5 days, 5 ethical travesties - The Case Against DeLay
November 24, 2004
Right now in Louisiana we are fighting to grab two more seats for the Democrats in runoff elections, and keep two more Tom DeLay rubberstamps out of the US Congress. As you read through the case against Tom DeLay and the outrageous record of the Republicans in Congress during just their first five days in session, consider helping us in our stand against their daily disgraces.
Contribute Now!
Make your secure donation now, and we'll continue to do our part to put more Democrats in office and hold the Republicans accountable. Thanks for all you've already done, and thanks in advance for your help today. The elections are less than two weeks away, and we need your help!
Contribute Now!
Travesty #1: Protecting Their Own
(The Case Against DeLay)
When the Republicans voted to change their rules to allow Tom DeLay to continue to serve as their leader even if he is indicted for major crimes in Texas, it marked more than just a new low for the GOP Congress. It also marked a conscious shift in political strategy, as the GOP prepared to wage an all out propaganda smear campaign against the Travis County District Attorney in charge of the case. Henry Bonilla, the chief supporter of the rule change, gave this explanation:
"This takes the power away from any partisan crackpot district attorney who may want to indict."
But is it so? Is the case against DeLay so frivolous that the DA must be on a "partisan witch hunt" as DeLay himself has called it? Allow us to lay out the evidence, and you can decide for yourself.
Let's start with this key statistic, which is difficult to overcome:
"'The only people I antagonize more than Republicans are Democrats,' [District Attorney Ronnie] Earle said later. He said the record showed he had prosecuted 12 Democratic officials and 4 Republican officials, although for much of his time in office, he acknowledged, Republicans were on the outs. 'We prosecute abuses of power,'' he said, ''and you have to have power to abuse it.'"
Those figures, for the record, have been confirmed by press reports throughout this scandal. But let's get to direct evidence. The starting point for looking at this case is the law itself, 100 years old now, that specifically bans corporate and union fundraising except for purposes of "administrative overhead." That the Texans for a Republican Majority PAC (TRMPAC), which was founded by DeLay, raised corporate money is not in question - at least $600,000 to be fairly precise.
The GOP legal defense has been that the exception for "administrative overhead" is vague enough that virtually anything can fall under that category. Michael King of the Austin Chronicle addressed that defense this way:
"There's been loud pettifoggery from the usual brace of lawyers - unfortunately echoed by some news outlets - that Texas campaign finance law is 'vague.' But on this score, it has been plain enough for a century that the brazen defiance by the GOP is essentially unprecedented. Commented Craig McDonald of Texans for Public Justice, which filed the original complaint that eventually led to the TRMPAC indictments, 'It's about as plain as the law that says you can't steal another man's horse.'"
But judge for yourself whether these activities sound like overhead:
"State law generally prohibits corporate money from being spent on campaigns except for a political committee's administrative overhead such as rent and utilities. Texans for a Republican Majority spent corporate money on pollsters, phone banks and consultants, arguing that the expenses were part of the committee's overhead."
Still not convinced? Then let's go to the horse's mouth. This was a fundraising appeal TRMPAC sent out early on, which one might argue is the single most damning piece of evidence in the case:
"Unlike other organizations, your corporate contribution to TRMPAC will be put to productive use," the piece said. "Rather than just paying for overhead, your support will fund a series of productive and innovative activities designed to increase our level of engagement in the political arena." [emphasis added]
Ouch. So you see that the entire point of the PAC was to get around this law, but unfortunately that appeal completely dashed their sole defense. Now in the course of the 2002 campaigns for the Texas legislature, TRMPAC made several clutzy moves to try to dance around the law. For example:
"A political committee connected to U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay sent $190,000 in what internal memos say were corporate donations to the Republican National Committee, which then doled out the same amount to seven candidates in Texas House races. It is illegal in Texas to use corporate money in political races, and some open-government advocates suggest the transaction smells of a money-laundering exercise."
Jim Ellis, who became famous for authoring this despicable memo on the redistricting that snidely celebrated the threat to Democrats, wrote that check, and it should therefore be no surprise that he, along with another DeLay aide named John Colyandro, were indicted for money laundering.
All told, 32 indictments have been handed down so far, and obviously with good reason. The only question that remains is whether DeLay was personally involved. Of course as we noted, the entire purpose of the PAC, which again was founded by DeLay (whose specialty is corporate fundraising) was to get around or above these laws. But more importantly, there are at least three particularly potent pieces of evidence demonstrating his involvement.
Westar:
"...in May 2002, an executive at Westar Energy discovered his company was about to make a political donation that, on its face, seemed rather odd. Westar Executive Vice President Douglas Lake didn't understand why his Kansas-based energy company with no operations in Texas and no stake in the state's elections would give $25,000 to a Texas congressman's PAC that operates solely in Texas campaigns.
"'DeLay is from TX. What is our connection?' Lake emailed a colleague. Westar Vice President Douglas Lawrence responded that contributions to DeLay, Texas Republican Joe Barton, Billy Tauzin (R-La), and Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) were necessary to get 'a strong position at the table' during a House-Senate conference committee hammering out a federal energy bill..."
Enron:
"In May 2001, Enron's top lobbyists in Washington advised the company chairman that then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) was pressing for a $100,000 contribution to his political action committee, in addition to the $250,000 the company had already pledged to the Republican Party that year.
"DeLay requested that the new donation come from 'a combination of corporate and personal money from Enron's executives,' with the understanding that it would be partly spent on 'the redistricting effort in Texas,' said the e-mail to Kenneth L. Lay from lobbyists Rick Shapiro and Linda Robertson."
The Tauzin Fundraiser:
"A newly obtained memo indicates U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay had personal involvement in directing some of the fund-raising activities of a political action committee that is under a grand jury investigation…"
"The August 2002 e-mail by one of TRMPAC's paid fund-raisers stated that she was acting on DeLay's behalf in an attempt to set up an event featuring U.S. Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La."
The Westar case, of course, was one of the incidents cited in DeLay's recent string of ethics admonishments.
So there you have it, the case against DeLay. Obviously nobody knows for sure whether the Grand Jury will see fit to indict DeLay, and their may be issues of jurisdiction that allow DeLay to slip away, but in ethical terms it is hard to see any distiction between the acts of those already indicted and those of their boss, Tom DeLay.
So let us close by bringing this back to the change in party rules passed recently. The Chicago Tribune writes:
"...it's hard to read much more than arrogance in what the GOP did Wednesday. If DeLay is indicted, he should step down from party leadership immediately, at least until the charges are resolved. Allowing a high-profile leader such as DeLay to continue to serve as a spokesman for his party while he faces criminal charges would be crippling for the Republicans.
"Republicans must know this stinks. They did it behind closed doors Wednesday and there was no vote count.
"DeLay has responded to all this with his usual bluster. Maybe that works in Texas - though his relatively narrow re-election would argue that even Texans are growing weary of him. DeLay can bluster, but the Republican Party has to show that it understands political leaders have to set a high ethical standard. Their actions on Wednesday suggest they want to protect DeLay at any cost - even the cost of the party's reputation."
Help us fight back...
Travesty #2: Scuttling the 9/11 Intelligence Reform
Having already stalled up the 9/11 Intelligence reform bill by inserting "poison pill" amendments, including provisions from the defunct Patriot Act II and another legalizing the deportation of suspects to be tortured abroad, Republicans in the House killed the final compromise version of the bill, going against the will of Democrats in the House, the entire Senate, the 9/11 Commission and victims' families, and even President Bush:
"Long-debated legislation to dramatically reshape the nation's intelligence community collapsed in the House yesterday, as conservative Republicans refused to embrace a compromise because they said it could reduce military control over battlefield intelligence and failed to crack down on illegal immigrants…"
"Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the committee's top Democrat, said, 'I think those who are vehemently opposed are not going to come around.' She said it is up to Bush, Hastert and other GOP leaders to overcome the House conservatives' resistance. If a bill is not enacted by year's end, efforts would have to start anew in the 109th Congress that convenes in January..."
"Another conferee, Rep. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), said: 'Clearly, House Republicans never really wanted this bill. . . . Sadly, there are those who are so wedded to the Department of Defense that they, ultimately, ensured the bill's demise.'"
As a result, the current 108th Congress will have failed to pass this reform, despite having had a full three years and two months to consider it. Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi denounced the failure in this blistering statement:
"House Republicans single-handedly doomed that compromise by insisting on weak and unrelated provisions. When the 9/11 Commission issued its recommendations, it did so with urgency. But that urgency was never matched by House Republicans, who did not want the 9/11 Commission in the first place, and who never truly wanted to pass a meaningful reform bill..."
Travesty #3: The Istook "Big Government" Amendment
In the final days of the 108th Congress, the House and Senate were all but prepared to pass the final version of yet another mediocre and massive spending bill when an odd thing was discovered. Buried in the legislation was this provision:
"Congress passed legislation Saturday giving two committee chairman and their assistants access to income tax returns without regard to privacy protections, but not before red-faced Republicans said it was all a mistake and would be swiftly repealed."
Republican Senators exclaimed that the provision was inserted by "some staffer" and that it was "more than a mistake, it's a terrible disaster." But unfortunately they did not manage to get their House counterparts on the same talking points:
"House leadership aides said the controversy was a knee-jerk reaction to a misunderstanding of the provision, which was inserted by Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., whose House Appropriations subcommittee oversees the IRS.
"'It was not any surprise,' said John Scofield, spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee.
"'The Senate was in the room when it was negotiated.'"
Odd that the Senate was so offended if the provision was so harmless. Indeed, noting the carefully crafted language, which was strikingly similar to amendments ardently pushed by Rep. Istook in the past, one Democratic Senator astutely called the Republican bluff:
"'We weren't born yesterday, we didn't come down with the first snow,' said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. 'This isn't poorly thought out, this was very deliberately thought out and it was done in the dead of night.'"
Caught red-handed, the Senate has agreed to language removing the provision. The House has promised to do so as well, but it remains to be seen whether they will follow through, and some worry that the provision may temporarily become law and that Republicans may utilize it in the brief window before it is repealed. The precise motive remains unclear, but Senator Grassley, a Republican put it this way:
"Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said the measure will 'bring us back to the doorstep to the days of President Nixon, President Truman and other dark days in our history when taxpayer information was used against political enemies.'"
Travesty #4: Unemployment Benefits Nay, Presidential Yacht Aye
We'll keep this one short and sweet. Even as millions of Americans go without work, many having seen their unemployment benefits expire at the insistence of the Republicans in Congress, they approved spending for a Presidential yacht for George Bush. The Chicago Sun-Times lists the pork in a $388 billion spending bill:
"A potential boon for Bush, $2 million for the government to try buying back the former presidential yacht Sequoia. The boat was sold three decades ago, and its current owners say the yacht is assessed at $9.8 million and are distressed by the provision."
All part of the "mandate," right?
Travesty #5: Another Stealth Attack on Roe v. Wade
Hoping to slip it in under the radar, House Republicans inserted an embarrassing attack on abortion rights into that same $388 billion spending bill:
"In the first sign of post-election power by abortion opponents, Congress on Saturday approved a sweeping $388 billion spending bill that would permit hospitals and HMOs to avoid state requirements that they offer abortion services."
Democratic Leader Pelosi took the floor in an inspiring speech denouncing the amendment:
"Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Weldon amendment, an extraordinary sneak attack on women's rights and a disgraceful display of ideology over health.
"This language is a radical change in policy that the House has not debated on the floor, and the Senate has never considered, debated, or voted on. Republicans simply slipped it into the appropriations bill when they thought no one was looking. It is entirely outside of the scope of this omnibus spending bill. Yet it is a part of a 'must-pass' bill at the insistence of House Republican leaders.
"This language makes a mockery of Roe v. Wade. Under this provision, a woman will not know where her right to choose will be honored and where it will be denied."
Again, Republicans knew full well that this move was wildly unpopular, which is why - in what is now becoming a tradition - they inserted it quietly like a thief in the night. For shame.
News From the Blog
Bring on the National Sales Tax
Republican Max Burns got nailed with "The Max Tax" and lost his seat in GA-12. Now Billy Tauzin will have to fend off Little Billy's Big Tax.
Own the Northeast
Life is tough for Republicans in the Northeast.
Big Government
A column in Texas mulls the possibility that local papers were intimidated into supporting Republican Joe Barton.
Cast Thy Shame
Utilize a program we devised to email your favorite GOP Member of Congress and ask them why they will allow indicted individuals to serve as their leaders.
Dionne on DeLay
Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne takes on the DeLay rule change.
