I don't write this as an anti-Clinton diary, a hit piece, or as a means of support for my candidate. I am writing it to illuminate why contributions to federally registered lobbyists matter in this campaign, why that practice is more than just symbolic, and why it is so pernicious as regards our democracy.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is hosting a fundraiser in Washington DC next week. Like many fundraisers, it is a $1,000 dollar a plate luncheon. But this is no ordinary luncheon, no ordinary buffet for well-heeled donors who want to rub elbows with political elites. This fundraiser is different. And I'm going to tell you why, after the jump...
I work as a consultant. Thats what my firm calls me. Its mostly bullshit. In reality, I (and the firm I represent) are federal contractors. The large firm I work for does business with commercial and government clients, but the vast majority of such work is done for federal government clients. I don't use the term federal contractor as a four letter word -- I believe the work I do as a consultant, or contractor, to the federal government is of vital importance and that it is always above board. My firm makes very clear to me their strict standards of accountability. There are loads of firewalls in place. I can't even buy one of my client-coworkers so much as a beer or contribute so much as a dollar to a retirement gift fund. The firm takes this very seriously. It is a matter of our integrity not just as employees, but as an organization. I have rarely seen a firm in any industry take its regulatory compliance as seriously. And we have an outstanding record of compliance to back it up.
But there is a reason why such regulatory barriers are in place. We have seen the damage that the undue influence of certain contractors, particularly KBR and its associates, have had in Iraq, and how deleterious an impact that has had on American interests and on American taxpayers.
One of these firewalls that federal law places between federal contractors and politics is FEC law. As most of you know, when you write a check to a candidate's campaign, you check a box on an FEC disclosure form that indicates in some form or fashion that those funds are not coming from a federal contractor.
Here is the relevant part of FEC Law:
Federal government contractors may not make contributions to influence Federal elections. For example, if you are a consultant under contract to a Federal agency, you may not contribute to Federal candidates or political committees. Or, if you are the sole proprietor of a business with a Federal government contract, you may not make contributions from personal or business funds. But, if you are merely employed by a company (or partnership) with Federal government contracts, you are permitted to make contributions from your personal funds.
That is as stark as you can make it.
Now, what does this have to do with Senator Clinton and her upcoming fundraiser?
ABC News' Blotter describes the nature of the fundraiser:
Just days after the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, Hillary Clinton and several Democratic lawmakers will be getting uncomfortably cozy with moneyed interests who have stood to reap billions in post-9/11 homeland security spending, watchdog groups say.
On the sixth anniversary of the attacks which killed nearly 3,000 people, Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton is slated to attend a sober memorial service near Manhattan's Ground Zero.
One week later, the junior New York senator is scheduled to speak at a homeland security-themed, $1,000-a-plate fundraiser for her campaign in the downtown Washington, D.C. offices of a powerful legal firm.
"Being a week after 9/11, it appears unseemly and politically opportunistic," said Steve Ellis, a former Coast Guard officer who is now vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington, D.C. good government group.
Clinton's fundraising audience is expected to include many of the government contractors and lobbyists whose fortunes have soared in the years since the attacks, which triggered a massive government reorganization and billions in new government spending.
But that's not the only objectionable feature of the event, critics say.
For the price of a ticket -- from a $1,000 personal donation to a $25,000 bundle –- attendees will get a special treat after the luncheon: an opportunity to participate in small, hour-long "breakout sessions" hosted by key Democratic lawmakers, many of whom chair important subcommittees on the Homeland Security committee.
From my experience, everything the article says about the lucrative nature of DHS contracting is true. Every contractor wants the inside edge on that market. It is the new 800 lb gorilla (The DoD being the original one).
Here's the key part of the story:
"It's an outrage," said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Washington, D.C. good-government group Project on Government Oversight.
"You never want to see lawmakers trading on their national security credentials...to people making large donations," Ellis concurred.
The break-out sessions include:
First Responders, with Reps. Henry Cuellar, Texas (chair, Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response Subcommittee of Homeland Security Committee) and Nita Lowey, N.Y. (Appropriations, Homeland Security Committee)
Intelligence and Information Sharing, with Reps. Jane Harman, Calif. (chair, Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment Subcommittee of Homeland Security Committee) and C. A. "Dutch" Ruppersburger, Md. (chair, Technical and Tactical Intelligence Subcommittee of intelligence committee)
Border, Maritime and Global Counterterrorism, with Reps. Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas (chair, Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection Subcommittee of Homeland Security Committee) and Jerrold Nadler, N.Y. (Transportation and Infrastructure Committee; Judiciary Committee)
Science and Technology, with Reps. Jim Langevin, R.I. (chair, Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, Science and Technology Subcommittee of Homeland Security Committee; intelligence committee) and Ellen Tauscher, Calif. (chair, Strategic Forces Subcommittee of Armed Services Committee)
National Security, with Reps. Kendrick Meek, Fla. (Armed Services Committee) and Joseph Sestak, Pa. (Armed Services Committee)
"Political fundraising should have no relationship to policy recommendations," said Brian, a former policy analyst for Congress. "Most of these [participants] are seasoned policymakers. How can they not see this as wrong?" It only made things worse, she said, that the event was centered around so sensitive and vital a topic as homeland security.
The Clinton campaign and most lawmakers participating in the event did not respond to requests for comment for this story.
These "breakout sessions" with key lawmakers involved in DHS appropriations, military affairs, and other related subcommittees represent a delicious menu of access opportunities to federal contractors. Each item on that menu representing a tempting and tasty market.
But federal law prohibits contractors from attending $1,000 a plate luncheons, so whats the problem?
Meet Jerome Hauer, formerly Giuliani administration Emergency Management point man and also formerly a senior exec at major federal security/defense contractor SAIC and a managing director at federal security contractor Kroll Associates.
Mr. Hauer's current profession: FEDERAL LOBBYIST. His clients? Kroll, among others.
And Mr. Hauer is not just attending Senator Clinton's $1000 dollar "chat with a security lawmaker" session (which is illegal for contractors)... he's a $25,000 (at least) host.
Federal Contractors can't donate cash to campaigns for a reason. Federal Lobbyists can.
And when it comes to Clinton taking contributions from Federally registered lobbyists, this is where the rubber meets the road.
One of the arguments that Hillary has made to justify taking money from lobbyists is that there is no difference between taking money from lobbyists and taking it from the corporations who hire them.
In many cases, she's right. But here's an instance where there is a difference -- where lobbyists are the loophole through which contractors leverage money to gain access that would be illegal if they did it themselves.
And if you think that Senator Clinton's campaign didn't design this event for the sole purpose of exploiting that loophole, you are out of touch with reality. Take it from someone who knows. There is nothing remotely interesting about discussing the nitty gritty of first responder communications policy or port security protocol changes with a member of congress. No "average joe" wants to pay $2300 to have that discussion. Only people with direct business on those issues and who are seeking a competitive edge want that access.
Hillary said at the Daily Kos forum:
You be the judge.