By Susan Crabtree, The Hill, January 24, 2006

25 Jan 2006 // Before the lobbying scandal hit Washington and GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff was still one of the town’s most influential powerbrokers, it may have seemed like a normal, even run-of-the mill personal Washington event.

Abramoff, who recently pleaded guilty to fraud, bribery and tax evasion, helped host a baby shower for Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) and his wife in December 2003. The Rohrabachers were expecting triplets and feeling the pinch of the prevailing congressional salary of $154,700 at the time while maintaining homes in D.C. and the lawmaker’s pricey Southern California coastal district.

Abramoff’s and his wife’s names appeared on the invitation, with Reps. George Radanovich (R-Calif.) and Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) and their wives. The names of former Rep. David McIntosh (R-Ind.), who left Congress in 2001 and became a lobbyist at Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, also were listed as hosts.

The lobbyist, who had been friends with Rohrabacher since the early 1980s when the future lawmaker was a White House speechwriter and Abramoff was chairman of the College Republicans, allowed the couple to use his restaurant, Signatures, between lunch and dinner for the shower. Only hors d’oeuvres were served, Rohrabacher disclosed in a Los Angeles Times article two weeks ago.

In the same article, Rohrabacher called Abramoff a close friend of 20 years and a “good person who’s done bad things and has to be punished for doing bad things.”

The article did not mention that guests at the shower contributed to a fund for nanny service provided by After the Stork, a 24-hour child-care service based in the district.

Since Abramoff’s plea agreement went public, House Republicans have been scrambling to reform rules governing congressional ethics, lobbying and gifts to lawmakers.

Rohrabacher did nothing wrong under current rules, but ethics experts say that in the new atmosphere of reform Congress may want to rethink whether the rules governing gifts at personal events such as weddings and showers are strict enough.

Rohrabacher spokeswoman Rebecca Rudman estimates that fewer than 25 people attended the shower and that gifts to the fund amounted to roughly $3,000. She noted that After the Stork charges $250 a day for 24-hour nanny care for triplets.

The guests, Rudman said, were members of Congress, staffers and former staffers who were close friends of the Rohrabachers. She said she did not know whether any guests, other than Abramoff and McIntosh, were registered lobbyists or who contributed to the nanny fund.

At the time, Abramoff was representing several Indian tribes, whom he allegedly bilked out of more than $65 million. He, his wife and several tribal clients have donated $12,500 in political contributions to Rohrabacher since 1999, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

In 2003, McIntosh’s lobbying clients included the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Pfizer, Verizon and the Coalition for Tax Fairness, among others.

When Rudman asked Rohrabacher whether Abramoff had contributed to the event, she said he couldn’t remember.

“He didn’t give any more than anyone else did,” she said.

She also said Abramoff did not play a role in collecting checks for the fund or organizing the event. When asked what they would like as shower gifts, Rohrabacher and his wife came up with the idea of setting up a nanny-service fund. The invitation makes no mention of the fund, saying only: “For RSVP and for gift suggestions, contact [Rohrabacher staffer] Phaedra Dugan.”

“Dana and Rhonda knew they were going to need help when the triplets came,” Rudman said. “He invited friends [to the shower], but he didn’t record their professions when they walked in the door. It was a small event with close friends.”

Radanovich spokesman Mike Lukens said his boss remembers giving $200 to the nanny fund. When asked if the shower organizers could put his name on the invitation, Radanovich readily agreed but Lukens said Radanovich didn’t know that Abramoff would also be listed as a host.

The $3,000 gift does not appear on Rohrabacher’s annual personal financial disclosure documents because the congressman asked the House ethics committee to waive that disclosure requirement after it had granted him a waiver to accept shower gifts.

The committee, known officially as the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, does not make public initial requests for waivers from the gift rule and does not discuss any waivers it grants, according to a panel staffer, so there is no way to tell if Rohrabacher told the committee he was setting up a nanny-service fund in lieu of self-selected shower gifts.

The committee, however, does make public its response to requests to waive the disclosure of gifts received in connection with a shower or gift. Rohrabacher’s office filed the request, and the committee granted it in a letter dated Dec. 3, 2003.

The letters are supposed to be kept on file at the House Legislative Resource Center, where the public can look them up. In this case, the letter is missing, but Rohrabacher’s office provided a copy to The Hill.

The gift rule bars lawmakers from receiving gifts of more than $50 in value and more than $100 from any one person during a single year. But waivers are routinely granted for wedding and baby gifts, according to GOP ethics lawyer Jan Baran.

The rules on wedding and baby gifts warn recipients “to exercise caution in accepting any gift that likely would not have been offered but for the individual’s official position.

“As to any such gift, the individual should consider its source, nature and value, and any possible conflict with official duties.”

In this case, Baran said, Rohrabacher satisfied the ethics rules requirements.

“Waivers are granted on a fairly regular basis because there are baby showers and weddings,” he said. “There’s nothing to prevent the value of the gift from being several hundred dollars. There’s nothing to prevent it from being several thousand dollars.”

Whether the rules makes sense is another question, he said.

“Maybe there ought to be fewer exceptions granted,” he said. “Perhaps it should be reexamined in the course of Congress reexamining all the ethics rules.”

Larry Noble, who heads the watchdog group the Center for Responsive Politics, argued that whether a waiver should be granted in this case should depend on who attended the event and gave the gifts and whether they had any business before Congress. But accepting gifts, especially cash, should be avoided.

“I think you have to accept that, when you’re a public official, certain relationships that in other contexts may be just close personal friends may require more caution,” he said. “When you have lobbyists giving you cash, regardless of the reason, it doesn’t look good.”