Watchdog group: Chambliss is wrong about refusing Imperial Sugar testimony
November 18, 2008 at 3:17 pm by Thomas Wheatley in NewsYou’d think that by this point in the U.S. Senate Runoff race between incumbent Republican Saxby Chambliss and Democratic nominee Jim Martin all the issues would be hashed out. But that’s not the case.
On Sunday, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee released an ad that questions why Chambliss has refused to testify about whether executives from Imperial Sugar — they owned the Savannah refinery that exploded in February and killed 14 people — asked him to help the company avoid blame for the incident. Chambliss has received campaign contributions from Imperial Sugar and browbeat a company whistleblower during legislative testimony.
A Chambliss spokeswoman told the Associated Press that U.S. Senate legal counsel told the incumbent Republican the U.S. Constitution prevents him from testifying.
But government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington says the senator has it wrong. And in a post on the group’s website, executive director Melanie Sloan delivers the senator a zinger.
From the group:
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) is resisting a subpoena in a civil case claiming the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution bars him from testifying. Lawyers would like to ask Sen. Chambliss about his communications with the Imperial Sugar Corporation and why he tried to dissuade plaintiffs from suing the company following a deadly explosion and fire at a Georgia refinery earlier this year.
While the Speech or Debate Clause provides Sen. Chambliss with immunity from questions about legislative activity such as the July hearing at which Imperial Sugar’s vice president for operations testified as well as any preparation for that hearing, the Clause does not protect the senator from having to answer questions about meetings with victims’ families.
In no case has the Supreme Court ever held that all conduct merely relating the legislative process is protected by the Speech or Debate Clause.
In fact, the Supreme Court has held that members of Congress engage in many activities other than those that are purely legislative. Examples include constituent services, communications with other government agencies, assistance in securing government contracts and speeches delivered outside of Congress.
CREW executive director Melanie Sloan stated, “the Speech or Debate Clause does not give Sen. Chambliss blanket immunity from testifying in a civil case simply because he is a member of Congress. As an attorney, Sen. Chambliss should know this. Clearly, he needs to brush up on his constitutional law.”
Leave a Reply