Case against Stevens focuses on disclosure forms
Source:
Ken Dilanian // USA Today
Related Documents
Related News Releases
31 Jul 2008 // In 1991, Sen. Mark Hatfield, an influential Oregon Republican, came under federal investigation into whether he failed to report a series of gifts on his ethics statements.
Hatfield wasn't charged with a crime. He admitted his failure to disclose more than $42,000 in gifts, including at least $18,000 from a university president during a time he was helping the university with a grant. He accepted a rebuke by the Ethics Committee, apologized to his constituents and went on with his career. He retired in January 1997.
What once was a matter for admonishment has now brought the full weight of a federal prosecution down on Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, who finds himself facing felony charges — and possible prison time — in a case that also involves gifts.
Stevens, the Republican who succeeded Hatfield as Appropriations Committee chairman in 1997, was charged in an indictment unsealed Tuesday with accepting more than $250,000 in gifts from an oil services company without disclosing them, as required, on his ethics forms.
Lawyers who specialize in political corruption cases say the Stevens indictment marks one of the few times the Justice Department has prosecuted a top government official solely for allegedly concealing gifts, without charging bribery or some other corrupt relationship.
"The interesting part about this case is that they're not saying he committed a crime — they're saying he didn't disclose, and that's the crime," said Barbara Van Gelder, who recently won a new trial for former Bush administration official David Safavian in a case related to a trip paid for by lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
The 1978 Ethics in Government Act requires government officials to report gifts worth more than a certain threshold, which increases periodically.
Stevens, who said in a statement Tuesday that he "never knowingly submitted a false disclosure form," did not comment Wednesday to reporters shadowing him at the Capitol. He is scheduled to enter a plea in court at 1 p.m. Thursday in Washington.
Five Republicans up for re-election returned contributions from Stevens, but most senators — including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky — have refrained from discussing the case other than to express sadness.
"It just shows how clubby the Senate is," said Melanie Sloan, a former federal prosecutor who directs Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "Rather than expressions of sorrow for Mr. Stevens, they should be saying, this is not OK."
The indictment says Stevens accepted extensive renovations on his home and other gifts, including a Viking gas grill and a discounted 1999 Land Rover, from oil services firm Veco Corp. and others. The indictment lays out examples of Stevens helping Veco legislatively, though it does not allege a connection.
Several legal experts, including Sloan, said they believed prosecutors filed a false statement case against Stevens to avoid appeals over the constitutional "speech and debate" clause. The clause was designed to protect members of Congress from prosecution for things that are said and done in the legislative chamber. Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., is fighting an indictment that cites his legislative actions.
"It is becoming increasingly difficult for Justice to make a case of bribery," Sloan said. A grant directed by Stevens to a Veco project, for example, "could never come into evidence," Sloan said.
Stevens' likely defense will be to claim that he thought he paid for the work on his house, said Stanley Brand, former general counsel to the U.S. House. "He's gonna say, look, when this guy invoiced me for the work, I paid him."
Stevens said last July that he paid every bill he received.
The indictment says the senator knew Veco did work he never paid for, citing e-mails and testimony.
As for whether Stevens violated Senate rules, which include gift limits, that will have to wait. The Senate Ethics Committee said in a statement that it stands aside for criminal prosecutions.

