Undercover, Under Fire

EARLIER THIS YEAR, I put on a brand-new tailored suit, picked up a sleek leather briefcase and headed to downtown Washington for meetings with some of the city's most prominent lobbyists. I had contacted their firms several weeks earlier, pretending to be the representative of a London-based energy company with business interests in Turkmenistan. I told them I wanted to hire the services of a firm to burnish that country's image.

I didn't mention that Turkmenistan is run by an ugly, neo-Stalinist regime. They surely knew that, and besides, they didn't care. As I explained in this month's issue of Harper's Magazine, the lobbyists I met at Cassidy & Associates and APCO were more than eager to help out. In exchange for fees of up to $1.5 million a year, they offered to send congressional delegations to Turkmenistan and write and plant opinion pieces in newspapers under the names of academics and think-tank experts they would recruit. They even offered to set up supposedly "independent" media events in Washington that would promote Turkmenistan (the agenda and speakers would actually be determined by the lobbyists).

All this, Cassidy and APCO promised, could be done quietly and unobtrusively, because the law that regulates foreign lobbyists is so flimsy that the firms would be required to reveal little information in their public disclosure forms.

Isn't Harpers a liberal rag? Doesn't matter. This should be a an effort that all of us care about.

The original expose came out in Harper’s magazine. That website requires membership, but the whole article can be found here:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062407G.shtml

I thought that Silverstein’s idea was pure genius. Seeing how the game is played can shock taxpayers. With that said, none of what he exposed is really surprising. And none of it is illegal. That is just how the game is played.

As players in an increasingly global game, these lobbyists are Masters of the Universe. These guys walk the corridors of power, greasing the wheels and priming the pump. They often send their favorite Congressmen on vacation or “fact finding trips”. They have influence in appropriations and earmarks, where they actively lobby for pork being added on to the legislation. They are quite successful, and it costs taxpayers a bundle.

These people are the gatekeepers of massive amounts of wealth and influence. They have think tanks and university professors in their pockets so that they can drop op/ed pieces in papers across the nation to manipulate public opinion. And they have Congress in their pockets too.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Not to quibble, but there's a distinction to be made here between "lobbying" and "public affairs." A lobbyist is a fellow who comes through your door to discuss his client's/employer's position. My experience of the breed is that they're upfront about who they represent. In fact, the messier the issue and the more unappealing the client, the liklier it is that the lobbyist will hit the negatives head on: "Yes, I represent Big Tobacco, and here's why you should stand up to the lynching mob and support Big Tobacco on this issue." Clients will pay big bucks for advocates who can do this effectively.

Devil's advocates are essentially forced to be transparent because their credibility is gone if they deceive, say, a congressman about an unattractive client or issue. Lead a congressman into a trap and you've made an enemy for life. In a nutshell, the lobbyist is a professional dealing with professionals, and he has long-term personal credibility on the line.

Most congressmen -- the smart ones, not the stupes -- genuinely want to know both sides of the issue because (1) back home, they know they'll be jumped by people on both sides, some of whom will actually know what they're talking about, and (2) in Washington, to deal on the Hill they ultimately have to negotiate and compromise with, or defeat, the opposition in a peer to peer contest.

As a result, even if he's hopelessly partisan in approach, a congressman needs to understand where the other side is coming from. At a personal level, he lives in a world where he interacts intensively with people who understand the issue. He doesn't want to sound stupid when debating with colleagues, staff, and knowledgeable constituents. There are exceptions, but the really stupid ones are just too dim to understand how bad they sound. The stupes, however, get far more publicity than they deserve because they deal at the reporters' level.

The sort of activity being described in this article, however, is "public relations" or "issues management," not "lobbying" in the classic sense. Here we're not talking about face to face meetings where the lobbyist has both the opportunity and the need to get down into the nitty-gritty. The target of public relations is public opinion as mediated by the press.

This is a very different proposition, much driven by the fact that the typical reporter is liable to default to a (usually left-liberal) party line unless he is properly handled. The issue is chronic. Pack journalism drives most of the press. How do you get a dissenting view into the debate? A public relations firm can help with issues placement. That's a perfectly legitimate function.

The press, like most academics, can and often do live comfortably in a world untroubled by any effort to take the other side seriously. That is why they so often remain ignorant. Clients will pay big bucks for public affairs managers who can slip a dissenting message through the media's veil of ignorance.

I don’t agree with everything you said, but I do appreciate the intelligent response. You gave me a different take, and I thank you for that.

Maybe there is a distinction between lobbying and public affairs, but when viewed from the inside (read the article) the lobbyists aren’t making that distinction. They are claiming it is all one package. One firm boasts about a man on staff that has placed thousands of pieces of op/eds and that is all he does. They are claiming to have think tanks and University professors in their camp which they can mobilize if they get the contract. It is distressing to say the least. In the end this will make every American cynical to every opinion (Who paid for that?).

And you do admit as much when you say that “Clients will pay big bucks for public affairs managers who can slip a dissenting message through the media’s veil of ignorance.”

That veil of ignorance is essential for them is they wish to succeed. If they do have Congressmen in their pocket those congressmen need to be assured that the media will not come out against them if they fight for a particular cause and expose them. By having some element of control of both the media and the congress they can assure both that they all can get paid and nobody is going to complain.

I acknowledge that I make it far simpler than the nuance of real day affairs, but there is truth to this, and there is truth to the article and one man’s crusade to expose the infrastructure.

What is distressing to me is that this can be posted and conservatives don’t unite against it. I weep for our party, for our values, and I weep for the ghost of my moniker, Milton himself. The truth is that Republicans have sold themselves out to K-Street and that the number of lobbyists has increased like no other time in history since 2000 on.

We like to promote democracy, and I believe in and have a fundamental faith in free people. While we spread democracy around the world, our nation continues down a path of a quid pro quo statist nation serving the powerful interests. I am not naïve enough to think that this has never had influence, but the nature and the rules of the game keep evolving and dramatically changing.

Bill Gates is an important man. When he speaks people should listen. He is more important than me. We all don’t have the same power. Bill creates jobs and wealth and infrastructure. He gives to causes. I don’t mind that he has more power and influence than me, he deserves it.

I guess it comes down to tactics at some point. The media manipulation and the backroom deals are a sticking point for me. I think that this should be a more upfront process. To see these people work as they do every day shocked me. And it shouldn’t have, because I should have known it all along.

Fans of small government should clue into that article. Who cares if it was Harpers that blew the cover off of it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.