Matt Mitgang | Student Life

Former state senator Jeff Smith, flanked by his lawyers, speaks to the media after being sentenced to 12 months in federal prison and a $50,000 fine in November 2009. Smith plead guity to two counts of conspiracy to obstruct justice.

Smith handwrote the majority of the book in a journal he kept while serving time for lying to federal investigators who were looking into his campaign activities from his 2004 congressional bid.

In his book, tentatively titled “Mr. Smith Goes to Prison: What They Don’t Teach in PoliSci 101,” Smith aims to point out how his political science degrees have helped him in his legislative tenure and throughout his life, and discuss ways in which he thinks they are lacking.

“I would say there’s a healthy dose of analysis [in my book] of places where scholarly theory comports with reality that I encountered or does not,” Smith said. “In a lot of cases, it kind of falls short.”

According to Smith, many academic programs are so heavily focused on scholarly theory that they often fail to fully prepare students for the practice of politics.

“[In my book, I discuss] places where academic theory is often insufficient to explain a lot of the phenomena that I encountered,” he said. “A lot of political science theory and theories about the legislative process are pretty mathematical and don’t always account for emotion and relationships, and those are…two very, very important factors that often are not included in models.”

Writing a book, Smith said, has long been a personal objective. He hopes that his work will help to inform and improve the field and practice of politics.

“I’ve always hoped to try to alert practitioners to the fact that there is a lot of wisdom that they can draw upon in political science,” Smith said. “I’ve also tried very hard to bring different aspects of real world politics to academia, which conversely, I think, helps inform the work of scholars. So one of the main goals of the book is to try to help the two worlds speak to each other.”

Smith submitted a false affidavit to the Federal Election Commission while under investigation. In the affidavit, Smith denied involvement in the production of illegal negative advertisements distributed about Russ Carnahan—Smith’s opponent in the 2004 U.S. House of Representatives race, to whom Smith lost.

He also hopes to share his story with young people—especially those interested in politics, who might learn from his mistakes.

“I spent over a decade involved in community service in St. Louis and then public service,” Smith said. “And because of a mistake that was pretty needless—and ultimately didn’t make a difference in the election that I was running—I made a mistake in the heat of a campaign that really undid a lot of the good I had worked to accomplish.”

In his experience, Smith has found that small choices and judgment calls really do matter.

“In the original mistake, the spotlight wasn’t on at all. It was a five-minute conversation in the middle of a campaign that no one was really paying attention to at that time,” he said. “It was in a time before the spotlight was on me, in a time before I realized that it would come back to haunt me, was when I originally slipped up. It’s things that you do when you might least expect it that can ultimately come back and unravel a lot of the things that you had worked for.”

Smith hopes that the significant press his story has garnered will allow his message to be heard.

In fall of 2009, Smith pled guilty on two felony counts of conspiracy to obstruct justice. He was convicted, sentenced to a year and a day in a Kentucky prison, and fined $50,000. Smith was released to a St. Louis halfway house in August 2010, where he stayed until November 2010.

So far, the former state senator has written about 400 pages, and he says the book is almost complete. His agent has been pitching to publishers and hopes that the book will be available for sale by late 2011 or early 2012.

Senior Grady Jung remembers hearing about the controversy in 2009 and thinks the book will provide a uniquely beneficial view.

“There are a lot of not-kosher things in politics, and to get the perspective of someone who was actually prosecuted for that—I think that would be a really valuable view,” Jung said.

Other students agree that Smith’s experiences make his viewpoint valuable.

“It will definitely offer an interesting perspective. People already think there’s so much corruption in government; [now] they can hear the story from someone who has actually gone through it and been a part of it,” freshman Robert Knapel said.

Since Smith regained his freedom, he has been working on various projects, helping to write part of the city’s bid for the Democratic National Convention and doing consulting work. He has also written for “The Recovering Politician” blog and will soon begin contributing to The Huffington Post, focusing on urban education and federal budget issues.

Smith has also interviewed for several professorships in various locations around the country. In 2002, he won Washington University’s Dean’s Award for Teaching Excellence.

“I loved the experience I had teaching at Wash. U.,” Smith said. “I just came back last week and guest lectured for a friend who teaches a public policy course, and it reminded me of how much I love teaching and being around young people who are interested in public policy, so hopefully I’ll have the chance to do that again.”

Well, technically he is e-mailing his tweets to a former aide to post on his behalf, but close enough.

This 134-character announcement is a fairly typical example of the jail posts released by JeffSmith7037 thus far: “got elbowed in the paint today on b-ball court, t-shirt bloody, had to tell guard asap to make sure i don’t get in trouble 4 fighting.”

It’s certainly a bit of a shift from his earlier tweets about state politics and meeting constituents.

For anyone who had previously doubted the total penetration of social media into all sectors of our society, I think this is pretty incontrovertible proof that such technologies can now be found anywhere and everywhere.

Once upon a time, a prison sentence meant total isolation. Now, going to jail apparently means having an opportunity to share with your followers a whole new chapter in your life.

But even for those living on the outside of the iron bar windows, new tools like Twitter are making a dramatic and lasting impact on the way we differentiate between the public and private domains.

Before Twitter, Facebook and the like, you had to attract media attention in order to broadcast your message to the world. In other words, someone else had to find you and your comments worth sharing. Now the only person who must appreciate your remarks before they are released to a list of followers is you.

The advent of self-publishing has led to a criminal overabundance of status updates about recent meals and sleeping habits. (Why, oh why, would you think anyone wants to know what you ate for breakfast?) For some people, no topic is too personal to be shared.

Furthermore, these technologies encourage and reward the divulgence of what was once private. Followers appreciate candid, personal anecdotes. They shun overly polished talking points.

Yet social media has also democratized the way we share information. Anyone and any message has a shot in an age when no one needs media elites to deem them relevant anymore; they just need an Internet connection.

If that seems self-evident, imagine Jeff Smith in prison before the advent of such portals. The only way to hear from him would be through word of mouth contact or from a reporter who took an interest. Smith’s words would be delivered, if at all, at a time and with a spin far removed from his control. Now, instead, we hear from Smith on his terms.

It means Smith has a chance to remake his image without outside interference. On a broader level, it means we are now receiving more of our information straight from the source, but it also means we have to become our own skeptics rather than relying on the objectivity of a reporter.

So long, filters.

“Surely it won’t be a picnic,” Smith said. “But I’m a strong person, and I’ve overcome things before…so I’ll get through it, with the help of friends and family and a great support system.”

In an interview with Student Life on Friday, the former Washington University political science instructor and former Democratic state senator also reflected on his recent legal troubles and his teaching career at the University.

Smith’s term will start in about six weeks. Although he did not know where, he said he has asked to be placed in a facility in Marion, Ill., about 120 miles from St. Louis, because of its closeness. Before then, he plans to spend his time with friends and family, to write, and to read, especially short stories, memoirs and nonfiction works on political science, education and history. After prison, he hopes to do more community service and continue his work in education, though he is not sure yet if he will teach again.

Smith had pleaded guilty on Aug. 25 to two counts of conspiracy to obstruct justice for lying to investigators about his authorization of and involvement in an illegal postcard mailer during his 2004 congressional run. Smith was sentenced to 12 months and one day in prison and fined $50,000 on Tuesday.

Federal guidelines require all sentences of a year or less to be served fully, but the extra day Judge Carol Jackson put on Smith’s sentence could allow him to get out nearly two months early.

“I’m glad she did that,” Smith said. “It will allow me, if I encounter no problems during incarceration, to potentially get out early, so the potential for early release is obviously a good thing, and the fact that she departed from the guidelines was positive.”

Still, he said he would have liked to see her depart further. Smith’s attorney, Richard Greenberg, had sought home confinement and community service for Smith instead of prison time.

“I’m obviously not a threat to society, and I was no threat to re-offend, given that I will not be running for office in the future,” Smith said. “So I think the community would have been best served by having me remain here and continuing the community service-type things I’ve done for 20 years.”

Greenberg cited Smith’s annual 3-on-3 basketball tournament and community fair, the time he devoted to tutoring students, and the St. Louis charter schools he founded in 2002 called Confluence Academies. Jackson said Smith’s community service experience was notable, but felt he deserved prison time due to his long pattern of lying to investigators.

Smith also disagreed with Assistant U.S. Attorney Hal Goldsmith’s comment at the sentencing that he saw “the light go off” in campaign treasurer Nick Adams’ head but not in Smith’s. “I was not aware that he was possessed of such supernatural powers to see that,” Smith said. “I went into his office and did as I was advised by my attorney, which was to listen to the tapes without comment or expression.”

Goldsmith had said that Adams realized the seriousness of his crimes after hearing recordings of the three defendants’ conversations. But Goldsmith indicated he did not see the same reaction from Smith.

The Federal Election Commission found no evidence of wrongdoing on Smith’s part in its 2004-2007 investigation, but the FBI uncovered new evidence and reopened the inquiry in June 2009. Investigators conducted wiretaps and enlisted Smith’s co-conspirator, former state Rep. Steve Brown, D-Clayton, to wear a wire starting in June.

After the FEC investigation closed, Smith said, he “thought it was over.” But he was surprised after finding out that the FBI was revisiting the issue in June, when he heard that Democratic operative Milt “Skip” Ohlsen III may have been providing information on the postcard scheme to the FBI in exchange for a lighter sentence on an unrelated charge. FEC documents from 2004 link Ohlsen to the scheme, and Brown’s lawyer, Art Margulis, has cited Ohlsen as the John Doe in court documents who approached Smith’s campaign with the idea for it.

But Smith said the bigger surprise was “that my conversations were being taped. It was not something I would have put in the range of possibility.”

Smith said Brown called him in early June to say that Ohlsen may have been cooperating with the FBI. The two and Adams then met to discuss the matter.

The FBI then showed up at his house early on June 30 for an interview in which Smith said he lied about the postcards.

In July, the FBI had Smith listen to recordings; that’s when he and his attorney decided to work on a plea agreement, he said. Smith said he sought to keep others in his campaign out of the stipulation of facts if he did not know whether they had any interaction with Ohlsen.

Smith said he also asked prosecutors to delay the indictment until after his annual 3-on-3 basketball tournament and community fair, because “we had spent so much time preparing for that. That’s my big event of the year.” He also did not want to disappoint the many kids who had already signed up for the event and for free school supplies.

He was to teach a course in the fall on campaigns and elections, but he canceled the course in mid-August. He was popular among most of his students for his interactive class structure and lecture style; for instance, his campaigns and elections courses required students to devise and execute a mock campaign plan.

He said he learned “a lot about human nature” from his students. In his legislative process class, students would simulate debates and votes on legislation, and then explain the reasons behind their votes. “Listening to years and years of kids describing why they did what they did in the role play gave me a lot of insights for when I went to the Senate for how people will make decisions about bills,” Smith said.

Smith also noted how much he interacted with students and made them a part of his campaigns, saying, “I couldn’t have come close in my first election without students.” He estimated that half of his roughly 550 volunteers in 2004 were students from the University, Saint Louis University, University of Missouri-St. Louis and other schools.

The St. Louis Democrat and former Washington University instructor received 12 months and one day in prison for each of two counts of conspiracy to obstruct justice. The sentences will run concurrently. He was also ordered to pay a $50,000 fine.

Law school graduate Steve Brown, a former Democratic state representative from Clayton, was sentenced to two years of probation on one conspiracy count and fined $40,000. University graduate Nick Adams, who was Smith’s campaign treasurer, was sentenced to two years of probation for each of two conspiracy counts and fined $5,000. His sentences are also concurrent.

Brown and Adams avoided receiving prison time largely because they assisted an FBI investigation in 2009.

The three pleaded guilty in the same courthouse on Aug. 25, following weeks of speculation in the Missouri political system about the futures of Smith and Brown, who also resigned their legislative seats that day.

Judge Carol Jackson told all three defendants that their crimes were “very serious.” The more she learned about the defendants and the case, the less she was able to figure out “how a bunch of smart guys like you could have done something so boneheaded,” she said.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Hal Goldsmith told reporters afterward that all of the sentences were appropriate. He also hoped that the case would send a message to other politicians.

“We’re not going to tolerate this kind of corruption,” Goldsmith said. “The people deserve better—the people in this city, the people in this state, the people in this country.”

In court, Smith acknowledged lying about his role in producing illegal campaign literature in his 2004 bid: “With the postcards I left a piece of my honor in that campaign.” All three defendants apologized, with Smith saying, “I should have owned up to my mistakes.”

In a brief statement afterward, Smith said, “This has been a difficult chapter in my life, but it will not be the last one and it will definitely not be the defining one.”

The sentences were lighter than those suggested in the plea agreement guidelines, which recommended 15-21 months for each count. The plea agreement suggested prison terms below the guidelines for Brown and Adams because the two helped the FBI’s investigation.

Jackson, who was responsible for the sentencing, said she would have been tempted to send Brown to prison, were it not for the U.S. attorney’s office’s mention of Brown’s cooperation.

“This was a very stupid thing for you to do,” she told Brown, adding that he had been a lawyer who was now himself being prosecuted. Brown lost his law license after pleading guilty.

Goldsmith told Jackson during Brown’s sentencing that he has “never been involved in a case where I’ve had this kind of cooperation.”

Smith’s lawyers had sought home confinement and community service for Smith as an alternative to prison time, citing his lifelong commitment to service. Richard Greenberg, one of Smith’s lawyers, pointed out the St. Louis charter schools that Smith founded in 2002, his annual three-on-three basketball tournament, and the students he has tutored.

But Goldsmith argued that home confinement would not have been enough of a punishment, because of Smith’s pattern of lying to investigators.
“Citizens have a right to his honest services and his integrity, and he abused them of that right,” Goldsmith told reporters.

Jackson agreed but said it was “not inappropriate” to take Smith’s community service into account as grounds for sentencing him below the guidelines. She also said she had  “no doubt” that Smith’s remorse was real, and she noted that more than 100 people, including Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster, had sent her letters urging her to be lenient in sentencing Smith.

Adams received a light sentence in part due to his cooperation with investigators. Goldsmith said he supported a light sentence because he saw “the light go off” in Adams’ head after Adams initially refused to cooperate. But Goldsmith also said he did not see a light go off in Smith’s head.

The charges against the three men stemmed from an FBI investigation over the summer that revisited a 2004 inquiry by the Federal Election Commission into Smith’s congressional run. The FBI found that all three men had lied by hiding their involvement in the creation of anonymous postcards that attacked Smith’s main Democratic primary opponent, now U.S. Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-St. Louis.

Carnahan had filed a complaint with the FEC in July 2004 alleging Smith violated federal law by helping make campaign materials—the postcards, in this case—without disclosing that he was involved. Smith submitted an affidavit denying the claims. The FEC closed its investigation in 2007, clearing Smith and his campaign. Carnahan defeated Smith in the 2004 primary by a 23 percent to 21 percent vote, and Smith was elected to the Missouri Senate in 2006.

New evidence emerged in 2009 that prompted the FBI to revisit the matter. FBI wiretaps revealed that the three men had known all along about the postcards and that they had helped an unnamed Democratic operative produce them. The FBI also found that the three continued lying in 2009 in an effort to cover up the crimes. Goldsmith said the help Brown and Adams eventually provided was critical in building a case.

Art Margulis, Brown’s lawyer, said he appreciated that Jackson took Brown’s cooperation into account in determining his sentence.

“Clearly this is no time for celebration,” Margulis said. “There’s been a lot lost here—more than one career damaged—and we’re grateful for the judge’s consideration.”

A former Democratic state senator from St. Louis and Washington University political science instructor, Jeff Smith will be sentenced in federal court in St. Louis on Tuesday, after he pleaded guilty to federal corruption charges and resigned from the Missouri Senate on Aug. 25.

In five years, Smith went on a roller coaster ride that took him from the classrooms and offices of Eliot Hall, to streets and coffee shops on the campaign trail, to the Missouri Senate floor, to the federal court where he pleaded guilty. It was a journey in which Smith, with the help of students, quickly went from a political long shot to a rising star, only to fall back down even quicker.

“I still support Jeff, I still like Jeff, and I think he made a silly mistake and will have to face severe consequences,” said 2004 graduate Michael Delman, a campaign volunteer. “But he had a lot of potential, and it’s sad to see his political career end this way.”

The matter that led to his resignation and guilty plea occurred in the very campaign that started his political career, his 2004 run for Congress. Smith built that campaign from scratch into a grassroots movement that became the subject of a documentary, “Can Mr. Smith Get to Washington Anymore?”

His main Democratic primary opponent, now-U.S. Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-St. Louis, filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission in late July 2004 alleging that Smith was involved in the production and distribution of thousands of anti-Carnahan postcards that failed to identify the parties responsible for their content—a violation of federal election law.

Smith initially denied involvement, and in 2007 the FEC cleared Smith and his campaign of wrongdoing. But when new evidence emerged, the FBI revisited the FEC investigation in the summer of 2009. The FBI found that Smith lied to the FEC in 2004 about his involvement and persuaded his campaign manager, Nick Adams, and then-state Rep. Steve Brown, D-Clayton, to do the same. Those two—both University graduates—also pleaded guilty to similar charges and will be sentenced on Tuesday.

When he pleaded guilty, Smith acknowledged the violations. He apologized to his supporters on his Web site later, writing, “This event has humbled me. I have done some significant introspection and that has been the hardest part: coming to terms with my own poor judgments and mistakes.”

More than five years after filing the complaint, Carnahan said in an interview on Tuesday that Smith’s guilty plea was “a sad day for our democratic system.”

“I think he and others were straightforward in terms of admitting what they had done and apologizing for what they had done,” Carnahan said. “We see that even though it’s years later, I think the system has worked, and we’ll expect to see the judge make a decision.”

It was a sad ending, Smith’s supporters said, to a highly promising political career for the 35-year-old.

“He definitely could have been U.S. congressman, run for senator, joined the White House in some capacity, there’s no telling what,” said Alexander Lurie, a field organizer for Smith’s 2004 campaign and a 2006 Northwestern University graduate. “But this guy is so capable, it’s a loss.”

A quick rise starting at WU

On the surface, Smith seemed like the unlikeliest candidate for national office in 2004. Although he had been involved in public service, founding charter schools in St. Louis in 2002, he had never held elected office.

Smith’s only political experience came from chairing Brown’s state legislative campaign and serving as the Iowa director of Bill Bradley’s presidential campaign in 2000.

But Smith’s supporters said he had two other crucial assets: his intelligence and his education in political science at the University.

“His political science background gave him the ability to speak really well on lots of different issues that affected him and the country,” Delman said.

Still, Smith had no name recognition and no resources. And he was up against nine opponents, including Carnahan, then a state representative, who came from a Missouri political family that had already produced two Missouri governors and a U.S. senator.

So Smith sought the help of students and alumni. He enlisted Adams as his treasurer and University graduate Clay Haynes as his campaign manager. Other students were inspired to volunteer and work for the campaign after taking Smith’s classes on campaigns and elections.

“What is so great about Jeff is that he was both a good teacher and a friend, and someone who spoke honestly about the political process, about what needed to get done,” said campaign volunteer Nicole Soussan, a 2006 graduate who took two classes with Smith and who was once president of the College Democrats. “He valued [students’] input on the campaign. He looked to us for advice or support.”

Instead of relying on TV advertisements, the campaign focused on going door to door, holding coffee events, and distributing flyers. The goal was to knock on “as many [doors] as possible,” Lurie said. Smith combined this approach with progressive stances on issues like health care, Iraq and education.

It was this combination that put Smith on the map and garnered him extensive media coverage. He earned the endorsement of Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean, who had become known for grassroots organizing.

In the end, Smith fell just short, losing to Carnahan by 2 percent despite winning pluralities in St. Louis city and St. Louis County. But Smith and his supporters still considered the close defeat a victory for a campaign that many commentators had ruled out from the start.

A brief but accomplished Senate career

In 2006, Smith ran for Missouri Senate in the 4th District. Facing a crowded Democratic field and again using the same grassroots techniques, he won the primary and took the general election unopposed.

Smith brought his characteristic energy and pleasant demeanor to the Senate, and lawmakers praised his willingness to cross party lines. In a statement shortly after Smith’s plea, the Senate majority floor leader, Kevin Engler, said that Smith “was someone quite frankly that encouraged more bipartisan behavior between our parties.”

In his letter to his supporters, Smith pointed to his successful push to preserve a historic tax credit program for urban development as one of his biggest accomplishments. Smith was also responsible for the creation of a teaching fellows program and a green sales tax holiday.

State Sen. Jim Lembke, R-South St. Louis County, said Smith was “a uniter” and “very approachable” and said he often worked with Smith on important St. Louis issues.

“Although we didn’t always see eye to eye, we always tried to do what was best for city and region,” Lembke said.

Behind the façade

With all of Smith’s accomplishments and the bright future many people saw in him, the FBI investigation’s revelations painted an image of a man who, his supporters say, failed to practice what he preached.

Smith was among the panelists at a forum on campus in 2008 about journalism and government accountability. And his former students have said that in class, he emphasized the good of the people above politics, and frequently told stories about common dirty campaign tactics.

But during both investigations, Smith, Brown and Adams met and talked on the phone regularly to coordinate their efforts to lie to investigators and cover up their violations, according to court documents. They repeatedly acknowledged to one another that they had broken the law. They even discussed the idea of pinning the blame for the postcards on the 2004 campaign’s deceased spokesman, Artie Harris.

“I at least hope he did it for some reason, like he wouldn’t be able to continue to help his district,” said Erika Massow, a community organizer in Smith’s 2004 campaign. “You’re never going to know what’s going on within somebody’s mind.”

Smith appeared to expect that kind of reaction, as in his apology he told his supporters that “the real tragedy of my lapses would be if they discouraged people like you from civic engagement.”

Over the past few weeks, we have dissected your actions in our boardroom, wondering about the relationship between your prosecution and the role you once held in leading our inquiring young minds. The Washington University and greater St. Louis communities have come to see you as a cliché, a fraud and a profligate violator of the public trust. This contrasts deeply with the visionary they once knew you to be.

We have thought about it time and time again, and we can only conclude that they are wrong. We at Student Life understand that you diligently continue to lead our inquiring minds, and that what some view as a craven act of career preservation was really just a final example given to us out of fealty to our study of the relationship between ethics and politics. We found politics from a textbook dry and dismal, and out of enthusiasm and loyalty you elected to show us campaign corruption firsthand.

Thus, we commend you, Professor Smith. Forget the others; they simply fail to see your grand pedagogical edifice for the wonder that it is. Know that we do. There are some who say their faith in you is lost; know that ours has been reinforced, understanding now that credulous trust placed in the subject of an award-winning documentary film is trust easily abused. Where others might have merely fed us some simpering parable about the corrupting influence of power, you gave us a profound example of this influence—one that continues to teach us long after we have left your classroom. Where others might have perhaps assigned us some chapters of “All the King’s Men,” you showed us all how urgent and instructive that otherwise-kind-of-cheesy book really is. Where others would have merely cautioned against the poisonous sociopathology that pervades our political climate, you injected that poison into your very veins. For your uncompromising efforts in compromising yourself, we salute you.

Though no tribute befits such a sacrifice, we here ask that the school endow some of its still-available assets in the creation, in your honor, of the Jeff Smith Scholarship for the Sacrifice of Careers so that Students May Learn a Lesson about Ethics. We hope it can in some way consecrate your most noble deeds, and we encourage all of our professors to mimic your pedagogy. Moreover, we ask that the federal prison to which you are headed respects your messianic act for what it is and provide you two pillows at night to rest your crown.

With finest regards,

The Editorial Board

For those who choose the right candidate, the system works well. As with all human partnerships, however, there is a very real risk of betrayal.

As state Sen. Jeff Smith’s recent resignation and guilty plea reflect, finding an honest candidate is not easy. Unless they have already been indicted, corrupt politicians do not wear scarlet letters or orange jumpsuits. Instead, they make promises of integrity and hope that voters fail to see through the façade.

In Smith’s case, that façade was particularly strong. He portrayed himself as an incorruptible newcomer who ran for office out of a genuine desire to improve people’s lives. His alleged integrity was even the subject of a documentary whose title, “Can Mr. Smith Get to Washington Anymore?” is a reference to fictional political neophyte and man of integrity, Jefferson Smith.

Worse, not only did Smith build a reputation for idealism and ethical behavior, but he also preached it to his students. I still have my notes from the day Smith lectured to his “Campaigns and Elections” class on responding to scandals, including the section on “ethical questions to consider.” I attended a forum featuring Watergate journalist Carl Bernstein during which Smith spoke about the ethical problems plaguing contemporary politics and the need to address them. I even recall Smith lecturing on the illegality of coordination between campaigns and groups preparing independently funded advertisements and literature, the very offense Smith has been convicted of hiding.

Even more troubling, many of his campaign supporters knew Smith personally. If they could not accurately assess the character of a politician they knew, how can we even hope to correctly identify honest candidates whom we have never met?

Of course, corruption is not always a pervasive disease. Sometimes, and perhaps this is true of Smith, otherwise honest politicians get caught up in the need to win and make isolated, yet permanently damaging, mistakes.

Smith’s case is not my first experience with corruption in politics. As the daughter of a federal prosecutor, I learned about corruption before I could even spell the word “politics,” and I have seen my fair share of so-called “reformers” earn their day in court. Yet Smith’s downfall is a powerful reminder of a few important lessons for aspiring political idealists.

First, we should be careful whom we choose to support, and run when we sense corruption. It may not be easy to recognize every dishonest politician, but when there are warning signs, we should not ignore them.

Second, we should not attempt to cover up mistakes. Had Smith been honest with the Federal Election Commission investigators from the beginning, he probably would not be facing jail time. In nearly every major political scandal from Watergate onward, the mistakes are often trivial, and yet the cover-up is damning.

Finally, in a resignation letter to his constituents, Smith wrote to his former campaign supporters, “There are no perfect people and no perfect candidates, but I hope you’ll find a candidate or a cause in which you believe and fight for it with the same zeal you fought for me. Because the real tragedy of my lapses would be if they discouraged people like you from civic engagement.”

It is difficult now to quote Smith and attribute to him any lasting wisdom. But politics is about people rather than icons and pragmatism rather than perfection. Despite the frequent corruption, politics is still one of the most meaningful ways for good people to make a difference. Furthermore, the only sure way to reform politics is for honest people to try their best.

So thanks for the last lesson, Senator. Mr. Smith might not be going to Washington anymore, but we should.

We admit that closing down the center reflects poorly on the University’s external image. The economic crisis that led to the cuts in the University’s operating budget can be partially attributed to a lack of prudence in big business, and the Jeff Smith and Timothy Kuklo scandals demonstrate a lack of ethics in faculty members’ actions. Symbolically, it would seem that the center acted as a foil to these problems, demonstrating a University commitment to the pursuit of ethical actions across disciplines.

However, the truth is that perhaps tailored commitments to ethics can be individually pursued in each school. In the medical school, aspiring doctors can still be taught medical ethics. In the law school, aspiring lawyers can continue to argue about the nature of these ethics. In the business school, new rules for sharing information and bundling derivatives will continue to emerge as we rebuild our economic structure. And in the philosophy department, the study of ethics will continue to be vibrant—that is, provided that the student body continues to engage with issues surrounding the study of ethics and human values.

Our endorsement of the University’s decision does not come without careful consideration of the administration’s operating budget. Difficult changes have been made elsewhere—for example, the delay of construction on the South 40. It appears thus far that the University is avoiding sacrifices to the things most important to inner University well-being: professors’ salaries and student financial aid.

Our endorsement also does not come without another prescription: We ask that the administration take strides to ensure that the center’s programmatic benefits continue. We ask that the University continue to bring in speakers such as Peter Singer and Carl Bernstein for the Assembly Series—speakers who encourage us to consider and reconsider the ethical implications of the way we live. And we ask that administrations at the different schools at the University continue to emphasize the importance of an ethical education as well as an intellectual one, especially as we move into an era with fewer excesses.

Ritz Carlton employees wait in a field on Oct. 16, 2008, after being evacuated from their building when a bomb went off in a nearby parking garage. (Matt Mitgang | Student Life)

New information about the 2008 bombing at the parking garage at 190 Carondelet Blvd. in Clayton has brought new attention to Milton “Skip” Ohlsen III, a former Democratic campaign strategist also tied to former state Sen. Jeff Smith, D-St. Louis, and former state Rep. Steve Brown, D-Clayton, who resigned from the Missouri General Assembly on Tuesday.

The bombing injured attorney John Gillis when the bomb went off next to his car, although it is believed that the intended target was Richard Eisen, who was an attorney from Husch Blackwell Sanders at the time of the bombing. Eisen had represented Ohlsen’s ex-wife in a divorce filed in December 2007. Gillis was treated for burns after the bombing.

Ohlsen is also connected to Smith’s 2004 congressional campaign, which Smith lost to now-U.S. Rep Russ Carnahan, D-St. Louis. Carnahan filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission stating that Smith’s campaign violated federal law by producing anonymous fliers critical of Carnahan. Ohlsen has been implicated in the production of the fliers and told federal investigators that he had connections to Smith’s campaign.

Smith was in a 10-way primary race to replace  the retiring U.S. Rep. Richard Gephardt, D-St. Louis. Smith finished second in the primary and Gephardt went on to the seat. Ohlsen was head of Voters for Truth, an independent organization, which sent thousands of anti-Carnahan postcards.

Ohlsen was arrested on firearms charges, an unrelated case, last December and will be sentenced in September on those charges as well as fraud charges stemming from a mortage and equity line of credit he obtained, Ohlsen pled guilty to both sets of charges. Also in December, FBI agents searched Ohlsen’s apartment for evidence related to the bombing.

Ohlsen was also charged with stealing an airplane that was awarded to his ex-wife in the divorce. In March, 2008 Ohlsen was pulled over for speeding and police found a Glock pistol loaded with armor-piercing ammunition in his car.

Former state Sen. Jeff Smith (center), D-St. Louis, exits the Thomas Eagleton Federal Courthouse on Tuesday after pleading guilty to two counts of conspiracy to obstruct justice. Smith faces up to 20 years in prison and/or a $250,000 fine for each count. (Matt Mitgang | Student Life)

Jeff Smith, a Missouri state senator who frequently taught at Washington University, resigned his Senate seat and pled guilty in federal court on Tuesday to two counts of conspiracy to obstruct justice, after weeks of speculation about a federal investigation into Smith and others who worked on his 2004 congressional campaign.

The first count is for conspiring to obstruct a Federal Election Commission investigation into the St. Louis Democrat’s 2004 congressional run. The other count is for conspiring to obstruct a federal grand jury investigation this year that revisited the 2004 inquiry.

Nicholas Adams, the campaign treasurer from 2004, also pled guilty to two counts of conspiracy to obstruct justice. Another legislator connected to Smith’s case, state Rep. Steve Brown, D-Clayton, also appeared in court Tuesday and pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice. Brown also announced his resignation Tuesday.

Each count carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and/or fines of up $250,000. Officials said Brown and Adams may receive lighter sentences, however, because they provided assistance to investigators.

Sentencing in all of the cases has been set for Nov. 10.

The FBI this past summer was revisiting the 2004 FEC investigation, which centered on anonymous literature allegedly distributed illegally by Smith’s campaign. The literature, in the form of postcards, attacked Smith’s main opponent in 2004, now-U.S. Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-St. Louis.

The charges concern how Smith, Brown and Adams tried to “corruptly attempt to obstruct, influence, and impede” the investigations. All three men acknowledged to Judge Carol Jackson they had misled investigators.

Gov. Jay Nixon announced on Tuesday that both seats would be filled in a special election on Nov. 3.

In mid-2004, Carnahan’s campaign filed a complaint with the FEC about the postcards, alleging Smith had violated federal election law by anonymously spreading “false and malicious information intended to deceive potential voters and evade proper federal disclosures.”

Smith in an affidavit, which he acknowledged on Tuesday as being false, denied any involvement. In late 2007, the FEC found there was not enough evidence to prove wrongdoing on the part of Smith and his campaign committee.

Court documents say an unnamed individual affiliated with the organization Voters for Truth approached Smith’s campaign committee in July 2004 to discuss the idea of making and distributing the postcards. Smith’s campaign committee introduced Brown, a “close and personal friend” of Smith and not yet a member of the Missouri House, to an unidentified individual.

At that time, Brown agreed to raise funds for making the ads. He raised “substantial” funds for Voters for Truth and personally gave the individual $5,000 in cash.

Though the documents do not name the individual, Brown’s attorney, Art Margulis, said the individual is Milton “Skip” Ohlsen III, a Democratic operative. FEC documents from 2004 linked Ohlsen to the postcards and Smith’s campaign.

On July 23, 2004, Voters for Truth mailed 25,000 postcards to voters in Missouri’s 3rd Congressional District. Carnahan responded by filing the complaint against Friends of Jeff Smith.

On Sept. 8, 2004, Smith submitted the falsely sworn affidavit to the FEC, stating he had “no knowledge of who was responsible for the [postcard] referenced in the [FEC] complaint, nor who paid for the mailing.”

The FBI returned to the 2004 charges when new evidence emerged this year. The U.S. Attorney’s Office declined to comment on how the new evidence was developed.

Court documents detail several conversations between Smith, Brown and Adams about their plans to mislead investigators in both the FEC investigation and the FBI investigation. Smith is quoted as pressuring Brown to lie to investigators: “Don’t do anything stupid. Stupid would be telling them things that were happening in your brain.” Smith also told Brown he would not be truthful to investigators, saying, “I’d be 90% honest.”

After the court hearing, Assistant U.S. Attorney Hal Goldsmith said the crimes were a “classic case of corruption.” John Gillies, special agent for the St. Louis FBI, agreed with Goldsmith.

“At the end of the day, for those of you in the courtroom, this is pure stupidity,” Gillies said. “You’ve got a Ph.D., a J.D. from Washington University, another guy with a master’s, and all of this for what at the end of the day? Just so they could get a little more power and feel a little bit better about themselves that they’re big shots of the town. We will not tolerate this kind of corruption.”

During his court appearance, Smith said, “I am guilty as charged.” Smith left the Thomas Eagleton Federal Courthouse with his lawyers, relaxed and smiling.

Nixon released a statement Tuesday calling the resignations “necessary and appropriate” because both Smith and Brown had “violated the public’s trust.”

After leaving the courthouse, Smith made several comments to reporters, including an apology to his constituents and family.

“This event has humbled me,” Smith said in a statement posted to his Web site. “I have done some significant introspection and that has been the hardest part: coming to terms with my own poor judgments and mistakes.”

In a press release, Missouri Senate Majority Floor Leader Kevin Engler, a Republican, said: “Jeff has made some serious mistakes and will be held accountable for those mistakes, but that should not detract from his accomplishments in the Senate or his hard work on behalf of his community. Sen. Smith was always a very reasonable person in the capitol. He was someone quite frankly that encouraged more bipartisan behavior between our parties.”

Smith has previously taught courses on ethics in politics and campaigning at the University, but a school spokeswoman announced last week that his scheduled class for this fall had been canceled.

The University released a statement on Tuesday afternoon saying it would not comment on personnel issues.

Associate Professor of Political Science Andrew Rehfeld said he doesn’t think that Smith’s plea will adversely affect the political science department as a whole.

“We are and remain interested in being engaged with people who are involved in politics and being engaged with a wide variety of people, and that means we’re going to encounter the real-life problems and turmoil of human beings,” Rehfeld said. “I think what happened is sad, but it goes along with being experienced.”

Still, Rehfeld is concerned that Smith’s actions may diminish the messages of his lessons. He said students likely attribute “some moral perfection” to a professor.

“I think for better or worse this will cause some of the students to question what he taught, and some of that questioning is justified and other of it is probably not,” Rehfeld said. “The lessons that we teach our students are not about us; they’re about a subject matter and on that score, as far as I can tell, especially in the smaller classes that he taught, he was a gifted teacher.”

With additional reporting by Kat Zhao, Michelle Merlin and Dan Woznica