You are here: Home » Featured » Speaker Boehner Still Won’t Answer Pelosi’s Questions About DOMA Defense

Speaker Boehner Still Won’t Answer Pelosi’s Questions About DOMA Defense

Posted by: Bridgette P. LaVictoire on April 20, 2011.

04/20/11-by Bridgette P. LaVictoire
House Speaker John Boehner is reticent to talk about what went into choosing his pet lawyer, and one should not be surprised that this is the case. After all, why tell Americans how he chose Paul Clement, and how much he intends to pay the man in order to do something that the House legal staff can do for their normal wages.

House Democratic Leader, Representative Nancy Pelosi is not taking Boehner’s reticence quietly. To begin with, it took five weeks for Speaker Boehner to get back to Leader Pelosi about the cost of hiring Clement, but he did not exactly explain what was going to happen or what was going on in the intervention in some twelve Defense of Marriage cases.

Today, she sent another letter out demanding to know from Boehner what is going on with regards to this litigation. Indeed, this is what she wrote:

The release of the contract between the House of Representatives and the law firm of King and Spalding concerning litigation on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) raises many questions. While the Democratic Members of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) opposed the decision of the Republican Members to authorize involvement in the DOMA lawsuits, that opposition in no way diminished the need for normal oversight of the terms of any contract signed by the Republican Leadership obligating the House of Representatives to pay half a million dollars of taxpayer money for private attorneys. Yet the Democratic representatives on the BLAG, and the Democratic members of the Committee on House Administration, were provided with no information about the contract prior to or, at the time of, its being signed on April 14th. Since Democratic members were excluded from all negotiations, I would appreciate your providing the following information concerning the contract’s transparency, cost, the discount and the restrictions placed upon King and Spalding’s vast lobbying practice:

TRANSPARENCY

Did the BLAG or any House entity issue a call for bids, or was the selection of King and Spalding made as a sole source contract? Who specifically made the decision to hire this firm, and what criteria were used? Why was the Democratic membership of the Committee on House Administration not informed of the ongoing negotiations with King and Spalding and provided an opportunity to participate in order to assure a transparent process to prevent taxpayer dollars from being wasted?

COST

How was the $520 dollar an hour “blended rate” for attorneys negotiated, and how was the $500,000 fee established? Was there a determination that $500,000 would be sufficient to pay for the complete legal representation in the 12 pending cases, and if so, who made that determination and how? Is $520 an hour the regular rate normally charged by King and Spalding attorneys? What are the specific hourly rates that will be charged by each of the King and Spalding attorneys listed in section 5 of the contract? Is it anticipated that King and Spalding will represent the House in all 12 pending DOMA cases from the trial stage through any and all appeals?

DISCOUNT AND ETHICS

The contract states that other fees may be assessed at 75% of the firm’s regular charges. What “other fees” are contemplated, and how was the 75% rate established? Is it the standard practice of King and Spalding to give a 25% discount for non-attorney time to all government agencies or does the discount only pertain to the House Republican leadership? Did the Ethics Committee review the proposed contract discount to ascertain whether it complied with all House ethics rules governing the provision of gratuities to the House by a commercial entity? If so, please provide the written opinion of the Ethics Committee.

LOBBYING

Please provide a copy of all written restrictions imposed on King and Spalding’s extensive lobbying practice to ensure that no conflicts of interest arise on behalf of its extensive list of corporate clients while that firm is employed by the House.

We do know some of the answers now, though. For one thing, Boehner cannot, without an act of Congress, get the Department of Justice to pay for the bone he is throwing the hate group Family Research Council. We also know that Boehner thought that this was going to be something easily done and not actually debated as hotly as it was. After all, what is a bone thrown to the FRC, AFA, and the other anti-gay hate groups out there? He did not expect people to demand to know why the House has to intervene when it has not in other cases where the DOJ has abandoned laws that were obviously unconstitutional, nor did he expect people to decide to question the expense of doing so at a time when the country is trying to trim budgets out of the flesh and blood of seniors, children, women, AIDS victims, and this nation’s most vulnerable.

What we do know is that Boehner is so obsessed with being Speaker that he will do anything he can to stay in that position, even if it means being an unethical, two-faced liar.