Murphy muddies the water on campaign donor

U.S. Representative Patrick Murphy, D-PA, came to the defense of a campaign donor who falsely claimed to be a member of the freshman Democrat’s Congressional staff, raising new questions on whether Murphy violated House ethics rules, research by the Majority Accountability Project (www.majorityap.com) has found.

Bill Foster, an Illinois millionaire and Democrat candidate in the race to succeed retired U.S. Representative J. Dennis Hastert, claimed in a recent campaign mailer that he was a member of Murphy’s Congressional staff.  Foster has so far donated $6,700 to Murphy, and was a volunteer during the Pennsylvania Democrat’s 2006 campaign.

But after majorityap.com reported that House payroll records disputed Foster’s claim he was a member of Murphy’s staff, Foster changed his story, putting out a news release claiming he was, instead, an “unpaid staffer.”  When majorityap.com then noted that the House of Representatives has strict ethical guidelines on volunteers in Congressional offices, Foster changed his story yet again – his third version in less than 24 hours.   This time, Foster told the Beacon News he was an “unpaid scientific advisor.”

Murphy’s office has since weighed in, and described Foster’s role as a “legislative fellow” in a report appearing Saturday in the Daily Herald.  As with volunteers, the House of Representatives has set guidelines on the role and placement of Congressional fellows, raising new questions on whether Murphy violated House ethics rules to aid a well-heeled donor.

According to House rules, a fellow is “an individual performing services in a House office on a temporary basis as part of an established mid-career education program, while continuing to receive the usual compensation from his or her sponsoring employer.”  The ethics committee further states the fellowship “should be operated by an entity not affiliated with a congressional office, and the organization should be willing to indicate its sponsorship of the intern or fellow in writing.”

Neither Murphy nor Foster identified who, if anyone, sponsored the Illinois politician’s fellowship, or the “mid-career education program” in which Foster was enrolled.  House rules mandate that programs for volunteers, interns and fellows have “an educational benefit,” such as academic credit.

The statement from Murphy’s staff is the first supporting Foster’s claim that he held any official position with the Pennsylvania Democrat.  In August, Murphy sent an e-mail on Foster’s behalf, but only acknowledged the millionaire volunteered on his campaign.  He made no mention of Foster’s support in his official Congressional office.

House members are prohibited from granting favors “on the basis of the campaign contributions or support of the involved individual.”  Foster’s unusual arrangement with Murphy’s office would seem to contradict House ethics rules.

Ironically, while Foster volunteered for Murphy’s 2006 campaign, and has frequently criticized current elected leaders, he failed to vote in that year’s Congressional elections.  According to Kane County, Illinois, voting records, Foster didn’t vote in the 2006, 2005, 2003, 2002 or 2001 general elections.  He was briefly registered to vote in 2006 in the District of Columbia, where he had an apartment, but did not vote there either.

Murphy himself is no stranger to controversy.  A host of newspapers in his Pennsylvania district reported majorityap.com’s findings on a suspicious book deal Murphy inked shortly before taking office, at which time he would have been prohibited from receiving an advance for his yet-to-be released memoir.

Murphy received a $100,000 advance from a politically-active literary agent, at a time when House records reported the freshman Democrat was heavily in debt.  Most Congressional memoirs earn only a fraction of that amount.

Philadelphia Magazine panned the book this month, calling Murphy’s effort “banal.”