Yesterday was primary day in Alaska.

The incumbent Senator, Ted Stevens, and the incumbent House member, Don Young, are both enmeshed in public corruption scandals.  Both were listed in CREW's report, Beyond DeLay, as among the 22 most corrupt members of Congress

Stevens won his primary.

As of this morning, Young's race couldn't be called -- it's too close.

The Anchorage Daily News is monitoring results.

Today is primary day in Alaska. 

Just in time for the primary, Ted Stevens' defense team launched an attack on the federal prosecutors from the U.S. Department of Justice who are bringing the case against the Alaska Senator.   They're alleging a "smear":

Lawyers for Ted Stevens accused prosecutors Monday of attempting to unfairly try Alaska's senior U.S. senator next month by introducing "irrelevant and prejudicial evidence" that has nothing to do with the disclosure violations he's charge with.

Defense attorney Robert Cary asserted that new issues raised by the government "in its unnecessary public filing" nine days earlier have no place in the trial, scheduled to begin Sept. 22 in Washington, D.C.

"Instead, they are an obvious attempt to smear the senator's character," Cary wrote.

There is no dearth of partying going on at the party conventions over the next two weeks.  According to USA Today, lobbyists have figured out how to entertain members of Congress and their guests -- all allowed by loopholes in the new ethics law :

The ethics rules bar lawmakers from accepting meals, gifts or entertainment from lobbyists and groups that employ them.

They also prohibit senators and House members from attending lobbyist-funded parties thrown in their honor. But there are exemptions. Members of Congress, for instance, still can snack at lobbyist-funded events if nothing more substantial than finger food is served.

They also can go to "widely attended" gatherings as long as at least 25 people who aren't in Congress also participate and the event is related to their "official duties."

And none of the restrictions applies to functions that either raise campaign money, collect cash for charities or are sponsored by political fundraising committees.

CREW has filed two IRS complaints against the Living Word Christian Center:

CREW has filed a second IRS complaint against the Living Word Christian Center.  We filed an IRS complaint against the same church last October for engaging in electioneering.  Ths time, we allege that the Senior Pastor and Founder,  James "Mac" Hammond, has profited from the organization.  The problem is that, as an insider, he shouldn't be benefiting from the non-profit entity. 

Based on reports in the Star-Tribune, the IRS is actively investigating Living Word.  

Facing complaints about his church's tax-exempt status in February 2007, the Rev. Mac Hammond took to the pulpit on live television and said he would "almost welcome an IRS audit."

About two months later, Hammond got his wish, according to documents recently filed in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis.

The Internal Revenue Service is conducting an unusual investigation into whether compensation and loan deals between the Living Word Christian Center of Brooklyn Park (LWCC) and its pastor violated laws for tax-exempt organizations.

The IRS has asked the court to force the church to comply with a demand for detailed financial information. The church failed to respond to a March summons.

CREW released this statement after we got the news that the FEC Commissioners deadlocked 

Today’s decision indicates the FEC has finally recognized that at least in some cases, members of Congress should not be allowed to use campaign funds to bail them out of legal problems of their own making. This breaks with the FEC’s pattern of granting members permission to pay lawyers with campaign funds nearly every time the issue has been raised. It remains to be seen whether this is a one-time decision or whether the FEC really is breaking with its past precedents.

Here's how the Times-Picayune described the FEC proceedings:

Dividing along partisan lines, the Federal Election Commission couldn't agree Thursday on whether Sen. David Vitter, R-La., can use campaign money to pay all the legal costs related to his involvement in a Washington escort service scandal.

In a 3-3 vote, with all three Republicans voting yes and all three Democrats no, the commission deadlocked on whether Vitter could use campaign money to pay more than $160,000 in legal fees accrued in monitoring the federal criminal case against Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the so-called "D.C. Madam," and quashing her defense team's subpoenas of the senator. A majority vote is required for passage of a resolution.

The Bush administration's missing email saga continues.  CREW's Anne Weismann has it figured out -- the Bush White House wants to run out the clock and keep the public from seeing what are the public records of George Bush's presidency.

 The White House is missing as many as 225 days of e-mail dating back to 2003 and there is little if any likelihood a recovery effort will be completed by the time the Bush administration leaves office, according to an internal White House draft document obtained by The Associated Press.

The nine-page outline of the White House's e-mail problems invites companies to bid on a project to recover the missing electronic messages.

The work would be carried out through April 19, 2009, according to the Office of Administration request for contractors' proposals, which was dated June 20.

Last week, the White House declined to comment on the document.

On Wednesday, the White House refused to talk about internal White House contracting procedures, but said the information is "outdated and seriously inaccurate." It would not elaborate. The White House also declined to say whether it has hired a contractor for the work yet.

"With an eye on the clock, the White House continues to drag its feet and do everything possible to postpone public access to the records of this presidency," said Anne Weismann, chief counsel to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a private watchdog group.

This staff decision makes sense to us.  Vitter's involvement with the D.C. Madam had nothing to do with his status as a federal candidate.  His campaign account shouldn't be a legal slush fund.  We hope the FEC upholds the staff recommendation:

In asking for permission to use campaign money for legal expenses, Vitter's attorneys said that he would not have been subpoenaed by the Palfrey defense were it not for his status as a U.S. senator.

The commission's lawyers said that "even assuming that to be true, " it would not be enough to justify use of campaign money to pay the $85,322 in legal fees to quash the Palfrey subpoenas and another $75,213 for lawyers to monitor the Palfrey legal proceedings. Vitter's attorneys said that the senator already has spent $70,000 of his own money to cover the legal bills, which amounted to more than $200,000.

"Here Sen. Vitter's need for legal representation to quash Ms. Palfrey's subpoenas stemmed from his role as a potential witness in Ms. Palfrey's trial and was not related to information known to or acquired by Sen. Vitter during the course of his candidacy or in the performance of his duties as a U.S. senator, " the FEC attorneys wrote. "Moreover, Sen. Vitter's obligation as a witness to comply with a valid subpoena would exist irrespective of Sen. Vitter's campaign or duties as a U.S. senator."

In the end, Palfrey didn't call Vitter as a witness, although the federal judge overseeing the case said there was no legal impediment to her doing so.

The latest development in the case against Senator Ted Stevens:

A judge ruled this morning that Sen. Ted Stevens will stand trial in the nation's capital, not Alaska. U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan turned down Stevens' request that the trial be moved to Alaska.

Jury selection is set to begin Sept. 22 and the trial will start two days later.

The Associated Press picked up CREW's FEC complaint against Rep. Vern Buchanan (F-FL) and it's been running in papers around the Sunshine State.   While we've heard the perfunctory denials from the Buchanan camp , Melanie Sloan made it clear that CREW believes Buchanan played a role in this scandal:

Buchanan, a Republican, was elected in 2006 and represents an area that includes Sarasota and Bradenton. The complaint was filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and two former dealership employees. It alleges at least seven employees at two Buchanan-owned dealerships were either reimbursed or coerced into making $1,000 campaign contributions.

Buchanan is not said in the complaint to have directly asked for the contributions, but he did know about them, according to Melanie Sloan, the executive director of the watchdog group.

"It's our understanding that Vern Buchanan was involved. These are Vern Buchanan's dealerships, so none of this could have been happening without Vern Buchanan knowing about it," Sloan said.

A spokeswoman for Buchanan responded that it is the campaign's policy "that all contributions comply fully with FEC regulations."

Today, CREW and Florida citizens Carlo Bell and D.J. Padilla (both of whom worked for Buchanan's car dealerships) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) against Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL) alleging serious violations of campaign finance law.   The complaint and affidavits of Bell and Padilla can be found here.

Rep. Buchanan owns several car dealerships in Florida. In September 2005, dealership employees were pressured into contributing to Rep. Buchanan’s congressional campaign and some were reimbursed for making contributions. Former employee Carlo Bell was called into a manager’s office and told that if he was part of the “team” he would make a contribution. Fearing for his job, Bell agreed to make the donation and was handed $1,000 in cash. Bell also saw two other employees, Jack Prater and Jason Martin take cash in return for promising to write checks and FEC reports confirm that both men made $1,000 contributions to the Buchanan campaign.

Dealership employee D.J. Padilla was told that any employee who donated to the campaign committee would be repaid, but he refused to participate knowing that accepting repayment for a contribution is illegal.

CREW’s complaint alleges three violations of campaign finance law: 1) threatening employees with reprisals to coerce them to make campaign donations; 2) making contributions in the name of another; and 3) making corporate contributions.

CREW’s executive director Melanie Sloan said today:

The allegations against Rep. Buchanan, which are backed up with affidavits and a bank deposit slip, are very serious and may involve criminal conduct. The FEC should investigate and refer the matter to the Department of Justice for further action.