Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained documents from the Department of Defense (DOD) and the United States Air Force (USAF) related to repeated requests for military aircraft made by members of the U.S. Senate. Judicial Watch recently obtained the documents through the Freedom of Information Act as part of its continuing investigation of waste and abuse related to congressional military travel.

Among the highlights from the documents:

• A January 2, 2009 internal DOD email related to a military travel request from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's Office. A DOD official responding to the request wrote: "...I was under the impression that they really only had small a/c [aircraft]. Regardless, with Sen Reid being the lead, they would definitely want a vip configured bird. Right now approval is only for one a/c. It's amazing how fast these things grow."
• A March 12, 2009 internal DOD email related to a military travel request involving a seven-country tour from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. The DOD official responding to the request wrote: "As I expected, the McConnell group wants their C-40 not a C-9...This is the only group that would not shift their dates to be in one half of the month and thus are taking up an asset that could have been used twice but now is being used once. That drove the aircraft decision...it was better to have a C-9 used once than a C-40 (greater range and passenger capability)...The group is also the only group with a large aircraft who only has four members (McConnell, Chambliss, Barasso, Risch + spouses) all others have 5, 6, 7, or 10 members..."
• A date-redacted internal DOD email related to the McConnell request. The DOD official responding to the request wrote: "Tell OSD (Office of the Secretary of Defense) that Sen McConnell and Secretary Gates have already discussed this trip at some length. What I need to have ready for the McConnell office is 'why' the Republican leader of the Senate has been assigned this type of aircraft. They will view this type of aircraft assignment as not appropriate for such a high-level delegation. I understand the requirements for safe and efficient DOD provided transportation, but they will not. I at least want to be able to tell the McConnell office, 'we asked.'"
• Request on behalf of at least one congressional spouse ("for protocol purposes"), including to war zones such as Afghanistan. The emails suggest that this issue raised security concerns.
• Military assets were used to transport dozens of Senators, their spouses, and others to the funerals of retired Senators Claiborne Pell and Jesse Helms.

In March 2009, Judicial Watch uncovered documents detailing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's multiple requests for military air travel. The documents included internal DOD email correspondence detailing attempts by DOD staff to accommodate Pelosi's numerous requests for military escorts and military aircraft as well as the speaker's last minute cancellations and changes.

This latest document release to Judicial Watch comes on the heels of a report in Roll Call noting the fact that in July, "...the House approved nearly $200 million for the Air Force to buy three elite Gulfstream jets for ferrying top government officials and Members of Congress." The Air Force had only requested one Gulfstream jet as part of its "ongoing upgrade of its passenger service."

"The military has more important things to do than having to cater to the travel whims of Congress. These new documents show that Congressional military travel wastes taxpayer dollars," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Members of Congress should stop treating the United States Air Force as their own personal airline."

Documents Uncovered

• Air Force Documents 1
• Air Force Documents 2
• Air Force Documents 3
• Air Force Documents 4
• Air Force Documents 5
• Air Force Documents 6
• Air Force Documents 7 - not provided (as unresponsive)
• Air Force Documents 8 - not provided (as unresponsive)
• Air Force Documents 9
• Department of Defense Documents on Senator Frist
• Department of Defense Documents on Senator McConnell
• Department of Defense Documents on Senator Reid

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton issued the following statement today in response to the U.S. Senate's vote to confirm Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court:

"Judge Sotomayor's confirmation to the Supreme Court is a pyrrhic victory for President Obama. The president's nomination of Judge Sotomayor has helped erode his popular support. Obamas nominee proved an unpopular choice among the American people, including Hispanics, given her race-conscious and activist judicial philosophy. Even Judge Sotomayor was forced to disavow Obama's lawless 'empathy' standard in her quest for a seat on the High Court.

"Republicans may finally understand that conservatives expect them to oppose activist judges who don't respect the U.S. Constitution. And Democrats are surely hoping President Obama does not have any more Supreme Court nominations – especially any which would upset the Court's current ideological make-up. All in all, this confirmation fight is a 'job well done' by the conservative voters and activists who made their voices heard.

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Obama Department of Treasury to obtain documents concerning the taxpayer bailouts of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Through its lawsuit, filed on July 29, 2009, Judicial Watch seeks the following records:

a. Documents concerning the U.S. Government's intervention (bailout, capital injection, conservatory formation, etc.) for Freddie Mac (records include but are not limited to legal framework, consideration and documentation of foreign investors' concerns, correspondence, etc.).

b. Documents concerning the U.S. Government's intervention (bailout, capital injection, conservatory formation, etc.) for Fannie Mae (records include but are not limited to legal framework, consideration and documentation of foreign investors' concerns, correspondence, etc.).

The bailouts of Fannie and Freddie have already cost taxpayers $86 billion – and are expected to cost up to $200 billion by the end of next year. Judicial Watch filed its initial FOIA request on February 5, 2009, as part of a large-scale investigation into the government's response to the financial crisis. By law, Treasury had until March 6, 2009, to respond. Treasury Department officials requested a 10-day extension to conduct a document review. However, since that time, Treasury has provided no documents and no indication when documents will be forthcoming.

On his first day in office, President Obama promised that "transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency." The president further declared that "the Freedom of Information Act is perhaps the most powerful instrument we have for making our government honest and transparent, and of holding it accountable."

Earlier this year, Judicial Watch had to sue the Obama Treasury Department in order to obtain documents regarding an historic meeting held by former Treasury Secretary Henry "Hank" Paulson with top bank executives. The documents show that Paulson and other officials, including then-NY Fed Reserve head and current Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner forced the executives to take the government's $250 billion "investment" (and resulting control).

"Judicial Watch should not have to fight tooth and nail to obtain important information from the Obama administration related to the federal government's response to the economic crisis. The public has every right to know the details regarding the federal government's $200 billion bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "When is the Obama administration going to start keeping its promises of transparency?"

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed an amicus curiae brief in support of free speech in the United States Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

In its brief, filed on July 30, Judicial Watch argues that the Federal Election Commission's decision to ban (under McCain-Feingold) the broadcast of a Citizens United documentary about Hillary Clinton during the presidential election season violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court, which took the unusual step of ordering special oral arguments in the lawsuit on September 9, will now decide whether to overturn two High Court precedents (Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission) that restrict corporate speech.

Judicial Watch's brief, advanced four principle arguments:

1. Political Speech Is at the Heart of the First Amendment and Is Entitled to the Broadest Protection:

   The [Supreme] Court...was solicitous to protect political speech not only as a matter of individual liberty, and not only because it was the intention of the Framers, but because political speech is crucial to the survival of our representative government and its system of ordered liberty. This principle, in turn, presupposes that First Amendment protection of political speech is the precondition of all other freedoms protected by the Constitution.

2. Unlike Contributions to Candidates, Independent Expenditures, Which Are Not Coordinated with a Candidate or Campaign, Do Not Pose a Danger of Corruption or its Appearance:

   In essence, because as a nation we value free speech so highly, our government is permitted to regulate it only where the government's interest is compelling and only to the extent absolutely necessary to achieve that interest... Independent expenditures...are not coordinated with a candidate or campaign [and] do not pose a danger of corruption or its appearance. This is because a candidate does not necessarily benefit from (and may well even be harmed by) an expenditure that is made independently of his campaign.

3. This Court Has Consistently Invalidated Legislative Attempts at Limiting or Restricting Corporate Expenditures as Violative of First Amendment Free Speech:

   Clearly, this Court has consistently held that independent expenditures are protected speech which require the broadest protection by the First Amendment. This Court has also consistently invalidated legislative attempts at limiting or restricting corporate expenditures as violative of First Amendment free speech because the government's interest in preventing corruption and the appearance thereof is inapplicable to independent expenditures, as there is no threat of a political quid pro quo with this type of core independent political expression.

4. Austin and McConnell Deviated from Established Precedent, and, as a Result, Should Be Overruled by this Court:

   In Austin, the Court addressed a state statute that prohibited corporations from using "corporate treasury funds for independent expenditures in support of, or in opposition to, any candidate in elections for state office".... The Court did not find that the state had proven the existence of quid pro quo corruption or its appearance, "the only legitimate and compelling government interes[t] thus far identified for restricting campaign finances," NCPAC, 470 U.S. at 496, 497, but invented a new species of corruption: "the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form and that have little or no correlation to the public's support for the corporation's political ideas." Austin, 494 U.S. at 654.

   In McConnell, the Court upheld against a First Amendment challenge Congress' amendment of the FECA provision prohibiting corporate independent expenditures...In short, McConnell suppresses speech that this Court has unambiguously held cannot be suppressed. It "compounds the error made in Austin...and silences political speech central to the civic discourse that sustains and informs our democratic processes." McConnell, 540 U.S. at 323 (Kennedy, J., Rehnquist, C. J., and Scalia, J., dissenting).

"McCain-Feingold violates the First Amendment by preventing watchdog groups organized as corporations from using their own money independently to talk about politicians and public policy issues. As it relates to Judicial Watch, this law could prevent us from telling the truth about corrupt politicians close to an election," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.