WEBVTT - NJ Representatives Under Fire after Campaign Note (Audio)

0:00:00.080 --> 0:00:03.720
<v Speaker 1>In many ways. The fundraising letter from Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen

0:00:03.960 --> 0:00:07.000
<v Speaker 1>was typical the New Jersey Republican asked for money, of course,

0:00:07.360 --> 0:00:10.200
<v Speaker 1>he also claimed that organized forces were working to thwart

0:00:10.280 --> 0:00:13.200
<v Speaker 1>the conservative agenda. But when he sent the letter to

0:00:13.200 --> 0:00:15.480
<v Speaker 1>a board member at a local bank, farreling Hysen did

0:00:15.520 --> 0:00:19.320
<v Speaker 1>something unusual. Ps He hand wrote at the bottom, one

0:00:19.320 --> 0:00:22.439
<v Speaker 1>of the ringleaders works at your bank. That was a

0:00:22.480 --> 0:00:26.600
<v Speaker 1>reference to Saley av Linda, a senior vice president who's

0:00:26.600 --> 0:00:29.120
<v Speaker 1>active in a group that was pressuring Frelinghuysen to hold

0:00:29.120 --> 0:00:32.440
<v Speaker 1>town hall meetings. Avalenda has since resigned, and she told

0:00:32.440 --> 0:00:35.360
<v Speaker 1>The Washington Post the letter was an attempt to intimidate her.

0:00:35.760 --> 0:00:39.400
<v Speaker 1>The story was first reported by w NYC. With us

0:00:39.440 --> 0:00:41.960
<v Speaker 1>to talk about the letter is Brendan Fisher. He is

0:00:41.960 --> 0:00:44.640
<v Speaker 1>a lawyer at the Campaign Legal Center. We reached out

0:00:44.680 --> 0:00:48.880
<v Speaker 1>to Congressman Frelinghuysen's office to invite the representative onto the show,

0:00:48.920 --> 0:00:51.440
<v Speaker 1>but they have not responded to us. Brendan, thanks for

0:00:51.640 --> 0:00:54.880
<v Speaker 1>joining us tell us. Does it seem as though Congressman

0:00:54.880 --> 0:00:59.400
<v Speaker 1>Frelinghuysen might have crossed some ethical and legal lines here? Well,

0:00:59.400 --> 0:01:01.480
<v Speaker 1>I think you can certainly say that he crossed some

0:01:01.520 --> 0:01:05.600
<v Speaker 1>ethical lines. Um. It's not clear whether he necessarily violated

0:01:05.640 --> 0:01:08.240
<v Speaker 1>a specific ethics law, but that doesn't mean that this

0:01:08.720 --> 0:01:11.760
<v Speaker 1>activity was at all ethical. UM. I think this might

0:01:11.760 --> 0:01:15.560
<v Speaker 1>be in the category of perhaps lawful, but but certainly awful.

0:01:16.760 --> 0:01:21.760
<v Speaker 1>What in these fundraising letters? What is normally the the

0:01:21.760 --> 0:01:24.760
<v Speaker 1>the thrust of them? I mean, is there a hard

0:01:24.800 --> 0:01:27.560
<v Speaker 1>push to get money in in some way? A Are

0:01:27.600 --> 0:01:32.440
<v Speaker 1>they normally more general than this? Um? I think, I

0:01:32.480 --> 0:01:35.520
<v Speaker 1>mean you'll certainly see a broad range of a fundraising

0:01:35.560 --> 0:01:39.200
<v Speaker 1>letters and the content of fundraising letters. UM. And I

0:01:39.200 --> 0:01:41.120
<v Speaker 1>think there's there's two ways of there's two ways of

0:01:41.200 --> 0:01:43.960
<v Speaker 1>viewing what the what the ask was here, what the

0:01:44.040 --> 0:01:47.600
<v Speaker 1>suggestion was here with this handwritten note. One was that

0:01:48.400 --> 0:01:51.120
<v Speaker 1>it was a way of the representatives suggesting to the

0:01:51.160 --> 0:01:55.240
<v Speaker 1>banker that, uh, he should fire this employee for their

0:01:55.240 --> 0:01:58.160
<v Speaker 1>political activity, which does implicate some some ethic clause which

0:01:58.160 --> 0:01:59.800
<v Speaker 1>we can get into. But then the other the other

0:01:59.880 --> 0:02:03.640
<v Speaker 1>is that it was a way of the representatives suggesting

0:02:03.640 --> 0:02:06.120
<v Speaker 1>to the banker that that you're on my naughty list. Um,

0:02:06.160 --> 0:02:08.120
<v Speaker 1>if you want to stay in my good graces, you'll

0:02:08.120 --> 0:02:10.040
<v Speaker 1>give me you'll give me more money for my for

0:02:10.160 --> 0:02:13.880
<v Speaker 1>my campaign. And this goes to the what might be

0:02:13.919 --> 0:02:18.480
<v Speaker 1>described as the bribery versus extortion theories of money in politics.

0:02:18.560 --> 0:02:21.840
<v Speaker 1>One is that under the bribery theory, donors would give

0:02:21.840 --> 0:02:24.760
<v Speaker 1>the candidates because they want something in return. And then

0:02:24.760 --> 0:02:27.959
<v Speaker 1>there's also the extortion theory that candidates shakedown donors for

0:02:28.040 --> 0:02:30.679
<v Speaker 1>money with the threat of some sort of negative action

0:02:30.720 --> 0:02:33.200
<v Speaker 1>if they don't give um. And this sounds a little

0:02:33.200 --> 0:02:35.480
<v Speaker 1>bit closer to the to the latter theory. Um the

0:02:35.560 --> 0:02:40.240
<v Speaker 1>representatives suggesting that you are you're you're on my naughty list,

0:02:40.280 --> 0:02:42.799
<v Speaker 1>you're not in my good graces. One way that you

0:02:42.840 --> 0:02:45.720
<v Speaker 1>can uh, one way that you can curry favor with

0:02:45.760 --> 0:02:48.160
<v Speaker 1>me and get back on my on my nice list

0:02:48.280 --> 0:02:50.480
<v Speaker 1>is by is by giving me money. And it appears

0:02:50.480 --> 0:02:53.880
<v Speaker 1>that that is actually what happened here. So this woman's

0:02:53.880 --> 0:02:57.520
<v Speaker 1>saiy of a Linda wasn't, as I understand it, kind

0:02:57.560 --> 0:03:00.000
<v Speaker 1>of a household name in the eleventh District of New Jersey.

0:03:01.120 --> 0:03:04.239
<v Speaker 1>What what if do we know about how the congressman

0:03:04.520 --> 0:03:07.560
<v Speaker 1>might have made the connection between her as as an

0:03:07.560 --> 0:03:10.359
<v Speaker 1>activist and this this bank that he was listening money from,

0:03:10.400 --> 0:03:13.440
<v Speaker 1>or at least from a from a board member. I

0:03:13.520 --> 0:03:15.679
<v Speaker 1>don't know. I don't know that that's been that that's

0:03:15.680 --> 0:03:17.799
<v Speaker 1>been made public, and I don't know that the representative

0:03:17.919 --> 0:03:20.800
<v Speaker 1>has has said how he found this out. Um. From

0:03:20.800 --> 0:03:23.120
<v Speaker 1>from the reporting that I've seen, it seems like he

0:03:23.200 --> 0:03:25.680
<v Speaker 1>must he or his someone on his campaign must have

0:03:25.720 --> 0:03:30.040
<v Speaker 1>put some effort into tracking this person down. Um that

0:03:30.080 --> 0:03:32.040
<v Speaker 1>they would have had to had to google her name,

0:03:32.080 --> 0:03:33.760
<v Speaker 1>would have had to look at her LinkedIn, would have

0:03:33.760 --> 0:03:35.920
<v Speaker 1>had to look at the uh look at the bank

0:03:36.000 --> 0:03:39.800
<v Speaker 1>website to determine who she was and where she worked.

0:03:40.320 --> 0:03:42.480
<v Speaker 1>So it does appear that there was some some level

0:03:42.520 --> 0:03:46.440
<v Speaker 1>of effort put into this. Uh. And and really, I mean,

0:03:46.440 --> 0:03:49.800
<v Speaker 1>this is this is this is incredibly problematic. It's not

0:03:49.880 --> 0:03:52.680
<v Speaker 1>the role of a member of Congress to tell private

0:03:52.680 --> 0:03:54.880
<v Speaker 1>employers in the district who they should and shouldn't hire.

0:03:55.640 --> 0:03:59.400
<v Speaker 1>She was a senior vice president at this local bank,

0:03:59.600 --> 0:04:02.840
<v Speaker 1>so pretty high up in the bank, and yet she

0:04:02.920 --> 0:04:08.360
<v Speaker 1>resigned shortly after this. Were her reasons for resigning this letter?

0:04:09.040 --> 0:04:14.920
<v Speaker 1>Was she afraid she was being targeted? Uh? That's my understanding. Um.

0:04:15.120 --> 0:04:19.920
<v Speaker 1>It does appear that after after her boss received the letter,

0:04:20.440 --> 0:04:23.119
<v Speaker 1>that she was called into his office, showed her the letter,

0:04:23.320 --> 0:04:25.680
<v Speaker 1>and then she had to write a statement explaining what

0:04:25.760 --> 0:04:29.200
<v Speaker 1>she was involved in and and oddly declaring that she

0:04:29.279 --> 0:04:31.800
<v Speaker 1>was she was a friend of the bank. UM and

0:04:31.800 --> 0:04:35.400
<v Speaker 1>and then reportedly the pressure became worse and she eventually

0:04:35.880 --> 0:04:39.560
<v Speaker 1>she eventually resigned. UM. And it does appear in in

0:04:39.680 --> 0:04:43.000
<v Speaker 1>large part of the problems that that arose in her

0:04:43.040 --> 0:04:46.479
<v Speaker 1>appoyment situation did appear in in large part as a

0:04:46.520 --> 0:04:49.119
<v Speaker 1>result of her political activities, and at least in part

0:04:49.240 --> 0:04:53.400
<v Speaker 1>because a member of Congress UH informed her boss about

0:04:53.400 --> 0:04:56.039
<v Speaker 1>her political activities and put some some level of pressure

0:04:56.080 --> 0:05:00.240
<v Speaker 1>on her boss to to retaliate against her. UM. Don't

0:05:00.240 --> 0:05:02.560
<v Speaker 1>point out we we brushed over this earlier, but there

0:05:02.640 --> 0:05:07.880
<v Speaker 1>is actually a criminal provision at eighteen USC to seven,

0:05:07.960 --> 0:05:10.720
<v Speaker 1>and there's also an analogous provision and how the House

0:05:10.760 --> 0:05:14.160
<v Speaker 1>Ethics Code that prohibits a Member of Congress from influence

0:05:14.400 --> 0:05:18.680
<v Speaker 1>influencing a private entities employment decision on partisan grounds by

0:05:18.839 --> 0:05:22.560
<v Speaker 1>offering or threatening to take or withhold an official act. UH.

0:05:22.680 --> 0:05:26.719
<v Speaker 1>So I think the representative does come close to violating

0:05:26.760 --> 0:05:29.320
<v Speaker 1>this this provision, both this criminal law provision and this

0:05:29.400 --> 0:05:33.360
<v Speaker 1>how the House Ethics provision. UM. The question here, though,

0:05:33.520 --> 0:05:38.279
<v Speaker 1>is whether the representative offered or threatened an official act

0:05:38.320 --> 0:05:41.240
<v Speaker 1>like a vote on legislation or some formal exercise of

0:05:41.279 --> 0:05:44.840
<v Speaker 1>governmental power. Uh. Certainly we can say that the representative

0:05:44.920 --> 0:05:48.120
<v Speaker 1>was attempting to or there's an appearance of representive the

0:05:48.160 --> 0:05:51.360
<v Speaker 1>representative attempting to influence the bank's decision to employ this

0:05:51.400 --> 0:05:54.440
<v Speaker 1>woman based on her partisan political activities. Uh. The question

0:05:54.480 --> 0:05:59.040
<v Speaker 1>is really whether he had offered to make or withhold

0:05:59.160 --> 0:06:01.880
<v Speaker 1>some sort of an official act um And from the

0:06:01.880 --> 0:06:04.040
<v Speaker 1>context of the letter, I don't I don't know that

0:06:04.040 --> 0:06:06.640
<v Speaker 1>that's clear. But we also don't know whether there were

0:06:06.800 --> 0:06:11.160
<v Speaker 1>additional conversations or interactions between the representative and the banker,

0:06:12.320 --> 0:06:15.520
<v Speaker 1>or or if there was additional context here that we

0:06:15.560 --> 0:06:19.400
<v Speaker 1>don't know about. Just from uh that that we just

0:06:19.440 --> 0:06:21.679
<v Speaker 1>don't know about yet, it sounds like there's an awful

0:06:21.680 --> 0:06:24.320
<v Speaker 1>lot we don't know. Let me read. Although we did,

0:06:24.360 --> 0:06:27.000
<v Speaker 1>as I mentioned, invite the congressman or one of his

0:06:27.040 --> 0:06:29.680
<v Speaker 1>representatives onto the show and didn't hear back from them,

0:06:29.680 --> 0:06:31.680
<v Speaker 1>he did provide a statement to w n y C.

0:06:31.880 --> 0:06:34.560
<v Speaker 1>And this is what the statement said. The Congressman wrote

0:06:34.560 --> 0:06:36.479
<v Speaker 1>a brief, an innocuous note at the bottom of a

0:06:36.520 --> 0:06:39.360
<v Speaker 1>personal letter in regard to information that had been reported

0:06:39.400 --> 0:06:41.840
<v Speaker 1>in the media. He was in no way involved in

0:06:41.880 --> 0:06:44.120
<v Speaker 1>any of the bank's business and is unaware of any

0:06:44.160 --> 0:06:47.920
<v Speaker 1>particulars about this employee's status with the bank. Brandon anything

0:06:47.960 --> 0:06:51.040
<v Speaker 1>in there that you hear that that changes the situation

0:06:51.080 --> 0:06:55.960
<v Speaker 1>for you, UM I I don't think so. UM. I mean,

0:06:56.040 --> 0:07:00.040
<v Speaker 1>certainly the Congressman was intending to communicate some sort of

0:07:00.080 --> 0:07:03.039
<v Speaker 1>a message by by taking the time, first of all,

0:07:03.120 --> 0:07:07.160
<v Speaker 1>to apparently conduct research into this uh into this individual,

0:07:07.600 --> 0:07:10.680
<v Speaker 1>and then to put a handwritten note on the bottom

0:07:10.720 --> 0:07:13.440
<v Speaker 1>of this of this fundraising appeal. I would gather that

0:07:13.440 --> 0:07:16.200
<v Speaker 1>that's not standard practice, that the that the Congressman is

0:07:16.240 --> 0:07:18.080
<v Speaker 1>not writing a handwritten note on the bottom of every

0:07:18.080 --> 0:07:21.280
<v Speaker 1>single fundraising appeal that he that he sends, and the

0:07:21.400 --> 0:07:25.560
<v Speaker 1>message was was clearly sent, according to according to reports,

0:07:25.600 --> 0:07:28.720
<v Speaker 1>the as a result of this UH what what the

0:07:28.720 --> 0:07:31.560
<v Speaker 1>Congressman calls an innocuous and brief handwritten note at the

0:07:31.600 --> 0:07:35.560
<v Speaker 1>bottom of this personal letter, um, the recipient of the

0:07:35.600 --> 0:07:39.840
<v Speaker 1>letter called the employee into his office and eventually the

0:07:40.400 --> 0:07:44.520
<v Speaker 1>and eventually the the employee UH quit was pressured was

0:07:44.560 --> 0:07:47.480
<v Speaker 1>apparently pressured into quitting as a results of her political

0:07:47.480 --> 0:07:50.120
<v Speaker 1>activity and as a result of this note from her

0:07:50.520 --> 0:07:52.800
<v Speaker 1>from her elected official Brandon, We're gonna have to leave

0:07:52.800 --> 0:07:54.760
<v Speaker 1>it there. Thank you very much, Brendan Fisher of the

0:07:54.800 --> 0:07:57.360
<v Speaker 1>Campaign Legal Center for joining us on Bloomberg law.