• 
• 
• 
• 
by Mark Silva
Sen. John McCain, the self-styled maverick from Arizona, has run with an establishment crowd in Washington for some time now.
In 2000, when McCain set out to seek the Republican Party's presidential nomination, his campaign charter jet landed in New Hampshire early on with some lobbyists aboard.
David Broder, dean of the politicial writers, was aboard that plane. And he duly noted the presence of Ken Duberstein, the lobbyist and former chief of staff for Ronald Reagan, aboard the plane of the senator running as the anti-establishment candidate.
Yours truly was on that plane, too, and duly noted the presence of Tom Panza, a Florida-based lobbyist for GTech, the lottery-management company that has mopped up contract after contract in the states running lotteries and provided lucrative employment for a lot of former state workers in the process.
After McCain trounced George W. Bush in the New Hampshire primary, Bush retreated to Texas to refine his campaign message and reemerged as a "reformer with results'' -- attacking McCain as "the Chairman'' -- then chair of the powerful Senate Commerce Committee.
Bush won, McCain lost, and now McCain is back again, seeking the 2008 nomination -- with some lobbyists in tow again.
How many? More than any other candidate -- Republican or Democrat -- according to the work of Tom Edsall, a seasoned political reporter who has written extensively about the role of money in politics and long worked alongside Broder at the Washington Post. He serves now as political editor of The Huffington Post, in addition to his teaching at the Columbia University Gradulate School of Journalism.
This is what Edsall reports today about McCain:
McCain Has More Lobbyists
On Staff Than Any Other 08 Candidate
Thomas B. Edsall
The Huffington Post
June 23, 2007
John McCain, who made his name attacking special interests, has more lobbyists working on his staff or as advisers than any of his competitors, Republican or Democrat.
A Huffington Post examination of the campaigns of the top three presidential candidates in each party shows that lobbyists are playing key roles in both Democratic and Republican bids --although they are far more prevalent on the GOP side. But, all the campaigns pale in comparison to McCain's, whose rhetoric stands in sharp contrast to his conduct.
"Too often the special interest lobbyists with the fattest wallets and best access carry the day when issues of public policy are being decided," McCain asserts on his web site, declaring that he "has fought the 'revolving door' by which lawmakers and other influential officials leave their posts and become lobbyists for the special interests they have aided."
In actual practice, at least two of McCain's top advisers fit precisely the class of former elected officials he criticizes so sharply. On March 7, 2007, McCain named ex-Texas Representative Tom Loeffler, who has one of the most lucrative and influential practices in the nation's capital, as his campaign co-chair. In the same month, McCain named former Washington Sen. Slade Gorton, now a heavyweight lobbyist, as his honorary chairman for Washington state.
Loeffler's client list includes PhRMA, the drug industry association; Southwest Airlines; Toyota; and Martin Marietta. Gorton represents, among others, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp., Weyerhaeuser and Fidelity National Financial.
In addition, David Crane, now the campaign's senior policy advisor, was a senior executive at The Washington Group, a firm with 2006 billings of $10.4 million and 52 clients, including Delta Airlines, the Association of American Railroads, and the governments of Panama and Bangladesh. And Charlie Black, who is now a campaign spokesman appearing on McCain's behalf on radio, television, and as a "spin-doctor" after debates, is chairman of BKSH & Associates, with lobbying billings of $7.6 million in 2006, representing J.P. Morgan, Occidental and General Motors.
All told, there are 11 current or former lobbyists working for or advising McCain, at least double the number in any other campaign. Among the current and former lobbyists working for McCain are: Campaign CEO Rick Davis, a partner at Davis Manafort, where his clients have included SBC Communications and Verizon; and former Davis Manafort associate, National eCampaign Director Christian Ferry. At the end of 2006, Mike Dennehy, who founded The Dennehy Group, a New Hampshire lobbying firm, was appointed McCain's national political director. He gave up that post in May to become a senior campaign advisor
McCain's deputy communications director Danny Diaz did not reply to questions about the campaign's policies governing the activities of lobbyists.
McCain is not the only Republican to depend substantially on the help of lobbyists. In January, 2007, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney picked Vin Weber, a member of Congress from Minnesota until 1992, to be his policy chairman. "As I continue building a national organization, he [Weber] will be an important voice in advancing my agenda to move the country forward," Romney said.
Considered one of Washington's "super lobbyists," Weber counts among his clients such drug industry powerhouses as PhRMA and Pfizer; accounting firms Ernst & Young, KPMG and Deloitte Touche, along with such companies as Microsoft and Ebay.
Senior Romney adviser Ron Kaufman is a managing partner at the lobbying firm Dutko Worldwide. Romney also hired lobbyist Tony Feather, whose close ties to the Bush administration have given his clients exceptional access to power, as a top political consultant.
Rudy Giuliani is less reliant on big league lobbyists. The chair of his Justice Advisory Committee, Theodore Olson, was a registered lobbyist last year for Hoffmann-LaRouche. Senior communications advisor Michael McKeon is a partner at Mercury Public Affairs a federal and state lobbying firm which "specializes in high-value public affairs at the intersection of business, government, politics, and media." But Giuliani himself is a partner in the firm Bracewell & Giuliani, and in the most recent filing period, the second half of 2006, the firm represented 90 clients before the federal government. Bracewell & Giuliani, which is headquartered in Texas, specializes in advancing the interests of energy companies, along with such businesses as CSX Transportation and the Power Tool Institute. Bracewell & Giuliani's managing partner, Patrick Oxford, is the chairman of the Giuliani campaign. Although the firm and many of its lawyers are registered lobbyists, neither Giuliani nor
Oxford are personally registered.
On the other side of the aisle, Democratic campaigns have fewer ties with lobbyists.
Of the leading Democratic candidates, Barack Obama is the least entangled with K Street. His campaign has no lobbyists on the payroll or serving as key advisers.
Obama is followed by John Edwards. Nick Baldick, a senior Edwards adviser, is not a registered lobbyist, but he is the founder of Hilltop Public Solutions. Hilltop "manages its national network of state affiliates to build support for our clients' public policy goals," boasting of victories for "the nation's largest financial services firm, one of the nation's largest airlines, a major fast food retailer, the world's largest healthcare provider, and numerous additional industry leaders."
The Edwards campaign political director, David Medina, was a lobbyist for the AFL-CIO from 1998 to 2003.
While falling short of McCain's ties to lobbying networks, Hillary Clinton has made the most use, among Democrats, of the special interest community.
Chief Clinton consigliere Harold Ickes represents the International Dairy Food Association, Equitas, and TransCanada Pipelines. Finance Director Jonathan Mantz came to the campaign from the PodestaMatoon lobbying firm where his clients included Sigma Tau Pharmaceuticals, General Dynamics, and United Airlines.
Clinton's chief strategist, Mark Penn, is president and CEO of Burson-Marsteller, a public relations behemoth in the nation's capital. Although Penn is not a registered lobbyist, his company is part of the WWP Group conglomerate, a "family of companies" including such heavy hitting lobbying firms as BKSH (Alcoa, Kaiser Aluminum, AT&T) and Quinn & Gillespie (Bristol Myers Squibb, Qualcomm, and Microsoft).
Penn's controversial role has been written up by Ari Berman in The Nation
The growing role of lobbyists reflects a major change in their status in campaigns. Once consigned to conducting their work in secret, lobbyists now thrive on publicity, routinely appearing on television as political commentators. Even running for office is no longer out of the question: a stint as a lobbyist did not prevent Jim Talent from winning a seat from Missouri in the U.S. Senate nor did one of the most powerful lobbying careers in history hamper Haley Barbour's successful 2003 bid to become governor of Mississippi.
Thomas B. Edsall is political editor of the Huffington Post. He is also
Joseph Pulitzer II and Edith Pulitzer Moore Professor at the Columbia
Graduate School of Journalism. From 1981 to 2006, he was a political
reporter at the Washington Post. He is the author of Chain Reaction and Building Red America.
Comments
You know this article was written by a liberal because:
1)The author treats McCain as a serious contender for the Republican nomination.
2)The author refers to McCain as a "maverick."
3)The author uses the Huffington Post as a source.
Posted by: S. Sherman | June 23, 2007 7:00 PM
Hey Sherman, do you read things, or simply look for reasons not to read things?
Posted by: Mark Silva | June 23, 2007 8:06 PM
Mark, I am waiting for a snarky, negative article about St. Barack. I promise I will read that one.
Posted by: S. Sherman | June 23, 2007 9:22 PM
SS,
1. McCain IS a serious contender
2. Silva refers to McCain as a 'self styled' maverick.
3. You don't like Huffinton because she bolted the conservative cause in horror. Guess she is human after all.
As usual, you are wrong on all counts.
Posted by: C.Morris | June 23, 2007 9:40 PM
Hey Shermie, what's wrong, didn't RNC robot Bruce give you the latest Wingnut talking points?
Why don't you two knuckleheads try commenting on the actual stories instead of constantly telling us about your paranoid fear of the media telling the truth about the Republitards.
The truth is out of the bag, Shermie, everyone already knows that the GOP is wetting the bed.
You're right SS Sherman, McCain is finished so I'm wondering, is crossdresser Rudy Gigoloiani going to tap his business partner Hugo Chavez as his running mate in 08 if he/she gets the robot's...I mean Republican nomination?
Posted by: John E | June 23, 2007 10:34 PM
My respect for McCain's military service is waining more and more as McCain toadies up to Dubya more and more.
Yeah, he's toast.
Posted by: Doug Zook | June 24, 2007 10:16 AM
McCain is a Maverick? Haha!
Last I saw, he was the Bush heir. A man that had no ideas but to continue Mr. 26%s agenda forward.
The guy will get trounced since people see who the man really is.
It's about time that the days of GOP leadership will be over. They will have lost every federal position of power (president, senate, house) and a majority of local/state senate, house and governorships.
Posted by: alex | June 24, 2007 10:27 AM
I gag every time I hear John McCain referred to as a Maverick. It's lame titles bestowed by the media that allow insiders like McCain to run as an outsider. There is nothing anti-establishment about McCain unless you consider his not running from the Bush administration policy like other Republican candidates.
Posted by: Steve He | June 24, 2007 11:54 AM
"Mark, I am waiting for a snarky, negative article about St. Barack. I promise I will read that one."
Right. Do you remember Fox News reporting Barak was educated at a militant Muslim Madrasa?
http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2007/01/26/obamas-madrasa-story-still-bouncing-around-fox-news/
At least this article has merit. I love right wingers little pet name for truths. "Liberal Media Bias"
Posted by: Jeff S | June 24, 2007 12:13 PM
America's serious problems are all on hold and have been for a long time. There can be no improvement to our health care because Congress is owned be PhRMA and the insurance lobby. We have an energy problem but this weeks energy bill is feeble because of special interest power, McCain must seem like a safe bet for the status quo to all the special interests. After all, he was an original member of the " Keating five"
Posted by: c. perry | June 24, 2007 12:19 PM
S.Sherman is right...McCain is out of money and his support has fallen,infact he's in third place to a man,Fred Thompson,who hasn't even announced he's in the race yet.
McCain is not a serious contender,like Edwards and Obama.
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | June 24, 2007 1:36 PM
I am from Arizona, and I will tell you that McCain is finished in this state. If he choses ever again to run for the Senate from Arizona he will lose the race. He is in direct opposition with his constituency on many issues, but most prominently on illegal immigration--and he refuses to listen to his base. He never will get the GOP nomination for president.
Yes, he is a decorated war veteran, an ex-POW, and a retired Naval officer, but that carries him only so far. Every conservative Republican, ex-Republican, and Independent I know absolutely detests the man for the shell of a man he has become while serving as a Senator.
Posted by: JonE | June 24, 2007 1:50 PM
I thought McCain might be the real deal until he began to show the bush butt kisser that he was. It seemed every time the "decider" drew criticism, he was there to defend. If for no other reason than the dirt/lies thrown on McCains war record in the bush/McCain primary, you would have though he would have seen through bush. However he has proven to be nothing more than the usual "party first, American public second".
Had he stood on the principals expressed in that campaign and very early in the bush presidency, I could have strongly considered voting for him. Not any longer, wanting to be president changed him and for the worst.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 24, 2007 1:57 PM
McCain diverges from the Republicans on certain issues, just as Joe Lieberman diverges from the Democrats on some issues.
I googled "maverick McCain" (with quotation marks) and I got 15,500 returns. Many of these were major newspapers and TV networks. However, when I googled "maverick Lieberman" I got only 7 returns.
The liberalpress refers to Republicans who disagree with their party as "mavericks." For some reason, it does not use that word so much to describe Democrats who do the same.
Posted by: S. Sherman | June 24, 2007 3:02 PM
Yes, Sherman, Mark seemed very uptight about your post. Could it be that the truth upsets him?
Mark, where is the Swamp post about the two Hillary books that say she broke the law and perjured herself?
Where is the Swamp post about the continued illegality of Hillary's Hollywood fundraiser in 2002?
Where have the Swamp posts been about Barack and Rezko? The Sun-Times at least has been reporting on that.
Where are the Swamp posts about all the Reid sons doing lobbying?
Posted by: John D | June 24, 2007 3:19 PM
Lobbyists on candidate's "teams." I'm shocked! Shocked! As Reilly, on "The Life of Reilly," used to say, "What a revoltin' development this is!"
Posted by: frank67 | June 24, 2007 4:35 PM
The "liberal press" refers to Republic Party members who disagree with the Republic Party as "Mavericks".
Posted by SS Sherman June 24, 2007 3:02 PM
Sherm the Germ,
When did the GOP aliens steal your brain?
Independent thinking Republicans are usally referred to as "Mavericks" because it's so shocking to people who live in the real world to see a Republic Party member not march in braindead lockstep with the GOP party line.
To bad McCain decided to give up on his independent thoughts in 2000 and decided to become a fulltime Republic Party Nazi again in 2003.
Posted by: John E | June 24, 2007 5:52 PM
John, the Ex-Con, E. (thought I follow up Dingbat Johhnny E's Sherm the Germ in kind): Could you please cite any Democrats who don't march in lock step with the DNC leadership? Who has independent thought, or any thought for that matter?
Posted by: John D | June 24, 2007 6:04 PM
McCain will never win the nomination, much less the election. He is raging against the dying of the light. He is unelectable on so many levels it's a joke. He is being humored by the RNC and the rest of the party in his efforts. He will eventually back out of the race before the mud gets slinging, because if he gets too close, believe me you will be surprised at some of the things you will hear.
Until the Dems realize and admit what a gigantic liability Hillary is, you can expect more of the same from the Left. That is: Losing. She's ready for her close-up, people. Scary. The fact that she is even being considered as a serious candidate for the presidency is flat-out bewildering. I am a conservative Democrat and I am going on my eighth consecutive year of disappointment: John Kerry? Al Gore? Hillary Clinton? John Edwards? These people come off like robots. That is why the only chance is Obama, who at least hasn't been programmed beyond showing glimpses of his personality. That's how Bubba got elected (twice). That's how JFK beat Ike's much more experienced VP (Nixon) in 1960. This is not about experience or issues. The winner will be who Joe & Jane Blow feel comfortable enough to invite to dinner in their house. Right now those people are Giuliani and Obama. Giuliani? Face of strength in one of our darkest hours; he makes us feel good. Obama? Come-from-nowhere, fire-in-the-belly feel-good persona with a great smile; makes us feel good. (Both of these images are mostly fabrications, but generally accepted as truth.) Al Gore? Environmentally conscious, bulbous would-be media guy; makes us feel bad about merely driving our car to work. And Hillary? If the Dem establishment caves to Hillary and gives her the nod, you can hand another election to the GOP. The best thing she has going for her is her husband, but she won't use him to campaign until it's too late (if at all) because she's so bitterly and mistakenly convinced that she's earned her entire political career on her own.
Posted by: Becky | June 24, 2007 11:22 PM
"Fatherland, Socialism, or Death!
(what the heck, my basement is getting cold and lonely)
Posted by: John E. | June 25, 2007 12:53 AM
John D bringing the crazy as usual. I respect McCain conviction but disagree with his stand on to many issues. I hope he enjoys retirement. J.D. keep drinking the Kool-Aid.
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | June 25, 2007 6:13 AM
Could you please cite any Democrats who don't march in lock step with the DNC leadership? Who has independent thought, or any thought for that matter?
Posted by: John D | June 24, 2007 6:04 PM
Please make an appointment this week for a long overdue lobotomy John D. You also neglected to pay for your last visit. p.s. take your meds.
Posted by: John D's analyst | June 25, 2007 6:44 AM
I consider myself an independent and I am watching all candidates closely.
Because of their stance on the Immigration Bill (all are for the Shamnesty), I put the Demos on the back burner.
Then, during the last Demo debate, the question was asked
"91% of Americans want English as Official Language, by a show of hands, how many would support it" Only one raised their hand (Gravel).
Forget English as Official, here's my question to the Democrats,.
Why would you vote for a President that would not support an issue that 91% of the American people wanted?
I am not trying to be a smart ass here, I am very confused as to why anyone would vote for any candidate that has already shown they would not support the will of the majority of the American people.
And I am very confused as to why a Presidential candidate would show they care less about the will of the people.
Am I missing something here?
Are Democrat politicians so arrogant that they think their constituents are too stupid to know what they want? Are we actually to be lead like sheep? Are they all elitists that are just going to use our elected leader seats to further their own agendas?
If so, then they are no better than Bush and I will not vote for another Bush.
This very afternoon, my little media company is starting on a question video for the YouTube video debate and this is the question we are going to submit to the Democratic candidates. I hope they choose it as I would love to see the candidates shuck and jive on this question. Especially Hillary and Obama.
Posted by: Robert Courtney | June 25, 2007 7:55 AM
Yes, Sherman, Mark seemed very uptight about your post. Could it be that the truth upsets him?
Posted by: John D | June 24, 2007 3:19 PM
In all honesty, I don't know how he doesn't interject more. I don't know how he puts up with you little ankle biters. "Truth upset you?"
You idiots wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the butt, which in your case would be close to your brain. I have grown tired of reading and writing in the swamp and the main reason is you..John D. My children have already grown and I see no reason to keep reading a little childs rants. You are the worst example of an American there is...yet you tell everyone on the left to leave the country. Nobody wants to live in our world John. It's no different than a dictatorship.
Posted by: bill r. | June 25, 2007 8:02 AM
Son, there is nothing more I can do for you other than lock you up in the basement for life. You are my John Hinkley.
Posted by: John E's father | June 25, 2007 8:22 AM
St. John McCain's bid for the presidency is toast. He's no more of a maverick than Chimpy. He decided to stick like glue to Mr. 26%. His campaign will be effectively finished by December.
Posted by: weinerdog43 | June 25, 2007 9:01 AM
Since reporter Mark Silva vouches for the excellence of fellow reporter Tom
Edsall, perhaps he should report what Tom Edsall thinks of reporter's political bias. From Hugh Hewitt's radio talk show, Sept. 21, 2006 (via hughhewitt.com):
"HH: ...But given that number of reporters out there, is it [the political leanings of reporters] ten to one Democrat to Republican? Twenty to one Democrat to Republican?
TE: It’s probably in the range of 15-25:1 Democrat."
Edsall also admits that he never has voted for a Republican presidential candidate. Which makes him a perfect candidate to be cited and vouched for by Mark Silva.
Posted by: Bruce | June 25, 2007 11:17 AM
I googled "maverick McCain" (with quotation marks) and I got 15,500 returns. Many of these were major newspapers and TV networks. However, when I googled "maverick Lieberman" I got only 7 returns.
The liberalpress refers to Republicans who disagree with their party as "mavericks." For some reason, it does not use that word so much to describe Democrats who do the same.
Posted by: S. Sherman | June 24, 2007 3:02 PM
Gentlemen, this might be really REALLY tough for your robot brains to compute, but JOE LIEBERMAN IS NOT A DEMOCRAT. He's an independent, which I would argue would make the term "maverick independent" rather redundant.
Posted by: A Real Maverick | June 25, 2007 11:21 AM
So-called "Real Maverick," Joe Lieberman was a Democrat, ran as VP as a Democrat, even ran for re-election as a Democrat until becoming an "Independent." He caucuses with the Democrats. If he didn't caucus with the Dems then it would be 50/50 in the Senate with Cheney as the tie breaker, effectively putting the Senate in GOP control.
Comprehend?
Posted by: John D | June 25, 2007 2:34 PM
A Real Idiot writes:
JOE LIEBERMAN IS NOT A DEMOCRAT.
Lieberman was Democrat for many, many years, until he was kicked out of the party for not faithfully toeing the line.
Question: Who was the Democratic candidate for Vice President in 2000?
Posted by: S. Sherman | June 25, 2007 2:49 PM
John McCain and Joe Lieberman are proof that dinosaurs still roam the earth. Vote democrat in 2008.
Posted by: Dinosaur Hunter | June 25, 2007 3:04 PM
S. Sherman-
Joe Lieberman voluntarily left the Democratic Party to further his own political ambitions after losing a primary. He was not "kicked out".
Was Michael Bloomberg "kicked out" of the Republican party?
Posted by: Tony | June 25, 2007 3:10 PM
Tony, Bloomberg never really was a Republican anyway. He only became one becuase it was the only way he oculd become mayor. He could not win a Democratic primary in NY. Bloomberg also changed in midstream (again). Lieberman lost his general election to a left wing fanatic. So he became an "inpendent." But I ask you, again, does he still not caucus with the Dems? And if he didn't caucus with the Dems, wouldn't the Dems then lose control of the Senate?
Posted by: John D | June 25, 2007 4:26 PM
Edsall also admits that he never has voted for a Republican presidential candidate. Which makes him a perfect candidate to be cited and vouched for by Mark Silva.
Posted by: Bruce | June 25, 2007 11:17 AM
The Bruce RNC stooge attack Mark Silva and the Tribune campaign continues unabated. John Deranged continues guzzling Kool-Aid. McCain sink further into obscurity.
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | June 25, 2007 8:19 PM
Edsall also admits that he never has voted for a Republican presidential candidate. Which makes him a perfect candidate to be cited and vouched for by Mark Silva.
Posted by: Bruce | June 25, 2007 11:17 AM
The Bruce RNC stooge attack Mark Silva and the Tribune campaign continues unabated. John Deranged continues guzzling Kool-Aid. McCain sink further into obscurity.
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | June 25, 2007 8:19 PM
"Lieberman lost his general election to a left wing fanatic. So he became an "inpendent." But I ask you, again, does he still not caucus with the Dems? And if he didn't caucus with the Dems, wouldn't the Dems then lose control of the Senate?
Posted by: John D | June 25, 2007 4:26 PM
He lost the Primary Johnny D, not the general election. They are differnt things.
The answer to both of your questions is "yes." What does that have to do with the fact that he was not thrown out of the Democratic Party?
Posted by: Anonymous | June 25, 2007 10:18 PM
Logic, it's kind of like watching a car accident. It's horrible, but you can't turn away. I keep waiting for the next idiotic post.
Posted by: weinerdog43 | June 25, 2007 10:40 PM