1996 United States Campaign Finance Controversy - Congressional Investigations

Congressional Investigations

A House investigation, headed by Republican Dan Burton, focused on allegations of campaign finance abuse, including the contributions channeled through Chung, Huang, and Trie. The investigation was lengthy, spanning both the 105th and 106th Congresses, and according to a Democratic report had cost over $7.4 million as of August 31, 1998, making it the most expensive Congressional investigation ever (the Senate Watergate investigation cost $7 million in 1998 dollars).

The Burton investigation itself was controversial. A New York Times editorial in March 1997 characterized the committee's investigation as a "travesty" and a "parody". A Washington Post editorial in March 1997 called the House investigation "its own cartoon, a joke, and a deserved embarrassment". Norman Ornstein, a Congressional expert at the American Enterprise Institute said in May 1998, "Barring some dramatic change, I think the Burton investigation is going to be remembered as a case study in how not to do a congressional investigation and as a prime example of investigation as farce."

The U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs also held public hearings into the campaign finance issues from July to October 1997. During the hearings, there was considerable acrimony between the chair Fred Thompson and the ranking minority member John Glenn, reaching a level of public disagreement seldom seen between two leaders of a Senate Committee. The Thompson committee adopted a Republican written final report on a straight party-line 8–7 vote in March 1998. Thompson described the findings thus: "There's not any one real big thing. It's a lot of things strung together that paint a real ugly picture."

The Democrats on the Senate committee published a minority report dissenting with most of the conclusions of the final report, stating the evidence "does not support the conclusion that the China plan was aimed at, or affected, the 1996 presidential election." In particular, it stated,

One of the most disturbing aspects of the Majority Report is that it suggests, on the basis of inconclusive evidence, that certain named individuals were spies or foreign agents. These serious charges are supported solely by weak circumstantial evidence and speculation – as acknowledged by the Majority's use of phrases like "may" and "if true."

Congressional investigators said that the investigations were hamstrung due to lack of co-operation of witnesses. Ninety-four people either refused to be questioned, pled the Fifth Amendment against self incrimination, or left the country altogether.