STATEMENT FROM J.D. HAYWORTH ABOUT FIT TRUST CONTRIBUTORS
Yes, the truth will make you free. But sometimes it's very, very expensive.
My name is J. D. Hayworth, and I represented Arizona as a United States Congressman from 1995-2007. To this day, journalists and bloggers inaccurately refer to my "ties" to Jack Abramoff. Here's what really happened, and why it's important for you to know the truth.
After the 2006 election was history, my staff and I were packing up the D.C. office to return to Arizona. As this was happening, an attorney from the Department of Justice called and told us "Don't throw away anything!" This attorney, his curiousity piqued by press accounts attempting to link me with the criminal Jack Abramoff, had decided to look into these allegations.
Prior to the 2006 campaign, some of my opponents and their allies created a very clever scheme: Link Abramoff to their political targets using a 'bridge' of Indian tribes who contributed to people like me.
It's a simple and very devastating attack strategy: Make a claim through some intermediaries, or off the record, that Abramoff is directing the Indian tribes to make campaign contributions to their opponents. Then force the opponents to waste money, time, and energy fighting that battle instead of the one they should be fighting: for their constituents. As an added bonus, if they can stir the pot enough, they can get official investigators interested in the issue under the guise of "If there's this much smoke, there must be a fire around here somewhere". This causes even more distraction, more wasted money, and more wasted time.
Ethical? No.
Effective? Very.
Here are the simple facts:
In the meantime, we cooperated fully with the Department of Justice, and hopefully our efforts helped in the indictment and conviction of Abramoff. Of course, we will never know that for certain. What we do know is that he is currently incarcerated for defrauding the Indian tribes, conspiracy, and corruption of public officials.
These days, 'cooperation' is expensive. Very expensive. In our case, it involved retaining a K Street Law Firm to pore over twelve years worth of my congressional records and correspondance. Twelve years of household records is bad enough, but Congress runs on paper and e-mails, and it was literally thousands of pages and hundreds of computer records that had to be examined, evaluated, and sometimes redacted for security reasons. Then you can add the administrative costs, phone calls, and 'face time' the attorneys spent with the DOJ. When all was said and done, the legal bill was over a half a million dollars. And that was to 'cooperate' with the DOJ!
In the end, we were completely vindicated. In a letter from our attorneys, they informed us that the Department of Justice had advised us that we "are not now the target, subject or focus [of] any DOJ investigation, case or other proceeding." Essentially, it was a complete and total vindication that we had done nothing wrong at all - which is exactly what we had been saying all along.
We used all of what was left in the campaign account to partially pay the legal bills, but came up $285,000 short. Recently, the law firm proposed to us that they could accept half the outstanding debt as payment, so we now owe $42,168. But, there's a catch (there always is one). It has to be paid before May 31, 2010.
So, we established the Freedom In Truth Trust solely to help retire this outstanding bill. It's not a political thing, so there's no limit on what you could contribute. On the downside, it's not tax-deductible either.
I have always tried to be honest and aboveboard in my dealings in private as well as publicly in Congress. As you can see from the above, even being cooperative, honest, and truthful can be twisted against you. So, I am asking for your financial help in getting the legal debt resolved. After that is done, other important decisions can be made with a clear field ahead. As is often said: One step at a time.
Please help if you can. You can contribute online via our secure server or you can send a check payable to "The Freedom in Truth Trust".
The FIT Trust
P.O. Box 984
Willows, California 95988
My name is J. D. Hayworth, and I represented Arizona as a United States Congressman from 1995-2007. To this day, journalists and bloggers inaccurately refer to my "ties" to Jack Abramoff. Here's what really happened, and why it's important for you to know the truth.
After the 2006 election was history, my staff and I were packing up the D.C. office to return to Arizona. As this was happening, an attorney from the Department of Justice called and told us "Don't throw away anything!" This attorney, his curiousity piqued by press accounts attempting to link me with the criminal Jack Abramoff, had decided to look into these allegations.
Prior to the 2006 campaign, some of my opponents and their allies created a very clever scheme: Link Abramoff to their political targets using a 'bridge' of Indian tribes who contributed to people like me.
It's a simple and very devastating attack strategy: Make a claim through some intermediaries, or off the record, that Abramoff is directing the Indian tribes to make campaign contributions to their opponents. Then force the opponents to waste money, time, and energy fighting that battle instead of the one they should be fighting: for their constituents. As an added bonus, if they can stir the pot enough, they can get official investigators interested in the issue under the guise of "If there's this much smoke, there must be a fire around here somewhere". This causes even more distraction, more wasted money, and more wasted time.
Ethical? No.
Effective? Very.
Here are the simple facts:
- Abramoff contributed a grand total of $2,250 dollars to my political efforts. ($250 in 1996, $1,000 in 1998, and $1,000 to our leadership political action committee, TEAMPAC, in 1999.)
- I never met with Abramoff concerning any legislation.
- He never came to my office.
- He never lobbied me directly on any issue.
In the meantime, we cooperated fully with the Department of Justice, and hopefully our efforts helped in the indictment and conviction of Abramoff. Of course, we will never know that for certain. What we do know is that he is currently incarcerated for defrauding the Indian tribes, conspiracy, and corruption of public officials.
These days, 'cooperation' is expensive. Very expensive. In our case, it involved retaining a K Street Law Firm to pore over twelve years worth of my congressional records and correspondance. Twelve years of household records is bad enough, but Congress runs on paper and e-mails, and it was literally thousands of pages and hundreds of computer records that had to be examined, evaluated, and sometimes redacted for security reasons. Then you can add the administrative costs, phone calls, and 'face time' the attorneys spent with the DOJ. When all was said and done, the legal bill was over a half a million dollars. And that was to 'cooperate' with the DOJ!
In the end, we were completely vindicated. In a letter from our attorneys, they informed us that the Department of Justice had advised us that we "are not now the target, subject or focus [of] any DOJ investigation, case or other proceeding." Essentially, it was a complete and total vindication that we had done nothing wrong at all - which is exactly what we had been saying all along.
We used all of what was left in the campaign account to partially pay the legal bills, but came up $285,000 short. Recently, the law firm proposed to us that they could accept half the outstanding debt as payment, so we now owe $42,168. But, there's a catch (there always is one). It has to be paid before May 31, 2010.
So, we established the Freedom In Truth Trust solely to help retire this outstanding bill. It's not a political thing, so there's no limit on what you could contribute. On the downside, it's not tax-deductible either.
I have always tried to be honest and aboveboard in my dealings in private as well as publicly in Congress. As you can see from the above, even being cooperative, honest, and truthful can be twisted against you. So, I am asking for your financial help in getting the legal debt resolved. After that is done, other important decisions can be made with a clear field ahead. As is often said: One step at a time.
Please help if you can. You can contribute online via our secure server or you can send a check payable to "The Freedom in Truth Trust".
The FIT Trust
P.O. Box 984
Willows, California 95988
Direct questions, honest answers
Were you really the largest recipient of Abramoff money?
No. An accurate review of the FEC records indicates that my campaign and leadership PAC ranked ninth, well behind such notable entities as the Democratic National Committee, the Democrat Senate Campaign Committee, and the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee, to name just three.
Of course, once a charge is made, it is difficult to get a correction from media outlets - much less political opponents - who will continue to spew false charges if it inflicts the political damage they desire. Expect to see this false charge again in the days ahead.
Could you explain the whole 'skybox' thing?
The use of skyboxes for fundraising events is a common practice. Typically, use of the skybox is either an "in-kind" campaign donation, or the campaign must reimburse the entity that provides it.The problem was that Abramoff's associates never got back to us with an accurate cost estimate for the events in question, despite repeated requests from my campaign.
Much later, as the walls started closing in on him, he sent some outrageously expensive estimate, so we consulted the FEC and withtheir guidance, made payments on expenses to the host tribes, in accordance with campaign regulations.
In other words, we undertook our best effort to resolve any questions and cooperated with the Federal Election Commission. In turn, the FEC issued no citations, nor levied any fine, so we resolved the question to the FEC's satisfaction.
What about that $100,000 you supposedly paid to your wife?
My wife Mary was an employee of TEAMPAC, and she received a monthly paycheck. Simple math takes the "oomph" out of this charge. Think of it this way: if someone is paid $20,000 annually for five years, that totals $100,000! Pretty cheap for office help. Also, these were not taxpayer funds!
Were you really the largest recipient of Abramoff money?
No. An accurate review of the FEC records indicates that my campaign and leadership PAC ranked ninth, well behind such notable entities as the Democratic National Committee, the Democrat Senate Campaign Committee, and the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee, to name just three.
Of course, once a charge is made, it is difficult to get a correction from media outlets - much less political opponents - who will continue to spew false charges if it inflicts the political damage they desire. Expect to see this false charge again in the days ahead.
Could you explain the whole 'skybox' thing?
The use of skyboxes for fundraising events is a common practice. Typically, use of the skybox is either an "in-kind" campaign donation, or the campaign must reimburse the entity that provides it.The problem was that Abramoff's associates never got back to us with an accurate cost estimate for the events in question, despite repeated requests from my campaign.
Much later, as the walls started closing in on him, he sent some outrageously expensive estimate, so we consulted the FEC and withtheir guidance, made payments on expenses to the host tribes, in accordance with campaign regulations.
In other words, we undertook our best effort to resolve any questions and cooperated with the Federal Election Commission. In turn, the FEC issued no citations, nor levied any fine, so we resolved the question to the FEC's satisfaction.
What about that $100,000 you supposedly paid to your wife?
My wife Mary was an employee of TEAMPAC, and she received a monthly paycheck. Simple math takes the "oomph" out of this charge. Think of it this way: if someone is paid $20,000 annually for five years, that totals $100,000! Pretty cheap for office help. Also, these were not taxpayer funds!