In 2006 the self described watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), headed by former Democratic congressional staffer Melanie Sloan, named presidential candidate Rick Santorum on its list of the twenty most corrupt congressmen. CREW is a notoriously partisan group, however, as a look into the other members of congress named in 2006 will tell. First, CREW named twenty members of congress to its list, with five “dishonorable mentions.” Of those twenty-five, twenty-one were Republicans, including numerous Republicans who were running for reelection in hotly contested races, as Rick Santorum was. Now it's just possible that in 2006 84% of the most corrupt members of congress were Republicans, but any thinking person can see it's extremely unlikely. To understand why, then, these particular members of congress were named it would behoove us to look in more detail into each individual case.
Since Santorum was a senator in 2006, it is most efficient to look first at the senators (there were also only three senators named compared with seventeen representatives, thus it's a much smaller job).
Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT):
Conrad Burns was elected in 1989 and served until 2007. He was only the second Republican senator from Montana since 1913, and the longest serving to date. During his time in office he served on the Senate Appropriations Committee and was the chair of its Subcommittee on the Interior. He also sat on the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee and chaired its Communications Subcommittee. Burns was a strong conservative, although he had a tendency to make unfortunate comments. For his entire career Burns received an NARAL Pro-Choice America rating of 0% and a NRL rating of 100%. This trend continues throughout many other issues. Many other liberal groups give him a poor rating (none rate him higher than 10%, with the exception the AFL-CIO's somewhat anomalous 29%) and conservative groups rate him highly.
Burns was reelected numerous times, but by 2006 had begun to fall in the polls. At the time CREW released its report Burns was struggling, with a very low approval rating. After Burns connection to Abramoff was publicized by CREW and others, his approval rating fell even more, perhaps, according to some polling services, as low as 39%—the lowest for any sitting senator.
CREW alleged that Burns funneled money for schools on Indian reservations to the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe, a client of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. According to CREW's report, Burns on two occasions joined with Democrat senators to request that funding be given to the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. CREW further alleged that Burns received close to $150,000 between 2004 and 2006 from Abramoff and his clients and associates, including the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. Burns subsequently returned these donations.
CREW alleged that Burns funneled money for schools on Indian reservations to the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe, a client of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. According to CREW's report, Burns on two occasions joined with Democrat senators to request that funding be given to the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. CREW further alleged that Burns received close to $150,000 between 2004 and 2006 from Abramoff and his clients and associates, including the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. Burns subsequently returned these donations.
CREW also claimed that a trip that some of Burns's staffers took to the Super Bowl, paid for by Jack Abramoff, was unethical, although Burns did not violate any senate rules and there is no evidence he even knew of the trip—CREW as much as admitted both of these facts in asking the senate to censure Burns without citing rules violations.
Beyond the two major issues mentioned, CREW went on to indicate what they saw as unethical behavior in many other, smaller, areas, including his defense of land rights against supporters of wild burros and horses. Unfortunately for CREW, in 2008 the Justice Department cleared Burns of the charges and removed him from their investigation. Nothing indicates that the donations Burns received were in payment for any action on his part, at least to his knowledge, and there is also no evidence that the trip to the Super Bowl was planned or executed with Burns knowledge.
Senator Bill Frist (R-TN):
Bill Frist is a physician, board-licensed in both general and thoracic surgery. He was elected to the senate in 1995 and served until 2007. During his time in congress he served as the senate majority leader from 2003 to 2007, succeeding Trent Lott. Frist gained prominence when, after two police officers were shot in capitol, he, as the closest doctor, provided medical attention to the officers and the gunman. As a medical doctor who opposed Terri Schiavo's husband's decision to remove her feeding tubes, thus allowing her to die from lack of food and water, Frist came under heavy attack from the left. Frist also stood with Rick Santorum in advancing the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003 and opposed exceptions for the life of the mother, since he considered abortion to be hazardous to a woman's health itself. Frist, like Burns, was rated poorly by liberal groups and highly by conservative ones.
Frist promised not to run for election after his second term, and in 2006 he kept that promise, instead throwing his support to Bob Corker, who defeated his Democrat challenger.
CREW claimed that Frist had taken out a $1.44 million loan in the name of his 1994 and 2000 campaigns to repay himself $1.2 million which he had lent to his 1994 campaign but had not been repaid. Until this point the entire matter had remained completely above board. However, in its FEC disclosure forms Frist's 2000 campaign failed to report the only—the only campaign that reported it was his by that time dormant 1994 campaign.
Senator Bill Frist (R-TN):
Bill Frist is a physician, board-licensed in both general and thoracic surgery. He was elected to the senate in 1995 and served until 2007. During his time in congress he served as the senate majority leader from 2003 to 2007, succeeding Trent Lott. Frist gained prominence when, after two police officers were shot in capitol, he, as the closest doctor, provided medical attention to the officers and the gunman. As a medical doctor who opposed Terri Schiavo's husband's decision to remove her feeding tubes, thus allowing her to die from lack of food and water, Frist came under heavy attack from the left. Frist also stood with Rick Santorum in advancing the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003 and opposed exceptions for the life of the mother, since he considered abortion to be hazardous to a woman's health itself. Frist, like Burns, was rated poorly by liberal groups and highly by conservative ones.
Frist promised not to run for election after his second term, and in 2006 he kept that promise, instead throwing his support to Bob Corker, who defeated his Democrat challenger.
CREW claimed that Frist had taken out a $1.44 million loan in the name of his 1994 and 2000 campaigns to repay himself $1.2 million which he had lent to his 1994 campaign but had not been repaid. Until this point the entire matter had remained completely above board. However, in its FEC disclosure forms Frist's 2000 campaign failed to report the only—the only campaign that reported it was his by that time dormant 1994 campaign.
CREW also attacked Frist for insider trading. Frist held, along with his wife and children, a significant amount of stock in HCA, Inc., the family company. In June 2005 Frist sold all of his, his wife's, and his children's stock in HCA. Not too long after this action, HCA, Inc. stock declined 9% in value in a single day.
CREW's first allegation—that Frist violated FEC rules—is rather clear cut. The FEC found a rules violation to have occurred and Frist 2000, Inc. had to pay an $11,000 conciliation civil penalty. The case against Frist himself and Frist 2000, Inc.'s former treasurer and vice-treasurer was dismissed. Frist's alleged insider trading is also clear cut, but not in the way CREW would like it to be. Frist claimed from the start of the investigation that his action had been to avoid a conflict of interest when he advanced legislation affecting healthcare, and after an eighteen month investigation Frist was completely exonerated. His exoneration in this investigation was not enough to save his political career, and a man who had been thought to be a leading Republican presidential candidate was forced out of public life.
Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA):
Rick Santorum was elected to the senate in 1995 and served until 2007 and in the House of Representatives from 1991 to 1995. During his time in office Santorum served on the Senate Armed Services Committee and was the third ranking Republican in the senate, the first Pennsylvanian to hold such a prominent position since the 1970s. Santorum was a staunch conservative throughout his career in both houses of congress, routinely receiving high ratings from the American Conservative Union, Concerned Women for America, National Right to Life, and other conservative groups. Although Santorum served on the Armed Services Committee, he was best known for his strong conservative stand on social issues and his defense of the traditional family, attracting the ire of pro-homosexual marriage and pro-abortion activists.
In 2006 Santorum faced a tough challenge from Bob Casey, the son of the former Pennsylvania governor of the same name. Santorum trailed by fifteen points or more throughout the campaign and wasn't helped by CREW's report.
CREW accused Santorum of having his children enroll in a cyber-school paid for by the Penn Hills school district from 2001 to 2005 while he and his family lived in Virginia. Although Santorum was a legal resident of the Penn Hills district, CREW (and the district) alleged that he willfully ignored the further requirement that children enrolled in the cyber-school not only had to be legal residents of the district but also had to spend most of their time there. CREW claimed that Santorum's children had cost the district $72,000 while attending the cyber-school.
CREW also produced a long list of legislative decisions which they believed to be linked to campaign contributions. Among these was Santorum's attempt to break the National Weather Service's government-funded near-monopoly on the dissemination of weather information. CREW points to donations from the founder of AccuWeather, a private weather service, as bribes. CREW also points to donations from the U.S. Tobacco Corporation's political action committee, U.S. Team, after Santorum opposed the regulation of tobacco companies, Santorum's support of equal Medicare reimbursement for hospitals in Puerto Rico, which was followed by donations from various hospitals in Puerto Rico, and Santorum's support of a cutting edge coal-to-diesel plant in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania, which was followed by large donations from the owner of the company that would build the plant (Waste Management and Processes, Inc) and his relatives.
CREW's charge that Santorum willfully ignored residency requirements is flawed on two counts. First, CREW grossly overestimated the cost to Pennsylvania taxpayers. CREW's estimate is at the top of the spectrum of estimates, which range from $34,000 to $72,000. Even given the high cost CREW posits, the cost per student over the five years was actually only $3,600 per year—well under the national average of $8,000 to $9,000 per student per year. More importantly, in fact, the requirements for the cyber-school left it unclear whether all that was required was legal residency—in essence property taxes supporting the school district—or whether actual residency was required as well. When informed of the school district's interpretation of the matter (that actual residency was required) Santorum immediately removed his children and resumed homeschooling them. Incidentally, the ambiguity was cleared in Santorum's favor in 2005 when the residency requirement was explicitly changed to include children of elected officials who did not spend most of their time in the district but were legal residents.
CREW's allegations of taking bribes are far less believable—so little evidence was provided, in fact, that no investigation was ever conducted. In every case there is nothing to suggest the donations were not driven by a desire on the part of the donor to help a politician who stood up for them. It is the natural course of things that people will support those in government who support them—that fact alone is not evidence of a bribe.
CREW's first allegation—that Frist violated FEC rules—is rather clear cut. The FEC found a rules violation to have occurred and Frist 2000, Inc. had to pay an $11,000 conciliation civil penalty. The case against Frist himself and Frist 2000, Inc.'s former treasurer and vice-treasurer was dismissed. Frist's alleged insider trading is also clear cut, but not in the way CREW would like it to be. Frist claimed from the start of the investigation that his action had been to avoid a conflict of interest when he advanced legislation affecting healthcare, and after an eighteen month investigation Frist was completely exonerated. His exoneration in this investigation was not enough to save his political career, and a man who had been thought to be a leading Republican presidential candidate was forced out of public life.
Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA):
Rick Santorum was elected to the senate in 1995 and served until 2007 and in the House of Representatives from 1991 to 1995. During his time in office Santorum served on the Senate Armed Services Committee and was the third ranking Republican in the senate, the first Pennsylvanian to hold such a prominent position since the 1970s. Santorum was a staunch conservative throughout his career in both houses of congress, routinely receiving high ratings from the American Conservative Union, Concerned Women for America, National Right to Life, and other conservative groups. Although Santorum served on the Armed Services Committee, he was best known for his strong conservative stand on social issues and his defense of the traditional family, attracting the ire of pro-homosexual marriage and pro-abortion activists.
In 2006 Santorum faced a tough challenge from Bob Casey, the son of the former Pennsylvania governor of the same name. Santorum trailed by fifteen points or more throughout the campaign and wasn't helped by CREW's report.
CREW accused Santorum of having his children enroll in a cyber-school paid for by the Penn Hills school district from 2001 to 2005 while he and his family lived in Virginia. Although Santorum was a legal resident of the Penn Hills district, CREW (and the district) alleged that he willfully ignored the further requirement that children enrolled in the cyber-school not only had to be legal residents of the district but also had to spend most of their time there. CREW claimed that Santorum's children had cost the district $72,000 while attending the cyber-school.
CREW also produced a long list of legislative decisions which they believed to be linked to campaign contributions. Among these was Santorum's attempt to break the National Weather Service's government-funded near-monopoly on the dissemination of weather information. CREW points to donations from the founder of AccuWeather, a private weather service, as bribes. CREW also points to donations from the U.S. Tobacco Corporation's political action committee, U.S. Team, after Santorum opposed the regulation of tobacco companies, Santorum's support of equal Medicare reimbursement for hospitals in Puerto Rico, which was followed by donations from various hospitals in Puerto Rico, and Santorum's support of a cutting edge coal-to-diesel plant in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania, which was followed by large donations from the owner of the company that would build the plant (Waste Management and Processes, Inc) and his relatives.
CREW's charge that Santorum willfully ignored residency requirements is flawed on two counts. First, CREW grossly overestimated the cost to Pennsylvania taxpayers. CREW's estimate is at the top of the spectrum of estimates, which range from $34,000 to $72,000. Even given the high cost CREW posits, the cost per student over the five years was actually only $3,600 per year—well under the national average of $8,000 to $9,000 per student per year. More importantly, in fact, the requirements for the cyber-school left it unclear whether all that was required was legal residency—in essence property taxes supporting the school district—or whether actual residency was required as well. When informed of the school district's interpretation of the matter (that actual residency was required) Santorum immediately removed his children and resumed homeschooling them. Incidentally, the ambiguity was cleared in Santorum's favor in 2005 when the residency requirement was explicitly changed to include children of elected officials who did not spend most of their time in the district but were legal residents.
CREW's allegations of taking bribes are far less believable—so little evidence was provided, in fact, that no investigation was ever conducted. In every case there is nothing to suggest the donations were not driven by a desire on the part of the donor to help a politician who stood up for them. It is the natural course of things that people will support those in government who support them—that fact alone is not evidence of a bribe.
To summarize, Senator Burns was cleared of CREW's charges when investigated, although some were not investigated at all because sufficient evidence was not provided to support them. Senator Frist's 2000 campaign was found to have violated FEC rules and required to pay an $11,000 conciliation civil penalty, but Frist was completely exonerated on the charge of insider trading. Senator Santorum was exonerated in having enrolled his kids in the Western Pennsylvania Cyber School, and the evidence of his having allowed campaign contributions to influence his decisions was deemed insufficient to pursue an investigation.
In short, CREW took aim at three conservative senators in a move that was partisan politics at its worst. It wasn't an attack based on issues or substance, it was nothing less than libelous character assassination. The political affiliations of CREW's staff and the politicians named cast doubt on the veracity of its report, and an examination of the facts does nothing but confirm those doubts
In short, CREW took aim at three conservative senators in a move that was partisan politics at its worst. It wasn't an attack based on issues or substance, it was nothing less than libelous character assassination. The political affiliations of CREW's staff and the politicians named cast doubt on the veracity of its report, and an examination of the facts does nothing but confirm those doubts
Labels: Election 2012, Politics
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment