It was just that strategy that led to this week's admonishment.
On Nov. 21, 2003, DeLay and other GOP leaders keenly wanted to pass a Medicare prescription drug bill, a White House priority opposed by some House Republicans and most Democrats. Smith was a key target for arm-twisting. He had announced his retirement and wanted his son, Brad, to be elected to replace him in the 2004 elections.
According to the ethics panel's report: Smith received a phone call from former staffer Jason Roe, who "told him that there could be substantial support for Brad Smith's campaign if Representative Smith voted in favor of the Medicare bill and that he understood from a source close to . . . DeLay's office that Brad Smith could get a National Republican Congressional Committee endorsement" if the father voted aye. Roe denied alluding to DeLay's office.
DeLay deputy chief of staff Dan Flynn called Roe on that same day, "seeking information" on Brad Smith's primary race.
As midnight approached, the elder Smith told investigators, DeLay approached him on the House floor "and told him that he would personally endorse Representative Smith's son in the Republican primary" if Smith "voted in favor of the Medicare legislation." DeLay called it "my last offer," and Smith "teared up." DeLay corroborated the conversation with Smith.
DeLay's remarks caused Smith "to lend more credence to the comments [Roe] had made" on the phone. Smith told investigators "that based on the combination of his interaction with [DeLay] and his conversations with [Roe], he came to believe his son's candidacy could be significantly impacted by his vote." Smith, however, ultimately voted against the bill, and his son lost the August primary. The bill narrowly passed in the predawn hours of Nov. 22.
Nick Smith would make an assertion -- later retracted -- that unnamed sources had offered as much as $100,000 for his son's campaign in exchange for an aye vote on Medicare. Thursday's report admonished Smith for making allegations that appeared to stem from "speculation or exaggeration."
In admonishing DeLay, the ethics panel said: "It is improper for a member to offer or link support for the personal interests of another member as part of a quid pro quo to achieve a legislative goal."
