CREW’s Matt Jacob told the Minnesota Independent that House members aren’t supposed to use their congressional websites to urge public action on behalf of or against pending legislation.

In its letter (pdf) CREW cited this House rule:

The content of a Member’s Web site … [m]ay not include grassroots lobbying or solicit support for a Member’s position.

Bachmann’s website, CREW says, urged “[t]he people” to travel to Washington, D.C. “and tell their Representatives to vote no to a governmental take-over of one-fifth of our economy.”

Bachmann announced the Nov. 5 “House Call” rally on Fox News on Oct. 30. That left enough time for Bachmann to meet the five-day lead time required to apply for a permit for an event on the Capitol grounds, according to a U.S. Capitol Police guidelines that CREW includes in its supporting documents (pdf).

CREW’s complaint doesn’t cover another apparent aspect of Bachmann’s official efforts as impresario of the Capitol-steps anti-health care rally. According to the Savage (Minn.) Pacer newspaper, Bachmann’s staff helped a man not from her congressional district to find a nearby bus from Eden Prairie, Minn. headed to Washington, D.C. for the rally:

So he called the Savage Chamber of Commerce trying to get a carpool together of other interested business owners. No one contacted him, so he began asking friends and other business owners and then contacted Rep. Michele Bachmann’s office where he found out about the buses leaving Eden Prairie.

The OCE is a newly formed body that has been on the receiving end of sniping from the longer-in-the-tooth but slow-off-the-mark House Ethics committee. Jacob told MnIndy the tally of CREW’s complaints to the OCE is so far “not a huge number.”

Norm and Laurie Coleman (Paul Demko, Minnesota Independent)

Norm Coleman may not dip into his campaign coffers to cover all his expenses stemming from lawsuits and other complaints that allege misconduct by him or his donors. That’s the upshot of draft advisory opinions issued late Thursday (pdf) by the Federal Election Commission.

The FEC drafted two opinions to guide its consideration of Coleman’s inquiry about which legal bills federal law would let him pay with campaign funds.

Related lawsuits in Texas and Delaware contend that Coleman benefactor Nasser Kazeminy steered him $75,000 through a business relationship between a Texas firm Kazeminy controls and the St. Paul insurance firm where Coleman’s wife works. The FBI is looking into whether Kazeminy improperly paid for Coleman’s suits, an allegation that also prompted Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) to ask for a Senate ethics investigation.

Here is the question Coleman asked the FEC:

May the Committee use campaign funds to pay legal counsel for the services described above in connection with the Texas and Delaware lawsuits, the FBI investigation, and the Senate Ethics Committee complaints?

The FEC will base its decision on two draft advisory opinions that reach somewhat different conclusions.

Opinion A says the law won’t let Coleman tap campaign accounts to pay for legal representation in the Texas or Delaware lawsuits or the FBI investigation, but the campaign can pay half the costs of monitoring the out-of-state lawsuits.

Opinion B says the law disallows only spending campaign funds for the FBI investigation into matters unrelated to his candidacy or elective office.

At their June 25 meeting, the commissioners will try to reach a decision about which draft opinion, or some combination of the two, represents their understanding of how election law applies to Coleman’s situation.

Draft Advisory Opinion A:

For the reasons discussed below, the Commission concludes that the Committee may use campaign funds to pay for the following legal services: reviewing the complaints to the Senate Ethics Committee; reviewing ABM’s letter to the FBI; representing Senator Coleman in an FBI investigation of alleged violations of Federal law or rules governing the office of a Senator or the conduct of campaigns; and responding to media inquiries.

For the reasons discussed below, the Commission concludes that the Committee may not use campaign funds to pay for the following legal services: representing Senator Coleman in the Texas or Delaware lawsuits; and representing Senator Coleman in an FBI investigation of allegations unrelated to Senator Coleman’s campaign or duties as a Federal officeholder. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission concludes that the Committee may use campaign funds to pay for 50% of legal fees for monitoring the two lawsuits.

Draft Advisory Opinion B:

For the reasons discussed below, the Commission concludes that the Committee may use campaign funds to pay for the following legal services: reviewing the complaints to the Senate Ethics Committee; reviewing ABM’s letter to the FBI; representing Senator Coleman in an FBI investigation of alleged violations of Federal law or rules governing the office of a Senator or the conduct of campaigns; monitoring and representing Senator Coleman in the Texas and Delaware lawsuits; and responding to media inquiries.

The Committee may not, however, use campaign funds to pay for legal services representing Senator Coleman in an FBI investigation of allegations unrelated to Senator Coleman’s campaign or duties as a Federal officeholder.

The FEC is taking public comment on the matter until noon on June 24.

More analysis to come.

Photo: Lauren Victoria Burke, WDCpix.com

A clothes-shopping spree that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin started in Minnesota didn’t break the law, in the opinion of the Federal Election Commission, even though it was paid for by the GOP.

Palin dropped $75,062 at Minneapolis’ Neiman-Marcus store while in Minnesota to accept the vice presidential nomination at the Republican National Convention. She went on to run up an apparel tab that exceeded $150,000.

A complaint (pdf) filed last year by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) asked the FEC to find that Palin’s purchases violated rules against using campaign donations on candidates’ personal attire.

The commission decided today that that restriction doesn’t apply to party funds (pdf).

Also named in CREW’s clothes complaint, as an agent of the Republican National Committee, was Jeff Larson. He’s also figured in a separate Minnesota-related scandal, as the lenient landlord who cheaply rented a basement room in Washington, D.C., to former Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman.

Coleman’s own wardrobe procurement, allegedly using unreported cash assistance from friend Nasser Kazeminy, is the subject of yet another scandal, now said to be under investigation by the FBI.

Coleman has asked the FEC for an opinion as to whether federal law lets him tap his campaign accounts to cover legal expenses in a pair of civil lawsuits that allege a friend, campaign donor Nasser Kazeminy, funneled his family an unreported $75,000.

In its argument (pdf) CREW cites past FEC opinions, including one that refused to approve the use of campaign funds to pay U.S. Sen. David Vitter’s lawyers for their efforts to repel a subpoena that would require him to testify in a criminal proceeding.

CREW asserts that it would be unprecedented for the FEC to allow Coleman to pay lawyers before he has even been asked to testify:

Indeed, the Commission has never allowed a candidate/officeholder to use campaign funds to pay such legal fees before the candidate/office holder’s testimony was compelled or actually given.

At a minimum, CREW asks the FEC to deny Coleman approval for spending money from his recount committee’s account on lawsuits unrelated to the recount.  In an opinion sought be Coleman’s Democratic rival, Al Franken, commissioners ruled that recount funds may only be spent on recount-related expenses.

CREW notes that Coleman has shifted more than $300,000 from the Coleman Minnesota Recount Committee to the Coleman for Senate ’08 account and speculates that the latter account may be mostly made up of funds from the former at this point.

Interestingly, CREW cites Coleman’s request to the FEC as having been filed April 3, the date that appears on his letter requesting an advisory opinion — rather than May 12, the date on which the FEC posted Coleman’s request on its website.

The FEC is required to reply within 60 days to a request from a candidate or office-holder. Were the FEC to start its clock at the date CREW cites, commissioners would have to issue a ruling within days of oral arguments in Coleman’s election-contest appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court set for June 1.

Coleman’s campaign said back-and-forth with the FEC over paperwork delayed a request he promised to make in December.

CREW filed a complaint with the Senate ethics committee last summer after revelations that Kazeminy paid for Coleman’s suits. The former senator’s request also asked the FEC to rule on whether he could spend campaign money on expenses related to that complaint.

Coleman received a “dishonorable mention” on CREW’s list of the most corrupt members of Congress last year.

CREW has also been a fierce critic of the FEC and its commissioners, urging President Obama to follow through on campaign promises to reform the agency.

Norm and Laurie Coleman on the campaign trail last this fall (Paul Demko, Minnesota Independent)

Norm Coleman used media coverage of his dealings with friend and benefactor Nasser Kazeminy to argue to the Federal Election Commission that he should be able to spend campaign cash to fight two lawsuits that implicate him in a cash-funneling scheme.

Coleman’s plea uses the media in two ways: first, as proof that the lawsuits — and thus his expenses — are political, not personal; and second, to argue that campaign funds should pay for lawyers’ time dealing with media inquiries into the matter.

Coleman’s filing (8.4 MB pdf) includes copies of two Minnesota Independent stories among seven clips from media outlets:

Minnesota Independent, “Advocacy group calls for investigations in ‘DonorGate,’” Nov. 12, 2008 (Exhibit F)

Minnesota Independent, “Texas lawsuit naming Coleman should proceed quickly, lawyer says,” Jan. 14, 2009 (Exhibit D)

TPM Muckraker, “Taking stock of the Coleman-Kazeminy charges,” Nov. 13, 2008 (Exhibit A)

Star Tribune, “Money and past bond Coleman, Kazeminy,” Nov. 10, 2008 (Exhibit B)

Star Tribune, “Group wants probe of lawsuits that mention Coleman,” Nov. 13, 2008 (Exhibit E)

Minnesota Public Radio, “Coleman: Allegations should be investigated,” Nov. 12, 2008 (Exhibit G)

Associated Press, “Texas filing seeks to put off suit tied to Coleman,” as it appeared Jan. 9, 2009 at startribune.com (Exhibit C)

These news stories are offered as evidence of the political context of the lawsuits and the complaints they engendered. Establishing that the suits and complaints are political is key to making the case that Coleman’s legal expenses are directly tied to his duties as senator rather than a personal matter.

This is the summary Coleman gives:

Over the last several months, Senator Coleman’s campaign and legal counsel have been forced to (1) respond to allegations arising from baseless complaints filed by Senator Coleman’s political opponents; (2) monitor ongoing litigation related to these topics, prepare for possible involvement in such litigation, and preserve documents thaqt may prove relevant to the litigation; and (3) provide responses and information to the media on these topics.

Coleman asserts that responding to media inquiries accounts for more than 10 percent of his lawyers’ bills, although information from the campaign about the lawsuits and ensuing complaints has been minimal. And repeated calls and emails from the Minnesota Independent to the Coleman campaign, for example, have never been returned.

Again Tuesday, the Minnesota Independent’s phone message and an email to the Coleman campaign went unanswered. The email asked:

Why did it take five months for the Coleman campaign to formally file an advisory opinion request with the FEC? What is the dollar amount of expenses listed in the table in the FEC filing? When were the costs involving responses to media inquiries incurred? Has the campaign already spent funds on the purposes described in the request?

Others have questions too, dating back to last year, when several of the complaints filed in the matter with the FEC, the Senate ethics committee and the FBI were lodged.

“We just wanted to know what the deal was,” says Denise Cardinal, executive director of Alliance for a Better Minnesota, one of the groups whose complaints Coleman cited in his FEC filing. “[Coleman's campaign] told us they had asked for this. … There is still no clarity. Whose fault is that?”

The FEC ordinarily responds to candidates’ requests for advisory opinions on matters of election law within 60 days, sometimes granting requests for expedited consideration — a request Coleman didn’t make.

So it seems likely the Minnesota Supreme Court will rule on Coleman’s appeal of his election-contest loss to Franken before the FEC rules on Coleman’s request for an opinion on election law.

CREW noted the controversy created when Bachmann appeared on MSNBC and questioned the patriotism of Barack Obama and members of Congress. Bachmann’s embrace of President Bush at the 2007 State of the Union address as well as her appearance at Mac Hammond’s Living Word Christian Center (when she said God told her to run for office) were both cited as reasons to include her on the list.

Not mentioned in the report: pictures of her hiding behind bushes at the Minnesota Capitol during a gay rights rally, her top secret knowledge of a secret plan by Iran to partition Iraq, her “save the lightbulb” campaign, her photo spread in the Star Tribune vacuuming in high heels, or the incident in a Scandia bathroom where she ran screaming from a school teacher and a retired nun.

Also making CREW’s list: Rep. Vern Buchanan, R-Fla.; Rep. Ken Calvert, R-Calif.; Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif.; Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Calif.; Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa.; Rep. Laura Richardson, D-Calif.; and Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska.

The church has resisted demands by the IRS to open its books for an audit, and the agency filed a petition in United States District Court ordering the church to comply. Earlier this month, a magistrate ordered Living Word representatives to appear and explain their refusal to comply with the IRS. In response to a summons in March, a church attorney told the IRS they would not comply until “an appropriate high-level IRS official” using “reasonable belief” requested information.

At issue are financial dealings detailed in documents obtained by the Minnesota Independent in early 2007.

According to the documents, which involved a loan application in 2003 and contained more than 100 pages of pictures and detailed descriptions of the church’s real estate assets, financial transactions and administrative history, Hammond owned two airplanes, one bought from Living Word for $1.06 million on credit supplied by Living Word. He leased the planes back to the church at a total annual rate of more than $893,000. The church asserted that “the aircraft are important to the efficient management of its ministry at the present time.” Living Word also rented a hangar to store the planes, and it paid for the expenses of the planes as well.

In addition, Living Word made several loans to Hammond since 2000 totaling at least $1.9 million: Two were for the planes, three were unsecured, and one enabled Hammond to purchase a house in Florida.

Reporting by the Minnesota Independent also triggered an IRS investigation of Hammond and Living Word in 2006 after being the first to report that Hammond endorsed then-State Sen. Michele Bachmann for Congress from the pulpit.

Both the cease and desist and CREW’s response, as well as CREW’s previous filings,  can be found on the CREW web site here.

CREW alleges that the Brooklyn Park church may have been paying for a stunt plane that Hammond owned.  According to CREW, Federal Aviation Administration records show Hammond is the owner of a 1995 Flugzeugbau EA-300L, which the manufacturer describes as “the premiere aerobatic, sport and professional aircraft on the market today.”

In a statement, CREW executive director Melanie Sloan said, “If LWCC was paying for costs associated with a stunt plane, clearly the church would be in violation of federal law.

From the press release:

On October 14, 2006 Ms. Bachmann delivered a campaign stump speech from the Living Word Christian  Center’s pulpit and the church’s pastor, Mac Hammond, openly endorsed her candidacy. Pastor Hammond’s comments and Ms. Bachmann’s speech were made during the Living Word Christian Center’s weekend services, presented before the entire congregation and broadcast over the Internet. By using church resources to promote the candidacy of Ms. Bachmann, the church jeopardized its tax status.

This is just the latest bit of news in a scandal that hit yesterday involving Pastor Mac Hammond’s endorsement of Bachmann during a Saturday service and web cast, which has already been reported on by multiple outlets, including MSNBC.

full press release after the jumpCREW FILES IRS COMPLAINT AGAINST LIVING  WORD  CHRISTIAN CENTER

Pastor Endorses state Sen. Michele Bachmann for U.S. House Seat

Allows Bachmann to Give Stump Speech

Washington , DC B Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) today filed an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) complaint against the Living Word Christian Center in Brooklyn Park, MN for violating IRS law by openly endorsing state Senate Michele Bachmann’s candidacy for the U.S. House of Representatives.

Churches, like Living Word Christian Center, are absolutely prohibited from intervening in elections for any public office. This prohibition is a condition of the very favorable tax benefits public charities receive under section 501(c)(3) of the tax code.

On October 14, 2006 Ms. Bachmann delivered a campaign stump speech from the Living Word Christian Center’s pulpit and the church’s pastor, Mac Hammond, openly endorsed her candidacy. Pastor Hammond’s comments and Ms. Bachmann’s speech were made during the Living Word Christian Center’s weekend services, presented before the entire congregation and broadcast over the Internet. By using church resources to promote the candidacy of Ms. Bachmann, the church jeopardized its tax status.

Excerpts from Ms. Bachmann’s speech and the pastor’s endorsement can be found in CREW’s complaint at www.citizensforethics.org.  Videos of the speeches are available at YouTube.

Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW said today, “the IRS has pledged to investigate non-profits that violate the law. So far the IRS has targeted only progressive organizations such as the All Saints Church in Pasadena,California , the NAACP and Texans for Public Justice.

“This complaint and the clear evidence supporting it should spur the IRS to investigate the Living Word ChristianCenter and all 501(c)(3) charities that abuse their status, regardless of ideology.”

***

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is a non-profit legal watchdog group dedicated to holding public officials accountable for their actions.

For more information, please visit www.citizensforethics.org or contact Naomi Seligman Steiner at 202.408.5565/ press@citizensforethics.org.

CREW Complaint
IRS Complaint