Rep. Kim Sentenced to Serve Home Detention

After a five-year federal probe that led him to admit the acceptance of more than $250,000 in illegal campaign contributions, Rep. Jay C. Kim (R-Diamond Bar) was sentenced Monday to two months’ home detention--a ruling that allows the congressman to seek a fourth term in office.

Without explaining how he arrived at the sentence, U.S. District Judge Richard Paez decided against prison time for the 59-year-old congressman but did assign Kim to one year probation, which includes the period of home detention with an electronic monitoring device. Kim, who will be allowed to go to and from work like others assigned to the federal monitoring program, also was sentenced to perform 200 hours of community service and pay a $5,000 fine.

Authorities said violating any of the conditions of probation could result in a prison term for Kim, whose district includes part of northeast Orange County.

“This has been a five-year nightmare for my wife, my family, my friends and my supporters. Thank God it is over,” Kim, the nation’s first Korean American congressman, said in a statement read to reporters by his spokesman.

“I would again like to apologize to the court, my family and friends and those who elected me to Congress. I am truly sorry for my mistakes. All I can ask is for forgiveness,” wrote Kim, who has shunned public comment on his campaign problems and virtually all other topics for months.

Kim’s wife, June, who earlier pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor campaign violations, was sentenced to one year probation, community service and a $5,000 fine. And Kim’s campaign committee was fined $170,000.

House members are allowed to continue serving in Congress even from a prison cell, although felony convictions strip them of voting power both in committee and on the House floor. Although misdemeanors like Kim’s do not strip those voting powers, the House can decide to oust a member.

Outside the federal courthouse downtown, prosecutors made it clear that they were disappointed but not stunned by Paez’s sentence.

“I think this was a difficult decision for the judge,” said Assistant U.S. Atty. Stephen A. Mansfield, who had asked that Kim receive some prison time.

In papers filed last month, prosecutors requested that Kim be sentenced to prison after pleading guilty last year to three misdemeanor violations of election laws for accepting illegal corporate and foreign campaign contributions.

Based on the number of misdemeanors involved, Kim could have received up to three years in prison. But under a plea agreement with the government, federal prosecutors said they would ask for no more than a six-month sentence. Still, authorities argued, even that sentence would be substantial--and justified.

“This case represents the largest amount of criminal campaign finance violations ever committed by a member of Congress,” prosecutors said in a pre-sentencing memorandum.

Therefore they insisted, Kim should receive at least some prison time. “The sentence . . . must not be a ‘slap on the wrist.’ It must not approximate a penalty for ‘jaywalking,’ ” wrote Mansfield and Edward B. Moreton Jr.

In court Monday, Mansfield urged the judge to issue a sentence that would both recognize Kim’s crime and discourage others from campaign law violations.

“These crimes undermined our democratic election process,” Mansfield told a packed courtroom.

Apology Offered

In brief remarks to the judge, Kim did not discuss his conduct other than to say: “How sorry I am for what I’ve done. I accept complete responsibility for my actions.”

But his attorney, Tom Holliday, argued that sending the lawmaker to prison for misdemeanor violations would serve no purpose other than preventing him from seeking reelection this spring.

“This should have been an American success story,” Holliday said of his client’s meteoric rise from businessman to congressman. “And it has turned out to be what amounts to a Greek tragedy.”

From the moment that FBI agents raided Kim’s engineering firm in 1993, his defenders and detractors have battled over the impropriety of his acts.

While supporters argued that Kim was naive about the ins and outs of campaign laws, critics contended that his acts were a calculated affront to the law--a contention also made by authorities.

Over the course of a long and politically volatile federal probe, Kim repeatedly denied any wrongdoing, but both he and his wife acknowledged a series of improprieties when they appeared before Paez in August to plead guilty.

Specifically, Kim admitted the acceptance of a $50,000 contribution from a Taiwanese national while knowing that federal law prohibits such contributions from nonresident foreigners. He also acknowledged accepting an unlawful $12,000 donation from Nikko Enterprises, a New York corporation, and admitted that he had his own company, JayKim Engineers, provide $83,000 in services for his 1992 campaign.

His wife pleaded guilty to accepting more than $19,000 in unlawful corporate donations. One $14,000 contribution to the campaign was laundered through an electronics firm owned by Kim’s campaign treasurer, Seoukuk Ma, who was convicted last year on one charge of filing false campaign statements to the Federal Elections Commission. He was sentenced in November to five years’ probation and fined $12,000.

Regardless of his reelection effort, Kim faces an uncertain future in the House, with a pending investigation by the House Ethics Committee.

The inquiry began last fall, and a four-member task force recently started interviewing witnesses. The inquiry is expected to follow the criminal prosecution closely, but probably will focus more on books published by Kim and his wife. The books were allegedly marketed to Korean companies and sold overseas. But congressional investigators are looking at the possibility that the books were a ruse to illegally divert foreign money to Kim’s political efforts, sources said.

Republican Reaction

The Ethics Committee could recommend a reprimand, censure or expulsion of Kim once its investigation is completed; the full House must approve or reject the report, and it takes a two-thirds vote to unseat a member.

Kim’s support on the Hill appears to be waning.

At a news conference last week, Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) said House members should not “draw a congressional salary while they are in jail.” And Rep. John Linder (R-Ga.), chairman of the party’s congressional campaign committee, acknowledged that the GOP typically endorses incumbents even when they are opposed in primaries, and thus far had not offered such support to Kim.

“We’ll make that decision when his sentencing comes out,” Linder said in a conference call with reporters Friday. “He also has some serious issues pending before the Ethics Committee.” Armey and Linder could not be reached Monday afternoon after the sentencing.

Through 1990, 22 House members had been censured, which strips them of some privileges but allows them to retain their seats, according to Congressional Quarterly’s “Guide to Congress.” An additional 14 faced censure proceedings but beat them.

Only four House members have been expelled, which requires a two-thirds vote. Three were Confederates in the Civil War era; the fourth, Michael J. Myers, was convicted of corruption as part of the Abscam trial in 1980.

Although other members of Congress have been sentenced to prison, experts said they cannot recall anyone serving in Congress while under home confinement. In general, members who are convicted have resigned, said Ray Smock, who was the House historian until the Republican-controlled Congress killed that office in 1995.

“I can’t find anybody that was in Congress when they were serving their jail term. There may be a case like that, but I’ll be darned if I can find it,” Smock said. “It’s probably unusual. Home confinement is a fairly new thing.”