Craig: Airport bathroom trip was official business
BOISE, Idaho (AP) - Former Republican U.S. Sen. Larry Craig aims to fend off a federal election lawsuit against him by arguing his infamous July 11, 2007, Minneapolis airport bathroom visit that ended in his sex-sting arrest was part of his official Senate business.
Craig is hoping to avoid repaying $217,000 in campaign funds the Federal Election Commission claims he misused to defend himself.
The FEC sued Craig in June in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., alleging he converted the campaign money to personal use by spending it on his legal defense after he was accused of soliciting sex in a Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport bathroom. The commission argues Craig's defense had no connection to his campaign for federal office.
Craig counters that money tied to his airport bathroom trip was neither for personal use or his campaign, but falls under his official, reimbursable duties as senator because he was traveling between Idaho and the nation's capital for work.
He cites a U.S. Senate rule in which reimbursable per diem expenses include all charges for meals, lodging, hotel fans, cleaning, pressing of clothing - and bathrooms.
"Not only was the trip itself constitutionally required, but Senate rules sanction reimbursement for any cost relating to a senator's use of a bathroom while on official travel," wrote Andrew Herman, Craig's lawyer in Washington, D.C., in documents filed Thursday.
In its complaint, the FEC contends the three-term U.S. senator's campaign account, Craig for U.S. Senate, paid at least $139,952 to the law firm Sutherland, Asbill and Brennan in Washington, D.C., and $77,032 to Kelly & Jacobson in Minnesota for legal services related to his guilty plea to disorderly conduct.
An undercover officer said Craig tapped his feet and signaled under a stall divider that he wanted sex.
Regulators who voted unanimously in May to pursue the complaint against Craig after informal negotiations failed are seeking repayment of the money, as well as fines of up to $6,500 from the former senator and his treasurer, Kaye O'Riordan.
Contacted Friday, FEC spokeswoman Judith Ingram cited pending litigation and declined to comment on the case.
Craig also didn't return a phone call Friday to his lobbying firm, New West Strategies.
In documents supporting his bid to have the complaint dismissed, Craig cites the case of former U.S. Rep. Jim Kolbe of Arizona, who tapped campaign money in 2006 to defend himself after allegations of improper behavior emerged against him following a Grand Canyon rafting trip with two former male pages.
The trip by Kolbe, the second openly gay Republican to serve in Congress, was an official visit with support provided by the National Park Service.
The FEC concluded that Kolbe's use of the campaign money to pay legal expenses associated with a Department of Justice inquiry regarding the trip were "ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in connection with his duty as a House member."
Craig's lawyer argues that his airport bathroom visit, made while traveling back to Washington, D.C., from his home state, should be seen similarly - and the FEC complaint dismissed with prejudice.
"Simply put, no principled distinction can be drawn between the Kolbe matter and this case," Herman contends. "Sen. Craig's legal expenses arose during official Senate travel, an activity that was part of his constitutionally enumerated duties as a holder of federal office."
Craig is hoping to avoid repaying $217,000 in campaign funds the Federal Election Commission claims he misused to defend himself.
The FEC sued Craig in June in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., alleging he converted the campaign money to personal use by spending it on his legal defense after he was accused of soliciting sex in a Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport bathroom. The commission argues Craig's defense had no connection to his campaign for federal office.
Craig counters that money tied to his airport bathroom trip was neither for personal use or his campaign, but falls under his official, reimbursable duties as senator because he was traveling between Idaho and the nation's capital for work.
He cites a U.S. Senate rule in which reimbursable per diem expenses include all charges for meals, lodging, hotel fans, cleaning, pressing of clothing - and bathrooms.
"Not only was the trip itself constitutionally required, but Senate rules sanction reimbursement for any cost relating to a senator's use of a bathroom while on official travel," wrote Andrew Herman, Craig's lawyer in Washington, D.C., in documents filed Thursday.
In its complaint, the FEC contends the three-term U.S. senator's campaign account, Craig for U.S. Senate, paid at least $139,952 to the law firm Sutherland, Asbill and Brennan in Washington, D.C., and $77,032 to Kelly & Jacobson in Minnesota for legal services related to his guilty plea to disorderly conduct.
An undercover officer said Craig tapped his feet and signaled under a stall divider that he wanted sex.
Regulators who voted unanimously in May to pursue the complaint against Craig after informal negotiations failed are seeking repayment of the money, as well as fines of up to $6,500 from the former senator and his treasurer, Kaye O'Riordan.
Contacted Friday, FEC spokeswoman Judith Ingram cited pending litigation and declined to comment on the case.
Craig also didn't return a phone call Friday to his lobbying firm, New West Strategies.
In documents supporting his bid to have the complaint dismissed, Craig cites the case of former U.S. Rep. Jim Kolbe of Arizona, who tapped campaign money in 2006 to defend himself after allegations of improper behavior emerged against him following a Grand Canyon rafting trip with two former male pages.
The trip by Kolbe, the second openly gay Republican to serve in Congress, was an official visit with support provided by the National Park Service.
The FEC concluded that Kolbe's use of the campaign money to pay legal expenses associated with a Department of Justice inquiry regarding the trip were "ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in connection with his duty as a House member."
Craig's lawyer argues that his airport bathroom visit, made while traveling back to Washington, D.C., from his home state, should be seen similarly - and the FEC complaint dismissed with prejudice.
"Simply put, no principled distinction can be drawn between the Kolbe matter and this case," Herman contends. "Sen. Craig's legal expenses arose during official Senate travel, an activity that was part of his constitutionally enumerated duties as a holder of federal office."
"The FEC concluded that Kolbe's use of the campaign money to pay legal expenses associated with a Department of Justice inquiry regarding the trip were "ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in connection with his duty as a House member."
Â
Say what you will about the abysmal and pathetic Mr. Craig, it looks like the FEC has already $hit the bed on this one and he has a better than good chance to brush this matter off.
Â
Corruption in US politics is high and low, both GOP and Democrat. And people evidently like it that way. Â
Is tapping your foot under a bathroom stall the universal sign for "I want sex?"Â Or is that just in truck stops and airport bathrooms? How do you know that the dude next to you isn't going to beat your arse for trying to get busy with it?
Â
Huh. People and their weird sexual escapades. Maybe Craig should get together with George Michael.
@Tattooed_Angel Don't forget rest stops. I stopped at the one on South bound I-5 north of Arlington a few years back, and had some trucker in the stall next to me waving his hand under the stall wall. After the third time I stomped on his hand and ground his fingers against the tile a few times before leaving.
I think it's all crap.
I saw Craig kissing in a Chick-fil-A.
another republican experiencing boy trouble
Â
shocking
His trip might have been official business, what happened in the bathroom stall certainly wasn't! Once he pled guilty, he should have given up his right to use his campaign money for his defense. In my opinion, if he was on official business and was charged with a crime, he should have the right to a defense at his campaign's expense. If he is found guilty or pleads guilty, he should be on his own. Just my personal opinion.
I thought this story was over. Anyway, NO Chik-fil-A for you, Mr. Larry Graig!Â
Exactly what kind of "Official Business" is conducted between the stalls of an airport bathroom?
 @DeadRabitz Well, considering the amount of BS that goes on in the back rooms of Congress, it's not "that" hard to include a BM or two...
Geez. 5 years later, this is still in the news? And he's still trying to claim his innocence? Official bathroom business my butt.
He belongs in the same column as Anthony Weiner and John Edwards.
 @Saving Grace "Senator, you're no Barney Frank"!
 @cheekygesturton  The city with the highest number of people contacting AIDS is DC. no surprise with all the perverted congress people, who write laws that govern us. creepy.
 @Saving Grace Throw in Mark Foley and Mark Sanford.Â
I don't care if it was an official trip or not. Point is, what happened in the bathroom wasn't official business, and using campaign money to defend oneself is quite obviously wrong.
Geez What people won't go through just to hide their sexuality.lol Its his fault he spent $217,000. All he had to do was admit he was gay.
you guys remember after this whole debacle, he went on camera with his wife flanking him and declared "I am not gay!" Whatever you say dude.
My hunch is this guy wont be dining at any Chick-Fil-A restaurants anytime soon
$217,000 equates to 217,000 reasons why Mr. Craig will likely always stay in the closet. If people weren't so darn weird about people being gay, I have the feeling that Mr. Craig could have led a happier life.Â
 @kennewickman In the closet or not...a US Senator in a bathroom stall? I don't care if you are with your wife, have a little dignity!