ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- Congressman Don Young's slander trial was canceled Monday just as jury selection was set to begin when he withdrew charges that a political opponent received 'laundered' campaign money.
Terms of the out-of-court agreement between Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, and former Democratic challenger Peter Gruenstein were secret, but Gruenstein said he got what he sued for -- a retraction and a financial settlement.
'I am fully satisfied with both the retraction and the financial terms of the settlement,' said Gruenstein, a prominent Anchorage lawyer and former state prosecutor who lost his 1988 bid to unseat Young, Alaska's only U.S. House member.
'This was a suit brought for a principled reason,' Gruenstein said, 'to establish that there is a line over which even political candidates should not cross -- namely, the making of a false accusation of criminal wrongdoing against an opponent with knowledge that that accusation is false.'
For 26 months -- ever since Young accused Gruenstein of raising 'laundered money' for the 1988 congressional election and Gruenstein sued -- Young has refused to take back his remarks.
Young never denied making the remarks, which were published in the Anchorage Daily News four days before the Nov. 8, 1988, election.
Young, furthermore, acknowledged that he had no proof of the alleged money laundering. But Young fought the case, shrugging off his remarks as political.
Gruenstein said the money laundering charge was defamatory, libelous and malicious.
State courts denied Young's motions to dismiss the case and it was shaping up as a test of just how far a politician can go in leveling charges against an opponent and whether accusing someone of money laundering is defamatory.
The trial was canceled after lawyers told the judge a settlement had been reached. Thirty minutes after jury selection was to start the two sides issued a joint three-sentence statement:
'The lawsuit between Peter Gruenstein and Congressman Don Young has been settled. The financial terms of the settlement are confidential. Congressman Young acknowledges that neither Mr. Gruenstein nor his campaign received illegally laundered funds.'
Gruenstein said statement was the retraction he sought, but Young spokesman C.J. Zane -- who helped work out the settlement -- insisted that the statement was not a retraction, but rather a clarification that nothing illegal occurred.
'Young doesn't apologize or retract, but clarifies,' Zane said.
'If that's not a retraction, I'm not sure the term has any meaning,' Gruenstein said. Gruenstein said his suit 'requested both a retraction and some payment of money' and he pronounced himself satisfied with the outcome.
While Gruenstein boasted that he got what he wanted, Zane bragged that Young got out of the suit without apologizing or retracting his remarks.
Gruenstein said he would be 'delighted to release' the financial terms, but the settlement forbid him from doing so.
Zane said Young settled to save money because the protracted case was 'very expensive' and 'Don's got other things to worry about.'
Zane said, 'The settlement was advised by counsel based upon economic grounds and does not constitute any admission by Young.'
Young said in a statement, 'My attorneys and I felt that we had an excellent case but the costs of litigation, even if we won, were potentially so high that a purely economic decision was made.'
Trial testimony and a jury verdict might have helped define how far politicians can go in campaigning, but Gruenstein said the settlement still shows there is a line politicians cannot cross with impunity.
Politics is 'a thick-skinned business,' Zane said, noting that Young, now serving his 10th term in the House, 'has been called a lot of things and he's never sued anyone.'
Gruenstein carried out a threat to sue Young before the election unless Young withdrew his charge that Gruenstein raised 'laundered money' from environmental groups.
