|
Just as a newly released Pennsylvania poll shows State Treasurer Bob Casey pulling 14 points ahead of Sen.
Rick Santorum in the 2006 Senate race, Santorum is not doing anything to help himself. Each week, there seems to be a new
ethics questions about Santorum’s conduct: The latest one surrounds the trip he took to Florida in March to meet with
the Schiavo family…and to raise money for his reelection campaign.
Did Santorum Fail to Reimburse Wal-Mart for Use of Jet?
Santorum Claims His Campaign Reimbursed Wal-Mart for Flight to Florida on Company’s Corporate Jet.
When Santorum went to Florida in March to meet with the Schiavo family and raise money for his reelection campaign, he traveled
on a Wal-Mart corporate jet, for which his campaign paid the company, said campaign spokesman John Brabender. [The Tampa Tribune, 4/17/05]
But Santorum’s FEC Report Did Not Show Reimbursements for the Use of a Wal-Mart Jet. Itemized
disbursements on Santorum’s FEC report for the first three months of 2005 did not show any expenditures in Florida,
nor reimbursements for the use of a Wal-Mart jet, according to FECInfo.com, an online database that tracks money in politics.
[FECInfo.com]
Santorum Canceled Scheduled Social Security Town Hall Meeting Because It Would Be “Inappropriate”
But Santorum Had No Problem Raising $$$ for His Campaign. Santorum cancelled a scheduled Florida town hall meeting on Social
Security because they “didn't think it was appropriate to go into the region and do a big policy event at this time.”
But, as the Philadelphia Daily News reported, Santorum raised $250,000 for his re-election campaign while he was on the trip.
“There was a luncheon in Orlando and a dinner in Miami on March 29 with Florida Sen. Mel Martinez, a luncheon in Tampa
March 30 hosted by Outback Steakhouse, which is headquartered there, and a dinner that night in Palm Beach hosted by execs
from Revlon…Total take, according to Santorum finance director Rob Bickhart, was about $250,000.” [Philadelphia Daily News, 4/11/05]
Did Santorum Get an Improper Tax Break for PA Home?
Advocacy Group Claims Santorum Is Receiving Homestead Exemption for a PA Home He Does Not Live In, Asked
County to Investigate. A political action group Tuesday presented Allegheny County Council with a petition saying U.S.
Sen. Rick Santorum is improperly receiving a tax exemption for a house he owns in Penn Hills. Joy Sabl, of Point Breeze, a
member of the group Democracy for Pittsburgh, said Santorum does not live in the house, so he should not get a homestead exemption
on his property tax bill -- a $15,000 reduction on the taxable value of a primary residence. Sabl said her group is asking
District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. to investigate. [Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 4/20/05]
Group’s Petition Calling on Santorum to Reimburse the County and Has Collected 800 Signatures.
Joy Sabl of Point Breeze told the Allegheny County Council the group Democracy for Pittsburgh has collected 800 signatures
on a petition that calls on Santorum to reimburse the county for any tax rebate he received from the homestead exemption.
The exemption provides a tax break for property that serves as a taxpayer's main home. [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 4/20/05]
County Has Been Unable to Locate Santorum’s Homestead Exemption Application. Jim Flynn said two county
staff members acting on a request for public records spent one week looking for any documentation proving Santorum applied
for the break, but found no records. Flynn told County Council that his office initiated the search after receiving a public
information request, but he said applications are not organized when they are stored, making searches difficult. [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 4/20/05; Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 4/20/05]
As If These Weren’t Bad Enough, Santorum Also Must Deal With:
Other residency issues
PA School District Paid $100,000 Tuition for Santorum’s
Children to Attend Online School – Even Though Santorum and His Family Live There. Since 2001, Pennsylvania’s
Penn Hills School District paid the cost of sending five of Santorum's children to the Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School,
which students attend online. Santorum owns a two-bedroom house in Penn Hills, but he and his family live on their nearly
four-acre property in Leesburg, Va. School officials estimated they spent about $100,000 on tuition for the senator's children
since 2001. In November 2004, Santorum announced he would "immediately withdraw" his children from the cyber school after
Penn Hills officials raised questions about his family’s residency. [Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 3/30/05; AP, 3/30/05;
Pittsburgh Tribune Review, 2/9/05]
After Denying His Guilt for Months, Santorum Said: “Maybe I Shouldn't
Have Done That.” Last Month, Santorum’s office denied his guilt, stating that he “obviously disagrees
with the school district’s objections.” But in April, according to the Washington Post, Santorum said, “‘You
know, if I could do it all again . . .’ Santorum is referring to his children's enrollment in the cyber-school and how
difficult it was to quit mid-year. ‘I look back and I think, maybe I shouldn't have done that.’ A yawn fills the
SUV.” [AP, 3/30/05; Washington Post, 4/18/05]
Ethical questions surrounding K Street Project
Santorum Runs K Street Project for GOP – Hand Picks Republicans to Fill High-Level Lobbyist Positions.
Santorum runs the K Street project where he “vets the hiring decisions of major lobbyists.” The K-Street
project, created by conservative movement leader Grover Norquist, seeks to place Republicans in high-level corporate and lobbyist
positions. As of June 2003, Santorum had successfully placed “33 of 36 top-level Washington positions he [was]
monitoring.” All positions went to Republicans. As the Washington Post reported, Santorum’s colleagues resorted
to “intimidation and private threats'' to bully lobbyists who try to maintain good relations with both parties.
[New York Times, 6/27/03; Washington Post, 6/26/03]
Senate Ethics Committee Questioned Santorum’s Behavior.
In 2002, it was revealed that “Santorum met with a GOP activist about a research project that compiled the political
affiliation and the giving history of lobbyists.” In response, the Senate Ethics Committee issued a letter questioning
Santorum’s actions: “Any effort to deny access to [policy] discussions to those who do not share a member’s
party affiliation, have not made political contributions, or have made political contributions to those not in the member’s
party, would appear to violate Senate Rule 43.” [The Hill, 12/11/02]
By Phil Singer, Communications Director, DSCC, Apr 20, 2005
|
