Special Interests

In a new statement, Chuck Purgason takes Roy Blunt to task for his failed leadership in Washington and well-documented record of serving the "Washington lobbyists and special interests."

It is easy to have great ideas when you are in the minority. The tough part is following through and solving problems when you have the opportunity to lead. If these ideas would have held down costs and protected our rights as citizens, then why, when we Republicans were in the majority from 2000-2006, did we not act upon these concerns?

New Majority Whip Roy Blunt receives a congratulatory velvet hammer from mentor Tom DeLay in 2002; Speaker Denny Hastert looks on in approval

Randy Turner breaks it down:

As we move into what might be the last throes of the great healthcare battle of the Obama Administration, my Congressman, Roy Blunt, a candidate for U. S. Senate in Missouri, is also making his allegiances clear.

While Democrats and Republicans are getting together Thursday, with only an outside chance of hammering out meaningful heath care and insurance reform, Roy Blunt, the newly-minted Tea Party conservative, the-government-is the-source-of-all-evil Republican, will be playing politics as usual- and playing footsy with insurance lobbyists...

With these special interests bankrolling Roy Blunt, and when most of his family including his campaign manager son, daughter, and wife are lobbyists, it is hard for anyone, whether on the left or the right, to take serious Blunt’s claim that he speaks for the average Missourian.

In today's Star:

Beware of bills that claim to be ethics reform but which paper over the main problem — unlimited campaign cash.

One of those is the bill filed by Republican Steve Tilley, of Perryville, Mo., who is in line to become House speaker next year.

Among other things, his bill would prohibit lawmakers from accepting meals and gifts from lobbyists.

But Tilley, who until recently was a close associate of [disgraced former Speaker Rod] Jetton’s, is opposed to capping campaign contributions.

It’s true that many lawmakers have been shameless about accepting meals, gifts and trips from lobbyists. Some restrictions would be good. But one wonders why a legislative leader would be bothered by a $15 lunch tab and not a $100,000 contribution.

Scrambling to convince the public that he's actually interested in substantive autism insurance legislation, Speaker Ron Richard tried to get a jump on the issue today:

Richard, a Republican, today touted a bill [HB 1311] filed by Rep. Dwight Scharnhorst, R-St. Louis, in a phone conference call that was hastily announced. Richard’s spokeswoman said the bill will get a quick committee hearing.

Richard's newfound interest in the subject is more than a little suspect, of course given his role in killing legislation supported by a broad bipartisan majority last session. Richard has been called out by members of both parties for his work on behalf of insurance companies instead of struggling families.

Roll Call:

Republican kingmakers Fred Malek, an ally of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R), and power lobbyist Charlie Black are co-hosting a fundraising dinner for GOP Rep. Roy Blunt’s (Mo.) bid for Senate in 2010.

Malek, a businessman who served as a top adviser to several former GOP presidents, hosted a dinner for Palin earlier this year on one of her rare trips to Washington, D.C. Malek has defended Palin and even served as an intermediary between her another Senate candidate, Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), who was seeking the former vice presidential nominee’s endorsement.

According to a copy of the invitation, Malek, Black and their spouses “invite you to an intimate dinner in honor of” Blunt. The Dec. 10 event, for which tickets cost from $1,000 to $2,400, will be held at Malek’s McLean, Va., home.

Black -- described as "The Republican Party’s quintessential company" -- was a top advisor to Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign, and the focus of some controversy in that role.

The New York Times reports today that Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer published a statement in his own name that was actually written by lobbyists for the biotech company Genentech.

Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, in whole or in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one of the world’s largest biotechnology companies...

In separate statements using language suggested by the lobbyists, Representatives Blaine Luetkemeyer of Missouri and Joe Wilson of South Carolina, both Republicans, said: “One of the reasons I have long supported the U.S. biotechnology industry is that it is a homegrown success story that has been an engine of job creation in this country. Unfortunately, many of the largest companies that would seek to enter the biosimilar market have made their money by outsourcing their research to foreign countries like India.”

Watching the second of two interview clips posted today by KY3's Dave Catanese, I was completely taken aback by Roy Blunt's condescending, completely inaccurate response to a question about his leading the nation in lobbyist money received during the first sixth months of this year.

Watch the clip, keeping in mind that Blunt is completely wrong here:

When you read stories like this one from KOMU, it becomes pretty clear why the GOP leadership picked Roy Blunt to lead their Health Care Solutions Group this year: the man has some seriously awful votes in his record that he will struggle to explain away.  KOMU:

7th District Congressman Roy Blunt, a top contender for Missouri's open Senate seat in 2010, has a much different approach to health care reform [than Senator McCaskill], and his voting record shows it.

He voted three times against expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Plan, which would have covered up to 6 million more children.

In 2007, he voted against a measure that would require pharmaceutical companies to negotiate prices for Medicaid prescription drugs.

He also voted in favor of a measure that would allow hospitals to deny a person non-emergency treatment if that person couldn't pay their Medicare co-pay.

Opting not to shoot his farm-raised fowl at the Ozark Wings Hatchery and Hunting Preserve in Caulfield, Roy Blunt and friends will be hunting for birds Monday morning just outside of DC at an NRSC fundraiser.  Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) promised earlier this week that the NRSC "wouldn't play spend money in the Republican primaries," but that commitment doesn't seem to apply to previously-scheduled events.

The Missourian's George Kennedy skewers the right-wing efforts to gut the state's nonpartisan judicial selection process:

Some ideas are so outrageously, irredeemably bad that you just know they won’t go away. One of the worst is the recurring effort to destroy Missouri’s non-partisan plan for picking judges.

Because if there's any group of folks who know how to reign in health care costs, it's insurance companies.  And if they're any place to find reasonable information, it's the opinion section of the Wall Street Journal.

Politics should not play a role in Missouri's judicial selection process -- partisan elections should.

So wrote Ernie Lee in the Columbia Daily Tribune yesterday.

In completely unrelated news, Ernie Lee is Peter Kinder's campaign treasurer, and Peter Kinder received a $50,000 check from David Humphreys last quarter.

In October, the Star reported that some lawmakers were "stunned" earlier by the Humphreys family donations connected to this years' legislative efforts to gut the state's nonpartisan courts plan.

Looking through Roy Blunt's Q3 campaign finance report, it looks like Blunt's efforts to court oil company lobbyists are still paying off.  Blunt has a been a huge recipient of oil and gas industry donations (he ranked #8 in the entire House for the 2008 cycle, without a competitive race).

Already, a number oil company PACs have maxed out to Blunt, with more to come. Exxon Mobil Corporation PAC, Marathon Oil Company Employees PAC and Devon Energy Corporation PAC have all already given $5,000 to the campaign.

 I've been wondering a bit in recent days what sort of ethics legislation might develop in the coming months in response to stories like those in last week's Star. Based on the obvious reluctance from legislative leaders to move any meaningful measures, it's hard to be overly optimistic. Steve Kraske expressed similar sentiments in his most recent column, quoting Rep. Brian Yates (R-Lee's Summit), who's unsuccessfully tried to convince his own party's leaders to move on some basic reforms in recent legislative sessions.

That said, I was encouraged to see a tweet from Rep. Jason Kander (D-Kansas City) on Friday, in which he said he'd "had some very encouraging discussions with Republican colleagues" about the ethics reform proposals he first distributed in early September.

The Turner Report posted details of Kander's September 9 Dear Colleague memo last week, which can be distilled down to a few new ideas and a few oldies but goodies. 

Bill Lambrecht's story in the Post-Dispatch today has a nice breakdown of Roy Blunt's financial support from corporate donors and lobbyists who have donated very large sums to his leadership PAC called the Rely on Your Beliefs (ROYB) Fund.

As Lambrecht explains, PACs like the ROYB Fund "hold appeal because of their looser rules and the minimal attention they receive," and have allowed Blunt to "curry favor" inside the Beltway. In addition, the extensive corporate and lobbyist donor network has enabled Blunt to stay in touch with the regular people:

Blunt proved skilled at utilizing his Rely on Your Beliefs PAC as a GOP leader in the House, a position he held until this year. Since 2005, it took in nearly $4 million, according to campaign disclosure reports.

Those reports list expenses at elegant venues such as the Kiawah Island Golf Resort in South Carolina, the Raspberry Falls Golf & Hunt Club in Virginia and Sea Island Company on St. Simon's Island, Ga. A Blunt associate noted that PAC-funders paid their own way to the tony destinations, where they were treated to receptions and dinners.

Roy Blunt raised more PAC money in the third quarter than any non-incumbent running for US Senate, according to an analysis published in The Hotline yesterday.

Blunt raised a total of $358,700 from PACs for the quarter, surpassed only by three sitting Senators -- Chuck Grassley, Blanche Lincoln and Harry Reid. 

Here's a good indication that Tom Burcham's legal scheme is more predatory than "principled":  Burcham refuses to sue his own town, Farmington, for "stacking" local taxes, even though he's willing to enrich himself with lawsuits against other towns for the same practice. 

And in an unrelated story, Farmington City Attorney Tom Burcham told the city it was completely legal to "stack" its taxes in 2007.

“When (Tom Burcham) was the city attorney in Farmington, he gave a legal opinion that they’d be able to stack their taxes and they did,” said Gary Markenson, lobbyist for the Missouri Municipal League.

Farmington voters approved an additional half-cent sales tax in 2007 to fund $9 million to construct a new ewer treatment plant and make upgrades to the city's water system, said Greg Beavers, city manager of Farmington.

Read More »

Share

• Tweet Widget
• Google Plus One
• Facebook Like

Chad Livengood has a follow-up story in today's News-Leader about Steve Tilley's efforts to kill a bill that would end the legal racket of a top campaign donor, adding a little more information to Terry Ganey's great reporting from Sunday. In the story, Tilley predictably plays dumb about his work on behalf of benefactor Tom Burcham, and pretends there's no real conflict with Speaker Ron Richard.

Which leads us to this most important question: which of these two Tilley claims is hardest to believe?

1. Tilley did not block the legislation that would have stopped the self-enriching legal scheme of a top campaign donor
2. Tilley is "not at odds" with Speaker Ron Richard.

Really, is there any reason to believe either claim?

Last week, we flagged Sam Graves' distribution of pro-pollution talking points that were literally created by the National Mining Association. At first, it looked like a simple bit of shameless flacking for Graves' special interest friends.  But it gets worse:

Kate Sheppard of Grist did some sleuthing of her own and found out that the map appears on the mining association website. She notes that the research has a footnote explicitly saying that the calculations do not take into account the current version of Waxman-Markey [the cap and trade legislation in Congress], and, worse, that they cover only the costs of the legislation and not the benefits, including allocations back to utility companies to mitigate against price increases. This isn’t research at all; it’s advocacy.

This is what is politely called the influence of special interests in Washington.

The congress members peddling the NMA’s work were Frank Lucas (R-OK), Sam Graves (R-MO), and Doc Hastings (R-WA). Way to think for yourself, guys.

Read More »

Share

• Tweet Widget
• Google Plus One
• Facebook Like

Why do your own research on crucial climate change legislation when a polluting, self-interested coal company can do it for you?

That's exactly what seems to have happened with Rep. Sam Graves, who is reportedly distributing pro-pollution talking points on Capitol Hill as his own.  Graves and fellow members of the Republican "Rural American Solutions Group" have been emailing a PowerPoint document to colleagues that was literally written by Peabody Energy executives.

More at Think Progress.