American Conservative Union Pushes Back on Politico Pay-for-Play Story

Washington Independent ^ | 09/17/2009 | David Weigel

[iowamark]

Dennis Whitfield of the American Conservative Union has sent out a press release on today’s embarrassing Mike Allen story that alleges a pay-for-play proposal between the conservative group and FedEx.

"" “An article containing a false headline has been published by Capitol Hill newspaper Politico today regarding an issue with expansion of the National Labor Relations Board.

This article concerns two letters; one issued by ACU and another issued by a separate organization.

Mr. David Keene’s name was on a letter prepared by another organization. This was a personal decision on his part and he was not representing ACU at the time. No permission was given by ACU, and no logo was provided by ACU, to the organization who issued the letter in question.

ACU’s policy position on this issue has not changed and it will not change.

ACU’s positions on important policy issues have never been for sale.

ACU does not support moving businesses under the jurisdiction of the NLRB or expanding the federal government’s power, reach or authority under the NLRB.

In fact, as we pointed out last year when auto bailouts were first proposed, the actions of organized labor in Detroit helped lead to a downfall of America’s storied auto industry. This is a clear example of what can happen when organized labor extends its fingers too far into American business.

In this regard, ACU stands with the policy that FedEx should not be placed under the NLRB.

This was ACU policy – before and after – any letters in question were drafted.

No contributions, to date, regarding this issue have been given or promised to ACU from any organization mentioned in the Politico article.""

For the record.

[iowamark]

First ACU response.

[iowamark]

It took ACU several hours to respond. It does appear that they understand what serious trouble they are in. This release totally repudiates the Keene ACU letter supporting the Democrats and UPS.

Will anyone buy the repudiation?

Will Keene be punished by the ACU or the NRA where he is Vice President?

[listenhillary]

I haven’t been watching the game. Has the ACU been over run with liberals yet?

[rintense]

Anyone who leads the ACU and donates to Romney is not conservative.

[iowamark]

http://reason.com/blog/show/134873.html
“”UPS and FedEx are waging a war over labor regulation. We have an article in the works on the topic, so I won’t get into all the details, but here’s the bare bones: FedEx is regulated by the Railway Labor Act, which is not very union-friendly, while UPS falls under the National Labor Relations Act, which is more congenial to organizing. A union-backed bill would change this, so that a significant portion of FedEx’s operations would fall under the NLRA. Not surprisingly, UPS likes this idea and FedEx does not.

Enter the American Conservative Union. Politico reports:

” The American Conservative Union asked FedEx for a check for $2 million to $3 million in return for the group’s endorsement in a bitter legislative dispute, then flipped and sided with UPS after FedEx refused to pay.

For the $2 million+, ACU offered a range of services that included: “Producing op-eds and articles written by ACU’s Chairman David Keene and/or other members of the ACU’s board of directors. (Note that Mr. Keene writes a weekly column that appears in The Hill.)”...

In the three-page letter asking for money on June 30, the conservative group backed FedEx. After FedEx says it rejected the offer, Keene signed onto a two-page July 15 letter backing UPS.”

Politico calls this “pay to play.” Keene’s group denies that it has received any money from UPS, which makes the situation sound more like “pay or we won’t play.” You may suggest your own terms in the comments.

So a Democratic bill to help unions = a proxy battle between competing companies = an entrepreneurial opportunity for a right-wing lobby. Multiply those motives by the number of bills before Congress each session — adding extra for those mammoth bills where the stakes are really high, such as cap and trade — and you’ll start to get a sense of what politicking means in practice.””

[iowamark]

ACU June 30 letter to Fedex:
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM130_fedex_grassroots_proposal_6-30-09_final.html

ACU July 15 letter backing the Democrats.
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM130_feex_letter.html

[Bob J]

I’ve read all the materials involved and have come to the conclusion that the Politico article is misleading at best. The letter written to Fed Ex by the Ret. Senator did not include any endorsements of the UPS position but merely challenged FedEx to cease misrepresenting the issue as a “guv bailout” to UPS.

Now one could could argue forcing FedEx to negotiate union contracts with individual union houses (as opposed to one national contract) could lead to higher operating costs for FedEx giving UPS a better competitive position, but I agree with the letter, this is not a “government bailout” by common terms and definitions and to use that language in this way mitigates it’s effectiveness. If everyone opposing any kind of business or consumer legislation called it a guv bailout, the term would soon become confusing and useless.

This could be a political smear job of the ACU by Politico.

As to the “deal” Keene was offering FedEx, conservatives have to wake up and realize this is how business is done every day by politically oriented NGO’s, non profits and organizations. I’m not saying it’s great, just that that is the way it is and has been for a long time.

All one can hope for is that they reserve this kind of support for issues they believe in and that truly reflect the philosophy of the organization they represent.

But do not be blind, this is business as usual.

[Cboldt]

-- This release totally repudiates the Keene ACU letter supporting the Democrats and UPS. --

I've been beating this issue here, at Volokh Conspiracy, and the letter Keene signed is an objection to using the word "bailout" in reference to a bill that modifies collective bargaining law. Keene (not that I like him) and the ACU are and have been against this change in law, have been and are in FedEx's side of that issue, and have been and are against UPS's side in this issue.

ACU was going to charge a fair price for millions of pieces of direct mail, etc. - not to take a particular side.

Plenty of people are falling for the the conflation of "tactics" with "issue position," and I doubt many will figure out the difference in the long run.

[Cboldt]

-- This could be a political smear job of the ACU by Politico. --

That's exactly what it is.

[iowamark]

Sounds like you are bending over backwards to sympathize with the Democrats. Forget the tactical and economic issues. The moral issues are not difficult to see here.

[Cboldt]

-- Sounds like you are bending over backwards to sympathize with the Democrats. --

How so? I think the Politico article is false, that the June 30 offer to FedEx was reasonable, and the letter signed by Keene (objecting to the label "bailout") was also reasonable.

I didn't write the top article over there at Volokh - you'll see my contributions there under the same handle I use here, "cboldt."

[Bob J]

“ACU was going to charge a fair price for millions of pieces of direct mail, etc. - not to take a particular side.”

Who knows if it was fair, if you want this kind of ACU support you'll have to pony up...but the ACU is not alone, many if not most political and issue organizations on both sides engage in this “rent a mob” mentality. How do you think the dems get buses full of church goers to their activism events? The churches don't have new robes for the choir every year from member donations.

It's up to the individual to decide how they feel about it. I think most just decide it's all for the greater good of their org.

A little bit if FR history. The issue of using FR as a “rent a mob” is what caused one of the biggest blow ups and falling outs in FR history involving the most popular and visible member in it's early going. In this case FR wasn't the beneficiary of the largess or goodwill, it was for the individual who, it appeared, was promising FR support and activism efforts to a politician to advance their career.

Most people never knew what happened but her supporters believed this person had been railroaded out of FR for no reason. It caused a rift right down the middle between critics and supporters which carried over for years.

FR and the FR Network was in it's infancy and destined to be something great on the activism scene but the outfall from this incident drove a stake right through the heart of it and although strides were made and successes recorded, it never recovered. Too much suspicion and backstabbing.

A house divided and all.

[Cboldt]

-- Who knows if it was fair, if you want this kind of ACU support you'll have to pony up... --

Well, yeah. They offered millions of pieces of direct mail, etc. But I don't think they would have taken UPS's side, even if paid - and that is the accusation being insinuated by Mike Allen and being picked up by the vast majority of media outlets.

-- ... one of the biggest blow ups and falling outs in FR history ... --

Connie Hair & Alan Keyes? Or a different "blow up"?

-- FR and the FR Network was in it's infancy and destined to be something great on the activism scene but the outfall from this incident drove a stake right through the heart of it and although strides were made and successes recorded, it never recovered. Too much suspicion and backstabbing. --

It is a sad story, to be sure. I wish I had the magic formula to cause people to coalesce around a common, valuable truth while setting aside selfish interests and immaterial differences.

But on this ACU / Keene / FedEx / UPS story, it is Politico making an issue more or less out of thin air. As I noted above, I don't think ACU would have adopted or advocated UPS's side.

[Route797]

But do not be blind, this is business as usual.

And that's one reason our nation is in such lousy shape.

[Bob J]

Funny, it didn’t involve Keyes, although I’m pretty sure he wasn’t far down the free cheese line.

[Cboldt]

-- ... it didn't involve Keyes, although I'm pretty sure he wasn't far down the free cheese line --

True, that!

I think selling the public on issues is exactly the same as selling the public on hula-hoops. That's a fairly bleak proposition, as hula-hoops are just a toy, but I think it's true. The public is pretty much being taken for a ride.

[Bob J]

I've have worked with some of the people involved and I can say pretty much without pause they are sincere in what they do. But if someone wants a career in the political orbit you have to find a niche or have some shtick. It also has to pay the office bills and the mortgage on your house. So while the practice may seem smarmy to some it is neverless a reality that donations alone rarely cover the budget so many look for ways to “maximize income and profits”. Having those lists and “activists” are also political power.

It does get a little smarmy when you find out the titular head of the organization, the big name, also owns (maybe in wifes, children or partners names) many of the vendor businesses supplying services or products to the “nonprofit”. In effect profits are being directed from the NP to these regular corporations that don't have the same reporting requirements and can operate in anonymity. The NP puts out it's annual report to the guv and donors declaring they made no money and everything was spent spent on the “program services” that support the objectives that allow it to be a NP in the first place. In fact a portion of those profits are being “funneled” to those second and third tier companies they control.

All perfectly legal and they all do it.

But you are correct, in many ways politics is nothing more than a commodity being peddled by smart business people.