Rep. Don Young's political defense legal bills highest in House

7.17.07

By Paul Kane

washingtonpost.com Staff

Justice Department probes of congressional corruption continued to provide big business for Washington's white-collar criminal defense attorneys, who billed at least $1 million in the second quarter to current and former House members involved in federal investigations.

With at least 11 such politicians -- including several forced from office last fall -- facing probes including the Jack Abramoff bribery conspiracy and the House page instant-messaging scandal, top-flight legal talent was in high demand.

The largest payout for current members came from Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), whose campaign shelled out more than $262,000 to a pair of top Washington firms: Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, which took more than $242,000, and Tobin, O'Connor, Ewing & Richard.

Unlike some of the others on the list, Young has not been the target of a subpoena. But Mark Zachares, a former staffer on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee while Young chaired it, pleaded guilty this spring to trying to help Abramoff's clients in exchange for the promise of a future job at his firm.

In addition, Young's current district director in Alaska recently lobbied for an energy conglomerate whose chief executive pleaded guilty in May to bribing several state lawmakers. Young and Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who has hired his own team of lawyers to deal with that probe, were the top recipients of donations from the executive and that company.

After spending $25,000 on Akin Gump in the first quarter, Young's campaign told reporters the funds were spent out of "caution." Yesterday, his congressional office deferred comment to Young's campaign staff, which declined to answer questions about his legal aid.

Former representative Mark Foley (R-Fla.), who resigned last fall after the FBI began investigating a series of inappropriate instant messages with teenage boys who were formerly House pages, spent more than $277,000 from April through June from his campaign funds, according to reports filed this weekend with the Federal Election Commission.

The FEC and congressional ethics committees have routinely allowed members to tap their campaign war chests to pay legal bills if they are under investigation for actions taken in the course of being a member of Congress.

"Lawyers rejoice," said Norman J. Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Ornstein noted that the average cost for one of the lawyers who handle ethics investigations has grown to $600 an hour. "This is serious stuff. . . . Obviously, it's also a reflection of the fact that we've a lot of folks under investigation," Ornstein added.

Rep. J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), the former speaker who underwent questioning from the ethics committee during its review last fall of the Foley matter, spent nearly $60,000 on legal bills in April and May, slightly less than the $70,000 he paid to his attorneys in the first quarter. Rep. John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) , his successor, spent $52,939 on legal bills related to his civil lawsuit against Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) over a leaked copy of a conference call Boehner participated in more than 10 years ago.

Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), who has faced scrutiny over earmarks he provided to campaign contributors, spent $31,000 on his defense. Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.), whose family business was raided by the FBI last April, spent $25,000. Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-W.Va.), whose investments and campaign contributions have been under investigation, spent $22,671. And Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.), who was closely linked to Abramoff, spent $50,584.

Defeat at the ballot box does not mean the bills go away.

Former congressman Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), whose daughter's offices were raided by the FBI just before he lost his reelection bid, paid $25,000 to his lawyers this spring as investigators continued to examine official actions taken on behalf of his daughter's lobbying clients. Weldon also paid $5,000 to a firm for "investigative services."

Former congressman J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.), who has faced scrutiny over his relationship with Abramoff, paid more than $102,000 to a legal team, according to his FEC report, and still owes $106,000.

Mich. Supreme Court affirms casino deal

5.31.07

David Eggert
Associated Press

LANSING — A state Supreme Court ruling issued Wednesday eliminates another hurdle in the path of a southcentral Michigan tribe's quest to open a casino near Battle Creek and validates Gov. Jennifer Granholm decision to let a northern Michigan tribe open another casino in exchange for state government getting more gaming revenue.

For nearly eight years, the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi has been fighting a series of legal challenges to its proposed casino at the intersection of I-94 and 11-Mile Road in Emmett Township.

With the court's affirmation of the compact, the tribe has only one more challenge remaining. Citizens Exposing Truth About Casinos, or CETAC, is challenging in federal District Court the tribe's ability to claim the land in Emmett Township as an initial reservation.

Donna Halinski (Marketing Resource Group), spokeswoman for the tribe, said oral arguments were heard on that challenge a few weeks ago, but there is no indication when a ruling could be issued.

The court's decision also upheld a renegotiated deal with the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians. The compact received no approval from the Legislature after it was amended in 2003.

Justice Michael Cavanagh, writing for the majority, said original compacts negotiated in 1998 by then-Gov. John Engler had a clause allowing a governor to act for the state in making amendments.

During talks with the Odawa tribe, which runs a casino in Petoskey, Granholm agreed to let it build another one in Mackinaw City in exchange for the tribe giving a higher percentage of its revenue to the state. The tribe has not opened the second casino, which would require a vote of the local community.

Laura Spurr, tribal chairwoman of the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi, said she was confident her tribe would win the compact challenge.

"It's unfortunate the continued delays caused by TOMAC (Taxpayers of Michigan Against Casinos) along with CETAC have delayed the creation of thousands of new jobs and hundreds of business opportunities just in Michigan," she said in a press release.

"We are pleased the court has preserved the right of the tribes to create much-needed jobs and economic development across the state."

Odawa Tribal Chairman Frank Ettawageshik said the case was not about opening another casino but rather the process of approving compact amendments.

"We were confident we would prevail," he said in a phone interview.

The tribe will not try to open a second casino in the "immediate future," he said, and is focusing on the grand opening of a new Petoskey facility in July.

An anti-gambling group in 1999 challenged the validity of some of Michigan's tribal gaming deals because legislators endorsed them in a resolution, an easier task than passing a bill.

TOMAC later said not getting legislative approval of the Odawa amendments violated the separation of powers doctrine in the state Constitution.

A message seeking comment was left Wednesday with a Grand Rapids law firm representing the anti-gambling group.

Granholm spokeswoman Liz Boyd said the administration was confident all along that its actions were constitutional.

The case directly involves the Odawa tribe but has been closely watched because it could have implications for future attempts to change other tribal agreements.

Chief Justice Clifford Taylor, Maura Corrigan, Marilyn Kelly and Robert Young Jr. joined the majority opinion, which reversed a decision by the Michigan Court of Appeals.

Stephen Markman and Elizabeth Weaver dissented, arguing that the compacts should have been passed by legislation.

Michigan has 20 casinos, including 17 run by American Indian tribes and three Detroit casinos.

David Eggert can be reached at deggert@ap.org

http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070531/NEWS01/705310327/1002/NEWS01

Since 2004, two dozen Members of Congress spent $5 million from campaign contributions on legal defense

5.17.07

Campaign funds going to legal fees

By Ken Dilanian, USA TODAY

Two dozen current and former members of Congress caught up in criminal investigations or ethics inquiries spent more than $5 million in campaign funds on legal fees during the last 27 months covered by campaign-finance records.

The spending reflects a spate of scandals that were a factor in the Democratic takeover of Congress last year and, for some lawmakers, remain a problem. Eight current members have been publicly identified as being under investigation.

While campaign donations may not be spent for personal use, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has ruled that fighting to stay out of jail is a legitimate political activity as long as the allegations of wrongdoing relate to conduct in office.

The biggest spender still in Congress is Rep. Jerry Lewis of California, the ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, records show. His campaign paid $905,800 to law firms in the last two-year campaign cycle and the first three months of this year, records show. The Justice Department has been investigating his relationships with lobbyists and companies.

Lewis' office did not respond to phone messages.

Rep. John Doolittle, R-Calif., whose house recently was searched by the FBI, spent $149,200 during that 27-month period. Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Ariz., whose wife's insurance business also was searched by federal agents recently, paid $101,800.

Renzi, under scrutiny for a land deal, said he has been the victim of "leaked stories, conjecture and false attacks." Doolittle, whose wife consulted for convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, proclaimed his innocence and criticized the search.

"Since you've started to see the Justice Department become much more active, the members have sought serious legal help," said Kent Cooper, of PoliticalMoneyLine, a non-partisan group that tracks money in politics.

Among Democrats, Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, who declined to comment, spent $91,900 from December through March. Federal investigators have been looking into a real estate deal.

Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., under investigation over bribery allegations, has a separate legal defense fund governed by House rules that has raised $136,000, according to the latest filing.

Even those who have left Congress are allowed to use their campaign funds to pay legal bills, according to the FEC.

Former congressman Mark Foley, R-Fla, who left in September after it emerged that he had been making sexual advances to congressional pages, paid his lawyers $253,768 from his campaign fund since December, FEC records show.

Campaigns don't have to disclose the specific purpose of legal payments, so it's not always possible to distinguish standard legal bills from criminal defense fees. But routine election compliance typically costs no more than $12,000 a year, said attorney Karl Sandstrom, a former FEC vice chairman who advises campaigns on compliance issues.

Southampton zoning latest problem for Shinnecock Casino

May 10, 2007

Tribe states case for land

BY ALFONSO A. CASTILLO
alfonso.castillo@newsday.com

It's not the Shinnecock Indian Nation that is looking to make waves by building a casino on land it has always called its own, but rather it's the Town of Southampton complicating matters by wrongfully enforcing zoning laws there, an attorney for the tribe said Thursday on the final day of a federal trial that could shape gaming on Long Island.

"It is a case for confirmation of sovereignty that already exists and has existed for centuries," the Shinnecocks' attorney, Christopher Lunding of Manhattan, said in his closing statement in the Central Islip courtroom.

Lunding's words came during a four-hour summation in the non-jury trial, which began last year, and followed the town's closing statements delivered Wednesday.

In a brief rebuttal, Southampton attorney Michael Cohen scoffed at the notion that the Shinnecocks are not looking to shake things up, and said that the tribe's immediate plan for development is not the issue.

"If the defendants are given free reign, they can do whatever they want at Westwoods," Cohen said, referring to the property in Hampton Bays. "And there is nothing the town or anybody can do to stop them."

Although the tribe legally owns the 79-acre tract now, it must prove it has "aboriginal title" to the land in order for it to be officially recognized as part of the main reservation to the east in Southampton, where gaming may be permitted under federal law.

With the trial now concluded, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Bianco will decide if the town can block tribe plans for the land. He gave no indication Thursday when he expected to release his ruling.

"Our story is before the judge and we're happy that at least this part is finished," said Shinnecock communications director Beverly Jensen, who sat in court with several other tribe members.

Regardless of Bianco's ruling, the Shinnecocks still have to get federal recognition as a sovereign tribe before moving forward with plans for a casino. That could be years away.

Summing up all the evidence he produced in the trial, Lunding Thursday offered various government records, including current county tax maps, that have historically referred to the Westwoods property as an Indian reservation. He also cited historical records, including journals from tribal elders, that described Shinnecocks living on and using the land throughout the centuries.

Lunding said, despite the town's contentions, no transaction between the Indians and European settlers ever extinguished the Shinnecocks' aboriginal title to the land.

Lunding also said town and state officials, who are also opposed to the project, are both projecting a "mega casino" that has "no basis in reality."

"The Sears Tower could be constructed at Westwoods -- at least it would fit in the space available. But so what?" Lunding said. "The fact that you can squeeze Foxwoods 2 into Westwoods is irrelevant."

PoliticalMoneyLine: Rep. Jerry Lewis pays legal bills and taxes with political campaign money

posted at PoliticalMoneyLine:

Lewis Pays $12K in Legal Fees and $136K in Taxes
04.16.07

Rep. Jerry Lewis reported paying $11,806 for legal services in the first quarter 2007, including $$10,306 to Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP and $1,500 to Blank Rome LLP. The committee paid $108,190 in federal taxes and $28,677 in state taxes. The committee has $936,962 in cash on hand.