Many who find their names on a
Perhaps that’s why U.S. Rep. Steve Pearce and his staff have so badly botched the response to allegations the group made against the GOP congressman from
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington alleges that Pearce failed to report his sale of 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.
The group also alleges that the congressman may have advocated for drilling on the Otero Mesa in exchange for campaign contributions from those with ties to oil companies.
The allegations landed Pearce last week on CREW’s list of the 22 most corrupt members of Congress. It’s the third year the group has compiled such a list. As reported in The Hill, of the 25 members of Congress the group listed last year, 10 are no longer in Congress and eight others are under federal investigation.
The second allegation made against Pearce, related to the Otero Mesa, was easy to answer, and Pearce did it in a news release sent Friday. Pearce wasn’t even in Congress when the Bureau of Land Management decided to support drilling there. Some of his biggest financial backers stand to gain from drilling on Otero Mesa, but, at worst, that creates an appearance of impropriety. It’s not proof of actual impropriety.
But Pearce’s response to the first allegation has only helped arouse suspicion. On the day CREW’s list was released, Pearce’s only response was to call the allegations lies. His staff promised a more in-depth response by Friday that would include supporting documents. That never happened, and Pearce instead put out the release again calling the allegations lies.
He did say in that release that their falsehood could be demonstrated and that he had double-checked with House staffers who keep an eye on this sort of thing. But his office has refused, repeatedly, to explain why the allegations are false. Instead, he tried to turn the attention on CREW, calling the group partisan and saying it is out to get him because he’s a Republican. He provided no evidence to support that allegation. (If you want more detail on Pearce’s response, click here.)
CREW has its own baggage
I’ve learned by spending some time on the Internet that CREW is staffed largely by Democrats. Its director is a former assistant
CREW also has some baggage in its past. The Hill slammed the group in a March 2005 editorial for refusing to disclose who sits on its board of directors. The other eight groups that made up the Congressional Ethics Coalition had released such lists.
“CREW’s secrecy is hypocritical,” The Hill wrote. “… CREW repeatedly demands greater disclosure by political players. … If CREW wants clean politics in
The Hill went on in the editorial to point this out: “In the overwhelming majority of complaints and critiques detailed in news releases posted on CREW’s website, Republicans or their allies are the targets.”
There is some truth there. Of the 22 members of Congress who made CREW’s list this year, 18 are Republicans. Those 10 from last year’s list who are no longer in Congress are all Republicans.
But such criticism is not entirely fair. As Carter Bundy pointed out last week on this site, CREW’s study of nepotism in Congress listed 41 Democrats and 55 Republicans. And, regardless of the fact that they are Republicans, few would argue that those who left Congress amid scandal last year were unfairly targeted.
Not the way to head into an election year
The point? Pearce says the explanation for why his financial report is accurate is simple, but he refuses to provide it. He instead makes allegations he doesn’t substantiate against CREW. I’ve provided evidence about CREW’s ties to Democrats that Pearce could have used, but he did not.
CREW, meanwhile, has provided a detailed explanation and supporting documentation to back up its allegations.
It appears that Pearce is trying to say as little as possible in the hopes this will go away. We’re heading into an election year and Pearce has already drawn two challengers and the eyes of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, so I’m betting the allegations will stick around. In addition to being covered by this site, the situation has also been reported in the Alamogordo Daily News and Santa Fe New Mexican.
And the allegations, true or not, are important. We’re talking about a multi-million dollar transaction that gave Pearce a great deal of stock in an oil company that does quite a bit of business in his district, and the fact that he owns the stock doesn’t appear anywhere on his financial disclosure reports. Why?
Why won’t Pearce explain this, especially given his assertion that the explanation is simple? His failure to do so only fans the flames of suspicion. With Congress’ approval rating in the teens, that’s not the way to head into an election year.
Pearce needs to fully explain the situation.
Special disclosure: As reported in this site’s ethical guidelines, I am friends with one of Pearce’s 2008 challengers. Click here to learn more.