There are substantial grounds to believe that the Clinton/Gore 1996 Primary Committee, Inc. (Clinton Committee), acting through the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and Dole for President Primary Committee, Inc. (Dole Committee), acting through the Republican National Committee (RNC), have engaged in an illegal scheme to circumvent the federal campaign finance laws. Through these schemes, the Clinton Committee and the Dole Committee, and their agents, each committed knowing and willful violations of the federal election laws, involving tens of millions of dollars, during the 1996 presidential primary campaign.
These matters warrant investigation to determine whether criminal violations of the federal campaign finance laws have occurred.
In the circumstances here, the Independent Counsel Act requires the appointment of an independent counsel in an investigation involving high-level offices of the President's reelection campaign committee, 28 U.S.C. 591(b)(6), and authorizes the appointment of an independent counsel in an investigation where, as in this matter involving the Dole Committee, the RNC and the DNC, you may have a "political conflict of interest." 28 U.S.C.591(c).
., Common Cause therefore urges you to fulfill your responsibility under the law by taking the steps necessary to seek the appointment of an independent counsel under the Independent Counsel Act to investagate all of the matters discussed below.
During the 1996 presidential primary campaign , the Clinton committee and the Dole committee, and their agents, both spent millions of dollars in excess of the overall presidential primary spending limit that applied to each of their campaigns, and in doing so, used millions of dollars in "soft money" contributions that could not legally be used directly to support a presidential campaign .
The Clinton and Dole Committees and their agents made these campaign expenditures through their respective national political parties, using the parties as conduits to run multimillion-dollar TV ad campaings to support their candidacies. The TV ad campaigns were in each case prepared, directed and controlled by the Clinton and Dole campaign and their agents. Money used to pay for the ad campaigns was raised by agents of the Clinton and Dole committees. The ads dealt with President Clinton and Dole by name, and promoted their respective candidacies or criticized their respective opponents.
Thus, the TV ad campaigns, run in the guise of being DNC and RNC ad campaigns, were in fact Clinton and Dole ad campaigns, and accordingly were subject to the contribution and spending limits that apply to presidential campaigns.
The purpose of the Clinton ad campaign, according to published reports, was to allow the Clinton committee and its agents to conduct a multimillion-dollar TV advertising campaign for the President's reelection, from the summer of 1995 until the summer of 1996, without any of the money being counted against the $37 million spending limit appicable to the Clinton committee during the presidential primary period. The ad campaign cost at least $37 million during this period.
The purpose of the Dole ad campaign, according to published reports, was to allow the Dole committee to conduct a multimillion-dollar TV advertising campaign to support Senator Dole's candidacy during the period from April 1996 through the Republican convention in August 1996, a time when the Dole campaign already spent nearly all of the $37 million that it could legally spend during the presidential primary period. The ad campaign cost at least $14 million though June 1996, the period for which relevant FEC disclosure reports are currently available.
We believe the Clinton and Dole Committees massively violated the primary election spending limits they had each agreed to as a condition of receiving taxpayer funds. In addition, the Clinton and Dole Committees massively violated the contribution prohibitions and limits by financing their ad campaings in large part with millions of dollars of "soft money" funds which they could not legally use to support their candidacies. The Clinton Committee used at least $22 million in "soft money" and the Dole Committee used at least $9 million in "soft money". These "soft money" funds included corporate and labor union contributions, and large contributions from individuals in excess of the federal contributions limits.
In sum, the Clinton Committee and the Dole Committee, and their agents acting through their respective national political parties in the ways described above, each have engaged in an illegal scheme to violate the presidental primary spending limits and to violate the prohibition on a federal candidate's use of corporate and labor union contuibutions and the restriction on such candidate's use of large individual contributions. The Committees have also engaged in an illegal scheme to violate the disclosure requirements of the federal election laws.
Any such scheme to knowingly and willfully exceed the presidential primary spending limit, to knowingly and willfully spend "soft money" directly to support a federal candidate and to knowingly and willfully violate the federal disclosure requirements is a criminal violation of the federal election laws.
The Justice Department has exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute such criminal violations, subject to the Independent Counsel Act. Justice Department guidelines indicate that this is the kind of election law case that should be pursued by the Department, regardless of the Federal Election Commission's primary jurisdiction to investigate potential civil violations of the law.
Common Cause believes that massive violations have occurred during the 1996 presidential elections, the most massive violations of the campaign finance laws since the Watergate scandal. These violations involve tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions and expenditures.
Under these circumstances, an independent counsel is required to investigate these matters and to take appropriate action to hold responsible individuals and entities accountable for any violations that have occurred.
Set forth below is a review of the applicable statutes and the factual allegations requiring an investigation by an independent counsel.
The Independent Counsel Act, 28 U.S.C. 591 et seq., provides for the appointment of an independent counsel to conduct criminal investigations that involve any member of a specified class of individuals, including the President and Vice President, members of the Cabinet, high-ranking individuals in the Executive Office of the President, other high-level Executive Branch officials, and the chairman and treasurer of the principal national campaign committee seeking the election or reelection of the President and any officer of that committee exercising authority at the national level. 28 U.S.C. 591 (b)
The law also provides for the appointment of an independent counsel to conduct criminal investigations of any person where the Attorney General determines such investigation "may result in a personal, financial, or political confict of interest." 28 U.S.C. 591 (c)
Some of the matters raised in this letter involve the Clinton presidential campaign committee, whose national officers are "covered persons" within the meaning of section 591(b).
Other matters raised here are intimately related to the allegations about these "covered persons," and involve the Dole presidential campaign committee, the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee. Any investigation of these entities would plainly involve a "political conflict of interest" for you as Attorney General within the meaning of section 591(c). The allegations related to these entities should be examined as part of the investigation of the section 591(b) "covered persons" that must be referred to an independent counsel. As a result, all of the matters raised here should, under the Act, be referred to an independent counsel.
Accordingly, under sections 591(b) and 591(c), the investigation of this entire matter is governed by the independent counsel law.
The independent counsel law provides that whenever you receive "information sufficient to constitute grounds to investigate" whether any covered person, including a person covered by section 591(c), "may have violated any Federal criminal law," you have thirty days to determine if the information is sufficiently specific and from a sufficiently credible source to justify beginnning a "preliminary investigation." 28 U.S.C. 592(a), (d).
Under the law, if you determine that the information is specific and from a credible source, then you have ninety days to conduct a "preliminary investigation" for the purpose of determining whether "further investigation is warranted." 28 U.S.C. 592(a). If you conclude that there are "reasonable grounds to believe that further investigation is warranted," you must apply to the appropriate court for the appointment of an independent counsel. 28 U.S.C. 592(c)(1)(A).
Common Cause calls on you to fulfill your responsibilities under the Act by opening a preliminary investigation leading to the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate the matters discussed in this letter. The independent counsel should be responsible for conducting only this investigation. Given the statutory time frames, we recognize that any application to the court for appointment of an independent counsel may not be made until after the election on November 5.
If you would like to support the efforts of Common Cause, E-mail us at comcause@ccsi.com. Include your physical address and we'll send membership information.