Legal Filings

Legal Filings

CREW Requests Investigation of Rep. Curt Weldon

CREW requested that the Department of Justice's Public Integrity Section investigate whether Pennsylvania Congressman Curt Weldon violated federal bribery law by using his public office to benefit companies that hired his daughter as a lobbyist.

The letter read as follows:

April 7, 2004

John Ashcroft
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Re: Request for Investigation of Cong. Curt Weldon

Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington requests that you have the Department's Public Integrity Section investigate whether Pennsylvania Congressman Curt Weldon violated federal bribery law by using his public office to benefit companies that hired his daughter as a lobbyist.

Karen Weldon lobbies extensively for foreign companies on behalf of which Congressman Weldon has used his position to assist. A lengthy Los Angeles Times article detailed the relationship between Mr. Weldon and clients of his daughter's lobbying firm, Solutions North America, Inc. Ken Silverstein, Chuck Neubauer, Richard Cooper, Lucrative Deals for a Daughter of Politics; Karen Weldon whose dad is a Pennsylvania congressmen is a lobbyist for three foreign clients who need his help, and get it, Los Angeles Times, February 20, 2004 (attached as Exhibit A). Mr. Weldon's involvement with three of Ms. Weldon's clients stand out:

1. Ms. Weldon won a $240,000 a year contract with two Serbian brothers after Mr. Weldon urged the State Department to reverse its denial of visas for the brothers who have been linked to Slobodan Milosevic;
2. Ms. Weldon has a $20,000 month plus 10% of any new business generated contract with a Russian aerospace manufacturer on behalf of which Mr. Weldon urged the Navy to purchase the company's flying drone. The Navy has since signed a letter of intent to invest in the company's technology and Mr. Weldon has been working to find funding for the project; and
3. Mr. Weldon co-hosted and arranged for 30 congressmen to attend a September 24, 2002 dinner for a Russian natural gas company whose interests Mr. Weldon had been championing. Less than a week after the dinner, the gas company signed a $500,000 a year contract with Solutions, which called upon the firm to create "good public relations" for the company.

As you know, the bribery statute specifically prohibits public officials from accepting anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act. 18 U.S.C. §201(b)(2)(A).

Mr. Weldon's activities on behalf of his daughter's clients both shortly before and shortly after Ms. Weldon won contracts from those clients appear to violate the bribery laws. The clear inference to be drawn is that Karen Weldon was highly compensated in return for her father's official assistance.

In United States v. Biaggi, 853 F.2d 89 (2d Cir. 1989) cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1052, 109 S.Ct. 1312 (1989), former New York Congressman Mario Biaggi was convicted of accepting bribes in violation of section 201 after he and his girlfriend took several trips paid for by Coastal Dry Dock and Repair Company ("Coastal"), which the Congressman had been assisting. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals found that Mr. Biaggi's activities: writing letters on behalf of Coastal using official congressional and committee stationary; assigning his administrative assistant, the top aide in his office, to handle issues related to the company; and offering to sit in on meetings between the Mayor of New York and the Navy with respect to issues affecting the company all constituted official action. 853 F.2d at 98.

After determining that the Congressman had taken official action to assist Coastal, the Court considered whether the vacations given to and accepted by the Congressman and his girlfriend and paid for by Coastal constituted payment for the Congressman's official assistance. The Court was particularly struck by the timing between the vacations and Mr. Biaggi's assistance to Coastal. Shortly after one of the vacations paid for by Coastal, the Congressman called the Deputy Mayor and sent a follow up letter to the Mayor seeking assistance for the company. Within a few months of a second vacation, the Congressman offered to attend a meeting between the company and the Navy to demonstrate congressional concern. Id.

Concluding that the vacations, valued at thousands of dollars, did in fact constitute something of value given in return for official acts, the Court upheld the bribery conviction. Id. at 100.

The Second Circuit's consideration of the timing between Mr. Biaggi's assistance to Coastal and the vacations paid for by the company is instructive here. While Mr. Weldon was working to obtain visas for the wealthy Serbian brothers, he introduced the brothers to his daughter, who shortly thereafter, won a consulting contract for $240,000 a year from them. Similarly, shortly after the aerospace manufacturer hired Ms. Weldon's firm for $20,000 a month, Congressman Weldon began lobbying the Navy to do business with the company. Finally, the gas company agreed to pay Mr. Weldon's daughter $500,000 per year to "create good public relations" shortly before Congressman Weldon co-hosted and persuaded 30 congressional colleagues to attend a dinner sponsored by the company. Notably, the gas company told Ms. Weldon that it would complete the terms of her contract at the dinner. Silverstein et. al., Lucrative Deals.

In light of the suspicious timing between Congressman Weldon's official assistance and the award of lucrative contracts to his daughter, CREW respectfully suggests that a grand jury investigation into whether Mr. Weldon violated the bribery laws is appropriate. The citizens of the United States need to be assured that Members of Congress are not above the law. We look forward to your prompt response.

Sincerely,

Melanie Sloan
Executive Director
Citizens for Responsibility and
Ethics in Washington

encl.

cc: Noel Hillman, Chief, Public Integrity Section