We seem to spend a lot of time writing about Alaska on this blog.  The state's elected official provide plenty of fodder.  Again this year, Rep. Don Young, the state's sole member of the U.S. House, was named one of the most corrupt members of Congress.  There are ample reasons:

Rep. Don Young is an 18th-term member of the House of Representatives, representing Alaska at-large.  Rep. Young served as Chairman of the House Resources Committee from 1994 to 2000 and as the Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee from 2000-2006.  Currently, Rep. Young serves as the ranking member of the House Resources Committee.

Rep. Young’s ethics violations stem from the misuse of his position to benefit family and friends and from steering millions of dollars in earmarks to corporations in exchange for contributions to his campaign committee and political action committee, Midnight Sun PAC (MSPAC).  Rep. Young is currently under four separate federal investigations including an investigation into his role in securing a $10 million earmark for a road in Florida, assistance he offered to recently convicted VECO executive Bill Allen, his ties to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and his financial relationship with recently indicted businessman Dennis Troha.  Rep. Young was included in CREW’s 2007 congressional corruption report.

Earmarking Transportation Funds for a Campaign Donor
                                   
The Department of Justice is currently investigating whether Rep. Young earmarked $10 million dollars for a construction project in exchange for campaign donations.  In 2005, while in Florida to discuss upcoming transportation projects, Rep. Young attended a fundraiser held by Daniel Aronoff, a land developer who stood to gain financially from the passage of an Interstate 75 expansion.  The fundraiser brought in $40,000 for Rep. Young and Mr. Aranoff personally donated a total of $3,000 to Rep. Young’s campaign committee and PAC.  Shortly after his Florida trip, Rep. Young earmarked $10 million in the Fiscal Year 2006 transportation bill for I-75 improvements.

After the Lee County Metropolitan Planning Organization voted to block the interchange because it could threaten nearby wetlands, Rep. Young threatened to revoke the money entirely.

 In 2008, both the House and Senate voted to direct the DOJ to launch an investigation into the 2005 earmark that was inserted for the Coconut Road interchange.  After the calls for the inquiry, Rep. Young admitted that he sponsored the earmark and that his staff “corrected” the earmark before the bill went to the White House to be signed by the president.

Earmarking Transportation Funds for Bridges

In the 109th Congress, Rep. Young earmarked over $400 million dollars to Alaska for two bridges serving tiny populations of constituents.  Rep. Young’s daughter, Joni Young, and his son-in-law, Art Nelson, own land near one of the proposed bridges and stand to profit if the project is completed.

After negative press coverage and pressure from colleagues, Rep. Young agreed to release the obligation that the earmarked money be used for the specific bridges.  The funds were still given to Alaska, however, as part of the state’s general federal highway allotment fund from which legislators can still fund the bridge projects.

Association with VECO Corporation

Rep. Young is the subject of a criminal inquiry into whether he accepted bribes, illegal gratuities or unreported gifs from VECO corporation.  VECO President Peter Leathard has been quoted  saying his company works to elect politicians that back mineral exploration.  To that end, since 2002, VECO executives have donated $89,500 to the Rep. Young’s campaign committee and PAC. The corruption probe of VECO is ongoing and has led to the indictments of other Alaskan politicians including Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) who was indicted on seven counts of failing to disclose gifts from VECO and its CEO Bill Allen. 
               
Association with PBS&J

Rep. Young has received campaign contributions from employees of Florida based construction firm PBS&J.  The firm’s chairman pleaded guilty to violating federal campaign laws in July of 2007 after a federal investigation revealed that he was reimbursing PBS&J employees for making donations to favored candidates.  PBS&J had previously received a federal grant to conduct a study of the Rep. Young’s proposed bridges and in June 2006, prepared a cost estimate review study analyzing the construction planning.

Three PBS&J executives have been convicted for their part in a long-running scheme to circumvent campaign election laws.  In October 2007, the Federal Election Commission launched it’s own investigation into the illegal campaign contributions and use of political action committees by PBS&J.

Ties to Jack Abramoff

Rep. Young’s ties to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff are the subject of a grand jury investigation.  In September 2002, Rep. Young and Ohio Rep. Steve LaTourette sent a letter to the General Service Administration (GSA) urging it to “give preferential treatment to organizations such as Indian tribes” during the development of the Old Post Office Pavilion in Washington, D.C.  Mr. Abramoff was representing the tribes hoping to secure lease space in the building.  Just weeks after sending the letter to the GSA, Rep. Young’s PAC received $7,000 from Mr. Abramoff’s tribal clients and another $5,000 before the end of 2002.

Members of Rep. Young’s staff have also been linked to Mr. Abramoff. When Duane Gibson left his position as Rep. Young’s chief of staff to join Mr. Abramoff, he recommended that Mark Zachares be given a job with the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which Rep. Young chaired.  In April of 2007, Mr. Zachares pleaded guilty to bribery charges.  In his plea agreement, Mr. Zachares admitted that his intent was to use his position in the House Transportation Infrastructure Committee to steer clients toward Mr. Abramoff’s firm with the promise that eventually Mr. Abramoff would hire him.

After claiming that he had neither a personal nor a professional relationship with Mr. Abramoff,  it was discovered that in 2000, Rep. Young had used Mr. Abramoff’s MCI skybox tickets for two events, but failed to report them to the FEC until after the Abramoff scandal broke.

Records exposed in 2008 from two of Mr. Abramoff’s law firms show over 120 contacts with Rep. Young and his staff – including ten with Rep. Young himself – over a 25 month period.

Ties to Dennis Troha

In April of 2007, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Wisconsin opened an investigation into an alleged deal between Rep. Young and convicted Wisconsin businessman Dennis Troha.  In the 2005 transportation bill, Rep. Young inserted a controversial item that benefitted Mr. Troha’s trucking company.  Months before the legislation became law, Rep. Young received $22,000 from Mr. Troha, his family members, JHT executives and their spouses.

In March of 2008, Mr. Troha was sentenced to probation for making illegal political donations.

Legal Fees

Rep. Young continues to pay legal fees in connection with several ongoing investigations.  Since July of 2007, Rep. Young’s campaign committee has paid $993,655.28 in legal fees.  In January of 2008, Rep. Young opened a legal defense fund.  By July 2008, his defense fund had paid $49,415.25 in legal fees.               

As noted below, today, CREW released our report, CREW's Most Corrupt, which names the 20 most corrupt members of Congress -- and four to watch.  

We'll be doing individual profiles on each of the named members, but two of them had front page stories in today's Anchorage Daily News:  Senator Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young.

First, Senator Ted Stevens:

An attorney defending U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens against federal charges argued Tuesday that the government's failure to provide an advance look at evidence risks jeopardizing the fast-approaching trial.

In a motion to compel the government to turn over the material, Robert Cary accused prosecutors of "dilatory tactics" that could jeopardize Stevens' right to a fair trial.

But the government, which is prosecuting Stevens in Washington, D.C., on seven counts of filing false annual financial disclosures, dismissed the defense claims as being "without merit."

 Then, Rep. Don Young:

There are still some votes to count -- and maybe a recount after that -- but Rep. Don Young called a press conference Tuesday and said he expects to be the Republican on the U.S. House ballot when the Nov. 4 general election rolls around.

Young said he had not talked to Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell and doesn't expect to at least until the last absentee ballots from overseas are counted.

Yesterday was primary day in Alaska.

The incumbent Senator, Ted Stevens, and the incumbent House member, Don Young, are both enmeshed in public corruption scandals.  Both were listed in CREW's report, Beyond DeLay, as among the 22 most corrupt members of Congress

Stevens won his primary.

As of this morning, Young's race couldn't be called -- it's too close.

The Anchorage Daily News is monitoring results.

Probably a good thing for Rep. Don Young that he can use his campaign funds to pay his legal bills.  His legal defense fund hasn't proven all that lucrative:

The majority of the $54,000 Young received in the fund came from fishing and construction companies based in Alaska or the state of Washington.

Former Rep. Billy Evans (D-Ga.) and his wife, Renetta, wrote a $2,000 check, as did William Corbus, the former state revenue commissioner under then-Gov. Frank Murkowski (R).

The companies that gave include: Trident Seafoods Corporation, Seattle-based Aleutian Spray Fisheries, as well as one of its subsidiaries, Starbound, LLCBering Pacific Services Company, Boyer Towing Inc., Cruz Construction Inc., Osborne Construction Company and Tatonduk Outfitters Limited.

 

Another prominent Alaska public official was indicted yesterday.  Alaska has been a hot bed of corruption and federal investigations, which is why the Anchorage Daily News wonders who is next?

The indictment of state Sen. John Cowdery culminates another investigation of a public official targeted in federal raids, subpoenas and wiretaps in Alaska over the last two years.

But what of the far more powerful and prominent elected officials also in the sights of the FBI, IRS and other federal agencies, men like U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens, his son Ben, and U.S. Rep. Don Young?

Ben Stevens, the former Alaska Senate president, was probably the best known among those whose legislative offices were searched in a series of raids on Aug. 31, 2006. Nearly a year later, the FBI and IRS searched Ted Stevens' home in Girdwood, in part to document an extensive addition built by Veco Corp. employees and contractors. Young is also under investigation for his ties to Veco and for an earmark he sponsored for a Florida highway interchange sought by a key campaign contributor.

Ben and Ted Stevens and Young say they have done nothing wrong, and federal prosecutors and agents won't say where their investigations are going or when they might get there.

Alaska's only congressman, Don Young, has been facing numerous ethical scandals for which he is currently facing a federal investigation.   CREW named him one of the most corrupt members of Congress.  Not only using campaign funds to pay his own legal funds, Rep. Don Young is also paying the legal fees of a top staffer:

With an election-year corruption investigation looming, U.S. Rep. Don Young has tapped his campaign war chest to pay not only his own million-dollar legal tab but also to hire lawyers for his campaign manager, who is also under FBI scrutiny.

The Alaska Republican spent more than $35,000 between October and April on lawyers for longtime campaign manager Steven Dougherty. That's more than Dougherty made during that period and nearly as much as the campaign spent on political polling, according to campaign finance reports.

 

The payments, which are legal under federal law as long as they are associated with the candidate's official duties, are another indication of how the FBI investigation has become a drag on the congressman. Instead of coasting to a 19th term, Young is shelling out money to pay his bills and Dougherty's even as he faces a well-funded opponent in August's Republican primary.

 

"With respect to people who have served him and been loyal to him and who have served Alaska, he's been loyal back," said Young's campaign spokesman, Mike Anderson.

There are only two incumbent federal candidates on the ballot in Alaska.  Both are facing primary and general election challenges.  As the Anchorage Daily News reports, both are also facing the possibility of criminal indictments:

Campaigning under the cloud of federal investigations is tough enough, but could Sen. Ted Stevens or Rep. Don Young have the added worries of an indictment before they face the voters? Would prosecutors wait until after the election to bring charges to avoid the appearance of meddling in Alaska politics?

It's been 21 months since the federal corruption investigation surfaced in Alaska with a series of dramatic raids on legislative and other offices. Eight cases have been brought, resulting in convictions in all but one -- and that matter is still pending.

No one outside the government is privy to where the investigation is headed and whether it will eventually lead to charges against Stevens and Young, who deny wrongdoing but who won't discuss specifics about the allegations.

It remains especially difficult to charge members of Congress for matters related to legislation. The Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause offers a broad shield against interference by the Justice Department and other agencies of the executive branch into how a congressman might have created, for example, an earmark that benefited a campaign contributor, family member or former aide -- matters that are part of the investigations of Young and Stevens.

Today's Anchorage Daily News provides an update of the ongoing public corruption investigations involving key figures from Alaska:

• Veco's relationship with state legislators. During trials, the Veco executives described bribing or otherwise exerting improper influence over several officials. Among them: former Senate President Ben Stevens, whom Veco officials admitted paying more than $240,000 in phony consulting contracts to act on the company's behalf in the Legislature.

• U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens. FBI and IRS agents performed an extensive search of Stevens' Girdwood home in July, and ex-Veco CEO Bill Allen testified in former Rep. Pete Kott's trial that company employees oversaw and provided labor for an extensive remodeling there. The government is also investigating some of his legislation that benefited his son or former staff members.

• U.S. Rep. Don Young. In Alaska, Young has been reported to be under scrutiny for ties to Veco and others over his use of earmarks. Veco executives are his largest group of political donors. One of Young's top aides pleaded guilty last year in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, which is still being investigated. And last week, Congress asked the Justice Department to investigate one of Don Young's earmarks, $10 million for an interchange in Florida that would benefit one of his campaign donors. Young has reported spending more than $1 million in campaign funds for legal fees since last year as the investigations of his actions mount.

• Fisheries. A number of companies involved with the North Pacific fishing industry received subpoenas from federal investigators asking about their dealings with Ben Stevens (who worked as a consultant in the industry), his ex-partner Trevor McCabe (an ex-aide to Sen. Ted Stevens), the Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board (created by Ted Stevens to award federal grants earmarked by Stevens for the industry and chaired for a time by Ben). CIRI, the regional Alaska Native corporation in Anchorage that once had Ben Stevens as a consultant, was also subpoenaed in the investigation, though its officials declined to say what evidence was sought.

The Anchorage Daily News has a lot of questions for Rep. Don Young.  But, like the rest of us, the paper isn't getting any answers.  Today, the ADN called on Congress to investigate the Coconut Road earmark, too: 

Let Justice proceed -- and let's have Congress take its own hard look, with subpoena power and little delay.

And, there's more:

WHY $1.1 MILLION FOR LAWYERS?

Alaskans still have reason to wonder why Rep. Young has spent $1.1 million on lawyers.

Let's be clear -- Rep. Young has not been charged with any wrongdoing, has not been indicted for anything. But a majority of his colleagues voted to investigate him. The suspicion, naturally, is that there's more than what Rep. Young called "innuendo" to investigate.

Rep. Young took the floor of the House last week and declared his innocence. That doesn't settle the matter.

Last month we argued for one investigation or the other, as long as it cleared the air. Let's be sure. Both Congress and Justice should investigate -- the sooner the better.

BOTTOM LINE: Both Congress and the Justice Department should take a hard look at the Coconut Road deal.

Today's media coverage on the House vote for an investigation of the "Coconut Road" earmark address the concerns raised by CREW after the Senate and House votes.  The reality is the investigation by the Department of Justice won't proceed -- and the rather important document called Constitution of the United States is one of the biggest roadblocks:

But critics contend that House members may be so open to an investigation precisely because they know it won’t go anywhere. “It’s laughable,” said Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “They want the headlines, so they’re going to do this. But it’s an absolute farce.”

Stanley Brand, a former general counsel for the House, said the barriers to investigation and prosecution — especially in the Coconut Road case — arise straight from the Constitution. “The Speech or Debate Clause would prevent Justice from questioning lawmakers about what happened on the House floor or outside in the enrollment process,” he told Politico this week. “That’s the essential nature of the crime, or the alleged crime.”

“There’s nothing outside the scope of the clause,” Brand added. “I don’t know what they’re doing.”