Live Updates
Share ThisApr 20, 2007
Inland Valley Daily Bulletin - Miller should opt out of bills that aid donor
Part of a congressman's job in Washington is to fight for federal dollars. But when that money goes to benefit a major campaign contributor, who, on top of that, is a sometime business partner, ethical questions arise.
Rep. Gary Miller, R-Brea, has on numerous occasions pushed legislation that expressly benefits one of the region's top developers - the Lewis Group of Companies.
Now, it's true, the Lewis Group is a huge community benefactor, having donated millions of dollars to local charities and venerable causes. Perhaps no other family has done as much to shape the development of the Inland Valley in positive ways. But the group is also one of the largest contributors to local politics. The company and its executives have given nearly
$2.3 million over the past six years to campaigns ranging from city council and mayoral races to county supervisors and state legislators to area representatives, including Miller.
Campaign donations, by their nature, often look like influence peddling. That perception is exacerbated when a congressman's actions feed into it.
Miller, whose campaigns have received $22,150 from the Lewis Group's top executives since 1999, denies using his office to benefit the Lewis Group. But many Lewis projects have gained a big helping hand from their connection to the congressman.
Renaissance Rialto, in which Miller helped close Rialto Municipal Airport to make way for the Lewis-Hillwood development, is just one of many.
City leaders have always come forward to ask for the congressman's help for various projects, maintaining that the funding that Miller procures advantages the community as a whole.
"But the actions he has taken have not benefited just the community at large," said Ned Wigglesworth, policy advocate for California Common Cause. "Many of the dollars that Miller has brought back here have benefited his campaign contributor, and business partner."
And that is not good business for public taxpayers. All of these projects may, on their own, be an asset to the greater community, but that doesn't disguise the fact that they serve a more fundamental interest - meeting the specific needs of a major Miller donor, one who contributed largely to his last two congressional campaigns.
"As a member of Congress, you can't use your position to directly benefit your friends and family, and it looks like that's what he did," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington.
It is such an obvious conflict of interest that Miller should do the obvious thing - and not only bow out of voting on any project that has a direct link to a major campaign donor, but stop aggressively pushing legislation that favors such projects.
Why can't, or won't, Miller make that simple concession, and refrain from feeding the perception that he is personally steering public funds directly into the hands of his benefactors?
