August 3, 2007

From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:

 

Judicial Watch Warns Thousand Oaks, California, About Legality of Taxpayer-Funded Day Labor Site

Judicial Watch continues to fight for the enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws, leading a nationwide legal campaign

against so-called “sanctuary policies” for illegal aliens.  Weekly Update readers will likely recall that Judicial Watch has battled against taxpayer-funded day laborer sites for illegals in Herndon, Virginia, Laguna Beach, California, Gaithersburg, Maryland, Westchester, New York, and Southampton, New York.  Now you can add Thousand Oaks, California, to that growing list.

 

On Tuesday, I sent a letter to the Mayor of Thousand Oaks, California, warning him about the legality of the city’s taxpayer-funded day laborer site for illegal aliens.  Judicial Watch had previously uncovered documents through the California Public Records Act indicating that the City of Thousand Oaks spent more than $133,000 in taxpayer funds between 2001 and 2007 to subsidize the day laborer site, which services illegal aliens.  Here’s an excerpt from my letter, which can be read in its entirety on our Internet site:

 

“For the City to use taxpayer resources in this manner is akin to a city operating it’s own ‘red light’ district or illegal drug market to enable persons who participate in such activities to have a safe, orderly, well-regulated environment in which to engage in their illicit transactions.  We trust that taxpayer resources will not continue to be misused for the operation of a day laborer site.  Kindly confirm that you will cease immediately expending citizen taxpayer dollars and resources for the day laborer site.”

 

I realize that the federal government has dropped the ball in terms of securing the border.  What I fail to understand, however, is why local officials continue to implement “solutions” to the problem that are not only illegal, but nonsensical.

 

Federal law prohibits the hiring of an illegal alien if it is known that the alien is not authorized to work in the United States.  Studies conducted around the country confirm that the vast majority of day laborers lack the proper documentation to work in the United States.  Clearly, the citizens of Thousand Oaks are being forced to subsidize illegal activity with their tax dollars.

 

Moreover, how do local officials expect to curb the illegal immigration crisis by providing the number one incentive that causes illegals to cross the border in the first place – jobs?

 

(By the way, I was a guest this week on the Glenn Beck television program, which is broadcast on CNN’s Headline News network, talking about the recent court decision striking down two illegal immigration laws in Hazleton, Pennsylvania.  You can view the interview here.  Unlike Thousand Oaks, the Mayor of Hazleton, Lou Barletta, actually tried do the right thing by implementing laws designed to deter illegal immigration.  Judicial Watch filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief on behalf of the City of Hazleton.) 

 

 

Senate Democrats Eliminate Key Provision in “Ethics Reform” Legislation

 

On Thursday, the Senate passed 83-14 a new ethics reform bill designed to address the problem of corruption on Capitol Hill.  Unfortunately, Democrats eviscerated key provisions of the reform package (called the “Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007”) to the point where you could drive a truck through the loopholes.  This, according to the Hill newspaper:

 

“… the new measure’s treatment of earmarking, which conservatives consider the root of recent congressional scandals, sparked immediate contention.  Republicans protested the removal of a ban on trading earmarks for votes, as well as the transferal of authority to certify compliance with earmark disclosure to chairmen or the majority leader rather than the Senate parliamentarian.”

 

Earmarking occurs when a congressman designates taxpayer funds to be spent on specific projects.   Sometimes, these earmarks are corrupt “gifts” provided by politicians to campaign contributors, business partners, friends and family members in their district.  Perhaps the most notorious recent example was the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere,” a $223 million boondoggle earmarked in 2005 to construct a bridge connecting an Alaskan town of 7,500 people to an island with a population of 50.  After public outcry, the earmark was removed. 

 

With respect to the Democrat-crafted ethics reform bill, as always, the devil is in the details.  For example, the old version of ethics reform, approved by the House and Senate in January, restricted earmarks that financially benefit legislators, their families, their staff and their staff’s families.  The new version restricts earmarks that “only” benefit these individuals.  In other words, even if an earmark enriches a legislator’s family, so long as at least one other person is positively impacted, the earmark is permissible. 

 

Moreover, as currently constructed, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) – two of the biggest earmarkers in the Senate - would be in charge of determining whether an earmark has been properly disclosed to the public.  This is, as Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) put it, the equivalent of the “fox guarding the henhouse.”

 

And, finally, while Democrats claim the bill will force earmark certifications to be disclosed on the Internet, this provision is only mandated if it is “technically feasible.”  In other words, complete public disclosure is only a suggestion and not a requirement.

 

In the last election cycle, the issue of corruption led to a Democratic landslide as voters were turned off by the slew of scandals that occurred while Republicans were in power.  Democrats had a golden opportunity to prove they were serious about ethics reform.  And, in my view, they fell short.  True, the legislation contains some good provisions that might fix a bit of the corruption on Capitol Hill.  However, the fact is even if every provision of this bill is enforced -- which is a stretch (given the inactive ethics committees in Congress) -- it is doubtful it would eliminate the conflicts of interest at the root of the corruption problem on Capitol Hill.   

 

 

Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens – “King of Pork” – Under Investigation

 

Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) just may be the “poster child” for the problem of earmarking.  Since 1999, Stevens has steered more than $3 billion in pet projects toward his state.  In fact, one year, Stevens, called the “King of Pork,” was able to secure more homeland security funds for his state than New York!  He is also responsible for the “Bridge to Nowhere” I referenced above.  Now, Senator Stevens (or “Uncle Ted” as he is known to his constituents) is under investigation by federal authorities related to his largesse.  This according to the Economist:

 

“On July 30^th, agents from the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service scoured a home owned by ‘Uncle Ted’ in Girdwood, a suburb of Anchorage. The agents removed materials linked to allegations that Mr Stevens's home was remodelled in 2000 as a gift from VECO, a company that builds and manages pipelines and other oil infrastructure.”  The company’s founder, Bill Allen, pleaded guilty to extortion, bribery and conspiracy to impede the Internal Revenue Service.

 

As part of a wide-ranging corruption investigation in Alaska, a federal grand jury is also looking into a $3.5 million earmark from Stevens that may have financially benefited one of Stevens’ campaign contributors and, perhaps, the Senator’s son.  Click here for the details.

 

And finally, according to The Associated Press, “Justice Department officials investigating Sen. Ted Stevens are examining whether federal funds he steered to an Alaska wildlife research center may have enriched a former aide, say officials familiar with the probe.”

 

“I am guilty of asking the Senate for pork, and proud of the Senate for giving it to me,'' Senator Stevens once said.  Well, it appears the Senator might be guilty of much more than just congressional panhandling.  Let’s hope federal investigators aggressively pursue the facts and hold Stevens accountable for any criminal activity.  In the meantime, it would be appropriate for the Senate Ethics Committee to investigate Stevens’ conduct.  

 

Until next week…

 

 

Tom Fitton
President

Judicial Watch is a non-partisan, educational foundation organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Judicial Watch is dedicated to fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics and morality in our nation's public life. To make a tax-deductible contribution in support of our efforts, click here.