Campaign cheating: follow the money

0 Comments | Insight on the News, March 9, 1998 | by Jennifer G. Hickey

President Clinton issued a challenge to Congress to reform campaign finance, but the recent appointment of another independent counsel is raising more doubts about his veracity.

Launching a barrage of legislative proposals and self-congratulatory pronunciamentos about his budget, President Clinton added a stern challenge to the Republican Congress in his State of the Union address. "Everyone knows elections have become too expensive," he declared, "fueling a fund-raising arms race.... I ask you to strengthen our democracy and pass campaign [finance] reform!" Given the alleged abuses by his own campaign and the Democratic National Committee, or DNC, Republicans let it be known that they regarded the proposal as on a par with a Clinton call for defending morality by passing a law to protect White House interns.

With the pending release of a Senate report detailing alleged fund-raising abuses and the appointment of yet another independent counsel to look into such abuse, the question remains whether Attorney General Janet Reno should investigate fund-raising by Clinton and Vice President Al Gore. Indeed, the limited probe of Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt brings the number of independent counsels to six.

The narrow legal issue in the Babbitt case is whether he committed perjury in testimony before both the House and the Senate. The larger issue is whether the decision by the Interior Department to reject an application by an Indian tribe for a casino permit was influenced by the administration in return for large political contributions made by competing tribes.

Developments leading up to the rejection beg examination. On April 24, 1995, a lobbyist for the competing tribes, Patrick O'Connor, told Clinton about the bid and, in turn, Clinton instructed aide Bruce Lindsey to discuss the matter with O'Connor. That same day, administration aide Loretta Avent wrote a memo warning against any White House involvement. "The legal and political implications of our involvement would be disastrous," Avent declared. Similar hesitations were expressed by another aide, Michael Schmidt. "We legally cannot intervene with the secretary of interior on this issue," warned Schmidt in a letter to the counsel's office.

Critics suggest that the focus of concern was O'Connor's past as Minnesota treasurer of Clinton-Gore in 1992 and his status as a DNC trustee.

On April 28, O'Connor met with DNC Chairman Don Fowler to discuss the casino. Following that meeting, Fowler contacted Clinton aide Harold Ickes and a staffer at Interior. Additional contacts were made between lobbyists and White House and Interior officials, including meetings at two fund-raisers. A draft letter of rejection then was prepared to which Interior lawyer Kevin Meisner responded in an e-mail that there was "not enough evidence" to issue a rejection and expressed doubt the ruling would stand up in court.

On July 14, 1995, Babbitt met with the casino applicant's lobbyist, Paul Eckstein, a former classmate and law partner of Babbitt. According to Ecksteins deposition, the "Secretary responded that he had been directed by Harold Ickes to issue that decision that day." Eckstein continued, "The secretary said, at some point when we were standing up, asked me `Do you know how much ... these [opposing] tribes ... had contributed to'" the Democrats? Federal Election Commission documents show they donated $230,000 in the 1995-96 cycle.

Central to the investigation is whether Babbitt committed perjury. In an Aug. 30, 1996, letter to Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, Babbitt wrote, "I must regretfully dispute Mr. Eckstein's assertion that I told him that Mr. Ickes instructed me to issue a decision." A month later, Babbitt contradicted himself in a letter to Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Fred Thompson of Tennessee. "I do believe that Mr. Eckstein's recollection that I said something to the effect that Mr. Ickes wanted a decision is correct," wrote Babbitt. Flipping back again, Babbitt testified he did not mention Ickes in his meeting with Eckstein. Apparently confused, he told a House committee, "I never spoke with Mr. Ickes about the Hudson matter, and I shouldn't have given Mr. Eckstein any reason to suppose I had."

Fowler's behavior in the Babbitt case reflects a laissez-faire attitude toward the laws governing campaign finance, and elsewhere he has displayed even a disregard for national security. In his Senate deposition, Fowler testified that he had no recollection of any contact with a CIA agent concerning Lebanese oilman Roger Tamraz. It was Fowler who had assisted Tamraz in securing access to the White House despite concerns raised by Sheila Heslin at the National Security Council.

The problem for Fowler, as with most of the finance figures, is the paper trail. Fowler's handwritten notes and telephone records suggest he knew "Bob," a CIA contact used by the DNC to vouch for Tamraz. In fact, Fowler referred to Bob's full name in his notes and to his CIA affiliation. A draft of the Senate report describes Fowler's recollection as "less than candid."