Pearce refuses to explain why group’s claim is false

U.S. Rep. Steve Pearce, R-N.M., is still refusing to explain why a watchdog group’s accusation that he failed to report a financial transaction he was required to disclose is false.

Pearce spokesman Brian Phillips said Thursday the office was preparing a news release “with accompanying documents” in response to the allegations made earlier this week by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

Today, Phillips put out the release, without any “accompanying documents.” The release accused CREW of being an “extreme leftist” group whose motive in publishing false allegations is “to tarnish Republicans and suppress the vote in 2008.” But the release failed to back up that claim or explain why CREW’s allegation is wrong.

I made another request for an explanation after I read the release. Phillips refused.

Pearce’s news release did respond to the group’s second allegation – that the congressman may have advocated for drilling on the Otero Mesa in exchange for campaign contributions from those with ties to oil companies. CREW tied that allegation in part to its assertion that the Bureau of Land Management changed its position on drilling in 2000. Pearce noted he wasn’t elected until 2002.

“In addition, the BLM disputes the claim that they changed their position in 2000,” Pearce’s release states. “Mr. Pearce’s office has received communication from the BLM stating they, in fact, never opposed drilling in Otero Mesa. … Oddly, the group’s own press release acknowledges Pearce has been ‘consistent’ on his position.”

Pearce says explanation is simple, doesn’t provide it

But the group’s first allegation, made Tuesday when CREW released its list of the 22 most corrupt members of Congress, is that Pearce failed to report on a public financial disclosure form the fact that he sold the assets of Lea Fishing Tools, Inc. to Key Energy Services for more than 540,000 shares of stock in 2003. The group says Pearce was required to report the sale and his failure to do so likely violated the Ethics in Government Act.

Pearce’s disclosure form indicates that, between 2002 and 2003, Lea Fishing Tools changed its name to Trinity Industries, and indicates that the company’s value increased. In 2002, it was reported at between $1 million and $5 million. In 2003, it was reported at between $5 million and $25 million. But the report does not indicate that Pearce owns Key Energy Services stock or that he sold the assets of Lea Fishing Tools.

Phillips characterized the allegation on Tuesday as “outright lies,” but refused to elaborate. After several requests, he promised the news release that was sent today. The only direct response to the allegation in the release was this:

“These claims are utterly and demonstrably false,” Pearce said. “We’ve checked the law, we’ve reviewed the forms, and I am confident the law was followed. To double check, I have sent a letter to the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to confirm my financial disclosure statements. If a mistake was made on the disclosure form, I would act to clear it up immediately.”

I e-mailed Phillips to seek further explanation and to ask whether the House committee has checked and found no fault in Pearce’s disclosure statements. Phillips didn’t answer the second question. He responded to the first by suggesting I read the rules on financial disclosure and said they are “fairly straight-forward.”

I have read the rules, and here’s what I found: All transactions that exceed $1,000, in real property or stocks and other forms of securities, must be reported on the forms, except for purchases or sales of properties that are to be used solely as personal residences, transactions between the member of Congress and a spouse or dependent child, bequests and inheritances, stock splits, the opening and closing of accounts, deposits to and withdrawals from such accounts, the purchase or sale of certificates of deposit and contributions to retirement plans.

If there’s a “straight-forward” answer in there that backs up Pearce’s claim, somebody explain it to me.

CREW has provided documents, explained position

In the meantime, I’ll point this out: CREW’s director, a former assistant U.S. attorney, has talked with me about the disclosure forms and the allegations against Pearce. Her group has explained where it believes the transaction should appear on a specific form and pointed out that it does not appear there or anywhere else on the form. The group provided a detailed report and supporting evidence to back up its allegations.

Pearce has responded by saying the group is lying but not explaining why he’s right. Instead, he made his own allegation:

“Their real objective is to tarnish Republicans and suppress the vote in 2008,” Pearce said. “New Mexico is going to be an important state in the presidential election. If they can get Republicans to stay home by repeating absurd charges about me, then they won’t be there to vote against Hillary or whoever wins the nomination.”

Pearce didn’t provide any evidence in the release to back up those allegations against CREW. If Pearce is correct that CREW’s allegations are demonstrably false, he could have put an end to this by providing the “straight-forward” explanation his spokesman says exists.

Comments are closed.