Update: McCain Forced To Confront Lobbyist Issue

Last week, in response to criticism about his habit of employing current and former lobbyists for his Republican presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain and his staff set down a new rule: No one currently working as a lobbyist can also work as a paid campaign staffer.

There was a casualty reported yesterday, and on Page One of today's Washington Post. Tom Loeffler, a former Texas GOP congressman who had been on McCain's staff as a fundraiser, resigned over his status as a lobbyist.

Here's some of what The Washington Post had:

Tom Loeffler, the national finance co-chairman for Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign, resigned yesterday because of his lobbying ties, a campaign adviser said.

He is the fifth person to sever ties with the campaign amid a growing concern over whether lobbyists have too great an influence over the Republican nominee. Last week, campaign manager Rick Davis issued a new policy that requires all campaign personnel to either resign or sever ties with lobbying firms or outside political groups.

The story also clarifies the question over Charlie Black, a longtime lobbyist who (see my previous post on this subject) was with a firm that has done PR for a who's who of nasty foreign dictators going all the way back to Filipino "strongman" Ferdinand Marcos:

McCain has built his reputation in Congress on fighting special interests and the lobbying culture, but he has been criticized for months about the number of lobbyists serving in key positions in his campaign. Until recently, his top political adviser, Charles R. Black Jr., was the head of a Washington lobbying firm. Black retired in March from BKSH & Associates, the firm he helped found, to stay with the campaign. Davis ran a lobbying firm for several years but has said he is on leave from it.

Black, in particular, remains in the cross hairs of McCain's critics. Campaign Money Watch, a nonpartisan watchdog group in Washington, yesterday praised Loeffler's departure but renewed its call for Black's departure. The group has launched a Web site, http://www.firethelobbyists.com, to urge McCain to rid his campaign of their influence. Loeffler's lobbying for Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments was revealed over the weekend.

McCain has steadfastly defended Black and Davis. "Charlie Black and Rick Davis are not in the lobbying business; they've been out of that business," he told reporters. "Charlie Black has been involved in every presidential campaign going back to President Reagan's first campaign. He has severed his connections with the lobbying group that he was with. Rick Davis has not been involved in any lobbying for years."

So, since Charlie Black finally retired from lobbying for international pond scum like Mobutu Sese Seko, it's more than proper for him to stay on as a McCain campaign staffer? And what about his involvement in all these presidential campaigns going back to Reagan's first? (1968, 1976, or 1980? Reagan won the GOP nomination on his third try.) And what does this suggest about the ethics and values of the modern Republican Party?

Back to Loeffler, there's the Saudi connection. (That government isn't exactly one to win over a little-d democrat's heart, is it?) More from WaPo:

Loeffler, a former congressman from Texas, is a close friend of McCain's and took over the campaign's fundraising last summer. He did not respond to e-mails or a message left on his office voice mail yesterday.

Newsweek reported that his firm, the Loeffler Group, had collected $15 million from Saudi Arabia and millions more from other foreign governments. He is listed as chairman and senior partner at the firm.

There is also the matter of past conflicts of interest involving Loeffler and the Arizona senator. ThinkProgress cited the Newsweek article:

[Loeffler’s] lobbying firm has collected nearly $15 million from Saudi Arabia since 2002 and millions more from other foreign and corporate interests, including a French aerospace firm seeking Pentagon contracts. Loeffler last month told a reporter “at no time have I discussed my clients with John McCain.” But lobbying disclosure records reviewed by NEWSWEEK show that on May 17, 2006, Loeffler listed meeting McCain along with the Saudi ambassador to “discuss US-Kingdom of Saudi Arabia relations.”

What all this indicates is that McCain, for all his grandstanding, is fundamentally no different from others in the modern Machiavellian Republican Party dating back to even Richard Nixon, in terms of ethics and values. If he wins the White House, expect more of what we've been seeing for decades.

Amusing postscript: The late, great Molly Ivins had an anecdote about Tom Loeffler. Molly wrote that Loeffler "wore shower caps on his feet while showering during a visit to San Francisco back in the '80s lest he get AIDS through his feet."

Crossposted at Manifesto Joe.

There's more: "Update: McCain Forced To Confront Lobbyist Issue" >>

McCain: Time To Come Clean About Your Lobbyists' Links To Homicidal Dictators

Sen. John McCain did a fair job in the past of selling himself as a "maverick" Republican -- you know, not one of those whose knees both jerk when Rush Limbaugh's right knee does. I have a vague yet fond memory of him calling Herr Lardbaugh "a circus clown."

But apparently ambition can get the best of people. Or perhaps they never were what they depicted themselves as. Amid all the volleys flying about in the presidential race, it came out early this week that McCain's campaign has been employing lobbyists who have worked for blood-stained foreign dictatorships, and for tidy sums.

The one they call Charlie Black is the senator's "chief political adviser," according to The Washington Post. Here's a current report on Charlie Black's experience as a lobbyist, from Progressive Media USA:

Black Enlisted to Improve Marcos’s Image. The Globe and Mail reported, “A politically well-connected U.S. lobbying firm is being paid nearly $1-million to help a Philippine client linked with President Ferdinand Marcos, and some analysts believe its task is to improve Mr. Marcos’ image.” “The firm, Black, Manafort & Stone Public Affairs, began a year-long contract with a client called the Chamber of Philippines Manufacturers, Exporters and Tourist Associations.” “Stanley Roth, who serves on the staff of a congressional subcommittee investigating Mr. Marcos’ business dealings in the United States, called the arrangement ‘just means of Marcos hiring a public relations firm.’ Under the terms of the contract, the suburban Washington-based concern is to be paid $950,000 plus expenses to provide ‘advice and assistance on matters relating to the media, public relations and public affairs interests’ as well as lobbying services.” [The Globe and Mail, 12/20/85]

Meet Charlie Black: lobbyist, political scientist, public relations man for homicidal dictators. As far as I can gather from the latest news dispatches, Charlie is still on the John McCain payroll.

But wait, there's more:

While Black Lobbied for Somalia, Siad Barre’s Army Killed 40,000 – 50,000 Civilians. The Associated Press reported, “The Somali army killed 40,000 to 50,000 unarmed civilians between June 1988 and January 1990, according to human rights group Africa Watch.” [Associated Press, 1/2/95]

Black Lobbied for Zaire’s Dictator. Black, Manafort, Stone lobbied for “Mobuto Sese Seko of Zaire.” The “military dictator, Mobuto, was a $1 million-per-year Black, Manafort client until December 1990.” [Common Cause Magazine, Winter 1993; Department of Justice, FARA database, accessed 2/26/08]

There's actually much more than that, but space limitations compel me to keep things relatively brief. Just bear in mind that this is one of Mad Jack's main men.

Granted, there are now a couple of dudes who are no longer on The Straitjacket Express. They were the ones who had to fall on their swords. This is from a recent post on MSNBC:

Doug Goodyear and Doug Davenport, the two McCain aides who resigned from positions within the GOP contender's campaign, stepped down this weekend after Newsweek reported that their lobbying firm, Washington power player DCI Group, represented Myanmar's military junta in 2002 to the tune of $348,000.

It should be noted that Mr. Goodyear was, until his resignation, heading McCain's GOP convention team. That's not a small post to award someone without checking their background -- or perhaps figuring instead that no one important would ever know.

In 2008, we're in a political mode of Barack Obama having to give multiple speeches explaining that he differs markedly from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright on crucial issues. So perhaps this calls for, at the very least, an explanation from McCain to the effect that he doesn't agree with lobbyists who promoted murderous dictators for pay. It seems appropriate and equitable for Mr. Black to get his walking papers, too. I'm sure he will prosper in his Faustian bargains for many years to come, so no one should worry.

Except maybe John McCain?

Crossposted at Manifesto Joe.

There's more: "McCain: Time To Come Clean About Your Lobbyists' Links To Homicidal Dictators" >>

At the end of the day

Today is the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Looking to 2008 and beyond, "The presidential election is about more than the candidates...Who do you want to make the next Supreme Court appointment?" More from Bluegal at C&L.

Lobbyists on board -- Obama's national co-chair Jim Hodges "is registered to lobby for Hillenbrand Partners, a Chicago-based company that does business with the Federal Home Loan Bank in Atlanta." Others at AP. However, no one rivals super lobby magnet, K Street McCain.

FISA and telecom immunity -- Hillary and Obama have "pledged to support a Dodd-led filibuster." Will they? Repubs think they can "bully and scare the Democrats into passing a law that has everything" Bush wants. Who's the ringleader? Sen. Kitt Bond (R-MO), "vice-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is at the center." Calling for help, Jane Hamsher asked John Edwards to take the lead.

James Wolcott wrote about the economic meltdown and the "festive run-up to Armageddon" via Kunstler. Wolcott concluded, "Who can we thank in Washington for the mess we're in?" Many. But don't forget Dickhead.

The probe into the firings of nine U.S. attorneys deepened via "a sprawling inquiry launched by the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR).... Investigators from these offices have been questioning whether senior officials lied to Congress, violated the criminal provisions in the Hatch Act, tampered with witnesses preparing to testify to Congress, obstructed justice, took improper political considerations into account during the hiring and firing of U.S. attorneys and created widespread problems in the department’s Civil Rights Division, according to several people familiar with the investigation." (h/t Laura Rozen)

Probation officers recommended that Brent Wilkes get 60 years in prison for his part in the Duke Cunningham bribery scandal. Crime doesn't pay unless your name is Bush or Cheney.

Padilla got 17-year sentence that "[marked] a major setback in a terrorism prosecution for the Justice Department." Judge Marcia G. Cooke "criticized the government's treatment of Padilla during the time it held him without charges" and cited "'harsh' conditions that Padilla suffered for 3 1/2 years after he was arrested in 2002."

Letter to President Pervez Musharraf from 100 retired senior officers of the Pakistan Ex-Servicemen's Society -- Resign! McClatchy

Arab Jabour, Iraq -- The "first fatality inflicted by a roadside bomb on an MRAP, the new Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected armored vehicle.... ...more than 1,500 [MRAPs] in Iraq now, and the military plans to purchase more than 15,000 of them at a cost of $22.4 billion." NYT

Center for Public Integrity launched a website and a searchable database of 385,000 words on prewar Iraq misinformation hyped by Bush and top officials -- Cheney, Rice, Fleischer, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Powell, and McClellan.

CNN headline -- "Black women voters face tough choices." It's Obama vs. Hillary. Ahem! Don't policies matter? (h/t Kieran)

[That's all...no more after the jump.]

There's more: "At the end of the day" >>

K Street McCain

New Year's Eve went off with a bang in D.C. over sources of cash pouring in for presidential candidate Sen. McCain (R-AZ). Via Steve Benen, who wrote, "John McCain's website tells visitors, 'Too often the special interest lobbyists with the fattest wallets and best access carry the day.' It sounds like a compelling sentiment from a one-time reformer, and might even be impressive, just so long as you don't peek behind the curtain." Let's take a looksie (with emphasis):

...a recent study by the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute and the liberal advocacy group Public Citizen found that McCain has more lobbyists raising funds for his presidential bid than do any of his rivals. He has 32 "bundlers" of donations who are lobbyists. Former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (R) is the closest to him with 29 lobbyist bundlers, followed by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) with 18.

[Keep reading... more after the jump.]

You will also find former and current lobbyists working for or advising McCain's run for the White House:

Davis, the campaign manager, is a former lobbyist who represented major telecommunications companies. The campaign's senior adviser is Charles R. Black Jr., chairman of BKSH & Associates, which represents drug companies, an oil company, an automaker, a telecommunications company, defense contractors and the steel industry, among others.

Former congressman Tom Loeffler (R-Tex.) was brought in to shore up the campaign's finances and operations. Yet he maintains his day job as chairman of the Loeffler Group, whose clients include oil, auto and telecommunications companies, as well as a tobacco firm and an airline.

Other occasional McCain advisers include lobbyists Timothy P. McKone of AT&T, Robert S. Aiken of Phoenix-based Pinnacle West Capital, John W. Timmons of the Cormac Group and John Green of Ogilvy Government Relations. Also at Ogilvy is a major McCain fundraiser, Wayne L. Berman.

As Steve noted, "It's certainly an awkward disconnect, isn't it? McCain is a 'reformer,' who rails against 'special interests' and their 'undue influence.' Ever since that Keating 5 unpleasantness a while back, McCain has positioned himself as the Republicans' leading advocate of campaign-finance reform, denouncing colleagues who offer special access to donors in order to fill their campaign coffers."

McCain's stunning reversal -- he's No. 1 with lobbyists! -- invites an introduction of the pot meeting the kettle.

Of course, McCain aides deny lobbyists and their cash have any influence over the straight-talking maverick Arizona senator. McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis said, "If you give to him, you know there's no quid pro quo. People give to him because they want him to be president of the United States. They can't be motivated by any other reason." Uh huh. Sure. And we can trust the word of a former lobbyist because why?

In rebuttal to a CNN broadcast that aired glowing commentary about McCain's lobbying reform work, Media Matters offered history on K Street lobbying activities going back to his 2000 presidential bid that started in 1999. Familiar names have resurfaced for McCain 2008 -- telecom lobbyist Timothy P. McKone who was partners with Rick Davis. Also interesting is how "McCain's own Senate investigation into Abramoff's activities avoided any examination into the possible culpability of his fellow lawmakers." Coincidence? You decide.

K Street McCain told ABC's This Week, "The money is coming in very heavily now." And it's no wonder. McCain's courtship of big money donors and "private schmooze sessions" reminds me of a chapter from Greg Palast's book, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.

SSDW.

There's more: "K Street McCain" >>

This Year's Lobby Reform Might Actually Include Real Reforms

Last week the Congress passed the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007, and sent it to the White House for signature. You would think that lobbyists wouldn't be concerned. After all they have had months to shape the bill to give the appearance of reforming their industry without really making any serious changes in the way they do business.

According to the New York Times, however, the new rules have spooked big time lobbyists, especially the principals of the larger firms. It seems one of the rules they now have to live with involves a quarterly certification by the principal that none of the lobbyists working for the firm has violated the new rules. Times reporter David D. Kirkpatrick explains

H. Stewart Van Scoyoc, founder of one of the biggest lobbying firms in Washington, spent an anxious morning with his lawyer last week assessing the far-reaching ethics and lobbying rules Congress had passed the day before.

The first worry was what lobbyists are calling the new “temptation rules.” Not only do they bar lawmakers and aides from accepting any gifts, meals or trips from lobbyists, they also impose penalties up to $200,000 and five years in prison on any lobbyist who provides such freebies.

And worse still for Mr. Van Scoyoc, under the new law he is required to certify each quarter that none of the 50 lobbyists in his firm bought so much as a burger or cigar for someone on a lawmaker’s staff.

“You are basically asking people to certify, with big penalties, that nobody has lied on their expense accounts,” Mr. Van Scoyoc said, marveling at the complexity of policing such casual contact between lobbyists and Congressional aides. “These are people who are sharing apartments together, playing on the same softball teams, dating each other—young people with active social lives.”

On the other hand, according to Donny Shaw of the Congress Gossip Blog some lobbyists believe one of the reforms will actually help lobbyists. Under the new rules lobbyists have to disclose their contribution bundling efforts.

Like the earmark disclosure rules that the House approved in January, the new rule requiring lawmakers to disclose the identity of any lobbyist who "bundles" together $15,000 or more in campaign contributions, could lead to a more competitive bundling market.

Lobbyists are likely to advertise their fund raising prowess the same way legislators are showing Pork Barrel Pride when they successfully secure an earmark.

Kirkpatrick responds that

Other lobbyists, though, worry that prosecutors’ new tactics could make fund-raising more perilous. In plea agreements involving the lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former Representative Randall Cunningham, prosecutors have treated certain campaign contributions as bribes for official favors, something almost never done before.

For lobbyists — who live at the nexus of contributions and favors — it is an alarming trend. “They might as well just pull up the paddy wagon outside the Capital Grille,” one lobbyist said, referring to a clubby steakhouse near the Capitol that is a well-known K Street hangout.

Between the ban on buying dinners and the scrutiny of fund-raising, “It is a lose-lose situation,” said James Dyer, a lobbyist at Clark & Weinstock.

A self-described “earmarks guy” who specializes in spending items, Mr. Dyer said the new rules were an invitation to scandal hunters. For the first time, the law will require disclosure of both the lawmakers who sponsor such items and the campaign contributions of the lobbyists who seek them.

“It is a road map that says, ‘Hey, come look at me; I have got my name against an earmark,’ ” he said.

Who knows, Congress might have accidentally reformed K-Street.

There's more: "This Year's Lobby Reform Might Actually Include Real Reforms" >>

A Drop in the Bucke...er, Tank

I ran across this article today in the Detroit News and was - frankly - unsurprised. The House Oversight Committee has opened another investigation into the workings of the Executive Branch:

The U.S. Department of Transportation secretly lobbied dozens of members of Congress in recent weeks, urging them to join the Bush administration in opposing California's request to impose its own strict fuel efficiency regulations, according to a House investigative committee.

Using a one-page script and a list of auto facilities obtained from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group that represents automakers, staffers at the Department of Transportation called nearly every congressional member from Michigan and Ohio, urging them to oppose California's request[*], according to records released this week by the House Oversight Committee. They also targeted other auto-heavy districts and governors in at least seven other states.

While federal law bars government officials from lobbying lawmakers on issues before Congress, there are no such restrictions on regulatory questions, such as the California waiver.

Still, the lobbying suggests an "improper hidden agenda" because it comes as the administration is making "an independent assessment of the merits" of California's request, U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the oversight committee, said in a letter to Transportation Secretary Mary Peters...

...Until now, the Bush administration has not taken a public position on the California waiver, but the records released by Waxman show the Department of Transportation mounted a fairly extensive opposition effort that essentially supports automakers.

The Department of Transportation turned over 71 pages of e-mails and other records to Waxman's committee, which began investigating last month after a House staffer gave the committee a voice mail received from Heideh Shahmoradi, a special assistant for governmental affairs at the Department of Transportation...

...The lobbying blitz came ahead of a June 15 deadline for submitting comments to the EPA on California's request. [Joe] Knollenberg, [Candace] Miller and five other Michigan congressional Republicans sent a letter to the agency urging it to reject the waiver.

"The stakes for Michigan and American manufacturing could not be higher," the letter said. "The EPA should not allow California and other states to make a mad rush to saddle the auto industry with technologically infeasible mandates"...

...Joan Claybrook, director of Public Citizen, criticized the campaign. "How is the EPA going to make an independent decision if the Transportation Department is lobbying to oppose it?"

Read the whole article for the full content. I really have no informed comment at this time regarding an increase of fuel standards versus economic impact, and that's not really what this comment is about...The fight over fuel and emission standards is one of those wonky things that the average American cares about only in a vague manner - not that they shouldn't care more, mind you - but it lacks the sexiness of the politicization of the Department of Justice or the outing of a CIA covert operative. As (possible) scandals go, it's a drop in a much bigger bucket**.

What this article (and investigation) does, however, is to further highlight the modi operandi of the Bush Administration: Press or puncture the legal and ethical envelopes that are necessary for a properly functioning democracy and then mislead and deceive to avoid accountability. When being held to account is inevitable, as in the case of Scooter Libby's multiple convictions, use whatever legal loopholes are available to lessen the impact on the Inner Circle and shrug off any criticism...there will always be another professional wrestler or useless socialite to attract the public's attention.

And, even larger than that, is the issue of how the American government has been co-opted by business interests in such a way that government operates as an extension of those businesses...How else can you explain the apparent lobbying by the Department of Transportation on behalf of the automobile industry? You'd think that foreign and domestic auto companies have lobbyists with contacts in Congress that can express the same sentiments...I know that buying elected officials' votes has been around as long as there have been elected officials to buy, but our government institutions like the EPA or DOJ should be above and independent from partisanship, ideology, or the fiscal concerns of business.

Finally, I'm left with the same set of questions, only asked to different members of this administration...from the article:

The Transportation Department withheld 53 e-mails from the oversight committee. [DOT spokesman Brian] Turmail said Peters did not personally lobby any members of Congress on the issue.

Well, who were the persons in the DOT that lobbied members of Congress? Who directed them to do so? What is the DOT's rationale for withholding those messages?

I feel that these hearings won't get much coverage, but it would be interesting to hear the responses to those questions.

*The request by California is to establish limits on greenhouse gas emissions and create a higher standard of fuel economy. The adoption of these standards cannot take effect without a waiver from the EPA, hence the lobbying effort...Also, eleven other states want to adopt California's standards.
**Hence the title. Clever me.

There's more: "A Drop in the Bucke...er, Tank" >>

Obama Promises "Vast" Ethics Reforms

We are all too familiar with John McCain's extensive ties to lobbyists, but The Huffington Post also reports that Hillary Clinton's campaign employs more lobbyists than any of the other Democratic contenders.

The same Huffington Post "exclusive" indicates that "of the leading Democratic candidates, Barack Obama is the least entangled with K Street. His campaign has no lobbyists on the payroll or serving as key advisers."

Maybe that is why Obama feels free to promise "vast" ethics reforms if elected. According to TheHill.com's Ben Breier, Obama recently told a crowd in New Hampshire.

“When I am president, I will make it absolutely clear that working in an Obama administration is not about serving your former employer, your future employer or your bank account — it’s about serving your country, and that’s what comes first.

“It’s time to renew a people’s politics in this country — to ensure that the hopes and concerns of average Americans speak louder in Washington than the hallway whispers of high-priced lobbyists."

Specifically Obama promises to give Americans a chance to review all non-emergency legislation sent to him for signature before he signs.

“When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as president, you will have five days to look online and find out what’s in it before I sign it. . . . When there are meetings between lobbyists and a government agency, we won’t be going to the Supreme Court to keep it secret like Dick Cheney and his energy task force; we’ll be putting them up on the Internet for every American to watch.”

We are never going to eliminate lobbyists. Even if we could, I am not sure doing away with all lobbying is either constitutional or in America's best interests.

For me the real ethics reforms are those leading to greater transparency. Just like cockroaches corrupt lawmakers and lobbyists scurry to the shadows when they encounter sunlight.

Obama's comments on his ethics reform plan were broadcast on NPR.

There's more: "Obama Promises "Vast" Ethics Reforms" >>