A July 10 Los Angeles Times article about conservatives' reaction to then-Sen. Fred Thompson's (R-TN) 1997 investigation into allegations of improper campaign fundraising asserted: “The way Thompson conducted the hearings may raise questions about whether he has the zest for cut-and-thrust partisanship that many conservatives want in their leaders: Although conservatives wanted to keep the focus on [former President Bill] Clinton and the Democrats, Thompson defied [then-Senate Majority Leader Trent] Lott [R-MS] and broadened the scope of the investigation, giving Democrats opportunities to question GOP practices.” However, while Thompson did offer Democrats a chance to subpoena and question some witnesses, he later canceled the hearings before Democrats were able to present evidence of Republican wrongdoing, as previously reported by the Times and as Media Matters for America has noted.
In September 1997, the Los Angeles Times reported that Thompson had maneuvered to pre-empt a hearing by Democrats on alleged GOP improprieties. In November of that year, the Times reported that Democrats suspected that Thompson had ended the hearings altogether just in time to prevent examination of Republican senators' connections to Triad Management Services. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) later concluded that Triad had skirted campaign finance laws. But the 2007 Times article ignored both Thompson's partisan maneuvering and the Triad aspect of Thompson's cancellation of the hearings. The article skipped from conservative outrage over Thompson's decision to focus more broadly on campaign finance reform to the hearings' conclusion without mentioning Thompson's alleged protection of his party allies.
From the Times article headlined “Thompson not always at GOP core”:
Thompson also entered the money-in-politics debate in 1997, when he oversaw hearings by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee into alleged fundraising abuses by Democrats during the 1996 campaign. When Lott picked him to head the investigation, Thompson seemed like the perfect choice: He brought the star power of his acting career and the gravitas of his experience on the staff of the Watergate committee.
Republicans hoped the hearings would hit political pay dirt -- a scandal “bigger than Watergate,” as then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) put it -- by probing claims of access-peddling by the Clinton White House and efforts to funnel foreign cash into Democratic campaigns.
The way Thompson conducted the hearings may raise questions about whether he has the zest for cut-and-thrust partisanship that many conservatives want in their leaders: Although conservatives wanted to keep the focus on Clinton and the Democrats, Thompson defied Lott and broadened the scope of the investigation, giving Democrats opportunities to question GOP practices.
Among the witnesses called was former Republican Party Chairman Haley Barbour, who had to answer questions about accepting a foreign-backed loan to a GOP policy arm. Thompson allowed Democrats to subpoena conservative groups such as the Christian Coalition and the National Right to Life Committee. The groups' leaders were furious.
“It was a highly objectionable investigation,” said [James] Bopp [Jr., election lawyer, anti-abortion activist, and supporter of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney], who represented those groups and refused to comply with the subpoenas, without any consequence from the committee. “It was a fishing expedition, highly intrusive and unconstitutional.”
Some conservatives were so disappointed in the hearings that they changed the nickname of Thompson's chief counsel, Michael J. Madigan, from “Mad Dog” -- a nod to his aggressive style in the Watergate probe -- to “Poodle.”
Just when the hearings seemed about to bear fruit, Thompson shifted the focus to campaign finance proposals. That is when the Weekly Standard magazine ran its article saying Thompson had “blown it.” Lott fumed. The hearings concluded several weeks early without producing the kind of high-level smoking gun that Republicans had hoped for.
The Weekly Standard did, in fact, publish an article titled “Has Fred Thompson Blown It?” on October 6, 1997, which contained criticism from Lott and others about Thompson's decision to “shift [the] focus” of the investigation from “fund-raising scandals” to “campaign finance legislation.” Thompson's committee also did hear testimony from Haley Barbour in July 1997. However, according to a September 22, 1997, Times article, by shifting focus away from fundraising abuses, Democrats lost the opportunity to further explore Republican activities:
Republicans cut short the proceedings for more complicated reasons. Sources said some believed they had effectively demonstrated their case against the White House fund-raising operation and risked diminishing returns if they continued. By ending the investigative phase, aides also noted, Republicans preempted a week's worth of hearings on GOP activities that Democrats had been promised.
The September 19, 1997, Times article reported on Thompson's proposed compromise, noting that it meant Democrats would lose their three days of hearings:
Thompson proposed that Democrats give up their three days of hearings into Republican fund-raising activities, which were scheduled to begin next week. In exchange, Republicans would agree not to continue scrutinizing Democratic fund-raising practices for the remaining two weeks of the initial phase of the hearings.
On October 1, 1997, The Washington Post noted Republican concerns with the committee's shift in focus and reported that Thompson had shifted the focus back to investigating alleged wrongdoing, apparently backpedaling on his decision to focus on campaign finance:
The Senate committee investigating campaign fund-raising abuses before the 1996 elections said it would call former White House aide Harold Ickes to testify next Tuesday.
[...]
The decision to call Ickes represents a return by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee to focus on alleged abuses by Democrats in the 1996 campaign, after two weeks of hearings that examined problems with the entire campaign finance system.
Republicans had criticized committee Chairman Fred D. Thompson (R-Tenn.) for letting Democrats off the hook by changing the focus of the hearings.
The hearings continued through October. However, Thompson once again stopped the hearings at the end of the month. As Media Matters for America has noted, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported on November 1, 1997, that Thompson “abruptly halted” the investigation and that “Democrats noted that Thompson's cancellation of hearings coincided with questions emerging this week about Republican-backed groups using millions of dollars to help party candidates in last year's election.” In fact, the Los Angeles Times itself reported on Democrats' suspicion that the hearings had been ended just in time to prevent examination of Sen. Sam Brownback's (R-KS) and then-Sen. Don Nickles' (R-OK) connections to Triad. From the November 1, 1997, Times article:
Although Thompson said he reserved the right to resume hearings before the committee's Dec. 31 cutoff date if dramatic new evidence turns up, Democrats noted the suspension came as they were about to examine how two Republicans on the panel had benefited from secret donations given to a conservative consulting group.
Democrats had planned to call witnesses to show that the group, Triad Management Services, accepted donations totaling $400,000 to help Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) win election last year. Triad also paid for advertisements to benefit Sen. Don Nickles (R-Okla.), according to documents.
Although no illegalities were alleged, the Triad episode was to demonstrate how Republicans as well as Democrats had taken advantage of private citizen groups -- with no contribution limits or disclosure requirements -- to finance campaign activities with no public reporting required and no limit on contributions.
[Then-]Sen. John Glenn of Ohio, the ranking Democrat on Thompson's Governmental Affairs Committee, said in an interview Friday: “Obviously, they didn't want the Triad evidence to come out. But we'll include it in the final report.”
By 1998, the FEC “had concluded that Triad had violated federal campaign laws by failing to register as a federal political committee,” according to Roll Call (subscription required). A December 5, 2002, Kansas City Star article reported that the FEC found that “Brownback's in-laws, John and Ruth Stauffer of Topeka, violated federal election laws by funneling excessive campaign donations to him in 1996” through Triad and political action committees working with Triad. The FEC also ordered Brownback's campaign to refund to the U.S. Treasury $19,000 in over-the-limit contributions. A Media Matters for America search of the Lexis-Nexis database did not find any reports indicating that Nickles' reported involvement with Triad resulted in legal action.