Brand Law Group Blog

Stan's Speech at 2010 Baseball Winter Meetings

2010-12-06T18:43:00.000-05:00

Stan Brand's opening speech--courtesy of MILB
12/06/2010 4:20 PM ET
Minor League Baseball

LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla. -- As I do each year, I bring news from the Nation's Capital and attempt to interpret events that may impact our industry, and to some extent, predict what the future may portend for us. Political prognostication is an art and can leave the most experienced and astute professional observers bewildered and sometimes just plain wrong -- sort of like picking pennant winners. Nevertheless, I am going to try my hand at it.
Of course, we just had an election -- a momentous one that produced a major power shift in Congress and political repercussions for the next two years leading up to the 2012 Presidential election. What do the results of the 2010 mid-term election mean generally, and then more particularly, what do they mean for baseball?

We all know that baseball is, more than almost any other major sport, numbers driven, and that statistics have played a central role in the long history and public fascination with the game. So, first, let's take a look inside some numbers to see what they may tell us about the current political climate and how we might interpret the election results. I have read the analyses of virtually every political pundit on both sides of the aisle, as we say in Washington, and found one particularly persuasive. Writing in The Wall Street Journal the day before the election, Scott Rasmussen, a Republican pollster, put it this way: "for the third election in a row, voters did the same thing they did in 2006 and 2008: they voted against the party in power." Rasmussen posited that the Democrats ignored public concern over an overly ambitious health care plan and paid the price at the polls.

But he also borrowed a metaphor all baseball executives should resonate to, cautioning Republicans that their "team didn't win, the other team lost." Indeed, according to his analysis, the trend culminating in the last three anti-incumbent elections began in 1994, when President Clinton's party lost control of the Congress in the mid-term election of 1994. The trend continued when President Bush lost control of Congress in the 2006 mid-term. The conclusion he drew from these anti-incumbent results won't come as a surprise: "...elected politicians should leave their ideological baggage behind because voters don't want to be governed from the left, the right, or even the center. They want someone in Washington who understands that the American people want to govern themselves."

A deeper look inside the numbers seems to support his admonition to both sides not to over read election results. In 2008, slightly more than 53 percent of voters cast ballots for Democratic candidates in the House of Representatives. In 2010, a little bit less than 53 percent opted for Republican candidates in the House. Despite this almost identical margin of victory for the winning party in 2008 and 2010, the numbers yielded an almost 80-seat shift to the Republicans in the House -- the worst beating taken by the Democrats since 1938. And here's another numerical analysis that reflects the increasing volatility of the electorate: in 1994, the Democrats had controlled the House of Representatives for 40 consecutive years and 46 of the previous 48 years.

The Republicans maintained control of the House for the next 12 years, until 2006, when the Democrats regained control of both houses of Congress. Of course, this year, the Republicans cut short the Democratic run of control to a mere four years. Based on these numbers, and using a bit of Bill James baseball-like statistical hypothesizing, the House of Representatives could be expected to switch back in 2012 -- although no one is realistically predicting that.

The point is that the electorate is not sold on either party, and so we are likely to witness increased volatility for the next several cycles. This signals again the decreasing importance of party affiliation and the determination of elections by the vast and growing legion of independent voters not registered in either party. In Massachusetts, for example, the number of independents now exceeds the combined total of voters registered as Democrats and Republicans. That's how Scott Brown, a Republican, was elected in Massachusetts to the Senate to fill the seat left vacant by the death of Sen. Kennedy. While the political parties keep reading their victories as ringing endorsements of their agendas, it may be, as Rasmussen suggests, a false reading, since the vast number of independent have repudiated each party in power in the last three cycles.

In addition to the numbers, the "narratives," as the political professionals like to label the underlying rationalization for the electorate's political attitudes, seem to me unsupportable when we dig beneath their surface appeal. These narratives -- sometimes formulated by the parties themselves -- tend to be self-serving rationalizations reflecting the agendas of party insiders.

Let me give you an example: a large portion of the Democrat establishment, and some major media, are promoting the notion that a surge of so-called independent campaign spending by corporations and allied business groups swamped the electorate and drowned incumbent candidates in a sea of negative ads, all facilitated by the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case, which struck down, on First Amendment grounds, spending limits imposed on independent groups. In my view, the notion that money determined the outcome simply can't be demonstrated. First, while independent expenditures certainly soared, especially by corporate related interests, more money was spent by candidates themselves.

Indeed, one of the myths often propagated by those arguing that money skews elections is the proliferation of self-funded candidates and the supposed advantage they enjoy by using their personal wealth. Here's a statistic that puts a big hole in the theory that money steers elections. OpenSecrets.org, a political investigative blog, reported that of 58 federal-level candidates who contributed half a million dollars or more to their own campaigns, 11 won election to federal office. Well, if you do the math, the percentage of successful self-funded candidates, if translated into a batting average, would be below the storied Mendoza line in baseball. Of three candidates who spent a combined $250,000 million dollars, two lost by large margins to less well-funded candidates.

The election spawned other myths as well: one is that the Democratic party lost because its "messaging" did not effectively convey to the electorate the accomplishments it had achieved over the last two years. But as the business writer for The Washington Post, Steve Perlstein, cogently argued right after the election, there was no positive message to assuage an electorate experiencing 10 percent unemployment. It would not have been a winning argument to say that without some of the measures taken under the Democratic control, it would have been even higher. As James Carville famously stated in 1992, "It's the economy stupid," and so it was again in 2010.

In sum then, the numbers reflect a consistent pattern over the last three elections: a wary and divided electorate, not persuaded on the agendas of either political party, with the future control of government up for grabs. In 2008, at the Winter Meetings in Las Vegas, which were held on the heels of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, I discussed with you how the Minor Leagues contracted from 27 leagues to 18 leagues in the two years following the stock market crash of 1929, only to recover and grow to 37 leagues by 1937, owing to innovations like night baseball and playoffs advanced by Minor League president, William Bramham.

The point is that economic and political upheaval is not new to the Minors, nor is it something we should be unduly fearful of. We have endured through difficult times because our values and business models have served us well and provided an enduring foundation for our survival.

So, what does all this mean for baseball, which is after all, why we are all gathered here in Orlando? It certainly means that navigating the political shoals for us isn't likely to be any easier than it has been in the past. In 2010, there will be more elected officials taking the oath of office who have never before served in public office than at any time in our history. That statistic has sent chills down the spines of many in the Washington lobbying community, as they contemplate explaining their problems to legislators with no previous political or government experience.

But while these newly minted members have never set foot inside a legislative chamber or city council office, I'd venture a guess that most, it not all of them, have been to a ballpark. And while they may not yet know the jurisdiction of the committees they are being assigned to, or the details of the federal budget, surely they have a sense of the important role played by Minor League clubs in the life of their communities. They may have never attended a joint session of Congress or a White House briefing but they certainly have seen the positive impact of Minor League clubs on their constituents. So, we will have more new faces to meet and explain our business to, but it's unlikely that we will encounter people who do not appreciate the role that grassroots baseball has played in the fabric of American life.

While we have enjoyed a long period of stability and relative peace in baseball, two other major sports -- basketball and football -- face difficult labor management negotiations in the coming year, with the threat of work stoppages looming overhead. The saber rattling has begun with talk of union decertification -- usually a prelude to litigation -- and the hiring of lobbyists to seek congressional intervention in the dispute. It is some comfort that we are on the sidelines for once in this type of political free-for-all, although we must remain vigilant that any congressional action doesn't inadvertently spill over on us. We wish our brethren in other sports well, but we will be ready to protect our interest should that prove necessary.

Stan Quoted by AP re: WikiLeaks

2010-12-02T20:11:00.000-05:00

"The courts have been somewhat reluctant to draw a line of demarcation between what we call mainstream media and everyone else," said Washington attorney Stan Brand. "If these people are publishing and exercising First Amendment rights, I don't know why they're less entitled to their First Amendment rights to publish."

Stan Quoted in NYTimes re Ensign Matter

2010-12-02T11:27:00.000-05:00

From the evidence that has been made public, “there appeared to be a prima facie case of a conspiracy to violate, and substantial violation of the revolving door statute,” said Stanley Brand, a Washington lawyer who specializes in defending clients investigated by the government.

While Justice Department officials declined to explain the reasoning behind the decision in the Ensign case, Mr. Brand and other ethics lawyers said the department appeared wary of taking on political prosecutions after a number of high-profile setbacks for its public integrity section, including the decision last year to drop the prosecution against former Senator Ted Stevens amid charges of prosecutorial misconduct.

Andrew Quoted on HuffPost.com re: McCain's "Independent Expenditures"

2010-10-28T10:27:00.001-04:00

EXCLUSIVE: MCCAIN FLAGRANTLY BREAKING HIS OWN LAW - When Democrats complained that John McCain's Senate campaign was illegally spending its money to back Raul Grijalva's opponent Ruth McClung, McCain whipped out docs showing he had filed with the FEC to make the independent expenditure. But that means he can't coordinate with the McClung campaign. HuffPost Hill snagged an email from the McClung camp to activists urging them to come into the McClung headquarters to do phone banking. The contact they give is a McCain staffer, Mike Sistak. It'd be difficult to define coordination any more clearly than that. Andrew Herman, a top election law attorney, calls the flagrant coordination "absurd" and "ridiculous." "It's certainly not within the letter and spirit of the law that bears the name of Mr. McCain," he said.

More quotes at the updated link

Professor Brand On YouTube Discussing Congressional Ethics Process

2010-09-16T11:30:00.002-04:00

Politico: "Waters' attorneys to panel: Back off"

2010-08-26T14:18:00.001-04:00

News Coverage of Release of M. Waters SAV and Motions

2010-08-10T14:49:00.000-04:00

Roll Call (sub. req'd): http://www.rollcall.com/news/49119-1.html
Roll Call: ("Waters’ Lawyers Accuse Ethics Panel of Double Standard") http://www.rollcall.com/news/49123-1.html
Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/09/AR2010080903377.html?hpid=moreheadlines
Bloomberg News: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-09/house-s-waters-charged-by-ethics-panel-with-helping-bank-tied-to-husband.html
NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/us/politics/10ethics.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=maxine%20waters&st=cse

Stan in Roll Call: re House Ethics Procedures and Rangel

2010-07-29T13:15:00.000-04:00

“It’s like the reading of an indictment in federal district court,” said attorney Stan Brand, who once served as House general counsel. Brand is not representing Rangel. “It’s a formal proffering of charges.”

***

Any agreement would likely halt the adjudicatory panel from disclosing the full list of accusations against Rangel, unless he agreed to admit wrongdoing to all of the charges.

“The presumption is, if there’s an agreement reached ... that will be replaced,” Brand said.

Stan Quoted In HuffPo About Congress and Cigars

2010-07-21T09:12:00.002-04:00

"On the face of it, while its not the great train robbery, it clearly implicates House rules that prohibit taking gifts from lobbyists," said Stan Brand, a congressional ethics attorney, when told of the group's activities. "The prohibition is a flat prohibition. The staff can get together and do whatever they want. But when it's underwritten by lobbyists it's gonna fly in the teeth of the rules.

Stan in Politico re: Financial Disclosure Issue

2010-06-29T10:49:00.000-04:00

W.H. aide failed to disclose payout
By: Jake Sherman
June 28, 2010 01:29 PM EDT

President Barack Obama’s political director failed to disclose that he was slated to receive a nearly $40,000 payout from a large labor union while he was working in the White House.

Patrick Gaspard, who served as the political director for the Service Employees International Union local 1199, received $37,071.46 in “carried over leave and vacation” from the union in 2009, but he did not disclose the agreement to receive the payment on his financial disclosure forms filed with the White House.

In a section on his financial disclosure where agreements or arrangements for payment by a former employer must be disclosed, Gaspard checked a box indicating that he had nothing to report.

Bill Burton, a White House spokesman, told POLITICO Monday that Gaspard was in the process of correcting his disclosure form to reflect that he did in fact have an agreement for severance.

“We have made the small administrative change to this year's and last year's forms to indicate that part of the final payment to Patrick reflected their typical severance of one week of pay for each of his nine years of service at Local 1199 of SEIU,” Burton wrote POLITICO in an e-mailed statement.

Such financial disclosures are governed by federal law, but Stan Brand, a former House general counsel and ethics expert, said the Justice Department is unlikely to pursue an investigation unless they suspected a “knowing or willful” intent to deceive.

Gaspard’s omission is a potentially embarrassing episode for the Obama administration, which has made a high priority of ethics.

“They’ve made ethics a fetish and they have all kinds of people over there with experience, so I don’t know how they missed this one,” Brand said.

Gaspard spent nine years at 1199 SEIU, a major labor union in New York. Gaspard also worked for Obama’s campaign, and later worked for the transition team, where he earned $11,500, according to the financial disclosure form he filed this year. He was pulling a salary from SEIU until Jan. 16, 2009, shortly before Obama was inaugurated.

Gaspard, who made $172,200 in 2009, has from $35,000 to $80,000 in credit card debt and student loans, according to his financial disclosures.

This SEIU payout was first raised in early June by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the top GOP lawmaker on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. He sent a letter to the White House asking for information about the payment. They have yet to respond.

© 2010 Capitol News Company, LLC

Stan on ABC News re: Congressional Investigation of BP

2010-06-16T15:20:00.000-04:00

Here's advice from a Washington lawyer, Stan Brand, who specializes in criminal law and Congress: "Put on your asbestos suit and get ready."
***
So what is the committee's ultimate goal?

"Blood," said Brand, the Washington lawyer. "They'd be happy with scalps. I'm sure you'll hear at least three of them say he should resign. It's like being in the Gulag, with screaming, remonstrating members asking compound questions to which there are no answers."

Stan re: Sestak and the White House in Mother Jones

2010-05-27T13:57:00.000-04:00

Back in February, Joe Sestak told reporters that the White House had once offered him a federal job as an inducement not to run against Arlen Specter in the Democratic primary race for Pennsylvania's senate seat. Since then Sestak has refused to talk further about the matter and so has the White House. Republicans have tried to make hay out of this, but Stan Brand, a Washington lawyer who specializes in ethics matters, tells David Corn today that it's virtually certain that nothing illegal took place:

Though he dismisses Issa's pursuit of Sestakgate, Brand says that White House actions are keeping the scandal alive: "Gibbs dissembling doesn't help them. Don't be defensive about it. Just say this is what goes on. They're looking guilty over something that isn't illegal." He adds: "That's not the first time that this has happened."

Stan Quoted re: StarTribune.com re: Tea Party Rallys

2010-04-14T11:39:00.000-04:00

"Unless it's billed as a campaign event, or campaign donations are solicited, or there's a concerted program of endorsements for candidates based on party affiliation, I don't think that they ran into any issues," said Stan Brand, a former general counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives.

A Blast from the Past from Politico

2010-03-09T15:33:00.001-05:00

See second to last paragraph

Judge kills off Filegate suits, 14 years on

A federal judge in Washington has dismissed the last legal remnants of Filegate, a scandal that engulfed the Clinton White House nearly 14 years ago.

Judge Royce Lamberth dispatched a pair of suits over the matter today, ruling that there was no intentional misconduct and that the acquisition of hundreds of FBI background files on former White House staffers was simply a mix-up.

The nut graph to Lamberth's 28-page ruling :

After years of litigation, endless depositions, the fictionalized portrayal of this lawsuit and its litigants on television, and innumerable histrionics, this Court is left to conclude that with this lawsuit, to quote Gertrude Stein, 'there's no there there.' While this Court seriously entertained the plaintiffs' allegations that their privacy had been violated--and indeed it was, even if not in the sense contemplated by the Privacy Act--after ample opportunity, they have not produced any evidence of the far-reaching conspiracy that sought to use intimate details from FBI files for political assassinations that they alleged. The only thing that they have demonstrated is that this unfortunate episode--about which they do have cause to complain--was exactly what the defendants claimed: a bureaucratic snafu.

First Lady Hillary Clinton once dismissed filegate as a pseudoscandal. It was no laughing matter to Clinton aides, who racked up huge legal bills to defend themselves in the lawsuits.

The litigation gave rise to a series of colorful, videotaped depositions, including one where former White House aide George Stephanopoulos was asked repeatedly about his use of a pen while appearing as a guest on ABC's "This Week," a program he would later host.

Stephanopoulos and his attorney, Stan Brand, eventually walked out of the session, which ended with Klayman memorably declaring: "All right, certify it. We'll move for sanctions."

Klayman's antics in the case were later loosely reimagined in a character named Harry Klaypool on the TV show "The West Wing."

Stan in Roll Call re: Ethics Decision on PMA and Members

2010-03-02T10:03:00.000-05:00

Defense attorney Stan Brand, a former House general counsel who has represented numerous Members before the ethics panel, characterized the decision as a “fairly momentous and unsettling development.”

“As a practical matter, it’s going to force some type of examination of what you have to do to supervise your staff, and I think that’s going to create some problems,” Brand said.

In particular, Brand pointed to House committees, citing the extensive activities and meetings staff may conduct without a Member present as well as the sheer number of staff.

“It’s kind of a strict liability standard for staff supervision that I don’t think people anticipated was the prevailing rule,” he added.

Stan Quoted by Bloomberg re: NFL and Congress

2010-02-05T11:14:00.000-05:00

Members of Congress would see “political appeal” in pushing to end an NFL work stoppage, said Washington lawyer Stan Brand, former general counsel for the U.S. House and current vice president of Minor League Baseball. “People follow sports in this country with great interest.”

Stan Quoted in Politico re: Ensign Investigation

2010-01-25T09:35:00.002-05:00

Stan Brand, a veteran ethics lawyer, said the Justice Department is most likely “informally gathering information” and hasn’t decided yet whether to move forward with a full-blown criminal investigation of Ensign, meaning the Senate Ethics Committee is not interfering with a criminal case by conducting its own probe.

Extensive Blog Post on Stan's Comments re: American Needle

2010-01-06T10:59:00.002-05:00

Here's a report on Stan's speech at the Baseball Winter Meetings relating to the American Needle case scheduled for argument before the US Supreme Court on January 13.

Stan Quoted Extensively in TPM re: Supreme Court's Analysis of Honest Services Fraud

2009-12-10T11:23:00.000-05:00

If the law goes down, pretty much anyone else convicted of honest services fraud could benefit. "There will be a rush to the courthouse," Stan Brand, a veteran Washington ethics lawyer, told TPMmuckraker. Even those like Abramoff and Jefferson who were convicted on multiple counts, honest-services fraud among them, could get their sentences shortened. "Where you've got multiple counts, they're not gonna get a pass, but they could get a reduction," Brand said.

Brand, reached in Indianapolis where's he's attending baseball's winter meetings (the Granderson trade is the big news, he said), noted that former Maryland governor Marvin Mandel, and former Utah congressman George Hansen both had their corruption convictions overturned after the courts narrowed the laws -- mail fraud, and false statements, respectively -- on which they were convicted.

In a sign of how the issue is already shaking up corruption cases, prosecutors working on the case of former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich indicated earlier this week that they planned to re-file their indictment against him, this time with no reference to honest services fraud, because of the chance that the Supreme Court might strike down or narrow the law. Blago was charged in connection to an alleged scheme to sell Barack Obama's Senate seat, as well as other pay-for-play allegations.

Nonetheless, Brand, a longtime defense lawyer, said that if the law is indeed struck down, it won't be a major blow for anti-corruption efforts. He said that prosecutors still would have numerous other charges at their disposal, including bribery, gratuity, conflict of interest, and false statements, among others.

"These guys have so many arrows in their quiver," Brand said.

Stan In Politico re: Baucus' Girlfriend

2009-12-07T11:55:00.000-05:00

Stan Brand, an ethics law attorney who doesn’t think Baucus will get punished by the Ethics Committee, said, “You shouldn’t be disqualified because of who your boss was at any particular moment.”

And he said that the Senate confirmation process is meant to root out unqualified nominees who may be chosen because of cronyism, among other things.

“I think there’s an issue of who is the most qualified person for the job — but I think that gets addressed in the confirmation process,” Brand said.

Stan Named to Super Lawyers List for Third Consecutive Year!

2009-11-30T11:53:00.000-05:00

Stan In National Journal re: Ring Retrial?

2009-10-20T10:35:00.000-04:00

"These retrials tend to favor the government. It's like a do-over," said Stanley Brand, a Washington lawyer with experience in bribery cases. The prosecution can adjust its arguments based on lessons learned in the first trial, he said.
However, Brand noted, the evidence "doesn't get any better for the government." The Department of Justice "wins the vast majority of the cases that it brings," he said, so a mistrial can be seen as a "victory" for the defense. And that victory -- even if it wasn't total victory -- may embolden Ring's attorneys come June.

Stan in Roll Call re: Effects of Ring Hung Jury

2009-10-19T11:29:00.000-04:00

Last week’s mistrial in the case of former House-aide-turned-lobbyist Kevin Ring could open the door to more defendants to challenge Justice Department public corruption indictments, legal experts say.

“It’s like a traffic violation. If you pull over a bunch of drivers and everyone else sees that, they slow down,” said Stan Brand, a criminal defense attorney and former House counsel. “If it doesn’t look as if the department can convict these cases ... it certainly encourages others to contest. It certainly makes [DOJ’s] job harder.”

U.S. District Judge Ellen Huvelle declared a mistrial Thursday afternoon in Ring’s public corruption trial after the jurors declared themselves unable to reach a unanimous verdict.

Brand said the failure to convict Ring, who is accused of providing tickets to sporting events and other gifts to Congressional staff in exchange for assistance for clients of his then-boss, ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, could hamper other investigations by encouraging defendants to challenge indictments rather than accept plea agreements.

The recent unraveling of the case against former Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) compounds the problem for prosecutors in public corruption cases, Brand said.

“There’s no question that the public integrity section is under duress because of the internal issues generated by the Stevens case and the Ring mistrial and everything else that’s happened,” Brand said. “How that will shake out is hard to say. It’s still the responsibility of that section of the department to investigate and bring these cases.”

(and more at the link)

Stan in TPM Muckraker/Politico re: Ensign Inquiry

2009-10-16T15:43:00.000-04:00

An expert consensus may be forming that the Justice Department will likely launch a criminal investigation into the philandering Nevada senator and his relationship with Doug and Cynthia Hampton.

"I don't see how they cannot look at this case," Stan Brand, a Washington lawyer and ethics specialist told Politico.

Stan in TPM Muckraker re: Ring Hung Jury

2009-10-16T15:42:00.000-04:00

Both Zeidenberg and Stan Brand, a Washington lawyer who has defended numerous public officials charged with corruption, also suggested that, in light of the Ring mistrial, some of the 17 lobbyists, Hill staffers, and government officials who accepted plea deals in connection with the Abramoff case may be kicking themselves. "It could certainly make some of these defendants think, maybe they should have pushed harder," Brand told TPMmuckraker.

Brand called the mistrial "a setback for Public Integrity, in a line of other setbacks" -- referring to the reversal of the conviction of former senator Ted Stevens, and the subsequent investigation into alleged prosecutorial misconduct during that case.

Stan in Las Vegas Review-Journal Editorial re: Ensign

2009-10-09T11:23:00.000-04:00

But at this point, Sen. Ensign does not appear to have broken laws or taken personal advantage of his Senate office. His vote on behalf of Nevada's interests still carries the same weight it did a year ago.

No senator has been expelled from the body as a result of an "ethics" probe since the Civil War. Yet we're to believe Sen. Ensign should resign, running out on constituents who elected him to do the job, because of personal conduct which -- while stupid and embarrassing -- is frankly of a "line forms on the left" variety?

"The ultimate accountability is through the political process," Stan Brand, a former House counsel and expert on congressional ethics, told ABC News. "If people think the system has failed, they have the ability to make a decision at the ballot box."

In 2012.

Stan in Legal Times Blog re Ensign

2009-10-05T17:21:00.002-04:00

Stan Brand of the Brand Law Group, a government ethics lawyer, said that, "on the face of it, someone is going to investigate this," both the Justice Department and the Senate Ethics Committee as possibilities. Brand stressed that he wasn't saying that Ensign is guilty of anything, but said the allegations in the story raise the possibility of charges.

What’s the next move? "You get a very good criminal lawyer," Brand said.

It isn't clear whether Ensign has already done so, but others agree with Brand. Thomas Green, a partner at Sidley Austin, said the information in the article likely warrants an investigation, and it could go in multiple directions. “It’s not an attractive situation,” he said

Stan on Roll Call re: DC Circuit 's Speech of Debate Opinion

2009-07-13T10:14:00.001-04:00

But criminal defense attorney Stan Brand, a former House counsel, noted that the Justice Department already confronts Speech or Debate whenever it targets a Member of Congress.

“It’s the same problem the department has in all these cases and has always had. They have to find ways to make criminal cases without drawing in legislative acts,” Brand said. “Despite all their remonstratives, they are able to bring cases and get convictions.”

Stan in Roll Call re: PMA

2009-06-02T10:17:00.001-04:00

“One thing I think is pretty clear is the internal deliberations about the earmarks inside the Congress, between the staff and the Member or the committee and the Member, I think are clearly protected,” said Stan Brand, a former House general counsel who is now a white-collar defense attorney.

and:

“I think the general lines would be that something done outside the legislative process, in the electoral arena, generally would not be covered: fundraisers, donations, solicitations to donors, all this stuff that would occur as a part of a campaign,” Brand explained.

“The problem here, in my mind, is what about that gets them any closer to proving anything vis-à-vis a Congressman than they already have available to them,” he added.

and

“The fact that it turns up in another place doesn’t deny it protection. You still have to go through the analysis and determine, ‘What is it?’” Brand said.

Stan on NPR re: PMA

2009-05-21T13:31:00.000-04:00

Audio interview for Peter Overby story.

Stan on Stevens Case Dismissal

2009-04-02T10:55:00.001-04:00

“It’s very significant,” said Stan Brand, a former counsel to the House of Representatives. “It’s obviously a very different and affirmative assertion of control over the Department of Justice and his signal that the department is going to demand higher standards.”

Stan Quoted in NY Times re: PMA

2009-03-30T10:15:00.000-04:00

“All the combustibles are here for a very salacious set of allegations that could go far beyond his campaign finance problems,” said Stanley Brand, a veteran Washington criminal defense lawyer known for representing Democrats.

Stan Quoted in American Lawyer re: Congressional Investigations

2009-03-04T17:01:00.003-05:00

Not everyone believes in playing nice with congressional investigators.
Stanley Brand, also of Washington, D.C., and a onetime counsel to the House of Representatives under Tip O’Neill, attracts clients who are fighting multiple agencies, usually on criminal matters. He’d rather fight Congress than “roll over and submit,” as he puts it, to a grand jury, the IRS or Justice. “There are limitations on their powers, despite what they think,” says Brand.

Stan in Post re: Burris and the Senate

2009-02-18T11:04:00.000-05:00

The evidence suggests Senator Burris lied under oath," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility. If the ethics committee finds that he lied as the Senate was deciding whether to seat him, he should be expelled "for improper conduct that reflects on the Senate," Sloan said.

Congressional ethics specialist Stanley Brand said Senate rules would permit an investigation that could lead to censure or expulsion if lawmakers decide that Burris procured the office under false pretenses.

"Having seated him under the apprehension that he was clean in respect to his relationship to the governor, I can see them taking another look," Brand said.

Stan's Speech at the 2008 Winter Meetings

2008-12-24T09:23:00.000-05:00

Stan on Morning Edition re Blagojevich

2008-12-12T11:03:00.000-05:00

Putting the defense perspective on the matter.

Stan on Diane Rehm re: Blagojevich

2008-12-11T10:42:00.000-05:00

Listen here.

Stan on Hardball re: Illinois Seate Seat Scandal

2008-12-10T11:19:00.003-05:00

Stan, live from Las Vegas: "I don't know how you prove the benefit to Blagojevich."

Here's the video.

Stan in Roll Call re: Obstacles to Expulsion of Sen. Stevens

2008-11-06T10:52:00.000-05:00

“The problem, I think, for the Senate — and in my view a serious constitutional issue — is given the voter condonation of his conduct, I think there are serious questions about whether they could expel him,” said Stan Brand, a former House general counsel and noted white-collar criminal attorney.

“It seems to me that’s a statement by the people of Alaska,” Brand added. “Under the case law there’s a heavy presumption — they’re entitled to have who they want.”

According to an October Congressional Research Service report, both the Senate and House have “expressed reticence to exercise the power of expulsion (but not censure) ... when the electorate knew of the misconduct and still sent the Member to the Senate.”

Counsel Jere Glover Wins SBA Size Appeal

2008-10-23T10:49:00.002-04:00

On Tuesday, Brand Law Group counsel Jere Glover--in cooperation with Robert Finkel and Diana Espanola of the Boston law firm of Morse, Barnes-Brown and Pendleton--prevailed in a size appeal before the SBA. The matter, appealed on behalf of The Woods Hole Group, Inc., marks an exceedingly rare victory in this type of matter. The SBA's Office of Hearings and Appeals accepted our submission of new evidence (rare in itself) and agreed with our contention that the Area Office erred in its size determination.

FEC Capitulates on Millionaires' Amendment for House and Senate

2008-08-03T19:30:00.001-04:00

WASHINGTON – On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. ___, No. 07-320, and found Sections 319(a) and 319(b) of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 — the so-called “Millionaires’ Amendment” (the “Amendment”) — unconstitutional because they violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court’s analysis in Davis precludes enforcement of the House provision and effectively precludes enforcement of the Senate provision as well.

Full release

Stan Quoted in NY Times re: Stevens Indictment

2008-08-01T10:48:00.001-04:00

“It’s going to be a contest over whether he had the intent to conceal this,” said Stanley Brand, a prominent Washington defense lawyer. “Given that he paid for some of it, I don’t think that’s in dispute. He has a defense to put forth to a jury, and to some extent, that’s going to undercut the government’s contention that he intended to conceal all this.”

Unlike with a bribery charge, Mr. Brand said, the government is not expected to try to prove that Mr. Stevens had corrupt relationships with VECO executives and employees.

“No one is going to convict him for just failing to file his financial reports,” Mr. Brand said

SCOTUS Blog on Davis Opinion

2008-06-28T17:05:00.000-04:00

A bit of analysis from the source.

WE WIN!!

2008-06-28T16:46:00.001-04:00

Supreme Court holds Millionaires' Amendment unconstitutional.

Here is a link (and more) to Rick Hasen's roundup of news coverage, blogs, etc.
If you read nothing else, take a look at election law guru Bob Bauer's excellent analysis.

Also, here's the oral argument transcript from April.

CQ Politics Previews Davis Supreme Court Argument

2008-03-26T20:32:00.003-04:00

CQ Politics writes:

Davis contends that the millionaires’ amendment harms him because once he spends $350,000 of his own money, the law permits his opponents to raise three times as much as otherwise would be allowed from each contributor. He also complains that triggering the millionaires’ amendment forces him to file extra campaign expenditure reports — documents that divulge campaign strategy.

“Nobody thinks an incumbent and challenger are on an even playing field to begin with. He’s willing to take on that burden,” said Andrew Herman, a lawyer representing Davis. “But he doesn’t understand why he has to take on an added burden of giving his opponent added contributions.”
Full Article

Brand Law Group Counsels House Committee re Contempt

2008-03-11T12:49:00.001-04:00

As the New York Times reports:

Stanley Brand, a Washington lawyer helping bring the suit, said the committee Democrats had little choice but to try to use the courts to enforce their subpoenas. Mr. Brand said lawmakers were reluctant to use Congress’s power of “inherent contempt” to assign sergeants at arms to seize Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten for a trial in Congress on contempt charges.

George Will Weighs In Again on Millionaires' Amendment

2008-03-06T21:09:00.002-05:00

This time in Newsweek.

Davis Merits Brief Filed with Supreme Court

2008-02-21T11:45:00.005-05:00

Yesterday, the Brand Law Group filed with the Supreme Court our merits brief in Davis v. FEC. For a little background on the case, see this Washington Post article. Also see George Will's op-ed, which we posted on the blog last November. The government's brief is due on March 19 and oral argument is scheduled for April 22.

You may note that we haven't posted since January 11, the day that the Court agreed to hear the case. We apologize, but we've been a little busy.

Stan Quoted in Politico re: Contempt History

2007-12-21T21:22:00.000-05:00

“Every 20 years or so, history repeats itself in this town,” Stanley Brand, a Washington attorney who played a key role in the 1982 battle as the House general counsel, said in an interview.

At the time, Anne Gorsuch Burford, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, refused to turn over documents to the oversight subcommittee of the House Public Works Committee, saying they were “enforcement sensitive.”

Both the subcommittee and the parent committee voted criminal contempt charges against her, and the full House backed them up, 259-105.

Andrew Quoted in San Antonio Express-News Editorial re: New Lobby Law

2007-12-21T21:17:00.000-05:00

"The lobby and, particularly, the criminal element are at the forefront of everyone's mind," Andrew Herman, an attorney with a firm that provides congressional ethics advice to lobbyists, corporations and labor unions, told the online newspaper. "It's put a damper on the holiday season in general."

Andrew Quoted in Politico re: New Lobby Law and Holiday Parties

2007-12-05T10:43:00.000-05:00

Andrew D. Herman, an attorney with the Brand Law Group, which provides congressional ethics advice to lobbyists, labor unions and corporations, said he was at an ethics training session with a number of lobbyists recently.

“The lobby law and, particularly, the criminal element are at the forefront of everyone’s mind,” Herman said. “What a lot of people were saying was that they’re just not going to bother. It’s too much of a hassle. It’s put a damper on the holiday season in general.”

Many lobbyists are planning to use the “personal friendship” exception and host intimate parties at their homes instead, but Herman said they’ve urged their clients to “be very careful” about the exemption.

“I don’t know how it’s going to play out, but I don’t think it’s going to be business as usual,” he said. “The tone and tenor has changed. Sooner or later, someone will get whacked.”

That fear has cut down on the number of parties this season. “It’s a lot different from when I was a chief of staff a year ago,” said lobbyist Jason Roe, formerly of Florida Republican Rep. Tom Feeney’s office. “There’s just not as many of them.”

Coverage of F&M Panel on Presidential Politics

2007-11-28T10:38:00.000-05:00

Stanley Brand, former general counsel to the House of Representatives, said the early primaries will benefit more-well-funded candidates.

"You can't be in five states at once," he said. "The only way to be in five states at once is to go on TV."

Full story here.

Bob Bauer's Updated Analysis of Davis Case

2007-11-27T15:19:00.000-05:00

In part:

This morning, the New York Times reports on the Republican Party’s frantic recruitment of millionaires who have the money that the struggling party does not. Millionaires get little sympathy in a story such as this, and there is no reason why they should. Office becomes another luxury for those who have it all, and the party recruiting them does not come off so well either, looking for the rich to buy a way around the Republican’s unpopularity. But the Supreme Court may well find that, from a First Amendment perspective, this is beside the point: that an offense to the Amendment is not excused because only a certain class of candidates, with little popular appeal as a class, is offended.

Full post here.

Election Law Guru Rick Hasen Analyzes Davis Case

2007-11-27T15:17:00.001-05:00

Professor Hasen concludes that "i think some Justices could be bothered by the fact that the lower court relied upon an equality argument to sustain this law, and may view it as another incumbency protecting aspect of BCRA. On the other hand, it is hard to see much harm that Davis suffers by this measure."

Full Post Here

Roll Call Article on Davis Case

2007-11-27T15:15:00.000-05:00

In its entirety:

Millionaires’ Amendment Challenged
November 14, 2007
By Matthew Murray,
Roll Call Staff

A Buffalo-area factory owner who nearly knocked off powerful Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-N.Y.) in the previous cycle may soon argue before the Supreme Court whether the “Millionaires’ Amendment” trampled his Constitutional rights in his 2006 bid to topple the former National Republican Congressional Committee chairman.

Jack Davis, who dumped nearly $2.3 million of his own money into his campaign to unseat Reynolds last year, is disputing a provision included in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 intended to mitigate the upper hand that wealthy, self-funding candidates have in federal elections.

The Supreme Court is expected to decided whether it will take up the case, Jack Davis v. Federal Election Commission, by early 2008. If so, Davis’ lawyers could make their arguments as early as this winter, with a decision handed down in early summer 2008.

Andrew Herman, Davis’ lawyer, said the high court is expected to take up the case, which he said addresses a flawed BCRA section he suggested was written solely as an incumbent job-protection provision.

Herman argues that the provision not only gives a leg up to lawmakers by allowing them to recirculate the collection plate when a wealthy challenger starts digging in his pockets, but also injects even “more corrupting money into the system” by adjusting the amount the non-millionaire candidate can accept.

“The Supreme Court has said that when you spend your own money on your own campaign that is First Amendment protected speech — it’s like writing an essay and posting it on a tree,” he said.

“Even if it were formulaically designed to make things equal, there’s still the constitutional question: Is it a proper response to someone’s use of their own money — their own speech — to allow the other individual to raise more money?” Herman continued. “After all, the only reason we have campaign limits to begin with is because Congress has made a finding that satisfied the Supreme Court that unlimited contributions were corrupting.”

The McCain-Feingold law, as BCRA came to be known, included a complicated formula used by the Federal Election Commission to determine campaign contribution limit increases for lesser-heeled candidates with self-funding opponents.

Even at the time of BCRA’s passage, lawmakers assumed that federal courts would for years be sorting through wrinkles of the new McCain-Feingold law.

“I don’t think this bill is the end of the world, as some have indicated,” then-Sen. Don Nickles (R-Okla.) said of BCRA on the Senate floor in March 2002. “We will let the courts decide whether or not it is constitutional.”

In an interview on Tuesday, Rick Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said the case, which is not required to go through the typical judicial channels to the Supreme Court, could present another important election law case to the John Roberts-led court, which has not been hesitant to assert itself on the topic.

“We’ve seen in the last two Supreme Court campaign finance cases ... that this is not a Supreme Court that’s shy about rethinking precedent,” Hasen said. “On the other hand, I don’t think the chief justice or Justice [Samuel] Alito necessarily have an appetite for getting into a campaign finance issue which is controversial — if it could be avoided.”

Late last summer, the court narrowly lifted the broadcasting advertising blackout period some outside groups face in the runup to federal elections, a decision widely seen as a loosening of BCRA restrictions.

Hasen said the Davis case is worth watching no matter how the court acts: Should the court pass on the case, the lower court ruling denying Davis’ appeal stands and a once-controversial portion of the law is finally settled.

But because of the complicated elements the Davis case addresses, should the court take it up, it may bust open a plethora of election-law-related free-speech issues going back decades.

“It wouldn’t be at the top of the Supreme Court’s decisions to take like it would in a petition for certiorari, But because it’s also up on appeal from a three-judge court, even it does nothing it still has some significance,” Hasen said. “[But] if the court has to give it some thought, it does raise some interesting questions: Whether this was an incumbency protection measure or whether it trying to level the playing field?”

“If it’s about leveling playing field, then there’s some tension between that rationale and [earlier rulings arguing] that you can’t use campaign finance laws to violate [free] speech,” Hasen said.

Herman said Congress wrote the Millionaires’ Amendment out of fear without regard to the way it would be applied.

“What Congress did was say we’re afraid we’re going to get priced out of this by Internet millionaires ... meanwhile, we have to go around getting $2,300 from every individual,” Herman said. “[Members] set up a very complicated system, where you have to report when you spend your own money, how much you spend ... then there’s a formula to determine how much extra money the person who’s using contributed money gets.”

He added: “But what they didn’t do is write the formula, so that Congressmen have to account for their war chests.”

Copyright 2007 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.

George Will publishes syndicated article in support of Davis case

2007-11-27T15:10:00.001-05:00

George Will's syndicated article in support of our case challenging the millionaires' amendment states:

legislators added to McCain-Feingold the Millionaires' Amendment to punish wealthy, self-financing opponents. The amendment revealed the cynicism behind campaign regulation's faux idealism about combating corruption.

Stan on "Anonymous Water Boarders"

2007-11-27T15:06:00.000-05:00

Stan quoted in The Politico re: "anonymous water boarders":
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6362.html

Stan Quoted in The Hill re: Filner Probe and New Ethics Regs

2007-09-20T11:01:00.001-04:00

Stan Brand, who is defending Craig in the Senate ethics investigation, said the House and Senate are opening a “Pandora’s box” with their ethics inquiries of Craig and Filner. Making matters worse is the fact that any individual now can submit a complaint to a court and have a good chance of sparking an ethics probe, he added.

“[Democrats and Republicans] are playing this issue out in the hinterlands about who is more ethical, and it’s going to backfire on them,” he said. “In many ways it already has. Pretty soon it’s going to be [the case that] spitting on the sidewalk is … an offense that the ethics committee has to investigate.”

Brand also said the ethics committee was now crossing the line into members’ private conduct, in contrast to its historical practice of investigating only criminal conduct related to official business — an argument he also made in a letter to the Senate Ethics Committee on behalf of Craig two weeks ago.

“This has risks and consequences on both sides of the aisle. Every petty offense, every misdemeanor, every trivial disturbance of the peace is going to be subject to some determination under House and Senate rules,” he said. “That’s legally ridiculous, inefficient and wrong.”

Stan Quoted in LA Times re: Clinton's Reaction to Hsu Contributions

2007-09-11T15:04:00.000-04:00

Stanley Brand, a former House counsel who often represents legislators in ethics matters, called the Clinton campaign's decision "a ground-shifting event," though not a step he would have recommended.

"I understand it's politically driven. They don't want to be tainted," he said. "But they're going to give back a lot of money if they do this every time there's an allegation against a fundraiser."

The NY Times on BLG's Representation of Sen. Craig

2007-09-06T16:26:00.000-04:00

Mr. Craig’s lawyers in Washington, Stanley M. Brand and Andrew D. Herman of the Brand Group, wrote to the Ethics Committee saying there was no precedent for it to investigate “purely personal conduct unrelated to the performance of official Senate duties.”

Roll Call on BLG's Hiring by Senator Craig

2007-09-04T12:32:00.001-04:00

Craig Hires a Crisis Team; Otter Still Quiet

***

Over the weekend, Craig put in place a high-powered crisis management team, including D.C. attorney Billy Martin, communications expert Judy Smith of Impact Strategies and attorney Stan Brand, who will handle any Senate Ethics Committee investigation. Craig also hired Minneapolis attorney Tom Kelly.

***

“What you’re seeing is an attempt to lift the cloud he’s been operating under,” Brand told Roll Call on Monday. “The politics kind of overtook the law.”

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) on Sunday became the first Senator to come to Craig’s defense. “I’d still like to see Sen. Craig fight this case,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.” “I’d like to see Larry Craig go back to court, seek to withdraw his guilty plea and fight the case.”

Craig appears to be taking that advice to heart, but Brand said he expects the embattled Senator to leave the Senate on Sept. 30. “I take him at his word,” he said.

Brand added, “He hired me and Billy Martin to see if he can leave with his honor intact.”

Brand Law Group to Represent Sen. Craig Before Senate Ethics Committee

2007-09-01T15:56:00.000-04:00

Washington lawyer Stan Brand will represent Craig before the Senate ethics committee, said spokesman Dan Whiting.

Stan Quoted in Wash. Post re: Ney Wire

2007-08-13T10:11:00.000-04:00

Members of Congress have been secretly recorded in congressional scandal investigations, including undercover videotaping in the ABSCAM probe in the 1980s. "It is not a routine occurrence, but it happens," said Stanley Brand, a criminal attorney who often defends politicians. "In an era where they are executing search warrants on members' offices and homes, it doesn't come as a shock."

District Court Rejects Challenge to Election Law Provision

2007-08-11T12:31:00.000-04:00

In a case filed by BLG on behalf of a self-financed candidate for Congress, a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied our summary judgment motion challenging the constitutionality of the so-called Millionaire's Amendment.

In his analysis of the decision election law guru Bob Bauer opines:

The Court showed no interest, giving him a written opinion but not a particularly considered one.
***
Davis tries to spark the Court’s interest by pointing out that, to counter his use of his own, non-corrupting money, the Congress has authorized his opponent to raise money well over the threshold of corruptibility written into the contribution limits. There is here a fair question—why the donor giving well over the limits puts a candidate in less danger of corruption just because his or her opponent is self-financed. The Court can’t rouse itself to even raise an eyebrow.

The Plaintiff is currently considering whether to file a direct appeal to the Supreme Court.

Stan Quoted in NY Times re: New Lobbying Law

2007-08-07T10:55:00.000-04:00

Stanley Brand, a longtime Washington defense lawyer who usually represents Democrats, said the law was a sea change. “It should send shivers down lobbyists’ spines,” Mr. Brand said. “It is a minefield now.”

Andrew Quoted on ABC News Blotter re: Murkowski Land Deal

2007-07-24T20:15:00.000-04:00

"It's essentially lying," said Andrew D. Herman, an ethics lawyer with the Washington, D.C.-based Brand Law Group. Herman said at the very least, Murkowski should amend her filing to include the land. But there may be another problem: by accepting what experts say was a sweetheart land deal, Murkowski may have accepted a "gift" from Penney worth tens of thousands of dollars. It would be illegal for a lawmaker to accept a gift that large.

Stan Quoted in Post re: President's Congressional Contempt Position

2007-07-20T23:35:00.000-04:00

But Stanley Brand, who was the Democratic House counsel during the Burford case, said the administration's legal view "turns the constitutional enforcement process on its head. They are saying they will always place a claim of presidential privilege without any judicial determination above a congressional demand for evidence -- without any basis in law." Brand said the position is essentially telling Congress: "Because we control the enforcement process, we are going to thumb our nose at you."

Andrew Wins RFA Argument in DC Circuit

2007-07-20T23:30:00.000-04:00

The DC Circuit ruled in favor of the Aeronautical Repair Station Association on its Regulatory Flexibility Act claim that Andrew argued earlier this year. In endorsing our argument, the Court remanded the case back to the FAA and ordered it to comply with the statute. Click here for a link to the opinion.

Stan quoted in Truthout.com re Subpoenas

2007-06-14T12:17:00.000-04:00

According to Stanley Brand, former counsel for the US House of Representatives, "It is doubtful that Jeffrey Taylor, the current US attorney for the District of Colombia would enforce Congressional subpoenas." Taylor participated in drafting the Patriot Act and served as counselor to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales prior to his installation as an interim US attorney for the District.

Brand has been here before; he faced Fred Fielding, then-counsel to President Reagan, in a very similar fight. In 1983, Brand represented the House of Representatives in an attempt to enforce a Congressional subpoena issued to the Reagan administration. Instead of convening a grand jury to prosecute the case, the US attorney sued the House of Representatives claiming that the action taken by the House was unconstitutional. The case against the House was thrown out of court and, in the face of mounting political pressure, the Reagan administration eventually turned over the subpoenaed documents to Congress.

In Brand's opinion, the law compels federal prosecutors to convene a grand jury trial to rule on the contempt-of-Congress charge. "The law says that the US attorney for the District 'shall present the case to a grand jury.' The US attorney will claim that this undermines his discretion as a prosecutor, but his discretion does not give him the right to deep-six a case because the president does not like it."

Despite his legal opinion, Brand sees this subpoena attempt as futile. "I think the claim of executive privilege is weak, but [Congress] can't get their case to court. Maybe they understand this and are just trying to up the ante."

Stan on ATC re: Jefferson Indictment & Plea

2007-06-12T22:00:00.000-04:00

Stan says: "The criminal process will overwhelm the disciplinary process, as it usually does."

Stan Quoted in Roll Call re: "Murky Legal Trail in DOJ Case"

2007-05-29T13:45:00.000-04:00

“Obstruction, perjury, false statements —that’s always how these things get started,” said ethics attorney and former House counsel Stan Brand.

Brand pointed to the Watergate defendants, many of whom were charged with similar crimes.

“There were not many substantial offenses charged in most cases. That was a cover-up,” he said.

Brand represented J. Steven Griles, the former Interior Department deputy secretary, who pleaded guilty to lying to Congress at the end of March after misrepresenting his relationship with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff to the Senate Indian Affairs Committee in 2005.

But the question of whether the Justice Department actually could bring criminal charges, if it came to that, against its own employees, or former employees, is a tricky one. That has led some attorneys, such as Brand, to argue that the appointment of a special prosecutor in the investigation is inevitable.

Stan in The Hill on "Pelosi threat to sue Bush over Iraq bill"

2007-05-09T11:35:00.000-04:00

The House would have to demonstrate what is called “injury in fact.” A court might accept the case if “it is clear that the legislature has exhausted its ability to do anything more,” a former general counsel to the House of Representatives, Stanley Brand, said.

Stan in The Hill re Boehner Decision

2007-05-02T13:26:00.000-04:00

Stan Brand, former House general counsel, advised that the tape be given directly to either the ethics committee or the proper authorities. When asked yesterday about the implications of the decision, Brand called the case a “historical anomaly.”
“Half the people in Congress weren’t around when this occurred,” said Brand. “This doesn’t really change the law.”

Stan in USA Today re Leg. Pressure on Gonzalez

2007-05-02T13:24:00.000-04:00

"They didn't want to keep getting beaten over the head with this story every night on the nightly news," said Stanley Brand, the House general counsel at the time.

The Environmental Protection Agency case may hold lessons for Democrats seeking testimony from Karl Rove and other high-ranking officials in the Bush administration. There's no law or court ruling that can force testimony from a top presidential aide, according to Brand and other legal and political experts.

Stan in The Hill on Renzi's Failure to Disclose

2007-05-02T13:21:00.000-04:00

“Speaking generally, failure to disclose is always a signal to investigators of an intent to conceal,” said Stan Brand, an ethics lawyer who has advised many lawmakers on how fill out their personal financial disclosure reports.

“You’re always better off listing a transaction, even if it falls in a gray area, and I don’t think this falls in a gray area,” he said of the reported $200,000 payment to Renzi. “Failure to disclose always sets you up for a charge of intent to conceal.

“I don’t see how you avoid that,” he said of reporting such a large payment. “It’s hard for me to imagine how you avoid disclosing that if you have interest in a transaction. If you’re getting proceeds, how do you avoid reporting that?”

Brand noted that indictments related to the scandal involving lobbyist Jack Abramoff cited failures to report gifts on disclosure records as evidence of intent to conceal conduct.

Vintage Stan on ABC.com re: Gonzales Appearance

2007-04-18T10:53:00.000-04:00

Ignoring calls for his ouster over the firing of several U.S. attorneys, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is set to testify before Congress tomorrow. It's a move experts say could rescue his political career, or cost him his job -- even send him to jail.

"It's suicidal," said Stanley Brand, one of the top ethics defense lawyers in Washington, D.C. Given the conflicting stories from Gonzales, his aides and top Justice Department officials about why eight U.S. attorneys were fired, and to what extent Gonzales was involved in the process, the attorney general puts himself in criminal jeopardy by testifying under oath, Brand said.

In his prepared testimony for Tuesday's hearing, Gonzales says he has "nothing to hide" and that he is "committed to assuring Congress and the American public that nothing improper occurred here."

"I've seen it before. People get indicted for false statements and perjury and obstruction of justice," Brand told ABC News. Brand recently represented ex-Interior Department official Stephen Griles, who pleaded guilty to lying to Congress in connection with the Jack Abramoff scandal.

What's so dangerous about simply telling the truth? Isn't it true that, like the old adage, the truth shall set you free?

"Not in my world," Brand retorted.

Stan in Legal Times on Upcoming Gonzalez Testimony

2007-04-14T09:01:00.001-04:00

Stan discussing the perjury trap confronting AG Gonzales: "It's a set-up," says Stanley Brand, who was general counsel to the late Democratic House Speaker Thomas "Tip" O'Neill.

More Recent Quotes from Stan

2007-04-12T15:14:00.000-04:00

US Attorney Firings: An Ethical Line for Lawmakers
NPR - USA
Stanley Brand, a longtime practitioner of ethics law in Washington, says this is one reason that the Justice Department could end up naming a special ...
See all stories on this topic

A choice between facts and emotion in Libby case
International Herald Tribune - France
"Fitzgerald brought a very stripped-down case," said Stanley Brand, a veteran defense attorney. "He stuck very tightly to his script." ...
See all stories on this topic

Jury could not buy Libby's forgetfulness claim
Los Angeles Times - CA,USA
"This is emblematic of these cases," said Stanley Brand, another long-time defense lawyer. "Smart people go before an investigator and they don't have their ...

Ga. Republican: Gore Not Welcome
WXIA-TV - NE Atlanta,GA,USA
Stanley Brand, a veteran Washington lawyer with expertise in congressional rules and a former chief counsel to House Democrats, agreed that Gore doesn't fit ...
See all stories on this topic

Iraq vote slated for today as Pelosi closes in on 218
The Hill - Washington,DC,USA
used to say that Rayburn could call five big-city mayors and start with 150 votes, said Stanley Brand, a former aide to O’Neill. ...

Funds sought after firings
Washington Times - Washington,DC,USA
... justice investigation by an independent counsel that could result in criminal penalties," and attributes this statement to ethics lawyer Stanley Brand.

Records open Gonzales to mounting disapproval
Houston Chronicle - Houston,TX,USA
Stanley Brand, a lawyer in Washington and former Democratic counsel to the House, said the US attorney matter is turning into a classic Washington saga, ...

Congressman's letter to US Attorney said to violate House ethics rules
Raw Story - Cambridge,MA,USA
"The matter was dismissed and there was a public, written record of communication," said attorney Stan Brand, who served as General Counsel to the US House ...

Catching up on Backlog of SMB Posts

2007-04-12T15:06:00.000-04:00

Stan in NYT on Libby's Decision Not to Testify

But Stanley M. Brand, a defense lawyer in Washington for 25 years, said he would not second-guess the decision not to have Mr. Libby testify. ''I think his lawyers believed that whatever thin reed of reasonable doubt they'd created could be dashed on cross-examination if he took the stand,'' Mr. Brand said.

Stan on Reconstruction Inquiries

"Historically, every time we have had government procurement problems, we've had an uptick in oversight and legislative activities," added Stan Brand, who represents Fluor.

Stan on Rep. Miller Inquiry

"These are parallel processes," said Brand, now with the Brand Law Group in Washington D.C. "There have been instances where the committee launched major investigations where they have used former or existing FBI agents, but they do not as a matter of course dispatch FBI agents to conduct their work. They have their own investigators."

Stan on NPR's All Things Considered re: USA Firings

2007-03-06T11:24:00.001-05:00

Legal Affairs

Domenici Called About U.S. Attorney Four Times

by David Welna

Stan Quoted in Post re: USA Firings

2007-03-04T18:27:00.000-05:00

Stanley Brand, an ethics lawyer who served as House counsel in the 1980s, said Iglesias's allegation could result in internal congressional ethics probes. "It's going to precipitate a huge problem," Brand said, warning also of a potential review by the Justice Department.

Stan Quote in Merc-News re: USA Firings

2007-03-02T09:15:00.000-05:00

Stanley Brand, a former federal prosecutor and former Democratic counsel to the House, said such interference could be a violation.

"There's a general ethical principle that members should not unduly interfere in adjudicative proceedings in front of courts or agencies," he said. "This happens to be a criminal prosecution. There would seem to be a special concern about reaching out to a U.S. attorney and asking about a pending case.

"The House and Senate have not taken much notice of these things," he said. "But they don't usually rise to this level."

The allegations also could give defense attorneys in the corruption case in New Mexico legal ammunition to attack an indictment, Brand said.

"Even if he (Iglesias) didn't submit himself to the pressure, if I'm a defense attorney, I'm going to scream bloody murder and say it looks like he did," he said.

Stan Quoted in WaPo re: Libby Attorney Ted Wells

2007-02-22T12:27:00.001-05:00

"Ted has a wonderful demeanor," says Stanley M. Brand, a Washington litigator who has worked with Wells. "He's a master tactician. He's a bulldog, but in a gentle way."

Brand considers Wells -- a native Washingtonian who is a partner in the New York-based firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison -- to be "one of the five best trial lawyers in the country."

Stan in Bloomberg News re: Libby Trial

2007-01-12T10:02:00.000-05:00

"Litigation begets litigation,'' said Stanley Brand, a former U.S. House counsel who specializes in representing public officials accused of wrongdoing. ``Every time you haul someone to court, it makes it more likely someone else is going to haul him to court. It's the Martha Stewart problem. Once you're under oath, people can take pot shots at you about what you said.''

Jere Glover Named SBIR 2006 Person of the Year

2007-01-03T15:37:00.000-05:00

From the SBIR Press Release:

Jere W. Glover has been a pioneering figure in SBIR since its planning stages in the late 70's. As counsel to the House Small Business Committee, Glover directed an extensive set of hearings on small business and innovation that laid the ground work for the creation of the SBIR. program. Over the years he has continued to be a leader in the preservation, growth and maturation of the SBIR and STTR programs.

As a protégé of the legendary Milton Stewart, (the first SBA Chief Counsel for Advocacy 1978-1981), Glover served as Stewart's Deputy Chief Counsel for Advocacy. Glover worked in the private sector as CEO/principal of a biotech company and a medical technology company, then back to the SBA where he served as the Chief Counsel for Advocacy from 1994-2001. In 2000 Fortune Small Business magazine listed Glover as #9 on their "Power "30" list of the most influential folks in and around the Beltway who talk your talk.

Executive Director of the Small Business Technology Counsel (SBTC) and an attorney with the Brand Law Group in Washington DC, representing small businesses on SBIR related issues..

Revival of the Tibbetts Awards Program

Glover's notable contributions to SBIR continued in 2006. He lead the way to reinitiate the all important Tibbetts Awards program that was suspended in late 2002 by the SBA due to severe budget constraints. Although there was no hope of SBA's ability to restart the program, Glover found a way to fund the Tibbetts Awards outside of the SBA, as an initiative of the non-profit SBTC, in cooperation with and sponsorship from several federal SBIR agencies and other corporate sponsors.

The importance of the Tibbetts Award program cannot be overestimated. In addition to honoring the best in SBIR achievement from around the country, it also raises awareness and gains support from Congress, which is vital to the SBIR program's continued funding and reauthorization. Congress and small businesses benefit from publicity of the successes generated by the program and presentation of the prestigious awards. Often times the Tibbetts Awards program helps bring small businesses closer to their federal and state elected officials.

policies to insure a level playing field for the Tibbetts Awards evaluation process by recruiting several federal agency SBIR program managers, retired SBIR program managers, SBIR alumni, the SBA and Roland Tibbetts as evaluators. The awards presentation ceremony and Capitol Hill reception held September 26, 2006 in Washington DC was a resounding success.

The DoD Commercialization Pilot Program

Another important contribution by Glover in 2006 was his participation in the creation of the new DoD Commercialization Pilot Program (CPP). He was a keystone figure in helping to design a program that would be good for the small businesses, the agencies and the prime contractors. He worked closely with congressional staffers to fine tune the language and get the amendment incorporated into the Defense Appropriations bill of 2006.

Fighting Unfettered SBIR Access by Ineligible VC Owned & Controlled Entities

Last, but not least of Glover's contributions for 2006 was his leadership in fighting against the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) and other special interest groups seeking unfettered access to SBIR funding by ineligible VC owned and controlled entities. Glover worked with important congressional staffers to fashion a reasonable compromise but BIO always seeking to get more, backed out at the last minute, thinking they could use Senator Bond to hammer out a more leveraged deal for their special interests. BIO did not get their way in 2006, in part due to Glover's actions.

Being the Executive Director for the SBTC, you would expect that this work would all be a part of Glover's paid position. However, the SBTC position is only part time, and Glover also works as an attorney with the Brand Law Group in Washington DC, specializing in helping small businesses on SBIR related issues. In spite of his busy schedule, much of Glover's time on the SBIR issues listed above has been "off the clock" donated time, and most of us in the SBIR field have been the beneficiary of his work.

Jere Glover can be reached at 202-662-9700.

The SBIR Gateway is pleased to name Jere Glover, SBIR Person of the Year!

Conyers Reaches Ethics Settlement

2006-12-31T09:45:00.000-05:00

According to The Hill:

Conyers subsequently hired Stanley Brand, a well-respected defense lawyer with a long track record of defending public officials implicated in corruption cases.

Stan on Marketplace Re: Dems New Ethics Push

2006-12-25T22:51:00.000-05:00

Former House counsel Stan Brand says an outside ethics panel would be more likely to take action.

STAN BRAND: The concept, from what I've seen, is to staff this entity with former federal judges and people of stature in the legal community, who will independently look at these allegations and decide whether they merit further review by the committee.

Stan Quoted re: New H2B Visa Bill

2006-12-25T22:48:00.000-05:00

Stan Brand, a vice-president and lobbyist for minor league baseball, said minor-leaguers are elite athletes.

"By definition, they're all among the best in the world, or else the major leagues wouldn't spend money to recruit and train them," he said

Stan in Washington Post re: Congressional Representation

2006-12-19T14:21:00.000-05:00

Some targets also take the proceedings too lightly, which is a serious error, experts agree. "I've become more and more conservative with these things over the years," said Stanley M. Brand, head of the Brand Law Group and a veteran of such encounters. "My advice is to batten down the hatches, assert your rights if you have them, and don't go in and disgorge documents. These investigations are stalking horses for the Justice Department."

Stan Quoted in Legal Times re: Investigations in New Congress

2006-11-15T14:20:00.000-05:00

But it is Dingell and Waxman who have the most investigative experience and are attracting the most attention from veteran defense attorneys.

“Dingell has been around longer, and he’s a bit more senatorial,” notes Stanley Brand, who was counsel to the House of Representatives from 1976 to 1984 and now has his own law firm. “Waxman’s a little less so. Stylistically, they are different. Waxman’s a little more bombastic, and I don’t mean that in a negative sense. He’s just a little hotter. Dingell is very methodical.”

***

And avoid the often-unforeseen damage that can come from testifying under oath.

“You have to be worried about collateral prosecution for perjury and false statements or obstruction,” notes former House counsel Brand.

"Let the Investigations Begin"

2006-11-11T23:20:00.000-05:00

Stan's Op/Ed Column in Sunday's NY Times.

Stan Quoted in Roll Call re: "Defeat Doesn’t Spell End to Probes of Lawmakers"

2006-11-09T12:32:00.000-05:00

In fact, some attorneys said the loss of an election only spells more trouble for politicians under federal investigation, prompting prosecutors to pursue more aggressively a case since the potential defendant no longer has the institution of Congress defending him or her.

“It makes prosecutors less reluctant, more aggressive. It emboldens them,” said Stan Brand of Brand [Law Group].

In addition to Weldon, Burns and Harris, Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) is facing the increasing likelihood that he will be battling a federal probe without the aura of incumbency behind him, as Jefferson is now slated for a runoff election next month. Jefferson, who saw his home and Congressional offices raided as part of a probe into alleged bribes he took in exchange for steering contracts to firms doing business in Africa, finished first in the New Orleans-based open primary but with just 30 percent of the vote in a field with a dozen challengers.

Brand noted that a former client, ex-Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.), lost re-election in the fall of 1994 but his corruption probe continued until he pleaded guilty to two counts of mail fraud in April 1996.

It’s unclear how much the loss of a Congressional seat hurts an ex-Member still dealing with a corruption investigation. The same privileges that apply to sitting Members — such as the Speech or Debate Clause exempting much legislative work from criminal investigations — continue to apply to former Members.

But one critical element of any Member’s defense disappears, that being the ability to raise money into a campaign account that can be used to pay legal bills. “That’s a real issue for some of these guys. It gets a lot bleaker,” Brand said.

Without a campaign war chest or a Congressional legal defense fund to pay mounting legal bills, Brand said, some ex-Members are forced into caving and making a plea deal with prosecutors.

Stan Quoted re: Ney's Resignation

2006-11-05T08:36:00.001-05:00

"From what I understood he stuck it out...so he could stay on the payroll," said Stan Brand, a defense attorney who has represented members of Congress in public corruption cases. "It's the end of the pay period, I guess."

House members earn $165,200 and are paid monthly.

More Reaction to Verdicts

2006-10-26T20:21:00.000-04:00

Significant questions remain regarding wire fraud conviction for Douglas Jemal and Blake Esheric.

Not Guilty!

2006-10-26T19:45:00.000-04:00

BLG Client Normal Jemal acquitted of all charges.

Stan Quoted in Washington Post on Status of Conrad Burns

2006-10-17T16:53:00.000-04:00

Iverson announced that the senator's criminal lawyer had confirmed with the Justice Department that "Burns is in fact not the target" of its investigation.

But what exactly does that mean?

Not much, said Stanley M. Brand, a lawyer in Washington with decades of experience in defending prominent officials charged with corruption. He represented former White House aide George Stephanopoulos in the Whitewater investigation and former representative Dan Rostenkowski, the Illinois Democrat who pleaded guilty to mail fraud in 1996.

Brand said that distinctions in a federal criminal manual between a "target," someone the Justice Department has decided to seek charges against, and a "subject," someone under investigation who could be upgraded to a target, are largely meaningless in a practical sense.

"You can't take these distinctions to the bank, because the Justice Department can change your status whenever it wants to," Brand said. "To me, it is academic. Burns is under investigation."

Link to full article.

Stan Appears on Hardball Twice Re: Foley Fallout

2006-10-11T14:35:00.000-04:00

Stan appeared on Hardball with Chris Matthews both Thursday, October 5 and Tuesday, October 10, discussing the Foley matter. Here's a snippet from his first appearance:

MATTHEWS: We‘ve got computers here on HARDBALL where I can tell everything anybody has said for weeks. LexisNexis, Google, we can find—we have ways, we have our own transcript system. Most of the programs on television, all the news programs have transcripts. You can dig up all this stuff.

BRAND: That‘s what they‘ve said publicly. You don‘t what they have said in the cloakroom, among each other, to other people with witnesses present. That is why the Republicans are having difficulty.

MATTHEWS: You‘re paid by the hour, aren‘t you?

BRAND: Yes, absolutely.

MATTHEWS: So you like this to be an extensive process?

BRAND: No, I just think to get the facts of who knew what, when, takes a long time.

Stan in Wash. Post re: Sen. Burns as Target?

2006-09-25T12:58:00.001-04:00

Iverson announced that the senator's criminal lawyer had confirmed with the Justice Department that "Burns is in fact not the target" of its investigation.

But what exactly does that mean?

Not much, said Stanley M. Brand, a lawyer in Washington with decades of experience in defending prominent officials charged with corruption. He represented former White House aide George Stephanopoulos in the Whitewater investigation and former representative Dan Rostenkowski, the Illinois Democrat who pleaded guilty to mail fraud in 1996.

Brand said that distinctions in a federal criminal manual between a "target," someone the Justice Department has decided to seek charges against, and a "subject," someone under investigation who could be upgraded to a target, are largely meaningless in a practical sense.

"You can't take these distinctions to the bank, because the Justice Department can change your status whenever it wants to," Brand said. "To me, it is academic. Burns is under investigation."

Stan & Ross In Washington Biz. Journal Re: Jemal Trial

2006-09-25T12:56:00.000-04:00

(subscription required)

. . . as Reported Here

2006-09-25T12:54:00.000-04:00

Stanley Brand, an ethics law expert, said Volz is a key piece of the puzzle. "It wouldn't be the first time that an aide was used to get the principal," Brand said.