HAGÅTÑA (The Guam Daily Post) — A local resident has written to the Office of Congressional Ethics, alleging that the paid advertisements taken out by Delegate Michael San Nicolas’ office were illegal.
Peter John Santos released his letter to local media Tuesday, taking issue with recent messages that highlighted the benefit of federal pandemic funds used by local businesses to deal with the economic downturn caused by Covid-19.
One ad included in his complaint used a quotation from Jeff Pleadwell, a restaurant owner who said: “What really saved my business is the (Small Business Administration) & the PPP program. I felt keeping the employees was so important, because I had faith that my government would help me later. The federal government. Thank you for the federal funds!”
Santos said the print ads, along with those broadcast on local television stations amount to the Guam delegate using official funds for electoral purposes.
“The advertisement explicitly thanks someone for the federal funds and at the end of the advertisement it states that it was paid for with official funds of The Office of Congressman Michael F.Q. San Nicolas,” he wrote in his complaint. “This strongly suggests and implies that the funds were secured by Congressman Michael F.Q. San Nicolas. This is an overt and blatant reelection advertisement not in spirit with authorization by the federal government to run Public Service Announcements for Covid-19 related assistance.”
Santos also contends the ads violate U.S. congressional rules about members’ so-called “franking privilege,” a mechanism that allows delegates and senators to send mail without paying postage.
The rule was expanded to cover “all solicited mass communications,” like advertisements, mailings and automated phone calls, requiring members receive an “advisory opinion” from a commission that determines its legitimacy, according to a report from the Congressional Research Service.
San Nicolas did not respond to messages seeking his comment on the matter.
The privilege has been a source of objection in the past.
“During the 19th century, the privilege was commonly attacked as financially wasteful and subject to widespread abuse through its use for other than official business,” the report stated. “Although concerns about cost and abuse continued in the 20th century, strong criticism of the franking privilege developed regarding the use of the frank as an influence in congressional elections and the perceived advantage it gives incumbent Members running for reelection.”
Santos is requesting that an investigation be conducted into whether San Nicolas used “official funds for campaign and political purposes,” and that disciplinary action be imposed “for the improper use of official resources.”
It may not be made clear to Santos or the public how the allegation will be handled. According to a section of the Office of Congressional Ethics or OCE website where public submissions are made, communication following a complaint is expected to be limited.
“The OCE will accept and review information concerning allegations within its jurisdiction,” the commission posted. “Please note that a submission of information does not automatically result in an investigation. The decision to begin an investigation (preliminary review) lies solely with the OCE Board. Further, the OCE is not able to provide information about whether the Board has authorized a review or whether the OCE has conducted an investigation related to the information you submit.”
