, Attorney General Rob McKenna told a meeting of Puget Sound Carpenters, “Now, unfortunately, because of a couple of governors – particularly Scott Walker – everyone thinks that someone who’s going to be a Republican governor, they’re going to be Scott Walker. I’m not Scott Walker. This is not Wisconsin.” A spokesperson for McKenna’s presumptive Democratic opponent, who has made a point of tying McKenna to Walker, retorted to Politico that McKenna had pushed to privatize workers’ compensation, and “called the unionization of state employees ‘dangerous.’”

After Michigan Republicans passed an “emergency manager” law that allows appointees of Gov. Rick Snyder to throw out some local union contracts, some planned to push their own right-to-work bill. But facing a Wisconsin-style recall effort against Snyder, an Ohio-style referendum effort against the emergency manager law, and a pro-union constitutional amendment drive, the House’s leading right-to-work backer has held off on introducing a bill. Rep. Mike Shirkey told Michigan’s News-Herald last month that he wasn’t dragging his feet on right-to-work because of the pro-union efforts, but declined to say when he would introduce his own bill.

Despite these Republican retrenchments, labor faces a continuing crisis. Witness Indiana, which became the industrial Midwest’s first right-to-work state this year, or New Hampshire, which if not for a gubernatorial veto would have become New England’s. Or Connecticut, where liberal Democratic Gov. Dan Malloy proposed “education reform” that would curb collective bargaining for teachers in “low-performing” schools.

So the Cold Feet Caucus isn’t cause for labor to relax. Rather, it’s a reminder of what’s at stake in higher-profile battles – especially in Wisconsin, where Democratic voters this week nominated Tom Barrett to face down Scott Walker in next month’s recall. Four weeks out, the race is much too close to call. But it’s safe to say either unions or their opponents will emerge emboldened after the June 5 vote – not just in Wisconsin, but around the country.

If Walker ekes out a victory, it won’t represent a decisive mandate for legislative union-busting. But it will be enough to get some Republicans over their cold feet.

Last Thursday, Rep. Elijah Cummings announced that the IG would be releasing a follow-up report, and was referring his findings to the Office of Special Counsel “for potential Hatch Act violations due to Mr. Schaumber’s role as a senior advisor” to Romney. (The Hatch Act bans public officials from using government access to advance political campaigns.) The new report, released last night by the House Education and Workforce Committee Democrats, is a sequel that truly outdoes the original.

The same day Cummings announced the forthcoming report, Romney Etch-A-Sketched Schaumber – sort of. The campaign issued no statement, but a “Romney campaign aide” told the Hill that Schaumber had already stepped down from his campaign role sometime in December. That’s the same month that Flynn learned he was being investigated by the IG. (The Romney campaign did not respond to a request for comment.)

“It’s hardly a coincidence,” said AFL-CIO spokeswoman Alison Omens in an emailed statement, “that Schaumber resigned from the Romney campaign the same time his inside source at the board was notified he was being investigated.”

When Romney tried to dump right-wing anti-immigrant warrior Kris Kobach as part of a post-primary pivot, Kobach talked back, telling Think Progress he was in fact still advising the candidate. Romney shouldn’t have that problem with Schaumber, who’s been keeping his mouth shut since being named in the IG report last month. But there are some facts that complicate the Romney campaign’s narrative. A month after Schaumber’s supposed departure, he appeared on Fox News to discuss Republican outrage over Obama’s NLRB appointments (one of whom was Schaumber’s alleged mole, Flynn). The host introduced Schaumber as a “top advisor” to Romney – as did the Fox chyron – and asked him about Romney’s stance on the NLRB. (She also asked him about NLRB investigations of Bain Capital; Schaumber pleaded ignorance of the details, then launched into a blanket defense of companies that get investigated by the NLRB.)

Romney’s website was also slow to adjust to his supposed months-old parting with Schaumber. Until recently, a link to an essay by Schaumber was prominently displayed on his Labor page, and the press release announcing his appointment was in the campaign’s archive. Now, the Web addresses for both bring up pages reading “Access Denied.”

Looks like Team Romney is trying to put distance between itself and Schaumber’s scandal without actually addressing it. But the scandal is just getting started.

The IG’s new report, like its first, finds that Flynn, then counsel to another Republican NLRB member, did much more than “discuss issues” with Schaumber, as his attorney claimed. That includes forwarding Schaumber draft opinions in cases days before the board had voted on – let alone released — a decision. The IG says Flynn also sent Schaumber an email from then-Chairwoman Wilma Liebman setting out which cases were “her top priorities” to rule on that term. (Liebman declined to comment.) The IG wrote that Flynn provided Schaumber info that the NLRB would have withheld even if Congress requested it. “Mr. Flynn’s public statement that he has engaged in no wrongdoing,” wrote the IG, “strikes at the very heart of the Board and all but eviscerates the due process procedures that the Board has established.”

And according to the report, Romney’s erstwhile advisor wasn’t a passive recipient of Flynn’s emails.  In January 2011, Schaumber emailed Flynn back about a dissenting opinion – a month before the board’s final vote on the case – and said it was “quite good,” but “It would have been nice if he cited me .”

In September 2010, Flynn sent Schaumber edits on a draft of a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed Schaumber was writing, but added his “misgivings” that Schaumber’s drawing an “angry glare” to the NLRB could hurt “the prospect of my nomination” to become an NLRB member himself (at the time, Flynn was still only counsel to another member). Schaumber replied with a reassurance that it wouldn’t, based on his conversations with “Schneider” — perhaps a reference to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s policy advisor Dan Schneider (McConnell’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.) When Obama indeed nominated Flynn, Flynn emailed Schaumber, “Thank you, my friend.” Schaumber responded that while he could have gotten himself nominated to return to the board instead, “I wanted you to have the opportunity.” The IG wrote that, “The situation gives rise to the appearance that Mr. Flynn’s disclosure of deliberative information and assistance to former Member Schaumber was in return for former Member Schaumber’s lobbying on behalf of Mr. Flynn’s nomination.”

(Schaumber did not respond to a request to be interviewed by the IG, and could not be reached for comment.)

Emails released by the IG suggest that at least one former colleague suspected Flynn and Schaumber were collaborating. According to the report, on March 30, 2011, Schaumber sent Flynn a draft of an Op-Ed for the Hill’s website. Flynn, who had participated in deliberations on the case being discussed, promised Schaumber “extensive” revisions. After a series of emails, the post was published on April 18.  Schaumber sent the link to Flynn, who responded positively. An hour later, then-Chairwoman Wilma Liebman also sent Flynn the link, with the comment, “Trust you saw this.  Perhaps even wrote it.” Instead of claiming his handiwork, Flynn responded, “I’m not familiar with that blog, but thank you.”

Four months later, just before being tapped by Romney, Schaumber trashed Liebman to Flynn, writing that “neither [NLRB member] Craig Becker nor Wilma told the truth when false statements would better serve their goals…”  Flynn agreed.

Following the release of the IG’s follow-up report, the NLRB’s current chairman broke his own silence on the scandal. In an emailed statement, Mark Pearce said, “We take the findings in these reports very seriously. They raise questions of ethics and trust that go to the heart of the values shared by all of us at the NLRB. Those concerns are paramount in our minds as we consider the necessary response.” (The White House declined to comment.)

In an emailed statement last night, Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin called for Flynn’s immediate resignation, saying that the evidence, and his response to it, “suggests that he lacks both the professional judgment and ethical integrity to continue serving on the Board.”  Rep. George Miller also called for Flynn’s resignation, writing that, “Disclosing judges’ deliberations in pending cases to outside parties, for example, is repugnant to the American justice system.”

In response to Salon’s inquiry, Flynn’s attorney forwarded a May 2 letter to the IG that questioned the integrity of the investigation and said that  “the evidence shows that Mr. Flynn was simply discussing issues of mutual interest with a former close colleague.”

Harms works at the National Benefits Center (NBC) office in Lee’s Summit, Mo. She’s not directly employed by the federal government but is, instead, a contractor. She is one of about 800 workers there employed by the British company Serco, or Serco’s subcontractors, to process immigration paperwork under Serco’s contract with the federal government ($190 million a year, as of 2009). Penn, meanwhile, is a partner at the anti-union firm Crossroads Group. According to the most recent contract he filed with the Department of Labor (for a different client), his services cost $350 an hour. Serco presumably paid for Penn’s time out of its own pocket. But taxpayers paid for the facilities — from office space to audiovisual equipment — he used to campaign against the union.

Like Harms, many Americans would resent the prospect of taxpayer dollars, or taxpayer-funded resources, being deployed to bust a union drive. President Obama once seemed to be against it, as well. In his first month in office, President Obama signed an executive order apparently aimed at similar situations. Obama’s order forbids government reimbursement for “the costs of any activities undertaken to persuade employees … to exercise or not to exercise … the right to organize and bargain collectively.”

But as Serco and its subcontractors fight to stay union free at the NBC, workers and union staffers say the order has meant less than they’d hoped. And despite Obama’s order, the government says that Serco can use government facilities to fight unionization without breaking the law. Now, some union activists are questioning whether Obama’s support for them is as firm as it once seemed. “We have an executive order that sounds good,” says Chris Townsend, the political action director for the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE). “But I am yet to be convinced that [it] amounts to anything.”

Serco isn’t the only company to aggressively combat unionization while reaping a taxpayer-funded windfall. A 2010 report from the Government Accountability Office found that the federal government had awarded over $6 billion in contracts in fiscal 2009 to contractors that had been cited for violating federal labor laws, from wage and hour rules to organizing rights. Earlier in 2010, the New York Times reported that the White House was planning to implement a “high road” contracting policy that would direct more government contracts to companies with better labor and environmental records. But by 2011, Obama OMB nominee Heather Higginbottom told senators in a confirmation hearing that there were no such plans afoot.

The current Serco fight began in January, when workers at the Lee’s Summit NBC – an arm of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) — began organizing with UE. Workers say they were spurred to unionize when Serco demoted them en masse in order to avoid expected raises.

The UE director of organization, Bob Kingsley, says Obama’s executive order “has not slowed Serco in its effort” to mount “a classic union-busting campaign.” UE has filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board alleging that Serco’s campaign broke the law, by — among other things — illegally monitoring union activisim and forbidding workers from talking about the union at work. (Serco and Michael Penn did not respond to repeated requests for comment.)

In February, workers say managers required them to watch an anti-union film during work hours. By April, Serco had brought in Penn. UE says that most of the contract employees at the Lee’s Summit NBC site were sent to anti-union sessions led by Penn during the first week in April. One of them, Erica Yount, says Penn emphasized that with a union, “we could lose a lot of the benefits that we have now … the company doesn’t have to give us anything, that they could take stuff away.” Another, who requested anonymity based on fear of retaliation, says it felt like a cult meeting: “It was like being locked in a room with Jim Jones, without the Kool-Aid.”

Reached via e-mail, USCIS spokesperson Tim Counts said that USCIS is in compliance with the executive order, and that the government “will not be billed for the time Serco employees spent” in anti-union meetings, including managers. Some workers say Serco scheduled them for “administrative overhead training” time during the April meetings, presumably so that time would not be billed to the government. But others question the accuracy of the accounting. Harms says that while she attended a meeting at 6:30 a.m., a copy of her schedule showed regular hours in the morning and “overhead” hours in the afternoon. The union also questions whether Serco is accurately tracking time that Penn spent with its own managers, coaching them on their role in the anti-union campaign. (Salon has made a Freedom of Information Act request to USCIS for relevant documents.)

But even if Serco paid all the wages for anti-union meetings on its own, the government is still implicated in them. The government, not Serco, owns the property used for the meetings, including furniture and audiovisual equipment (UE says that Serco also sent workers anti-union memos that employees would be able to access only on their government-provided computers). Asked whether Serco and its subcontractors were required to pay a rental fee or ask permission before using government property to hold mandatory anti-union meetings, Counts responded, “Under the terms of the contract, the contractor is permitted to use government facilities to communicate with its employees without obtaining government permission.”

Serco doesn’t own the NBC office space where Penn held his “captive audience” meetings either. The government rents it from a local technical college. Asked whether Serco paid the government, or the college, to use the space for anti-union meetings, Counts said that under current contracting regulations, “contractors may use facilities rented by the government for activities allowed by the contract but not directly related to services performed for the government.”

But the space isn’t open to everyone – workers note that security guards kicked UE organizer Karen Hardin off the property when she came in hopes of talking to off-duty workers about the union. Asked whether the government, as the lessee of the space, would grant a hypothetical request from UE to meet with off-duty workers in nonwork areas on-site, USCIS’ Counts replied that doing so would not be “consistent” with the requirement that agencies “remain impartial concerning any dispute between labor and contractor management.”

To some workers who were required to attend Penn’s sessions, the government’s role seems anything but impartial. They say the mandatory meetings, which would be intimidating in any setting, had a greater impact on workers because government facilities were involved. “You just want to go up and chew them all out for even thinking that they had the right to do this,” says an employee of one of Serco’s subcontractors, who requested anonymity. But according to USCIS, nothing in the 2009 executive order prevents a professional union-buster from running mandatory anti-union meetings for federal contractor employees using government facilities.

Salon’s inquiries to the White House (regarding whether USCIS’ view is consistent with the executive order), and to the chair of the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (regarding how the executive order has so far been enforced), were both referred to a spokesperson for the Office of Management and Budget. In an e-mail, she wrote that the “allowability of costs under cost-reimbursement contracts is governed” by “cost principles,” one of which had been amended to “make unallowable the costs for any activities undertaken to persuade employees” whether to organize. In other words, it’s now government policy to reject requests to reimburse union-busting expenses. But that may not contradict USCIS’ statement, which implied that companies can use government-provided facilities for union-busting purposes. As for the order’s track record, the spokesperson wrote, “The Office of Federal Procurement Policy does not monitor or track the disallowance of claimed costs for which the contractor seeks reimbursement.”

Madison Teachers Inc. executive director John Matthews says the difference between Falk’s and Barrett’s plans for how to restore workers’ collective bargaining is “the key issue” in the primary. Falk, Barrett and the race’s two other Democratic candidates all say they support that goal. But even if Democrats retake the Governor’s Office and flip the state Senate, they may still have a Republican assembly to contend with. Falk committed early on to veto any budget that doesn’t include collective bargaining restoration, a move that SEIU Healthcare Wisconsin vice president Bruce Colburn praises as “very significant.” Barrett has said he would pursue the issue on multiple fronts, including calling a special session of the Legislature. Barrett Communications director Phillip Walzak says that a budget showdown would risk leaving the entire Walker budget in place. Falk campaign communications director Scot Ross says that in a special session, Assembly Republicans could easily decline to hold any votes.

Matthews, whose union has not yet endorsed a candidate, declined to say which approach he prefers. But he says that other unions erred by endorsing Falk early in the process, with insufficient member involvement, in an effort to “freeze out Tom Barrett.”

Barrett’s run was actively discouraged by some unions that had held union contract negotiations with both him and Falk. Marty Biel, the executive director of the Wisconsin State Employees Union, told Salon in February that he hoped Barrett would understand “why he might not fit the matrix of what a champion looks like.” In an April 7 statement, WSEU wrote that whereas Falk had a history of “working with our members to solve problems,” Barrett “wasn’t interested in working with us” to get a collective bargaining agreement signed in the weeks before Walker’s anti-union bill passed (in the same statement, WSEU acknowledged “poor judgment” in promoting a web video that implied Barrett had fully supported Walker’s bill). Wisconsin Education Association Council president Mary Bell says that Falk distinguished herself last year both by negotiating in good faith with union members to reach agreements before Walker’s bill passed and by traveling the state in support of recall efforts afterward.

But Barrett is on track to win the nomination. Wisconsin Democratic Party spokesperson Graeme Zielinski says that whoever wins the primary “will certainly be the head of our party, and will be directing our messaging and what we’re talking about.”  A poll released Monday from Public Policy Polling showed Barrett ahead of Falk 38 to 24 among likely voters. SEIU’s Colburn says that polling “shows there’s some ground to be made up,” but notes that Barrett has a name recognition advantage from his 2010 gubernatorial run, and led Falk by nearly twice as much in February.

Ross says that Falk’s endorsements from unions and other progressive organizations equal not just voters, but “people who will be out on the streets, knocking on doors and getting out the vote.” Walzak notes that Barrett has a few of his own local union endorsements, and says that prominent politicians backing Barrett “have their own networks they can tap into” to support him.

Sources from labor and both campaigns insist that the national media have exaggerated the bitterness of the primary. AFL-CIO secretary-treasurer Stephanie Bloomingdale says that while news reports play up “tension in labor” over the race, “We’ve read more about that on the newspaper online than we have actually seen on the ground in Wisconsin.”

But MTI’s Matthews says statements – or silences – from some of the unions backing Falk make him worry that they could sit out the general election against Walker if Barrett is nominated. Bloomingdale says that won’t happen: “I’ve heard that all the affiliates have made indications that they will support whoever gets through the primary.”

Last Thursday, in an Op-Ed almost perfectly written to flame the fears of Barrett’s labor critics, Barrett backer and former Madison Mayor Dave Cieslewicz wrote of Falk that “A candidate beholden to big unions is no more appealing to independent voters than one who answers to the Koch brothers.” Cieslewicz charged that while voters want an “independent” leader, “the unions seem to want to offer them Jimmy Hoffa instead.” He added that not having been endorsed by public sector unions could help Barrett’s campaign with independents. Asked about Cieslewicz’s column, the Barrett campaign’s Walzak said he saw it as an attempt to point out “a difference between rank and file union members” that may support Barrett, “and some of the leadership that are driving some of the political decisions.” The Falk campaign’s Ross said, “Comparing the working men and women to the Koch brothers … is an inappropriate, negative campaign tactic that doesn’t have any place in this race.”

Labor leaders reject the idea that distance from unions will be an electoral asset this year. “The issue is really going to be who’s going to come out and vote,” says SEIU’s Colburn. He warns that “unless people see this as something that’s going to really reverse what Walker’s done … people who have been involved, and are involved from the movement side, then they’ll be reluctant to participate, and even vote perhaps.”

WSEU’s Bell says that “the energy and the enthusiasm” are on Falk’s side, in both the primary and the general election. “In the end, the electorate is very divided.  And they’re looking for someone that they think can bring us back together.”

“This is the cronyism and bias that you absolutely don’t want in a government agency,” says Jeffrey Hirsch, a former NLRB attorney who now teaches law at the University of North Carolina. “If [Flynn] found out one of his board staff was giving info to, say, a Democratic former board member,” says Hirsch, “I can’t imagine he wouldn’t fire the person on the spot.” (Spokespersons for the White House and NLRB Chairman Mark Pearce both declined Salon’s request for comment. The Romney campaign did not respond to multiple requests.)

The NLRB, which enforces and interprets U.S. labor law, has become a lightning rod for right-wing attacks. As Salon has reported, the IG found that Flynn leaked info to Schaumber and other conservatives last year, while employed by the NLRB as counsel for a Republican member. After Obama recess-appointed Flynn and two Democrats as new NLRB members in January, Mitt Romney ran a South Carolina TV ad blasting the president for appointing “union stooges.” Schaumber, the co-chair of Romney Labor Policy Advisory Committee, warned at the National Review’s blog that one of those Democrats raised “an appearance of partiality that will undermine public confidence” in his rulings.

But it’s Flynn, not a Democrat, who now stands accused of leaking internal info to private parties with a stake in NLRB cases — including Schaumber. The report alleges Flynn sent Schaumber documents ranging from internal legal advice memos to an email mentioning a precedent the board might revisit. In an emailed statement, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington executive director Melanie Sloan said, “There is no place in government for someone who leaks confidential information and lies to investigators.”

The Romney campaign, which Tuesday devoted a press release to imagining anti-Obama tweets Debbie Wasserman Schultz might have written in 2008, has been silent on the scandal. Not that Romney is above weighing in on NLRB emails: When an internal email came out last fall in which NLRB general counsel Lafe Solomon appeared to make a joke about hurting the economy, Romney called for Solomon to resign. AFL-CIO general counsel Lynn Rhinehart says that contrast is “really outrageous and hypocritical, and tells us a lot about the candidate.” The AFL-CIO launched a Web petition last month urging Flynn to resign, and Romney to cut ties to Schaumber.

Flynn maintains he did nothing wrong. One of his attorneys, Barry Coburn, wrote a letter to the inspector general condemning the report and stating that Flynn’s conduct was “innocuous … a Board member’s or Counsel’s job is not to live in an isolated bubble, but rather to be appropriately available to those outside the agency, and to interact meaningfully with the Board’s constituency.”  Coburn declined further comment.

Former NLRB general counsel Fred Feinstein says he’s not aware of any past allegations of NLRB staff “giving information to specific individuals on one side, but not the other one.” Feinstein notes that he’s not speaking to the merits of the allegations against Flynn, but says that, “The way in which the information flow is handled is an important part of the process, and being careful about that is part of protecting the integrity of the process.” Feinstein adds that when he served as the board’s top prosecutor under President Clinton, “we took that responsibility quite seriously,” because “when it’s compromised, it compromises the ability of the agency to carry out its responsibilities.”

Flynn and Schaumber could face more embarrassing disclosures ahead — from the House, the Senate, and the Department of Justice. Following the release of the IG report, Rep. Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, wrote to the committee Chairman Darrell Issa requesting that the committee hold transcribed interviews with Schaumber and with Peter Kirsanow, another conservative former NLRB member named by the IG as a recipient of confidential info. A spokesperson says that Cummings has not received a response from Issa.  (Issa did not respond to Salon’s request for comment.)

The IG report also notes that its investigators only had access to Flynn’s more recent emails. Last week, Sen. Tom Harkin, the chairman of the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, wrote to Flynn requesting correspondence from the past five years. Harkin gave Flynn an April 9 deadline; a committee spokesperson says that the senator has granted an extension, at the request of Flynn’s lawyer, to Monday, April 16.

But the real action could be at the Justice Department. Rep. George Miller, the ranking Democrat on the House Education and Workforce Committee, wrote to the attorney general March 23 requesting a review of the IG report. The same day, the committee’s Republican chairman, Rep. John Kline, noted in a statement that the report “had been appropriately referred to the Department of Justice.” Hirsch says the White House may be avoiding comment on the issue to avoid the appearance of interference with any DOJ investigation.  (A DOJ spokesperson declined to comment.)

Meanwhile, the Labor page on Romney’s website still prominently features an essay by Schaumber, bashing “misguided administrative actions by partisans at the NLRB” and promising that Romney will appoint NLRB members who pursue “flexibility” and “cooperative” labor relations. Hirsch says that as former NLRB members, Schaumber and Kirsanow “knew they shouldn’t have taken that stuff, and they clearly kept accepting it.” The situation is “incredibly ironic,” says Hirsch, “given all the criticism that the board has taken by Republicans” for supposed bias. “There’s no question that this was inappropriate. And so the silence is deafening.”