Senate ethics records

The indexed copy is marked complete. The original PDF bytes are unavailable.

Open the official document

Indexed text provided by web; observed Nov 5, 2026 at 7:41 PM Pacific.

BARBARA BOXER, CAliFORNIA. CHAIRMAN
JOHN COANYN, Tl:XAS. VICE CHAIRMAN
MARK PAYOR. ARKANSAS
KEN SAI.AZAA, COLORADO
PAT ROBERTS. KANSAS
JOHNNY ISAKSON. GEORGIA
ROBERT L. WALKER. CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR
ANNETn: GILLIS. DEPUTY STAFF DIRECTOR
The Honorable Larry E. Craig
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Craig:
'aelntteb ~tates ~en e
SELECT COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, ROOM 220
SECOND AND CONSTITUTION AVENUE, NE
WASHINGTON, DC 20510- 6425
February 13, 2008
Public Letter of Admonition
TE~EPHONE: (202) 224-2981
FACSIMILE: (202) 224-7416
TOO: (202) 228-3752
In response to improper conduct by you reflecting upon the United States Senate, the
Select Committee on Ethics of the United States Senate issues this public letter of admonition to
you pursuant to Section 2( d)(3) of Senate Resolution 338, 881
h Congress, 2nct Session (1964), as
amended by Senate Resolution 222, 106111 Cong., 1st Session ( 1999) and its Supplementary
Procedural Rules, Rule 3(g)(2).
The Committee's action in this matter addresses your conduct in connection with your
June 11,2007, arrest at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and your August 2007
guilty plea in the State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin, Fourth Judicial District, and your
conduct related and subsequent thereto, as discussed more fully below. The Committee bases its
action on the following determinations:
• Through your accurate, voluntary and intelligent guilty plea, you were convicted in
August 2007 of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor, occurring on June 11, 2007, in a
men's public restroom at the Northstar Crossing in the Lindbergh Terminal of
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The Committee accepts as proven your guilty
plea and all matters set forth in your guilty plea, including your statements therein: that
you reviewed the arrest report and/or complaint relating to the charges against you; that
on June 11 , 2007, at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport restroom you engaged
in conduct which you "knew or should have known tended to arouse alarm or resentment
[in] others which conduct was physical (versus verbal) in nature"; that at the time of your
plea you made no claim that you were innocent of the charge to which you entered a
guilty plea; and that you entered your guilty plea freely and voluntarily.
• Following your arrest on June 11, 2007, you showed the arresting officer a business card
that identified you as a United States Senator and stated to the officer, in words or
substance, "What do you think about that?" Under the circumstances present at that time,
you knew or should have known that a reasonable person in the position of the arresting
officer could view your action and statement as an improper attempt by you to use your
position and status as a United States Senator to receive special and favorable treatment. Although, in our view, you committed the offense to which you pled guilty and you
entered your plea knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently, it appears you are attempting
to withdraw your plea in significant part because your initial calculation that you could
avoid public disclosure of, and adverse public reaction to, this matter by pleading guilty
proved wrong. Even if an attempt to withdraw a guilty plea under the circumstances
present in this case is a course that a defendant in the State of Minnesota may take, by the
standards within this Committee's jurisdiction it is a course that a United States Senator
should not take. Your claims to the court, through counsel, to the effect that your guilty
plea resulted from improper pressure or coercion, or that you did not, as a legal matter,
know what you were doing when you pled guilty, do not appear credible.
We consider your attempt to withdraw your guilty plea to be an attempt to evade the legal
consequences of an action freely undertaken by you - that is, pleading guilty- and, as
such, to be conduct contrary to the injunction of Paragraph 2 of the Code of Ethics for
Government Service, which provides that any person in Government service, in this case
a United States Senator, should "[u]phold the Constitution, Jaws, and legal regulations of
the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion."'
Construing Senate Rule 38.2, which prohibits the conversion of campaign funds to
personal use, the Senate Ethics Manual states that "Members, officers or employees may
pay legal expenses incurred in connection with their official duties with funds of a
Senator's principal campaign committee, but only if such payment is approved by the
Committee. " (Emphasis added.) It appears that you have used over $213,000 in
campaign funds to pay legal (and, apparently, "public relations") fees in connection with
your appeal of your criminal conviction and in connection with the preliminary inquiry
before the Committee in this matter. It appears that some portion of these expenses may
not be deemed to have been incurred in connection with your official duties, either by the
Committee or by the Federal Election Commission (which has concurrent jurisdiction
with the Committee on the issue of conversion of a Senator's campaign funds to personal
use). However, without here reaching the issue of what portion of your legal expenses in
this matter may be payable with funds of your principal campaign committee, it is clear
that you never sought the Committee's approval, as required, to use campaign funds for
these purposes. You should also take careful note that the Committee wi II consider any
further use of your campaign funds for legal expenses without the Committee's approval
to be conduct demonstrating your continuing disregard of ethics requirements.
The conduct to which you pled guilty, together with your related and subsequent conduct
as set forth above, constitutes improper conduct reflecting discreditably on the Senate and
through this letter the Select Committee on Ethics, on behalf of and pursuant to authority granted
by the United States Senate, publicly admonishes you for that conduct.
This public admonition ofyou, and the determinations on which it is based, concludes a
preliminary inquiry in which the Committee reviewed and considered allegations, information,
evidence and arguments present to it from a number of sources, including complaints. the public
record and your responses, albeit through your counsel. to the Committee·s specific written
2 inquiries.
As your counsel has previously questioned the Committee's jurisdiction in this matter we
note that the investigative authority of the Committee, and the disciplinary authority of the
Senate over its Members, is broad. Senate Resolution 338, as amended, makes it the duty of the
Select Committee on Ethics to "receive complaints and investigate allegations of improper
conduct which may reflect upon the Senate, violations of law, violations of the Senate Code of
Official Conduct, and violations of rules and regulations of the Senate relating to the conduct of
individuals in the performance of their duties as Members of the Senate, or as officers or
employees of the Senate, and to make appropriate findings of fact and conclusions with respect
thereto ... " S. Res. 338, 88th Cong., 2d. Sess. (1964), as amended by S. Res. 110, 95th Cong.,
I st Sess. (1977). "S. Res. 338 gives the Committee the authority to investigate Members who
engage in 'improper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate,' regardless of whether such
conduct violates a specific statute, Senate Rule, or regulation." Senate Ethics Manual, 2003 ed.,
at page 432. The Committee has stated that the Senate "may discipline a Member for any
misconduct, including conduct or activity which does not directly relate to official duties, when
such conduct unfavorably reflects on the institution as a whole." Senate Ethics Manual, 2003
ed., at page 13. The Committee has jurisdiction over your conduct in this matter.
The Committee's determination to publicly admonish you in this matter is independent
of, and will be unaffected by, any subsequent decisions by the courts on your challenge of your
guilty plea. In addition, this letter of admonition addresses only your conduct in connection with
your arrest at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and your August 2007 guilty plea,
and your conduct related and subsequent thereto as discussed above.
The Select Committee on Ethics resolves this matter through your public admonition so
that, on behalf of the United States Senate, it may make known clearly that the conduct to ·which
you pled guilty. together with the related and subsequent conduct discussed in this letter, is
improper conduct which has reflected discreditably on the Senate.
,<3~l3sf~ Barbara Boxer
Chairman
Mark Pryor, Member
Sincerely,
3

Extract SHA-256 (not a PDF checksum): cb51dbd2becd40484bcbabf79dcc138964651c7f9a98f1262372b8a221f729ba