Posted March 31, 2008 by J. Gerald Hebert No Clearance for von SpakovskyYesterday’s Washington Post story by Matt Mosk that former FEC Commissioner Hans von Spakovsky had been “cleared” of undue influence by an Election Administration Commission IG Report is misleading at best. At the outset, it seems odd that an article like this appeared almost three weeks after it was released. It hardly seems like news at this point in time. In any event, the article’s conclusion that the Report “cleared” von Spakovsky of any attempts at influencing EAC Commissioners is contrary to the facts set forth in the report. In fact, the report indicated on several occasions that he in fact did make attempts at influencing EAC commissioners for political reasons. In the report former EAC Commissioner Paul DeGregorio is quoted as saying that “too many of [von Spakovsky’s] decisions are clouded by his partisan thinking.” DeGregorio also said that von Spakovsky “certainly tried to influence” him, adding: “There’s no question about that.” Finally, the report stated that “according to DeGregorio, von Spakovsky thought he should use his position (on the EAC commission) to advance the Repuublican Party position.” So it is clear from this report that von Spakovsky did try and influence DeGregorio for political reasons, but it concludes that such efforts were in the end unsuccessful. Mosk’s story quotes von Spakovsky as saying that the report’s conclusions “represented a personal vindication.” This is a vindication? It sounds more like an illustration of incompetence or ineffectiveness at influencing a commissioner for improper reasons. Of equal concern is von Spakovsky’s justification for his actions. In the mosk story, he is quoted as saying that “the Justice Department was supposed to serve the [EAC] in an advisory capacity.” He added: “The purpose of the advisers is to provide advice. I was entirely within the scope of my job[.]” Actually, that’s not true, and neither the Inspector General nor Mosk ever bothered to see if it was true. In fact, according to a statement provided to Congress by seven former Justice Department attorneys and staffers, von Spakovsky “usurped” the role of the Voting Section chief during his time at DOJ (from 2003 through December 2005) specifically with regard to his pressuring the EAC. According to one letter, von Spakovsky assumed the role of de facto Voting Section Chief replacing the career Section Chief in most of his statutory responsibilities and traditional duties managing the [Voting] Section. Mr. von Spakovsky assumed a position on the EAC Advisory Board that was reserved explicitly by Section 214(a)(13) of the Help America Vote Act for the ‘chief of the Voting Section or the chief’s designee’” even though the Section Chief had never designated Mr. von Spakovsky for this position[.] Letter to Senate Rules Committee June 18, 2007 (emphasis added). An earlier June 11, 2007 letter detailed some of the pressures and incorrect legal advice von Spakovsky offered to the EAC in his self-appointed role as DOJ spokesperson. So von Spakovsky’s statement that his giving of advice to the EAC was “entirely within the scope of my job” at DOJ is not only false, it was contrary to federal law, which explicitly designated that “job” to the chief of the Voting Section. Like fly paper, the litany of abuses of power by von Spakovsky while at DOJ cannot be shaken off with denials. The IG’s Report does nothing to vindicate him and his heavy-handed power grab at DOJ tells a different story. Too bad the IG didn’t bother to find out. It was, after all, a matter of public information. |
|