Excerpts of Statement By Senate Ethics Panel
SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: February 28, 1991
Following are excerpts from the statement today of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics concluding its hearings involving Senators Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, John Glenn, John McCain and Donald W. Riegle Jr.: Introduction
The United States Senate Select Committee on Ethics initiated preliminary inquiries into allegations of misconduct by Senator Alan Cranston, Senator Dennis DeConcini, Senator John Glenn, Senator John McCain, and Senator Donald Riegle, in connection with their actions on behalf of Charles H. Keating Jr. and Lincoln Savings and Loan Association. In the course of its preliminary inquiries, the committee held hearings over a two-month period which began Nov. 15, 1990.
. . .
While the committee has concluded that none of the Senators' actions . . . when considered without regard to any contribution or other benefit, violated any law or Senate rule, each act must also be examined against more general ethical standards to determine if there was any impropriety because of any relation between those actions and campaign contributions or other benefits provided by Mr. Keating and his associates.
. . .
Based on all the available evidence, the committee has concluded that in the case of each of the five Senators, all campaign contributions from Mr. Keating and his associates under the Federal Election Campaign Act were within the established legal limits, and were properly reported. Similarly, from the available evidence, the committee concludes that the Senator's solicitation or acceptance of all contributions made in these cases to state party organizations, political action committees, and voter registration organizations were, standing alone, not illegal or improper; nor did any such contribution constitute a personal gift to any Senator.
With respect to each Senator, there remains the question of whether any actions taken by the Senator, standing alone or in combination with contributions or other benefits, constitutes improper conduct or an appearance of impropriety. The committee has examined the specific conduct of each Senator and has determined that under the totality of the circumstances: the conduct of each of the five Senators reflected poor judgment; the conduct of some of the Senators constituted at least an appearance of improper conduct; and the conduct of one Senator may have been improper.
. . .
Recommendations Constituent Service
As noted in the course of the committee's hearings, the Senate has no specific written standards embodied in the Senate rules respecting contact or intervention with Federal executive or independent regulatory agency officials. . . .
The committee believes that the Senate should adopt written standards in this area. A specific proposal should be developed either by the Senate Rules Committee or by a bipartisan Senate task force created for this purpose.
. . .
Campaign Reform
The inquiries in these five cases have shown the obvious ethical dilemmas inherent in the current system by which political activities are financed. The committee notes that over 80 percent of the funds at issue were not disclosed funds raised by candidates for Senate or House campaigns under the Federal Election Campaign Act. Rather, such funds were undisclosed, unregulated funds raised for independent expenditures, political party "soft money," and a non-Federal political action committee. Any campaign finance reform measure will have to address these mechanisms for political activities, as well as campaign fund raising and expenditures directly by candidates, in order to deal meaningfully and effectively with the issues presented in these cases.
The committee urges the leadership and members of both the Senate and the House to work together in a bipartisan manner to address the urgent need for comprehensive campaign finance reform. The reputation and honor of our institutions demand it.
. . .
Panel Findings Senator Cranston
. . . The committee finds that there is substantial credible evidence that provides substantial cause for the committee to conclude that, in connection with his conduct relating to Charles H. Keating Jr., and Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, Senator Cranston may have engaged in improper conduct that may reflect upon the Senate, as contemplated in Section 2 (a) (1) of S. Res. 338, 88th Congress, as amended. To wit, there is substantial credible evidence that provides substantial cause for the committee to conclude, based upon the totality of the circumstances, including but not limited to the following conduct or activities, that Senator Cranston engaged in an impermissible pattern of conduct in which fund raising and official activities were substantially linked:
(1) From April 1987 through April 1989, Senator Cranston personally, or through Senate staff, contacted the Federal Home Loan Bank Board on behalf of Lincoln, during a period when Senator Cranston was soliciting and accepting substantial contributions from Mr. Keating. On at least four occasions, these contacts were made in close connection with the solicitation or receipt of contributions. These four occasions are as follows:
(i) As a result of a solicitation from Senator Cranston in early 1987, Mr. Keating, on March 3, 1987, contributed $100,000 to America Votes, a voter registration organization. This contribution was made during the period leading to Senator Cranston's participation in the April 2 and April 9 meetings with Federal Home Loan Bank Board Chairman Edwin J. Gray and the San Francisco regulators.
(ii) In the fall of 1987, Senator Cranston solicited from Mr. Keating a $250,000 contribution, which was delivered to the Senator personally by Mr. Keating's employee James Grogan on Nov. 6, 1987. When the contribution was delivered, Mr. Grogan and Senator Cranston called Mr. Keating, who asked if the Senator would contact new Federal Home Loan Bank Board Chairman M. Danny Wall about Lincoln. Senator Cranston agreed to do so, and made the call six days later.
(iii) In January 1988, Mr. Keating offered to make an additional contribution and also asked Senator Cranston to set up a meeting for him with Chairman Wall. Senator Cranston did so on Jan. 20, 1988, and Chairman Wall and Mr. Keating met eight days later. On Feb. 10, 1988, Senator Cranston personally collected checks totaling $500,000 for voter registration groups.
(iv) In early 1989, at the time that Senator Cranston was contacting Bank Board officials about the sale of Lincoln, he personally or through Joy Jacobson, his chief fund raiser, solicited another contribution. (This contribution was never made. American Continental Corporation declared bankruptcy on April 13, 1989.)
(2) Senator Cranston's Senate office practices further evidenced an impermissible pattern of conduct in which fund raising and official activities were substantially linked. For example, Joy Jacobson (who was not a member of his Senate staff and who had no official Senate duties or substantive expertise), engaged in the following activities with Senator Cranston's knowledge, permission, at his direction, or under his supervision:
(i) Senator Cranston's fund raiser repeatedly scheduled and attended meetings between Senator Cranston and contributors in which legislative or regulatory issues were discussed.
(ii) Senator Cranston's fund raiser often served as the intermediary for Mr. Keating or Mr. Grogan when they could not reach the Senator or Carolyn Jordan, the Senator's banking aide.
(iii) Senator Cranston received several memoranda from Ms. Jacobson which evidenced her understanding that contributors were entitled to special attention and special access to official services. Senator Cranston never told her that her understanding was incorrect, nor did he inform her that such a connection between contributions and official actions was improper.
. . .
The committee, pursuant to committee supplementary procedural rules . . . shall proceed to an investigation under committee supplementary procedural Rule 5; and that Senator Cranston shall be given timely written notice of this resolution and the evidence supporting it, and informed of a respondent's rights pursuant to the rules of the committee.
. . .
Senator DeConcini
Based on the evidence available to it, the committee has given consideration to Senator DeConcini's actions on behalf of Lincoln Savings and Loan Association. While aggressive conduct by senators in dealing with regulatory agencies is sometimes appropriate and necessary, the committee concludes that Senator DeConcini's aggressive conduct with the regulators was inappropriate. The committee further concludes that the actions of Senator DeConcini after the April 9, 1987, meeting where he learned of the criminal referral, were not improper in and of themselves.
While the committee concludes that Senator DeConcini has violated no law of the United States or specific rule of the United States Senate, it emphasizes that it does not condone his conduct. The committee has concluded that the totality of the evidence shows that Senator DeConcini's conduct gave the appearance of being improper and was certainly attended with insensitivity and poor judgment. However, the committee finds that his conduct did not reach a level requiring institutional action.
The committee therefore concludes that no further action is warranted with respect to Senator DeConcini on the matters investigated during the preliminary inquiry. Senator Glenn
Based on the evidence available to it, the committee has given consideration to Senator Glenn's actions on behalf of Lincoln Savings and Loan Association. The committee concludes that Senator Glenn, although believing that the Lincoln matter was in the process of resolution, exercised poor judgment in arranging a luncheon meeting between Mr. Keating and Speaker Wright in January 1988, some eight months after Senator Glenn learned of the criminal referral. There is disputed evidence as to whether Lincoln's problems with the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (F.H.L.B.B.) were discussed at that meeting. The evidence indicates that Senator Glenn's participating did not go beyond serving as host. The committee further concludes that Senator Glenn's actions were not improper or attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level requiring institutional action against him.
Senator Glenn has violated no law of the United States or specific rule of the United States Senate; therefore, the committee concludes that no further action is warranted with respect to Senator Glenn on the matters investigated during the preliminary inquiry. Senator McCain
Based on the evidence available to it, the committee has given consideration to Senator McCain's actions on behalf of Lincoln Savings and Loan Association. The committee concludes that Senator McCain's actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him. The committee finds that Senator McCain took no further action after the April 9, 1987, meeting when he learned of the criminal referral.
. . .
Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate; therefore, the committee concludes that no further action is warranted with respect to Senator McCain on the matters investigated during the preliminary inquiry. Senator Riegle
Based on the evidence available to it, the committee has given consideration to Senator Riegle's actions on behalf of Lincoln Savings and Loan Association. The committee finds that Senator Riegle took steps to assist Lincoln Savings & Loan Association with its regulatory problems at a time that Charles Keating was raising substantial campaign funds, for Senator Riegle. During the course of the hearings, possible conflicts arose concerning actions on the part of Senator Riegle that caused the committee concern, but the committee finds that the evidence indicates no deliberate intent to deceive. The evidence shows that Senator Riegle took no further action after the April 9, 1987, meeting where he learned of the criminal referral.
While the committee concludes that Senator Riegle has violated no law of the United States or specific rule of the United States Senate, it emphasizes that it does not condone his conduct. The committee has concluded that the totality of the evidence shows that Senator Riegle's conduct gave the appearance of being improper and was certainly attended with insensitivity and poor judgment. However, the committee finds that his conduct did not reach a level requiring institutional action.
The committee concludes that no further action is warranted with respect to Senator Riegle on the matters investigated during the preliminary inquiry.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE2D71539F93BA15751C0A967958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all 101st Congress (1989-1991)
Majority Leader: George J. Mitchell (D-ME)
Minority Leader: Robert Dole (R-KS)
Note: George Mitchell was elected Democratic leader on November 29, 1988, effective January 3, 1989.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
102nd Congress (1991-1993)
Majority Leader: George J. Mitchell (D-ME)
Minority Leader: Robert Dole (R-KS)
