For those who wonder about House speaker Dennis Hastert not remembering details of whether or not he talked to Foley or his staff about Foley's "indiscretions", shall we say, it turns out that Hastert seems to be good at, shall we say, unclear disclosures and not remembering things.
House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert ☼ has used an Illinois trust to invest in real estate near the proposed route of the Prairie Parkway, a highway project for which he's secured $207 million in earmarked appropriations. The trust has already transferred 138 acres of land to a real estate development firm that has plans to build a 1,600-home community, located less than six miles from the north-south connector Hastert has championed in the House.
Hastert's 2005 financial disclosure form, released today, makes no mention of the trust. Hastert lists several real estate transactions in the disclosure, all of which were in fact done by the trust. Kendall County public records show no record of Hastert making the real estate sales he made public today; rather, they were all executed by the trust.
The trust, called the Little Rock Trust #225, transferred 138 acres of farmland in which Hastert had an interest to a company called RALC-Plano LLC on Dec. 7, 2005. (See Document 1, attached) Illinois Secretary of State records show that the company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Robert Arthur Land Company. The company’s Web site lists plans for a Plano development called North County, with lots for 1,635 homes, 33 acres for commercial and retail businesses, and 18 acres set aside for a public school.
The proposed path of the Prairie Parkway is a little more than 5.5 miles to the east of the development; the Kendall County Board has already voted in favor of putting an interchange on Galena Road, giving residents of the new development easy access to the highway.
Hastert has argued that the highway is needed to cope with Kendall County's rapid population growth. In 2002, for example, he said the proposed highway will "address tomorrow's growth-related problems before they occur."
Hastert’s use of the trust obscured his ownership interest in particular parcels of property. For example, Hastert listed, on his 2004 financial disclosure form, that he had acquired a "1/4 share in 69 acres (Plano, Ill.)" on Feb. 17, 2004. However, a search of Kendall County public records for Hastert's name revealed no such purchase. Instead, Little Rock Trust #225 acquired the property, effectively hiding Hastert’s interest in the land. (See Document 2.)
On May 2, 2005, the Hasterts transferred an additional 69 acres of land--part of the property they bought as a primary residence in 2002--to the trust. (see Document 3.) Those two properties, according to Kendall County’s online real estate records, were sold by the Little Rock Trust to RALC-Plano for more than $4.9 million on Dec. 7, 2005. [...]
The article contains an objection and clarification from Hastert's attorney that seems to effectively confirm most of the allegations in the article itself. It's a very odd letter, in any event. That said, it does look as though Mr Allison may be misrepresenting what the lawyer said; the lawyer did not confirm that Hastert didn't disclose the existence of the trust -- that was neither denied nor confirmed. What he did say was that Hastert disclosed what the trust does, although it would seem that he did not do so in a way that satisfies Illinois legal requirements. In any event, it looks like the lawyer let the matter drop, if only because further action could have led to difficulties for his client. It would cast a sharp focus on financial transactions in which, as matters of federal and state law, the representative himself is supposed to take no part. He's allowed to know what the trust does; he's not allowed to direct it beyond a certain very general point. He can accept or refuse land acquisition recommendations by the trust; he's not supposed to direct it.
And then there's this:
Nearly three dozen members of Congress, including leaders from both parties, pressed the government to reject a Louisiana Indian casino while they collected large donations from rival tribes and their lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Many intervened with letters to Interior Secretary Gale Norton within days of receiving money from tribes represented by Abramoff or using the lobbyist's restaurant for fundraising, an Associated Press review of campaign records, IRS records and congressional correspondence found. [...] House Speaker Dennis Hastert, an Illinois Republican, held a fundraiser at Abramoff's Signatures restaurant in Washington on June 3, 2003, that collected at least $21,500 for his Keep Our Majority political action committee from the lobbyist's firm and tribal clients. Seven days later, Hastert wrote Norton urging her to reject the Jena tribe of Choctaw Indians' request for a new casino. Hastert's three top House deputies also signed the letter. Approving the Jena application or others like it would "run counter to congressional intent," Hastert's June 10, 2003, letter warned Norton.
It was exactly what Abramoff's tribal clients wanted. The tribes, including the Louisiana Coushattas and Mississippi Choctaw, were trying to block the Jena's gambling hall for fear it would undercut business at their own casinos....
[...] Congressional ethics rules require lawmakers to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest in performing their official duties and accepting political money. That requirement was made famous a decade ago during the Keating Five scandal when five lawmakers were criticized for intervening with federal regulators on behalf of Charles Keating while receiving money from the failed savings and loan operator.
The Abramoff donations dwarf those made by Keating. At least 33 lawmakers wrote letters to Norton and got more than $830,000 in Abramoff-related donations as the lobbying unfolded between 2001 and 2004, AP found. "This is one of the largest examples we've had to date where congressional action was predicated on money being given for the action," said Kent Cooper, who reviewed lawmakers' campaign reports for two decades as the Federal Election Commission's chief of public disclosure....
To be sure, as the article notes, Abramoff and his "fundraising" seem to have been remarkably evenhanded; he threw money at Democrats as well as Republicans. Nonetheless, regarding Hastert, this would all seem to be part of an interesting habitual process.
So if you're going to be concerned about Hastert, full disclosure, and the appearance of impropriety, there are sufficient reasons of substance to be concerned beyond whether or not he enabled sexual harrassment (Congress has notoriously exempted itself from workplace rules on most matters, including these), misuse of federal resources, violations of federal prohibitions on using the internet for importuning underage people to have sex, and who knew what about what Foley did and when he did it.
That said, while it's likely that Hastert may lose his Speakership -- if only because, assuming that the Republicans retain control, he almost certainly won't run for the position -- his district will probably still retain him as their representative. Which is something of a pity; for various appearances of impropriety, at the very least, he would seem to deserve to lose his seat.
Posted by iain at October 10, 2006 01:21 PM
