Democrats and Heretics
April 11, 2008; Page A16
Hillary Clinton's in a firing mood, as evidenced by the canning of chief strategist Mark Penn for the heresy of consulting on a Colombian trade pact to which Mrs. Clinton is opposed. But if strict adherence to her principles is the standard for a job with her campaign, she'd better get ready a whole stack of pink slips.
One recipient might be Tony Podesta. He's the older brother of Clinton intimate John Podesta, and a Democratic operator in his own right. He ran John Kerry's Pennsylvania campaign, and Clinton people say he's likewise serving as a "key point person" for its own must-win primary in that state 10 days from now. Mr. Podesta and his wife, Heather Podesta, are also prolific Clinton fundraisers, hosting dinners at their house and ginning up contributions for a recent Elton-John-for-Hillary concert.
When they aren't serving Mrs. Clinton, the Podestas operate as one of Washington's hottest Democratic lobby couples. The money really started rolling in after Congress changed hands and the business world went hunting for influential Democrats with the ear of the new Democratic majority. Mr. Podesta's firm cleared $12 million last year. Mrs. Podesta's separate lobby shop is raking in business, thanks to her former career as a Capitol Hill staffer.
So, while Mrs. Clinton criticizes Wal-Mart for its lack of a union and refuses money from its political action committee, Mr. Podesta's firm last year received $260,000 representing the retailer in Washington – making his firm Wal-Mart's most highly paid lobbyist. While Mrs. Clinton "stands up" to the oil companies, bashing them for excessive profits and threatening to undermine their business, Mr. Podesta takes those profits to flak for British Petroleum and Sunoco. While Mrs. Clinton demands cuts in Medicare Advantage payments, Mrs. Podesta looks after the interests of insurer Cigna, which surely isn't plumping for a cheaper government health regime.
Not to pick on the Podestas: Mrs. Clinton's campaign is a who's who of K Street lobbyists, from campaign chief Maggie Williams to communications director Howard Wolfson to a long list of volunteer advisers. Chances are one, two or several dozen have represented, or continue to represent, positions to which Mrs. Clinton is opposed. Barack Obama, He-Who-Does-Not-Take-Corporate-PAC-Money, is similarly conflicted. When former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle isn't recruiting superdelegates for the Illinois senator, he's advising lobbying giant Alston & Bird, with its long list of pharma and financial clients.
You could go on, and the press undoubtedly will, so fascinated is everyone this election cycle with the existence of the dread lobbyist. The Obama campaign is already making hay of the Penn news, and will make hay of any other nefarious connections it can highlight. Any lobbyist or consultant outed in this search will be branded as unprincipled.
Or mercenary. Critics will point out that all this smacks of a protection racket, as Democratic lobbyists and consultants cash in by offering to protect companies from their own party's agenda. There's undoubtedly some of that, but it's old Washington news. Many lobbyists and politicians take up causes with which they aren't entirely in tune. It pays the bills, and also siphons up cash for their greater political purposes. Talk to New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, who last year stepped in to save private equity firms from a big tax threatened by his own party. In thanks, the industry coughed up for his Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which is now working to add several Democratic seats to the Senate.
If there's any point to take away from this lobbyist-gotcha, it's just how far the Democratic Party has traveled down the protectionist and populist road. Take Mr. Podesta at his word last year, when he was quoted as saying that "I've never asked anybody on the Hill to do anything they didn't feel was good policy . . ." Let's assume he believes Wal-Mart – the largest private employer in the country – is good for the economy. Let's assume Mr. Penn knows free trade is crucial to the financial well-being of millions of Americans.
There was a day when Democrats could make these cases without fear of blacklist. Bill Clinton pushed for free trade. (Hey, it turns out he's even pushed for Colombia free trade!) Former Sen. John Breaux argued for competition in government-run health care. The late New York Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan proposed cutting the payroll tax and letting Americans use the money for private retirement accounts. Blue Dogs voted not just against raising taxes, but for lowering them. It was possible for Democrats to champion strong companies, competition and a strong economy, even as they pushed for a larger social safety net.
These days, corporate bashing, closed borders and class warfare have become staples of the left. The Obama and Clinton campaigns have pushed these positions to new heights, in the process setting litmus tests for what counts as being a good Democrat.
Pharma companies? Rich and greedy. Fossil fuel companies? Dirty polluters. Multinationals who "offshore" jobs? Traitors. Americans who strike financial success? Fat cats. Developing countries working to open their borders? Job stealers. It rarely is noted that this vilification is encouraged by yet another set of lobbyists, those representing unions and environmental groups.
Whatever the source, any Democrat who represents suspect entities risks a reputation. Ask Mr. Penn, the latest casualty. He won't be the last. The candidates themselves started this game, and it's still the warm-up period. Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton have been hurling accusations about each other's lobbyist ties, and proclaiming the relative righteousness of their teams. That, and Mr. Penn's firing, is an invitation for the press corps to really dig into the campaigns' tangled connections of money and causes.
What they turn up won't be surprising, or even scandalous. But it will be enough to tar a career or two. Like Mr. Penn, the targets will probably take one for the team. What they ought to be asking is whether the Democratic Party's leaders aren't making it way too hard for even the loyal to remain members in good standing.
online.wsj.com |
