GovernmentExecutive.com

A group of voter rights and campaign finance law reform advocates has asked the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel to investigate alleged campaign finance law violations by Attorney General John Ashcroft.

In a Jan. 15 letter, the group alleged that Ashcroft illegally accepted a fund-raising mailing list valued at $1.7 million during his 2000 Senate re-election campaign. The group alleged that Ashcroft's Leadership Political Action Committee and campaign committee failed to disclose the existence of the list to the Federal Election Commission.

The list was transferred to the PAC and campaign committee from another committee Ashcroft set up when he considered a run for the presidency in 1999, according to the group, which is comprised of the National Voting Rights Institute, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Public Campaign Action Fund, Public Citizen, and the Fannie Lou Hamer Project.

The group said the list should be considered a campaign contribution, which by law cannot be more than $10,000 from any single PAC. According to the group, the list was used to raise about $255,000, well above that limit.

The group also argued that Ashcroft could claim that he was the individual owner of the list, and therefore it was not a PAC contribution. In that case, the group contends that Ashcroft violated the 1978 Ethics in Government Act for failing to report the list as an asset in public financial disclosure reports required of all U.S. senators and attorneys general.

Ashcroft was a GOP senator from Missouri until he lost his seat in 2000, after which he was appointed by President Bush to serve as Attorney General.

The group has asked Deputy Attorney General James Comey to appoint a special counsel to investigate the matter.

"There can be no doubt that the appointment of an outside special counsel is required in this case to fully investigate potential criminal actions implicating the United States Attorney General himself," the group said. "Failure to appoint an outside special counsel in this case would send the dangerous message to the American people that the nation's chief law enforcement officer is above the law."

A spokesman for the Justice Department said the letter is under review, and declined further comment. He said there is no time line by which a decision has to be made to appoint a special counsel.

By law, Ashcroft can be fined or imprisoned for up to five years, or both, if found guilty.

Last month, the FEC found that Ashcroft's presidential exploratory committee illegally transferred $110,000 to his senate re-election committee. The money was derived from renting the fund-raising list. The FEC fined the committees $37,000.

According to John Bonifaz, executive director of the National Voting Rights Institute, the FEC found a civil violation, and now a criminal investigation is warranted, given the appearance that Ashcroft knowingly and willfully violated the law.

Double Trouble

The Merit Systems Protection Board for the second time rejected a General Services Administration police officer's claims that he is entitled to law enforcement officer retirement benefits.

Colister Slater, a police officer in GSA's Federal Protective Service Southern Field Operation in Los Angeles, has argued since 1998 that he has job responsibilities similar to those of law enforcement officers. But in 1999, GSA, the MSPB and a federal appeals court ruled that Slater is not eligible for the generous benefits available to law officers under the Federal Employment Retirement System.

To qualify as a law enforcement officer, a federal employee must guard U.S. officials against attacks, or investigate, apprehend and detain suspected criminals. The officer also must perform duties requiring exceptional physical fitness.

Slater's police job involved crime prevention and maintenance work as opposed to law enforcement duties, the courts decided in 1999.

In 2001, Slater reintroduced his case, asserting that his work responsibilities had changed to more closely resemble those of law enforcement officers. He pointed to a July 17, 2001 memorandum requiring regular medical exams for GSA police officers, and noted that he worked in a "climate of violence" following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The terrorist attacks even prompted Richard Yamamoto, then acting commissioner of the Federal Protective Service, to distribute an e-mail asking GSA to extend law enforcement officer retirement benefits to police officers, Slater argued. He asserted that he spent 75 percent to 80 percent of his work hours performing law enforcement tasks.

An MSPB administrative judge dismissed Slater's 2001 case, declaring he lacked grounds to file the case because his job description had not changed "significantly" since 1998. Slater appealed that decision.

But the MSPB on Jan. 9 once again rejected Slater's claims for law enforcement officer retirement benefits, reiterating justifications used in 1999.

Colister Slater v. General Services Administration, Merit Systems Protection Board (SF-0842-01-0618-I-1), Jan. 9, 2004

Post a Comment

To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.