Senator For Sale?

NEW Delhi's most vociferous critic on Capitol Hill, Republican Senator Dan Burton of Indiana, was the target of damaging allegations last fortnight—much to the delight of the Indian lobby. The charges: Burton had tried to shake down Mark Siegel, a former lobbyist to Pakistan, to the tune of $5,000, and consequently threatened him with loss of work if he did not raise funds for Burton's campaign. The disclosures, which had appeared in the Washington Post, carry extra ironic weight as Burton heads the highly-publicised House Reform and Oversight Committee probe into charges regarding illegal donations to the Democrats' coffers.

For almost 10 years, the Republican senator has been the poster boy of separatist pro-Khalistan and pro-Kashmiri lobbies as well as pro-Islamabad groups. And at their behest, he has regularly introduced bills and resolutions chastising India for everything from human rights abuses to interfering in the US election process to non-proliferation.

This time around, it is Burton's turn to be at the receiving end. Siegel claims that Burton had demanded he raise "at least $5,000" from Pakistani Americans for Burton's re-election campaign last year. This was while Siegel, a veteran Democrat activist, was lobbying for Benazir Bhutto's government.

According to Siegel, when he failed to raise the funds, Burton complained to Maleeha Lodhi, the Pakistani ambassador to Washington, and threatened to cut off Siegel's contacts in Congress. In a memo to a Benazir aide, Zafar Hilaly, Siegel said he had worked in Washington for 25 years during which "no one has ever dared to threaten me into contributing money, and no one has ever followed through on such threats by contacting one of my clients."

Burton claims to be the victim of an attempted smear campaign by the Democrats. Kevin Binger, a spokesman for Burton's committee, confirmed that Burton asked Siegel if he could raise $5,000 in campaign funds in early 1995, and mentioned Siegel's failure to do so to the Pakistani ambassador last year. He, however, denies that Burton threatened Siegel. Siegel's allegation has been seized upon by Democrats in Washington as a chance to shift the harsh spotlight from the White House and the daily reports in the press of fund-raising excesses by their party.

The revelation by Siegel was timed to do the maximum damage to Burton. But it failed in one important aspect. The House was scheduled to vote on the budget for the fund-raising inquiry the day after the Post broke the story. Although the Democrats tried to broaden the scope of the investigation to include Congressional campaign financing, the GOP held together and Burton's budget sailed through. He got his $3.8 million, the largest-ever for a House committee that will focus on alleged Democratic fund-raising abuses during the '96 presidential campaign.

The FBI has begun a preliminary inquiry into Siegel's allegations. According to reports, the FBI agent assigned to Burton's case is a member of a Justice Department task force formed by Attorney General Janet Reno to look into possible illegal campaign finance practices. The task force is concentrating on whether contributions to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) were laundered and whether foreign governments tried to funnel money into the DNC's coffers.

Burton believes the FBI investigation is politically motivated. "The whole reason the Justice Department is doing this is to try to discredit me, (and) to intimidate me from conducting my investigation into alleged illegal activities at the White House. It won't work. I shall not be deterred," he said. According to Burton, Reno had for weeks resisted pressure to appoint an independent counsel to look into Democratic fund-raising abuses, saying the Justice Department was capable of investigating any illegality. He added that the FBI started an inquiry against him "after one day of false allegations against me. This appears to me to be a blatant political move."

How much harm will the charges and the FBI inquiry really do to Burton? "A good deal we hope," said a Congressional observer who works closely with the Congressional caucus on India. Much of the time and resources of the caucus had over the last few years been spent fending off Burton's increasingly venomous anti-India onslaughts. "It was high time that Burton got some of his own medicine," he chuckled.

The Post editorial declared that Burton could "no longer credibly serve as chairman of the House investigation" and that he "should acknowledge as much and step aside. If he won't, his party's leadership should take the initiative to remove him."

While it seems certain that, for the time being, Burton will continue to lead the House investigation, further damaging revelations might convince the GOP leadership to jettison him, said another Congressional source. He added that a more serious concern is whether or not lawmakers like Burton may be taking advantage of their position in overseeing US foreign policy to extract donations from ethnic constituencies. A potential area of inquiry is whether Burton violated the Hobbs Act, which is used to prosecute politicians who use their official positions to extort funds.

As a ranking member of the International Relations Committee as well as co-chairman of an informal (now defunct) Congressional caucus on Pakistan and Pakistani Americans, Burton has been a beneficiary of campaign contributions from pro-Khalistan Sikhs, Pakistani Americans and separatist Kashmiris. In 1996, he received over 100 donations from Sikh and Kashmiri communities but asserts that "there has never been any quid pro quo. I took up their cause long before I started getting money from them."

IN previous years, former Republican Stephen Solarz raised about $760,000 as small donations in the 1987-88 campaign cycle from Americans of Indian, Philippine, Vietnamese, Korean and Cambodian origin. Federal election law does not require small contributions to be itemised. During the last election, Senator Tim Johnson (Democrat, South Dakota) and the man he defeated, Republican Larry Pressler, raised at least $150,000 each from Americans of Pakistani or Indian origin.

While there is nothing illegal about Americans contributing money to political campaigns, the recent allegations about the Chinese government buying influence has drawn attention to the powerful role of ethnic contributions in American politics and the degree to which US lawmakers—in catering to ethnic voting blocs—may become advocates for foreign powers.

Last year, Burton wrote to the State Department complaining of the Indian embassy's use of Democratic Party activist Lalit Gadhia as an agent to launder money for contributions to the election campaigns of pro-India Democrats in Congress. As a result of Burton's letter, it was reported that Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs Robin Raphel phoned Ambassador Naresh Chandra to express the US administration's displeasure over the episode that took place during the tenure of former Ambassador Siddhartha Shankar Ray.

E.J. Dionne of the Post calls it a scandal that "foreign governments have adapted [so] brilliantly to Washington's influence system.... The interesting thing is that Burton went straight to the Pakistani ambassador.... Foreign embassies have learned the Washington rule: 'Want access? Raise money'." Concludes Dionne: "If we're worried about how easy it is for other countries to buy influence here, that is only because we've created a system in which access is for sale to all comers."