DOMA Defense: John Boehner Complaint Dropped By Watchdog Group

WASHINGTON -- When House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced he would spend $500,000 to hire an outside law firm to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), lawmakers immediately questioned where the money would be coming from and whether it was even legal. Picking up on the issue, watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a complaint on the matter.

Last week, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) said the contract to defend DOMA was indeed legal, and on Wednesday, CREW officially withdrew its complaint.

The GAO issued a decision in response to an inquiry by Rep. Ander Crenshaw (R-Fl.), the chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, finding the contract did not violate the Antideficiency Act. The law prohibits "involving the government in any obligation to pay money before funds have been appropriated for that purpose."

The GAO said it based its decision off of information obtained by the House Chief Administration Officer, who said there was an "adequate unobligated balance" to satisfy the $500,000 contract.

If needed, the House could transfer amounts to the Office of General Counsel's appropriation in order to avoid violating the Antideficiency Act, the GAO said in its decision.

However, in May, House General Counsel Kerry Kircher testified before Congress and said he was told by the House Republican leadership that no funds would come out of the Office of General Counsel's budget for this purpose.

In late April, three Democratic members of the Committee on House Administration wrote a letter to Boehner questioning where the money to pay for legal representation would ultimately come from, given the 12 pending DOMA-related lawsuits.

However, the GAO report was enough to satisfy CREW.

"We just wish everyone in Washington would yield as quickly when their views don't carry the day," the group said in a statement.

The $500,000 contract to hire former-Solicitor General Paul Clement -- at first with the King & Spalding law firm, then with Bancroft, PLLC -- would have been illegal if it had surpassed the House Counsel's budget of $1.4 million, which covers the office's salaries and expenses.

In February, the Obama administration announced it would no longer defend DOMA in court, after deciding the law was unconstitutional.

In response, Boehner announced the Republican-controlled House would take up the cause of defending DOMA in litigation.

At the time, Boehner spokesman Michael Steel called the complaint by CREW "stupid" and asserted the "'Antideficiency Act' has nothing to do with this situation."

"We're glad CREW has realized their complaint was erroneous - and assume this will be the end of the matter for the politicians who have tried to exploit that error," Steel told The Huffington Post Wednesday.

CREW said the GAO report still did not address peripheral issues in the original complaint.

"Nevertheless, given that GAO -- the nonpartisan agency specifically charged with investigating government spending -- has conducted its own inquiry into this matter and found no violation," CREW executive director Melanie Sloan wrote in a letter to the Office of Congressional Ethics. "CREW does not believe further investigation is warranted and respectfully withdraws its complaint."

CREW said questions remained about whether there is enough money remaining to pay for future legal bills or other obligations incurred beyond the current fiscal year.

Sloan appeared to be changing her tone a bit from when her group originally filed their complaint.

"Speaker Boehner has vowed to end deficit spending and usher in a new era of government fiscal austerity, warning Americans we need to make do with less," Sloan said at the time. "But apparently, the House leadership can continue freely spending money it doesn't have... This is yet another case of do as I say, not as I do. No wonder the public is so cynical about politics."

Comments

[Hammer0311]

11:23 AM on 07/22/2011

moral turpitude reason enough for discharge

[DCMetroGuy]

10:21 PM on 07/14/2011

Of course he is going to defend this to the hilt. If DOMA ever gets to the SCOTUS, it is an automatice overturn based on the courst rules. The Supreme Court has never upheld a law that exempts itself from any part of the Constitution, and DOMA exempts itself from "Full Faith and Credit". In the history of SCOTUS, every law with this type exemption has been overturned with instruction to congress to not try to pass a law exempting itself from the Constitution.

[Barry Bassett]

09:46 AM on 07/14/2011

What a waste of taxpayer money. I'm sure those lawyers need that 1/2 mil.

[pita143]

08:35 AM on 07/14/2011

I believe the decision is wrong......"adequate unobligated balance" means that an item was approved but not spent, and the law says that they can not spend money allocated for one item on another item. In other words unless the expense is attached to a spending bill and is approved by the Senate and signed by the President than that expenditure was not approved.

The law here is very specific. You can only use money as it is approved. You can not use money for some other purpose than what it was approved for. And the use of this money to pay outside Lawyers for the defense of this act was never approved.

[GraniteSkyline]

08:23 AM on 07/14/2011

HA HA!

But he knew this--he's just pandering to the base.

[mikesnl]

09:50 PM on 07/13/2011

Boehner has an "adequate unobligated balance"? The damn nation is broke and he wants to spend half a million defending a law that is probably indefensible. Let's see him, Eric and the other GOPs put up some of their own money if they are so hellbent on denying gays the same rights as other Americans.

[Carolyn LeBeauf]

07:50 PM on 07/13/2011

Does Boehner know how to do anything right?

[GraniteSkyline]

08:24 AM on 07/14/2011

Oh yes! He is quite an accomplished souse!

[r henry]

05:54 PM on 07/13/2011

If your marriage is blessed by Jesus Christ and mine is not, that should be all you need to maintain the sanctity of your marriage. How sad that you have so little faith in your own beliefs that you need the laws of man to validate them.

[geo999]

07:40 PM on 07/13/2011

The law recognizes, it does not validate.

[r henry]

08:25 PM on 07/13/2011

the law validates that its a legal contract. That's all we're asking for. So why should you care? Your religious views have nothing to do with it. If god doesn't sanction it, so be it. I don't pay taxes to god.

[Stoopid American]

12:02 AM on 07/14/2011

Think of it in terms of freedom and big government. I can think of no governmental policy more intrusive than one that tells us who we can love and who we cannot. Close behind is one that tells us who we can marry and who we cannot. It is cognitive dissonance to simultaneously support the DOMA and support minimal government intrusion in our daily lives.

[ggs83]

10:47 PM on 07/13/2011

Isn't it intersting how so much of our internationship trouble has to do with countries that do not separate church and state. And a core part of our democracy is that we guarantee that separation. But everytime we turn around some in the GOP wants to make us like some many trouble spots.
I totally agree that the connection between the word sanctitiy and marriage is religious and the connection between the word legal and marriage is civil so there should be no problem.

[r henry]

11:04 PM on 07/13/2011

But I guess this is just too hard for the other side to grasp. It must be that they can not fathom how their religion doesn't seep through the lives of every man woman and child on the planet. But it doesn't. What is the saying?

Jesus please protect me from your people!