TPM Muckraker

« previous | MUCK HOME | next »

Let The Investigations Begin!

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) plans to investigate reports that a Homeland Security adviser was soliciting donations to the Bush presidential library fund in exchange for access to high-ranking government officials.

Waxman sent a letter to Stephen Payne's Houston office requesting written responses to a series of questions:

1. What is your affiliation with George W. Bush Presidential Library? Have you been authorized or asked to solicit funds for the library?

2. Have you ever solicited funds for the library from any individuals, governments, companies, or organizations?

3. If you have ever solicited funds for the library, please describe each solicitation, including the persons or organizations solicited and amounts requested and received, and describe whether you arranged or attempted to arrange any meetings for such persons or organizations with U.S. government officials.

Meanwhile, Department of Homeland Security officials are also investigating Payne, who was appointed last year to sit on the department's main advisory board.

"This is a horribly unfortunate story," said Homeland Security spokeswoman Laura Keehner. "We are looking into the facts." She declined to comment further.

Waxman asked that Payne provide his responses to the committee by July 23.

Read more for the full text of the Waxman's letter.

Mr. Stephen P. Payne
President
Worldwide Strategic Partners
5847 San Felipe
Houston, TX 77057

Dear Mr. Payne:

I am writing regarding a report t hat you solicited funds for the George W. Bush
Presidential Library i n return for access to senior U.S. foreign policy officials. This is a matter that the Oversight Committee will investigate.

According to the Times of London, you solicited funds for President Bush's library from foreign interests. Specifically, you reportedly offered access to several senior U.S. government officials, including Vice President Cheney, in return for six-figure contributions to the library.!

If true, this report raises serious concerns about the ways in which foreign interests might be secretly influencing our government through large donations to the library. Under current law, there are few restrictions on efforts to raise funds for presidential libraries. For example, there are no limits on how much can be raised for a single source, and there is no requirement that donations be disclosed publicly. As a result, a presidential library can solicit secret donations from companies and foreign interests that seek to surreptitiously influence government action. In order to prevent abuses of this kind, the House of Representatives passed legislation last year that requires disclosure of information about donors to presidential libraries.

To help the Committee understand your role in soliciting funds for the George W. Bush Presidential Library, please provide written answers in response to the following questions:

1. What is your affiliation with George W. Bush Presidential Library? Have you been authorized or asked to solicit funds for the library?

2. Have you ever solicited funds for the library from any individuals, governments, companies, or organizations?

3. I f you have ever solicited funds for the library, please describe each solicitation, including the persons or organizations solicited and amounts requested and received, and describe whether you arranged or attempted to arrange any meetings for such persons or organizations with U.S. government officials.

In addition, please provide the Committee with copies of any documents relating to contributions to or solicitations o f contributions to President Bush' s library.

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is the principal oversight committee in the House o f Representatives, with broad investigative jurisdiction as set forth in House Rule X. An attachment to this letter provides additional information about how to respond to the Committee's request.

I would appreciate your cooperation in this important matter. Please provide answers to
the questions above by July 23, 2008. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Michael Gordon of the Committee staff at (202) 225-5420.

Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman
Chairman

Enclosure
cc: Tom Davis
Ranking Minority Member


13 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Won't he just claim Executive Privilege and won't the Democrats then just roll over? What am I missing?


I'd like answers to the following questions:

1. Who authorized this scheme?

2. Is the Bush Administration accepting payment from any individual, foreign or national, to be removed from the terrorist watch list?

3. What is the minimum amount required to get the name off the terrorist watch list?

4. Is the Bush Administration adding foreign names to the terrorist watch list with the express intent of seeking payment to have those names removed?

5. How does Stephen Payne know the names on the list? What security clearances does he possess? Who granted these clearances? In light of the videotape, have his clearances been pulled?

6. Who watches the Bush Library account?

7. Who is alerted when the money is received?

8. Once the money is received by the Bush Library, who makes the call to Homeland Security? Who receives the call at Homeland Security?

9. Where else has Payne traveled recently? Is there a trail of foreign names that have been removed from the terrorist watch list that matches his travel itinerary?

10. Are blackmailing/racketeering laws applicable?

Why should anyone care about the answers to these questions? No one will be held accountable, no matter how corrupt and vile their behavior. Congress has completely cut their own nuts off in terms of providing any real oversight and should just shut the hell up.

user-pic


12. Will the Bush Library have an exhibit with Jesus riding a dinosaur?

user-pic

This is quite common with the Bush admin. Here in Texas, the State AG's meeting some years back had a pricelist that was even posted in the Austin paper. 25K got you someone, 50K got you Rove, and 100K got you Bush, etc.

Quite common, what's the problem?

BP

You tell um, Hank!

Ooohh, more nasty letters from impotent congresscritters.

I bet Payne and the rest of the crew are quaking in their boots.

I have some questions for Henry:

1) Can you actually hear them laughing at you in the WH from the other end of Penn Ave?

2)Why should anybody in the administration respond to you when they know there will be absolutely no consequences if they don't?

3) Why can't you understand that by taking all the tools congress possesses "off the table" you just end up looking like a weak, ineffective idiot.

4) When will some real leaders step forward in Congress and actually force this administration to obey the law.

5) Forget that last one, I know the answer already...

The Republicans are no doubt a bunch of lying, cheating crooks, but at least they don't come across as a bunch of spineless pussies.

So much patheticness, so little time...

Still haven't seen this covered in any depth by any MSM outlets. Where is the outrage? Has the American public just not paying attention or do they really not care anymore? I bet everybody knows the names of Angelina and Brad Pitt's babies though.

Look out, here comes another strongly worded letter and a "go f*%K yourself" response from the White House!

refill the old coffers?

Watch out, the Democratic Congress might work themselves up into a lather and send not one, but TWO, strongly worded letters.

Of course, there'll be no follow-up. When the Bush Administration laughs in their collective faces, the Dems will do what they have done ever since 2006 -- threaten to send even MORE strongly worded letters, or, perhaps, hold ineffectual meetings that result in no action.

Pathetic. Kick out the lot of them and start over.

And I just know that Lieberman will be tag teaming these scoundrels from his perch at the Senate Homeland Security Committee!

so, people were donating money in exchange for access to politicians. what is the story? that's the entire point of corporations donating to politicians. you think companies donate to both parties because they just want to see more ads from both sides?

it seems like this is just a little bit more in the open, but i don't find it fundamentally different than the SOP in washington.

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe
Tip Line

Josh
Marshall

Bio

Zachary
Roth

Bio

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address