May 21, 2001
BY
CERTIFIED MAIL & FACSIMILE
Office of
the General Counsel
Federal
Election Commission
999 E
Street, N.W.
Washington,
D.C. 20463
Chief
Public
Integrity Section
Criminal
Division
U. S.
Department of Justice
10th
Street & Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington,
D.C. 20530
Re:
Complaint Against The National Republican Senatorial Committee
and Senator Bill Frist (R) of the State of
Tennessee, Chairman,
Senator Sam Brownback (R) of Kansas, “Inner
Circle” Chairman,
Senator Wayne Allard (R) of Colorado,
Member,
Senator Christopher Bond (R) of Missouri,
Member,
Senator James M. Inhofe (R) of Oklahoma,
Member,
Senator Jeff Sessions (R) of Alabama,
Member,
Senator Gordon H. Smith (R) of Oregon,
Member.
Dear
Sir/Madam:
I. INTRODUCTION.
Judicial
Watch, Inc., (hereinafter “Judicial Watch”) is a non-profit, public interest
law firm that investigates and prosecutes government abuse and corruption. Judicial Watch, in the public interest,
hereby submits this complaint to the Federal Election Commission and the
Department of Justice against the National Republican Senatorial Committee
(hereinafter “NRSC”), 425 Second Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002, and NRSC
Chairman, Senator Bill Frist of the State of Tennessee, as well as Senator Sam
Brownback (R) of Kansas, “Inner Circle” Chairman, Senator Wayne Allard (R) of
Colorado, Member, Senator Christopher Bond (R) of Missouri, Member, Senator
James M. Inhofe (R) of Oklahoma, Member, Senator Jeff Sessions (R) of Alabama,
Member, Senator Gordon H. Smith (R) of Oregon, Member. Specifically, Senator Frist, the member
senators of the NRSC and its staff appear to be in violation of:
1.
2 U.S.C. § 431,
et seq. (Definitions).
2.
2 U.S.C. §
434(b) (Reporting requirements).
3.
18 U.S.C. § 201
(Bribery of Public Officials and Witnesses).
4.
18 U.S.C. § 600
(Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity).
5.
11 C.F.R. §
104.3 (Contents
of reports).
II.
FACTS.
A. Press Reports Concerning
Apparent Illegal Political Fundraising.
1. On April 28, 2001, Larry
Bivins of the Gannet News Service reported in a story entitled, “White
House Briefings, Dinners To Be Used To Raise Campaign Money,” that:
“Campaign finance reform advocates Friday evoked
memories of scandals past, lashing out at Republicans for
sponsoring an upcoming event for big donors that features
briefings with Cabinet secretaries and dinner with diplomats
and dignitaries at a foreign embassy.
For $ 10,000 each, or $ 15,000 per couple, GOP faithful can become
life members of the Republican Senatorial Inner Circle, an adjunct
of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and spend three
days rubbing shoulders with senators, Cabinet officials and diplomats
May 22‑24 at the Capital Hilton Hotel.
A tentative agenda includes briefings with Commerce Secretary
Don Evans, Education Secretary Rod Paige, Energy Secretary Spencer
Abraham and Secretary of Health Tommy Thompson.
On May 22, guests "Will have the exclusive opportunity to
dine with diplomats and embassy officials and discuss international
affairs at one of Washington's famous embassies," the agenda
reads.
The package also includes a cruise down the Potomac and a complimentary
ticket to the $ 2,500‑per‑person President's Dinner June
27.
While reform advocates long have decried access to political and
policy leaders granted to big‑money contributors, they say
involving
foreigners raises fresh concerns.
‘Asking a foreign government to provide hospitality to the
National Republican Senatorial Committee's 'Inner Circle' of elite
donors is opening a Pandora's box of potential problems,’
said Scott Harshbarger, president of Common Cause.
‘After all of the Washington fund‑raising scandals caused
by foreign donors, it is simply incredible for the NRSC to partner
with a foreign government in providing perks to big money donors,’
Harshbarger said.
*
* *
Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics,
which monitors campaign spending and fund‑raising, noted that
Republicans were among the more strident critics of Democrats
and Bill Clinton during the party's 1996 fund‑raising excesses
that involved foreign donors.
GOP leaders also railed about donors being rewarded with White
House sleepovers and coffee klatches.
‘Republicans complained, and rightly so, about the selling
of the Lincoln Bedroom, and now they're selling access to
administration
officials and foreign embassies,’ Noble said. ‘Quite frankly, it's
outrageous.’
Exhibit 1.
2.
On May 2, 2001, The Boston Herald published a story by Andrew
Miga entitled, “Dems Cry Foul As GOP Plans Donor‑Access Events,” that
stated:
“Republicans who railed at Bill
Clinton's fund‑raising abuses
during the 2000 campaign will reward
top GOP donors with
special access to Cabinet
secretaries and a foreign embassy party
later this month.
Campaign finance reform advocates
yesterday blasted the
Republican money tactics as
heavyhanded, hypocritical and
unethical ‑ a sign of business
as usual in the nation's capital despite
GOP pledges of money reform.
‘It's an egregious breach of
ethics,’ said U.S. Rep. Martin Meehan
(D‑Lowell), co‑sponsor
of a major bill to curb money abuses.
‘It's also hugely hypocritical given
how they hit Clinton for these
same tactics.’
Meehan complained that Republicans ‑
now that they have captured
the White House for the first time
in eight years ‑ are relying on some
of the very same aggressive money tactics they ripped Clinton and
the
Democrats for using.
‘They are selling access here,’ said
Meehan. ‘They may call it something
else, but that's really the bottom
line here.’
Campaign finance reform advocates
said while Democrats have used
Cabinet secretaries to help raise
money, the party has never held
events at foreign embassies, a new
GOP wrinkle.
Common Cause, the public interest
watchdog group, blasted the National
Republican Senatorial Committee's
Inner Circle Spring Briefing for its
major money backers as a cynical
political maneuver. Only $ 10,000 GOP
donors will be invited to the
embassy dinner.
‘After all of the Washington fund‑raising
scandals caused by foreign
donors, it is simply incredible for
(the GOP) to partner with a foreign
government in providing perks to big
money donors,’ said Common Cause
head Scott Harshbarger, the former
attorney general of Massachusetts.
NRSC officials could not be reached
for comment yesterday. GOP officials
have said they will rent the
embassy, which has yet to be decided upon,
for their event.
Harshbarger compared the GOP's donor
briefings with Cabinet secretaries
to Clinton's rewarding of wealthy
Democratic donors with overnight stays
in the famed Lincoln Bedroom. ‘There's not
a lot of difference between renting out a Cabinet secretary to a political
donor and renting out the Lincoln Bedroom to a political donor ‑ it's
just as crude, almost as unseemly,’ said Harshbarger.
Invitations to the NRSC's Inner
Circle trumpet a May 24 embassy dinner
where attendees ‘will have the
exclusive opportunity to dine with diplomats
and embassy officials and discuss
international affairs at one of Washington's
famous embassies.’
Donors will also be treated to
private briefings with such Cabinet
secretaries as Health and Human
Services Secretary Tommy Thompson,
Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham and
Education Secretary Roderick R. Paige.”
Exhibit 2
B.
The NRSC’s Inner Circle Spring Briefing Solicitation Agenda.
Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas
serves as the Chairman of the NRSC’s “Republican Senatorial Inner Circle” The
NRSC’s solicitation for Inner Circle members included a Spring Briefing agenda
that detailed the meetings with senior Bush Administration officials that their
cash contributions were buying. A
remarkable twist to this event included the involvement of the embassy of a
foreign government. In this instance,
the NRSC elected to involve the diplomatic establishment of a foreign power and
its resident staff as yet another tool or vehicle to generate money. The NRSC Inner Circle agenda read as
follows:
“Tuesday
May 22, 2001
10:00 am - 5:00 pm Life
Member Registration
Life Members avoid the crowds at registration
by coming to Washington, D.C. a day early to
participate
in their exclusive Life Members only events.
6:00 pm -
8:00 pm Life Members Embassy
Dinner
Life Members will have the exclusive opportunity
to dine with diplomats and embassy officials and
discuss international affairs at one of Washington’s
famous Embassies.
8:00 pm -
10:00 pm Life Member Cruise
After dinner, Life Members will enjoy a cruise up
the
Potomac River. If you’ve never seen
Washington’s pristine monuments set against the moonlit sky, don’t
miss this cruise.
Wednesday,
May 23, 2001
8:00 am - 9:30 am Life
Members Breakfast and Induction Ceremony
NRSC
Chairman Senator Bill Frist, M.D. will personally present all new Life Members
with their official Life Member Certificate.
9:30 am -
6:00 pm Life Member Free Time
Enjoy
a day at the Smithsonian, touring the U.S. Capitol, visiting your congressman,
shopping, or just relaxing as life members have the day free.
6:00 pm - 7:00 pm Life
Members Cocktail Reception and Photo-Op
With
Medal of Freedom Recipient
Only
the Inner Circle’s Life Members will be invited to this private reception and
have a photo opportunity with the year’s Senatorial Medal of Freedom Recipient,
The Honorable Don Evans.
~~Events from this
point forward are open to all Inner Circle attendees~~
7:00 pm -
9:00 pm Inner Circle Medal of
Freedom Dinner
Medal
of FreedomRecipient – The Honorable Don Evans Life Members will enjoy priority
seating at this gala event.
Thursday,
May 24, 2001
8:30 am -
10:00 am Chairman’s Breakfast -
Chairman’s Report:
A Look
Ahead
Invited
Speakers:
Senator Bill Frist, M.D., NRSC Chairman
Senator Sam Brownback, Inner Circle
Chairman Mitch Bainwol, NRSC
Executive Director
INNER CIRCLE WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING SERIES
Featuring Administration Officials to brief
us on the bold new direction of the Bush Administration.
10:00 am - 11:00 am Healthcare:
State of Healthcare in America”
Invited
Speakers:
The Honorable Tommy Thompson
Senator Bill Frist, M.D., TN
Senator Mike Enzi, WY
Senator Pat Roberts, NE [sic]
Senator Susan Collins, ME
Senator Christopher Bond, MO
Senator Jeff Sessions, AL
11:00 am - 12:00 pm Commerce:
“Ways to Promote U.S. Competitiveness in the
Global
Marketplace”
Invited
Speakers:
Senator Ted Stevens, AK
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, TX
Senator John Ensign, NV
Senator George Allen, VA
12:00 pm - 12:30 pm Break
12:30 pm - 2:00 pm Inner
Circle Lunch:
“A New
Movement in the Media”
Invited
Guest:
Sean Hannity, Fox News Channel’s “Hannity & Colmes”
WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING SERIES
(Continued from the morning session.)
2:00 pm - 3:00 pm Education:
“Improving the Quality of Education”
Invited
Speakers:
The Honorable Rod Parge
Senator Judd Gregg, NH
Senator James Jeffords, VT
Senator Tim Hutchinson, AR
3:00 pm - 4:00 pm Energy:
“Planning for the Future, While Meeting the Needs of Today”
Invited
Speakers:
The Honorable Spencer Abraham
Senator Frank Murkowski, AK
Senator Pete Domenici, NM
Senator Larry Craig, ID
8:00 pm - 12:00 am INNER
CIRCLE GALA
Senator Bill Frist, M.D., NRSC Chairman
Senator Sam Brownback, Inner Circle Chairman
Featuring:
“The Midnight Movers”
*Planned agenda as of 3/30/01.
Please note that you will receive an updated agenda at registration on
May 22, 2001. Dress for daytime
meetings is business attire, Business or cocktail attire is appropriate for all
evening activities.”
Exhibit 3
C. Judicial Watch’s May 2, 2001
Letter to Senator Frist.
On May 2, 2001 , Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry
Klayman wrote to Senator Frist concerning the activities of the NRSC, which he
chairs, and citing earlier Judicial Watch legal actions concerning similar
illegal fundraising by Representative Tom DeLay and the National Republican
Congressional Committee. The letter
stated:
“Re:
Illegal Fundraising By The National Republican Senatorial Committee.Dear
Senator Frist:
As you
know, Judicial Watch is a public interest law firm that investigates and
prosecutes government abuse and corruption. While Judicial Watch is
conservative, it is also non-partisan. During the Clinton-Gore Administration,
Judicial Watch sparked the campaign finance/Chinagate scandal when it uncovered
notorious Chinese agent John Huang at the Commerce Department. Mr. Huang not
only was involved in the illegal sale of trade mission seats for campaign
contributions, but he also received over 150 national security briefings from
the Central Intelligence Agency, which briefings it is believed he shared with
his “handlers” of the Lippo Group and Chinese Intelligence Services. Judicial
Watch is continuing to prosecute this and other Chinagate lawsuits to a just
conclusion, and Mr. Huang has thus far been held in contempt over 140 times.
Recently, Judicial Watch has had to bring legal actions concerning illegal
fundraising by Republican House Majority Whip Tom DeLay and the National
Republican Congressional Committee (“NRCC”) (see “Klayman Trains Sights on
DeLay,” Roll Call, by Damon Chappie, April 9, 2001; and “Hastert Upset at NRCC
Over Klayman Dispute,” Roll Call, by John Bresnahan, April 30, 2001, enclosed).
Last week it was reported by the Wall Street Journal that the National
Republican Senatorial Committee (“NRSC”) is also involved in illegal
fundraising, selling not only meetings with high Bush Administration officials,
but also using a foreign embassy as “bait” to lure political contributions. As
set forth in the complaint against Mr. DeLay and the NRCC (copy enclosed), the
sale of official government office for political campaign contributions is
illegal and, at a minimum, it violates U.S.C. § 431-455 and U.S.C. § 600.
Judicial Watch demands that the NRSC immediately cease and desist from these
illegal activities. If we do not get confirmation that you have ceased and
desisted by noon on Monday, May 7, 2001, we will be forced to take appropriate
legal action against you. Judicial Watch trusts, however, that you will
recognize, such as occurred recently with House Speaker Denny Hastert, that
these activities are illegal, and that you will take appropriate steps to stop
them now before legal action proves necessary. Please govern yourselves
accordingly.”
Exhibit 4.
D.
The NRSC’s Response Through Counsel.
Alex Vogel, the NRSC General Counsel
responded to Judicial Watch’s request on May 8, 2001. He wrote:
“I have received your letter dated May 2,
2001, in which you outlined concerns regarding the fundraising activities of
the committee. We are reviewing your
letter.
Thank you for bringing your views to our
attention.”
Exhibit 5.
Mr. Vogel, by failing to address the
substance of our request to Senator Frist and the NRSC, confirmed the press
reports, constituting an admission that illegal political fundraising practices
are, indeed, taking place. To date,
almost two weeks later, Judicial Watch heard nothing further from the NRSC.
E.
Speaker Hastert and Senator Fitzgerald Repudiate Republican Fundraising Tactics.
Fortunately, two Republican leaders in
Congress recognize the illegality of the Republican Party fundraising tactics
and have chosen to remove themselves from participation in the illegal schemes
to sell meetings with senior Bush Administration officials. On May 9, 2001, Dori Meinert of the Copley
News Service reported in a story entitled, “Fitzgerald, Hastert Distance
Themselves From GOP Fundraising Tactics,” that:
“Sen. Peter Fitzgerald has quit his post with
a Republican campaign fundraising committee after critics accused the group of
selling access to high‑level Bush administration officials and diplomats.
Fitzgerald was the second Illinois lawmaker
in recent weeks to distance himself from Republican fundraising methods.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert last week
decided to skip a tax‑reform briefing for GOP contributors where he had
been billed as the headliner.
Their actions came after two groups that are
usually on opposing sides Judicial Watch and Common Cause alleged the National
Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) and the National Republican
Congressional Committee (NRCC) of auctioning off access to top policymakers.
‘I applaud the action of the senator. He's
doing the right thing, much like Denny Hastert,’ said Larry Klayman, chairman
of Judicial Watch, the conservative government watchdog group that repeatedly
sued former President Bill Clinton.
Judicial Watch has sued the NRCC, which
maintains its fundraising is legal, and has threatened to do the same with the
NRSC, which says it is evaluating the allegations.
Fitzgerald stepped down after just three
months as chairman of the NRSC's Republican Senatorial Trust, a group of donors
who contribute $10,000 or more a year. Fitzgerald, who is independently
wealthy, was supposed to expand the number of big‑money donors.
He met with contributors in Las Vegas earlier
this year and again last week in Washington, where Labor Secretary Elaine Chao
and House and Urban Development Secretary Mel R. Martinez appeared.
However, Fitzgerald said he was uncomfortable
with letters being sent out under his name before he had had a chance to review
them.
'I wanted to see and approve any material or
information put out by the committee on behalf of the senatorial trust,'
Fitzgerald said. 'It was clear that they were not comfortable with that
approach and I was somewhat uncomfortable having my name connected to the trust
without the ability to vet what the trust was doing.'
He would not say whether the recent
criticisms of GOP fundraising methods motivated him as well. Judicial Watch
last week threatened legal action against the NRSC after the Wall Street
Journal reported that it had invited big donors to meetings with Cabinet members
and diplomats. Fitzgerald raised his concerns with the committee's staff the
same week.
His resignation was reported first by the
Capitol Hill newspaper, The Hill.
NRSC spokesman Dan Allen insists there are no
hard feelings.
'His stepping down was an amicable
arrangement,' Allen said. 'He's still
going to be there to help us out.'
No successor has been named.
Meanwhile, Hastert is re‑evaluating his
participation in the direct‑mail fundraising efforts of the NRCC after
the controversy developed over the invitation to the tax‑reform briefing
sent to donors in his name.”
Exhibit 6
Senator Fitzgerald and Speaker Hastert’s
actions speak volumes concerning the fundraising tactics and practices of Republican
fundraising committees. While these two
officials have gone to great lengths to publically remove themselves from the
GOP’s illegal fundraising schemes, the campaign committees and their staffs
continue their efforts unchecked.
F.
The Republican Party Cancels A Fundraiser At The Mexico Embassy
With increased government “watchdog” and
press scrutiny of their illegal fundraising activities, the NRSC decided to
cancel its Mexican Embassy fundraiser.
George Lardner of the Washington Post reported on May 17, 2001
under the headline, “GOP Cancels Fundraiser at Mexico Embassy,” that:
“An
embassy dinner that Senate Republicans were planning for their biggest
contributors next week has been canceled.
The
National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) had advertised an exclusive
get-together ‘at one of Washington's famous Embassies’ as the opening feature
of a controversial set of fundraising activities set to begin here Tuesday.
A committee
official said the Republicans had their eye on the Mexican Cultural Institute,
described by Mexican officials as one of the most spectacular mansions on 16th
Street NW, and ‘were about to sign a contract’ to rent the elegant building
when the Mexicans said no.
The rules
of the institute prevent it from renting rooms or facilities ‘for political
fundraising activities,’ Mexican Embassy spokesman Miguel Monterrubio explained
yesterday. A center of Mexican art and culture adorned with spectacular murals
and a tiled courtyard, the 91-year-old building has been the setting for art
shows, concerts, ‘gastronomic events’ and fundraisers for the institute's
activities, but not for political purposes.
NRSC
spokesman Dan Allen it was too late to rent another embassy. He said the
dinner, reserved for lifetime members of the Inner Circle Club ($10,000 a
person or $15,000 a couple), will be held at a different location. A Potomac
cruise will follow.
Although
some Democrats have called use of an embassy to entertain donors a new and
cynical twist in the fundraising game, Allen said the Senate campaign committee
has done it without raising alarms for the last three years, renting out the
the British and Finnish embassies and the Taiwanese mission.
‘We rent
the venue so it is not the embassy holding an event for the NRSC,’ Allen said.
‘It is the NRSC renting the embassy to hold the event. As a courtesy, we invite
the ambassador and close staff.’
The NRSC's
proposed agenda said the embassy dinner would offer life contributors ‘the
exclusive opportunity to dine with diplomats and embassy officials and discuss
international affairs at one of Washington's famous Embassies.’
What the
NRSC calls its Inner Circle Spring Briefing has drawn more fire for its plans
to have high-ranking Bush Cabinet officers address the group at meetings
Wednesday and Thursday. As many as 500 Inner Circle members, whose dues are
$1,000 a year, are expected to attend.
Common
Cause has denounced the proposed agenda as an ‘auctioning of access’ to high-ranking
administration officials and Judicial Watch contends it would be illegal
because it amounts to ‘selling meetings with Bush administration officials for
political campaign contributions.’
Allen said
‘everything is perfectly kosher’ because the briefings by Cabinet secretaries
will take place at the Capital Hilton, not on government property. But it
remains unclear whether all the invited Cabinet officers -- Commerce Secretary
Donald L. Evans, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson,
Education Secretary Roderick R. Paige and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham --
will show up.
An NRSC
source said Thompson and Abraham are unlikely to attend. Allen would say only
that at this point ‘we're not sure of the lineup.’”
Exhibit 7
It appears the Mexican government has a more
defined ethical standard than fundraisers within the NRSC. Mr. Allen’s continued assertions that
“everything is perfectly kosher” belies the defections of Senator Fitzgerald
and Speaker Hastert, as well as the cancellation of the Mexican embassy
event. When Mr. Allen says he is “not
sure of the lineup,” he communicates an culpability greater in scope than the
accuracy of a simple guest list. The
culpability is symptomatic of, apparently, a greater re-examination of the
illegal fundraising practices of the NRSC.
The identification and complaints against the flagrant abuse of selling
meetings with high government officials to “fat cat” donors seems to giving
some influential Republicans pause.
Judicial Watch insists that the FEC and the Justice Department are
obligated by law to investigate these matters; as the recent series of events
documented in this complaint point to a pattern and practice of illegal
behavior that harms our Constitutional Republic.
III. THE LAW.
A.
Senator Frist’s And The NRSC’s Actions Fall Within The Anti-Bribery Law.
The NRSC’s solicitations of political
campaign cash for meetings with Bush Administration officials, as well as
Senator Frist’s trading on his status as a powerful United States Senator to
financial contributors, are graphic examples of gross violations of both the
letter and spirit of 18 U.S.C. § 201 (Bribery of Public Officials and
Witnesses), and 18 U.S.C. § 600 (Promise of employment or other benefit for
political activity). Despite the press
reports and Judicial Watch’s warning, Senators Frist, Brownback, Allard,
Bond, Inhofe, Sessions, Smith and the NRSC unabashedly continue to barter for
official government favors and influence for citizens’ cash.
Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 201 (Bribery of
Public Officials and Witnesses) provides in pertinent part:
“(a) For the purpose of this section - (1)
the term ''public official''
means
Member of Congress . . .2). . . being a public official or person
selected
to be a public official. . ., (b)(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly
demands,
seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept
anything
of value personally or for any other person or entity,
in return
for: . . .(2)(C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in
violation
of the official duty of such official or person.
In U.S.
v. Biaggi, 853 F.2d 89 (2nd Cir. 1988), the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit addressed the issue of a congressman’s “official
acts” with regard to 18 U. S. C. § 201.
The term “official act,” as used in 18 U. S. C. § 201(a)(3), prohibiting
any congressman from accepting anything of value for or because of official
acts, was not limited solely to acts related to the legislative process, but
was broad enough to include all acts normally thought to constitute legitimate
use of a congressman’s office. In Biaggi,
the Court ruled that the congressman engaged in “official acts,” within the
meaning of the anti-gratuity provisions of federal bribery statutes, when he
wrote letters on behalf of persons who had paid for his vacations using
congressional stationery, to urge federal and New York City officials to take
actions favorable to the party that paid for the vacations.
The Second
Circuit clearly addressed the issue of “official acts,” ruling:
“Defendants
contend that the acts performed by Biaggi on behalf
of Coastal
were not “official act[s]” within the meaning of § 201
because
they were not legislative acts and because they were directed
principally toward municipal, not federal
agencies. In addition,
defendants
contend there was insufficient evidence to show that the
vacations
were offered or accepted “for or because of” Biaggi’s acts.
We reject
both contentions.
1. Official Acts
[5]
Biaggi’s suggestion that a congressman’s only “official act[s]
within the
meaning of § 201 are acts in the legislative process itself
is
untenable. The language of the section
does not mention legislative
acts, and
courts have read the section and its predecessors sufficiently
broadly to
encompass all of the acts normally thought to constitute a
congressman’s legitimate use of his office.”
Biaggi, 853 F.2d
at 97; see generally, U.S. v. Myers 635 F. 2d 932 (2d Cir.
1980). The Court found that the jury
could have rationally inferred Biaggi’s guilt from “the nature and sequence of
events, certain explicit statements, and suggestions of cover-up.” Biaggi, 853
F. 2d at 99. Like in Biaggi, the
nature and sequence of events and certain explicit statements here demonstrate
illegal activity under 18 U.S.C. § 201.
Similar to Congressman Biaggi, Senator Frist and the NRSC have promised
to arrange meetings for political contributors with top government officials in
exchange for cash. Whether for
political campaigns or vacations is of no significance because both reasons are
indefensible and illegal.
Senators
Frist, Brownback, Allard, Bond,
Inhofe, Sessions, and Smith, in their official capacity as United
States Senators, with the cooperation and assistance of the NRSC, are trading
upon their official office, position, status and government access, in order to
sell meetings with Bush Administration officials in exchange for political
contributions under the “Inner Circle” fundraising program. This is a flagrant abuse of the public’s
trust and Senators Frist’s Brownback’s,
Allard’s, Bond’s, Inhofe’s, Sessions’, and Smith’s official
government office, that is, using Senator Frist’s Brownback’s, Allard’s, Bond’s, Inhofe’s,
Sessions’, and Smith’s official government office as a fundraising tool. The quid pro quo is clear, and the
exchange rests upon the leverage of each of the aforementioned senator’s
official office.
In order
for the crime of bribery to have been committed, it is not necessary that a
public official actually have the power to perform the act that he promises in
return for money. What is necessary is
that the public official solicit or receive money on representation that the
money is for the purpose of influencing the performance of some official
act. See U.S. v. Arroyo, 581 F.
2d 649 (7th Cir. 1978).
Again,
Senators Frist, Brownback,
Allard, Bond, Inhofe, Sessions, and Smith have placed their official
government office – their Washington, D.C. influence – as the fulcrum of the
illegal fundraising scheme. Senators
Frist, Brownback, Allard, Bond,
Inhofe, Sessions, and Smith and the NRSC’s solicitations for cash
included a promise of meetings with Bush Administration officials concerning
official U.S. government policy matters.
The contributions solicited by Senators Frist, Brownback, Allard, Bond, Inhofe, Sessions,
and Smith,
and the NRSC are specifically for the official acts of Senators Frist, Brownback, Allard, Bond, Inhofe, Sessions,
and Smith
and officials of the Bush Administration in their posts as government
officeholders.
Further,
18 U.S.C. § 600 (Promise of
employment or other benefit for political activity) provides
in pertinent part:
“Whoever,
directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position,
compensation,
contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for
or made
possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or
any
special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person
as
consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the
support of
or opposition to any candidate or any political party in
connection
with any general or special election to any political office,
or in
connection with any primary election or political convention or
caucus
held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined
under this
title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”
In De
Vera v. Blaz, 851 F.2d 294 (1988), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit addressed the breach of an alleged agreement of employment between a
political campaign worker and a candidate for the office of delegate for Guam
to the United States Congress, in exchange for the campaign worker’s vote,
support and work for the candidate. The
Ninth Circuit found, “The alleged promise clearly violates express provisions
of both federal and territorial election laws.” See DeVera, 851 F.2d at 296.
Clearly, Senators Frist’s, Brownback’s,
Allard’s, Bond’s, Inhofe’s, Sessions’, Smith’s and the NRSC’s solicitations and
actions fall within the letter and spirit of these provisions of the U.S. Code,
among others.
B. “Offset
Contributions” and FEC Reporting.
Given the NRSC’s non-response to the substance
of the press reports showing that they are selling meetings with Bush
Administration officials for up to $15,000 in political campaign contributions,
a strong evidentiary inference arises that neither is adhering to the FEC’s
reporting requirements.
The FEC is charged by law with obtaining
reports from political committees about the source of their funding and their
expenditures, then making this information available to the public (see,
e.g., Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 109 (1976)). Specifically, the Federal Election Campaign Act (hereinafter
“FECA”), 2 U.S.C. § 431-455, et seq., requires disclosure of the following:
(b) Contents
of reports. Each report under this
section shall disclose . . .
(4) for
the reporting period and the calendar year, the total amount of all
disbursements, and all disbursements in the following categories . . . (F) contribution
refunds and other offsets to contributions . . .
(5) the
name and address of each . . . (E) person who receives a contribution refund or
other offset to contributions from the reporting
committee where such contribution was reported under paragraph 3(A) of this
subsection, together with the date and amount of such disbursement;
(6)(A) for
an authorized committee, the name and address of each person who has received any
disbursement not disclosed under paragraph (5) in an aggregate amount or value
in excess of $20 within the calendar year, together with the date and
amount of any such disbursement;
2 U.S.C. § 434(b) (emphasis added).
The FEC’s own regulations are even more
specific, requiring that the following information be reported:
(b) Reporting
of Disbursements. Except for
reports file in accordance with 11 CFR 104.17, each report filed under 11 CFR
104.1 shall disclose the total amount of all disbursements for the reporting
period and for the calendar year and shall disclose the information set forth
at 11 CFR 104.3(b)(1) through (4) . . .
(1) Categories
of disbursements for political committees other than authorized committees. All political committees other than
authorized committees shall report the total amount of disbursements made
during the reporting period, and, except for itemized and unitemized
breakdowns, during the calendar year in each of the following categories: (iv) Offsets; (A) Itemized offsets
to contribution (including contribution refunds); (B) Unitemized offsets
to contributions (including contribution refunds); (C) Total offsets to
contributions.
(2) Categories
of disbursements for authorized committees. An authorized committee of a candidate for Federal office shall
report the total amount of disbursements made during the reporting period and,
except for itemized and unitemized breakdowns, during the calendar year in each
of the following categories: (v) Offsets; (A) Itemized offsets to
contributions (including contribution refunds); (B) Unitemized offsets
to contributions (including contribution refunds); (C) Total offsets to contributions;
(3) Itemization
of disbursements by political communities other than authorized committees. Each political committee, other than an
authorized committee, shall report the full name and address of each person in
each of the following categories, as well as the information required by each
category . . . (iv) Each person who receives a contribution refund or other
offset to contributions from the reporting committee where such contribution
refund was reported under 11 CFR 104.3(b)(1)(iv), together with the date and
amount of such refund or offset; (ix) Each person who has received any
disbursement within the reporting period not otherwise disclosed in accordance
with 11 CFR 104.3(b)(3) to whom the aggregate amount or value of disbursements
made by the reporting committee exceed $200 within the calendar year, together with
the date, amount and purpose of any such disbursement.
(4) Itemization
of disbursement by authorized committees.
Each authorized committee shall report the full name and address of each
person in each of the following categories, as well as the information required
by each category . . . (v) Each person who receives a contribution refund or
other offset to contributions form the reporting committee where such
contribution was reported under 11 CFR 104.3(b)(2)(v) together with the date and
amount of such refund or offset; (vi) Each person who has received any
disbursement(s) not otherwise disclosed under 11 CFR 104.3(b)(4) to whom the
aggregate amount or value of such disbursements exceeds $200 within the
calendar year, together with the date, amount and purpose of any such
disbursement.
(c) Summary
of contribution and operating expenses.
Each report filed pursuant to 11 CFR 104.1 shall disclose for both the
reporting period and the calendar year:
(1) (i) The total contributions to the
reporting committee; (ii) The total offsets to contributions; (iii) The
net contributions (subtract total offsets from total contributions).
11 C.F.R. § 104.3 (emphasis added).
In the Senatorial/NRSC fundraising scheme, a
meeting with Bush Administration officials,
sold to a contributor, is a contribution “offset.” It is the “refund” or benefit derived from
the cash political contribution itself.
Under the provisions of 2 U.S.C. § 434 (b), the name and address of each
person receiving a meeting with a Bush Administration official (whose salary
and position is sanctioned at the tax payer expense) in exchange for a
political contribution must, therefore, be reported, together with the date of
the meeting. The strict FEC regulations
governing categories of disbursements and itemization thereof require a
detailed itemization for all offsets (or contribution refunds) as
“disbursements” by calendar year. Under
11 C.F.R. 104.3(b)(3), the reporting of any person, not otherwise disclosed in
other disbursement categories, to whom the aggregate amount or value of the
offset exceeds $200, within a calendar year, is required – together with the
date amount and purpose.
The Senatorial/NRSC fundraising campaign
scheme is predicated on selling meetings with Bush Administration officials for
up to $15,000 – nearly one hundred times the minimum reporting
requirement. The meetings, and their
costs, are offsets of the contribution and must be reported, in detail, as
described above. By regulation, the FEC
would then accept the report of these contribution offsets from the NRSC as an
official “Report of Disbursement.”
1)
The FEC’s Obligation.
The FEC is charged by law with being the
“principal repository” of reports and other campaign-related statements that
political committees are required to file, and “serve[s] as a national clearing
house for information in respect to the administration of elections.” See generally, Buckley, 424
U.S. 1, 109 (1976); 2 U.S.C. §§ 434(b), 437d and 438. Judicial Watch, in its public interest role, maintains that the
American voter deserves a clear, unambiguous response to its questions that it
posed to Senators Frist, Brownback, Allard, Bond, Inhofe, Sessions, and
Smith. The FEC must investigate
the matters presented in this complaint so that the public can have confidence
in the accuracy of information reported by politicians and political parties to
the FEC and the voting public at large.
It is the law that “affected” voters and
citizens have standing to sue the FEC for failure to obtain information that
the FEC is required to gather:
“ . . . we do not think it can be denied that
this sort of information that Congress required disclosed aids voters, if and
when they vote. If a party is denied
information that will help it in making a transaction -- and a vote can be
thought of as a kind of transaction -- that party is obviously injured in fact.
. . . A voter deprived of useful information at the time he or she votes
suffers a particularized injury in some respects unique to him or herself just
as a government contractor wrongfully deprived of information to be made
available at the time bids are due, would suffer a particularized injury even
if all other bidders suffered an injury.”
See Federal Election Commission v. Akins, 101 F.3d 731, 737 (DC Cir. 1996).
Surely, information about unlawful campaign
fundraising activities, such as the sale of meetings with Bush Administration
officials in exchange for contributions to the NRSC, is important and useful to
voters electing candidates for federal office.
2)
Reporting Is Not “Rocket Science.”
Judicial Watch, and other public interest
organizations, collect and disseminate information concerning unlawful
government activities to the public. Judicial
Watch’s ability to disseminate and use FEC-reported information has been
substantially harmed. Judicial
Watch, unfortunately, has substantial experience concerning the requirements of
FEC reporting relating to the illegal sale of Commerce Department trade mission
seats during the Clinton Administration.
Judicial
Watch has shown before that it has “informational standing.” See Judicial
Watch v. FEC, C.A. No. 98-0386 (Memorandum Opinion, July 6, 1998). Exhibit 8. Judicial Watch demonstrated that the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) and the 1996 Clinton/Gore reelection campaign were required
under FECA to report “offsets to contributions,”
“contribution refunds” and other “disbursements” to the FEC, which the FEC in
turn was obligated to make public. Id.
The sale of seats to donors on Department of Commerce trade missions, by
the DNC and the 1996 Clinton/Gore reelection campaigns, in exchange for campaign
contributions, were “offsets to contributions,” “contribution refunds” or
“other disbursements” that had to be reported under Federal Election Campaign
Act (FECA), 2 U.S.C. § 434(b), et
seq.
In this instance, Senators Frist, Brownback,
Allard, Bond, Inhofe, Sessions, Smith and the NRSC are replicating the abuse of
the DNC and the Clinton/Gore Presidential campaigns with regard to the sale of
seats on trade missions and other government benefits and perks. While using another “clever” vehicle,
Senators Frist, Brownback, Allard, Bond, Inhofe, Sessions, Smith and the NRSC
are selling meetings with senior Bush Administration officials. The modus operandi and the illegality
are identical.
It does not take a “rocket scientist” to
conclude that the quid pro quo of a political campaign contribution in
exchange for a seat on a taxpayer-financed trade mission, or a meeting with
Bush Administration officials, is an “offset” to a contribution under the FECA
and should be reported as such.
IV. CONCLUSION.
The NRSC is a powerful and influential arm of
the Republican Party, and Senator Frist is a popular and influential member of
the “world’s greatest deliberative body.”
The nation entrusts a large measure of responsibility to them. The old adage reminds us, “To whom much is
given, much is required.” In this
matter, Senator Frist, and the NRSC are violating public’s trust by selling our
government officials in the Bush Administration to the highest bidder.
When this was done in the universally corrupt
Clinton Administration, Judicial Watch took legal action. It cannot look the other way for the
Republican Congress and Bush Administration.
The Bush Administration and the Republican Party have both repeatedly
said they want to “move on,” and not prosecute the on-going crimes of the
Clinton era. However, their willingness
to look the other way and let the Clinton Administration off-the-hook is not
license to commit the same or similar illegalities. The American people will not stand for it, and neither must the
FEC and the Department of Justice.
Judicial Watch, in the public interest,
respectfully requests that the FEC and the Justice Department promptly
investigate Senators Frist, Brownback, Allard, Bond, Inhofe, Sessions, Smith
and the NRSC concerning the matters presented herein. When Senator Frist and the NRSC were told to cease and desist,
they refused to do so. The FEC and the
Justice Department must now take swift remedial action.
Thank you for your prompt attention in this
important matter.
Sincerely,
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
Thomas J. Fitton
President
WASHINGTON,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Subscribed
and sworn to before me this _____ day of May, 2001 by Thomas J. Fitton.
________________________________________
Christopher
J. Farrell
Notary
Public, District of Columbia
My
Commission expires November 14, 2004