DeLay -Another neo-Con Job and "criminaloid"

From: Fred Bloggs (nospam_at_nospam.com)
Date: 10/23/04 

Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 01:44:21 GMT

Tom Seim wrote:
> Compare that to the libs demand that
> DeLay resign as Majority Leader because of an "admonishment" by the
> ethics committee.

The story on DeLay is well known, and it was *three* admonishments, one
warning, and one private rebuke. Aside from the felonies he has
/probably/ committed, the unethical behavior demands that he be
censored. Here are the facts:
_________________________________________________________________

A RECIDIVIST: FIVE STRIKES & LONG PAST OUT
The House Ethics Committee Case Against
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has received one warning, one private
rebuke, and three admonishments concerning his ethical misconduct from
the House Ethics Committee between 1997 and 2003.

In repeatedly admonishing DeLay, the Ethics Committee has relied on the
broad standard of conduct in the House rules that requires every House
Member to "conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect
creditably on the House." (Rule 23, cl. 1.) In its October 6, 2004
letter to DeLay, the Committee noted that it is "particularly important
that members of the House leadership, who are the most publicly visible
Members, adhere to this requirement scrupulously."

This Democracy 21 report excerpts findings and conclusions by the House
Ethics Committee regarding multiple instances of improper conduct and
ethical improprieties by Representative DeLay.

1. Admonishment: "Objectionable" Energy-Industry Fundraiser

House ethics rules prohibit a Member from making any solicitation "that
may create even an appearance that, because of a contribution, a
contributor will receive or is entitled to either special treatment or
special access to the Member in his or her official capacity." (Ltr. at
1)1. Similarly, under House rules, a Member "should not participate in
a fundraising event that gives even an appearance that donors will
receive or are entitled to either special treatment or special access."
(Id.)

In June, 2002, DeLay hosted a two-day fundraising event at the Homestead
Resort in Virginia. Executives from only five companies, all in the
energy industry, attended the event. In order to attend, each company
had to make a contribution of $25,000 to $50,000 either to the
nonfederal account of DeLay's leadership PAC, ARMPAC, or to another
nonfederal committee he was associated with, TRMPAC. (Rpt. at 14).

Over the course of the two-day event, which included a golf outing, a
briefing on energy issues, and meals, each of the energy industry
participants had repeated personal access to DeLay and his key
congressional staff.

The Committee concluded that DeLay's participation in the fundraiser
"did not conform to House standards providing that fundraising
activities should not involve even an appearance that donors are being
provided with special access to a Member in his or her official
capacity." (Rpt. at 21).

The Committee said that "at a minimum," DeLay's actions "created the
appearance that donors were being provided with special access to him
with regard to the pending energy legislation." (Rpt. at 21).

The Committee cited a number of considerations that made the fundraiser
"objectionable." (Ltr. at 2):

First, the timing of the fundraiser took place "just as the House-Senate
conference on major energy legislation, H.R. 4, was about to get
underway." (Ltr. at 2). The Committee said that the energy legislation
"was of critical importance" to the attendees at the Homestead event.
It also cited an email between two organizers of the fundraiser -- one a
lobbyist and former DeLay staff member on energy issues, the other an
employee of ARMPAC -- that "notes the legislative interests of each of
the attendees..." (Id.)

In addition, the Committee said DeLay was "in a position to
significantly influence the conference," on the energy bill, both as a
member of the House leadership, and as a conferee himself. (Id.)

The Committee cited two other factors that had the effect "of furthering
the appearance that the contributors were receiving impermissible
special treatment or access" (Ltr. at 2) and that "raise serious
concerns under the standards of conduct..." (Rpt. at 14). One of these
was the presence at the fundraiser of "two of your key staff members
from your leadership office," one who handled energy issues and the
other who was DeLay's counsel. (Ltr. at 2).

In addition, the Committee said, "there were the limited number of
attendees, and the fact that the fundraiser included several events at a
resort over a two-day period, both of which facilitated direct contact
with you and your congressional staff members." (Ltr. at 2).

One of the energy companies at the event was Westar, which was seeking a
special provision in the energy bill conference report that would exempt
it from certain federal regulation. Internal corporate documents
reviewed by the Committee make clear that Westar sought to attend the
fundraising event in an effort to gain access to DeLay as part of its
lobbying effort on the energy bill. An internal memorandum from a
Westar lobbyist written in April, 2002 and cited by the Committee states:

We believe that the most beneficial way to spend corporate dollars -- as
opposed to cutting personal or PAC checks -- is with the House
Leadership. This means joining the fold, so to speak, of House Majority
Leader Tom Delay (R-TX)....

We may have an opportunity later this summer, for an energy industry
'roundtable' golf match at the Homestead for a 'mere' $25,000.... (Rpt.
at 12).

Westar made a $25,000 contribution to TRMPAC in May, 2002, and two
Westar officials attended the Homestead fundraising event in June, 2002.
(Rpt. at 13).

According to a description of the event provided to the Committee by
counsel for the Westar officials, the Westar representatives attended a
dinner and reception with 15 to 20 others at the Homestead. There,
"DeLay asked the group to advise him of any interest we had in the
Federal Energy Legislation." (Rpt. at 15). One of the Westar executives
"advised" DeLay that the company "needed" a grandfather provision to be
inserted in the energy bill to protect its interests. The following day
the Westar official provided a DeLay staff aide with a briefing book
that Westar had prepared on the issue. (Rpt. at 15).

The next day, also, the same Westar official participated in a round of
golf and "shared a cart with an aide to Congressman DeLay..." (Rpt. at
15). He told the aide he would provide him with the Westar briefing
materials, and later did so. During lunch the same day, the Westar
official "restated to Rep. DeLay Westar's position regarding the need
for a grandfather clause..." (Rpt. at 15).

According to the Committee, DeLay and his aides could not recall "having
any conversation" with the Westar executive "or receiving any materials
from him." (Rpt. at 15).

A subsequent internal Westar memo, however, noted that the company had
made "significant progress with House Majority Whip Tom DeLay..." and
that the soft money contributions "made in the first round were
successful in opening the appropriate dialogue." (Rpt. at 16). In
response to a question from the Committee about the meaning of this
statement, the Westar executive who authored the memo said he was
referring to "the opportunities he had at the Homestead event to meet
with Representative DeLay, make a presentation on Westar's position...,
and present a briefing book to a DeLay staff member." (Rpt. at 16).

The Committee noted that the House standards of conduct regarding
fundraising activity by Members "are extremely important ones." (Rpt. at
21). Those standards provide that fundraising activities "should not
involve even an appearance" that donors are being provided with special
access to the Member. "There are certain proffered campaign
contributions that must be declined, and certain fundraising
opportunities that must be foregone, solely because they create an
appearance of improper conduct." (Rpt. at 21).

The Committee said that DeLay's "facilitation of and participation in
that [Homestead] event were contrary to those standards," (Rpt. at 21),
were "not proper," (Rpt. at 22) and "raise an appearance of impropriety
under House standards of conduct." (Rpt. at 2, 22). In its letter of
October 6, the Committee told DeLay that he is being "admonished"
because his actions "were objectionable under House standards of conduct
because, at a minimum, they created an appearance that donors were being
provided special access to you regarding the then-pending energy
legislation." (Ltr. at 1).

2. Admonishment: "Objectionable" Use of the FAA for Partisan Purposes

House ethics rules prohibit Members from taking (or withholding) any
official action on the basis of the partisan affiliation of the
individuals involved. Federal laws generally prohibit the use of
governmental resources for political purposes. (Ltr. at 3). Violation
of these rules "also implicate the fundamental requirement of the House
Code of Official Conduct that a Member, officer or employee 'shall
conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably
on the House.'" (Rpt. at 25).

In May, 2003, Democratic state legislators in Texas began a boycott of
the legislature in an effort to block a pro-Republican congressional
redistricting bill, then pending in the legislature, that DeLay was
publicly identified as supporting. The Texas House Speaker, a
Republican, called DeLay and told him that some of the Democratic
legislators were being "shuttled" away by plane from the state capital.
  The Speaker gave DeLay the tail number of the plane and asked if he
could "help locate the plane." (Rpt. at 26).

DeLay asked one of his staff members to contact the FAA and see if it
were possible to determine the location of the plane. The staff member
called an FAA official and requested help in locating the plane, but did
not disclose the reason. The FAA official was able to determine the
location of the plane, and called back the DeLay staffer with the
information. She gave the information to DeLay, who relayed it to the
Texas House Speaker. (Rpt. at 26-7).

In its letter of admonishment to DeLay, the Committee said DeLay's
actions "raise serious concerns" under the applicable ethics rules:

[T]hose contacts [with the FAA] were made solely at the request of the
Texas House Speaker, the request was made in connection with a partisan
conflict in which he was engaged at the time with Democratic Members of
the Texas House, and the information that Representative DeLay's office
obtained from the FAA was relayed solely to the Texas House Speaker.
(Rpt. at 28).

The Committee concluded that DeLay should be "admonished" for his
intervention in the "partisan conflict" in Texas. The Committee found
that DeLay's actions "raise serious concerns" under House standards of
conduct that prohibit members from taking any official action on the
basis of the partisan affiliation of the individuals involved, and that
preclude the use of governmental resources for a political undertaking.
(Ltr. at 1,3).

In addition, the Committee noted a "separate basis on which the contacts
with the FAA were objectionable," namely that is that "such use of
federal executive branch resources to resolve an issue before a state
legislative body raises serious concerns under the fundamental concepts
of separation of powers and federalism." (Ltr. at 5).

3. Admonishment: "Improper" Pressure on Colleague in Medicare Vote

The Code of Ethics for Government Service provides that a person in
government should "never accept for himself or his family, favors or
benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable
persons as influencing the performance of his governmental duties."
(Rpt. at 60-1).2 In addition to violating the code of ethics, such
behavior could in addition fail to "reflect creditably" on the House, in
violation of House Rule 23, cl. 1.

In a close and highly contested vote on passage of the Medicare reform
act in November, 2003, DeLay offered one wavering Republican Member,
Representative Nick Smith, a promise to endorse Smith's son, who was a
candidate in a Republican primary for Congress, if Smith would vote for
the bill. According to a report by an investigative subcommittee of the
Ethics Committee, it is "not controverted" that DeLay offered his
"personal endorsement" of Smith's son "in exchange for" Smith's vote in
favor of the Medicare bill. (Rpt. at 59).

This was important. According to the subcommittee:

At the time the offer was made, Representative Smith believed that the
endorsement of his son by the Majority Leader, combined with the
publicity and substantial financial support that would follow the
Majority Leader's endorsement, would greatly assist, if not assure, his
son's election in the primary held on August 3, 2004. (Id.)

In discussing this, the subcommittee noted that compromise and
"logrolling" are familiar parts of the legislative process. "There are
limits, however, to the methods that may be used to bring legislators of
different views together to achieve action." (Rpt. at 59):

An appearance of impropriety might be created....if support for
legislation were linked to a personal benefit, such as the promise of
one Member to provide another Member with goods or services. Such
incentives cannot be used to influence voting behavior. (Rpt. at 60).

The subcommittee concluded that DeLay's behavior exceeded the bounds of
ethical behavior. It said:

The promise of political support for a relative of a Member goes beyond
the boundaries of maintaining party discipline, and should not be used
as the basis of a bargain for Members to achieve their respective goals.
  The endorsement of a political candidate is not related to the
functioning of government, and the promise of such an endorsement is not
a proper offer, and therefore should not be made or accepted, in
exchange for a vote in favor or against a particular piece of
legislation. (Id.)

The subcommittee recommended that DeLay be admonished regarding his
conduct in this matter. (Rpt. at 61). The subcommittee report and its
recommendations were adopted in full by the Ethics Committee, and were
issued as part of the full Committee's own report. The full Committee
concluded that DeLay, as well as two other Members, "should be publicly
admonished for their conduct" in the Medicare vote. (Rpt. at ii). It
said that DeLay's conduct "could support a finding" that DeLay violated
House rules. (Rpt. at iii).

4. Private Rebuke: "Improper" Partisan Pressure on Lobbyists

In May, 1999, according to published reports, the Ethics Committee gave
"a rare private rebuke" to DeLay for badgering a lobbying organization
over its hiring of a Democrat as its president."3

According to a report in The Washington Post, DeLay threatened an
industry trade group, the Electronics Industries Alliance, with
"retaliation" for hiring a Democrat, former Congressman Dave McCurdy, as
its president.4 The Ethics Committee rebuke followed efforts by DeLay
to "pressure" the EIA into dropping plans to hire McCurdy.

The Post story said that the private letter to DeLay mirrored a public
letter sent to all House Members at the time. The letter stated:

government officials, including House Members and staff, are prohibited
from taking or withholding any official action on the basis of the
partisan affiliation or the campaign contributions or support of
involved individuals, or the prospect of personal gain either for
oneself or anyone else. House members and staff are likewise prohibited
from threatening punitive action on the basis of such consideration.
(emphasis added).

5. Warning: Creating Impression that Official Access or Action Are
Linked with Campaign Contributions

On November 7, 1997, the House Ethics Committee sent DeLay a letter
which, as described in the October 6 letter, "concerned, in part,
statements that may create the impression that official access or action
are linked with campaign contributions...." (Ltr. At 6 n.2).

According to a statement issued by the Committee in 1997, as described
in the October 6 report, DeLay was "advised" that it is "particularly
important" a Member not make statements that create the impression that
the Member would "consider an individual's requests for access or for
official action based on...campaign contributions." (Rpt. at 22). In
admonishing DeLay for the energy industry fundraiser at the Homestead
resort in 2002, the Committee noted that its 1997 warning to DeLay is
"pertinent" here because his recent actions in regard to the energy
industry fundraiser "raise the very same concern expressed in that
earlier Committee statement."

Endnotes

1. "Ltr" refers to the letter of October 6, 2004 from Joel Hefley,
chairman, and Alan B. Mollohan, ranking minority member, of the House
Ethics Committee, to Tom DeLay. "Rpt" refers to the Memorandum from
Hefley and Mollohan to the Members of the Ethics Committee re
"Recommendations for disposition of the complaint filed against
Representative DeLay." Both documents are available on the website of
the House Ethics Committee at http://www.house.gov/ethics/DeLay_Cover.htm.

2. In this context, "Rpt." refers to a report of the Ethics Committee
dated September 30, 2004, and titled "Investigation of Certain
Allegations Related to Voting on the Medicare Prescription Drug
Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003." This report is also
available on the Ethics Committee website at
http://www.house.gov/ethics/Medicare_Report_Cover.htm.

3. D. Stout, "Ethics Panel Gives Rare Rebuke," The New York Times (May
14, 1999).

4. J. Eilperin, "Ethics Panel Chastises DeLay for Threatening Trade
Group," The Washington Post (May 14, 1999).

# # #

Relevant Pages

  • THIS IS NOT THE AMERICA WE REMEMBER was: OT - "The Saddam Tapes"
    ... DeLay, forced to step down as the Number 2 Republican in the House ... Appropriations Committee as GOP leaders rewarded him the prize. ...
    (rec.audio.pro)
  • OT - Delay indicted *again*
    ... ethics committee in the last year. ... Texas Grand Jury Indicts DeLay on New Money Laundering Charge ... The new indictment came hours after DeLay's attorneys filed a request to ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)
  • Re: RESULT : Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated PASSES 128:24
    ... what' discussions, or reposting committee emails, but there's enough ... such as you ignoring the advice given to you by the ... My sums say that means the komite is responsible for 116 days of delay. ... mandatory 2nd RFD 10-day waiting period when nothing else was going ...
    (uk.net.news.config)
  • Ethics investigations
    ... And tom-tom the hammer delay was on CSPAN telling his side of the story ... about how it is the Democrats FAULT that he is in so much trouble. ... On September 30, 2004, the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: OT| oh yeah???
    ... Any claim the Republicans might possibly have that they are committed ... their most corrupt members, the disgraced Tom Delay, on the friggen ... Appropriations Committee -- the very committee with power to direct the ... which is currently investigating an ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)