Think Progress

Jon Kyl Refuses To Defend John Ensign In Midst Of Ethics Scandal

Late last week, the New York Times documented new ethics problems for Sen. John Ensign (R-NV). In an effort to cover-up an affair he was having with the wife of one of his top staffers, Ensign asked his corporate allies to give that aide — Doug Hampton — a lobbying job. Despite rules that prohibit congressional staffers from lobbying for one year after leaving their government position, Ensign nevertheless helped Hampton line up lobbying clients and then “repeatedly intervened on the companies’ behalf with federal agencies.”

Ensign “could be legally at risk” if he knew that Hampton was violating the one-year ban, or if he aided and abetted him in doing so. Law enforcement officials told the Times that the F.B.I. is “likely to open a preliminary investigation” into the new accusations to determine whether a full investigation is warranted. The FBI inquiry would take precedence over a Senate ethics inquiry.

This morning on CNN’s State of the Union, Senate ethics chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA) announced “there’s a preliminary investigation going on, and we will look at all aspects of this case.” When asked whether Ensign can continue to “serve effectively,” Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) — a member of the Senate Republican leadership — refused to lend his support to Ensign. We should simply “wait and see what happens,” Kyl said. Watch it:

Ensign is finding no support among his long-time friends and colleagues on Capitol Hill. On Friday, Republican leader Mitch McConnell dodged the issue. “I really don’t have any observations to make about the Ensign matter,’’ McConnell told reporters.

Sen. Roberts: We Need To Give Health Insurance Lobbyists ‘At Least 72 Hours’ To Read The Bill

During the Senate Finance Committee’s mark-up session of the health care reform bill today, Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) — who has had a hard time staying awake during these meetings — offered an amendment that would have delayed “a committee vote for two weeks.”

Bunning requested that the Committee put-off a vote on the health care bill until the final legislative language of the bill is made available on the Committee’s website for at least 72 hours. The amendment failed, with all of the Democrats except Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) voting against it. But had the amendment passed, it could potentially have halted the health care debate for weeks.

Before the vote took place, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) offered a defense of Bunning’s amendment by arguing that the 72-hour provision was critical because it provides time for senators to consult with health insurance lobbyists:

All the Senator from Kentucky is asking is for 72 hours to determine the cost. Senator Snowe has spoken eloquently about sunshine, and the openness, and the fact that the American people would support this 90 percent, 95 percent. But the thing that I’m trying to point out is we would have at least 72 hours for the people that the providers have hired to keep up with all of the legislation that we pass around here, and the regulations that we pass around here, to say “hey, wait a minute. Have you considered this?” And that’s all I’m asking for — is not only cost, but also the content of a bill. And that 72 hours, I think, is highly, highly important.

To be clear, Roberts is referring to health insurance lobbyists when he references the “people that the providers have hired to keep up with all of the legislation.” Watch it:

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Roberts has received over $172,000 in political contribution from insurance companies over the last five years. Unsurprisingly, Roberts opposes a public option because, he claims, “it won’t work.” Presumably, that’s because that’s what health insurance lobbyists have told him.

‘Family Values’ California Politician Caught Bragging About His ‘Sexual Conquests’ With Married Lobbyists

A “family values” California legislator has been caught on tape bragging about having sex in his office with two different women, both married and both lobbyists. Michael Duvall, who sits on the “Rules Committee that oversees member ethics,” was recorded at a public hearing by a committee room microphone he evidently did not realize was turned on. KCAL-9 reporter Dave Lopez revealed yesterday that Republican Michael Duvall, a two-time assemblyman representing Yorba Linda who is married with two grown children, was recorded “talking about a very sensitive subject into a hot microphone without realizing it”:

She wears little eye-patch underwear. So the other day she came here with her underwear, Thursday. And we made love Wednesday a lot. … I like spanking her. She goes, “I know you like spanking me.” I said, “Yeah, that’s ’cause you’re such a bad girl.”

Watch it:

K-CAL’s Lopez relates that sources told him Duvall “loves to talk about his quote sexual conquests,” and “it’s very difficult to get him to change the subject.” According to the OC Weekly, one of the lobbyists Duvall is having sex with is Heidi De Jong Barsuglia, who became a lobbyist for a major California utility after Duvall became vice chairman of the utilities committee:

In April — two months after Duvall became vice chairman of the Utilities & Commerce committee — privately owned California utility giant Sempra Energy hired Barsuglia as one of its top lobbyists, according to Secretary of State records.

Sempra has given Duvall “$1,500 in campaign contributions,” and in May, “the assemblyman officially adopted the company’s negative view on Assembly Bill 64, which proposes increasing the percentage of electricity the utilities must procure from environmentally sensitive sources.”

The anti-gay-marriage Capitol Resource Institute’s Karen England has praised Duvall for voting “time and time again to protect and preserve family values in California,” giving him a “perfect 100% score.”

New Files Prove Pentagon Is Profiling Reporters

This week, Stars and Stripes revealed that the Pentagon had hired a controversial contractor to screen journalists seeking to embed with U.S. forces. The Rendon Group determines whether reporters’ coverage “was ‘positive,’ ‘negative’ or ‘neutral’ compared to mission objectives.” The Pentagon’s decision was especially shocking in light of Rendon’s sordid past: The group personally set up the Iraqi National Congress and helped install Ahmad Chalabi as leader, whose main goal — “pressure the United States to attack Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein” — Rendon helped facilitate.

Military officials immediately went about furiously refuting the reports. “We have not denied access to anyone because of what may or may not come out of their biography,” said public affairs officer Air Force Capt. Elizabeth Mathias. “It’s so we know with whom we’re working.” Other officials for the Pentagon and Rendon went even further:

“They are not doing that [rating reporters], that’s not been a practice for some time — actually since the creation of U.S. Forces–Afghanistan” in October 2008, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters Monday. “I can tell you that the way in which the Department of Defense evaluates an article is its accuracy. It’s a good article if it’s accurate. It’s a bad article if it’s inaccurate. That’s the only measurement that we use here at the Defense Department.” [...]

The Rendon Group declared in a statement that “the information and analysis we generate is developed … not by ranking of reporters.”

But new files prove otherwise. Stars and Stripes obtained profiles produced by Rendon. They clearly calculate the percentage of “positive” stories written by a reporter and offer ideas not about how to get the reporter to produce more accurate stories, but how to get more “favorable coverage” for the military. Fox News also obtained a slide from a Rendon PowerPoint presentation, where headlines from major newspapers are rated with “a plus sign, a negative sign or a capital ‘N,’ presumably for neutral.” Images from the profiles and PowerPoint:

Stars and Stripes also notes that one of the profiles looked at a reporter’s work as recently as May, indicating that the ranking did not stop in October 2008, as Whitman claimed.

What remains unclear is how extensively this ranking affects whether the military allows certain reporters to embed with troops. At least one reporter, Heath Druzin with Stars and Stripes, was barred for refusing to highlight more good news from the military. Fox News also obtained a Rendon memo that “showed that past coverage is at least taken into account during the process.”

Pentagon Hires Controversial Firm To Screen Whether Embedded Reporters Wrote ‘Positive’ Stories

Stars and Stripes reports that the Pentagon has hired The Rendon Group to screen journalists seeking to embed with U.S. forces. Specifically, the contractor will examine whether these reporters gave “positive” coverage to the military’s work in the past:

Rendon examines individual reporters’ recent work and determines whether the coverage was “positive,” “negative” or “neutral” compared to mission objectives, according to Rendon officials. It conducts similar analysis of general reporting trends about the war for the military and has been contracted for such work since 2005, according to the company. [...]

The backgrounders are part of a wide scope of work Rendon does for the Defense Department under its current $1.5 million “news analysis and media assessment” contract, according to military and company officials.

Public affairs officer Air Force Capt. Elizabeth Mathias insists that they “have not denied access to anyone because of what may or may not come out of their biography.” However, last month, the military barred a Stars and Stripes reporter from embedding with a unit in Iraq because he had “refused to highlight” good news. The military was also unhappy that the reporter “would not answer questions about stories he was writing.”

What is particularly troubling about this story is The Rendon Group’s history. The contractor has received millions from the U.S. government since 9/11 (at one point, taxpayers were paying CEO John Rendon $311.26/hour). The “secretive” firm personally set up the Iraqi National Congress and helped install Ahmad Chalabi as leader, whose main goal — “pressure the United States to attack Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein” — Rendon helped facilitate.

Professional journalism organizations are decrying the military’s contract with The Rendon Group. Ron Martz, president of the Military Reporters and Editors association, said that the “whole concept of doing profiles on reporters who are going to embed with the military is alarming.” Amy Mitchell, deputy director for Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, said that the government is “doing things to put out the message they want to hear and that’s not the way journalism is meant to work in this country.”

Maddow Exposes Oil Industry Backing Of Astroturf Lobbying Firm Americans For Prosperity »

Last night on MSNBC, host Rachel Maddow interviewed Americans for Prosperity (AFP) head Tim Phillips. AFP, a group that employs dozens of field staff and public relations operatives, is a prolific creator of front groups to fight reform on clean energy, the environment, labor, and most recently, health care. AFP’s work against health care reform has included running a multimillion-dollar ad campaign, busing people from state to state to rally against pro-reform politicians, and collaborating with allied right-wing groups to organize disruptions of town hall events.

Trying to create a veneer of grassroots legitimacy, Phillips denied claims of running an astroturf operation and smirked to Maddow, “Hey I’m a community organizer.” Maddow pressed him to reveal his contributors, and Phillips eventually acknowledged being largely funded from Koch Industries, a $90 billion oil and gas conglomerate and one of the largest privately held companies in the world. Maddow then asked Phillips if his organization had ever been funded by ExxonMobil:

MADDOW: Are you, guys, funded in part by Exxon or have you been?

PHILLIPS: No, absolutely not.

MADDOW: No Exxon money.

PHILLIPS: Absolutely not. But I’ll tell you again, though, we would be happy to take funding from broader groups like that. [...]

MADDOW: Exxon does list the Americans for Prosperity Foundation as a recipient of, in some years, tens of thousands of dollars, in other years, hundreds of thousands of dollars, even for things just like general operations. But you’re saying Americans for Prosperity, no Exxon money?

PHILLIPS: This year, we haven’t had any Exxon money. I would be happy to go back and look at the records. And I will get back to you, Rachel, if we have. But again, though, we’re happy to take corporate money.

Watch it:

During the course of the interview, Phillips both appealed to corporations for more cash while repeatedly denying claims of being a lobbyist or serving any special interest. Maddow also exposed the mysterious 9-year gap in Phillips’ official biography. As a partner in Ralph Reed’s lobbying firm Century Strategies, Phillips executed mass mailings and Christian outreach for corporate clients:

– Phillips was paid $380,000 by Enron to mobilize “religious leaders and pro-family groups” to push energy deregulation in Congress and on the state level. The Washington Post reported that the pair informed Enron that they had leveraged their relationships with members of Congress and “placed” articles in prominent papers like the New York Times. [WonkRoom, 5/29/09]

More »« Less

Ghost Letters: Opponents Of Clean Energy Reform Send Fake Letters To Sen. Conrad

Last week, ThinkProgress reported that a DC-based lobbying firm was caught forging letters to Rep. Tom Periello (D-VA) in opposition to the Waxman-Markey clean energy bill. The company, Bonner & Associates, has a decades-long history of “astroturfing” –- misrepresenting corporate-backed policy as a real grassroots movement. ThinkProgress just received a letter indicating that more anti-clean energy letter forgeries may be out there.

Joseph Richardson received a letter from Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) in reply to a letter that he never sent:

Richardson never wrote such a letter, and he never would. Calling himself a “vocal member” of the North Dakota Alliance for Renewable Energy, Richardson told ThinkProgress that he is an ACES supporter and even wrote a letter to Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) calling on the congressman to support clean energy reform.

The forged letter was likely a result of astroturfing. Conrad’s letter was delivered to an out-of-date address that Richardson hadn’t used for months. According to Richardson, Conrad’s office is currently in the process of tracking down the original letter they received. See the full letter Senator Conrad’s office sent to Richardson.

This latest news joins an evolving series of dishonest tactics from opponents of clean energy reform. On Friday, a former Bonner & Associates employee told Talking Points Memo that extreme managerial pressure at Bonner is par for the course, and inevitably leads to these desperate measures. According to the article:

[The former employee] portray[ed] Bonner and Associates as a place where ethical missteps were far from rare. “They just got caught this time,” he said.

A note to the astroturf groups: next time you decide to forge a letter, try doing a Google search to make sure your target hasn’t publicly stated their opposition to your agenda.

Texas Tech Faculty Circulate Petition Protesting Gonzales

Earlier this month, Texas Tech announced that it had offered former Bush attorney general Alberto Gonzales a position to teach political science during the upcoming fall semester. Gonzales will be a visiting professor leading a course on “contemporary issues in the executive branch” and focusing on “recruiting and retaining first generation and under-represented students.”

Students and angry alumni quickly spoke out, starting Facebook groups and writing scathing editorials. Many of the Texas Tech faculty, however, remained silent.

Not any longer. Approximately 45 Texas Tech faculty members have signed onto a petition calling Gonzales’ hiring “objectionable.” They charge that Gonzales is nothing more than a “celebrity hire” who won’t be worth his $100,000 salary:

The faculty members also take aim at Chancellor Kent Hance, who said that one of the reasons he hired Gonzales was because he’s a “good friend“:

The petition then outlines Gonzales’ conduct in the White House that “demonstrated significant ethical failings,” including rejecting the Geneva Conventions and frequently misleading Congress and the American people. Philosophy professor Walter Schaller, the creator of the petition, said that he plans to deliver it to Hance once he gathers all the signatures. Hance has already dismissed the faculty’s efforts, saying “you don’t go around making decisions based on faculty positions.”

In an interview this week with the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, Gonzales gave a preview into some of the topics he will be discussing in his political science class, including, not surprisingly, the “accomplishments” of the Bush Justice Department. “We did some very strong work on behalf of the American people during my tenure as attorney general and I’m very proud of that record,” he said. He added that his class would also examine “some of the problems the current administration is confronting.”

Cheney ‘Got In The President’s Face’ Over Scooter Libby Pardon

Time Magazine reports today on the “final and painful piece of business” President Bush and Vice President Cheney debated in the waning days of the Bush administration: whether or not Bush would pardon Cheney’s top aide Scooter Libby, who had lied to prosecutors in the Valerie Plame CIA leak case. For over a month, Cheney “had been pleading, cajoling, even pestering Bush” to pardon Libby. Aides said Cheney “seemed prepared to push his nine-year-old relationship with Bush to the breaking point — and perhaps past it — over the fate” of Libby. In the end, he wasn’t pleased with the result:

Cheney’s persistence became nearly as big an issue as the pardon itself. “Cheney really got in the President’s face,” says a longtime Bush-family source. “He just wouldn’t give it up.” [...]

Bush would decide alone. In private, he was bothered by Libby’s lack of repentance. … A few days later, about a week before they would become private citizens, Bush pulled Cheney aside after a morning meeting and told him there would be no pardon. Cheney looked stricken. Most officials respond to a presidential rebuff with a polite thanks for considering the request in the first place. But Cheney, an observer says, “expressed his disappointment and disagreement with the decision … He didn’t take it well.”

Some Bush aides suspected there was “darker possibility” for his motives than simply wanting to save an old friend. As a former Bush senior aide explained, “I’m sure the President and [chief of staff] Josh [Bolten] and Fred had a concern that somewhere, deep in there, there was a cover-up.”

After Bush informed Cheney of his decision, Libby then asked to plead his case to Bush himself, but was directed to White House Counsel Fred Fielding. Three days before Bush’s presidency was to expire, Libby met with Fielding, who “kept listening for signs of remorse. But none came.” Bush finally met with his personal lawyer and trusted adviser Jim Sharp:

If the presidential staff were polled, the result would be 100 to 1 against a pardon, Bush joked. Then he turned to Sharp. “What’s the bottom line here? Did this guy lie or not?”

The lawyer, who had followed the case very closely, replied affirmatively. Bush indicated that he had already come to that conclusion too. “O.K., that’s it,” Bush said.

With just one day left in the Bush administration, Bush again informed Cheney that Libby would get no pardon. In an interview with the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes shortly after leaving office, Cheney expressed his dismay at the decision. “[Libby] was the victim of a serious miscarriage of justice,” Cheney complained, “and I strongly believe that he deserved a presidential pardon. Obviously, I disagree with President Bush’s decision.”

Texas Tech Administrators Brush Aside Outcry Over Gonzales Hiring, Defend $100,000 Salary

Last week, Texas Tech announced that it had offered former Bush attorney general Alberto Gonzales a position to teach political science during the upcoming fall semester. Gonzales will be a visiting professor leading a course on “contemporary issues in the executive branch” and focusing on “recruiting and retaining first generation and under-represented students.”

Reactions from angry students and alumni were swift. Two Facebook groups with several hundred members total have even popped up:

The Daily Toreador, the student newspaper, wrote an editorial saying that Gonzales was Texas Tech’s worst hire since controversial coach Bob Knight. The editors noted that while students may be excited to take a class from such a notorious figure, “when he’s talking about the right thing to do…remember his lasting image in American politics“:

By leaving Capitol Hill in disgrace, Gonzales did not fulfill his duty as attorney general, and he did not reach his full potential as a role model for minorities.

So why hire him?

This trumps hiring a fiery coach from Indiana known for tossing a chair across a basketball court. Gonzales is notoriously accused of much more serious problems.

One point of contention is the former attorney general’s salary. Gonzales, a visiting professor, will be earning $100,000 for the year — which is approximately what full professors make — in addition to any speaking and mediation fees he does for outside work. Tech Provost Bob Smith has defended the pay, saying that it’s appropriate for someone “with a national presence and a long list of accomplishments.” Texas Tech alumni and high school government teacher David Ring said that making $100,000 “to teach one section of no more than 15 students…doesn’t seem like a fare shake to those professors at the school who, I don’t know, haven’t perjured themselves in front of the U.S. Congress.”

One Texas Tech faculty member said that administrators at the school don’t value a liberal arts education. She noted that at a Texas legislative hearing last year, Chancellor Kent Hance — who considers Gonzales a “good friend” — said that “research on ‘the best part of Shakespeare’s play’ isn’t on the same level as the research his university is conducting for the Defense Department.”

Hance is largely ignoring the criticism. He said that he received a “substantial number” of supportive e-mails about the hire, and just nine critical ones. He added that “he wasn’t dwelling on the negative ones because they didn’t come from loyal university donors.”

Rep. Issa Posts RNC Video On Oversight Committee YouTube Channel In Violation Of House Rules

Yesterday, the Republican National Committee awarded Matthias Shapiro the “first-ever” Grassroots Logic award for a YouTube video he made that purports to put the cost of health care reform in perspective. After the event, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), the ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, congratulated Shapiro on Twitter, writing, “Kudos again to [Shapiro] for receiving RNC award this AM for excellent grassroots web work.” Issa linked to a video of the award ceremony which had been posted on the official YouTube channel of the Republicans on the Oversight Committee, adding, “My staff made video”:

While the event itself was fairly unremarkable, it featured RNC chairman Michael Steele speaking behind a large RNC logo, clearly branding it as a political event. The use of the committee’s official YouTube channel to distribute political communications is a clear violation of House rules. As the House’s policy for use of web videos explains:

The official content of any material posted by the Member on any Web site must be in compliance with Federal law and House Rules and Regulations applicable to official communications and germane to the conduct of the Member’s official and representational duties.

More specifically, House rules stipulate that “materials (ie. photos, logos, or graphics) used in campaign literature” cannot be distributed using government resources.

Issa’s use of the committee YouTube channel to distribute a political video becomes almost laughable when considered in light of the fact that the jurisdiction of his committee includes investigating abuse of government resources. As the about section of the channel explains:

As the minority on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, we will work with our colleagues in the majority to exercise effective oversight over the federal government and will work proactively to investigate and expose waste, fraud, and abuse.

Perhaps Issa’s committee can begin by investigating themselves.

Sanford’s Adultery May Be Criminal Under South Carolina Law

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) didn’t just “let down a lot of people” when he spent the last week in Argentina with his mistress, he may have committed a crime.  Under South Carolina law:

Any man or woman who shall be guilty of the crime of adultery or fornication shall be liable to indictment and, on conviction, shall be severally punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars or imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than one year or by both fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court. . . .  “Adultery” is the living together and carnal intercourse with each other or habitual carnal intercourse with each other without living together of a man and woman when either is lawfully married to some other person.

Fortunately for Sanford, it is not entirely clear that the South Carolina justice system has jurisdiction over an apparent crime that he committed while traveling abroad in Argentina.  His lawyers might also argue that he cannot be convicted of criminal adultery because he and his Argentine lover were not engaged in “habitual carnal intercourse” — Sanford maintains that he only traveled to Argentina to see his mistress on rare occasions.

Nevertheless, Sanford himself explained at yesterday’s press conference that “God’s law indeed is there to protect you from yourself, and there are consequences if you breach that.”  As it turns out, Sanford may need to be more afraid of the consequences that stem from breaching the antiquated laws of South Carolina.

(HT: David Corn)

Will Republicans ‘Ask Questions’ Of Sanford, Rather Than ‘Circle The Wagons For One Of Our Tribe’?

After days of speculation and misinformation, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) today admitted that he had spent the past week in Argentina — not on the Appalachian trail, as his staff originally told the press — with a woman with whom he has been having an affair.

As the New York Times notes, the press conference “began rather oddly, with Mr. Sanford rambling about his love for the Appalachian trail, his exhaustion from a legislative battle over the federal stimulus and a need to get away from the public eye.” Sanford, who is married and has four children, eventually admitted that he has been having an affair with an Argentine woman. He also announced that he would be resigning as head of the Republican Governors Association. Watch it:

While serving as a U.S. congressman, Sanford was incredibly critical of his colleagues’ marital misdeeds, including the affairs of former congressman Bob Livingston and President Bill Clinton:

“The bottom line, though, is I am sure there will be a lot of legalistic explanations pointing out that the president lied under oath. His situation was not under oath. The bottom line, though, is he still lied. He lied under a different oath, and that is the oath to his wife. So it’s got to be taken very, very seriously.” [Sanford on Livingston, CNN, 12/18/98]

“We ought to ask questions…rather than circle the wagons for one of our tribe.” [Sanford on how the GOP reacts to affairs, New York Post, 12/20/98]

“I think it would be much better for the country and for him personally (to resign). I come from the business side. If you had a chairman or president in the business world facing these allegations, he’d be gone.” [Sanford on Clinton, The Post and Courier, 9/12/98]

“The issue of lying is probably the biggest harm, if you will, to the system of Democratic government, representatives government, because it undermines trust. And if you undermine trust in our system, you undermine everything.” [Sanford on Clinton, CNN, 2/16/99]

Sanford has also been an opponent of same-sex marriage, saying in 2004, “As Jenny and I are the parents of four little boys, we’ve always taught our kids that marriage was something between a man and a woman.” [The Post and Courier, 2/11/04]

FLASHBACK: Obama Promised To End ‘Secret Meetings’ And Make The White House The ‘People’s House’

MSNBC reports that the Obama administration has denied its request for the names of individuals who have visited the White House since the Inauguration. Additionally, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington announced today that it is suing the Department of Homeland Security after the non-partisan organization was denied a request for records of visits of “leading coal company executives.” The Obama administration’s explanation:

The administration ought to be able to hold secret meetings in the White House, “such as an elected official interviewing for an administration position or an ambassador coming for a discussion on issues that would affect international negotiations,” said Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt.

The Bush administration made the same arguments, which were ruled against twice in federal court. In fact, before his election, Obama promised that he would end the Bush administration’s practice of holding secret meetings in the White House, which is supposed to be “the people’s house”:

– In 2006, Obama critized Cheney’s secret energy meetings: “When big oil companies are invited into the White House for secret energy meetings, it’s no wonder they end up with billions in tax breaks.” [1/26/06]

– In 2007, Obama promised on his first day to: “launch the most sweeping ethics reform in history to make the White House the people’s house and send the Washington lobbyists back to K Street.” [6/22/07]

– In 2008, Obama told Wisconsin voters: “This change will not be easy. It will require reforming our politics by taking power away from the lobbyists who kill good ideas and good plans with secret meetings and campaign checks.” [9/22/08]

The day after the Inauguration, Obama issued a memo saying, “my Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government.” Obama had a long record of increasing accountability and transparency in government before he entered the White House. By opening up access to the White House visitor logs, Obama has an opportunity to fulfill his promise of making the White House the people’s house.

Four Right-Wing Supreme Court Justices Argue That Buying Off A Judge Is No Problem

When West Virginia coal overlord Don Blankenship’s company lost a $50 million verdict to one of its competitors, Blankenship set out to buy a judge. Rather than appeal his case to a fair tribunal, Blankenship spent $3 million to elect a friendly lawyer to the West Virginia Supreme Court, even running ads accusing the lawyer’s opponent of voting to free an incarcerated child rapist, and of allowing that rapist to work in a public school. Once elected by a Blankenship-funded campaign, the newly-minted justice cast the deciding vote overturning the verdict against Blankenship’s company.

Today, the Supreme Court held that this kind of justice-for-sale bribery has no place under the United States Constitution. But all four of the Court’s most conservative members voted that there is no problem when a wealthy businessman literally buys a judge. In a dissent joined by conservative justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, Chief Justice John Roberts argued that this decision — on a case so egregious that John Grisham turned it into a legal thriller — would encourage “groundless” charges that other “judges are biased”:

The Court’s new “rule” provides no guidance to judges and litigants about when recusal will be constitutionally required. This will inevitably lead to an increase in allegations that judges are biased, however groundless those charges may be. The end result will do far more to erode public confidence in judicial impartiality than an isolated failure to recuse in a particular case.

Although the result in this narrowly-decided case hinges on the vote of retiring Justice David Souter, it appears that Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor agrees with Souter that judges cannot be for sale. In a 1996 speech, Sotomayor argued that “[w]e would never condone private gifts to judges about to decide a case implicating the gift-givers’ interests,” yet “our system of election financing permits extensive private, including corporate, financing of candidates’ campaigns, raising again and again the question what the difference is between contributions and bribes.”

Shimkus: ‘Corporate Titans Are My Friends’

Today, conservative extremist Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) engaged in a one-man debate whether corporate America is good or evil. The Republican Party’s attempts to characterize the Waxman-Markey green economy legislation as economic catastrophe have been neutered, as the bill has gained the support of a broad coalition of corporate America, poverty advocates, labor unions, and environmentalists.

In a confused monologue, Shimkus attempts to follow new Republican talking points and portray himself as a defender of the little guy against corporate greed. But he can’t stop himself from also praising the corporations as his friends:

We’re fighting for the ratepayer. This debate is: “Who protects the ratepayer?” The corporate titans are my friends! I’m a Caterpillar supporter. I’m an Exelon supporter. I’m an Ameren supporter. A lot of these companies that have negotiated deals, they support me. But I know that they’re in the room to protect shareholder wealth, the wealth of the bond holders, the wealth of the stockholders. And that’s okay.

Watch it:

Caterpillar ($54,250), Exelon ($48,749), and Ameren ($39,500) are indeed some of Shimkus’s top contributors. But unlike Shimkus, an ideological global warming denier, these “corporate titans” recognize the reality of the threat of climate change and the need for a new clean energy economy. Caterpillar and Exelon are members of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a corporate-environmentalist coalition supporting Waxman-Markey, and even coal-powered Ameren supports global warming pollution mandates.

FreedomWorks, Run By Former Beverage Industry Lobbyist Dick Armey, Launches Attack Against Soda Tax

Yesterday, Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks sent out an e-mail urging its followers to “help us defeat the national soda tax,” which “liberals” want to use to “pay for government-run health care.” From the e-mail:

Some liberals in Congress have proposed paying for government-run health care by hiking taxes on soft drinks and other beverages. Because the socialized health care schemes being considered will cost at least a trillion dollars, liberal politicians are looking for ways to pay for their schemes without upsetting too many folks. So they think that a tax on soft drinks is better than any other type of tax. They are wrong, and need to understand this message loud and clear: NO NEW TAXES!

As National Journal notes, the the beverage tax was “promoted by the Center for Science in the Public Interest” and just “one of many ideas presented to the Senate Finance Committee in a roundtable discussion.”

So why is Armey so interested in stopping the soda tax? Armey, the former Republican House Majority Leader, is now a lobbyist for DLA Piper. In 2008, DLA Piper represented Diageo, an international beverage business. Diageo paid DLA $720,000 that year for lobbying expenses, and Armey was one of the lobbyists working on Diageo’s case.

As ThinkProgress has reported in the past, Armey has consistently used his FreedomWorks organization to support the interests of his lobbying clients:

– Armey’s FreedomWorks is actively organizing against health care reform. Not coincidentally, Armey’s lobbying firm represents pharmaceutical companies, such as Bristol-Myers Squibb, that oppose comparative effectiveness research in the health reform plan because such a program may cut into revenue for branded drugs.

– Armey’s lobbying firm represents the trade group for the life insurance industry. In return, FreedomWorks mobilizes its members for deregulated life insurance reform.

– Currently, FreedomWorks is focusing their energy activism on supporting the status quo reliance on fossil fuels. In addition to working for various domestic oil companies with a vested interest in opposing change, Armey’s lobbying firm represents Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Prime Minister of the UAE, on energy related issues such as maintaining the U.S.-UAE relationship where “U.S companies have played major roles in the development of UAE energy resources, which represent about 10 percent of global oil reserves.”

– In 2006, Armey’s lobbying firm represented the Senado de Republica (Mexican Senate) on “enhancing U.S.-Mexico relations,” and specifically on immigration policy. Curiously, during the same period, Armey’s Freedom Works stood out as one of the few right wing organizations to boldly support comprehensive immigration reform.

Last year, the Wall Street Journal also exposed FreedomWorks for building “amateur-looking” websites to promote the lobbying interests of Armey.

Rice Channels Nixon: Since The President Authorized Torture, That Makes It Legal

Recently, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke with some students at Stanford University, where she is a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute. When a student asked whether Rice had authorized torture, she refused to take responsibility, saying only that she “conveyed the authorization of the administration.” She added that, “by definition,” once the president authorized “enhanced interrogations,” they were automatically legal:

Q: Is waterboarding torture?

RICE: The president instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside of our obligations, legal obligations under the Convention Against Torture. So that’s — And by the way, I didn’t authorize anything. I conveyed the authorization of the administration to the agency, that they had policy authorization, subject to the Justice Department’s clearance. That’s what I did.

Q: Okay. Is waterboarding torture in your opinion?

RICE: I just said, the United States was told, we were told, nothing that violates our obligations under the Convention Against Torture. And so by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture.

The Young Turks’ Cenk Uygur, who obtained the video, said Rice “absolutely pulls a Nixon” in her answer. Watch it (Rice’s answers come at 0:57):

Rice is attempting to hide her central role in approving torture, as the Senate Armed Services Committee report released last week highlighted. She gave verbal authorization to then-director of the CIA George Tenet to waterboard Abu Zubaydah in July 2002 — one month before the Office of Legal Counsel gave the legal justification for such torture.

Rice’s opinion that a presidential authorization — “by definition” — grants something legality is deeply disturbing. In fact, the United States — and its president — are bound by U.S. statute and international treaties that ban the use of cruel, humiliating, degrading treatment, the infliction of suffering, and the attempt to extract coerced confessions.

Memo to Rice: Bush may have been “the Decider,” but he didn’t have the authority to make an illegal act magically legal.

Obama: Holder Will Decide Whether To Prosecute Torture Authors, Supports Bipartisan Truth Commission

Recently, the White House has sent mixed signals about whether it supports investigations into the Bush administration officials who authored the torture policies.

On Sunday, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said that “those who devised the policies…should not be prosecuted.” Press Secretary Robert Gibbs admitted yesterday the White House was failing to hold anyone “accountable” for torture. However, today the New York Times’ Peter Baker and Scott Shane reported that aides to Obama “did not rule out legal sanctions for the Bush lawyers who developed the legal basis for the use of the techniques.”

In the Oval Office this afternoon, the AP’s Jennifer Loven put the question directly to Obama. He refused to rule out prosecutions of the Bush lawyers who created the legal underpinnings for torture, saying it was a question he would leave up to Attorney General Eric Holder:

OBAMA: The OLC memos that were released reflected in my view us losing our moral bearings. … For those who carried out some of these operations within the four corners of legal opinions or guidance that had been provided from the White House, I do not think it’s appropriate for them to be prosecuted. With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that is going to be more of a decision for the Attorney General within the parameters of various laws, and I don’t want to prejudge that.

Obama also tacitly endorsed a bipartisan, Congressional commission to investigate Bush’s torture program. Watch it:

Obama is effectively putting the ball in Holder’s court. Recall, during his Senate confirmation hearing, Holder said that the President cannot “immunize” torture and must enforce the law in all cases:

LEAHY: Do you believe that the president of the United States has authority to exercise a commander-in-chief override and immunize acts of torture? I ask that because we did not get a satisfactory answer from Former Attorney General Gonzales on that.

HOLDER: Mr. Chairman, no one is above the law. The president has a constitutional obligation to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. There are obligations that we have as a result of treaties that we have signed — obligations, obviously, in the Constitution. Where Congress has passed a law, it is the obligation of the president, or the commander-in-chief, to follow those laws. [...]

If one looks at the various statutes that have been passed, it is my belief that the president does not have the power that you’ve indicated.

Holder told Katie Couric earlier this month that a special commission investigating torture is something that “Senator Leahy, the people in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the President will ultimately have to decide.” Leahy, Judiciary Committee senators, and Obama have made up their mind. Now, it is up to Holder to ensure that “no one is above the law.”

TAKE ACTION: Tell Congress To Hold Impeachment Hearings Against Judge Jay Bybee

Last week, President Obama released four Bush-era legal memos authorizing torture. The earliest one, from 2002, was signed by Jay Bybee, then an Assistant Attorney General and now a federal judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In the memo, Bybee authorized CIA interrogators to, among other techniques:

– Slam a detainee’s head against a wall: “any pain experienced is not of the intensity associated with serious physical injury.”

– Slap a detainee’s face: “The facial slap does not produce pain that is difficult to endure.”

– Place a detainee into stress positions: “They simply involve forcing the subject to remain in uncomfortable positions.”

– Waterboard a detainee: “The waterboard…inflicts no pain or actual harm whatsoever.”

These techniques are illegal by U.S. statute and international treaty to which the U.S. is a signatory. Bybee attempted to give legal cover to illegal acts, and thus broke the ethical, professional, and legal standards that should govern lawyers. For this, Judge Jay Bybee should be impeached. Congress needs to assert some accountability for these heinous acts.

ThinkProgress is sending a petition to the members of the House Judiciary Committee — where impeachment articles are drawn — imploring them to act now to remove Bybee from public office. Please join our efforts by signing onto our campaign. Here’s how it could work:

Step One: Hearings. The House Judiciary Committee holds hearings to examine charges against Bybee.

Step Two: Articles of Impeachment. The House Judiciary Committee draws up the articles of impeachment and presents them to the full House with a simple majority vote.

Step Three: Passes the House. The full House moves to impeach Bybee with a simple majority, and then passes a resolution notifying the Senate

Step Four: Moves to the Senate. The Senate passes a resolution indicating its readiness to receive the House “managers” — in effect, the prosecutors — and to hear the full articles of impeachment.

Step Five: Trial. 51 Senators must vote to continue with the impeachment trial, and 67, a full two-thirds majority, are required to convict.

An impeachment hearing would require full answers from Bybee — and would give the American people the answers they deserve. When Bush nominated Bybee in 2003, Congress had no knowledge of the full scope of Bybee’s legalese somersaults to make torture appear legal. When asked, he refused to comment, citing executive privilege. Now we know how integral Bybee was to initiating Bush’s years-long torture program.

Today, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), a senior member on the House Judiciary Committee, endorsed impeaching Bybee. “He ought to be impeached,” Nadler told the Huffington Post. “It was not an honest legal memo. It was an instruction manual on how to break the law.”

Jay Bybee has neither the legal nor the moral authority to sit in judgment of others. Please sign our petition.