• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Sestak, Obama, and the Law

    With Rep. Joe Sestak’s (D-PA) defeat of Sen. Specter (D-PA) in the Democratic Senate primary, the controversy over the alleged job offer made to Sestak last year by someone in the Obama White House is once again heating up.

    After essentially ignoring this potentially serious violation of federal law for months, some members of the mainstream media are finally asking questions. Sestak was asked about it by David Gregory on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday. Sestak used this job offer as a campaign issue to elicit support during his primary run, but now practically refuses to talk about it and won’t say which White House staffer made the offer. The public has a right to know exactly what happened, and whether a crime was committed.

    White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has dismissed the issue saying that “Lawyers in the White House and others have looked into conversations that were had with Congressman Sestak, and nothing inappropriate happened.” Senior Obama adviser David Axelrod has said the same thing, although he has admitted that if it did actually occur, it would “constitute a serious breach of the law.” But what is very curious (and revealing) about this is the refusal of Gibbs or anyone else at the White House to say exactly what was said in the conversation and who made the offer – we are apparently just supposed to accept their self-evaluation that nothing “inappropriate” happened.

    There are obviously three possible scenarios here. Rep. Sestak is either 1) telling the truth, 2) lying, or 3) the conversations didn’t take place in the manner that Sestak has recalled. In all three cases, however, we need a full accounting of what occurred because each scenario has important political and legal implications. Sestak, as an elected official, also has an ethical obligation to reveal the details of what happened, particularly if a crime was committed. His position that he has “said all I’m going to say on the matter” does not meet his fiduciary responsibilities to the public or to Congress.

    Some are claiming that even if Sestak was offered a high-ranking job in exchange for dropping out of the Senate race, it would not have constituted a crime and is just business as usual in Washington. Others, including some lawyers who should know better, have said that it is not illegal to offer someone a job in exchange for political support. Those claims are wrong and show confusion between two very different situations: one is business as usual; one a potential crime.

    The key distinction between what is legal and what is illegal under federal law is outlined in an opinion issued by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) at the U.S. Department of Justice in 1980. What is perfectly legal and what happens all the time in Washington is individuals being offered jobs because of their past political activity. Thus, when a new president is elected and takes the oath of office, he has several thousand patronage jobs to fill in the top ranks of the executive branch. Those jobs are filled based on a mix of professional competence and past political activity and support for the president or his party. That process does not violate federal law. Thus, if someone in the White House simply offered Sestak a job – like Secretary of the Navy – and did not tie the offer to anything related to the Senate race, then, that would arguably constitute business as usual.

    However, what is illegal and not normal practice in Washington is to promise federal employment to an individual in exchange for future political activity. 18 U.S.C. § 600 prohibits public officials from using government-funded jobs or programs to advance their partisan political interests. The statute makes it unlawful for anyone to “directly or indirectly, promise[ ] any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit” to any person as a “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 primary election” (emphasis added). As the OLC opinion says, § 600 “punishes those who promise federal employment or benefits as an enticement to or reward for future political activity, but does not prohibit rewards for past political activity.” Future political activity would arguably include dropping out of a contested primary in order to benefit the White House-endorsed candidate (here, Senator Specter).

    Thus, if we take Sestak at his word that he was offered a position in the Obama Administration if he quit the race against Specter, then whoever made that offer in the White House has committed a violation of the law. It does not matter that Sestak did not take up the offer – the statute prohibits making such an offer in the first place – there is no requirement even for a tentative agreement. Like the crime of solicitation, the crime happens once the words trip off the mouth of the person making the statement.

    And contrary to what some may think, there have been prosecutions under § 600, including a reported case from 1980 out of Minnesota in which a husband and wife who worked for a federally-funded state agency were convicted for hiring secretaries to engage in partisan political work.

    Another federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 595, prohibits any person employed in any administrative position by the United States “in connection with any activity which is financed…by the United States…us[ing] his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of…Member of the Senate.” Any position offered to Sestak in the administration would be financed by the United States, so offering such a job in order to interfere with the election process for the Senate race in Pennsylvania would undoubtedly constitute a violation of this statute on its face.

    These are not complex statutes – they are easy to understand and straightforward in their application, which is probably why the White House is being so careful not to explain what exactly happened and what was really said. What is also true is that we have a congressman admitting that such an offer was made to him by someone in the White House, which is more than sufficient evidence to justify a preliminary investigation being opened by the Justice Department. In fact, any such admission would prompt any responsible prosecutor to open at least a preliminary investigation; otherwise, he would not be fulfilling his duty and obligation to enforce all federal laws.

    The Justice Department has sent a letter to Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) rejecting his request for a special counsel to investigate this matter. But the Justice Department’s letter gave no indication that Justice has opened its own investigation. Any such investigation would normally be conducted by the Election Crimes Branch of the Public Integrity Section in the Criminal Division. Its long-time head, Craig Donsanto, someone who was well respected throughout the election community, recently retired. He has been replaced by another career lawyer, Richard Pilger. Any recommendation that Pilger makes to open an investigation, if he were to make one, would have to be approved by the political head of the Criminal Division, Lanny Breuer, who served as a special counsel to Bill Clinton. Given Breuer’s political obligations and loyalty to the Obama administration, he would seem to have a conflict of interest in making this decision.

    As everyone will recall, Rep. Pat Toomey challenged then-Republican Senator Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania Republican Senate primary in 2004, losing by only a very small margin. Specter was backed by most of the Republican establishment, including Senator Rick Santorum and President George Bush. If Pat Toomey had claimed that someone in the Bush White House had offered him a position in the Bush administration if he withdrew his primary challenge, there would have been howls of protest from the mainstream media – it would have been front page news in the New York Times and the Washington Post. The press would have been relentless in their demands that all information about the offer be released, including the identity of the White House staffer and whether the president knew about or approved the offer. And if the so-called “politicized” Bush Justice Department had refused to open an investigation or appoint a special counsel, it would have been a far-reaching scandal trumpeted every day by the Fourth Estate.

    The fact that Justice is refusing to appoint a special counsel and has said nothing about opening an investigation in this case, despite the clear evidence of a possible violation of federal law, is a sign that the administration may simply ignore this matter and do nothing about it. And they may be able to do that with no consequences if the press lets the matter subside and goes back to ignoring it like they have until now. Just another example of how politics rather than justice seems to drive law enforcement decisions in this administration and the double-standard that the media has applied to the Obama Justice Department.

    Co-authored by Cully Stimson.

    Posted in Legal [slideshow_deploy]

    17 Responses to Sestak, Obama, and the Law

    1. Peter Wormwood, Rio says:

      Other than scarring the crap out of us, what can we do about it?

      There is the election in November but my state( New Mexico ) is full of people that don't care what the Democrates do so long as they are Democrates.

      How do get everyone Anglo, Hispanic, Black or what ever to under stand that these Democrates think we are stupid and don't really care what we think. They may be right the people are stupid, how do we educate them, and fast! Before November. Our Republicans are fighting amongst them selves. The Republicans don't seem to get it either. Can you say goodby to what used to be the greatest nation on the planet!! God help us.

    2. Billie says:

      Accountability is what is needed from leaders (who don't earn the money they steal from taxpayers.) What good is this government if we can't expect accountability discipline and honesty? NO GOOD!

    3. John Snyder, Branchv says:

      Is Rep. Sestak under an obligation to report the "possibility of a bribe" having been offered to him through this quid pro quo job offer from the White House? I was under the impression that federal officials (including those elected to office) were required to report all such offers (to the Justice Department?)

    4. Don,Bisbee, Az says:

      What good is this government if we can’t expect accountability discipline and honesty? NO GOOD!

      Or, we have Mexico, that is where this Admin is heading.

    5. g Knorr Rincon Ga says:

      Possibly the worst part of this is that with all the crooks in the administration, (which is apparently the entire group), they can just "deem" this matter unimportant and not deserving of a special prosecutor to look into it! If so we have already lost all semblance of a republic and are now already being governed by a dictator!

    6. DANNY, HERMANN says:

      Government is rotten to the core and this is just another example. What will it take to wake up the population to this fact? I fear that this country is dying by a thousand cuts and unless we get back to some kind of moral standard, all will be lost. We survived and prospered because the majority of the population used to do the right things in life. Now its a free for all to see who you can cheat and how big of a piece of the pie you can get.

      Our founding Fathers saw this and warned us that lack of morals would lose our freedoms and country We are seeing it now. If there are enough of us out there that can turn this around, we had better move fast before it is too late. God help this country!

    7. Mike, Wichita Falls says:

      Consider this ACLU blog post from 6/11/07.

      "As Attorney General calls for independent investigations go unanswered. Calls for cooperation with Congressional oversight yield only uncooperative and misleading testimony. Though the ACLU has consistently and vigorously pushed for accountability, Gonzales has neither appointed any independent investigators to look into serious allegations of illegal or unethical behavior nor offered any truthful testimony of his own to explain his leadership of the Department of Justice."

      What do the American people get from Holder, supposedly America's not Obama's lawyer, and the ACLU, supposedly America's civil rights watchdog, on Sestak's claim? Silence.

    8. Lloyd Scallan - New says:

      Last night on Fox, two comentators actually suggested that the Obama White House will "come clean with enough public pressure". Are this guys just plain

      naive or brain dead. Obama, his lackeys, and the Dem controled Congress

      has shown they completely ignore the "public". What makes anyone think

      that their distain for the American public change at any time in the near furture?

    9. irishgalartist, KY says:

      Can someone else star an investigation?

    10. Jill, California says:

      This is beginning to feel like a diversion. To quote Glenn Beck, "Watch what the other hand is doing." What diabolical things are happening in Washington while everyone else is distracted by this flap?

    11. Pingback: AntiObamaBlog.com » Sestak, Obama, and the Law

    12. William Jackson, Val says:

      The Deeper we go into this Administration, The Thicker the Mudd. Sure hope it's not to late to turn this back around. Oh for the time of freedom and honesty! There's always a Right Way, a Wrong Way, and what's in between. Let's stop this tranny of the only truly Free Nation in the World. As all freedom loving people can See, We're not headed in the Direction this Country was established for in the 233 years prior to this current government. Believe in what you see is presently Taking place in Your Country and Join with others who as you believe in the Constitution as Originally Created. Throw the Bums Out of Office for not up holding our freedoms and the purpose they hold their position in which they were elected.

    13. Lynn Bryant DeSpain says:

      We have a President so corrupted that he will not even produce a real birth certificate, unseal education records, shames America to the World, makes uncontitutional deals with the World at large, and now if caught with his pants down bribbing a member of Congress.

      Our Nation's problem is that our Congress is filthy with the same dirt that the President wears. Who is to point their finger ant whom?

      Justice will come this November when America replaces the entire House of Representatives and one third of the Senate. And each State does the same, with new people!

      Then we have accusors with clean hands, that can stand the scrutiny of public review.

    14. AtticusinPa says:

      But Mr. Reagan did exactly the same think for Senator Hiyakowa. And he wasnt prosecuted. Won't your pushing this tarnish his reputation? Heaven forbid! Leave the gipper alone.

    15. Dan Kusgen,Missouri says:

      I think Obama was aware of everything on Sestak's job offer to drop out of the election was wanting this to happen. Another thing that bother's me to is if I was a betting person, I believe Obama was involved in the oil well blowing up. If I was a betting man, I think he wanted the oil spill so all the Sea Food Business that rely on sea food sales for a living this would put them out of Busniess and create a food shortage. Then Obama would put a stop to off shore drilling.Obama wants to destroy our Country any way he can and be in one world order control. Now you see the whole picture I see.

    16. Dan Kusgen,Missouri says:

      The WH Adm. all should be impeached!!!! ASAP Then we'll hav a Great Country with Our Freedom!!

    17. Paul Hansen, Victori says:

      I read all the comments and agree, except I don't know about the comment concerning Reagan. No details given. Bottom line, Obama, et al will do nothing. Again, Obama et al will do nothing. and finally, Obama et al will do nothing. Was anthing done about the "back room deals behind closed doors" to pass health care reform????????? Your freedom loving country —- the U. S. of A is now controlled. Obama owns the media, the unions, the financial institutions, major sectors of private business and he owns those who don't work or pay taxes. Obama et al will control the next election by simply doing what he is now doing. Recruiting those who don't work to vote for those who will provide "ENTITLEMENTS". Don't for a minute believe that Obama is doing nothing to "swing" the November elections. Swing as in corrupt.

      Sure the Sestak matter stinks, is a crime, and results from a corrupt government. It's over,

      THOMAS JEFFERSON: "DEMOCRACY WILL CEASE TO EXIST WHEN YOU TAKE AWAY FROM THOSE WHO ARE WILLING TO WORK AND GIVE TO THOSE WHO WOULD NOT." and I might add, all Obama has to do is prove to those who are not willing to work,———- that if they vote for Obama, et al THEY WILL BE PROVIDED FOR.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.