SAN DIEGO Last month Rep. Duncan D. Hunter pleaded guilty to felony conspiracy for converting campaign funds to personal use, but that doesnt mean taxpayers will be off the hook for supporting the congressman after he retires.
Hunter, an Alpine, Calif., Republican who was sworn into office on Jan. 3, 2009, has garnered at least 11 years of service that counts toward the congressional portion of his pension, meaning hell still likely receive thousands of dollars in retirement benefits related to that service in addition to benefits from prior military service.
The amount of money in Hunters congressional pension is not publicly known, and the Congressional Research Service and the Office of Personnel Management both declined to provide The San Diego Union-Tribune with information regarding the congressmans benefits. Hunter remains in Congress, although he said he would step down shortly after the holidays. He is to be sentenced March 17.
Based on formulas outlined in a paper released by the research service earlier this year, it is estimated that Hunter, 43, would receive an annual payment of at least $32,538 due to his congressional pension, which he can begin accessing when he turns 62.
I do not have any information to provide regarding Congressman Hunters personal finances, including the status of his retirement or pension, said Michael Harrison, a spokesman for Hunter.
Legal and policy experts interviewed by the Union-Tribune said Hunter will most likely keep his taxpayer funded pension even though he violated the publics trust.
Corrupt members of Congress deserve time in prison not taxpayer-funded federal pensions, said Adam Andrzejewski, CEO of OpenTheBooks.com, a project of the open government group American Transparency. However, the rules are so lax, no member has ever been stripped of their congressional pension.
Andrzejewski provided the Union-Tribune with an Oct. 9, 2019, email in which an official with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management stated that no members of Congress have been stripped of their retirement benefits due to a conviction.
For example, former Rep. Corrine Brown, a Florida Democrat convicted on 18 of 22 corruption charges including mail fraud and filing a false federal tax return in 2017, is collecting pension benefits from prison, as is former Pennsylvania Rep. Chaka Fattah, who was convicted on 23 counts of racketeering, fraud, and other corruption charges in 2016.
Former San Diego Rep. Randy Duke Cunningham, a 78-year-old Republican who was convicted on federal charges of tax evasion and conspiracy to commit bribery, mail fraud and wire fraud in 2005, is also reportedly still eligible or currently receiving his congressional pension.
Legal and policy experts said Hunter is unlikely to be the first member of Congress to have his congressional retirement benefits stripped away because, while conspiracy is among the crimes that can cause lawmakers to lose their pension, the law only covers conspiracy to commit 29 specific types of acts and all of them relate to conduct as an officeholder or involving the federal government, federal employees or public property.
Hunters conspiracy crime was related to campaign finance activity that is not among the specified types of acts.
He pleaded to a single felony but not one that is specifically included in the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, said Beth A. Rotman, an attorney who is the money in politics and ethics program director for the good government group Common Cause.
That 2007 law, which was sponsored by former Democratic Nevada Sen. Harry Reid in the Senate and by former Democratic Michigan Rep. John Conyers in the House, amended parts of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 in an attempt to reduce how frequently lawmakers and staff shuffled between federal jobs and the private sector. Hunters father, former Rep. Duncan L. Hunter, voted in favor of the law prior to retiring from Congress the following year.
Rotman noted that while the law includes many more crimes than it did 20 years ago, Its not everything. In cases like this, the desire to keep the pension could be one of the reasons someone accepts a plea that is only a portion of the charges.
