Harris Dinner Criticized

By KEITH EPSTEIN kepstein@tampatrib.com

Published: May 2, 2006

WASHINGTON - For as long as anyone can remember, special interests have tried to sway politicians in Washington, wining and dining them and offering money for their campaigns - whether for special access or a special favor.

The nonpartisan activist group Common Cause suggests U.S. Senate candidate Katherine Harris in 2005 may have gone too far in helping her most generous donor at the time, defense contractor-turned-convicted briber Mitchell Wade.

Harris sought a $10 million earmark in early 2005, only weeks after Wade handed her $50,000 in illegal contributions and, over dinner at a restaurant, promised additional help with campaign fundraising if she would help get government money for his company's project.

The group on Monday asked the Justice Department to investigate the Longboat Key congresswoman.

Former Strategist Also Speaks Up

Separately, in an interview with The Tampa Tribune, onetime top Harris strategist Ed Rollins said he, too, felt there had been a "quid pro quo" in Harris' interaction with Wade and had urged her to hire a lawyer. Rollins supported the view that Harris had not knowingly engaged in wrongdoing but missed obvious signals she was being used.

Common Cause President Chellie Pingree was not so generous.

"It appears that Rep. Harris crossed the line from the usual back-scratching that goes on between lobbyists and members of Congress to agreeing to a quid pro quo from Wade: a fundraiser in exchange for his $10 million earmark," Pingree said.

The group asserts, in a letter sent to the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section and distributed to reporters, that "sufficient evidence" suggests Harris may have violated an antibribery statute and that her acceptance of an unusually expensive dinner constituted a gift of more than $50, prohibited by House rules.

She Denies Allegations

Harris denies wrongdoing. "I have never knowingly violated any law," she said in statement. She called the group's assertion "false and outrageous," adding that she had become involved with Wade only to bring jobs to her district.

She has said she was unaware of Wade's illegal bundling of checks for her campaign. Wade admitted illegally reimbursing employees for their donations.

Harris has for weeks declined to answer numerous questions about her association with Wade, who admitted to bribing California Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham. Harris recently acknowledged Wade had picked up the $2,800 tab for dinner at a Georgetown restaurant, though she said she thought her campaign had reimbursed Wade $100 for her appetizer and drinks.

Rollins said he, too, had had concerns about the dinner when joining her campaign last year and learning of the large tab. Despite internal inquiries and a search of records last year, he said, he found no support that Wade had been reimbursed.

"If at dinner someone says, 'I'm going to raise money for you, and he's already your biggest contributor, and he wants a $10 million earmark - that's a quid pro quo in my mind," said Rollins, a longtime and well-known strategist and damage controller for Republican candidates, who quit Harris' campaign in April.

Harris' terse earmark request itself was copied verbatim from Wade's language, Rollins said, without backup justification, Harris' usual practice when seeking earmarks.

"It was [from] an e-mail," Rollins said. Harris' staff "cut and pasted it, never added a line, and put her letter [to Rep. C.W. Bill Young] on it."

Rollins said it was at that time, and because of concern that Wade had picked up the tab for two dinners they had had, that he urged Harris to hire a lawyer, Ben Ginsburg.

Still, seeking an earmark does not necessarily imply illegality. One reason for the growth of lobbyists in Washington is the increasing opportunity for Congress to secure money for special interests though earmarks.