MEMO: A Gift Is A Gift, Whether You Like It Or NotMEMORANDUM TO: Reporters; interested parties The case against Senator Ted Stevens is simple and straightforward – he knowingly received gifts from VECO, never paid for them, and refused to disclose them. But, let’s for a second buy into Stevens’ claim that they didn’t like or want what they received from VECO. The thing with gifts is, you don’t always like them. A gift is a gift, whether you like it or not. People return gifts all the time, or re-gift, or throw away, or hide it in the garage and hope whoever gave it never asks about it again. However, when it comes to elected officials, there are clear and explicit rules about what is and is not a gift, and how to disclose them. These rules are not dependent on liking or wanting the gift. Like many of us, Stevens and his wife Catherine may have received some gifts they didn’t particularly like or necessarily want. But as a Senator, Stevens was still required to report every single gift he received every single year. As the defense team has presented their side of the seven count corruption case, jurors and Alaskans have heard from Stevens and his wife about things they didn’t like, things they didn’t want, things they never asked for. Yet these things are still on the chalet, still in the home, still being used by the Stevens’s. According to the Senate Ethics Manual, Stevens received many gifts from VECO. The manual says, “The word ‘gift’ is defined broadly and includes any ‘item having monetary value’… the Rule states: [T]he term ‘gift’ means any gratuity, favor, discount, entertainment, hospitality, loan, forbearance, or other item having monetary value.” Under Senate Rules, home remodeling is a gift, a power generator is a gift, a stained glass window is a gift, a massage chair given as a loan is a gift. The manual goes on to say, if a Senator, “…inadvertently receives a gift whose value is over the dollar limit either to pay the donor the market value of the gift, or to return it to the donor without using it.” Stevens and his wife could have paid for everything they received, or given everything back, but they didn’t. The Senate Ethics manual puts the burden on the Senator to say no to gifts. Senators are to weigh who is giving a gift and how it would be perceived. When in doubt, a Senator is to say no to a gift. “The Senate has long recognized that ‘public office is a public trust.’ Senators hold office to represent the interests of their constituents and the public at large… The public has a right to expect Members, officers, and employees to exercise impartial judgment in performing their duties. The receipt of gifts, entertainment, or favors from certain persons or interests may interfere with this impartial judgment, or may create an appearance of impropriety that may undermine the public’s faith in government. Thus, Members and employees of the Senate should always exercise discretion concerning the acceptance of gifts, favors, or entertainment from persons who are not relatives. They should be particularly sensitive to the source and value of a gift, the frequency of gifts from one source, and possible motives of the donor… One should always be wary of accepting any gift, favor, or benefit that may not have been offered ‘but for’ one’s position in the Senate.” [Senate Ethics Manual, http://ethics.senate.gov/downloads/pdffiles/manual.pdf] Stevens and his wife have yet to answer the critical questions in the case. Not liking the gifts, not asking for the gifts, not wanting the gifts is fine. But they were gifts nonetheless. All gifts, especially from the Chief Executive of VECO, need to be paid for and reported. Asking for a bill is not sufficient. The rules are clear – in order to keep the public’s trust, Stevens needed to disclose. When is a gift not a gift? Apparently Stevens thinks he can make up his own definition of gift. When you run for office, you are no longer an average citizen. Senators wield power and influence that most of us will never have. When given a gift that the average person wouldn’t be offered, a Senator has to say no. Stevens should have said no, he should have disclosed the gifts, but he didn’t. Stevens took illegal gifts from VECO, and that is inexcusable. |
 |
 |
 |