Mammas, Don’t Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be Lobbyists

In the 1970s, Gallup began polling to see what Americans think of honesty and ethics in various professions. Generally speaking, nurses have toped the list. And towards the bottom have been business executives and stockbrokers (each with a 32% low or very low rating), advertising practitioners (37%), car salespeople (44%) telemarketers (56%), and members of Congress (58%).

In 2007, they may have been looking for a profession with even less regard than members of Congress, so they added lobbyists. It didn’t work, generally speaking lobbyists tied members of Congress for being the most distrusted and unethical. These were the scores in December of 2017:

• Members of Congress

Very high- 2%
High- 9%
Average- 29%
Low- 36%
Very Low- 24%

• Lobbyists

Very high- 2%
High- 6%
Average- 31%
Low- 33%
Very Low- 25%

The public perception is certainly borne out by the facts. Remember lobbyists like Jack Abramoff, Adam Kidan and Ralph Reed? It doesn’t come much lower? However, corporate lobbyists don’t get much better than that either, although most have managed, one way or the other, to avoid prison. One of the shadiest of the current crop is Michael Esposito, president of Federal Advocates, which he founded in 2006. While Obama was president, he tried passing himself off as a Democratic lobbyist, His newest self-penned bio reads: “Esposito has spent nearly two decades as a federal lobbyist and is a major player in Republican party politics. In that time, Esposito has secured consistent achievements for clients while providing unmatched access to high-level decision makers, including those within the Administration and Congress. Esposito has successfully achieved groundbreaking legislation and regulatory action in addition to billions of dollars in federal funding. He is nationally recognized as an expert in the legislative and regulatory processes and is often engaged to speak at corporate events. Esposito serves on the Republican National Committee Chairman’s Advisory Board. He is an integral part of the senior-most leadership of the RNC and directly advises the Chairwoman on issues of significance to the nation. Along with offering vital counsel, Michael supports the RNC’s national leadership by serving as its eyes and ears on issues across the country and providing key in-depth insight for the RNC’s ultimate mission: exemplary governance. Esposito is a member of the Trump Victory Finance Committee.” He also claims to be close with Eric Trump and with Kushner-in-law.

The other day, Trump claimed he never heard of Esposito, whose lobbying clients include Orange County (California), Polk County (Iowa), the American Distilled Spirits Association, Huawei Technologies USA, Inc., Cargill, Lyft, Xerox, the National Independent Automobile Dealers Association, and at least 10 California cities (Brentwood, Rancho Palos Verdes, South Pasadena, Thousand Oaks, Pittsburg, Richmond, Laguna Nigel, Garden Grove, Antioch and Desert Hot Springs. Esposito’s company grew exponentially since Trump moved into the White House, with a profit of over $4.6 million in 2018, which was $3.75 million more than it made in 2016.

In November, when it was already clear Esposito would be going to prison, Trump decided it was time to distance himself from this particular lobbyist:

On Friday, the FBI raided Esposito’s home and office. He has been accused of lying about close ties to Trump in order to score lucrative contracts for his firm. The FBI was looking for evidence of financial fraud. Because Polk County is one of his big clients-- $720,000 a year-- the Des Moines Register has taken a particular interest in the case.

After a Post story in November on how Esposito tripled his business while claiming close ties to Trump and his administration, the FBI began investigating Esposito to see whether he may have defrauded clients or engaged in any other financial fraud, The Post reported.

Trump tweeted Nov. 4 that he has no ties to Esposito or his firm. The FBI declined to comment to Post reporters about the raids.

Esposito did not return a Des Moines Registerphone call Friday to his office seeking comment.

The Post reported that there were Rolls-Royce and Lincoln SUVs parked in front of Esposito’s suburban Washington home, which the FBI raided Thursday. On social media, he has posted photos of himself in other luxury cars and wrote of the pleasure he takes in buying and selling them.

Polk County first hired Federal Advocates a decade ago for $5,000 a month. Polk supervisors agreed to pay the firm much more in 2016 as it sought help with an IRS audit that found revenues generated by the county-run Prairie Meadows gambling and entertainment complex that should have been reported as taxable income.

The IRS said Prairie Meadows owed nearly $60.5 million in back taxes, fees and interest from 2012 through 2014.

Gary Palmer, president of Prairie Meadows, said the casino and racetrack won its appeal after hiring a top Washington tax attorney. He told Watchdog that Federal Advocates did nothing to help with that legal battle.

Although the county also ostensibly was paying Federal Advocates to try to secure legislation in Congress that would better protect the casino’s nonprofit status, no such bill has surfaced.

If We Don't Deal With Biden's Career Of Corruption Now, During The Primaries, Trump Will Be Happy To In The General

The same establishment hacks-- think Neera Tanden of the grotesquely corrupted Center for American Progress, for example-- who foisted Hillary Clinton on the Democratic Party (bringing us Trump) now want us to get behind another Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden-- and for many of the same shiny reasons. Hillary represented the status quo establishment then; Biden does now. She was the most experienced candidate ever then; he is now. She did have one thing about her that everyone was genuinely excited about: she would have been the first woman president. He has nothing at all. His entire career has been about how bad a politician can be without joining the Republican Party. If you liked Joe Lieberman, you should love Joe Biden. If you think Joe Manchin is the ideal Democratic political leader today, Joe Biden is your man.

And... if you think the doddering, incoherent fool in this clip-- shot earlier this week in Iowa-- is the best man to bring down the Trump regime... good luck to you. Or better yet, please watch it again, and carefully:



The video, up top, of Elizabeth Warren, from David Doel of the Rational National, should remind people who don't remember the pre-Obama Biden of why progressives thought he was always such a danger to working families. Yesterday, reporting for The Hill, Alex Gangitano wrote about Biden's K Street problems. There have long been two Democratic politicians steeped to the point of drowning in lobbyist corruption-- one in the House (Steny Hoyer) and one in the Senate (Status Quo Joe)-- and to tie the Democratic Party nomination to this taint is a losing strategy. "The influence world," wrote Gangitano, "is stocked with former aides and supporters who have rallied around his previous bids for president. In this cycle, though, those lobbyist ties, past fundraising from corporate interests and perceptions that Biden is more favorable to businesses could hurt his bid for the Democratic nomination."

His campaign has said he will not take money from lobbyists and corporate PACs, but that is unlikely to be enough for progressive groups in the primary who have larger concerns about the candidate.

“With Joe Biden, if he wants to say no to corporate lobbyists' money that’s great and it’s a step in a positive direction that acknowledges the times,” Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, told The Hill.

“But, with Joe Biden, it’s not about course correcting any one little thing, it’s about his big picture brand, which is being cozy with big corporations and cutting back room deals with Republican political insiders.”

Biden's allies run deep on K Street, where a number of former aides from his time as a senator now hold high-level positions at powerful lobbying firms.

Christopher Putala, who founded the lobbying firm Putala Strategies, was a lawyer on the Senate Judiciary Committee for Biden, as was Jeffrey Peck, now a lobbyist at Peck Madigan Jones.

Biden also has allies in Tony Russo, a lobbyist at T-Mobile, who served as his legislative counsel in the Senate; Larry Rasky, the chair of Rasky Partners, who worked on Biden’s 1988 and 2008 presidential campaigns; and Ankit Desai, a political assistant to Biden in the Senate and now a lobbyist at Tellurian.

And Biden's more than three decades in the Senate and previous runs for president will give his critics plenty of fodder.

When Biden ran for president in 2008, he raised money from lobbyists. He reversed course when he joined the ticket with President Obama, who made running against K Street and rejecting corporate money a centerpiece of his first presidential campaign.

In the Senate, Biden also represented Delaware, a state that is home to many large corporations, including a number of credit card giants.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), one of his rivals for the 2020 nomination, took a shot at Biden last week, accusing him of being on the side of "the biggest financial institutions" over "hardworking families."

This year, Biden also held a fundraiser hosted by David Cohen, telecom giant Comcast's chief lobbyist. And Biden allies led by Democratic fundraiser Matt Tompkins quickly launched the For the People PAC after he officially jumped into the race, a move first reported by The Hill. The PAC aimed to raise millions to boost Biden's bid.

His campaign, though, was quick to distance itself from the super PAC, telling The Hill that "Vice President Biden does not welcome assistance from super PACs."

Republicans, who see Biden as a strong challenger to President Trump, have also called for more scrutiny over the business dealings of his son Hunter Biden and potential conflicts of interest.

As vice president, Biden pressed Ukraine to dismiss a prosecutor, who faced accusations he had ignored corruption among officials in the government. The prosecutor was eventually removed.

The New York Times in a story this week reported that Hunter Biden was on the board of an energy company the dismissed prosecutor was investigating. Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani on Thursday called for an investigation into "Biden conflicts" of interest. 

Biden's campaign told The Times that his son's business dealings had no connection to policies Biden carried out as vice president.

The issue of corporate ties has taken newfound importance in the Democratic Party, where liberal groups are pressing candidates to reject special interest cash.

“There’s a new benchmark of what Democratic campaigns are now judged by, a new litmus test, and it would be hard for any candidate to not reject [lobbyists’ money],” Zach Friend, a Democratic strategist and former spokesperson for Obama for America, told The Hill.

“It’s how you enter into the race. It would be equivalent to any other Democratic policy-- do you support unions? Do you support marriage equality? Do you support choice?”

The scrutiny on Democrats is intense.

Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Ind., who has seen his stock rise in polls of the Democratic primary race, has found strong support on K Street, especially among LGBTQ lobbyists who are rallying behind the openly gay 2020 contender. But that support led Buttigieg last week to say he would no longer accept lobbyist donations and that he would return the $30,000 he received in the first quarter of the year.

Not taking lobbyist money poses its own challenges for Biden, and he will need to show his strength at raising small-donor donations, as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has, to stay competitive.

Biden's allies, though, won't be on the sidelines.

Those on K Street noted there are other ways for lobbyists to help without writing a check.

“There are plenty of ways to help,” Al Mottur, Democratic lobbyist at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, told The Hill. Often, Mottur said, lobbyists can help a candidate by introducing them to other big donors.

What Would You Do If One Of Your Children Decided To Become A Lobbyist?

The NRCC, the House Republicans' campaign arm, raised $10.5 million in February, a record-- and more than double what they took in last February. (In January the NRCC took in $10 million, also a record and beat a DCCC many Democrats are growing increasingly sick of for it's venality, incompetence and lame leadership. In January the DCCC took in $7.8 million. But one group of donors who still loves the Democrats-- especially the kind of conservative shills who run the DCCC-- are lobbyists. They're always happy to take out their checkbooks for corrupt conservative Democrats-- as well as for Republicans, of course.

Lobbyists give enormous sums to congressional candidates, particularly incumbents on powerful committees positioned to do their clients the most good. The relationship between lobbyists and politicians is the very definition of bribery-- but not the legal definition-- since those same politicians get to define the legal definition in a way that carefully writes themselves and their own corrupt practices out of the scenario. And this is a case where the Democrats aren't any less guilty than the Republicans. They should all be in prison. In 2016 lobbyist bribes to congressional candidates came to an astounding $27,976,646-- $15,200,963 for corrupt Republicans and $12,722,093 for corrupt Democrats. Since 1990 lobbyists have forked over $253,964,816 (of which $206,464,004 went to incumbents)-- $132,895,788 to Democrats and $120,049,954 to Republicans. Hillary Clinton took the most-- by far: $4,264,131-- by of the crooks still serving in Congress, these are the dozen most guilty:

• John McCain (R-AZ)- $1,993,823
• Patty Murray (D-WA)- $1,514,474
• Mitch McConnell (R-KY)- $1,503,635
• Chuck Schumer (D-NY)- $1,441,549
• Rob Portman (R-OH)- $1,196,186
• Ed Markey (D-MA)- $1,190,988
• Roy Blunt (R-MO)- $1,131,357
• Maria Cantwell (D-WA)- $1,128,250
• Robert Menendez (D-NJ)- $1,088,457
• Steny Hoyer (D-MD)- $1,070,391

That was since 1990. How about just in the 2016 cycle? Who were the sleaziest of them all?

• Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)- $520,041
• Marco Rubio (R-FL)- $496,468
• Chuck Schumer (D-NY)- $425,472
• Paul Ryan (R-WI)- $402,832
• Michael Bennet (D-CO)- $396,266
• Roy Blunt (R-MO)- $359,407
• Rob Portman (R-OH)- $336,413
• Patty Murray (D-WA)- $332,477
• Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)- $331,934
• Richard Burr (R-NC)- $319,453
• Patrick Murphy (D-FL)- $298,881
• Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)- $258,264

There were only 10 non-incumbents last year who made the big time in lobbyist corruption and most of them lost their races, obvious exceptions being Masto, Hassan, Harris and Gottheimer, all business-friendly "moderate" to conservative Democrats:

• Jason Kander (D-MO)- $198,375
• Katie McGinty (D-PA)- $190,342
• Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV)- $171,041
• Maggie Hassan (D-NH)- $165,924
• Kamala Harris (D-CA)- $135,817
• Ted Strickland (D-OH)- $122,130
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)- $117,836
• Kathleen Matthews (D-MD)- $108,994
• Evan Bayh (D-IN)- $68,900
• Lon Johnson (Blue Dog-MI)- $53,775

This week, Kate Ackley wrote a piece for Roll Call about how the slime bag lobbyists are already gearing up for 2018. Except she didn't imply they are slime bag lobbyists, "K Street’s most generous political donors" and she wants you to feel a little compassion for them because they are writing so many checks they are suffering from "fatigue." Poor things. "The 25 biggest lobbyist donors alone," she noted, "gave $5.3 million in the 2016 cycle."

“The changes to the rules have provided for ways to give more, and with lobbyists, there is always a built-in benefit to making political contributions,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director at the Center for Responsive Politics. “These are investments in their career.”

She sees no reason for a K Street donating ebb in 2018.

Lobbyist Heather Podesta doesn’t either, even though her presidential pick, Hillary Clinton, and some of her preferred Senate candidates lost last year. Her bipartisan firm, Heather Podesta + Partners, has hosted fundraisers this year, as early as January.

She encourages female donors, including those at the beginning of their career, to donate, Podesta said.

“Writing a check or raising funds brings you to the table in a different way than door-knocking does,” said Podesta, whose registered clients recently have included PepsiCo and Uber Technologies. “You’re just more closely connected with issues and people.”

Women, Podesta added, have traditionally been the “doers” of the Democratic Party, organizing and canvassing for candidates. “It’s really time for all of us to step up and be funders as well,” she said.

Democrats received the bulk, almost 60 percent, of donations from K Street’s biggest donors in the 2016 cycle. And very few registered lobbyists gave money to the presidential effort of Donald Trump.

An exception is Van Hipp Jr., a lobbyist with American Defense International who donated $50,000 to the Trump Victory joint fundraising committee. Hipp was among the 20 biggest donors among registered lobbyists in the 2016 cycle.

“I’m probably one of the few in D.C. who got on the Trump train early,” said Hipp, whose registered clients last year included Clemson University. “I wear that as a badge of honor.”

Lobbyists whose candidates were on the losing end, though, say they don’t view it as a bad investment.

“It’s disappointing when people you believe in and that are friends lose, and it has everything to do with the leadership that they won’t be able to exert at this moment,” Podesta said. “I believe strongly in having no regrets and helping good people.”

Democrats will be on defense in the Senate in 2018, when 10 senators are up for re-election in states that Trump won. Republican lobbyists say they are motivated to help expand their party’s 52-48 voting advantage in the chamber, while Democrats believe controversies around the Trump administration could put control of the House in play.

“There is so much energy out there,” said Steve Elmendorf, a Democratic lobbyist and the biggest K Street donor. His clients at his firm, Subject Matter, include UnitedHealth Group and MetLife.

“In ’18 the stakes are very high, and it’s really important to have a check on Trump,” Elmendorf said. “The pressure to give never goes away.”

I know how the remove the pressure. Trump, who famously promised to drain the swamp if got elected, could drain the ultimate swamp with an executive order and a piece of must pace legislation. I bet that would make his sagging job approval rating turn right around. The last time Gallup checked, lobbyists were rated very poorly among Americans. These numbers are from December, 2015:

• Very high- 2%
• High- 5%
• Average- 27%
• Low- 35%
• Very Low- 25%

Mothers, don't let your babies grow up to be lobbyists. although... Members of Congress were rated about the same. These numbers were for the very end of last year:

• Very high- 1%
• High- 7%
• Average- 31%
• Low- 39%
• Very Low- 20%

Accepting Money From Lobbyists Is A Form Of Legalistic Bribery— And Everyone Knows It

This week PolitiFact asked a direct, simple question: Does Mitch McConnell receive more money from lobbyists than any other member of Congress?. It was based an the ascertain by Alison Lundergan Grimes on March 27— and disputed by McConnell operatives— that he does. What she said, precisely, is that McConnell is “the number one recipient of contributions from lobbyists this cycle.” There can be little dispute that he is, but that didn’t stop Team Mitch from disputing it. McConnell took $281,301 from lobbyists this cycle and the second most corrupt man in Congress, John Boehner (R-OH), too $2278,380. Politifacts’ verdict: “We rate it True.” Money in… favors done— everyone involved should be in prison— open and shut case. (By the way, the 10th most corrupt member lot Congress is Susan Collins, whose bribery from K Street lobbyists this cycle has amounted to $121,486.)

Lobbyists are people who are hired to persuade members of Congress on a particular issue. They are brought in by many different industries, from private companies like Microsoft or ExxonMobil, to associations representing local governments, to nonprofits focused on hot-button legislation. Some organizations have in-house lobbyists, and others hire large firms that lobby Congress on a variety of topics.

We first checked in with the Lundergan Grimes campaign to see where they got their numbers. They linked us to a report by Open Secrets, a nonpartisan campaign finance watchdog website run by the Center for Responsive Politics.

The report, titled "Sincere or Strategic, Lobbyists Give Big," looked at trends in donations from federally registered lobbyists. If a company or organization spends a certain amount of money lobbying Congress, they’re required to register with the federal government. Open Secrets checks this database against the campaign finance disclosure reports that candidates file.

Open Secrets found that the 25 lobbyists who have contributed the most money to campaigns this cycle have already donated $1.9 million. Contributions are not party exclusive; five of those 25 gave strictly to Republicans, 11 gave to Democrats and a handful gave to both.

Open Secrets also released a list of the members of Congress who have received the most donations from lobbyists during the campaign cycle (since the start of 2013).

With $281,301 in contributions from lobbyists, McConnell topped the list, followed closely by House Speaker John Boehner at $278,380. McConnell has also received another $50,000 from family members of lobbyists.

…McConnell isn’t just the top congressional recipient of donations from lobbyists. According to his Open Secrets profile, he has also received more money than any other lawmaker since 2013 from a number of industries.

He’s No. 1 in campaign donations from people who work in the fields of— deep breath here— agriculture services, air transportation, auto dealers and manufacturers, building materials, business associations, coal mining, commercial banks, commercial TV and radio stations, electric utilities, food and beverage, food stores, general contractors, health services, home builders, insurance, medical devices and supplies, mining, mortgage bankers and brokers, pharmaceutical and health products, railroads, retirees, steel production and trucking.

When he last ran for re-election in 2008, McConnell, who was minority leader at the time, topped the list in two industries, coal mining and tobacco. He was fourth in contributions from lobbyists.

George Costanza is sick of all this money in politics:



Since 1990, the K Street bribery industry spent $218,631,961 in federal elections, $179,476,017 of which went to incumbents. Removing members who also ran for president-- Hillary (the #1 all-time champion at $2,169,669), McCain, John Kerry, Barack Obama-- and people dead or retired, these are the dozen worst since 1990:

• Harry Reid (D-NV)- $1,741,621
• Miss McConnell (R-KY)- $1,312,771
• Ed Markey (D-MA)- $1,230,608
• Mary Landrieu (D-LA)- $1,165,822
• John Boehner (R-OH)- $1,162,921
• Patty Murray (D-WA)- $1,153,953
• Maria Cantwell (D-WA)- $1,064,696
• Chuck Schumer (D-NY)- $1,005,327
• Robert Menendez (D-NJ)- $1,000,062
• Steny Hoyer (D-MD)- $972,682
• Orrin Hatch (R-UT)- $965,392
• Bill Nelson (D-FL)- $930,718

And if we just want to look at who the biggest crooks among current House members are, here's the dirty dozen (again, since 1990):

• John Boehner (R-OH)- $1,162,921
• Steny Hoyer (D-MD)- $972,682
• Jim Moran (D-VA)- $844,249
• Charlie Rangel (D-NY)- $838,853
• John Dingell (D-MI)- $831,311
• Don Young (R-AK)- $728,932
• Dave Camp (R-MI)- $597,945
• Pete Visclosky (D-IN)- $569,889
• Ed Pastor (D-AZ)- $546,989
• Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)- $509,519
• Rosa DeLauro (D-CT)- $490,940
• Patrick Tiberi (R-OH)- $489,827

You tell me— would America be better off without these people in Congress? And would America be better off if lobbyists who bribe politicians were arrested, tried and punished-- along with the bribe-takers?

More on our "courageous" right-wing loons, including the nutjob who wanted to ban gay players from the NFL

"Lucky Jack" Burkman sez: "If the NFL has no morals and no values, then Congress must find values for it."

"Ultimately, the bill proposed by lobbyist Jack Burkman isn’t aimed at keeping gay players out of NFL locker rooms.  Instead, it’s about keeping gay players in the closet."

-- from an NBC Sports blogpost today by Mike Florio

by Ken

You remember lobbyist Jack Burkman, don't you? He's the other "profile in courage" I tried my darnedest to make fun of night before last ("From Arizona to K Street: Profiles in courage, 2014 right-wing-loon-style ") -- the other being Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer. Governor Jan, of course, faced the thorny decision whether to sign or veto her state's spanking-new Religious Right to Hate bill, which would have allowed good Christians to abuse gay people any way they like as long as they pinky-swear that Jesus made them do it.

I say "would have allowed" because as we know, Governor Jan screwed up her courage yesterday and wielded her veto pen, as all the non-crazy people on the Right (including most of the Arizona business community) as well as the Left were urging her to do.

That just leaves the hard-core right-wing loons -- viz. HuffPost's "Conservative Pundits Lose It Over Veto Of Arizona's Anti-Gay Bill." Which is to say the people whose votes Governor Jan would have needed if she were going to run for another term as governor -- which causes the washingtonpost.com's Fix-master Chris Cillizza to conclude that her veto was simultaneously her announcement that she's not going to run.

Chris reminds us that when Governor Jan first presented herself for the Republican gubernatorial nomination -- after taking over for Janet Napolitano when she quit the governorship to become secretary of homeland -- she security was generally considered to be dead in the water until she pounced on the issue of Arizona's crackpot anti-immigration law, thereby courting the support of the very people Chris supposes would never support her now.

If any politician understands the political power in signing a controversial measure supported by the most conservative elements of your party, it's Brewer. Had she signed SB 1062, she would have enhanced her position among the most die-hard Republican primary voters -- even while taking a series of body blows from national Democratic (and Republican) leaders. But, unlike five years ago, Brewer chose a different path -- vetoing the legislation and insisting that there is no evidence to support the idea that business owners' rights could be violated by serving gays and lesbians.

Brewer has said she will make a decision on whether to seek reelection sometime around March 1. But, by exercising her veto power of SB 1062 tonight, she effectively has made her future plans known.

TO GET BACK TO "LUCKY JACK" BURKMAN

Lucky Jack, you'll recall, is the right-wing Washington lobbyist who stepped up to announce -- as the NFL for the first time faces a college draft with an announced-gay draft prospect, the University of Missouri's Michael Sam -- that he would propose a law to forbid the NFL.

"We are losing our decency as a nation," Lucky Jack declared. He also said, "If the NFL has no morals and no values, then Congress must find values for it."

The Hill's Rebecca Shabad reported (at the link above) that Lucky Jack's "four-lobbyist firm specializes in helping companies secure contracts with the federal government." In other words, our man Jack is an influence peddler, and one presumes that the influence he peddles traces back to the degenerate life forms that chair House committees and subcommittees.

What makes Lucky Jack think his opinion about anything except the best way to bribe a congressmember counts for anything at all is impossible to fathom. What makes him think that Congress has any business legislating employment policy to the NBC -- well, that's even impossibler to fathom.

The Hill's Rebecca Shabad reported (at the link above) that Lucky Jack's "four-lobbyist firm specializes in helping companies secure contracts with the federal government." In other words, our man Jack is an influence peddler, and one presumes that the influence he peddles traces back to the degenerate life forms that chair House committees and subcommittees.

Shabad also reported: "Burkman's firm, JM Burkman & Associates, signed 70 new clients last year, the most of any K Street firm, a recent review by The Hill found."

Just how eager all those shiny new clients are going to be to be repped by a public laughingstock remains to be seen; already there are reports of at least one client pulling out. (One wonders too how eager the government solons through whom Jack peddles their influence will be to do business with him.)No doubt Lucky Jack thought he could get himself some great business-building publicity from this crackpot stunt. Hmm, maybe not.

As noted at the top of this post, however, now that Lucky Jack has released the text of his bill, and it turns out to be a little different from what he represented previously. Here's more from NBC Sports's Mike Florio:

The proposed bill, titled The American Decency Act of 2014, prohibits NFL teams from employing "self-declared homosexual football players."  If that label weren't clear enough, the next sentence states that the bill "shall apply only in cases where a football player has openly declared himself to be a homosexual."

In other words, as long as the player doesn't come out as gay, there would be no problem.  Moreover, there would be no witch hunts or other efforts to out gay players.  The law would apply only if/when a player comes out publicly and openly as gay.

Even then, the openly-gay player wouldn't be banned from playing.  Instead, the team would have to give the player "facilities" that are "separate and distinct from the facilities used by heterosexual players."

As Burkman has explained, the bill provides for a fine of not less than $3 million and not more than $8 million.
Burkman will officially be unveiling the bill later today.  It's intended to be introduced to Congress.

Unless the Arizona legislature gets to it first.

Good one, Mike!

Of course, as many observers have been pointing out, Lucky Jack's terror scenario, innocent professional footballers showering alongside self-proclaimed homos, is kind of foolish when you consider that every NFL locker room already has gay players. Apparently it's OK for innocent NFL-ers to shower alongside gay players who haven't talked to Sports Illustrated about it.

Maybe we should cut Lucky Jack some slack. What more noble concern could there be than for the morals and decency of professional football players? I mean, that they not be forced to shower with announced-gay teammates.

#

For Profit Lobbying Should Be Illegal But Until Then, Congressmen Who Become Lobbyists Should Lose Their Pensions

Mac Thornberry and Buck McKeon, shameless tools of the Military Industrial Complex

Last Friday, we looked at some of the speculation on which Members of the House are most likely to announce retirements over the next few months. The big giveaway for Buck McKeon, for example, was when his family started an armaments-oriented lobbying firm and bought his favorite chair that no one is allowed to sit in for the plush empty corner office. Most of the vaguely sentient retirees-- so scratch Howard Coble and, if he finally goes for it, Ralph Hall-- will become lobbyists. Lobbyists is, literally, the only occupation in America rated as more untrustworthy than serving in Congress! Just right for crooks like McKeon-- and he's far from the only one. Last week, Kevin Bogardus took a look for The Hill at which Members are looking towards K Street-- and which ones K Street is cruising back.

K Street prefers conservatives with records for corruption, so they're especially excited about Blue Dog Jim Matheson and low grade GOP crooks Tom Latham and Frank Wolf, all three of whom have recently announced they were done. (All 3 were looking at very difficult reelection prospects.) Not every firm is ready to hire just any garden variety corrupt congressman these days, though.

“Just having a congressman doesn't get you much in the world. But if you got a name with the right connections, they can work for magic for you,” said Larry Latourette, a principal at Lateral Link… Retiring lawmakers who accrued seniority and a bipartisan record are the top prizes for K Street.

“The keys for this for any of these people are if they have any seniority, if they can transition to the private sector and if they are bipartisan,” said Nels Olson, vice chairman at Korn/Ferry International. “If you don't, it's going to be a tougher road. It's a supply-demand issue.”

Olson said the financial services, healthcare and tax are the areas of expertise “most in demand.” Lawmakers that are well-versed in those fields could make a soft landing on K Street.

Headhunters said that Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, would have been a top target for many law and lobby firms. But Obama nominated Baucus for U.S. ambassador to China, taking him out of the job pool.

“Baucus, given his track record and bipartisan reputation, would have demanded top dollar,” Olson said.

“Max Baucus would have been the big dog if he had gone to the lobbying and government relations sector out of this class of lawmakers. Now that he has taken the road to China, others who are retiring will have to step up their game,” Jones said.

Other former members are considered good candidates for K Street. Matheson is one of the remaining Blue Dog Democrats, a popular breed among lobby shops for their business support in the House.

“Jim Matheson is a blue dog Democrat and has been helpful to the business community, so that's appealing to K Street,” said a Republican lobbyist.

Further, Latham is considered close to Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), which could help if he chooses a lobbying career.

“I think Boehner will stick around, and you cannot get a better guy [Latham]. He's certainly at the top of everyone's list,” said the lobbyist.

Other prospects include retiring Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) and Mike Johanns (R-Neb.). Chambliss will have almost two decades of service in the House and the Senate when he retires, while Johanns is also a former Agriculture Secretary during the George W. Bush administration.

“I see Chambliss or Johanns fitting in extremely well with a law firm that lobbies in Washington. They would fit in like a glove,” said Ivan Adler, a principal at the McCormick Group.

A career in influence can be lucrative for a former lawmaker.

Ex-House members can draw anywhere between $250,000 and $500,000 in annual salary, with the pay scale rising further depending on seniority, according to headhunters’ estimates. Former senators fare better, taking home between $500,000 to $1 million in a year.

That is a big step up from congressional pay, which is $174,000 per year for a House member or senator.

Major trade associations often pay even more. Former Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America, earned more than $2.4 million in compensation for 2011, according to the Hollywood lobby’s tax form for that year.

Yep, sometimes handing out the bribes is more lucrative than taking the bribes. Especially when the retiring congressmember can game the system before he leaves. McKeon ingratiated himself to the War Industry by getting Congress to end sequestration for them. He also stuck a knife in the back of one would-be successor to his chair at Armed Services, Randy Forbes, on behalf of a more pliant sap, Mac Thornberry, who is the favorite candidate of the weapons industry and war contractors.

Rahm's Greatest Hit Has Done All The Damage He Can As A Congressmember-- Now He's Ambling Off To K Street: Heath Shuler DC's Latest Revolving Door Lobbyist

Sleazy lobbyist Heath Shuler-- the ultimate lame duck

If you're a DWT regular, I don't have to tell you who North Carolina Blue Dog Heath Shuler is. We've been following him with trepidation since Rahm Emanuel plucked him away from Tennessee Republicans to run as a North Carolina "Democrat" in 2006. Since then he racked up a dismal 37.93 critical vote score from ProgressivePunch, even worse than the other two North Carolina Blue Dogs, Mike McIntyre and Larry Kissell. Shuler, an anti-Choice, antigay, anti-immigrant bigot has voted more frequently with Boehner than with Pelosi and has consistently been one of the Blue Dogs allowing Boehner and Cantor to call their extremist right-wing proposals "bipartisan."

But conservative Republicans in the North Carolina state legislature weren't satisfied that Shuler voted like a Republican; they wanted a real Republican. So last year they gerrymandered his district in such a way-- removing most of bright blue Asheville-- to make it very difficult for him to win again. Rather than accept the challenge and go out like a man, Shuler-- who just days earlier had been talking about running for governor and senator-- decided he had had it with politics. He applied for a job as a college gym teacher but wound up announcing this week-- while still serving as a congressman-- that he would be the chief lobbyist for American's biggest utility, Duke Energy. Over the years, he has served their interests slavishly.

“Heath is well known in Washington for working with leaders from both political parties and for bringing people together in his district in Western North Carolina,” said Keith Trent, a vice president with Duke Energy's regulated utilities. Citing ludicrously lax House ethics rules, he chuckled that Shuler would not be “actively lobbying” for a whole year but would jump into the fray right after the cooling off period. Duke's interests lie in coal, natural gas and nuclear energy and in undermining the EPA-- all things that come naturally to Shuler.

When Shuler first ran in 2006, Duke's PAC gave his opponent, crooked banker/incumbent Charles Taylor, $7,000. But when Shuler managed to beat him in a Democratic wave election, Duke was more than happy to buy the easily bribed Shuler off immediately. In the very next election cycle, Shuler got a $5,000 check from Duke's PAC and the following year he got another $3,000. This year, before he announced he wouldn't be running again, they had already given him $1,000. Shuler is Big Energy's kind of congressman, consistently putting their predatory, anti-family agenda above the interests of his own constituents. His career in Congress may have been short but he had already scooped up $70,000 in legalistic bribes from energy companies by the time he signed on as a Duke lobbyist.

Yesterday, investigative journalist Lee Fang, looked into the scandal of Shuler accepting the Duke lobbyist job right in the midst of his attempts to defund social programs for working families. Here's the video of him and Zaid Jilani interviewing Shuler when he was still kind of trying to keep the negotiations secret about his lobbying job:

Though Shuler has already accepted the position with Duke Energy, he is still helping to lead a bipartisan coalition, along with Representative Mike Simpson (R-ID), to deal with the “fiscal cliff.” Shuler has promised an “all options” approach, one that will undoubtedly affect his soon to be employer. Duke Energy benefits from a host of tax subsidies, so much so that Citizens for Tax Justice found that the company paid an effective tax rate of negative 3.9 percent from 2008–10 while making over $5.5 billion in profit.

...Thousands of former congressmen, federal regulators and staff regularly head to K Street to collect high-paying salaries, often from businesses that have benefited from their actions in government. There are dozens of high-profile examples of this form of corruption, from former Senator Tom Daschle to former Representative Billy Tauzin, all securing multimillion-dollar paydays from industries they cultivated while in office. A new report shows how military contractors routinely court retired generals, some with wide sway over weapon purchases, with lavish paydays.

The sum of this dynamic is that people in government have much bigger incentives to sell out to industry, even when doing so hurts the public interest. While it seems likely in some cases, behind the scene job negotiations for officeholders become little more than bribery; we haven’t seen federal prosecutors too eager to prosecute this type of corruption. Part of the problem is actually cultural. In Washington, the sell-outs, the men and women who make the most money as industry hacks, are the winners. From high society tabloids like Washington Life to the Beltway media, those who spin through the revolving door are adulated and celebrated.

Maybe that’s why Shuler seemed so certain of a gleaming post-congressional career path.

Joe Lieberman? (JOE LIEBERMAN?) We're supposed to feel bad because no pols want to play with the goniff* anymore?

Nostalgic for Joe? C'mon, gimme a break.

"Many commenters feel [Washington Post columnist Michael] Gerson is missing the Big Picture [in his column today, "Joe Lieberman, party of one"]. The Big Picture being that Lieberman is universally loathed and/or disrespected, and for valid reason."

-- Rachel Manteuffel, in a PostPartisan post this afternoon,
"PostScript: Why Joe Lieberman is a party of one"

by Ken

Oh no you don't, Michael Gerson. You think you can devote that entire Washington Post column to Joe Lieberman ("party of one"; I'll be damned if I provide a link -- that would only have the effect of encouraging him) to smooching on the limp dick of that giant barnicle Holy Joe Lieberman, making out that His Holiness is an above-reproach victim of his saintlike superior wisdom and "moderation" (sorry, I have to put "moderation" in quotes when it comes to an extremist like His Holiness) rather than a loathsome radical whore and rotting cesspool of ignorance and corruption, and actually get me to read it.

Well, no sale, buster! As far as I'm concerned, Mikey, you and the Jomentum Man can get yourselves a room and do whatever it is you feel you must in the privacy thereof. I don't even want to think about it. I especially don't want to think about that.

Somehow, even though Holy Joe has been pretty much "out of sight, out of mind" ever since he announced that even he could see there was no point in his seeking reelection again, it feels right to be writing about the goniff* so soon after Howie's post "DC Politicians All Want To Be The King Of K Street -- Yes, Even So-Called Democrats." What, after all, is His Holiness if not the Creature from the K Street Lagoon?

*goniff -- (Yiddish) a thief or dishonest person or scoundrel (often used as a general term of abuse); offender, wrongdoer -- a person who transgresses moral or civil law

-- The Free Dictionary by Farlex

On the plus side, the Gerson column inspired the PostPartison "Postscript" post by Rachel Manteuffel from which I quoted above. It begins:

Michael Gerson has elected to spend this strange working day between the two party conventions celebrating one guy who's unwelcome at both: Independent Senator Joe Lieberman (Conn.), who has at times aligned himself with both major parties but now succeeds in inhabiting, Gerson says, his own party of one.

Lieberman, who attended the 2000 Democratic convention as the VP nominee and the 2008 Republican convention as a supporter of McCain-Palin, is left out, Gerson says, because a mega-polarized Congress no longer tolerates legislators who cross party lines, no matter what the issue. The in-betweeners used to have enough power and clout to get legislation passed, but now nobody feels the need to be nice to them. We would all rather elect stronger partisans who don't get anything done than compromisers who would . . . compromise.

Which Gerson says is a shame. Both parties should see enough of themselves in Lieberman to want to court him -- he's actually in a unique position of power somewhere in between the parties, and by rights both sides should be baking him cookies. Also, because he's a good guy.

Here's a hint for anyone who's inclined to take the cookie-baking option. If you're baking for His Holiness, you would do well to find ways of stuffing large quantities of cash in the baked goods -- I'd say five figures' worth as a starting bid. It's really the only thing that can be counted on to get the senator's attention, unless you count criticism of Israel of any kind, regardless of how outrageous its behavior. (I guess it's proof of the degree of your loyalty when you can defend the object of your devotion when its behavior is the most indefensible.)

Of course the Holyman has made a great show throughout his political career of being an Old Testament moralist, when what he really is an Old Testament kvetch who uses his fake morality as a cloak for his real interest: defending megacorporate America against any challenges to its rightful hegemony over Americans.

In her PostScript post Rachel M doesn't formally take sides; she quotes pro-Joe commenters as well as the smarter Joe-haters. But could anyone fail to see which way the balance of justice tips?

joachim1 tells us how he really feels:

Ending up alone is what happens to traitors who sell themselves to whichever side offers the most at the moment. This man who professed to believe in much, demonstrated he believed in little. Other than his AIPAC-fueled Israel-first mantra over his career, Lieberman stood for little that was not for sale or trade. Now that he has outlived his usefulness to the Republicans as a propaganda tool, they, not surprisingly, have no more interest in him. Nor do Democrats, those that elevated him to be the first Jew to be nominated VP. The man is disgusting, and it is unlikely that even large rocks will grant him space under which to hide.

sober1 likewise understands why nobody wants Lieberman around:

Lieberman has lost credibility with both parties due to his inconsistencies. He wasn't elected by Independents, yet he claims to be one, just as he's claimed to be a Republican and a Democrat in the past. What he is now is anybody's guess, though a loose cannon comes to mind as most accurate.

Whereas the pro-Joes have arguments like this one from Walter16:

I find my views to be far closer to those of Senator Lieberman than to those of either Romney or Obama. Presently, I am favoring Obama in the next election but I am not happy with the choice.

What can that mean, to have views that are "far closer to those of Senator Lieberman" than to those of anyone else? "Views"? What views? You mean, like: If it's not nailed down, it's meant to be stolen."

In the end, Rachel does sort of tip her hande, concluding:

PostScript sees no reason why Lieberman can't have his own convention. He could even invite all the other people nobody wants in their party: George W. Bush, Al Gore, PostScript, Bernie Madoff, Snooki, etc. Okay, now PostScript sees the advantage of being a party of one.

It's true that the Senate as newer-fangled models of creeps and thugs. But even as the Jesse Helmses and Strom Thurmonds of yesteryear have given way to Jim DeMints and John Kyls, that's hardly grounds for nostalgia.

#

DC Politicians All Want To Be The King Of K Street-- Yes, Even So-Called Democrats

Yes, they're pro-Choice & she's even pro-gay, but when it comes to corruption... they're as bad as any Republican

A friend of mine in Congress explained to me why he would probably have to support Debbie Wasserman Schultz for Speaker when Nancy retires, even though he realizes what a gigantic step down she would be from Nancy, who, for all her flaws, is a political giant and one of the best Speakers in the history of the House. My friend's worry is that if it isn't Wasserman Schultz, who, he says, at least has "energy" and would want to accomplish something, the alternative is likely to be Steny Hoyer. "If Steny becomes Speaker," he told me, "every single bill will be sent right to K Street and nothing worthwhile will ever get passed. Everything will go through K Street... everything." That's our Steny. In fact, that's our whole political elite. So Lee Fang's story in The Nation, Ann Palmer's report in Politico, Zaid Jilani's post at the Daily Change and Mike Barbaro and Ashley Parker's gossipy, fashion-oriented story at the New York Times all came flooding out yesterday with tales of lobbyists at the DNC, it didn't exactly take me by surprise. And, if you're even a casual reader of DWT, it shouldn't have taken you by surprise either.

Obama doesn't want the lobbyists too close to the convention. So... they're a few blocks away. And the politicians come to them. Is it as gross and despicable as it was at the Republicans' convention? Well, not that bad... but bad enough so that everyone involved should be tossed into prison cells and let us get started over again. Jilani:

Last week’s Republican National Convention was a no-holds-barred party for lobbyists for Big Business. From free espresso from fracking lobbyists to nightly parties with Coca Cola and weapons lobbyists, Big Money had a great time at the convention last week.
But these corporations aren’t exactly sitting on the sidelines at the Democratic convention this week.

It’s true that the host committee for the convention took an historic and important step of for the first time ever refusing to take any donations from lobbyists or corporations.

But that isn’t stopping Big Business.

The American Petroleum Institute, American Gas Association, Credit Union National Association, Pfizer, among others are hosting parties a mile away, and some especially toxic corporate predators like Piedmont Natural Gas, Wells Fargo and Florida Crystals Corporation (Debbie Wasserman Schultz's crooked pals at the sugar lobby) are sponsoring one thing or another. "Duke Energy, notorious for battling any effort to curb climate change, extended a $10 million line of credit for the party to hold the convention, and its CEO has given $100,000 to the host committee," writes Jilani. "The Democrats," he continues, "will boast of sticking up for the little guy and taking on Big Business during their convention speeches this week. And by most measures, they do accomplish these tasks far better than the opposition party. But as the lavish events hosted by lobbyists and corporations right outside the convention walls (and in the swag bags) show, corporations still have far too much influence in even the Democratic Party. or, as Lee Fang put it in his report, "One of the biggest untold stories of the Obama administration is the extent to which supposedly Democrat-led lobbying and PR firms were eager to help undermine Democrats’ progressive agenda on behalf of corporate interests... [and} as delegates prepare to arrive in Charlotte for the DNC, it’s worth noting that the guy who was in charge of producing the event the last time is now working to elect Mitt Romney." Anna Palmer:

Obama made good on some of his promises, barring lobbyists from a host of roles in his administration and blocking them from giving money and serving on advisory panels. He also required officials to publicly report contact with registered lobbyists on specific pieces of legislation, such as the stimulus package.

But despite turning lobbying into a bad word, K Streeters say not much has changed-- it’s still all about who you know. ... Podesta [the sleazebag from the gossipy, fashion-oriented story referred to above, a Democratic K Street "powerhouse," which doesn't get Steny Hoyer as angry if you use the word "whore"] said the only effect Obama’s policy had was to create a class of unregistered lobbyists-- people who deregistered from being lobbyists. Those people after two years can enter into the administration, give campaign contributions to the Democratic National Committee and the Obama reelection committee, and can serve on advisory boards.

As for the revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street, it's as effective in sapping the nation's strength as it's always been. The entire corporate lobbying industry is parasitic and only exists because it's convenient-- and profitable-- for congressmen. Who do you blame more, the bribe-taker or the bribe-giver? This billboard could be any senior Republican and almost any senior Democrat:

Watch How Fast Lobbyists Will Get Busy Lobbying Against Frank Wolf's Provision

According to an item in Al Kamen's "In the Loop" column from Thursday's Washington Post it looks like ole Frank Wolf (R-VA) may be spoiling the whole premise of Ken Silverstein's delightful book about Beltway lobbying. Turkmeniscam: How Washington Lobbyists Fought to Flack for a Stalinist Dictatorship, a book we've covered here with great affection in the past. According to Kamen, there'll be no more working for the bad guys... at least not if Wolf's provision that got approved by the House Appropriations Committee makes it all the way into law, something I'll believe when I see-- and after I examine the loopholes. Kamen points out that the provision "trims a lucrative client base for former presidents, members of Congress, top spies and senior political appointees. Those officials, as well as retired generals and admirals, would be barred from lobbying for certain unpleasant governments-- and any companies they own or control -- for 10 years after leaving federal office."

Which countries, exactly? It would apply to "any countries the State Department designates as a 'Country of Particular Concern' for severe human rights violations and religious persecution... so, as of now, Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Uzbekistan. Did you catch Saudi Arabia on that list? And China?

In 2007 Harper's published a piece by John MacArthur, The Vast Power of the Saudi Lobby. MacArthur notes that "The long and corrupt history of American-Saudi relations centers around the kingdom's vast reserves of easily extractable oil, of course. Ever since President Franklin D. Roosevelt met aboard ship in 1945 with King Ibn Saud, the special relationship with the desert kingdom has only grown stronger. The House of Saud is usually happy to sell us oil at a consistent and reasonable price and then increase production if unseemly market forces drive the world price of a barrel too high for U.S. consumers. In exchange we arm the Saudis to the teeth and turn a blind eye to their medieval approach to crime and punishment."

Although the Saudi ambassadors have had enough influence in Washington on their own-- especially when they have business partners like the Bushs in the White House-- to not even need lobbyists, it's estimated that they've spent something like $100 million to DC lobbyists since 2000. Hill & Knowlton, a heavy duty pack of corrupt mostly Republican lobbyists, has been working for them since 1982 (as well as for Kuwait, the BCCI, the Church of Scientology, the fracking industry and the tobacco industry). Principles include former Bush factotum and Rove partner Dan Bartlett, Bush and McCain aide Mark McKinnon, and former congressman and Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta. Another recipient of Saudi largesse is another of Washington's sleaziest and least trustworthy lobbyist firms, Qorvis (whose offices were raided by the FBI in 2004) and which specializes in representing rogue governments and brutal international pariah states and ruthless criminal billionaires from all over the world. Aside from the Saudis they also represent Koch Industries, Halliburton, the Bahrain "royal" family, Massey Energy, the Mortgage Bankers Association, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the Sugar Association and Amazon.com. Considered among the worst of the worst, even inside the Beltway sewer system, Qorvis doesn't care if their employees are Democrats (like Matt Lauer and Rich Masters) or Republicans (like John Reid), just as long as they don't let ethics or patriotism get in the way of their efforts. The Saudis have rewarded them with over $60 million so far. Other particularly slimy K Street firms peddling influence for the Saudi "royal" family include the Gray Loeffler Group ($10.5 million), headed by ex-congressmen Ted Loeffler (R-TX) and William Gray III (D-PA); Patton Boggs (over $3 million), a ConservaDem firm best known for backing the worst of the international "free trade" assaults on American workers and staffed with half the right-wing Democrats you ever heard of from former Louisiana Senator John Breaux to a bunch of ex-congressmen named Boggs from the Louisiana bogs-- and they hire Republicans too, of course, like Benjamin Ginsberg, the architect of Bush's theft of the 2000 election in Florida; Burson-Marsteller (over $3 million) with household names like Mark Penn and Karen Hughes; Dutton & Dutton (over $3 million) once headed by Democratic power broker Fred Dutton, also known as "Fred of Arabia" and "Dutton of Arabia"; and Fleishman-Hillard (over $6 million).

Saturday Zaid Jilani published a piece in Republic Reports discussing how some of the most vile and contemptible former Democratic members of Congress-- lowlife scum like Blanche Lincoln (Blue Dog-AR) and Bud Cramer (Blue Dog-AL)-- had a conference to bitch about how there just aren't enough conservative Democrats anymore and how hard it is to find people easily bribed on their side of the aisle.

As Kamen noted, an earlier version of Wolf's bill had "a worldwide ban on such lobbying, but that seemed a bit too much for some members. The financial services bill, a must-pass measure, is headed for conference with a Senate version. We’ll see whether the Senate goes along. (Before panic sets in, it should be noted the bill is not retroactive.)"