Posted on 07/29/2006 9:48:53 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
For three months, news has spread about Rep. Jerry Lewis and the controversy linked to a federal inquiry into his ties to lobbyists and contractors.
During that time, the prominent Redlands Republican has barely uttered a word about the investigation publicly. His staff issued a handful of news releases, and Lewis, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, gave a few brief telephone interviews.
A staff member said in June that Lewis was too busy to discuss the federal investigation because of his congressional duties. But the staffer said Lewis' schedule would relax some after July 4th, and Lewis would want to speak to his constituents through the local media.
But here in the last days of July, Lewis is still refusing to tackle the issue. It's unclear why, but his decision might have been altered after hiring a distinguished legal team in mid-June, which as of mid-July had been paid $200,000 from Lewis' campaign funds.
Barbara Comstock, a Washington, D.C.,-based spokeswoman who works on high-profile crisis cases, did not return multiple phone calls during the past seven days.
Sometimes during a crisis, the person who is the focus will hunker down to try and wait out the storm.
That's not what a leading expert in the public relations industry would suggest, though, in a case like this.
"The key is to respond quickly with factual, accurate information and take action, or you do risk tarnishing your reputation," said Rhoda Weiss, president-elect of the Public Relations Society of America, which has 30,000 professional and student members across the nation. "It is critical with the 24-7 news cycle today that you can access anytime to get your side of the story out."
With so much press digging into a story that Lewis has not addressed with any real detail, the federal investigation has led to mounting concerns about the future of the Inland Empire's greatest benefactor - and a man who has enjoyed a sterling reputation.
As chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, which oversees $900 billion in federal spending, Lewis has great control over the earmarking process. Earmarking allows lawmakers to slip multimillion-dollar expenditures into the federal budget with little or no review.
It's that process of earmarking that seems to be the key to the investigation.
During the past two months, a federal grand jury has issued subpoenas to many municipalities found in Lewis' district who had contracted with the now-defunct lobbying firm of Copeland Lowery Jacquez Denton & White. At least one company, Redlands-based Environmental Systems Research Institute Inc., has also been subpoenaed.
Investigators are also looking at two of Lewis' top staff members, both of whom went to work for Copeland Lowery. Letitia White, dubbed "the Queen Bee" of earmarks, has shown to be fabulously successful at lobbying for her clients.
Jeff Shockey, a Redlands native, enjoyed the same level of success by bringing in many Inland Empire municipalities but has since returned to work for Lewis' committee staff. Upon his return, his wife formed her own lobbying firm, took a subcontracting job for Copeland Lowery, and began working on behalf of many of her husband's former clients.
The Lewis investigation follows the conviction of former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Escondido, earlier this year for accepting $2.4 million in bribes. Brent K. Wilkes, a defense contractor who has contributed $60,000 to Lewis' campaign, was linked to the investigation.
Copeland Lowery split up last month as the scandal grew with national media coverage and a handful of online blogs. The firm, which was founded by former Rep. Bill Lowery, a San Diego Republican and close friend of Lewis, has also been found to have underreported its lobbying fees by $2 million during a seven-year period.
"I don't want to downplay it because there's a lot of circumstantial evidence, but the more it happens, the circumstances are getting broader and deeper, and it's leading to a compelling case that something wrong is really happening here," said Keith Ashdown of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog organization in Washington, D.C.
Questions Lewis has yet to answer:
* Why did Lewis reduce White's salary even though she was a close friend and someone he repeatedly praised for her strong work?
In 2002, Lewis slashed $11,000 from Letitia White's salary, according to Roll Call, a newspaper that reports on Congress four days a week. By law, staff members making 75 percent or more of a lawmaker's salary cannot lobby the lawmaker for one year.
Lewis made $150,000 that year, meaning White had to make less then $112,500 if she wanted to have the lucrative shot at lobbying Lewis.
The reduction put her $80 under the legal limit at the end of 2002.
In a statement released by his office Thursday, Lewis said, "I have always made every effort to carefully follow the rules of the House of Representatives in all aspects of my Congressional work. I am confident that any review will confirm this."
In January 2003, White left to work for Copeland Lowery.
White signed up two defense contractors -- on her first day on the job. White's clients that year paid Copeland Lowery $670,000 in lobbying fees, and in return, the companies received $22 million.
"We'd have a solar eclipse before he'd cut her salary," said Ashdown, who is an expert on the earmarking process. "He wanted to help a personal friend. It makes you wonder, what other rules was he willing to find ways to skirt?"
* Why did he say in a 2006 news release that he never recommends lobbyists to municipalities?
It's pertinent because Lewis used Congressional letterhead in a 2002 recommendation of a Washington, D.C., lobbying firm to San Bernardino County. Lewis' referral was on behalf of a different lobbying firm, The Skancke Co., which is run by Tom Skancke and was one of two lobbyists employed by the county.
"It's a pleasure to be writing this letter on Tom's behalf and strongly recommend San Bernardino County's retaining of the Skancke Company's service," Lewis wrote on Sept. 5, 2002.
In his news release, Lewis stated, "It is an ironclad rule in my office that we do not recommend lobbyists, even if a constituent asks for that recommendation."
Lewis' wife, Arlene, who manages his Congressional office, also offered a sterling recommendation of Copeland Lowery to the county.
* Did Lewis have concerns about his stepdaughter's occupation? And what did he know about it?
Lewis' stepdaughter, Julia Willis-Leon, became the director of a political action committee set up by two people: White, the lobbyist, and a defense contractor whose business has been awarded millions of dollars and which employed Copeland Lowery to lobby the congressman.
Incidentally, the stepdaughter's PAC has paid her a salary nearly three times more than it has given out to federal candidates.
Previously through a spokesman, Lewis declined to speak about the issue.
* Is it appropriate for Lewis' campaign to purchase stock in a new bank run by a personal friend?
Lewis and his wife bought $22,000 in shares from Security Bank of California in early March 2005. His campaign bought $25,000 -- a practice most political experts found bizarre.
Lewis is a longtime friend of James Robinson, who is chairman of the bank. Several members of the bank's board of directors have contributed to his campaigns and are linked to businesses that have benefited from federal money generated by earmarks written by Lewis.
One board member, Bruce Varner, also sits on the board of the National Orange Show Events Center in San Bernardino. The organization has received more than $800,000 in federal funds.
The price of the shares has tripled.
Typical MSM hit piece.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.