« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
What Did McCain Actually Do for Iseman's Clients?
If John McCain was too close for comfort with lobbyist Vicki Iseman, what did she have to show for it?
The New York Times story made a run at cataloging the possible favors. And with the exception of the letters I noted in my earlier posts, it's pretty thin gruel.
The Times sums most of it up in a single paragraph (here's the McCain camp's point-by-point rebuttal):
A champion of deregulation, Mr. McCain wrote letters in 1998 and 1999 to the Federal Communications Commission urging it to uphold marketing agreements allowing a television company to control two stations in the same city, a crucial issue for Glencairn Ltd., one of Ms. Iseman’s clients. He introduced a bill to create tax incentives for minority ownership of stations; Ms. Iseman represented several businesses seeking such a program. And he twice tried to advance legislation that would permit a company to control television stations in overlapping markets, an important issue for Paxson.
The question naturally arises whether anything is remarkable about this "champion of deregulation" responding to the desires of telecoms and media companies. Was it special attention or typical indulgence? When the Times took a look at McCain's actions as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee back in 2000, it reached the conclusion that McCain had frequently taken actions benefiting campaign contributors.
Iseman's client Paxson was a case in point. The company and its lobbyists had contributed $20,000 to McCain and flown him around on their corporate jet. And that was the obvious angle to the stories about McCain's letters to the FCC in late 1999: that Mr. Straight Talk Express and campaign finance reform was at the beck and call of special interests.
But Paxson was far from unique. The Times also reported that McCain had weighed in on behalf of Baby Bell telephone companies seeking to enter the long-distance business; two of those companies -- neither of them clients of Iseman -- had contributed a total of $167,000 to McCain.
So while The Washington Post reports that Iseman would frequently tout her access to McCain to other lobbyists, it's not clear at this point what remarkable favors that supposed access won her.
Comments (20)
Is the right attacking the Post over their story too, or is it just a Times pile-on?
February 21, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Based on the data in your story, though, whatever benefit Ms. Iseman or her clients may have gotten, it seems clear that "Mr. Straight Talk Express and campaign finance reform was at the beck and call of special interests".
Isn't this in actuality the real issue?
Mr. Clean is just another DeLay-style money changer?
February 21, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Paul:
I think you're asking the wrong question. It's not what extraordinary things McCain did for Iseman; it's what extraordinary access Iseman claimed to McCain.
One lesson of the Abramoff scandal, which gave us the best look at Washington access peddling we've ever had, is that real clout is often less important to lobbyists than the perception of real clout. So long as they're seen as having special access, it doesn't always matter how effective they are at delivering favors.
That's the one undisputed aspect of this scandal. Whatever the reality of the relationship, Vicki Iseman was clearly going around Washington, telling people she had special access to the Chairman of the Commerce Committee. It's also clear she raked in huge sums of money in lobbying fees as a result of peddling that access. And, his denials aside, it's pretty clear that McCain knew that's what she was doing - and far from stopping her, continued to be seen with her in public and in private. Whether or not he delivered favors is only half the question; the biggest favor he delivered was to Iseman, in allowing her to trade in on their relationship. And that's fairly scandalous, in itself.
February 21, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a thoughtful read on the issue. Unfortunately, it's way above the public's head. The "affair" is McCain's best friend because his innocence of that (perceived or real) gets him off the hook on everything else. Everything else is nuance, and we know how much the public likes them Franch words.
February 21, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, there may be more to the Paxson/McCain story than that. Check out
http://www.techliberation.com/archives/043365.php
(from Yglesias' site) for some interesting events in 2004. Whether or not there's anything to the McCain/Isemann relationship -- and whether or not it had ended by then -- McCain seems to have changed his position on a key issue in a way that was critical to Paxson.
February 21, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just heard on NPR that McCain says he and Iseman are "friends" and further that he has seen her within the last few months but didn't tell her about the potential NYTimes story - even though he already knew about it. This seems highly suspect. What kind of "friend" would he be not to alert her to this ticking time bomb? That's what tipped me over the edge. I think he must be lying about that - and so, quite likely, also lying about the nature of their relationship. IMO
February 21, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh and another thing on the NPR story, Congratulations - they referenced your post on this website, Josh! Way to go!!! Pretty soon we'll have to call YOU MSM!
February 21, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the Baby Bells McCain as Chairman of Commerce wrote to the FCC about was SBC now AT&T, ranked 27 on the Fortune 500 list. Not a bad return on investment on SBS's part.
As was noted in an earlier post, isn't whether Iseman's clients got special treatment so much as McCain giving special treatment to his contributors.
February 21, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If John McCain was too close for comfort with lobbyist Vicki Iseman, what did she have to show for it?"
Ummmm, show to whom? Naughty, naughty.....
February 21, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I definitely think that the New York Times has more pieces that will make this puzzle evident: Mr. Straight Talk Express has been in bed(figuratively, I hope--he's her grandfather)w/powerful interests groups/lobbyists that he purportedly scorns.
In 2004, one of his chief advisers left McCain to support Kerry for President. I cannot think of his name. . .someone help. But, he wrote a searing indictment about how "pork baller spending" was in fact an Issue that John McCain did not tackle. He was missing in action, though he had a web-site purporting to curb pork, while giving away--w/ his votes--to the Military-Industrial Complex w/out deference.
So, one thing is certain that the Image by the MSM of a 'maverick', a 'reformist' is so hypocritical.
Now, we have a silly right-wing up in arms. Why? Because, their next Presidential hopeful was thought to be a Reformer. lol
February 21, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may be right, but why would they withhold information that would strengthen their story if it were relaible? Seems like a huge risk to publish a thin story just hoping that more evidence will surface.
February 21, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>>"pork baller spending"
Freudian slip of the day!
John "Pork Baller" McCain.... haha
February 21, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>>the biggest favor he delivered was to Iseman, in allowing her to trade in on their relationship
And what did he receive in return? Probably just sex. As if trading this access (for money or campaign funds) isn't bad enough, prostituting one's self for that access is beyond deplorable.
>>>What kind of "friend" would he be not to alert her to this ticking time bomb?
Totally. I think many of us have become experts in body language given the repeated lies of BushCo over the years. He was l-y-i-n-g at the news conference, lying to her, lying to anyone and everyone. It was totally obvious the minute he said they were "just friends". It's like JM's 16 words if you get my drift.
>>>referenced your post on this website, Josh
As did Susan Swain, today's moderator on C-span's Washington Journal, this morning. Complete with reading the passage about lacunae and snarky comment that went something like: "yeah, we had to look that one up too." Getting mentioned on WashJournal is great enough, but schooling them on vocab at the same time? Priceless.
February 21, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Truth: I think the Times has much more legs to this story that we will see as the days, weeks go on. Actually, as Paul states there are a lot of contradictions pertaining to McCain's press release.
Also, I think the Times has burned itself before, and knows better than to leave such a "thin story" out there without more coming.
Every news organization worth its salt is going to investigate Mr. Clean w/ a fine tooth-brush.
Sure, the Times could have waited a day or two, maybe a week. We won't win the South anyway. lol
Get the ball rolling. . . .
February 21, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
oh no! I had a revelation! The McCain camp planted the story to dispell the notion that he's a cadaver..no, he's a stud!!!
February 21, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
When the Republican Senate - in a rare response to public pressure - voted to repeal the media ownership concentration cap relaxation which Michael Powell's FCC approved on June 2, 2002, Sen. McCain voted against the repeal. This - despite two million comments submitted to the FCC by folks opposed to the ownership deregulation.
I think this is an ideal time for former SCC Chairman McCain to answer questions about the corruption of our corporate media outlets - the MSM - enabled by his actions in the Senate. I thought the "services rendered" to the GOP for this deregulatory largesse were limited to the softball, dumbed-down news we get from the corporate outlets. Perhaps not.
February 21, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
...body fluids for influence ?!?
February 22, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
You neglect to mention McCain's letters to the FCC on behalf of Ms. Iseman's cause, letters that resulted in a rebuke from the FCC for inappropriate interference. That seems to be a pretty big issue, doesn't it? This is a specific instance in which McCain is tied to something that is precisely the inverse of his stated policy, along with his self-styled unimpeachable integrity. Isn't that exactly the issue at hand?
Not to mention his free flights, which he didn't disclose until after he was called to the carpet. Like the Keating affair, he championed legislation to curb such favors, but only *after* he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
These are favors from lobbyists resulting in favors for lobbyists. What part of this should result in a free pass?
February 22, 2008 1:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
One more thing: the letter McCain sent to the FCC contained "draft language" from Ms. Iseman and her clients. This is just the kind of lobbyists-in-bed-with-legislators that has plagued the Bush Administration on numerous occasions, and has cost the American people quite significantly. Not only did McCain send a highly inappropriate letter to the FCC, *he let the lobbyists write the thing.*
And I haven't even touched on the sex-for-favors aspect of this mess.
This whole thing stinks. Maybe not more than a lot of other things, but for a man who arrogantly touts his own high-mindedness, the word hypocrisy doesn't quite cover it.
February 22, 2008 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think we should get Ken Starr out of retirement and pony up 70 million dollars to find out what the lobbyists got for their money. Gosh I hope there is sex involved so we can keep the attention of the MSM. Please please please! The facist/reactionary party has made this witch hunt stuff perfectly normal business as usual. Gee I hope they like to receive as well as they like to give.
February 22, 2008 3:24 AM | Reply | Permalink