April 10, 2001

 

BY HAND DELIVERY

 

 

Committee on Standards of Official Conduct

U.S. House of Representatives

HT-2, The Capitol

Washington, DC 20515

 

 

Attn:     Representative Joel Hefley, Chairman

Representative Howard L. Berman, Ranking Member

Representative Rob Portman, Member

Representative Martin Olav Sabo, Member

Representative Doc Hastings, Member

Representative Ed Pastor, Member

Representative Asa Hutchison, Member

Representative Zoe Lofgren, Member

Representative Judy Biggert, Member

Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Member

 

 

Re:  Complaint Against Representative Tom DeLay (R) of Texas.

 

Dear Representative Hefley and Members of the Committee:

I. INTRODUCTION.

Under the provisions of the Rules of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct[1], Judicial Watch, Inc. (hereinafter “Judicial Watch”), in the public interest, files this formal complaint against Representative Tom DeLay of the State of Texas for violation of United States law, the U.S. House of Representatives Code of Official Conduct (House Rule XLIII), the Code of Ethics for Government Service, and for improper conduct that reflects upon the United States House of Representatives.  Judicial Watch is a non-profit, public interest law firm that investigates and prosecutes government corruption.  Specifically, Representative Tom DeLay appears to be in violation of:

 

1.                  2 U.S.C. § 431 et seq. (Definitions).

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.                  House Rule XLIII (Code of Official Conduct).

6.                  11 C.F.R. § 104.3 (Contents of reports).

7.                  Chapter 8 (Campaign Funds and Practices), House Ethics Manual.

House Rules specifically incorporate by reference the requirements and strictures of the Federal Election Campaign Act, 2 U.S.C. § sec. 431-455, et seq., in Chapter 8 (Campaign Funds and Practices) of the House Ethics Manual, as well as the Federal Criminal Code:

“Like all candidates for Federal office, Members are subject to

regulations on campaign finance pursuant to the Federal Election

Campaign Act of 1971, as amended.[2]  Under the provisions of the

act, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has been established as

an independent regulatory agency to oversee Federal campaign finance

procedures and practices.  Members should thus examine closely

provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), regulations

promulgated by the FEC[3] and explanatory publications prepared by the FEC.

In addition, certain campaign activities may run afoul of provisions

of the Federal Criminal Code.”

 

II.  FACTS.

 

A.  Press Report Concerning Apparent Illegal Political Fundraising.

 

The facts of this complaint are set forth in an April 3, 2001 Associated Press report by Pete Yost, entitled “DeLay Makes Promises to GOP Donors,” wherein it was revealed:

 

“The House Republican whip, Tom DeLay, is promising

meetings with top Bush officials to small business owners

whose donations would underwrite a GOP ad campaign promoting

 the president’s tax plan.”

 

“‘I am asking you to serve as an honorary member of our

new Business Advisory Council,’ DeLay , a staunch opponent

of campaign finance reform, says in recorded telephone calls

being made to businessmen around the country.’”

 

“‘As an honorary member you will be invited to meetings with top

Bush administration officials where your opinions on issues like tax

 reform will be heard,’ his call promises.” (Emphasis added).

 

*       *       *

 

“People familiar with the fund drive say it is part of an effort to raise

up to the maximum $20,000 in donations to the party from each donor.

Some of the money will be used for ads in local papers that will list

the names of donors who gave in support of the tax plan” (Emphasis added).

 

*       *       *

 

“‘In scripted remarks that follow DeLay’s taped message, workers

at the National Republican Congressional Committee engage

businessmen in conversation requesting ‘a one time contribution

of $300 to $500 because ‘we are launching a media campaign. . .to

get some tax relief.’”

Exhibit 1.

 

According to the NRCC website[4] (Exhibit 2), Representative DeLay is the Chairman of the Republican Majority Business Council (RMBC).  The Associated Press report discusses Representative DeLay’s involvement in the creation of a “new Business Advisory Council” as early as December 2000.

 

B. Judicial Watch’s April 4, 2001 Letter to Rep. DeLay.

 

On April 4, 2001, Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman wrote to Representative DeLay, citing the Associated Press report.  The letter stated:

 

“It has been reported in the Associated Press that you are, on behalf of

the National Republican Congressional Committee, selling meetings

with Bush Administration officials for $20,000 donations.  If this report

is correct (copy attached), your activity is illegal under the following

U.S. Code statutory provisions, and we respectfully request that you

immediately cease and desist.

 

18 U.S.C. § 201 (Bribery of Public Officials and Witnesses);

and/or

18 U.S.C. § 600 (Promise of Employment or Other Benefit for

Political Activity)

 

“Please confirm within 24 hours if the Associated Press report is true.

If it is true and you do not acknowledge having ceased and desisted,

Judicial Watch will pursue swift legal action against you and the National

Republican Congressional Committee.”

Exhibit 3.

 

C.  Rep. DeLay’s Response Through Counsel.

 

 

Representative DeLay responded to Judicial Watch’s request through his legal counsel.  On April 5, 2001, Judicial Watch received a letter from Ed Bethune, Esq. of Bracewell & Patterson, L.L.P..  Mr. Bethune’s letter was a non-response and conspicuously failed to deny that Representative DeLay was engaged in the activity reported in the Associated Press (Exhibit 1).  He wrote:

 

“Your personal and confidential letter to the Honorable Tom DeLay

dated April 4, 2001, and your press release dated the same day, have

been referred to this firm.

 

Congressman DeLay makes every effort to comply with the law and he has done so in this instance.

 

Any concerns you may have about the National Republican

Congressional Committee’s fundraising efforts should be directed

to that organization.” 

Exhibit 4.

 

Mr. Bethune, by failing to address the substance of our request to Representative DeLay, confirmed the Associated Press story, constituting an admission that illegal political fundraising practices are, indeed, taking place.

 

D.  Judicial Watch’s Response to Rep. DeLay’s Counsel.

 

 

Judicial Watch responded to Rep. DeLay’s counsel in a letter dated April 5, 2001 (with a copy to Rep. DeLay), as follows:

 

“We are in receipt of your letter dated April 5, 2001, on behalf of

Congressman Tom DeLay.

Your failure to address the substance of our request to Mr. DeLay

is a confirmation of an Associated Press story by Pete Yost of April 3, 2001

entitled, “DeLay Makes Promise to GOP Donors,” and constitutes an

admission.” 

Exhibit 5.

 

E.  The NRCC Letter of April 6, 2001.

 

 

On April 6, 2001, Judicial Watch received, via facsimile, a letter from NRCC General Counsel Donald F. McGahn II (Exhibit 6).  Mr. McGahn, on behalf of the NRCC, effectively confirmed the illegal fundraising activity reported in the Associated Press story.  In an effort to “spin” the story for media “damage control” (as the NRCC’s letter was prompted by a press inquiry from Roll Call magazine), the NRCC attempts to explain and rationalize the DeLay/NRCC illegal activity by attacking the press coverage, stating, “That story misrepresents our efforts, and takes one statement contained on a taped message by Mr. DeLay out of context.”  The NRCC’s letter makes the requisite boilerplate claim, “there is nothing illegal or unethical about our activity.”  Incredibly, the NRCC continues its attempt at political and legal damage control for two additional paragraphs, wherein it presents the DeLay/NRCC access sale scheme as a progressive, reform-minded measure of the type currently contemplated by campaign finance advocates in the Congress.

 

Specifically, the NRCC’s letter disingenuously states: “Here, no contributor to this Committee is receiving any sort of official, government reward, position or privilege for their contribution, nor is there any official action taking place.”  However, the NRCC does not deny Representative DeLay’s quote from the Associated Press story:  “As an honorary member you will be invited to meetings with top Bush administration officials where your opinions on issues like tax reform will be heard.” (Emphasis added)  Perhaps the NRCC’s contributors will not receive a government position, but they are being promised meetings with Bush Administration government officials to discuss policy in exchange for cash.  Obviously realizing their legal liability, the NRCC admitted they were “reviewing” the taped message of Representative DeLay offering meetings with Bush Administration officials for campaign contributions.  And further, the NRCC’s letter admits, “Administration officials have received invitations to join us, and share their views on that debate, and to hear from grassroots activists.”

 

F.  Members of Congress Comment.

 

Fortunately, there are many Republican members of Congress who are offended by Representative DeLay’s and the NRCC’s illegal activities in selling meetings with Bush Administration officials for political campaign contributions. This is not the first time that Representative DeLay has been criticized for his fund raising practices. (Exhibit 7)[5]  For example, during interviews on The Judicial Watch Report, a television show sponsored by complainant and aired nationally, two influential Republican Members of the House of Representatives had this to say about this apparent practice of selling meetings with Bush Administration officials:

“In the final waning days of the Roman Republic – in ancient times –

public office was auctioned and that led directly to the destruction of

the Roman Republic.  The United States Government is the greatest

force for good that mankind has ever designed.  But our offices cannot

be lead out for auction.”

– Representative Mark Kirk (R-10th) of Illinois, commenting hypothetically on the Associated Press report concerning Rep. DeLay during the April 5, 2001 broadcast of The Judicial Watch Report on the Renaissance Network.

*      *      

“It’s clearly not appropriate.  That’s the kind of hypocrisy that

undermines the people’s belief in the system.  I would hope that

the story is in error.”

– Representative Adam Putnam (R-12th) of Florida, commenting on

the Associated Press report concerning Rep. DeLay during

the April 3, 2001 broadcast of The Judicial Watch Report

on the Renaissance Network.

 

*      *      *

 

Senator George Allen (R) of Virginia was interviewed on The Judicial Watch Report nationally syndicated radio show on April 7, 2001 concerning his views on selling meetings with Bush Administration officials:

 

Larry Klayman:           “. . .you don’t condone [DeLay and the NRCC] selling meetings with Bush Administration officials?”

 

Senator George Allen: “. . .no!, no!, no!. . .”

 

These candid statements – from Republican colleagues of Representative DeLay – aptly characterize the deeply corrosive effect of the illegal, calculated fundraising campaign of the NRCC, which involves the quid pro quo of financial contributions in exchange for meetings with Bush Administration officials.  These Republican Members of Congress have a sense of “right” and “wrong.”  They also possess moral courage to frankly and honestly critique their party’s “House Whip,” to whom the sobriquet, “The Hammer,” has reportedly been assigned.  The FEC, by this sworn complaint, must now investigate these serious allegations.  It is simply unacceptable for elected government officials to illegally sell meetings, influence and power to whomever has the available cash.  This was not countenanced during the last eight years of the universally corrupt Democrat Clinton Administration, and it cannot be countenanced during a new Republican Bush Administration.  If this is what the Republican Party means when it repeats its mantra of “move on” concerning the on-going and unpunished  crimes of the Clinton era, then Judicial Watch, on behalf of the American people, wants no part of it!

 

 

III.  THE LAW.

 

A. Representative DeLay’s and The NRCC’s Actions Fall Within The Anti-Bribery Law.

 

 

Representative DeLay’s solicitations of political campaign cash for meetings with Bush Administration officials, as well as Representative DeLay’s trading on his status as the House Majority “Whip” 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 Associated Press’ reporting and Judicial Watch’s warning, Representative DeLay and the NRCC 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, 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: . . .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, et al., 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, Representative DeLay and the NRCC have promised to arrange meetings for businessman 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.

 

Representative DeLay, in his official capacity as a Member of Congress, as well as his leadership role as House Majority Whip, with the cooperation and assistance of the NRCC, is trading upon his official office, position, status and government access, in order to sell meetings with Bush Administration officials in exchange for political contributions under the “Business Advisory Council” fundraising program.  This is a flagrant abuse of the public’s trust and Representative DeLay’s official government office as fundraising tool.  The quid pro quo is clear, and the exchange rests upon the leverage of Representative DeLay’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, et al.581 F2d. 649 (7th Cir. 1978).

 

Again, Representative DeLay has placed his official government office and House leadership position – his Washington, D.C. influence – as the fulcrum of the illegal fundraising scheme.  Representative DeLay’s solicitations for cash included a promise of meetings with Bush Administration officials concerning official U.S. government policy matters.  The contributions solicited by Representative DeLay and the NRCC are specifically for the official acts of Representative DeLay 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, Representative DeLay’s and the NRCC’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 Representative DeLay’s and the NRCC’s cursory denial of wrongdoing without refuting the substance of the Associated Press story showing that they are selling meetings with Bush Administration officials for up to $20,000 in political campaign contributions, an 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 (FECA), 2 U.S.C. § sec. 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 DeLay/NRCC 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 for 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 DeLay/NRCC fundraising campaign scheme is predicated on selling meetings with Bush Administration officials for up to $20,000 – 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 NRCC 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 Representative DeLay.  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 NRCC, 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.  Save the reporting of Mr. Yost of the Associated Press, 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 7.  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, 2 U.S.C. § sec. 431-455, et seq. (FECA).

In this instance, Representative DeLay and the NRCC 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, Representative DeLay and the NRCC 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.

 

C.  The House’s Ethical Responsibilities.

 

 

This Committee has a solemn Constitutional oversight obligation to investigate Representative DeLay’s fundraising activities in connection with this NRCC fundraising campaign.

 

Clause 3 of House Rule XLIII states:

 

“A Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives

shall receive no compensation nor shall he permit any compensation

 to accrue to his beneficial interest from any source, the receipt of

which would occur by virtue of influence improperly exerted from

his position in the Congress.”

 

And, more generally, Clauses 1 and 2 of House Rule XLIII address the requirements of propriety, comportment, conduct and behavior of Members of the House:

 

“1. A Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives

shall conduct himself at all times in a manner which shall reflect

creditably on the House of Representatives.

 

*      *      *

 

“2. A Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives

shall adhere to the spirit and the letter of the Rules of the House of Representatives and to the rules of duly constituted committees thereof.”

 

These standards of conduct must be applied equally and uniformly to all Members of the House, regardless of party, position, seniority or state.

 

Representative DeLay’s conduct violates the general principles of public service and reflects negatively on his office and the United States House of Representatives as a whole.  His improper conduct in the “sale” of access to Bush Administration officials discredits the institution as a whole, not just the individual, thereby invoking the House’s inherent and constitutional right to protect its own integrity and reputation.

 

Judicial Watch, in the public interest, respectfully requests your prompt investigation of these apparent ethical violations by Representative DeLay.

 

Sincerely,

JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.

 

 

 

Larry Klayman                                                 Thomas J. Fitton

Chairman and General Counsel                         President

 

 

cc:        The Honorable Tom DeLay

 

WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this _____ day of April, 2001 by Larry Klayman and Thomas J. Fitton

___________________________________

 

 

Exhibits

Exhibit 1 -  Page 1, 2

Exhibit 2 -  Page 1

Exhibit 3 -  Page 1

Exhibit 4 -  Page 1

Exhibit 5 -  Page 1

Exhibit 6 -  Page 1, 2, 3

Exhibit 7 -  Page 1, 2, 3

Exhibit 8 -  Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10


[1]House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Rules, 102d Congress, 1st Session (hereinafter House Rules), reprinted in 137 Cong. Rec. H3731-37 (daily ed. May 30, 1991).

[2]2 U.S.C. § sec. 431-455.

[3]Title 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

[4]www.nrcc.org/contribute/donor-programs/  (Exhibit 2).

[5]Juliet Eilperin, “Ethics Panel Chastises DeLay For Threatening Trade Group,” Washington Post, May 14, 1999.