Vitter cannot use campaign funds to pay legal fees

Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) will not be able to use campaign funds to pay for more than $160,000 in legal fees incurred because of his involvement in the D.C. Madam scandal, according to a draft opinion released by the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

Vitter has already spent $70,000 of his own money on legal bills and has asked about the possibility of reimbursing himself and paying the rest of his bills with campaign funds.

{mosads}The FEC’s draft opinion, published Wednesday, however, allows Vitter to use campaign funds to pay for $31,000 in legal expenses related to a Senate Ethics Committee investigation arising from his link to Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the D.C. Madam.

Vitter became embroiled in the scandal after his telephone number was discovered among Palfrey’s records.

He has accumulated more than $200,000 in legal bills so far, according to the FEC document.

Palfrey, who was found dead after an apparent suicide in May, was convicted earlier this year of running a prostitution service catering to Washington’s elite.

Vitter apologized last year “for a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible.”

Though Vitter acknowledged some culpability, he worked hard to keep his distance from Palfrey in the ensuing legal imbroglio.

Vitter hired a lawyer to protect him from Palfrey’s “strategy of dragging public figures into her legal proceedings,” according to the background information contained in the draft advisory opinion.

Palfrey subpoenaed Vitter in November to testify at a pre-trial hearing that was later canceled. Palfrey also subpoenaed Vitter in March as a trial witness but ultimately did not call him to the stand.

In both instances Vitter’s lawyer tried to quash the subpoenas requiring his public appearance.

The FEC has ruled in its draft opinion that Vitter cannot use campaign funds to pay $85,000 in fees for work related to quashing the subpoenas.

“Sen. Vitter’s need for legal representation to quash Ms. Palfrey’s subpoenas stemmed from his role as a potential witness in Ms. Palfrey’s trial and was not related to information known to or acquired by Sen. Vitter during the course of his candidacy or in the performance of his duties as a U.S. Senator,” stated the FEC.

The FEC’s draft opinion also denied Vitter’s request to use campaign funds for $75,000 in legal fees for monitoring Palfrey’s criminal proceedings.

“Subpoena Counsel would have monitored the Palfrey criminal proceeding irrespective of Sen. Vitter’s campaign or duties as a U.S. Senator,” the FEC wrote. “Thus, the use of campaign funds to pay for the legal fees and expenses incurred when Subpoena Counsel monitored the Palfrey criminal proceedings would be an impermissible personal use.”

The FEC found, however, that Vitter could use campaign funds to pay for expenses related to a Senate Ethics Committee probe because it was related to Vitter’s status as an officeholder.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a liberal watchdog group, demanded an ethics investigation of Vitter last year. The ethics panel dismissed the complaint in May.

“Such use would not be a conversion to personal use because these legal fees would not exist irrespective of Sen. Vitter’s duties as a U.S. Senator,” the FEC wrote, in reference to fees related to his lawyer’s “consultations with the senator and his advisers, including ethics counsel and a public relations professional.”

A lawyer for Vitter referred media questions to the senator’s office. A Vitter spokesman did not respond immediately to a request for comment.

The FEC will consider finalizing the advisory opinion at a meeting Thursday after one day of public comment.