Inward Bound: Rep. Jeb Bradley's kids found work with their dad

By Ken Silverstein

As I reported yesterday, U.S. Representative Jeb Bradley is a very rich man who sometimes treads a fine line between “elected representative” and “stockholder.” Now it turns out that he's a truly dedicated family man, if you define dedicated as paying out almost $27,000 in salary and expenses to two of his children, Sebastian and Noel, who served as field coordinators for his run for Congress in 2004. Not bad for five months' work by a couple of recent high school graduates. (Bradley's office did not return phone calls, but Sebastian and Noel are listed as dependent children on several of his financial disclosure forms.)

There aren't many Congressional campaigns that hire fresh-faced kids as field coordinators; in fact, college graduates frequently have to beg their way into unpaid campaign internships. But when it comes to positions on the Bradley campaign, it clearly helps to share the candidate's genetic material. It's not illegal for Bradley's sons to work for his campaign, though it would be if they were on his office payroll. But many people would agree that turning his campaign into a Manpower, Inc., subsidiary to find jobs for family members is not an ethical use of his congressional office or donor money. Basically, Bradley is accepting campaign contributions from PACs and corporate interests and using the money to pay his kids. (Bradley could claim that he's spending his own money because he loaned his own campaign at least $350,000. But he's paying off that loan in increments, and so far he's reduced that debt by $50,000—so it's really his contributors who are paying his kids.)

While I'm on the subject, there seems to be another interesting case of nepotism at Bradley's office. Debra Vanderbeek, his chief of staff, earns an annual salary of about $150,000 (based on what she was paid during the first half of this year). Someone named Soraya Vanderbeek—almost certainly a relative, though it was impossible to determine the exact relationship due to the failure of Bradley's office to reply to a request for comment—has been Bradley's scheduler and office manager since 2003. Since then, Soraya—who turned 31 earlier this year—has seen her salary grow from $40,000 per year to about $52,000. That's an increase of roughly 30 percent over three years—quite a bit higher than the rate of inflation or the rise in income of the average Granite Stater.

Government office isn't supposed to be a friends-and-family career-networking device, but Bradley and Vanderbeek both appear to view it as an easy way to keep relatives gainfully and comfortably employed.

Followup

Congressman Bradley responded to yesterday's story with an hysterical press release that included a wealth of misinformation and completely avoided the issue I raised—namely, that his vast wealth should be put in a blind trust.

Given his fervent tone, I must ask Congressman Bradley: Why did your office spurn repeated calls seeking comment and instead reply with a press statement? My guess is that Bradley, an ardent practitioner of the political bob and weave (as will be seen below), didn't want to have to respond to follow-up questions that undermined his cover story.

In his statement, Bradley accuses me of failing to take note of his many achievements, including his past work on a local Planning Board and his time as a Little League baseball coach, saying, “Perhaps these facts were unimportant to Mr. Silverstein?” I don't see such information as necessarily being “unimportant,” but I do consider it thoroughly irrelevant to a story about the Congressman's stock market investments. I also left out that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals recently lauded Bradley for saving the life of an 11-pound lobster named Larry; this is important biographical information to be sure, and may bring hope to millions other of alliteratively-named lobsters, but it doesn't have much to do with the fact that Bradley has taken actions in Congress that have made an impact on his stock portfolio.

Misdirection is Bradley's favorite tactic. “Mr. Silverstein,” he wrote, “criticizes my vote in support of Rep. Waxman's amendment that would penalize contractors who overcharged the government. I scratch my head on this and wonder if he wanted me to vote against this measure?” Bradley can understand straightforward English prose so he surely knows I didn't criticize his 2004 vote in support of Waxman's amendment, which targeted Halliburton. I was simply calling attention to the fact that he had voted for Waxman's amendment after he dumped his Halliburton shares, while, a year earlier (when he still held Halliburton stock), he had voted against a different anti-Halliburton measure that would have required normal competitive bidding procedures for all subsequent government contracts relating to Iraq's oil industry.

Bradley goes on to say that he's taken on the energy and pharmaceutical industries (in which he holds major investments) and that the votes I mentioned suggesting otherwise involved “non-germane procedural motions.” But procedural votes have no substantive impact; they concern matters such as votes on quorum calls and rules. I cited Bradley's votes on major legislation and motions involving significant changes to bills; the latter have real, important consequences—such as, for example, whether oil and gas drilling should be barred in the Great Lakes. Bradley sided with a majority of the House in opposing such an amendment, the result being that the region is now open for such exploration.

Bradley also gives examples of cases where he allegedly championed consumers, such as his authorship of a bill that “ would provide for the safe reimportation of prescription drugs by implementing critical safety standards that will protect public health while allowing seniors to access affordable prescription drugs.” In fact, Bradley's bill and its companion legislation in the Senate—sponsored by the likes of conservatives Trent Lott and Lisa Murkowski—were watered down GOP bills offered as an alternative to a bipartisan measure (introduced by Senators Olympia Snowe, the Maine Republican, and Byron Dorgan, the North Dakota Democrat, and supported by others such as John McCain and Ted Kennedy), that had real teeth.

The record clearly shows that Bradley has tended to side with pharmaceutical and energy interests at the expense of consumers. As pharmaceutical and energy interests have profited, so has he, all the while presumably pocketing his $165,200 a year congressional salary along the way. Upon taking the oath of office, he promised to defend the United States from enemies foreign and domestic, and swore to “take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation.” When you're voting on bills that could affect your net worth, the “mental reservation” problem comes up again and again. Lobsters and Little League are well and good, but a blind trust would be much better.

[More Washington Babylon]

[Contact Ken Silverstein]

[About Washington Babylon]