The Complaints and Fox’s ever-changing story about the loans has generated extensive news coverage in Fox’s suburban Philadelphia congressional district, including regular front page newspaper stories. The controversy prompted Gannett News Service to do a lengthy and complimentary profile of NLPC Chairman Ken Boehm on May 1.
Fox and LSC
Last year, Fox was the Republican co-sponsor of an amendment to increase
spending for the scandal-ridden Legal Services Corporation (LSC). On the
House floor, Fox made statements that NLPC has since proven to be false.
During 1997, NLPC exposed improper pressure by Fox on LSC to restore funds
to a granteewhich had been cut off for a variety of abuses. Fox had
served on the grantee’s board.
Ken Boehm said, “During the fight over legal services, the first questions about Fox’s personal ethics were raised. We decided to take a closer look. Our worst suspicions about Fox’s honesty and integrity were quickly confirmed.”
The Secret Loans
When congressional candidate Jon Fox secretly took loans for $25,000
and $10,000 from campaign contributors during his unsuccessful 1992 race,
he set in motion events which are only now starting to catch up with him.
The loans were never disclosed to the FEC, as required by law. Nor
were they disclosed to the House of Representatives.
NLPC filed a FEC Complaint against Fox in December 1997 citing federal law which flatly forbids congressional candidates from taking personal loans over $1,000 from individuals during a campaign.
A Tangled Web
But the $35,000 in loans was just the start of Fox’s legal problems.
Shakespeare’s Polonius in Hamlet said it well: “Oh what a tangled
web we weave when first we practice to deceive.” Fox’s chief
of staff told a Washington reporter that the $25,000 loan from developer
Bruce Toll came in June 1992. When Fox filed his Disclosure Form
with the House in August 1992, he was asked to list all liabilities over
$10,000 from January 1991 through July 31, 1992. He failed to list
the $25,000 Toll loan even though the Ethics in Government Act provides
civil and criminal penalties for knowingly filing false reports.
The Fox explanation was that his chief of staff was wrong in stating the loan originated in June 1992 and that it actually came in Fall 1992. If Fox’s explanation is true, it should be easy to prove: simply provide the bank records showing the $25,000 being deposited to Fox’s account in the Fall. Or have Mr. Toll disclose the canceled check. Common sense dictates that anyone who could clear themselves so easily would jump at the chance, yet Fox has failed to disclose any bank records as to the loan’s date.
As the Fox loans case continued to make news, more embarrassing details emerged. Fox’s chief of staff told Roll Call reporter Juliet Eilperin that during the 1992 campaign Fox did not divert any of his own money to his campaign. The problem was that Fox’s own campaign report filed in December 1992 showed more than $6,000 in Fox contributions to his campaign.
Loan or Gift?
Even more embarrassing was the revelation that Fox had not repaid
a penny of the $25,000 Toll loan in the 6 years since he received it.
He claimed that the loan carried no interest rate and had no written repayment
schedule. This explanation has raised even more ethics issues
since Fox personally stated in a 1993 filing with the State Ethics Commission
that he had a loan from Toll which carried a 6% interest rate.
That filing also carries legal penalties for filing false information.
The Payoff in Pork?
Perhaps the most serious revelation of all was the news that Fox had
inserted two public works projects into a transportation bill that would
benefit Bruce Toll, the same developer who gave Fox the no-interest, pay-it-whenever-you-feel-like-it
$25,000 loan.
As reported by the April 29, 1998 issue of The Reporter, Fox put in $10.2 million in public works improvements next to the Lansdale exit of the Pennsylvania Turnpike’s Northeast Extension. Toll, along with other Toll Brothers Inc. executives, who coincidentally show up as major repeat donors of thousands of dollars to the Fox for Congress Committee, own land right next to where Fox put the millions of federal dollars in improvements. The Reporter article cited real estate agents as saying the improvements would boost the value of Toll’s land.
Truth Still Elusive
Is it just an incredible coincidence that Fox used his committee position
to financially benefit Toll and a group of large political contributors
to the Fox campaign? Fox told the press that he didn’t even know
that Toll and the other Toll executives owned the land right next to his
public works projects. Yet Fox appeared at a gathering on the
Toll property next to the proposed improvements in February of this year,
just a month before Fox’s proposal was approved by the committee.
Toll denied knowing about the Fox proposals until he read about it in the
paper, yet the article reported that it was Toll’s people who set up the
Fox event on the Toll property.
Fox clearly owes the public a complete disclosure of all documents and information relating to his loans. The fact that he’s stonewalling speaks for itself. This story is far from over.
EW