Sec. 600. Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity
Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
The story of the White House asking Bill Clinton to talk to Joe Sestak about an unpaid administrative position in exchange for dropping out of the Democratic primary against Arlen Specter (which he refused to do and ended up winning that primary), while murky and probably could not have ended in a prosecution of any kind because of the vagueness of the offer and the fact that the position offered was "unpaid", but the breaking news today that Andrew Romanoff was offered three different positions (with email provided as proof), paid positions, could very well be a violation of the federal law linked and pasted above, 18 USC Section 600 and warrants a full investigation.
Romanoff has issued a public statement, pasted below:
"I have received a large number of press inquiries concerning the role the White House is reported to have played in my decision to run for the U.S. Senate. I have declined comment because I did not want – and do not want – to politicize this matter.
A great deal of misinformation has filled the void in the meantime. That does not serve the public interest or any useful purpose.
Here are the facts:
In September 2009, shortly after the news media first reported my plans to run for the Senate, I received a call from Jim Messina, the President’s deputy chief of staff. Mr. Messina informed me that the White House would support Sen. Bennet. I informed Mr. Messina that I had made my decision to run.
Mr. Messina also suggested three positions that might be available to me were I not pursuing the Senate race. He added that he could not guarantee my appointment to any of these positions. At no time was I promised a job, nor did I request Mr. Messina’s assistance in obtaining one.
Later that day, I received an email from Mr. Messina containing descriptions of three positions (e-mail attached). I left him a voicemail informing him that I would not change course.
I have not spoken with Mr. Messina, nor have I discussed this matter with anyone else in the White House, since then."
He then provided an email as confirmation of his statement, from White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina.
From: Messina, Jim (e-mail address redacted)
Date: Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 3:24 PM
Subject:
To: Romanoff, Andrew (e-mail address redacted)
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Latin America and Caribbean, USAID
As one of five geographic bureaus in the Agency and as a major contributor to the broader U.S. foreign policy objectives in the region, the Bureau for Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) promotes stable democracies, prosperous economies, secure borders, and cooperative neighbors in the Western Hemisphere. The LAC Bureau is taking a proactive approach to maximizing the impact of foreign assistance and continuing its efforts to transform and improve business operations that support Agency-wide reforms. In line with the new Foreign Assistance Framework, priorities include consolidating democracy, fostering growth through free trade and business opportunities, investing in people through education and health, and enhancing security by promoting alternatives to illegal drug cultivation. Additionally, the Bureau is implementing a number of highly visible programs in the Western Hemisphere, including support for the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA); the Andean Counter-Narcotics Initiative; the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis, and Malaria; and the recommendations for the Presidential commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba.
This position reports to the Assistant Administrator for Latin America and the Caribbean. The position functions as advisor to the Assistant Administrator, LAC. The position is responsible for oversight and general management of one or more LAC Bureau offices.
Director, Office of Democracy and Governance, USAID
The Director is the chief operations officer of the Office and a principal advisor to senior Bureau and USAID management in defining the scope and objectives of the Agency's and the Administration's initiatives to support democracy and foster good governance. Activities of the Director include oversight for all staffing and personnel functions in the Office, as well as oversight of technical officer recruitment, selection, and placement, and direct supervision of the senior democracy and governance advisors for the Agency. The Director provides program definition, design and oversight, and evaluation for USAID's democracy and good governance programs and serves as a senior advisor in the administration for developing democracy and good governance program strategies. The Director supports democracy and good governance programs in all parts of the Agency and leads in the development of strategic approaches to democracy support and good governance.
The Director represents the Agency at the senior level with other U.S. Government departments and agencies, with senior officials of foreign governments, with senior political officials from host countries, and with senior officials of U.S. implementing organizations. This position reports to the Assistant Administrator for Democracy, Conflict and Human Rights (DCHA).
Director, U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA)
USTDA was first created as part of USAID through the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and made independent in 1991. Their stated mission is to “advance economic development and U.S. commercial interests in developing and middle-income countries.” Unlike Ex-Im , OPIC and other international development agencies, USTDA does not directly finance exports and development. Instead, the agency seeks to achieve its mission by making small grants to fund feasibility studies, reverse trade missions, conferences, trainings, and other technical assistance programs that link U.S. companies to overseas development projects. With a budget of $55.2 million (FY 2010) and a staff of 78 professionals (48 full-time, 25 contractors and 5 foreign-service nationals), USTDA’s success is dependent on being able to seek out new opportunities, leverage its private and government relationships, and find development opportunities for both private business and larger federal foreign assistance/development agencies. A testament of USTDA’s success is its ratio of grant dollars spent versus dollars in exports created, which is nearly 1:35. This position requires Senate confirmation
White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, while trying to claim nothing improper occurred, has actually confirmed Romanoff's allegations.
"Andrew Romanoff applied for a position at USAID during the Presidential transition. He filed this application through the Transition on-line process. After the new administration took office, he followed up by phone with White House personnel. Jim Messina called and emailed Romanoff last September to see if he was still interested in a position at USAID, or if, as had been reported, he was running for the US Senate. ... Messina wanted to determine if it was possible to avoid a costly battle between two supporters."
Now go back to the beginning of this post and re-read the law, Sec. 600. Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity.
While I have disagreed vehemently with Barack Obama's policies, disagreed with his and Congress jamming through legislation that clearly went against the what the majority of Americans wanted and while I dislike Obama's agenda and political philosophy intensely, I have never jumped on the "impeach Obama" bandwagon, because until now nothing that was done had blatantly broken the laws.
While I still will not jump on the impeach Obama bandwagon, I would like to see a full, independent and transparent investigation into the Sestak and Romanoff offers, to determine if the Obama administration did violate the law in a manner that is prosecutable.
Republicans were already requesting full disclosure regarding Sestak and I fully expect that pressure to be ratcheted up in light of the Romanoff statement and email provided.
The White House revealed last week it had been Bill Clinton, acting on behalf of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who tried to persuade Sestak not to run for the Senate against fellow Democrat Arlen Specter, the incumbent, by offering the Delaware County congressman an unpaid position on a presidential advisory board.
But since then, the questions have compounded.
Republicans on the House Oversight and Judiciary committees sent a letter Wednesday to Robert Bauer, the White House counsel, asking he make public all internal documents and records related to the job offer. They also asked for all transcripts of conversations with people involved, namely Sestak, Clinton and Emanuel.
''Even if we suspend our disbelief that the White House asked a former U.S. president to call on a member of Congress to offer a mere unpaid advisory position in exchange for dropping out of a Senate race, the facts alleged in the Sestak memorandum still appear to violate several sections of the United States Code,'' the Republican congressmen wrote in their letter to Bauer.
Reporters bombarded White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Tuesday with a stream of Sestak-related inquiries in the first daily briefing since the White House put out its story. They wanted to know which advisory board it was, how many efforts Clinton made (Sestak says just one) and why it took three months for the White House to come clean. Gibbs did not offer any additional information.
Darrell Issa, a California Republican who has led the charge for more information since late February, when Sestak first said he'd been offered a White House job to bow out, isn't about to let this go. He has slammed President Barack Obama's lack of transparency, saying his explanation still leaves many unanswered questions. One of Issa's questions is whether Obama knew about, or even authorized, the offer Clinton made to Sestak.
Issa has called on everyone from the U.S. attorney general to the FBI to look into whether the White House committed a crime by attempting to interfere in the Pennsylvania primary campaign. His efforts have been futile.
With the White House, Senate and Congress controlled by Democrats, getting a transparent investigation or any investigation started is almost impossible but this will not go away and come November 2010, if Republicans take 40+ seats in the House and take control, I expect a promise by the GOP to the American people that these issues will be fully investigated.
A statement by RNC Chairman Michael Steele looks promising.
(Update below the fold) Andrew Romanoff’s admission that the White House did in fact approach him with the possibility of a major appointment in order to clear the political playing field represents a troubling pattern of the same Chicago-style “scratch my back” politics that Barack Obama routinely condemns.
After weeks of stonewalling the American people and months of behind-the-scenes political horse-trading, the Obama Administration needs to answer serious ethical and legal questions about these practices. It is clear that the Obama Administration is not capable of living up to the same standards they campaigned on and an independent investigation is necessary to learn all the facts.
The Obama Administration campaigned on bringing change to Washington and the promise of being the most transparent White House in our nation’s history. Those promises were clearly broken and the American people deserve answers.
UPDATE: After three months of stonewalling and obfuscation, the Administration’s credibility is blown on this subject. Last night's revelations and the disturbing pattern they uncover raise serious questions about who is in charge in the Oval Office. Rather than running a federal government facing a devastating economic crisis, two wars, and now perhaps the worst environmental disaster in history, the White House Chief of Staff and his Deputy are acting like Chicago party bosses. Who is running the store? President Obama spent last week trying to convince Americans that the buck stops with him. But these incidents make us question: is this President Obama's White House or Rahm Emanuel's?
Promising yes, but not enough. I want a commitment from the RNC, that if they take the House in November, they will form an independent panel, equal parts Democrat and Republican, to investigate the Sestak and Romanoff job offers to determine if the Obama administration violated 18 USC Section 600. Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity.
[Update] Don Surber is on the same wavelength here but puts it more succinctly:
Actually, buying off politicians with jobs is not business as usual in Washington.
It is illegal.
It is the Chicago way.
The Chicago Sewer System way.
Two words: Special prosecutor.
One more: Now.
.
