Pruitt’s Legal-Defense Fund Heightens Ethical Concerns

Experts say the EPA head’s pledge to refuse industry money could be little more than window-dressing.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt
AP Photo/Andrew Harnik
May 21, 2018, 8 p.m.

Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt is banking on a little help from his friends.

A legal-defense fund for the beleaguered Cabinet official is now up and running to combat the roughly one dozen or more federal investigations into Pruitt’s alleged ethical violations.

But the fund faces a dilemma: A large portion of the EPA administrator’s traditional cadre of patrons have direct business before the agency, and federal regulations—at least ostensibly—restrict contributions from those individuals and businesses.

Ethics officials and legal experts are sounding the alarm bells, even before Pruitt’s defense fund files its first disclosures. Federal regulations prohibit parties with business before a government body from donating to an official in charge of that body.

“There are a number of ways that special interests that want something from the EPA as a general matter would find ways to support Scott Pruitt’s legal-defense fund,” Brendan Fischer, a director at the Campaign Legal Center, told National Journal.

An uptick in the use of defense funds within the Trump administration, led by the administration-wide Patriot Legal Expense Fund Trust, is fueling speculation about the use of shell companies and other straw donors to dump money into these funds.

“In theory, somebody could set up a Delaware [limited-liability company] and funnel donations through an LLC. I just don’t know how that would be enforced,” said Bob Rizzi, a tax and ethics attorney and partner at Steptoe & Johnson LLP.

Pruitt pledged at a Senate hearing last week not to accept donations from lobbyists or corporations with business before the EPA, but he seemed to quickly backpedal.

“I don’t accept donations. I don’t solicit donations. That’s done by attorneys and others,” he told Sen. Chris Van Hollen.

Ethics and legal experts say Pruitt’s fund is likely a tax-exempt IRS Section 527 political organization or some form of a trust. EPA spokespersons didn’t respond to requests for comment on the details of the fund or filings.

“I don’t think that saying lawyers and others do the solicitation tells us whether it is a 527,” said Ellen Aprill, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and a preeminent expert on gift rules for these types of funds. “It may be set up as a trust with him as beneficiary, along with a demand power that he won’t exercise.”

Aprill pointed to a so-called Crummey trust, which exempts gift taxes for donations up to $15,000, as a potential option for Pruitt’s legal-defense fund. The tax exemptions in both the Section 527 and Crummey structures could also help accomplish another possible priority for Pruitt—ethics observers say he’ll likely pull out all the stops to avoid paying taxes.

“Pruitt definitely has demonstrated for several years a desire to live beyond the means of his salary,” Jeff Hauser, executive director of the Revolving Door Project at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, told National Journal.

Several months since controversy erupted, Pruitt is still under fire for a string of alleged ethical lapses involving first-class airfare, a large security detail, international trips, and cozy arrangements for prime accommodation.

Still, the policy implications of the defense-fund donations are raising the most eyebrows.

Pruitt has led an ambitious regulatory rollback at the EPA after the agency under President Obama issued regulations on the power sector, bodies of water, and other parts of the EPA portfolio that spurred potent opposition. The administrator’s critics, like Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member Tom Carper, stress that Pruitt hasn’t been successful in many of his actions.

“More than 140 lawsuits have been filed against EPA either because the Pruitt EPA has failed to meet statutory deadlines, or in response to efforts by Administrator Pruitt to repeal regulations, delay their implementation, or deny the public access to agency information,” Carper’s staff said in a statement Monday that accompanied a report detailing the litigation.

But Pruitt plans to unveil new rules to replace the Clean Power Plan and the Clean Water Rule, and he’s finalized more than 20 deregulatory actions to the tune of $1 billion in potential savings, according to the agency.

And industry, much of which supported Pruitt financially in the past, continues to cheer him on. Some of Pruitt’s biggest donors during his time as attorney general in Oklahoma, where he filed high-profile suits against EPA’s most significant rules, include Devon Energy, Monsanto, Phillips 66, and other companies with direct interest in EPA action.

Ethics officials say those groups, and other industry behemoths, are likely angling to fill the coffers of Pruitt’s defense fund.

“They’re the ones of course most willing to give to something like this. They have the most at stake here,” said Craig Holman, a lobbyist at the left-leaning watchdog Public Citizen. “Scott Pruitt is in deep legal trouble, and he does need legal assistance. I don’t mind the concept of establishing a legal-defense fund. I just want to make sure it’s not used as an avenue for undue influence-peddling by special interests.”

Cleta Mitchell, a partner at Foley & Lardner LLP, and Paul Rauser, a partner at Aegis Law Group LLP, are currently counseling Pruitt, according to reports.

Pruitt told the Senate he would publish donations “pursuant to the requirements of disclosures,” adding that his team is working with the White House and the General Accountability Office to stick to the rules. The Office of Government Ethics instructs officials—in guidance that is only arguably enforceable, according to some ethics experts—to report defense-fund donations totaling more than $390 from a single source on annual disclosures. Pruitt will likely file that disclosure next year.

In the meantime, at least one prominent Pruitt ally hasn’t donated.

“I have not made any contributions,” Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma told reporters last week, striking a smile and dismissing the ethical concerns. “What he doesn’t want to do is be in a position where the government is paying legal fees.”

What We're Following See More »
AVOIDS SHUTDOWN WITH A FEW HOURS TO SPARE
Trump Signs Border Deal
1 days ago
THE LATEST

"President Trump signed a sweeping spending bill Friday afternoon, averting another partial government shutdown. The action came after Trump had declared a national emergency in a move designed to circumvent Congress and build additional barriers at the southern border, where he said the United States faces 'an invasion of our country.'"

Source:
REDIRECTS $8 BILLION
Trump Declares National Emergency
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

"President Donald Trump on Friday declared a state of emergency on the southern border and immediately direct $8 billion to construct or repair as many as 234 miles of a border barrier. The move — which is sure to invite vigorous legal challenges from activists and government officials — comes after Trump failed to get the $5.7 billion he was seeking from lawmakers. Instead, Trump agreed to sign a deal that included just $1.375 for border security."

Source:
COULD SOW DIVISION AMONG REPUBLICANS
House Will Condemn Emergency Declaration
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

"House Democrats are gearing up to pass a joint resolution disapproving of President Trump’s emergency declaration to build his U.S.-Mexico border wall, a move that will force Senate Republicans to vote on a contentious issue that divides their party. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said Thursday evening in an interview with The Washington Post that the House would take up the resolution in the coming days or weeks. The measure is expected to easily clear the Democratic-led House, and because it would be privileged, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would be forced to put the resolution to a vote that he could lose."

Source:
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, DRUG FORFEITURE FUND
Where Will the Emergency Money Come From?
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

"ABC News has learned the president plans to announce on Friday his intention to spend about $8 billion on the border wall with a mix of spending from Congressional appropriations approved Thursday night, executive action and an emergency declaration. A senior White House official familiar with the plan told ABC News that $1.375 billion would come from the spending bill Congress passed Thursday; $600 million would come from the Treasury Department's drug forfeiture fund; $2.5 billion would come from the Pentagon's drug interdiction program; and through an emergency declaration: $3.5 billion from the Pentagon's military construction budget."

Source:
TRUMP SAYS HE WILL SIGN
House Passes Funding Deal
2 days ago
THE DETAILS

"The House passed a massive border and budget bill that would avert a shutdown and keep the government funded through the end of September. The Senate passed the measure earlier Thursday. The bill provides $1.375 billion for fences, far short of the $5.7 billion President Trump had demanded to fund steel walls. But the president says he will sign the legislation, and instead seek to fund his border wall by declaring a national emergency."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login