Countdown

Reports and Other Projects

Introduction

Authors:
Margaret Ebrahim
Josh Zivo Feit
Robert Schlesinger

Researcher:
Michelle McGrorty

Editors:
Alejandro Benes
Bill Hogan

“The government, which was designed for the people, has got into the hands of their bosses and their employers, the special interests. An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy.”

-Woodrow Wilson

Introduction

One week after the 1992 New Hampshire presidential campaign primary, the Center for Public Integrity issued the first comprehensive study about the policy advisers to the presidential candidates, identifying approximately 140 men and women surrounding the then-seven major candidates. It was in the course of this investigation that we came across Foreign Agent Registration Act records at the Justice Department showing that the deputy chairman of the 1992 Bush-Quayle campaign, James Lake, was simultaneously working as a high paid lobbyist for the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, the controlling shareholder of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). At the same time, BCCI was under seven federal grand jury investigations in the United States. Lake’s firm was retained, according to Justice Department documents, because “various federal agencies could possibly take action in matters related to the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority.” Who better to hire than the deputy chairman of the president’s reelection campaign?

Lake was not pleased that the Center presented this information to the national news media and thus the American people. Indeed. Lake and even a few veteran Washington journalists did not view such influence-peddling as particularly newsworthy or as fair, reasonable discourse. It is, after all, “the way things are done in Washington.” Loss of perspective is a frequent occupational hazard for Washington journalists and others in Washington, but in the case of Lake, his not atypical, everyday lobbying contract was particularly noticeable by 1995 when he pleaded guilty to wire fraud and electoral law violations.

The American people are not so blasé about the mercenary culture of Washington. There is enormous distrust of our national seat of government and all that transpires here, most of it outside the public view. Americans recognize that huge sums of money are spent by various vested interests every day to influence the outcome of public policy decisions, and that lobbyists are the marketplace mandarins for such maneuvering. When a lobbyist receives higher fees because of his or her proximity to U.S. officials — access to power that results in political influence for the paying client — the policy could well affect all of us.

Presidential candidates in 1992 and 1996 have talked about ending influence-peddling in Washington, making amusing reference to the fancy-suited lobbyists with their Gucci loafers walking the corridors of power. Even though Newt Gingrich was instrumental in killing lobbying disclosure reform legislation in 1994, to the delight of Washington lobbyists, and did not include lobbying disclosure reform as one of the “Contract With America” promises. Congress finally bowed to public pressure and passed lobbying “sunshine” legislation in late 1995, which President Clinton signed into law. For the first time ever, domestic corporations, law firms, labor unions and other groups that lobby the executive branch are required to register and explain their activities. The reform law is no panacea, but it is still an important first step. Lobbying records are still spread around Washington, not in a central location; the administrative day-to-day logistics of making this vital information available remain unclear; and grassroots lobbying — frequently a significant tool to influence Congress and the president — is exempted from this disclosure.
Additionally, interest groups are more likely than ever to attempt to lobby legislation on the airwaves; approximately 40 groups spent at least $60 million in 1993 and 1994 to affect health care reform legislation. The Health Insurance Association of America (HIAA) spent $15 million to produce and air its famous “Harry and Louise” ads against the Clinton reform legislation, and there was not one piece of paper, no public record anywhere, disclosing such expenditures made to manipulate public opinion and thus policy. Under the reform law, there will still be no disclosure of such critically effective lobbying activities.

Over the more than five years in which the Center has published 18 investigative studies about public service and ethics-related issues, we have earned the enmity of many vested interests in Washington, and at one point I was dubbed “the scourge of lobbyists” by the National Journal. It should be absolutely understood that we recognize the substantial role that lobbyists can and do play in our society. Indeed, the right to petition the government is one of our most cherished constitutional rights, of course, and actually most influence-peddling today by lobbyists is entirely legal.

The issue is not identifying what is legal or potentially illegal lobbying conduct, of course, but illuminating precisely who is close to the next president of the United States. As British statesman George Canning wrote more than a century ago, “Away with the cant of ‘measures, not men!’ — the idle supposition that it is the harness and not the horses that draw the chariots along.” The campaign process and even the proposals put forth by presidential candidates are obviously very important. But we can also glean vital information and insights about these aspirants by attempting to analyze just who these candidates have turned to for ideas and advice, for political and intellectual sustenance. Public policy is drawn along by the officials chosen to manipulate the levers of power, and it is insufficient for voters to learn the identities of some of these likely officials after the campaign is over.

In the Center’s recently released book, The Buying of the President, we describe how when Americans vote for a politician, we are getting a “package deal” of the candidate’s financial patrons and their priorities. In the context of this study, we are getting the candidate’s paid and unpaid advisers as well.

That is certainly what we got in 1992, when Bill Clinton was elected president. In the February 1992 “Under the Influence” study, we found that more than half of the Arkansas governor’s unpaid campaign policy advisers were from “inside the Beltway.” During their “day jobs,” several of Clinton’s unpaid policy advisers got handsome fees from foreign corporations and governments, tobacco companies, the insurance industry, oil and gas firms, investment banks, and other business interests. It became clear to us that, despite his fiery rhetoric about ending influence-peddling in Washington, Clinton was actually no outsider at all. And, most relevant to this current study, many of the Clinton advisers we chronicled in 1992 became significant Clinton administration officials in 1993 — names like Anthony Lake, Samuel Berger, Roger Altman, Ira Magaziner, and Robert Reich, for example.

So, in the current 1996 headlong rush for the White House, in which the Washington power elites — from law, lobbying, and public relations firms, trade associations and multimillion-dollar clients they represent — coalesce around the future president, we should all recognize that: 1) many of these campaign advisers will ascend to power along with their candidates in 1997, and 2) the unpaid policy advisers have an agenda that embraces not only the election of their candidate but also the policy concerns of their paying clients.

Our purpose, as always, is to provide vital information to the American people about the political process.

Charles Lewis
Washington, D.C.
February 1996

Summary

Our 1992 report, “Under the Influence: Presidential Candidates and Their Campaign Advisers,” showed how that year’s presidential candidates consistently criticized the “Washington culture” of political favors, special interests, and “business as usual,” but at the same time heavily relied on campaign and political advice from Washington insiders in their quests for the White House. As with the 1992 report, in 1996 we found that many of the most prominent Washington lobbying firms are involved in the presidential campaigns: Willkie Fair and Gallagher; Baker, Donelson, Bearman, and Caldwell; Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer, & Feld, to name a few, all have had senior officials who are advising the campaigns or are close career confidants of the candidates. One firm, Akin, Gump has had different lawyers advising rival candidates Bob Dole, Phil Gramm and Bill Clinton

Although the presidential candidates continue to reserve some of the harshest rhetoric for Washington lobbyists, all of them, except for Bob Dornan, have had lobbyists or former lobbyists advising them.

In the 1992 campaign, virtually every candidate was critical of “foreign agents” — those people who represent foreign governments, corporations or other entities before the various branches of the U.S. government — but most of the 1992 candidates had foreign agents dispensing advice to them. The same holds true in the 1996 presidential campaign.

We also found that many of the advisers have walked through the revolving door connecting government and the private sector. In the context of this study, the revolving-door phenomenon is defined as anyone who leaves government and uses, appears to use, or is in a position to use their experience, access, influence, or sensitive information to the advantage of clients. Of all the advisers studied, we have identified that more than half who went through the revolving door are advising Republican candidate Bob Dole. They include former Congressman Vin Weber, Reagan administration official Paul Manafort, and former deputy U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer.

Not all the Washington insiders are lobbyists and foreign agents, nor have all gone through the revolving door. Some of them are influential opinion-makers who earn their living churning out politically-insightful and trend-setting ideas. These advisers include neo-conservatives Arianna Huffington and William Kristol for Lamar Alexander, best-selling author Naomi Wolf for Bill Clinton, and conservative writer Peggy Noonan for Steve Forbes, to name a few.

Some of the top career patrons who have supported the candidates financially for years and to whom the candidates have been responsive, as reported in The Buying of the President, are informally and formally advising the candidates. These career patrons include John L. Parish, Pat K. Wilson, and James Haslam II for Lamar Alexander; David Koch of Koch Industries and Phillip Anschutz of Anschutz Corporation for Bob Dole; H.L. Hunt of Hunt Corporation for Phil Gramm; and Mitch Daniels of Eli Lilly for Richard Lugar.

Clinton

Although 1992 candidate and President-elect Bill Clinton promised to end “influence peddling” and “business as usual” when he got to Washington, lobbyists have been among his closest advisers. Many of Clinton’s 1992 unpaid campaign advisers who were lobbyists and foreign agents joined his administration as national security and Commerce Department officials, as well as ambassadors. Clinton regularly surrounds himself with a group of lobbyists who advise him or have advised him on both private and presidential matters. These lobbyists include Michael Herman, president of The Duberstein Group, a high-powered D.C. firm. Herman had a “special access” pass to the White House until the practice was discontinued in 1994, and he helped to set up the Presidential Legal Expense Trust to raise money to pay the Clintons’ mounting legal bills arising out of the Whitewater investigation and the Paula Corbin Jones sexual harassment allegations. Another lobbyist/adviser still present from 1992 is Vernon Jordan, Clinton’s longtime friend and confidant. Jordan is a partner in the firm of Akin, Gump and also held a “special access” pass, and organized the January 1996 Washington book party for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s It Takes a Village.

Although reports indicate that President Clinton and adviser Dick Morris re-established their relationship in 1994, the Center has learned that this relationship was renewed much earlier, in October 1993, while Morris was still working for Republicans.

Alexander

Lamar Alexander strives to create an image for himself as a Washington “outsider,” but his resume argues against this claim. Alexander had few Beltway insiders advising him until recently, when such prominent conservatives as author Arianna Huffington, editor of The Weekly Standard William Kristol, and executive director of The Harry and Lynde Bradley Foundation Michael Joyce began talking to him about “citizenship issues.” Washington lobbyists like former Senator Howard Baker, former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, and former presidential aide Lanny Griffith are advising Alexander.

Buchanan

Despite Buchanan’s populist rhetoric and opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), as well as his fierce condemnation of Washington lobbyists, foreign agents and the “corporate global economy,” some of Buchanan’s advisers have engaged in the very practices he decries. For example, Richard Allen, President Reagan’s former national security adviser, is Buchanan’s main foreign policy adviser and has been registered as a foreign agent for the Board of Foreign Trade of the Republic of China. He is a consultant to companies on international trade and U.S. business operations in foreign countries. Another Buchanan adviser, John G. Breen, is the CEO of Sherwin Williams and sits on the boards of companies that are active supporters of NAFTA and GATT.

Some of Buchanan’s advisers are skidding close to the radical right. Campaign co-chair Larry Pratt, for example, consistently works with leaders of the Aryan Nations and the militia movement.

Dole

The Dole campaign has locked up virtually every major endorsement available to GOP presidential candidates.  Even though Dole, on the floor of the Senate, criticized “the appearance of a revolving door between government service and private-sector enrichment,” he has paid and unpaid campaign advisers who have gone through the revolving door.

One of Dole’s campaign themes is that he is a “common sense” conservative and that his bill concerning regulatory reform, the Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act of 1995, was the legislative manifestation of common sense. At least 14 of Dole’s paid and unpaid campaign advisers, or their clients, have an interest in regulatory reform. They include David Koch of Koch Industries, who contributed more than $263,250 between 1979 and September of 1995 to Dole’s various tax-exempt organizations and political campaigns

Malcolm “Steve” Forbes

Steve Forbes’ momentum, based in part on his claims of being an outsider to the Washington culture, has been organized by a combination of advisers made up of longtime allies in the Washington Republican establishment and an unlikely group of southern political operatives known for their racially divisive campaign tactics. The Republican establishment advisers are associated with Jack Kemp and Empower America, a conservative think-tank, and the political operatives are associated with the Conservative Club PAC (CCPAC). Campaign advisers Carter Wrenn and Tom Ellis formed the CCPAC, which was losing its clout and financial stability in North Carolina, but the two have rebounded by establishing a lucrative and valuable presence in the Forbes campaign.

Phil Gramm

Phil Gramm is fond of telling audiences, “We haven’t had a dedicated hunter in the White House since Theodore Roosevelt.” Gramm’s affinity for hunting is well-known, but slightly less well-known outside of Washington is his choice of hunting partners. Hunting has proved to be a very solid foundation for Gramm and superlobbyist J.D. Williams. Over the years, Williams has been a close adviser to Gramm, and their relationship has proven to be durable, dependable, and marked by special treatment.

Gramm’s support of free trade policies and espoused views on Japan jibe with the large number of advisers he has with Japanese clients

Richard Lugar

As Senator Lugar’s spokesman said in an interview, “Indiana is fairly intimate.” It is not surprising, then, that one of Lugar’s senior advisers is an executive from his top career patron — Eli Lilly, the Indiana-based pharmaceutical company — which was the source of $113,743 in contributions between 1979 and September 1995. Others who have worked for Lugar have also worked for Lilly.

Methodology

This report is a continuation of the Center’s 1996 Presidential Campaign Project, in attempt to provide the American public with relevant information about the presidential candidates and the forces influencing them. The first part of this project was The Buying of the President, a book about the special interests behind the presidential candidates. We will continue to track the 1996 presidential candidates and release information through the Public i, the Center’s national newsletter, and on the Center’s website.

We have no illusions, and certainly make no assertions, that the information gathered about the advisers to the presidential candidates is all there is to tell. “Advising the candidates” is a phrase on which there was much disagreement among those we interviewed for this study. What made being precise even more difficult was that many of those whom we tried to interview would not respond. The Center’s staff diligently sought to gather information about all the paid and unpaid advisers to the presidential candidates. What we were minimally able to do is show the relationships the campaigns have with certain individuals in the political establishment.

Some presidential campaigns appeared to treat the release of information about advisers as a kind of credential-building, credibility-boosting exercise. Other campaigns were wary, vague, and sometimes uncooperative about providing the Center with any names at all. For example, the Clinton campaign has no finance or state co-chairs, according to Ann Lewis, that campaign’s communications director. We discovered that some of the people listed as advisers had simply had a single conversation with the candidate or, in some cases, with the staff. But many of the members of the Clinton administration serve as advisers and some of them were lobbyists before they took government jobs. Where appropriate, we explain the “special relationships” the campaigns or the candidates have with these individuals

Because presidential candidates are not required to disclose the names of their unpaid advisers, we had to rely on many sources for this information. We conducted hundreds of interviews and reviewed news coverage of the various candidates to gather and verify names. Because of the exigencies and logistics of this information-gathering process, the lists of campaign advisers do not include everyone. Nonetheless, the entire effort affords a rare and valuable glimpse into potential conflicts of interest and the inner workings of campaigns.

In this report, we defined lobbyist as anyone who works for a lobbying firm or has reliably been reported to have lobbied. We further checked the various names in O’Dwyer’s Directory of Public Relations, Washington Representatives, House and Senate lobbying records offices, the Justice Department’s Foreign Agent Registration Act office and the Federal Election Commission, to find out if the advisers or their firms were registered to lobby, and to find out about their clients and any fees that they were paid. Many people do not register with the appropriate offices about their lobbying activities, and when they do, the forms are often incomplete and misleading.