Now we’re having fun. Reports that Rep. Nick Smith (R-Mich.) was offered a bribe in exchange for his vote on Bush’s Medicare bill are actually starting to gain traction.
Yesterday I noted that the controversy has gone largely unnoticed by the national media. I’m pleased to say that’s no longer the case. Articles about the controversy appeared today in the LA Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Chicago Sun Times, and the Detroit Free Press, among others. In the broadcast media, I’ve noticed that MSNBC is on the story, as is, believe it or not, Fox News. The story is also getting play from CBS Radio (thanks, Chuck).
Better yet, the AP is reporting that the Justice Department said yesterday “it would review complaints from political watchdog groups that Republican House leaders tried to bribe Rep. Nick Smith (R-Mich.) to vote for a Medicare bill.”
Though it was encouraging to see that the Justice Department is prepared to look into this, a closer look suggests it may not be quite as exciting as I’d like. A Justice spokesperson essentially said the agency reviews all serious complaints brought to the department’s attention and that this one would be treated the same way. With this in mind, the LA Times headline, “Medicare Vote Will Be Probed,” is just a little overstated.
Nevertheless, it’s a start. In fact, the more attention this receives, the more likely it is that Justice will take this story seriously and actually start an investigation.
Another interesting development on this burgeoning controversy that occurred yesterday was Smith furiously backpedaling on his earlier claims of bribery.
In a statement, Smith said, “No specific reference was made to money.” He added, “I want to make clear that no member of Congress made an offer of financial assistance for my son’s campaign in exchange for my vote on the Medicare bill.”
So, does this ruin the story? If the person who was allegedly offered the bribe says that it never happened, is this matter effectively closed? Definitely not.
Smith appears to have issued yesterday’s statement under political pressure. Indeed, yesterday’s denial of a bribe flatly contradicts his earlier claims.
Smith wrote a column for a Michigan newspaper the day after the Nov. 22 House vote on the Medicare bill in which he said, “Bribes and special deals were offered to convince members to vote yes.”
More importantly, Smith added, “I was targeted by lobbyists and the congressional leadership to change my vote…Other members and groups made offers of extensive financial campaign support and endorsements for my son.”
The next day, Smith’s congressional office issued a statement saying he had received “significant promises for help” for his son’s campaign in exchange for his vote on the bill.
In addition, when newspaper columnist Robert Novak initially reported on the $100,000 bribe Smith was offered, Smith’s chief of staff, Kurt Schmautz, said Novak’s account of what happened is “basically accurate.”
As further evidence, Smith’s office linked the Novak column directly on his congressional website. If Novak’s description of what transpired on the House floor was inaccurate, why would Smith encourage others to read Novak’s column by linking to it? Does anybody ever link to an article that blatantly mischaracterizes what’s happened to them? Of course not.
Now that this story is starting to make headway, and the Justice Department has agreed to review the matter, Smith issues a tersely worded statement, hoping this might help put the fire out. In reality, it does the opposite. Not only are we left wondering who violated federal bribery laws on the floor of the House of Representatives, now we also have to wonder who pressured Smith to back off his earlier claims.
Stay tuned. This one’s far from over.