-Caveat Lector-
NYTimes
February 16, 2001
Inquiry Puts 19 Torricelli Flights Under Microscope
By TIM GOLDEN and DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI
On September 1996, as he fought through the last weeks of a close
race for the United States Senate, Robert G. Torricelli turned
for help to a New Jersey businessman who had emerged as one of
his most generous political supporters.
Mr. Torricelli, a New Jersey Democrat then serving in the House
of Representatives, was looking for a way to move quickly from
one campaign event to the next. The businessman, David Chang,
contacted an aircraft charter company, and soon the candidate was
flying from one fund-raising event to the next by Lear jet and
propeller plane.
Four and a half years later, the 19 flights Mr. Chang chartered
� and their late and incomplete repayment by the Torricelli
campaign � have become an issue in a Justice Department
investigation into possibly illegal activities in the senator's
successful race, according to lawyers and others involved in the
case.
They said prosecutors were examining whether campaign officials
tried to evade laws governing a candidate's use of aircraft
provided by a supporter. At least two of the three campaign
aides who were notified last month that they are targets of the
investigation were involved in arranging or accounting for the
flights, former Torricelli aides said.
But the matter of Mr. Torricelli's flights is also a study in
the complexities of campaign finance laws, and the difficulties
law enforcement officials can face in trying to prove that a
campaign's failure to observe federal financing laws is
deliberate.
A lawyer for the campaign, Robert F. Bauer, denied that
Torricelli officials had done anything wrong in arranging or
accounting for the flights. "Everybody who was involved in the
scheduling and reimbursement of corporate aircraft in this
campaign followed the law with great care," Mr. Bauer said.
But lawyers and others involved in the case said a central issue
for the investigators was that contrary to Mr. Bauer's assertion,
the planes Mr. Chang chartered were not "corporate aircraft" as
federal regulations define them: ones a company owns outright or
leases for its own long-term use. And the difference is a
crucial one.
Campaign finance laws permit candidates to use such corporate
aircraft if they reimburse the company in advance for either the
cost of the highest available commercial air fare for the same
route or, if there is no commercial service, the cost of charter
service.
But since Mr. Chang's company, Bright & Bright, did not own or
lease the planes but rented them expressly for Mr. Torricelli's
use, the campaign was required to reimburse the entire cost of
the rentals. That was about $32,000 � more than double what it
ultimately repaid, people involved in the case said.
Campaign finance experts said the difference between what the
campaign paid and what it owed could be considered an illegal
corporate contribution of about $17,000. But lawyers for the
campaign and some of the experts also noted that even in cases
involving much larger amounts, the underpayment or late payment
of travel costs has generally been viewed as an administrative
violation, punishable by fines.
To build a criminal case on such a charge, then, the prosecutors
must answer a basic question: did the candidate and his aides
know that the planes had been rented specifically for them?
Justice Department officials said they could not comment because
the investigation, by the department's Campaign Financing Task
Force, was continuing.
According to Mr. Bauer, Mr. Torricelli and his aides "believed
and had every reason to believe that Bright & Bright owned the
aircraft." But several aspects of the matter raise questions
about the campaign's assertion.
According to one person involved in the case, federal
investigators have developed evidence that at least two of Mr.
Torricelli's close aides dealt directly with the aircraft charter
company and knew that the planes were rented solely for the
campaign. Mr. Bauer, the campaign lawyer, denied that
assertion.
Moreover, Mr. Chang rented not one, but several different planes
for Mr. Torricelli, people familiar with the case said.
Mr. Bauer said the frequent switching of planes had not led
anyone in the campaign to wonder how Mr. Chang, whose company
employed only a handful of people, had access to so many
aircraft. Campaign officials assumed that the businessman had
bought or leased an interest in a fleet of planes, he said.
Finally, there is the account of Mr. Chang, who has told the
prosecutors that he arranged the flights at Mr. Torricelli's
request and that the candidate was fully aware that he did not
own his own aircraft, people familiar with his statements said.
Mr. Chang made the statements after pleading guilty last year to
giving more than $50,000 in illegal contributions to Mr.
Torricelli's 1996 campaign and agreeing to cooperate with the
government in return for a lighter sentence.
Mr. Torricelli and his lawyers have responded to such statements
by calling Mr. Chang a liar and by noting that until he agreed
to cooperate, prosecutors had publicly challenged his credibility
as well.
A lawyer for Mr. Chang, Bradley D. Simon, objected sharply to
the campaign's view. "It's a little late in the day for
Torricelli and his camp to be branding David Chang a liar when
for years they never hesitated to put their hands out to receive
money and help from him," he said.
Mr. Torricelli and his aides were clearly grateful for Mr.
Chang's help in late summer of 1996, when the candidate found
himself in a tight race with his Republican opponent,
Representative Richard A. Zimmer.
In a court filing last year, the prosecutors asserted that in
September and October 1996, Mr. Chang "was asked by the
Torricelli campaign to arrange for air charter transportation of
Congressman Torricelli through the end of the campaign." They
noted that the charter flights "were made solely for the benefit
of the campaign and not Bright & Bright."
Campaign officials did not deny that Mr. Torricelli was in
frequent contact with Mr. Chang at the time. But Mr. Bauer,
the lawyer, said the flights were arranged after campaign aides
and volunteers became aware that a plane was available from Mr.
Chang. Mr. Bauer would not name the aides and volunteers.
According to two internal campaign memorandums obtained by The
New York Times, Mr. Torricelli flew mostly in and out of the
commuter airport at Teterboro, N.J., not far from his home in
Englewood. At least five trips were to Atlantic City, which was
served from Newark International Airport by commercial carriers
that offered the round trip for about $225. Other trips were to
cities like Princeton, Camden and Trenton that would have been
easily accessible by car or train.
Former aides to Mr. Torricelli said the campaign had rented a
large motor home. But several aides said the candidate strongly
preferred to fly, even when it meant that his staff had to
scramble to drop him off and pick him up in different cities.
On one occasion, Mr. Torricelli used one of the planes chartered
by Mr. Chang to fly an out-of-town friend around the Statue of
Liberty, three people familiar with the incident said.
Apart from the issue of whether the flights should have been
reimbursed in full, investigators also have a number of questions
about the way the flights were accounted for and whether the
campaign sought to evade reporting laws.
Internal campaign documents and interviews with former campaign
staff members suggest that at times, aides who handled accounting
for the flights knew they were operating on the ambiguous edges
of federal campaign spending rules.
One campaign memorandum, dated Oct. 8, 1996, lists the first
seven flights that Mr. Chang paid for, with two estimated costs
for each: higher fares on one side, and the much lower commercial
airline rates that the campaign ultimately reported to the
Federal Election Commission.
"Technically wrong," someone wrote beneath the list.
"Practically; people do it. If presented to F.E.C.?"
Mr. Bauer said that while he was unfamiliar with the document,
he believed it reflected a narrow question about whether it was
legal to pay commercial rather than charter rates when flying
near but not exactly from a city served by commercial airlines.
He noted that the elections commission did not rule clearly on
the issue until 1999.
Campaign finance records indicate that at least five flights in
September and early October were designated by the campaign as
in-kind contributions from Mr. Chang's former accountant, Hyon
Chon Park, and her husband, Jai Hong Park.
But according to people involved in the case, the Parks never
paid Bright & Bright; federal law forbids such so-called conduit
contributions.
And although the campaign asked the company at least two other
times to provide it with the names of other employees who might
take responsibility for similar contributions, Mr. Bauer said
the campaign had no way of knowing that the Parks did not repay
their employer. Contacted at their home, Mr. and Mrs. Park would
not comment on the case, saying they had already spoken to the
F.B.I.
The Park contributions also raise questions because the cost of
the flights that the couple purportedly paid for is much lower
than what the campaign itself later paid for flights between the
same cities.
For example, when the campaign reimbursed Bright & Bright for an
Oct. 25 flight from Teterboro to Atlantic City and back, it paid
$1,130, Mr. Bauer said. But when it listed three flights on the
same route as contributions by the Parks, it reported to the
Federal Election Commission that the cost was only $254 each
time. Campaign officials said they could not explain how each
fare had been calculated; generally speaking, they said, the
fares were intended to pay the cost either of charter service,
first class or the highest available coach rate.
As it was reporting the in-kind contributions from the Parks, the
campaign made a first payment to Bright & Bright on Sept. 13 for
$4,277. Mr. Bauer said that amount appeared to cover four
flights between Sept. 24 and Sept. 26, flights not listed on
the campaign's own documents.
And though it was supposed to pay for the flights in advance, the
campaign did not make a second payment to Bright & Bright until
three months after the race ended. Then, it paid $9,280.20 for
what campaign officials said were flights on six dates from Oct.
22 to Nov. 2. By the prosecutors' record, that left 4 of the 19
flights unaccounted for, but campaign officials said they could
not explain the discrepancy.
=================================================================
Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT
FROM THE DESK OF:
*Michael Spitzer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends
=================================================================
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
