by Frank James
When is a ban on lobbyists in an administration not a ban on lobbyists in an administration? When you need a lobbyist who knows how the Pentagon works to help run the defense establishment.
That's the situation the new Obama Administration finds itself in. Obama nominated William J. Lynn III as his Deputy Defense Secretary in a role that would require Lynn to essentially be the chief operations officer in that mammoth bureaucracy.
But Lynn was among, other things, a lobbyist for Raytheon Co., one of the nation's largest defense contractors.
To not violate the new executive order the president signed yesterday, Lynn would require a waiver from the new administration.
That would seem to violate the spirit of Obama's ban, something which numerous people, including the Project on Government Oversight, are now pointing out:
"POGO believes strongly in the revolving door restrictions President Barack Obama has outlined to restore integrity and ethics to government," said POGO executive director Danielle Brian. "It is because we believe so strongly in the positive impact that such a change will have that we urge the President to withdraw his nomination of William J. Lynn III as Deputy Secretary of Defense. President Obama should not compromise his standards and the effectiveness of the Department of Defense by allowing a top defense industry lobbyist to receive a waiver from these standards. The defense industry is in a class of its own among all of the industries that have had a pervasive stranglehold on public policy to advance their own financial interests."
In a 2008 lobbying report, Lynn was listed as part of a Raytheon lobbying team on budget and appropriations issues including the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, acquisition policy, missile defense, and Foreign Military Financing. The Obama Administration should not allow its ethics standards to begin with a series of waivers and loopholes which immediately undermine its good intentions.
Lynn's nomination is clearly contrary to the following excerpt from Obama's executive order:
"2. Revolving Door Ban All Appointees Entering Government. I will not for a period of 2 years from the date of my appointment participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to my former employer or former clients, including regulations and contracts.
"3. Revolving Door Ban Lobbyists Entering Government. If I was a registered lobbyist within the 2 years before the date of my appointment, in addition to abiding by the limitations of paragraph 2, I will not for a period of 2 years after the date of my appointment:
(a) participate in any particular matter on which I lobbied within the 2 years before the date of my appointment;
(b) participate in the specific issue area in which that particular matter falls; or
(c) seek or accept employment with any executive agency that I lobbied within the 2 years before the date of my appointment.
According to the executive order, Lynn shouldn't have accepted the appointment though, of course, the order was only signed yesterday and Lynn presumably accepted the president's offer weeks ago. So he was arguably grandfathered in.
But because Raytheon is pervasive in defense contracting, it will difficult, to say the least, for Lynn to avoid involvement for two years in Pentagon matters that touch Raytheon.
An excerpt from a CQ Politics report:
According to the company's disclosure forms, Lynn was part of a team that lobbied on a wide range of defense issues, including acquisitions policy, force protection, space and intelligence, command and control, simulation and training, missile defense, sensors and radars, and munitions and artillery. The breadth of the work reflects the reach of Raytheon throughout the Defense Department.
If Lynn had to recuse himself from all these areas, I'm not sure what's left for him to manage. Maybe the Pentagon daycare facilities but that seems about it.
Here's more from CQ:
The text of the executive order would require Lynn to recuse himself from any involvement in Raytheon programs for two years after taking his post.
"I have no reason to impugn Mr. Lynn's integrity, but it's a problem," said Claire McCaskill , a Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. "You can't just recuse yourself from huge programs at the Pentagon if you're going to do that job."
Following his Jan. 15 confirmation hearing, McCaskill, of Missouri, said she was considering placing a hold on Lynn's nomination because she doubts Lynn can separate his recent work on behalf of Raytheon from the job of chief operating officer at the Pentagon.
However, late in the day Wednesday her staff said McCaskill had decided not to put a hold on the nomination, although she has not said how she will vote.
The new lobbying rules might also give ammunition to Senate Republicans, who could raise ethical objections to the Lynn nomination as they did with the appointment of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton .
Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, the No. 2 Republican on the Armed Services Committee, said he wants clarification from the administration on how the Lynn appointment fits into the new rules.
"While I announced my support for Mr. Lynn's nomination, the announcement of the new ethics executive order is puzzling," Inhofe said.
This is what makes purity on Washington lobbying so hard to maintain. Some of the people most knowledgeable about how the nation's capital works are lobbyists. That's what makes them effective.
Cracking down on lobbyists sounds great in theory. Lord knows, the public loves the concept since citizens are fed up with Washington operators who enrich themselves at the public trough, especially when it leads to extreme forms of the practice i.e. corruption.
That notwithstanding, lobbyists know intimately how the federal agencies and Congress function. Ban them for a number of years and it's going to prove difficult to fill some of the most important jobs in the bureaucracy. Americans may not want to hear that, but it's the truth.
Comments
Will be a tough one to ban,especially where money is involved and Congressional Loopholes..
Posted by: Inky | January 22, 2009 11:49 AM
Obama violates his "no lobbyists" pledge--not one day into his administration.
As we've seen throughout the past year, every Obama "pledge" comes with a "shelf life"--in this case, a 1-day shelf life. Get used to it, Obama lovers.
Posted by: "Dissent is Patriotic" | January 22, 2009 11:51 AM
It would seem that as a Director of American Rights at Work - the principle labor organization special interest lobbying organization formed specifically for the purpose of enacting the Employee Free Choice Act, Secretary of Labor nominee Hilda Soliz - if confirned - would be barred for two years from participating in that matter, including regulations and contracts. Thus, as a director of this registered lobbying group, she should not participate in this particular matter or the specific issue area in which that particular matter falls, because ARW certainly lobbied Congress (and will continue to lobby both Congress and the Department of Labor) concerning it on behalf of the labor organizations that fund ARW. Of course, if ARW had lobbied the Department of Labor, Ms. Solis would be ineligible to accept the appointment as Secretary of Labor.
Posted by: another example. | January 22, 2009 12:54 PM
Like I said on the original "ethics rules" post this so-called ban is a sham. Lynn, Tom Daschle (a lobbyist for CVS and other pharmaceutical companies at "The Daschle Group"), and David Axelrod (a longtime lobbyist for Exelon/ComEd) will all get waivers. The ban is a joke. K street bankrolled some of Obama's inauguration and most of his campaign. Lobbyists are neck deep in this administration.
Posted by: Jeff | January 22, 2009 4:29 PM
I've created a Facebook group for Obama supporters who want to speak out on this issue: "Obama Supporters For Enforcing The Ban On Hiring Lobbyists". Look it up if interested.
Posted by: outragedmoderate | January 23, 2009 6:07 PM
After reading through the "waiver" section of the executive order, essentially anyone can get a waiver with the all inclusive Section 3, paragraph (a), subparagraph (ii) statement that if the OMB:
"certifies in writing that it is in the public interest to grant the waiver. A waiver shall take effect when the certification is signed by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget or his or her designee."
Those tapped to be working on national security or economic issues can get a double exclusionary waiver...with paragraph "(b) The public interest shall include, but not be limited to, exigent circumstances relating to national security or to the economy."
Then finally we have the almighty trifecta, with the final loophole with the rest of paragraph (b)...
"De minimis contact with an executive agency shall be cause for a waiver of the restrictions contained in paragraph 3 of the pledge." Essentially which means, if they had trivial contact with an agency, then they can get a waiver. How subjective could that loophole be?
We are so screwed, these monsters are so stealthy with their "laws"....let's now watch the First Big Lie of the Obama Regime:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0D3IWl37ng&fmt=16
Posted by: Jones1warrior | January 23, 2009 10:25 PM
Put it this way, six months on and there's certainly still plenty enough lobbying positions on the likes of Public Affairs Links and CQ to make me think that lobbying is alive and well for a while...
Posted by: J.Z. Osman | June 24, 2009 1:43 PM