The Curious Case of Anti-Tax-Fairness Lobbyists.
It is an odd and curious duality: the lobbyist who doubles as an anti-tax-fairness advocate. On one hand there's the individual whose day job is to cruise the halls of the various legislative offices with a hand out, looking to score some government cash for the pet project, idea, notion, etc. for whom they represent. Then there's the night job: the metaphorical caped crusader who snags media face time in order to stoke up anti-government teabaggers and squelch government's ability to get the revenue the day-job-lobbyist says they must have.
One such Two-Faced character is Dick Armey, leader of Freedomworks:
Led by former Republican leader Dick Armey, the conservative group FreedomWorks has attacked the Washington establishment this year, challenging bailouts, health care legislation and other policies that violate the group's free-market ideology.But for more than six years, FreedomWorks' own chairman flourished at the heart of that establishment, earning $750,000 a year to lobby for banks, green-energy producers and companies trying to shape the stimulus package that FreedomWorks opposed.
Armey recently left his lobbying day-job with DLA Piper, a lobbying firm that had Armey advocating for such anti-Freedomworks things like legislation to create a trust fund for people that suffered from asbestos poisoning. At the same time, Armey was cutting radio ads for Freedomworks asking folks to call senators to oppose it.
Oregon has an interestingly similar dynamic. Lobbyists Mark Nelson and Pat McCormick both have clients who lobby for public funds. The goofily and dubiously named Oregonians Against Job-Killing Taxes are being funded by a number of entities that go to the legislature asking for financial love, most noteably Associated Oregon Industries and Associated General Contractors, who as I understand it lobbied for the gas tax.
I'm curious if our legislators who did the right thing in voting for the corporate tax increase and the personal income tax increase are watching how ballsy these guys are. They're completely willing to show up at the legislator's office begging for help--but as soon as the session is over, rush to the arms of their other lover in a duplicitous Armey-style affair worthy of a bad beach novel.
When session begins anew next year, will they welcome back their cheating paramours like a battered spouse who doesn't leave the bad (and dangerous) relationship?
|
November 11, 2009 |
Carla Axtman | Comments (41 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Not a robot | Nov 11, 2009 8:45:57 PM
Moxie - calling out a "duplicitous Armey-style affair worthy of a bad beach novel." Double-speak sucks.
Posted by: Mud Wrestler | Nov 11, 2009 8:58:20 PM
Carla, when you can't win on the facts attack the messenger! Cool!
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Nov 11, 2009 9:03:34 PM
Carla, the name is brilliant. it has everything. most of all, it has No. but add to that "job-killing" and "against ... taxes" - it's going to be tough to work against that, especially with voters who'll start to pay attention when they see a ballot has arrived in the mail.
Posted by: LT | Nov 11, 2009 10:58:36 PM
TA, do you know any voters who fit this description?
"especially with voters who'll start to pay attention when they see a ballot has arrived in the mail. "
I have already had a conversation about these measures with a busy friend who abstained on Measure 30 because he had thought it was a referral, not a referendum---and discovered he was impressed with the link to the LRO ballot explanation information provided. Also with a very busy young relative who is a working mother of a one and a half year old but did have several minutes to spare at a family gathering. Not to mention an old friend one day after church.
If everyone here has not had similar conversations with everyone they know who does not pay attention to politics about these measures already, the time is now. Often information from a known and trusted friend is more believable than ads which cost a lot of money to produce.
Posted by: RyanLeo | Nov 12, 2009 3:19:19 AM
If political insiders are simultaneously stoking anti-government sentiment in public, while playing the favor game for tax payer dollars in private, then the solution is simple.
Expose them.
First, start off by recruiting idealistic, journalism students for an internship where they follow so and so around all day long with a video camera and use other intrusive devices to get information when the doors are closed.
Second, if that fails to attract attention, then advertise it out to the Bus Project and other individuals who could provide you with a population is more than eager to take them head on with video cameras, bugs and all sorts of intrusive equipment.
Finally or first, hire private investigators.
These political insiders are doing this because they know that they can say one thing in public and do the exact opposite in private. If you had a few individuals following them around with video cameras for a few months or a year, then maybe you will change their behavior, while simultaneously exposing them.
Posted by: paulie | Nov 12, 2009 6:17:04 AM
Carla, you have just posted about the tip of the iceberg. Keep it up.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Nov 12, 2009 7:40:49 AM
"Attack the messenger" -- that sounds like such a cute and pithy dismissal. But the fact is that there are organizations who are represented in the Capitol by lobbyists who are working against their interests. The judges, for example, already dropped Nelson. The question is: how many others will do the same?
The only thing a lobbyist has is credibility. If they've lost that, in the eyes if the people they're lobbying, then they're no good to their clients.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Nov 12, 2009 7:47:06 AM
Carla, when you can't win on the facts attack the messenger! Cool!
Which messenger? The one who goes to the legislature with his hand out while subsequently working to undermine that same effort by stumping against taxes?
You mean that one?
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Nov 12, 2009 8:03:42 AM
Good points all Carla. The other rap on these guys is that they don't represent the interests of their own alleged base.
Armey is fighting to hold back a government intiative that attempts to return US manufacturing to a bit more level playing field globally, by reducing the crushing healthcare burden that US industry carries, and the European and Asian firms do not.
So who's interests is he pushing?
**************
Same thing with these Oregon guys. First they approved a flat tax hike of $300 for the corp minimum, and now they are going all over the state arguing that the graduated tax (with 90% of business paying half that amount at $150) adopted by the lege is going to cost the state tens of thousands of jobs.
So who's interests are they pushing?
Posted by: Ralph | Nov 12, 2009 9:48:58 AM
Does PERS being upside down have anything to do with the "need" for these tax increases? Just wondering.
Posted by: Peri | Nov 12, 2009 10:09:16 AM
Not a "pass the popcorn" moment? This is certainly that magnificent party politics opera. No contradiction. They support their party, even if that means flipping.
Just like the Dems trying to sell a crap bill that contradicts what they crafted to Karol at the Farmer's Market. Pure party support. Logic be damned.
No difference. No change. No hope.
Posted by: mp97303 | Nov 12, 2009 10:10:37 AM
Dick Armey and the rest of the GOP suffer from an incurable disease: hypocrisy.
As for whose interests they serve, that is obvious. Their own. THe GOP has total control from 2000-06 and what social conservative issue did they achieve? Gays weren't exiled to a remote island. Abortion is still legal. No prayer in school. The list goes on and on. Nothing was done in the interests of their base.
Posted by: Darin | Nov 12, 2009 10:20:35 AM
ROFL, yeah Carla, the Repubs definitely have the market cornered on hipocrisy, don't they?
Mean while, environmental guru Joe Bidens Armored SUV runs down and kills man. Did he look like bu$h?
Posted by: Boats | Nov 12, 2009 10:34:49 AM
I must say that it was a shocking revelation that people and business concerns with money hire agents to advocate for their own best interests and say different things intended for different audiences--just like regular folks and "social justice" activists do.
Take where advantaged by policy and fight when disadvantaged. How surprising it was to find out that only conservatives engage in such multiple front tactics.
Talking out of both sides of one's mouth is hardly a monopoly created by conservative lobbyists. What about the Jane Q. Public "health care reformer?" "Hey everybody, spend your money to help me pay for my healthcare which I cannot afford, but don't you dare tell me to not use your money for an abortion." Nope, not at all like that. Only conservatives are so stupidly contradictory or cynically hypocritical so as to ask for a governmental benefit in one breath and rail against a governmental burden with the next.
What would we call someone who on the one hand wants their governmentally coerced hand out--but on the other, doesn't want any governmentally mandated interference when spending other peoples' money? For the sake of consistency, perhaps the labels should be the same as for someone whose business lobbies for governmental funds and then resists higher taxation of their livelihood?
Say what, and give up the cheap and easy cognitive dissonance?
Posted by: John Calhoun | Nov 12, 2009 11:13:21 AM
I remain puzzled by why the Democrats in Salem listen to people like Nelson. I don't think that the Republican lobbyists in Washington DC have much luck with most Democrats. I assume that most companies move their Washington lobbying to different firms as the power center in DC changes, but I don't sense that happening in Salem.
Nelson has some good non-profit clients that should move their accounts, but they need to understand that they are being used by Nelson. He uses them to get in the door to develop relationships with Dems and then pushes his other agendas.... which ultimately result in screwing the non-profits. He currently represents Head Start schools in Oregon, but his anti-tax position will do severe damage to all of those schools.
Posted by: Greg D. | Nov 12, 2009 11:14:40 AM
This post demonstrates a certain lack of understanding of how most larger law firms and lobbying firms work. Virtually every big firm has clients with different perspectives. One day a lawyer might be arguing in Bend that Developers are the great satan, the next week the same lawyer (or one of his partners) may be arguing in Pendleton that Environmentalists are the great satan. Or vice-versa. There are a few small firms or politically motivated firms who always and only take one side of an issue, but they are the exception, not the rule.
Posted by: Geoffrey Ludt | Nov 12, 2009 11:21:31 AM
Hey Carla,
Dick Armey and FreedomWorks are opportunistic. As volunteer state coordinator for Oregon Tea Party, I can testify that the bandwagon was joined by FreedomWorks not the other way around. Your perceived duality rests on the fallacy that FreedomWorks is somehow calling the shots, I can assure you that this is not the case (we who advance liberty don't react well to centralized control - it's just not how we march). I believe FreedomWorks has joined in the fight as a means to promote FreedomWorks -- which is their right, we're grateful for the additional exposure they bring to the table.
Posted by: Rob | Nov 12, 2009 11:40:01 AM
Republican/libertarian politics is a business for many "leaders", not something idealistic, for the common good, the long term interests of the Country, patriotic, or even for their constituents/audience.
Is it any different than raising money for an initiative, candidate or recall that then flows into your signature gathering, consulting or lobbying business?
Posted by: Judicial Independence | Nov 12, 2009 12:22:24 PM
Re: Mark Nelson, I heard the judges hadn't yet decided to dump Nelson. He's apparently arguing that because he's leading the anti 66/67 forces that, if 66/67 fails, he'll be a key player when the Legislature meets in February to consider what to cut, and how to cut, and what taxes may be acceptable to business.
Nelson also represents the Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association. That's interesting since the vast majority of the members of OCDLA rely on government funding through indigent defense appointments.
I don't know Mr. Nelson, but because of his influence, I'd frankly be somewhat afraid of dumping him at this point if I were a client. After all, if he is in a position of influence in February, lets just say that a rejected suitor can be vindictive. Particularly if they want to teach someone (current and future clients) a lesson.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Nov 12, 2009 12:32:15 PM
I don't know Mr. Nelson, but because of his influence, I'd frankly be somewhat afraid of dumping him at this point if I were a client.
Hi Mark! Thanks for joining us here at BlueOregon! How about dropping the anonymity?
Posted by: Kaylee | Nov 12, 2009 12:49:27 PM
I have to agree with Kari, the only thing a good lobbyist has is their reputation. If they are a double-talking hypocrite, no elected official worth their salt should give them the time of day or believe anything they say on any issue. A good lobbyist knows to be effective they have to be truthful and forthright at all times.
Many of those leading the opposition to 66 and 67 are being so duplicitous it strains belief. How can you go hat in hand to the legislature for funding and tax breaks and then turnaround and oppose 66 and 67?
This campaign is an opportunity to stand up and be counted. Businesses and other organizations who lobby the legislature on budget and tax issues need to have the balls to stand up and support these measures, even if they have to pay a little more in taxes, or the legislators on the budget and revenue committees should hold them accountable for their duplicity and hypocrisy.
Posted by: JJ Ferguson | Nov 12, 2009 1:06:20 PM
Good lobbyist? What a fiction! They're bagmen and women, pure and simple. Only a party hack could talk about "good bagmen". The Dems remind me so much of the mafia.
The GOP at least resemble their moniker. At least the ones drunk on mangoes I saw in India. Unlike most Dems, a jackass can be useful.
Can't believe I agree with Boats. Must be time to end it all. Feel like I need to go wash at least.
Posted by: LT | Nov 12, 2009 1:21:14 PM
"After all, if he is in a position of influence in February, lets just say that a rejected suitor can be vindictive. Particularly if they want to teach someone (current and future clients) a lesson."
Lobbyists control their clients?
I seem to recall the lobbyist for OSBA standing up with Karen Minnis one year at a big showy press conference which implied that every school board member (incl. those running for school board at the time of the press conference) would agree with the Minnis position on whatever it was.
We all know Minnis lost the Speakership when majority changed (in part because of those stunts?).
What I heard somewhere was that members of OSBA who were in charge of hiring the lobbyist were not happy with that press conference. And that when asked why OSBA allowed that, the answer was "that person is no longer working for OSBA".
DeHart's appearance in Salem at a local debate on 66 and 67 included his comment along the lines of "people understand that until they become state legislators".
Turns out when Doyle's replacement appointment was made, Cameron got the appointment instead of De Hart.
Anything which looks like personal pique is not going to help the cause of the anti-taxers.
What WOULD help them seem less petty is a discussion of alternatives to the taxes in a format which doesn't sound like inside baseball ("well, they rejected our idea" sounds petty--people's ideas get rejected all the time out in the real world!).
WHAT would they cut--don't tell us that cuts wouldn't happen.
Don't tell us that all good people swear by the "all funds budget" and won't question the wisdom of that approach.
How about a debate about ending fund balances. How about a debate over kicker reform?
"But at least we didn't raise your taxes" is not what balances a budget, and any games which might take the winter session past the end of Feb. are not going to impress those who voted in the current majority.
Or could it be that the anti-tax legislators think voters are stupid?
"We'll wait and see what happens" sounds like people scared of a wide ranging debate about alternatives in 2009 before the election.
There are ordinary folks just going about their daily lives who see lobbyists as (in the words of one relative) "just looking out for their rich clients and don't care about ordinary folks". This statement was made by a stay at home Mom whose husband works in corporate development, so don't imply otherwise.
Lots of people working with young people, working in sales or manufacturing, or even running small businesses get tired of the insider crowd who don't seem to care about ordinary folks.
Veiled threats like " if they want to teach someone (current and future clients) a lesson." only serve to make constituents curious about which lobbyists a legislator listens to, and build a support base for campaign/lobbying reform.
Posted by: LT | Nov 12, 2009 1:23:32 PM
"or the legislators on the budget and revenue committees should hold them accountable for their duplicity and hypocrisy."
How about holding the Republican members of the Revenue committees responsible for finding alternatives to these taxes and debating them publicly?
THESE ARE BAD TAXES is a slogan--can they think beyond that or are they intellectually lazy?
Posted by: Paul Cox | Nov 12, 2009 2:50:02 PM
Republican/libertarian politics is a business for many "leaders", not something idealistic, for the common good, the long term interests of the Country, patriotic, or even for their constituents/audience.
Because the system is essentially conservative. I hate to gloat..OK, I don't. The simple answer is that it's different when you do it because you're not the system (thankfully).
Case in point.
In his decision dismissing a lawsuit filed by Orly Taitz late last month, U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carterr mentioned that some witnesses complained that the birther chief urged them to lie on the stand. Now, more details are out, as one of the witnesses has made his affidavit public.
If you did that you'd be facing prosecution. How thick can people be? We have a 9mm in every pocket for TEA rallies, and you have to take off your shoes to get on a 45 minute flight! Religion gets a tax break and you have a TSA guy (conservative) admiring your full body scan. You really can't see who's in charge, can you?
It is incredible what you can see in a full body color scan. Probably undercuts security, though. Not easy thinking on your feet with the next potential perp when you've got a boner on.
Posted by: Jack Roberts | Nov 12, 2009 3:25:56 PM
I remain puzzled by why the Democrats in Salem listen to people like Nelson.
Because Mark is smart and honest. The successful lobbyists in Salem (and I assume elsewhere) are the ones who provide legislators with reliable information that they can rely on without risking being embarrassed later.
Of course, they present their client's side of the argument, but they also advise legislators of the arguments on the other side along with their counters to it. That's why a smart legislator wants to hear from the smartest and most reputable lobbyists on both sides of an issue before making a final decision on a bill they are unsure about.
The fact that Oregon has a part-time legislature and therefore many lobbyists moonlight as campaign consultants doesn't make them dishonest or disreputable. And whether you like Mark Nelson's clients or not, he is one of the most respected--and effectiv--lobbyists in Salem for good reason.
And to show you how smart Mark is, I can't remember any of his clients ever putting much money into any of my campaigns.:-)
Posted by: Peri Brown | Nov 12, 2009 3:40:56 PM
Because the system is essentially conservative.
Think you're hot camel snot, eh? What about SC license plates? Judge ruled against you. Plenty with salmon, save the owl, etc. You seem to have let one get away there!
Had to get that dig in before the Supremes or some kangaroo appeals court with Shrubbery judges gets it.
Posted by: John Calhoun | Nov 12, 2009 3:46:18 PM
Jack,
I appreciate your comment. Especially the last sentence.
Posted by: Mike M | Nov 12, 2009 4:28:53 PM
Jack reminds us of a very important point. The most successful debater is one who knows both sides of an issue, and has enough information to argue either side convincingly.
Posted by: Grant Schott | Nov 12, 2009 4:46:12 PM
As many readers know, Nelson was allied with Democrats and unions for years, starting out as an aide to big name Democrat and current Judge, Jim Redden .
He obviously has a different cliental now.
Posted by: Grant Schott | Nov 12, 2009 4:50:01 PM
I'll try the link again, Jeff Mape's article from August 8th, 2008 click here
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Nov 12, 2009 4:50:11 PM
So, lobbyists are just like attorneys?
Attorneys are charged with defending their clients by any legal means possible. Justice occurs when the judge or jury decides which story to believe or which case law cited should be considered relevant and credible.
That's the justice system, and we all hope that given these parameters, there will be some fair play as a result although fair play is not the goal of any professional involved.
***********
Jack's certainly not on lonely territory when he lays this template from the legal system over lobbyists and asserts them to be basically the same. Yet, the actual game being played in Salem is supposed is about getting the best results for the state.
Paid lobbyists by job description, are tasked with selling legislators a product or POV.
I've never understood the equivalence argument made here.
It's destructive to good government when any paid lobbyist pours four and five figure contributions onto a legislator's desk and we all call it listening to the experts.
Posted by: Scott in Damascus | Nov 12, 2009 5:00:02 PM
Isn't Mark Nelson the same lobbyist behind the bogus letter from a Salem school teacher trying to get you to vote against a proposed cigarette tax but was really mailed from Nelson's office? Is that the same Mark Nelson, a lobbyist for big tobacco (a.k.a. Oregonians Against the Blank Check) that sent out the misleading letter which appeared to be personally written by an elementary school teacher, but was actually sent out by Nelson?
Smart? Maybe.
Honest? Not by a long shot.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Nov 12, 2009 6:16:21 PM
Smart? Maybe.
Honest? Not by a long shot.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
Posted by: Pete Forsyth | Nov 12, 2009 7:35:32 PM
Pat Ryan said:
So, lobbyists are just like attorneys?
Not a bad point, but there's an important detail the analogy misses: attorneys are officers of the court, bound by a pretty sophisticated and highly-regarded ethical code that constrains and guides their behavior in defending their clients' interests. (In other words, it's not just anything legally possible, but anything legally and ethically possible.) There's an entire organization charged with defining and enforcing that ethical code.
We have a few laws and guidelines regulating the behavior of lobbyists, but it's not nearly at the same level. I believe there's a much stronger ethos of "no harm, no foul" among lobbyists.
What I say here isn't intended as a value judgment on either profession, merely an observation of an important determining factor on behavior.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Nov 13, 2009 12:06:01 PM
What I say here isn't intended as a value judgment on either profession, merely an observation of an important determining factor on behavior.
I'm not arguing against either group. I'm arguing that it is up to legislators and their staffs (most of whom will go on to become lobbyists), to take lobbyist provided info with a few bags of salt, and to understand going in that lobbyists are not going to validate information that opposes the POV of their clients.
Ever.
Posted by: Pete Forsyth | Nov 13, 2009 3:34:09 PM
@Pat fair nuff. I suspect legislators engage with that reality daily (seems comparable to telling a convenience store clerk "I know you wouldn't believe it, but there are people who will steal small packages of candy if they're within reach), but it's a useful one for the rest of us to contemplate.
Posted by: Pete Forsyth | Nov 14, 2009 12:08:21 AM
The thing that will always stand out to me about Freedomworks is their membership scam. I almost feel like they shouldn't be mentioned without reference to it, it was so appalling. I'm sure BlueO has reference to it in the archives, I think this was where I first learned of it.
In essence, if I remember correctly, they were selling insurance policies which -- unbeknownst to the customer -- included something like a $10 FreedomWorks membership fee. Then the customer's identity information was passed on to FreedomWorks, and FreedomWorks added the insurance customer to the number of members it was reporting.
Devious in the extreme. And as far as I know, they've never admitted wrongdoing, and nobody lost their job over it.
Totally shameful.
Posted by: Zarathustra | Nov 14, 2009 4:30:09 AM
Following on from Forsyth's insight, one can argue that that "legal but unethical" bit affects other critical professions as well.
I've argued for years that blank cheque Information Technology is the biggest drain on both corporate and public sector bottom lines. In this year's EP elections the Green party made reform and open source solutions a central plank in their platform. In IT it's even worse though, as there is no general consensus on best practices to even begin creating an ethics with. It is literally a matter of individual conscience. The malaise began in 1978 with the PC revolution, and was the Snake Oil that powered the .com frauds.
Ralph Nader gets disparaged a lot on here, but he provides the best example of how the problem can be addressed. Imagine what cars would be like if he had never created the whole consumer awareness axis to balance Detroit. Pretty much where we're at with lobbyists and IT.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: LT | Nov 11, 2009 8:44:51 PM
http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20091111/UPDATE/91111031
is a fascinating case study--esp. the attitude of De Hart who tried for the legislative appointment which went to Cameron.