Roll Call reported late yesterday that one of [tag]Bill Frist[/tag]’s many fiscal faults drew a modest fine from the [tag]Federal Election Commission[/tag].
The Federal Election Commission levied an $11,000 fine on the [tag]campaign[/tag] [tag]committee[/tag] of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) for its failure to properly report a $1.44 million [tag]loan[/tag] taken out more than five years ago.
The FEC found that the late 2000 loan — which was part of an elaborate effort to close down Frist’s separate 1994 campaign committee and repay himself more than $1.2 million that he had loaned to his maiden political campaign — should have been disclosed for both the ’94 committee and the 2000 campaign committee.
The finding was agreed to in mid-May but released today by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the liberal group that filed the complaint with the FEC when media reports surfaced about the questionable loan last year.
Melanie Sloan, who founded and heads [tag]CREW[/tag], claimed victory, noting that the commission cited criminal codes on campaign reporting, asserting that Frist’s committee “broke the law” in a statement. “We win,” she said.
Yes, CREW did win, but the margin of victory was not what it should have been considering Frist’s bizarre behavior.
Here’s the deal: in November 2000, Frist wanted to recoup $1.2 million he lent his campaign in 1994, but he couldn’t afford it. So his 2000 campaign took out a $1.44 million bank loan, which he used to reimburse himself. The debt on that loan was hidden to make Frist 2000 look like it had plenty of money.
Unfortunately, at that point, Frist didn’t report the new debt to the Federal Elections Commission, as required by law.
Instead, he told the FEC the new loan was held by another committee he controlled (the one he formed in 1994, but which was dormant by 2000). Why did Frist report $1.44 million debt under the name of an old committee rather than his current campaign operation? Because he was trying to conceal Frist 2000’s money problem.
“Looking at this, it appears they did not want to show that Frist 2000 was the actual borrower of the $1.44 million,” said Larry Nobel, who worked 23 years at the FEC, 13 as the agency’s general counsel.
Nobel was one of two former [tag]FEC[/tag] officials who reviewed Frist’s FEC and loan documents at the request of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
“It appears to me to be misreporting. They misreported who the actual borrower was. Misreporting is illegal,” said Nobel, now executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign finance watchdog group. “The question is whether the FEC would do anything about it.”
That was last year. Last month, the FEC did do something about it, by fining Frist $11,000. It was a small slap on the wrist, which is a shame.
And just to be clear, this FEC investigation is unrelated to the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission investigations into Frist’s sale of stock in his family’s hospital company one month before its price fell sharply.
Frist keeps his lawyers busy, doesn’t he?