Governor Mike Huckabee was on the Daily Show last Tuesday and had a lot to say about government in general, but what caught my ear was his attack on the influence of lobbyists in Washington.
"The corruption that exists, and it may not be overt corruption, but auto industries are down there asking for a bailout. Now, the other side of this story is auto industries have spent $50 million on lobbyists in Washington, D.C. and $15 million in campaign contributions. Do we really think that members of Congress have an objectivity as it relates to what they're hearing? Of course they don't. And that's part of the problem. 35,000 registered lobbyists in Washington, that's 70 lobbyists for every member of Congress."
It's telling to hear talking points that only a year ago were being uttered by Democratic presidential candidates like Obama and Edwards.
And Governor Huckabee isn't alone. You're hearing more and more conservatives question the role of lobbyists in the same way that Democrats have been for the past year. Conservatives opposing the Detroit bailout to General Motors, Ford Motor Company and Daimler/Chrysler, cry foul at the influence of lobbyists on the legislation. This from the National Review Online:
The Big Three’s CEOs, the leaders of their unions, and their taxpayer-funded lobbyists (disguised as lawmakers from Michigan) have done an excellent job of sowing fear and confusion, particularly in the media.
After the Bush blink of last week, Washington's automotive lobbyists will be revving up their engines. Unless the Bush White House has an unexpected change of heart, the one man who can stop the lobbying momentum now is Barack Obama.
Governor Huckabee and other conservatives are right in drawing attention to the concern around how the Big 3 utilized their lobbyists in the past few weeks. The question is, will politicians on both sides of the aisle continue to closely examine the relationship between lobbyists an public policy? We hope so.
President Elect Obama, during his campaign, pledged for sweeping ethics reform under his administration. Now, as he mounts his transition team he has created “the strictest, the most far-reaching ethics rules of any transition team in history.” So says John Podesta in today's New York Times article.
Obama and his co-chair of his transition team Jon Podesta are abiding by the same principles that guided his campaign for more than two years. What's important here is that the President-elect is taking the necessary steps to clean up the way Washington works by drawing a line between special interests and the government.
Under the rules announced by Mr. Podesta, federal lobbyists will not be allowed to raise money for the transition, nor continue lobbying while working in the transition. In addition, he said that someone who became a lobbyist after being involved in the transition would be prohibited from lobbying the administration on related matters for 12 months.
The goal in this move appears to be two-fold:
(1) to attract those to government who's premier purpose is to serve the public interest, not make a profit.
(2) to earn the trust of the public by slowing the "revolving door" between government and the private sector. This administration understands that restoring trust in government is the most important element in developing sound policies, and for that we applaud them.
Some say this move comes at great expense. It will prevent people with much knowledge and experience on key issues like healthcare and global warming from serving immediately. I would argue that its a worthy expense. As the Brookings Institution's Thomas Mann said, "That is a real cost but it is more than balanced by the strong signal sent by the President-elect. He aspires to attract to government able individuals whose highest priority is to serve the public interest. This is a very constructive step in that direction."
Yet, it's not possible to cut every cord strung between government and the private sector. Just today one of Senator Obama's advisors was reportedly on the board a defense contractor. Former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn is currently serving as Chairman of Public Responsibilities at General Electric, a company that has received $8.8 billion in over 280 defense department contracts. Obama's transition team had no comment about weather this was a conflict of interest, but did say that Nunn's role was "informal" and that he was considered an "outside adviser." Whether or not this is seen as conflict of interest need not supersede the fact that the only reason it is considered such is because of these new self-imposed ethics rules the Obama transition team have adopted.
We do hope that these new rules are obeyed and not bent to accommodate the desired needs of the transition team. After all, the problem with self-imposed rules is that the only one enforcing them is the one who needs them.
My interest has been peaked of late. What is the fate of publicly funded campaigns given the "Obama phenomenon?" A recent NPR article Did Obama Kill Public Campaign Finance? asks the question, "Is something rotten in the state of public financing for presidential campaigns?"
The article continues:
Sen. John McCain, one of the most vocal proponents of campaign finance reform, is being hoisted by his own petard by choosing to accept federal funding for his general election campaign. Meanwhile, Sen. Barack Obama, the choice of the Democratic Party — the very party that cried out for finance reform in the wake of the Watergate scandal — has chosen to bypass public funds and, as a result, is pummeling McCain in the fundraising arena.
Irony alert: The Republican standard-bearer is using federal grants, while the Democrat extols the free-market virtues of individual campaign donations.
One could argue that Obama's campaign is 'publicly funded,' after all, he and the DNC have forgone Lobby and PAC money and the majority of his campaign contributions come from small donations made by lots of people. However, the "Obama phenomenon" does not take into account an average person seeking office. This is where public funding would level the playing field so that ordinary citizens could run for office. Obama's 'star quality' and fund raising ability, plus the current political climate, cloud the argument for killing public funding.
McCain opted in to public funds, thus agreeing to cap out at $84 million for his campaign. The RNC supplements his allocated funds by raising money and they do take Lobby and PAC money. Neither candidate, in my opinion, represents 'clean money.'
No matter which candidate wins the White House, both will be faced with determining the fate of public campaign financing, in fact, both have an obligation. At Change Congress, we would also argue that the issue needs to go beyond Presidential and on to Congressional elections -- a more difficult battle.
A smart conversation took place on KQED's Forum with Scott Shafer. I encourage you all to have listen and weigh in on the conversation through our comments section. Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics is on the panel and directs people to the OpenSecrets site so you can follow the money yourself. You can listen in below:
The largest association in the state of Texas, the Texas Association of Business, pleaded guilty today to a misdemeanor charge, unlawful direct campaign expenditure, and paid $10K in fines to the state. After a six-year investigation into the campaign practices of the TAB's political action committee, this is the last lawsuit they'll have to deal with (unless 2008 turns out to be a especially corrupt election year.)
Apparently, the association's PAC was paying for the salaries of its President Bill Hammond and chief lobbyist Jack Campbell as they traveled around the state convincing voters to support state GOP candidates, attending fundraisers and speaking to the media on behalf of the candidates and their campaigns.
Earlier in 2007 District Judge Mike Lynch dismissed two indictments of TAB after the association spent over $1.7M on mailers and television ads on behalf of state GOP candidates. But now, with Texas redistricting on the table for the 2008 and 2010 state legislatures, the temptation to flood swing districts with political ads is hard to ignore. This latest decision by the district court will (hopefully) keep some of the corporate PAC money out of the airwaves and off voters' front stoops. Let's be honest, however, in today's stock market, paying $10K for pumping over $1.7M into local political races is a steal. Now, these business leaders have a host of state legislators in their back pocket. At least, that is how the public will perceive it. The return on investment is better than owning stock in Google (at least a couple months ago anyway). TAB obviously understood this after they moved their headquarters to the state capitol in 1990.
A closer look at the Texas Association of Business shows, once again, a revolving door between elected officials and lobbyists. Hammond, now President, was formerly a four-term member of the Texas House of Representatives. While there, he authored the Texas Education Agency Sunset Bill that was criticized heavily for opening up failing public schools to control by private entities (corporations, universities, non-profits could all essentially manage a public school under the bill). Two years later, after Hammond had left public office, his old boss, the Speaker of the Texas House, named him to lead the Commission on Higher Education and Global Competitiveness.
This, all while aggressively advocating for specific TAB-endorsed candidates around the state of Texas.
In a rather pathetic show of guilt, TAB lawyer Joe Turner complained that the laws around campaign finance law are just too confusing:
Association attorney Joe Turner called upon the Legislature to clarify "this treacherous area of the law," which he said can be confusing for people like Hammond who must wear multiple hats: salaried employee, representative of a political action committee and citizen.
"This is an accounting nightmare," Turner said.
Ok, i understand that the law might be confusing. But I don't tell the state that the reason I didn't pay any taxes for nine years was because, "Gosh, tax law is just really confusing." It is, but you find someone to guide you through it.
Here's another idea: how about individuals like Hammond and Campbell don't wear four different hats, all of which have severe legal implications if ever worn at the same time. The fact that they knew they had to wear different hats shows they understood the vague, but existent, legal divisions created between each one.
I highly doubt TAB understood that it was breaking the law. Perhaps they thought they were bending it. And ignorance is rarely a ticket out of guilt, which is why TAB agreed to pay the $10K fine and move on. Regardless, they are under the reform microscope for the next few cycles.
An article in the Politico today describes just how much money former Capitol Hill staffers can make working as lobbyists on K Street. The salaries are pretty shocking.
While dozens of lawmakers and senior aides are trading their congressional badges for lobbying registrations, some holdouts are resisting the call--even with salary offers of $350,000 to $500,000.
These stubborn governing junkies are among the most coveted by K Street. They are the insiders’ insiders and policy whizzes, whom top officials at lobbying shops and major corporations believe could add significant talent and expertise to their already deep benches.
It still shocks me when people talk about buying access in such frank terms. The article describes the trade--cash for access--in a matter-of-fact way, as if it's completely unsurprising.
For lobbying shops, a big risk in hiring a congressional aide is betting they can perform on the outside as well as they have on the inside.
But "performing" on behalf of an entirely different cause.
Thursday night, the final night of Republican Convention celebration here in St.Paul, we were invited to a closing party called "It's a Wrap" sponsored by major D.C. lobbying firm Patton Boggs LLP. It was also sponsored by Ford Motor Company, EnCana Energy, Sands Las Vegas Casino Corporation, Oracle, DDC and Fierce, Isakowtiz & Blaylock.
The party was held in the majestic Landmark Center here in St.Paul, just a few steps away from the Xcel Energy Center where the convention speeches were taking place. Upon getting in we toured the grand ballroom and upstairs rooms, all of which were outfitted with open bars and waitresses walking around with niblets of food that looked more like art than tasty morsels (don't worry, they were tasty as well).
I talked to a few folks milling about and finally found someone from the law firm who was willing to answer some of my questions, albeit not on camera because they were forbidden to do so. Oddly, her card read, "Director of Media Relations and Communications." I guess that simply meant she wasn't allowed to actually say anything on the record. I let her know that I was not a member of the media. As soon as I asked her about the party she said, "we're not allowed to get into that." So I asked her about the firm -- what kind of law they focused on and who their clients were. She went through the typical talking points -- offices in countries around the world (including new offices in Abu Dhabi and Qatar), major work in public policy arena, etc., etc. Then she said, "Yeah, we're kind of known as the grand-daddy of lobbying firms." And why not? With the size of the party being put on, who would think otherwise.
How close is Patton Boggs, the "grand-daddy of lobbying firms," to our elected leaders? This from their About Us section of their website:
For more than 40 years, Patton Boggs has maintained a reputation for cutting-edge advocacy by working closely with Congress and regulatory agencies in Washington, litigating in courts across the country, and negotiating business transactions around the world. Our partners include women and men with extensive backgrounds in government service with strong ties to both major political parties, as well as top-flight litigators and individuals with a keen understanding of business and finance.
Clearly, they're proud of their connections to both Democrats and Republicans. And reading through the firm partner's bios, you can see how fast the revolving door between lobbyists and government regulators actually spins.
Edward J. Newbury, Partner: formerly served on several congressional staffs including chief appropriations staff and press secretary to U.S. Representative Frank R. Wolf (R-VA) and associate staff member on the House Appropriations Committee. They proudly tout his profile in a NY Times piece entitled, “Wing-Tipped Migration: Five Prominent Men and How They Got from Congress to K Street.”
Stuart M. Pape, Partner: served in various positions in the Office of the Chief of Counsel at the FDA prior to joining the firm in 1980. He is the former associate chief counsel for food, and from 1978-1979, served as executive assistant to FDA Commissioner Donald Kennedy. Now, he lobbies on behalf of corporations looking to obtain approval of new food ingredients, pharmaceuticals, and medical devices; advising on labeling and advertising of regulated products; assisting in enforcement proceedings initiated by regulatory bodies; and lobbying in connection with legislative consideration of statutory changes to the laws governing FDA-regulated products.
John F. Jonas, Partner: before joining the firm, Jonas served in number of government positions: while serving as counsel to Congressman Pete Stark (CA-13) on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee in 1981, Jonas "played a principal role in the rewriting of statutes concerning the taxation of life insurance companies." Jonas also worked extensively on the 1982, 1984, and 1986 tax laws during his time with the Ways and Means Committee. Now, his focus is...you guessed it: tax law. Concentrating on "representing financial services companies and a wide variety of health care interests before the House Ways and Means Committee, Senate Finance Committee and the Department of the Treasury." Jonas is busy lobbying for the very industry groups he regulated over a decade ago.
Let's be clear. None of these folks broke any laws. This is by no means an indictment of what are arguably some of the most accomplished lawyers in the country. But, this is how Washington works. The point of revealing this revolving door between lobbying groups and those tasked with regulating them is to show why the public, understandably, distrusts the government's ability to get the most important questions of our time, right. If government is supposed to be the counterweight to business and private industry, why would the public have faith in a system that puts both on the same side of the scale?
Parties are well and good. But with every party, every free drink, every gift to regulators (our elected leaders) there comes a hidden expectation: payback, usually in the form of a favorable vote in Congress or within some Congressional committee.
We must begin tackling this problem of corruption today. Corruption in the People's House, in our government, is the first problem. Much like an alcoholic dealing with a failing liver, a crumbling family life and a potential job loss, all of these challenges are connected back to the first problem: alcoholism. Similarly, Congress must deal with corruption first. If we want to solve global warming, the healthcare crisis, a failing economy and the war in Iraq, we must first deal with corruption. All of us play an important role. These elected leaders work for us, not vice versa. Lest we forget we are the ones that have the responsibility to make a change in our government when it continues to get the easy answers utterly wrong.
Change Congress is making that change. You can help by joining us and help show our government that the first problem, the problem of corruption, cannot be ignored.
Prosecutors got more than they bargained for after U.S. District Judge Ellen Huvelle sentenced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff to four years in prison. The case has shattered the public's confidence in government, said Huvelle.
It also appears to have shattered the former King of K Street.
"I come before you as a broken man," Abramoff said at his sentencing before U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle. "I'm not the same man who happily and arrogantly engaged in a lifestyle of political and business corruption."
He added later that, "My name is the butt of a joke, the source of a laugh and the title of a scandal."
At the same time, Abramoff admits to being a victim of a broken system, someone who thrived in the legal gray area between politics and lobbying. And who does he blame for that broken system? Senator John McCain.
Although Abramoff expressed remorse Thursday, he also has spent his time in prison cooperating with a book that portrays him much differently: as a victim of Washington politics.
The book, set for publication later this month and obtained by The Associated Press, says Abramoff was pressured to plead guilty. The book blames The Washington Post and Sen. John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee whose Senate committee investigated Abramoff, for making him the fall guy.
"I never expected that I would have to go to prison," Abramoff says in the book, "until it became clear that the media could not allow this play to close without the hanging of the villain."
Is Abramoff just another victim of a corrupt system or is he the villain who learned how to take advantage of his extraordinary access to top elected officials and the Department of Justice, bribing them to further his own power and influence?
I've been to both conventions over the last two weeks. There are obvious differences in the what is being talked about, who is doing the talking and the rhetoric pouring out of politico mouths. But some things are the same, and one of those is the parties.
The parties are everywhere. Sunlight Foundation folks were invited and attended a party put on by the travel, airline and real estate industry last night and talked to a popular lobbyist about why the party was being thrown. The signs, "Vote for Travel! Vote for Hospitality! Vote for Real Estate!" appeared to be more than simply party decorations but rather implied requests to elected officials from major industry groups.
ABCNews was also on the lobbyist trail with a great piece on the parties here in the Twin Cities.
Senator McCain asked that the partying be muted in respect to the hurricanes slamming into the Gulf States but it seems the lobbyists (and many elected officials) didn't hear the message or chose to ignore it.
