UPDATE:
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) announced on March 20, 2007 that he would retire at the end of his term in January 2009.

====================================================

Duncan Hunter (R-CA) is a 14th-term member of Congress, representing California’s 52nd congressional district. Rep. Hunter’s ethics issues stem from his connection to now former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham and now indicted defense contractor Brent Wilkes. In addition, Rep. Hunter purchased his home in a questionable land deal, escaped paying full property taxes for many years, and gave conflicting reports of the property’s true value. Rep. Hunter also used the power of his office to financially benefit his brother and his presidential campaign has violated federal election law.

Relationship With Randy “Duke” Cunningham

After the conviction of close friend and political ally, Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham in 2005, Rep. Hunter agreed to launch an internal investigation into earmarks sponsored by the convicted lawmaker, but nearly five months after the U.S. Attorney pursuing the bribery case requested documents, Rep. Hunter’s committee had still not released the records. The FBI is investigating Rep. Hunter’s connections to Rep. Cunningham as well as other actors in the scandal.

Trading Earmarks for Campaign Contributions

Rep. Hunter has been connected to Brent Wilkes, a co-conspirator in the Cunningham scandal. As of July 18, 2007, Mr. Wilkes faced 30 counts in two separate indictments, including charges that he bribed Rep. Cunningham with $600,000 in gifts and cash in exchange for more than $80 million in defense contracts. Central to the criminal investigation were earmarks for companies associated with Brent Wilkes: Audre, Inc. and ADCS. Rep. Hunter, a “prominent backer” of these systems, teamed with Rep. Cunningham and other lawmakers to allocate $190 million for automated data conversion projects from 1993 to 2001-- programs the Defense Department neither wanted nor requested. Rep. Hunter also sought out tens of millions of dollars in earmarks for Audre and ADCS, and pushed the Pentagon to purchase their products. In return, Mr. Wilkes steered at least $39,200 in campaign contributions to Rep. Hunter.

Similarly, Rep. Hunter has backed legislation for clients of lobbyist Letitia White (who formerly worked for Rep. Jerry Lewis on the Appropriations Committee), for L-3 Titan, Boeing and DuPont Aerospace, all in apparent exchange for campaign contributions.

If, as it appears, Rep. Hunter accepted donations to his campaign and political action committees in direct exchange for earmarking federal funds, he may have violated the bribery statute and committed honest services fraud.

Real Estate Taxes

In 1994 Rep. Hunter and his wife bought a foreclosed property for $175,000 from a government entity the Resolution Trust Company (RTC)--despite federal regulations preventing what was described as “key federal employees” from purchasing properties from the RTC to avoid conflicts of interest. According to Rep. Hunter, a county official reassessed his home after the purchase, but property records had incorrectly listed the number of rooms in the home, artificially lowering the value of the property to $249,000. As a result, Rep. Hunter paid less in taxes than other owners of similar-sized properties. When the house was destroyed in a fire, Rep. Hunter asked for a permit to rebuild. At that time, county officials discovered the discrepancy between the property’s appraised value and its actual value. They reassessed the property’s value at $315,000 and demanded almost $5,000 in back taxes. Initially, Rep. Hunter agreed to pay only $667 in back taxes plus $85 late fee and appealed the revaluation of his home, claiming he had never noticed the discrepancy, but just this month he dropped the appeal.

Notwithstanding his challenge to the reappraisal of his pre-fire home based on its actual size, Rep. Hunter Rep. Hunter listed the property’s value as being between $500,000 and $1,000,000 on his most recent financial disclosure form filed with the House of Representatives. He did not, however, report the amount of the sale on the disclosure report he is required to file as a presidential candidate.
The discrepancy between the value Rep. Hunter assigned to his home for purposes of his financial disclosure forms and the value he claimed the property was worth in response to an increased assessment by San Diego County suggests, at the very least, that Rep. Hunter may have misrepresented the true value of his home on his financial disclosure forms, which would be a violation of the Ethics in Government Act. Moreover, the financial disclosure report that Rep. Hunter filed as a presidential candidate on May 11, 2007, does not include the value of his home. His failure to attribute a value to this property at a time when he was contesting its value with the County of San Diego suggests another violation of the Ethics in Government Act.

Liberty Station Development Project

Rep. Hunter assisted his brother’s employer in obtaining a contract for a land development project in San Diego, California. Rep. Hunter’s brother, Jim Hunter, is Vice President of Acquisitions for The Corky McMillin Cos., a land developer. Rep. Hunter helped draft a bill that allowed over 235 acres of an old Navy boot camp to be given away free to the City of San Diego. Rep. Hunter then co-authored a letter to San Diego city council members urging them to consider McMillin to redevelop the property into a new community called Liberty Station. McMillin won the contract, but has not followed through on an agreement to share profits with the City of San Diego.

Members of the House are prohibited from “taking any official actions for the prospect of personal gain for themselves or anyone else.” The Code of Ethics also provides that government officials should “[n]ever discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone whether for remuneration or not.” By directly assisting the employer of his brother to obtain a contract for a land development project, Rep. Hunter may have dispensed special favors.

Federal Election Law

Rep. Hunter announced his intention to explore a presidential bid in October 2006. Beginning in December 2006, he promoted his candidacy by running advertisements with money he both raised and spent illegally. In December 2006, PTS PAC aired thinly-veiled campaign advertisements in early primary states promoting Rep. Hunter’s support for constructing a fence along the US-Mexico border.

Although federal election law allows a candidate to “test the waters” -- meaning spend funds for travel and polling -- a candidate who is testing the waters cannot spend more than $5,000 on general public political advertising such as the ads run by Rep. Hunter. Once a person spends over $5,000 in support of a presidential campaign, he automatically becomes a candidate under federal election law.

In addition, once a person becomes a candidate, he or she may only accept individual contributions of up to $2,300 per election. While supporting Rep. Hunter’s efforts to test the waters, PTS PAC received 11 individual contributions over that limit, with the result that the PAC received $27,350 in excess contributions.

Finally, by purchasing ads for Rep. Hunter, PTS PAC made excessive “in-kind” contributions to Hunter’s presidential campaign. A presidential campaign can only accept up to a $5,000 contribution from a PAC per election, but PTS PAC spent $17,575 to run its border fence advertisement in New Hampshire.

The FEC is considering a complaint filed against PTS PAC by CREW.

DOWNLOAD THE FULL REPORT ON REP. DUNCAN HUNTER (R-CA) [0]