February 16, 2004
Top Dean Aide Discusses Plans to Back Kerry
By JODI WILGOREN
MILWAUKEE, Feb. 15 — The chairman of Howard Dean's presidential campaign said on Sunday that he would leave and shift his support to Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts if Dr. Dean lost the Wisconsin primary on Tuesday, an outcome he sees as all but inevitable.
"If Howard Dean does not win the Wisconsin primary, I will reach out to John Kerry unless he reaches out to me first," said the chairman, Steven Grossman, who was chairman of Mr. Kerry's 1996 Senate race. "I will make it clear that I will do anything and everything I can to help him become the next president, and I will do anything and everything I can to build bridges with the Dean organization."
The comments by Mr. Grossman, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee who has known Mr. Kerry for 34 years, came as Dr. Dean faced growing pressure from aides and outside backers to abandon his quest. But while many leading supporters and staff members expect him to either quit the campaign altogether or radically scale it back by the end of this week, the candidate remained steadfast Sunday that he would soldier on.
"We're not dropping out after Tuesday, period," Dr. Dean said in a television interview with the Fox affiliate here Sunday.
But in a debate here with the other four Democratic candidates Sunday evening, Dr. Dean skipped several opportunities to directly challenge Mr. Kerry.
Dr. Dean has no events scheduled beyond Tuesday night, when he plans to fly home to Burlington, Vt., to regroup. He has not won in any of the 16 states that have voted. His bank account is dwindling. Many of his aides are planning vacations or seeking jobs with other candidates.
While many in the Dean camp felt Mr. Grossman had spoken out of school, none disputed the essence of what he said: that the campaign would not last the week in its current incarnation.
Roy Neel, Dr. Dean's campaign manager, said "anything is possible" after Wisconsin. "I'm not going to contradict Steve," Mr. Neel said of Mr. Grossman. "Every possibility is still on the table. The governor's not made a decision.
"He believes it's premature to make up his mind because we don't have the results from Tuesday night yet. He's still planning to win the primary."
The most recent polls here show Mr. Kerry 40 points ahead of Dr. Dean, who also trailed Mr. Edwards.
Aides to Dr. Dean and Mr. Kerry have met to discuss Dr. Dean's future plans, a Democratic operative said Sunday night on condition on anonymity.
"None of us are doing a whole lot right now, because there's not a whole lot to do," one top Dean aide said Sunday, on the condition he not be named. "We've put one ad on the air in Wisconsin. We're not polling anymore. We're not going to have the money to run some full-fledged campaign for March 2."
By contrast, Senator John Edwards of North Carolina promised to compete in all 10 states with primaries and caucuses on March 2, though he said he might bypass Hawaii, Idaho and Utah, which vote Feb. 24.
"This is becoming a two-person race between John Edwards and John Kerry," Mr. Edwards told reporters after a rally at the University of Wisconsin campus in Waukesha, about 20 miles from here. Like Mr. Edwards, Dr. Dean had hoped to remain standing long enough to get a one-on-one face-off with Mr. Kerry, whom he has denounced as beholden to special interests and indistinguishable from Republicans.
After the debate Sunday, Dr. Dean told supporters at a local bar, Caffrey's, that he would keep campaigning, win or lose, saying he would go on to New York, California, Ohio and even Hawaii.
But having not won a single state, his prospects seem dimmer by the day, leaving Dr. Dean with the task of transforming his organization into a force for political change while keeping his dignity.
Many supporters believe his best option would be to turn his campaign into a political action group devoted to defeating President Bush.
"Right now there is nothing that he is doing that anyone I've spoken to believes is detrimental to the Democratic party," said Andrew L. Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, which plans to reassess its endorsement of Dr. Dean on Wednesday. "Some people may say if they were him they wouldn't do this because it may be detrimental to his reputation. I guess he's in charge of his own reputation."
Mr. Grossman, the campaign chairman, predicted that after a Dean loss here on Tuesday, "you will see a fundamental shift in rhetoric and in tone and perhaps in how the candidate uses his time."
He said Dr. Dean's name would remain on the ballot in remaining primaries, so he might still collect votes, but that he would cease criticism of Mr. Kerry.
"I think Howard is very clearly focused on making sure that we have a Democratic president in November and that this movement, hundreds of thousands of citizens or more, play an active participatory role in the fall election," Mr. Grossman said, adding that his comments reflected a lengthy recent conversation with the candidate.
Mr. Grossman said he believed Dr. Dean would work "to help the nominee, presumably John Kerry, become the president, defeat Bush, and he will work equally hard to ensure that this movement that he has led for the last year will grow."
After the news of Grossman's decision to leave the campaign became public Sunday night, Dr. Dean, through his spokesman, Jay Carson, said Mr. Grossman had "meant a lot to this campaign."
"We'll miss him and we wish him well," Dr. Dean said through his spokesman.
Randal C. Archibold contributed reporting for this article.
____________________________________________________________
Monday, February 16, 2004
Here's the kind of illegal behavior an unethical leader like Mr. DeLay inspires.
February 16, 2004
WASHINGTON TALK
Partisan Denunciations Fly Over Secret Strategy Memos
By NEIL A. LEWIS
WASHINGTON, Feb. 15 — Democrats and Republicans in the Senate have been matching each other with nasty accusations for well over two years in the debate over the treatment of Bush administration judicial candidates.
But the Democrats have now confidently gathered in a herd on the moral high ground over disclosures that some Republican staff aides had improperly obtained confidential strategy memorandums from a Senate computer. The Senate sergeant-at-arms, who is nearing the end of an investigation into the tampering, told senators last week that the Republican staff members' activities went on much longer and were far more extensive than previously believed.
They spanned more than two years and involved conscious computer hacking as some 3,000 Democratic documents were secretly downloaded, read and distributed by some number of Republican aides, said people who attended the briefings. No evidence that senators were involved has surfaced.
When the Judiciary Committee convened Thursday for the first time since the new disclosures, Democratic senators were present in full force to denounced the spying, saying it was a violation of both the criminal code and the unwritten rules of political behavior in the Senate under which the two parties get along.
Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts compared the situation to Watergate. Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York invoked the depredations of Hitler and Stalin.
Before the new disclosures, Republicans had erected a common defense, saying the "spying" was little more than some staff members' peeking at a few documents made available to them through a computer flaw. More important, they argued, the documents themselves show a pattern of perfidy on the part of the Democrats in that they consulted and collaborated with outside liberal groups to oppose President Bush's judicial nominees, who were criticized in harsh terms.
But by Thursday, that appeared to some Republican senators a wan comeback.
When the Democrats began their serial denunciations, they all complimented Senator Orrin G. Hatch, the Utah Republican who is chairman of the committee, for his alacrity in initiating the investigation and his statements that he was mortified at what had occurred, comments that have earned him criticism from some conservative groups that he was caving in to the Democrats' demand for an investigation.
"He is the only Republican senator to have apologized for what occurred," said Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat.
With that, Democrats looked across the U-shaped committee table and glared at the Republicans.
Faced with a difficult-to-defend situation, many Republicans simply withdrew from the field of battle, quietly slipping out of the room. Senators Jon Kyl of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina joined Mr. Hatch in agreeing that what had happened was terribly wrong.
Senator John Cornyn, a freshman Republican of Texas, concurred but was less conciliatory. Mr. Cornyn said Democrats had recently used stolen documents to discredit William Pryor Jr., one of Mr. Bush's nominees to a federal appeals court.
Mr. Cornyn said a former employee of the Republican Attorneys General Association had passed documents to Democratic staff aides showing that Mr. Pryor, the Alabama attorney general, might have solicited money for the attorneys general's group from people who had business before him.
The documents suggested that the group was improperly raising money from groups like tobacco companies. But the person who took those documents from the group's files was not a Senate employee, Democrats pointed out, but was someone they regard as a whistle-blower, even as Republicans called her a thief.
The most unrepentant of Republicans was Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a member of the Republican leadership. According to the newspaper Roll Call, Mr. Santorum told reporters that he still believed that "the real potential criminal behavior" was with the Democrats because the content showed their unwholesome ways of colluding with outside interest groups to oppose Mr. Bush's judicial nominees.
_____________________________________________________________
February 16, 2004
WASHINGTON TALK
Partisan Denunciations Fly Over Secret Strategy Memos
By NEIL A. LEWIS
WASHINGTON, Feb. 15 — Democrats and Republicans in the Senate have been matching each other with nasty accusations for well over two years in the debate over the treatment of Bush administration judicial candidates.
But the Democrats have now confidently gathered in a herd on the moral high ground over disclosures that some Republican staff aides had improperly obtained confidential strategy memorandums from a Senate computer. The Senate sergeant-at-arms, who is nearing the end of an investigation into the tampering, told senators last week that the Republican staff members' activities went on much longer and were far more extensive than previously believed.
They spanned more than two years and involved conscious computer hacking as some 3,000 Democratic documents were secretly downloaded, read and distributed by some number of Republican aides, said people who attended the briefings. No evidence that senators were involved has surfaced.
When the Judiciary Committee convened Thursday for the first time since the new disclosures, Democratic senators were present in full force to denounced the spying, saying it was a violation of both the criminal code and the unwritten rules of political behavior in the Senate under which the two parties get along.
Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts compared the situation to Watergate. Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York invoked the depredations of Hitler and Stalin.
Before the new disclosures, Republicans had erected a common defense, saying the "spying" was little more than some staff members' peeking at a few documents made available to them through a computer flaw. More important, they argued, the documents themselves show a pattern of perfidy on the part of the Democrats in that they consulted and collaborated with outside liberal groups to oppose President Bush's judicial nominees, who were criticized in harsh terms.
But by Thursday, that appeared to some Republican senators a wan comeback.
When the Democrats began their serial denunciations, they all complimented Senator Orrin G. Hatch, the Utah Republican who is chairman of the committee, for his alacrity in initiating the investigation and his statements that he was mortified at what had occurred, comments that have earned him criticism from some conservative groups that he was caving in to the Democrats' demand for an investigation.
"He is the only Republican senator to have apologized for what occurred," said Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat.
With that, Democrats looked across the U-shaped committee table and glared at the Republicans.
Faced with a difficult-to-defend situation, many Republicans simply withdrew from the field of battle, quietly slipping out of the room. Senators Jon Kyl of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina joined Mr. Hatch in agreeing that what had happened was terribly wrong.
Senator John Cornyn, a freshman Republican of Texas, concurred but was less conciliatory. Mr. Cornyn said Democrats had recently used stolen documents to discredit William Pryor Jr., one of Mr. Bush's nominees to a federal appeals court.
Mr. Cornyn said a former employee of the Republican Attorneys General Association had passed documents to Democratic staff aides showing that Mr. Pryor, the Alabama attorney general, might have solicited money for the attorneys general's group from people who had business before him.
The documents suggested that the group was improperly raising money from groups like tobacco companies. But the person who took those documents from the group's files was not a Senate employee, Democrats pointed out, but was someone they regard as a whistle-blower, even as Republicans called her a thief.
The most unrepentant of Republicans was Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a member of the Republican leadership. According to the newspaper Roll Call, Mr. Santorum told reporters that he still believed that "the real potential criminal behavior" was with the Democrats because the content showed their unwholesome ways of colluding with outside interest groups to oppose Mr. Bush's judicial nominees.
_____________________________________________________________
The most vile snake in the Congress, Tom DeLay.
February 16, 2004
Inquiry Focuses on Group DeLay Created
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
AUSTIN, Tex. — A political action committee created by Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, enjoyed tremendous success here in 2002: all but 3 of 21 Republican candidates the committee backed for state representative won their races, helping the party take control of the Texas House.
Last year, the Republicans used that clout to carve Texas into new Congressional districts under a plan that political analysts say will bring them at least five new seats in Congressional elections this year.
But local prosecutors and a grand jury here have been investigating the committee, Texans for a Republican Majority, including its use of corporate donations in the election, lawyers close to the case said.
Investigators are also examining whether there were violations of a law intended to curb the ability of outside groups to influence the race for House speaker, the lawyers said. The investigation follows a complaint filed with prosecutors last year by Texans for Public Justice, a campaign watchdog group.
The extent to which Texans for a Republican Majority used corporate money in the 2002 races is laid out in a trail of recently obtained documents. Under Texas law, political action committees are generally prohibited from using corporate and union donations for anything other than administrative expenses, like rent and utilities.
But records and interviews show that fund-raisers from Texans for a Republican Majority who were paid with corporate money solicited donations on behalf of individual candidates backed by the committee, which also spent corporate donations on fund-raising events, polling and a voter identification project.
In one case, corporate donations were used to pay a $1,200 legal bill to defend a new Republican legislator, Bill Zedler, against accusations from his opponent that he did not live in the district that elected him.
The documents, and interviews, also show that the committee often coordinated its efforts with Tom Craddick, a Republican state representative whom lawmakers elected speaker of the House after the 2002 elections. Later, at the urging of Mr. DeLay, Mr. Craddick helped lead the bitter fight to carve the state into new Congressional districts.
John Colyandro, who was the committee's executive director, said that Texans for a Republican Majority operated lawfully and that hundreds of other political action committees in Texas had conducted business similarly.
"The notion that TRMPAC alone administered itself in this way is deceitful and offensive," Mr. Colyandro said. The payment in the Zedler case, made several days after the election, was legal because it had "nothing to do with the campaign," he said. Mr. Colyandro has been granted limited immunity in return for grand jury testimony, a person close to the case said.
But Cris Feldman, a lawyer in Austin who has sued the treasurer of Texans for a Republican Majority on behalf of four defeated Democratic House candidates, said Mr. DeLay and his aides "clandestinely funneled illegal corporate cash into the elections."
In all, the committee spent $1.5 million, including $600,000 in corporate money, according to an analysis by Texans for Public Justice.
Jim Ellis, Mr. DeLay's political aide, said he, Mr. DeLay and Mr. Colyandro created the committee. Mr. DeLay served on a five-member advisory board, which decided whom to endorse, Mr. Colyandro said. Mr. Ellis, executive director of Mr. DeLay's own political action committee, Americans for a Republican Majority, was one of three officers authorized to make decisions about expenditures and contributions by Texans for a Republican Majority, state records show.
Mr. DeLay's daughter was also paid by the committee to set up events, other records show.
Before the 2002 elections, Mr. DeLay wanted lawmakers to take up redistricting, Mr. Ellis said, adding that "there is no question" that Mr. DeLay wanted Mr. Craddick elected speaker. The two men served in the Texas House together in the 1980's.
But Mr. Ellis said the committee's main goals were to "elect Republicans and further the Republican agenda." He added that the investigation "seems to be getting to the point of being ridiculous" and that any mistakes by the committee "certainly weren't intentional."
But Ronnie Earle, the Democratic district attorney in Travis County, who is leading the inquiry, calls the investigation "an effort to unravel a tangled web of secret money."
In an interview, Mr. Colyandro said he believed that the committee was legally allowed to spend corporate money to raise other money that the committee collected and then distributed to candidates.
But in a separate interview, Susan Lilly, the committee's Texas fund-raiser during the 2002 elections, said she had a different understanding: that people involved in raising money intended for state campaigns — whether or not that money first passes through a political action committee — are not supposed to be paid with corporate money.
Ms. Lilly said she did not know Texans for a Republican Majority had paid her with corporate money until after the election, when prosecutors began looking at the committee's activities. She said she solicited donations that went straight to candidates, confirming a report in The Austin American-Statesman.
Records and interviews show that other committee officials were involved in raising money sent directly to candidates.
On Aug. 12, 2002, Ms. Lilly wrote an e-mail message to Mr. Colyandro and Warren Robold, a fund-raiser for Mr. DeLay who worked for the committee and, records show, was paid with money from corporate donations. In it, she described a visit from Ron Olson, an official with Union Pacific railroad.
Mr. Olson, she wrote, "came down this morning and said that through DeLay's efforts (i.e. Warren) that UP had identified $25,000 worth of TRMPAC targets that he is supposed to individually go and give checks to. However, he was asked that a `DeLay' person accompany him when he gives the checks (so that the recipient will know that it was TRMPAC related)."
A Union Pacific spokeswoman confirmed that Mr. Robold asked Union Pacific to make donations from its political action committee to candidates backed by Texans for a Republican Majority. He made the request, she said, after the railroad declined to donate to the committee.
Union Pacific donated to 11 candidates but would have made those donations anyway, she said. She also confirmed Mr. Craddick handed out some Union Pacific checks to candidates, explaining that company officials did not have time to do it.
Mr. Robold did not return calls seeking comment. He has been subpoenaed by prosecutors, a person close to the case said.
Another document, dated Sept. 27, 2002, and written by Ms. Lilly, states that committee officials sent letters to the candidates letting them know that some donations made by others were due to their efforts.
"All checks that have been distributed were pre-empted by faxed notes from Beverly or Dianne letting the recipient know the checks were coming via TRMPAC's efforts," the document states, referring to two state representatives on the committee's advisory board, Dianne Delisi and Beverly Woolley. "The only exception was the Union Pacific checks which were given to Tom and he distributed. TRMPAC has gotten credit for all the funds distributed to date."
An attached spreadsheet lists donations made by others directly to candidates at the request of the committee, including $22,000 by Compass Bancshares' political action committee. A separate document, outlining the itinerary for a fund-raising trip to Houston by Ms. Lilly and Ms. Woolley on Sept. 9, 2002, mentions a visit to an official at Compass Bank. Next to that is written, "22K direct." Ms. Woolley and bank officials did not return phone calls for comment.
Mr. Colyandro said he did not recall the documents outlining contributions by others at the committee's request. But he said, "Raising any money on behalf of any specific candidate and being compensated with corporate money is inappropriate."
Documents show that Mr. Craddick worked closely with officials from the committee to raise money. In turn, the committee sent Mr. Craddick campaign checks that he then distributed to individual candidates. For example, on Oct. 18, 2002, Mr. Colyandro wrote an e-mail message instructing the committee's accountant to send Mr. Craddick, via Federal Express, $152,000 in checks made out to 14 Republican House candidates, records show.
A spokesman for Mr. Craddick, Bob Richter, said Mr. Craddick "never passed out any money to any members or would-be members with the idea that they would vote for him for speaker. There was never a quid pro quo: I give you this check and you give me your support for speaker."
In another episode drawing scrutiny, the committee donated $190,000 raised from corporations to the Republican National Committee on Sept. 10, 2002. On Oct. 4, the national committee wrote checks totaling the same amount to seven Texas House candidates supported by the committee, money that unlike that sent to the national committee could be given directly to a campaign.
A spokesman for the national committee said there was "no record" of discussions about the transactions with Texans for a Republican Majority. Mr. Ellis also said he could not recall whether he discussed the state candidates when he delivered the check to the national committee.
________________________________________________________________
February 16, 2004
Inquiry Focuses on Group DeLay Created
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
AUSTIN, Tex. — A political action committee created by Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, enjoyed tremendous success here in 2002: all but 3 of 21 Republican candidates the committee backed for state representative won their races, helping the party take control of the Texas House.
Last year, the Republicans used that clout to carve Texas into new Congressional districts under a plan that political analysts say will bring them at least five new seats in Congressional elections this year.
But local prosecutors and a grand jury here have been investigating the committee, Texans for a Republican Majority, including its use of corporate donations in the election, lawyers close to the case said.
Investigators are also examining whether there were violations of a law intended to curb the ability of outside groups to influence the race for House speaker, the lawyers said. The investigation follows a complaint filed with prosecutors last year by Texans for Public Justice, a campaign watchdog group.
The extent to which Texans for a Republican Majority used corporate money in the 2002 races is laid out in a trail of recently obtained documents. Under Texas law, political action committees are generally prohibited from using corporate and union donations for anything other than administrative expenses, like rent and utilities.
But records and interviews show that fund-raisers from Texans for a Republican Majority who were paid with corporate money solicited donations on behalf of individual candidates backed by the committee, which also spent corporate donations on fund-raising events, polling and a voter identification project.
In one case, corporate donations were used to pay a $1,200 legal bill to defend a new Republican legislator, Bill Zedler, against accusations from his opponent that he did not live in the district that elected him.
The documents, and interviews, also show that the committee often coordinated its efforts with Tom Craddick, a Republican state representative whom lawmakers elected speaker of the House after the 2002 elections. Later, at the urging of Mr. DeLay, Mr. Craddick helped lead the bitter fight to carve the state into new Congressional districts.
John Colyandro, who was the committee's executive director, said that Texans for a Republican Majority operated lawfully and that hundreds of other political action committees in Texas had conducted business similarly.
"The notion that TRMPAC alone administered itself in this way is deceitful and offensive," Mr. Colyandro said. The payment in the Zedler case, made several days after the election, was legal because it had "nothing to do with the campaign," he said. Mr. Colyandro has been granted limited immunity in return for grand jury testimony, a person close to the case said.
But Cris Feldman, a lawyer in Austin who has sued the treasurer of Texans for a Republican Majority on behalf of four defeated Democratic House candidates, said Mr. DeLay and his aides "clandestinely funneled illegal corporate cash into the elections."
In all, the committee spent $1.5 million, including $600,000 in corporate money, according to an analysis by Texans for Public Justice.
Jim Ellis, Mr. DeLay's political aide, said he, Mr. DeLay and Mr. Colyandro created the committee. Mr. DeLay served on a five-member advisory board, which decided whom to endorse, Mr. Colyandro said. Mr. Ellis, executive director of Mr. DeLay's own political action committee, Americans for a Republican Majority, was one of three officers authorized to make decisions about expenditures and contributions by Texans for a Republican Majority, state records show.
Mr. DeLay's daughter was also paid by the committee to set up events, other records show.
Before the 2002 elections, Mr. DeLay wanted lawmakers to take up redistricting, Mr. Ellis said, adding that "there is no question" that Mr. DeLay wanted Mr. Craddick elected speaker. The two men served in the Texas House together in the 1980's.
But Mr. Ellis said the committee's main goals were to "elect Republicans and further the Republican agenda." He added that the investigation "seems to be getting to the point of being ridiculous" and that any mistakes by the committee "certainly weren't intentional."
But Ronnie Earle, the Democratic district attorney in Travis County, who is leading the inquiry, calls the investigation "an effort to unravel a tangled web of secret money."
In an interview, Mr. Colyandro said he believed that the committee was legally allowed to spend corporate money to raise other money that the committee collected and then distributed to candidates.
But in a separate interview, Susan Lilly, the committee's Texas fund-raiser during the 2002 elections, said she had a different understanding: that people involved in raising money intended for state campaigns — whether or not that money first passes through a political action committee — are not supposed to be paid with corporate money.
Ms. Lilly said she did not know Texans for a Republican Majority had paid her with corporate money until after the election, when prosecutors began looking at the committee's activities. She said she solicited donations that went straight to candidates, confirming a report in The Austin American-Statesman.
Records and interviews show that other committee officials were involved in raising money sent directly to candidates.
On Aug. 12, 2002, Ms. Lilly wrote an e-mail message to Mr. Colyandro and Warren Robold, a fund-raiser for Mr. DeLay who worked for the committee and, records show, was paid with money from corporate donations. In it, she described a visit from Ron Olson, an official with Union Pacific railroad.
Mr. Olson, she wrote, "came down this morning and said that through DeLay's efforts (i.e. Warren) that UP had identified $25,000 worth of TRMPAC targets that he is supposed to individually go and give checks to. However, he was asked that a `DeLay' person accompany him when he gives the checks (so that the recipient will know that it was TRMPAC related)."
A Union Pacific spokeswoman confirmed that Mr. Robold asked Union Pacific to make donations from its political action committee to candidates backed by Texans for a Republican Majority. He made the request, she said, after the railroad declined to donate to the committee.
Union Pacific donated to 11 candidates but would have made those donations anyway, she said. She also confirmed Mr. Craddick handed out some Union Pacific checks to candidates, explaining that company officials did not have time to do it.
Mr. Robold did not return calls seeking comment. He has been subpoenaed by prosecutors, a person close to the case said.
Another document, dated Sept. 27, 2002, and written by Ms. Lilly, states that committee officials sent letters to the candidates letting them know that some donations made by others were due to their efforts.
"All checks that have been distributed were pre-empted by faxed notes from Beverly or Dianne letting the recipient know the checks were coming via TRMPAC's efforts," the document states, referring to two state representatives on the committee's advisory board, Dianne Delisi and Beverly Woolley. "The only exception was the Union Pacific checks which were given to Tom and he distributed. TRMPAC has gotten credit for all the funds distributed to date."
An attached spreadsheet lists donations made by others directly to candidates at the request of the committee, including $22,000 by Compass Bancshares' political action committee. A separate document, outlining the itinerary for a fund-raising trip to Houston by Ms. Lilly and Ms. Woolley on Sept. 9, 2002, mentions a visit to an official at Compass Bank. Next to that is written, "22K direct." Ms. Woolley and bank officials did not return phone calls for comment.
Mr. Colyandro said he did not recall the documents outlining contributions by others at the committee's request. But he said, "Raising any money on behalf of any specific candidate and being compensated with corporate money is inappropriate."
Documents show that Mr. Craddick worked closely with officials from the committee to raise money. In turn, the committee sent Mr. Craddick campaign checks that he then distributed to individual candidates. For example, on Oct. 18, 2002, Mr. Colyandro wrote an e-mail message instructing the committee's accountant to send Mr. Craddick, via Federal Express, $152,000 in checks made out to 14 Republican House candidates, records show.
A spokesman for Mr. Craddick, Bob Richter, said Mr. Craddick "never passed out any money to any members or would-be members with the idea that they would vote for him for speaker. There was never a quid pro quo: I give you this check and you give me your support for speaker."
In another episode drawing scrutiny, the committee donated $190,000 raised from corporations to the Republican National Committee on Sept. 10, 2002. On Oct. 4, the national committee wrote checks totaling the same amount to seven Texas House candidates supported by the committee, money that unlike that sent to the national committee could be given directly to a campaign.
A spokesman for the national committee said there was "no record" of discussions about the transactions with Texans for a Republican Majority. Mr. Ellis also said he could not recall whether he discussed the state candidates when he delivered the check to the national committee.
________________________________________________________________
Sunday, February 15, 2004
February 15, 2004 NY TIMES
Intelligence Panel's Finances Will Stay Private
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 — The White House is declining to make public the financial histories of the commissioners President Bush appointed to investigate American intelligence failures.
Administration officials say the arrangement has helped to attract the best-qualified people for the panel, but critics say the White House's refusal to disclose financial information raises questions about potential conflicts of interest that could cloud the commission's work.
Citing an exemption to federal ethics regulations, the White House says the financial disclosure statements filed by the commission's nine members will remain confidential because they are not being paid for their work.
"The president was looking for highly qualified, well-respected individuals to serve on a temporary basis, and he thought that this was the best way to set up the commission," Erin Healy, a White House spokeswoman, said in an interview.
While ethics specialists said members of most federal commissions typically have to disclose their financial interests to the public, the White House pointed to a number of exceptions in foreign intelligence and domestic security. "There are several out there like this. I don't think it's unique," Ms. Healy said.
But experts said the White House's refusal to make public the commission's business links may fuel questions about its independence and taint its investigation into one of the Bush administration's biggest potential political vulnerabilities: the quality of intelligence used to justify the Iraq war and other issues involving unconventional weapons.
The issue mirrors some of the concerns raised in 2002 when a commission was appointed to investigate the Sept. 11 terror attacks, only to have its original chairman and vice chairman step down, in part because of private business interests.
After initially resisting calls for a commission to study intelligence failures surrounding the Iraqi war buildup, Mr. Bush created the intelligence commission on Feb. 6 and gave it a broad mandate to look at intelligence on unconventional weapons around the globe. But before the commission has even begun its work, some critics are already suggesting that political as well as financial conflicts could influence its findings.
Laurence H. Silberman, a conservative judge who is one of the commission's two chairmen, has drawn particular criticism from liberal groups because of his judicial record and close ties to the Bush administration. Several other commissioners also have financial links to groups in the Middle East and the defense industry that could become involved in the inquiry.
"This is a critical commission, and if the White House is going to withhold basic information about its members that should be made public, that's a shame," said Bill Allison, a spokesman for the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit group in Washington that tracks government ethics issues.
"The point of a financial disclosure form is that it's supposed to be disclosed," Mr. Allison said. "This completely defeats the purpose. You're starting from a position of bad faith."
One high-level commission that does make public the financial interests of its members is the panel created by Congress and the White House in late 2002 to investigate the Sept. 11 attacks. But it, too, has been dogged by charges of conflicts of interest.
The original chairman of the Sept. 11 commission, Henry A. Kissinger, stepped down abruptly because he said resolving potential conflicts of interest would have meant liquidating his consulting firm, while his vice chairman, former Senator George J. Mitchell, stepped aside in part because of an unwillingness to sever ties with his law firm. The commission's current executive director and a commissioner have also been interviewed by the commission about their knowledge of intelligence activities leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks, spurring charges of a conflict from some of the victims' survivors.
Bush administration officials and ethics specialists said that when politicians seek to appoint people with broad experience to serve on important commissions, charges of conflicts arise almost inevitably because those people usually have extensive contacts in business and global affairs as well.
"It's a problem that's endemic to Washington," said Stan Brand, a Washington lawyer specializing in government ethics. "If this commission is really going to conduct a wide-ranging review of intelligence gathering, at some point its members are going to bump into individuals or entities of the kind that they've represented, and they're going to have to confront that by sealing themselves off from those clients."
The nine members of the intelligence commission include both Republicans and Democrats, and the White House points to their broad experience in intelligence, the military, academics, law and the private sector. Joining Judge Silberman as co-chairman is Charles S. Robb, the former Democrat senator and governor of Virginia.
Critics, however, suggest that the commissioners' extensive résumés may create conflicts.
One commissioner, William O. Studeman, for instance, was a former official at the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency and is now a senior executive at Northrop Grumman, a military contractor that does work in weaponry and in planning and detection for unconventional weapons, among many other areas.
Also on the panel is Lloyd M. Cutler, a prominent Washington lawyer who has served in several Democratic administrations. The firm he founded, Wilmer Cutler & Pickering, has done work for the Carlyle Group, a large Washington equity firm that has used former President George Bush and other well-connected Republicans to advance its interests in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. Mr. Cutler said in an interview, however, that he had not personally represented the Carlyle Group.
Clearly the most scrutiny has fallen on Judge Silberman, a senior part-time judge on the United States Court of Appeals in Washington.
Conservatives hail Judge Silberman as a well-respected and savvy leader who has had a long and diverse career as a diplomat, law enforcement official and jurist. But several liberal groups and Democratic lawmakers have attacked what they call his severe partisanship on and off the bench in episodes including the Iran-contra affair, the Whitewater investigation and accusations of sexual misconduct against President Bill Clinton.
In a lengthy attack on Judge Silberman delivered on the Senate floor on Wednesday, Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, charged that "the canons of judicial ethics meant nothing" to the judge and that he should be replaced on the panel.
Judge Silberman, Mr. Reid said, was on the panel "to protect the president, not to get fair information." As long as Judge Silberman is associated with the panel, he said, "it is smeared with partisan prejudice."
Judge Silberman, in an interview, dismissed such charges as "fabrications" and said he did not believe they would distract from the commission's work.
"This all sounds like politics," he said. "Why should I be concerned if I know these charges have no merit?"
Judge Silberman acknowledged that he counts among his friends both Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, two of President Bush's most influential advisers on Iraq. And he said, "I plead guilty to being something of a conservative," but added that this would not color his leadership of the commission.
As for the commission members' financial interests, Judge Silberman said he was unaware that the White House planned to keep the information confidential, and he pledged to make his own disclosure form available in the coming days.
"It's plain vanilla — the only financial interests I have are mutual funds," he said.
__________________________________________________________________
Intelligence Panel's Finances Will Stay Private
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 — The White House is declining to make public the financial histories of the commissioners President Bush appointed to investigate American intelligence failures.
Administration officials say the arrangement has helped to attract the best-qualified people for the panel, but critics say the White House's refusal to disclose financial information raises questions about potential conflicts of interest that could cloud the commission's work.
Citing an exemption to federal ethics regulations, the White House says the financial disclosure statements filed by the commission's nine members will remain confidential because they are not being paid for their work.
"The president was looking for highly qualified, well-respected individuals to serve on a temporary basis, and he thought that this was the best way to set up the commission," Erin Healy, a White House spokeswoman, said in an interview.
While ethics specialists said members of most federal commissions typically have to disclose their financial interests to the public, the White House pointed to a number of exceptions in foreign intelligence and domestic security. "There are several out there like this. I don't think it's unique," Ms. Healy said.
But experts said the White House's refusal to make public the commission's business links may fuel questions about its independence and taint its investigation into one of the Bush administration's biggest potential political vulnerabilities: the quality of intelligence used to justify the Iraq war and other issues involving unconventional weapons.
The issue mirrors some of the concerns raised in 2002 when a commission was appointed to investigate the Sept. 11 terror attacks, only to have its original chairman and vice chairman step down, in part because of private business interests.
After initially resisting calls for a commission to study intelligence failures surrounding the Iraqi war buildup, Mr. Bush created the intelligence commission on Feb. 6 and gave it a broad mandate to look at intelligence on unconventional weapons around the globe. But before the commission has even begun its work, some critics are already suggesting that political as well as financial conflicts could influence its findings.
Laurence H. Silberman, a conservative judge who is one of the commission's two chairmen, has drawn particular criticism from liberal groups because of his judicial record and close ties to the Bush administration. Several other commissioners also have financial links to groups in the Middle East and the defense industry that could become involved in the inquiry.
"This is a critical commission, and if the White House is going to withhold basic information about its members that should be made public, that's a shame," said Bill Allison, a spokesman for the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit group in Washington that tracks government ethics issues.
"The point of a financial disclosure form is that it's supposed to be disclosed," Mr. Allison said. "This completely defeats the purpose. You're starting from a position of bad faith."
One high-level commission that does make public the financial interests of its members is the panel created by Congress and the White House in late 2002 to investigate the Sept. 11 attacks. But it, too, has been dogged by charges of conflicts of interest.
The original chairman of the Sept. 11 commission, Henry A. Kissinger, stepped down abruptly because he said resolving potential conflicts of interest would have meant liquidating his consulting firm, while his vice chairman, former Senator George J. Mitchell, stepped aside in part because of an unwillingness to sever ties with his law firm. The commission's current executive director and a commissioner have also been interviewed by the commission about their knowledge of intelligence activities leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks, spurring charges of a conflict from some of the victims' survivors.
Bush administration officials and ethics specialists said that when politicians seek to appoint people with broad experience to serve on important commissions, charges of conflicts arise almost inevitably because those people usually have extensive contacts in business and global affairs as well.
"It's a problem that's endemic to Washington," said Stan Brand, a Washington lawyer specializing in government ethics. "If this commission is really going to conduct a wide-ranging review of intelligence gathering, at some point its members are going to bump into individuals or entities of the kind that they've represented, and they're going to have to confront that by sealing themselves off from those clients."
The nine members of the intelligence commission include both Republicans and Democrats, and the White House points to their broad experience in intelligence, the military, academics, law and the private sector. Joining Judge Silberman as co-chairman is Charles S. Robb, the former Democrat senator and governor of Virginia.
Critics, however, suggest that the commissioners' extensive résumés may create conflicts.
One commissioner, William O. Studeman, for instance, was a former official at the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency and is now a senior executive at Northrop Grumman, a military contractor that does work in weaponry and in planning and detection for unconventional weapons, among many other areas.
Also on the panel is Lloyd M. Cutler, a prominent Washington lawyer who has served in several Democratic administrations. The firm he founded, Wilmer Cutler & Pickering, has done work for the Carlyle Group, a large Washington equity firm that has used former President George Bush and other well-connected Republicans to advance its interests in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. Mr. Cutler said in an interview, however, that he had not personally represented the Carlyle Group.
Clearly the most scrutiny has fallen on Judge Silberman, a senior part-time judge on the United States Court of Appeals in Washington.
Conservatives hail Judge Silberman as a well-respected and savvy leader who has had a long and diverse career as a diplomat, law enforcement official and jurist. But several liberal groups and Democratic lawmakers have attacked what they call his severe partisanship on and off the bench in episodes including the Iran-contra affair, the Whitewater investigation and accusations of sexual misconduct against President Bill Clinton.
In a lengthy attack on Judge Silberman delivered on the Senate floor on Wednesday, Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, charged that "the canons of judicial ethics meant nothing" to the judge and that he should be replaced on the panel.
Judge Silberman, Mr. Reid said, was on the panel "to protect the president, not to get fair information." As long as Judge Silberman is associated with the panel, he said, "it is smeared with partisan prejudice."
Judge Silberman, in an interview, dismissed such charges as "fabrications" and said he did not believe they would distract from the commission's work.
"This all sounds like politics," he said. "Why should I be concerned if I know these charges have no merit?"
Judge Silberman acknowledged that he counts among his friends both Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, two of President Bush's most influential advisers on Iraq. And he said, "I plead guilty to being something of a conservative," but added that this would not color his leadership of the commission.
As for the commission members' financial interests, Judge Silberman said he was unaware that the White House planned to keep the information confidential, and he pledged to make his own disclosure form available in the coming days.
"It's plain vanilla — the only financial interests I have are mutual funds," he said.
__________________________________________________________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)