The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) Blog

New Podcast: The Foreign Policy Auction

By ANDRE FRANCISCO

How much does it cost to change U.S. foreign policy? Project On Government Oversight investigator Ben Freeman just released a new book delving into that question. The Foreign Policy Auction looks at the countries seeking to influence U.S. foreign policy and the D.C. lobbying firms they hire to do the work. In this podcast, we talk with Ben about how foreign governments go about lobbying the U.S. and how foreign lobbying led to the U.S. reopening its embassy in Libya despite the country having had a history of sponsoring terrorism.

• Listen to the new podcast (or right click and "save as" to download)

• Subscribe to POGO podcasts via RSS
• Subscribe to POGO podcasts via iTunes (and don't forget to leave us a rating)
• Previous podcasts

Andre Francisco is an online producer for the Project On Government Oversight.

Follow @andrefrancisco

Lockheed Campaign Cash Has Flowed to Members of House Panel Probing F-22 Problems

By JACOB WASHKURAK, JOHN PARKER and BEN FREEMAN

When members of a House subcommittee convene today for a hearing on the troubled F-22 stealth fighter, they’ll have more in common than just an interest in the mysterious symptoms that caused some pilots to declare the plane unsafe to fly earlier this year.

All but one of the 25 subcommittee members have received contributions in the current election cycle from individuals or political action committees associated with Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor on the F-22, according to a Project On Government Oversight (POGO) analysis of data from the Center for Responsive Politics.

The one exception, Pennsylvania Republican Todd R. Platts, is retiring from Congress. In a 2010 op-ed piece, he said that as always his campaign was being funded solely by contributions from individual citizens and that he refused to accept contributions from special-interest groups. There are no records of his ever having accepted any funds from employees of Lockheed Martin during his congressional career, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The other subcommittee members received between $1,000 and $10,000 each, for a total of $153,250, according to the POGO analysis (see table below).

DHS Guidance on Contracting Meetings with Industry

By SCOTT AMEY

Jason Miller at Federal News Radio reported (click here for the audio) that the Department of Homeland Security’s National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) has draft guidance on holding meetings with industry representatives. This is a great move considering that the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) issued two memos educating the federal acquisition workforce about ways it can better team with industry.

The draft guidance states that government and industry meetings should only be scheduled after agency officials receive information about those requesting the meeting, the meeting’s purpose, names and titles of those participating, contracting opportunities they are seeking as well as additional information about prior NPPD meetings with the entity, potential conflicts related to current and former DHS/NPPD officials, and the entity’s history of contracting with DHS.

If the government is serious about learning from industry throughout the acquisition process, there should be polices to ensure that those meetings are above reproach. The draft guidance by NPPD would do that. It would create a level playing field for all contractors and help acquisition employees avoid ethics violations, including violations of the Procurement Integrity Act, personal and organizational conflicts of interest, revolving door abuses, and violations of lobbying rules. The draft guidance might also help achieve OFPP’s goals to engage small businesses and subgroups of small businesses, and improve communications with contractors that the agency has not worked with before.

Ex Lockheed Lobbyist Now in Key Defense Oversight Role

 

By BEN FREEMAN, Ph.D.

A former executive and lobbyist for defense contractor Lockheed Martin has been appointed to one of the most powerful posts on Capitol Hill overseeing the defense industry.

Ann Elise Sauer, who left Lockheed last year, is now the Republican staff director at the Senate Armed Services Committee. The Committee oversees military spending, including major weapons systems that are central to Lockheed’s business.

Sauer received more than $1.66 million from Lockheed during a reporting period that encompasses this year and last year, according to a financial disclosure form she filed in April. The $1.66 million included salary, bonus, deferred compensation and a lump sum described in the filing as “RETIRED PAY.”

Sauer was appointed to the Senate staff position in February. Her financial disclosure form, recently noted by Legistorm, called attention to her appointment.

Lockheed Martin, the Department of Defense’s top contractor (in terms of total contract dollars awarded yearly), receives tens of billions of dollars annually from the Pentagon. Last year alone, the firm was awarded Department of Defense contracts valued at more than $33 billion. The company is responsible for some of the Pentagon's most expensive and troubled weapon systems, including the F-22 and F-35 fighter jets.

As minority staff director, Sauer reports to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Despite New Law, Members of Congress Still Profiting on Stock Deals

Who is the Money Working For?

By DANA LIEBELSON

As I said in a previous post about Thomas MacKenzie,

Sure, the fat severance bonus Northrop Grumman paid lobbyist Thomas MacKenzie right before he left to work for the House Armed Services Committee may have been a reward for a job well done. However, that doesn’t keep the cynics among us from wondering if the company was hoping the cash might also help MacKenzie remember his old friends fondly.

Read more about MacKenzie in my lastest post. For more examples of the revolving door, check out our Un-Do Influence Campaign.

Dana Liebelson is POGO's Beth Daley Impact Fellow

Follow @dliebelson

Lobbyist Turned Hill Staffer Owned At Least $100,000 in Northrop Stock

By DANA LIEBELSON

Thomas MacKenzie, the former Northrop Grumman lobbyist who was awarded a large severance and bonus prior to taking a job on Capitol Hill in 2011, also owned between $100,000 and $250,000 in Northrop stock during that time, according to his ethics disclosure statement.

“It’s not uncommon for a senior K Street lobbyist to have a quarter of a million dollars tucked away in stock. But it is uncommon for someone who is a congressional staffer,” Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist at Public Citizen, told POGO. “This poses a very serious conflict of interest.”

Infographic: Who is the Money Working For?

The disclosure statement, which was filed in August 2011, covers the period between Jan. 1, 2010 and June 15, 2011. MacKenzie joined the House Armed Services Committee in March 2011, and earned about $108,000 in that year.

This is MacKenzie’s second trip through the revolving door. Before working for Northrop Grumman, he was a staffer on the Senate Armed Services Committee from 2000 to 2005, according to Legistorm.

It’s unknown whether MacKenzie still owns Northrop stock, as this information isn’t readily available to the public. However, under the Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act which passed earlier this year, senior staffers must file reports on personal transactions valued over $1,000 within 45 days (with some exceptions)—beginning July 3.

The STOCK Act applies to congressional staffers who make a monthly salary of at least $9,962 for any two months during a calendar year. According to Legistorm, MacKenzie’s salary seems to qualify for the first quarter of 2012. So once the STOCK Act kicks in, it appears he should be subject to this disclosure requirement.

Defense Lobbyist Got Fat Bonus Before Joining Congressional Staff

Northrop Grumman's E-2D Hawkeyes are among the billions in weapons the U.S. government buys from the company each year (DoD photo)

Click here to join POGO's Un-Do Influence Campaign: a movement to reclaim Washington

By DANA LIEBELSON

Sure, the fat severance bonus Northrop Grumman paid lobbyist Thomas MacKenzie right before he left to work for the House Armed Services Committee may have been a reward for a job well done. However, that doesn’t keep the cynics among us from wondering if the company was hoping the cash might also help MacKenzie remember his old friends fondly.

Lee Fang at Republic Report found this week through a recently filed ethics disclosure form that in 2011, Northrop  awarded MacKenzie a $498,334 bonus, worth almost as much as his $529,379 annual salary. MacKenzie got the money right before he left to go work as a congressional staffer under Committee Chairman Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.).

At his new job, where he’ll be working on many issues that could affect his former employer, MacKenzie will earn about $120,000 per year.  

“The sheer size of the bonus appears extraordinary,” Sheila Krumholz, executive director for the Center for Responsive Politics, told POGO. “A reasonable person might wonder if the bonus was paid to compensate the pay cut, with the expectation that he will work for Northrop Grumman on the inside.”

Nuclear Weapons Lobby Pumps Cash Into Congressional Races

A decomissioned Titan II nuclear missile, which is now part of a museum (photo by Flickr user Kingdafy).

Click here to join POGO's Un-Do Influence Campaign: a movement to reclaim Washington

By MIA STEINLE

The members of Congress with the most influence over nuclear weapons have received $2.9 million in campaign contributions this election cycle from defense contractors involved in the nuclear weapons lobby, according to a new report from the Center for International Policy. The contractors have given these members $18.7 million over the course of their tenures in Congress.

The report calls for the cancellation of two costly Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear facilities, the postponement of the Air Force’s new nuclear bomber, and the reduction of the Navy’s ballistic missile submarine force. While the report calculates that these changes will yield taxpayers a savings of $46 billion over the next two decades, it says that “any effort to downsize the nation’s nuclear force is likely to be met with fierce opposition from the individuals and institutions that benefit from the nuclear status quo.”

Among those who benefit from the status quo are the contractors that manage two DOE nuclear facilities highlighted in the report—the proposed Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement-Nuclear Facility and the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility. The contractors connected to the two facilities contributed more than $240,000 to members of Congress during the 2012 election cycle and nearly $2.3 million over the course of the members’ tenures in Congress.

Lobbyists Call for Lobbying Reform

By ANDREW WYNER

POGO recently sat down with Howard Marlowe, president of the American League of Lobbyists (ALL), to discuss ALL's  recommendations for reforming the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (LDA). ALL's proposed reforms would force more lobbyists to disclose their lobbying activities and attempt to close many loopholes that continue to plague lobbying registration.

While ALL's recommendations do not amend all faults with the LDA, POGO was happy to sit down and discuss the group’s suggestions. To be clear, POGO isn't opposed to the act of lobbying. In fact, we at POGO lobby within legal limits too. The problem is not the act of lobbying, it is the lack of disclosure and the nexus between lobbying and campaign contributions or government contracts or grants.

Primarily, ALL wants more lobbyists to register their lobbying activities to the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate, who jointly control lobbying registration. If the idea of a lobbyist association advocating tighter registration requirements sounds funny to you, you're not alone. The idea is that greater registration would both make the lobbying business more transparent and improve its reputation. 

The problem, as ALL puts it, is that lobbyists are getting a bad rap:

Rep. Wolf Tries to Stop Flock of Colleagues Going Through Lobbying Revolving Door

By LYDIA DENNETT 

Former elected officials lobbying for foreign dictators may be big business in DC, but one Member of Congress is trying to slow down the revolving door between the Hill and lobbying shops that work on behalf of interests outside the U.S.

Representative Frank Wolf (R-VA) recently introduced the Foreign Lobbying Reform Act (H.R. 4343), which would prohibit high-ranking government officials like the President, Vice President, Members of Congress, and ambassadors from lobbying on behalf of foreign governments for ten years after leaving office.

According to Rep. Wolf, “serving in Congress or as a United States ambassador is a high honor and people should not walk out of government one day and then trade on their service the next, especially for governments who do not share the same values as the United States.”

Un-Do Influence: Obama's Lobbyist Ban is Tough (Except When It Isn't)

Facepalm Ratings Guide = Stupefying example of everything that's wrong with the system. = Outrageous; shameless, even. = Worthy of rebuke. = Even if there's no conflict of interest, appearances matter.

---------------------------- Click here to join POGO's Un-Do Influence campaign.

By JOE NEWMAN

For a guy who likes to talk about keeping lobbyists out of his administration, President Barack Obama sure doesn't mind making some notable exceptions.

Now comes the latest dust-up involving Vice President Joe Biden's hiring of Steve Ricchetti to be a senior advisor. That's the same Steve Ricchetti whom the Obama campaign in 2008 attacked for being a lobbyist/bundler for then Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Listening to the administration spin the hire is pretty funny. Ricchetti hasn't personally lobbied since 2008. What was he doing instead? He was running his, um, lobbying(!) firm.

Obama has taken legitimate and laudable steps to slow the revolving door between lobbying firms and the White House and reduce private interests' disproportionate influence on executive branch policymakers. The restrictions he passed upon taking office were unprecedented, and intended to reduce industry influence peddling. 

But then there are those waivers and exceptions. Those are fine by us if they're used to bring public interest lobbyists into the fold. Not so much when they're granted to, say, a lobbyist for a top defense contractor. 

Look, lobbying, per se, isn't a bad thing. There's a place in our democracy for it—citizens, and that includes those paid to represent special interests, have a right to directly petition their elected leaders.

But one only has to look to Jack Abramoff to see how the system can be corrupted when lobbyists with access to piles of cash are able to buy influence through gifts, perks, campaign contributions and in the worst cases—bribes.

President Obama was right to want to distance himself from their influence. But if you're going to talk the talk, you've got to expect to some flak when you (or your vice president) bend your own rules. Sorry, Mr. President, the buck stops with you—you and Vice President Biden earned four facepalms.

***

Penn's Awkward Silence on Academic Integrity