Senator Landrieu's hometown paper ran an article about CREW's complaints filed yesterday with the Department of Justice and Senate Ethics Committee. (The complaints can be found here.) The New Orleans Times-Picayune covered our complaints -- and Landrieu's denials:

An ethics watchdog group Tuesday asked the Justice Department and Senate Ethics Committee to investigate whether Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., violated federal bribery laws in getting a $2 million earmark for a reading program whose executives and lobbyists donated to her 2002 re-election campaign.

The money was earmarked for a Washington, D.C., public schools reading program operated by Voyager Expanded Learning, a Dallas company then headed by Randy Best.

The request for investigations came from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington via letters to the Senate Ethics Committee, the Department of Justice and the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana and the Northern District of Texas.

"Sen. Landrieu appears to have traded a $2 million earmark for $30,000 in campaign contributions," said Melanie Sloan, the group's executive director. "It was a win-win situation for Best and Sen. Landrieu, but a lose-lose for the taxpayers and D.C. schoolchildren."

Officials at the Justice Department and Senate Ethics Committee declined to comment.

Today, CREW sent a complaint to the Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District for Louisiana and the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas, asking for an investigation into whether Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) violated federal bribery law by including a $2 million earmark for Voyager Expanded Learning in a bill a mere four days after receiving $30,000 in campaign contributions from company executives and their relatives. CREW also asked the Senate Ethics Committee to investigate the matter.   Both complaints can be found here.

Randy Best, a top Republican donor and Bush pioneer, founded Voyager, an educational products company and rather than selling the company’s reading program to school districts, hired lobbyists to obtain earmarks for it. Although the House had appropriated $1 million for his program for the D.C. public schools, Best still needed a Senate sponsor. A lobbyist arranged a meeting with Sen. Landrieu, the chair of the Appropriations subcommittee responsible for the District of Columbia, to press for an earmark. Shortly after Sen. Landrieu met with Best, a member of Sen. Landrieu’s staff asked him to hold a fundraiser for her and he agreed. After the fundraiser, she received $30,000 in campaign contributions from individuals associated with the company -- donors who had never before contributed to her. Four days after she received the money, she inserted an earmark into a D.C. appropriations bill, giving D.C. schools $2 million to buy Best’s reading program, which was unproven and had not been requested by the school system.

Federal law prohibits public officials from directly or indirectly demanding, seeking, receiving, accepting, or agreeing to receive or accept anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act. Accepting a contribution to a political campaign can constitute a bribe if a quid pro quo can be demonstrated.

Given that Sen. Landrieu asked Best to hold a fundraiser for her, which he did, and then inserted the Voyager earmark only four days after receiving contributions from individuals connected with the company, it certainly appears she traded the earmark for the contributions in violation of federal criminal law. Sen. Landrieu also may have violated the Senate rule prohibiting “improper conduct which reflects upon the Senate.”

After sending the complaints, Melanie Sloan said:

Senator Landrieu appears to have traded a $2 million earmark for $30,000 in campaign contributions. It was a win-win situation for Best and Senator Landrieu, but a lose-lose for the taxpayers and D.C. school children.” Sloan continued, “the Department of Justice and the Senate Ethics Committee should look into this matter immediately. Members of Congress need to understand that trading earmarks for campaign funds is illegal -- no exceptions.