Ten years ago, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA)– currently chair of the Senate Ethics Committee– personally moved legislation that has financially benefited her son, Capitol Confidential has learned.
Boxer, then in her second term as a U.S. Senator, carried legislation restoring federal recognition to a Native American tribe, the Coastal Miwoks. At the time, the Miwoks claimed to be a “nongaming tribe.” However, Boxer’s legislation, as signed into law by President Bill Clinton, allowed for a casino to be constructed– a result that would specifically have been blocked under similar legislation introduced by Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).
Now, with a major relevant condition having been met, local residents are bracing themselves for construction of a new casino, a project that has been pushed by none other than Boxer’s son, Doug Boxer. Questions are being raised about the younger Boxer’s involvement and his mother’s legislative actions that paved the way for what looks like a financially lucrative deal benefiting him personally.
Less than a year after Boxer’s tribal bill was signed into law, Doug Boxer helped negotiate a casino partnership between the tribe and Station Casinos of Las Vegas. Doug Boxer’s firm also acquired options on 2,000 acres of land that was later transferred to Station Casinos for an undisclosed price, but which some reports indicate could have been as much as $24 million.
In addition, Doug Boxer’s firm took a consulting fee for brokering the land deal. The amount of that fee has also remained undisclosed, but in May 2003, tribal chairman Gregory Sarris told the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat that the consulting fee was “too much, more than I would like.”
If and when the casino does in fact open, Doug Boxer will profit then, too: According to Boxer campaign spokesman Matthew Kagen, Doug Boxer and the developer involved in the project are partners in a limited liability corporation that would financially benefit from such a move.
Sen. Boxer, for her part, appears to have been aware of the bad optics surrounding this situation for some time.
Back in 2003, when news broke regarding Doug Boxer’s involvement in efforts to develop the casino, but long after her legislation was signed into law, Boxer “recused” herself from further Miwok dealings, citing a “flip-flop” by the tribe on the gambling matter.
However, she predicted that the legislation, and her son’s apparent profiting from it, would prove a liability in future re-election campaigns. Since then, Boxer has remained tight-lipped about the entire matter, with one notable exception: Pinned on it during an interview with the Sacramento Bee last month, Boxer said “I can’t talk about any developments because my son was a lawyer who was part of some consultant that was somehow related to this.”
Indeed, Boxer’s pursuit of the legislation and her son’s involvement in the casino negotiations have riled fellow Democrats. In 2003, Sonoma County Supervisor Valerie Brown told the Los Angeles Times “when the son of a senator works with a tribe to negotiate with an investor from Las Vegas, I have some questions. … It just doesn’t look good.” Moreover, Assemblyman Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael) told the Bee that although he would still vote for Boxer, the casino development “is going to have a profound adverse impact throughout my district.”
Critics of Boxer say this is not the first time that Doug Boxer will have extensively financially benefited from his mother’s position as a senator. Last year, Boxer came under fire for having paid out nearly $500,000 in campaign contributions to Doug Boxer’s political consulting firm from 2001 to 2009. Boxer’s diversion of campaign contributions to her son was also the subject of a Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington dossier regarding elected officials’ use of campaign funds to employ relatives. Similarly, Common Cause has criticized the practices favored by Boxer, saying in 2000 that “[we] would hope that campaigns are run in a very above-board way and are not about enriching candidates or their families.”
Strictly speaking, Boxer’s payments to her son are not illegal, the Senate having repeatedly rejected moves to change rules relating to the employment of family members. In 2008, Boxer voted “present” on a Senate amendment that would have blocked campaigns from paying relatives for campaign work. She has also defended payments to her son as ethical and appropriate.
However, voters may not see it that way. Currently, Boxer is locked in a tight battle for re-election, facing off against Republican Carly Fiorina. The race has been rated a toss-up by several pollsters and analysts. Jobs and the economy remain primary issues in the contest, but some insiders say that reports of ethical lapses on Boxer’s part could turn undecided voters against her– even those in Marin-Sonoma, hardly regarded as a purple area of the state.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.