Collins Watch

Quote of the Day

noreply@blogger.com (Contrapositive) — Mon, 13 May 2013 12:48:00 +0000

"I think that in these states you have to worry about a primary," he said. "That's just a reality. You saw [Sen.] Bob Bennett in Utah lose a primary. [Sen.] Richard Lugar [in Indiana] lose a primary. [Congressman] Mike Castle in Delaware lost a [Senate] primary. That's what you worry about as a Republican. They're going to come at you from the far right. I’m sure that’s what Susan Collins is worried about [on gay marriage].

Revisiting History

noreply@blogger.com (Contrapositive) — Sun, 12 May 2013 14:18:00 +0000

Sen. Susan Collins, in her commencement address to USM students yesterday:

Let me give you an example from my own life. In 1994, I won an eight-way primary but lost a grueling general election to be Maine's Governor. I was unemployed, uninsured, flat broke, and uncertain how I was going to pay my mortgage.

Portland Press Herald, July 28, 2003:

After Collins lost the 1994 gubernatorial race to Angus King, [Bushmaster Firearms owner Richard] Dyke played a big role in finding her next job. Dyke donated $265,000 to his alma mater, Husson College, to establish a center for small business, which hired Collins.
"I told Susan, 'They are looking for an executive director, and that might be a good fit for you until you decide to run again,'" Dyke said.
The arrangement was no secret, says Collins press secretary Megan Sowards. "It is called the 'Richard E. Dyke Center for Family Business,' and she was the inaugural director," Sowards said.

Quote of the Day

noreply@blogger.com (Contrapositive) — Thu, 09 May 2013 13:30:00 +0000

Paul Krugman:

So they just convincingly voted for Mark Sanford, a man who cheated on his wife, tried to cover his actions with an absurd story about hiking the Appalachian Trail, and trespassed on his ex-wife's property, over an exemplary Democratic candidate. And you know what? Given their preferences, this was the right thing to do.
Look, we have an intensely polarized political system, and in Congress, at least, party affiliation is basically all that matters. When Massachusetts voters chose Scott Brown because he seemed like a nice guy, they were being idiots; his character (which I suspect they misjudged, but never mind) didn't matter, while the loss of that 60th seat in the Senate almost killed health reform.

Of Two Minds

noreply@blogger.com (Contrapositive) — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 01:28:00 +0000

New York Times, January 20, 2013:

"I'm going to support the limitation on the size of the clips," said Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine.

Portland Press Herald, April 17, 2013:

King voted to ban large-capacity ammunition magazines while Collins opposed the measure.

Quote of the Day

noreply@blogger.com (Contrapositive) — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:20:00 +0000

Dennis Bailey:

She was “furious” that the article portrayed her as an “insensitive demon” (her words). So she did the political equivalent of drunk dialing an old flame after a nasty break up: she called Politico reporter Mike Allen on his cell phone and let him have it. Both barrels.

Courting the 10%

noreply@blogger.com (Contrapositive) — Sun, 14 Apr 2013 02:04:00 +0000

In what looks like a hastily-mounted effort to head off controversy over strange, tone-deaf remarks that came across as a complaint about how the Newtown families forced her to miss the first course at a White House dinner, Sen. Susan Collins backed the bipartisan compromise to expand background checks on gun purchases on Saturday.

Welcome news, and kudos to Collins for doing the sensible thing--even if the decision seemed an attempt to change the subject.

But one piece of her explanation deserves special attention:

Collins described the Manchin-Toomey effort as "a responsible break through from two people who have far better NRA rankings than I have." Both Sens. Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia and Pat Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, hold "A" ratings from the National Rifle Association. Collins added she knows her yes vote and support is "not a popular thing in my state." (Emphasis mine.)

This is a rather remarkable statement given that support for universal background checks in Maine, far from being unpopular, clocks in at about 90%.

Is Collins simply uninformed? Or is she just conflating the views of Mainers generally with the very narrow slice of the population that makes up the Republican primary electorate?

It's impossible to know. But in either case it's clear that Collins's policy vision is being cramped by a fixation with how proposals play with a very small minority of the population.

Of course, that's a risk Mainers accepted when they elected Collins as senator.

But for anyone uncomfortable withe the idea of the John Birch Society and their fringe brethren having a veto on national public policy, it's an unfortunate reality.

Quote of the Day

noreply@blogger.com (Contrapositive) — Sat, 13 Apr 2013 22:07:00 +0000

Sen. Susan Collins:

"The Newtown families were VERY late for their meeting with me. I felt a moral obligation to talk with them. I kept the president of the United States waiting. I mean, how rude is that of me? But I explained to him later that the reason I was 45 minutes late for his dinner was the Newtown families were late--very late--getting to my office, and I just could not leave without talking to them. And he was very gracious about it. He said, ‘Right call. I understand.’"

What Does This Paragraph Mean?

noreply@blogger.com (Contrapositive) — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 20:27:00 +0000

From a Collins press release:

One issue Senator Collins has raised it [sic] that the Administration's complex legal brief filed earlier this year calls for the invalidation of California's ban on same-sex marriages. It would have implications for several other states, but the brief curiously does not challenge the prohibition on same-sex marriages in some 30 states that do not recognize domestic partnerships.

Set aside the obvious distinction between supporting same-sex marriage and believing that banning such marriages is unconstitutional.

The real question is: What exactly is Collins driving at here? Is the subtext supposed to be that President Obama is "soft" on gay marriage, too?

Treading Lightly

noreply@blogger.com (Contrapositive) — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 17:21:00 +0000

New York Times:

Senate Republicans are seeking on Friday to erect potential new obstacles to financial rule-writing at agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation...
The Republican author of one financial amendment--Senator Susan Collins of Maine--argues that new financial rules should tread lightly on the fragile economy...
But consumer advocates predict a fallout for regulators, who are putting the finishing touches on dozens of new rules to rein in the derivatives market and proprietary trading...
"The costs of the financial crisis and benefits of avoiding the next one are crystal clear," said Amit Narang, a regulatory policy advocate at Public Citizen, a nonprofit government watchdog group. "Having financial regulators jump through more hoops will only further delay the process of making Wall Street accountable to the American public."

I can't believe we're still having this conversation.

Quote of the Day

noreply@blogger.com (Contrapositive) — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:28:00 +0000

Judicial workload expert Sen. Susan Collins, defending her filibuster of well-qualified judicial nominee Caitlin Halligan, who'd been tapped by President Obama to fill one of the four vacant seats on the 11-seat U.S. District Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit:

"My vote solely reflects my determination that this seat does not need to be filled by anyone."

Priorities

noreply@blogger.com (Contrapositive) — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:09:00 +0000

Sen. Susan Collins on WGAN, Feb. 13, 2013:

An example would be [President Obama's] call for universal pre-Kindergarten for everybody. Great idea...but how is he going to pay for it?

New York Times, February 14, 2013:

In a report released last week, the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning research organization, estimated that providing preschool for all 3- and 4-year-olds would cost about $98.4 billion in federal spending over 10 years.

Bangor Daily News, Jan. 8, 2012:

The war in Iraq is officially over. The costs will go on...
Direct federal spending on the war through 2012 will reach $823 billion, surpassing the $738 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars the U.S. spent on the Vietnam War, the Congressional Research Service estimated in a March 29 report. Only World War II had a higher direct cost, $4.1 trillion, in current dollars.
Not counted in that is the interest of more than $200 billion the federal government has already had to pay on the resulting debt, said Linda Bilmes, a senior lecturer in public finance at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.
Bilmes also estimates the price over the next 40 years of health care and disability compensation for veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts will be almost $1 trillion.

Portland Press Herald, Jan. 4, 2008

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine sharpened the distinction with her opponent in this year's election, Rep. Tom Allen, noting on Thursday that she remains opposed to any deadlines for withdrawing troops from Iraq.

Susan Collins and Torture

noreply@blogger.com (Contrapositive) — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 21:42:00 +0000

Wall Street Journal, Feb. 6, 2013:

Ms. Collins considers the use of harsh interrogation methods unacceptable.

New York Times, Jan. 13, 2005:

At the urging of the White House, Congressional leaders scrapped a legislative measure last month that would have imposed new restrictions on the use of extreme interrogation measures by American intelligence officers...
The Senate had approved the new restrictions, by a 96-to-2 vote, as part of the intelligence reform legislation. They would have explicitly extended to intelligence officers a prohibition against torture or inhumane treatment, and would have required the C.I.A. as well as the Pentagon to report to Congress about the methods they were using.
But in intense closed-door negotiations, Congressional officials said, four senior members from the House and Senate deleted the restrictions from the final bill...
Both Senator Susan Collins of Maine, a Republican negotiator, and Representative Jane Harman of California, a Democratic negotiator, said the lawmakers had ultimately decided that the question of whether to extend the restrictions to intelligence officers was too complex to be included in the legislation.

New York Times, September 28, 2006

Last week, the White House and three Republican senators announced a terrible deal on [the Military Commissions Act] that gave Mr. Bush most of what he wanted, including a blanket waiver for crimes Americans may have committed in the service of his antiterrorism policies.
Then Vice President Dick Cheney and his willing lawmakers rewrote the rest of the measure so that it would give Mr. Bush the power to jail pretty much anyone he wants for as long as he wants without charging them, to unilaterally reinterpret the Geneva Conventions, to authorize what normal people consider torture, and to deny justice to hundreds of men captured in error.

US Senate, September 28, 2006

S. 3930 (Military Commissions Act of 2006)
Collins (R-ME): Yea

More Somersaults

noreply@blogger.com (Contrapositive) — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 18:47:00 +0000

Lately there have been rumors that Sen. Collins could face a primary challenge in 2014 should she seek reelection. And a new poll strongly suggests that Maine's new senior senator is vulnerable on her right flank.

So Collins's recent about-face on the assault weapons ban is understandable (if reprehensible, cowardly and hypocritical). As is her latest bit of, um, recalibration.

March 14, 2012:

Even the top sponsor of a bill that would cut off lawmakers' pay if they can't--or won't--pass a budget blueprint admits many of his colleagues think it's just a political talking point instead of a serious idea...
Collins is among those opposed to the "no budget, no pay" measure. She points out that there are many rich people in the Senate who might not care whether they get paid or not. A lot of them are liberal Democrats.
"Given how many wealthy members there are--of which I am not one, regrettably--I wonder whether it would really have the kind of impact that its sponsors believe it would," Collins said Tuesday.

January 27, 2013:

"I don't know that it's really fair to members that do not have significant means and have no control over whether a budget is brought to the floor or not," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who noted she fits into that category. "Having said that, if this works it will have been shown to be a good technique."

There's a word for this. And it isn't "centrism."

Somersaults on Guns

noreply@blogger.com (Contrapositive) — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:21:00 +0000

What a difference a month makes: December 19, 2012

"Obviously that system is only going to be as effective as the completeness of the data," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who supports banning high-capacity magazine clips and renewing the assault-weapons ban, which expired in 2004.

Today:

Maine Senator Susan Collins, a Republican who supported similar legislation in 2004, has indicated she is unlikely to back the proposed ban.

Holding The Line

noreply@blogger.com (Contrapositive) — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 19:03:00 +0000

It appears that Maine's new senior senator has joined the GOP Senate leadership as one of several deputy whips.

Threading the Needle

noreply@blogger.com (Contrapositive) — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:14:00 +0000

Both Portland Press Herald and Bangor Daily News have stories up today suggesting that Sen. Collins now says she favors extending middle class tax cuts immediately and sorting out questions about tax breaks for the rich later.

But did she actually say this?

Kevin Miller and Matthew Stone are relatively new to the Collins beat. So they may not be aware of the senator's long history of using ambiguous statements to send different messages to different constituencies--and to win press coverage that conveys almost the opposite of what she's up to.

Collins did this on Iraq, hinting that she backed a substantial troop withdrawal when she actually supported no such thing.

She did it on "don't ask don't tell"--telling reporters that she would vote for repeal even as she signed a letter vowing to block it.

She's done it often. And she's quite good at it.

So is the junior senator up to the same shenanigans when it comes to taxes and the middle class?

I think it's clear that she is.

Consider: While her statement says in passing that extending the middle class tax rates immediately "has merit" the junior senator also warns that "we must, however, work to protect small business owners"--which we know from prior discussion Collins thinks includes people making $1 million per year and up.

The statement then proceeds to tout Collins's own proposal to protects these high-income individuals without ever explicitly stating that she would vote for a middle income rate extension that didn't include her "small business" carve out.

Finally, as Miller notes in his piece:

Collins voted earlier this year against a Democratic bill to only extend the middle class tax cuts.

The clear upshot of all this is that Collins, while making friendly noises about a middle class rate extension (it "has merit"), has fallen far short of actually embracing it.

Meanwhile, she has succeeded in generating headlines that suggest she's in sync with the views of most Mainers while at the same time leaving herself enough wiggle room to tell a different story to her wealthy benefactors and the lunatic fringe of the Maine GOP.

It's a needle she's threaded before. And one she's sure to try to thread again.

Hopefully next time, Maine reporters will be wise to the game.

Here's the full statement:

"Representative Cole's proposal to proceed with an extension of tax relief for working families making $250,000 or less has merit because everyone agrees lower and middle-income families should not be subjected to higher taxes.
"I believe that very wealthy individuals—millionaires and billionaires—should pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes to help us reduce the soaring deficit. In April, I was the only Republican to vote to proceed to consideration of a bill, the so-called "Buffett Rule," which would have imposed a new minimum tax on the very wealthy.
"We must, however, work to protect small business owners—our nation's job creators--from the impact of higher taxes that are scheduled to go into effect at the beginning of the year.
"Last December, Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and I offered a bipartisan job creation plan that included a two-percent surtax on millionaires. But our proposal also included a "carve-out" provision to protect small business owners who pay taxes through the individual income tax system. We recognize that while multimillionaires and billionaires can afford to pay more to help us deal with our unsustainable deficit, small businesses cannot. Small business owner-operators are on the front lines of our economy. The income that shows up on their personal income tax returns is critical to their ability to create jobs, finance investment, and grow their businesses."

Quote of the Day

noreply@blogger.com (Contrapositive) — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:49:00 +0000

Sen. Susan Collins:

"I continue to be troubled by the fact that the UN ambassador decided to play what was essentially a political role at the height of the contentious presidential election campaign by agreeing to go on the Sunday shows to present the administration’s position."

Another Side of Collins

noreply@blogger.com (Contrapositive) — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 01:44:00 +0000

Michael Grunwald's THE NEW NEW DEAL--a behind-the-scenes look at the 2009 stimulus bill--doesn't add much of substance to the public record of Sen. Collins's often deleterious role in the debate, her frequently contradictory claims about her goals for the bill or the vacuousness at the heart of her approach to the legislation.

But it does provide us with two notable anecdotes that reveal a side of Collins I don't believe the public has seen before. I certainly haven't.

First:

The Recovery Act was a complex bill, and the negotiations to get it through the Senate were complex, too...But as they started cutting a deal in [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid's office that Friday, February 6, the bottom line was pretty simple. The Democrats wanted a stimulus, and they couldn't get one without Specter, Collins and Snowe.
Lieberman was in the room to support Collins--she joked that she needed a Jewish lawyer...

Second:

[President Obama's Chief of Staff] Rahm [Emanuel] did try to steer $10 billion back into school construction, but the moderates said no. [Office of Management and Budget Director Peter] Orszag proposed limiting the money to existing schools. Still no. Could states at least use their general education aid to fix schools? That was at least something to talk about...During one technical dispute over how some language would affect Maine's school construction agency, Orszag begged Collins to give ground.
"Please," he said. "Do this for me."
Collins just laughed.
"That's funny," she said. "You still want people to like you."

I'm puzzled by Collins's decision to arrive at negotiations with Lieberman in tow. Is that standard practice?

That said, I'm not suggesting either anecdote reveals anything unseemly. And while Collins's choice of words in reply to Orszag seems more jaded than one might have expected, his comment seems to merit the kind of brush-off she gave him.

Still, the dry, sardonic and politically incorrect sense of humor in evidence here suggests that the portrait of Collins that emerges from public appearances, fawning Maine press coverage and national television interviews is probably incomplete.

Systemic Failure and the Maine Press

noreply@blogger.com (Contrapositive) — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 20:33:00 +0000

Four states will be voting on marriage equality-related referendums next Tuesday.

Of the eight senators who represent those states, six have told voters where they stand on the issue and how they'll vote on election day.

In Maryland, Sens. Mikulski (D) and Cardin (D) support the state's same-sex marriage law, as do Sens. Cantwell (D) and Murray (D) in Washington state. (Like Sen. Snowe, Murray voted for DOMA in 1996. Unlike Snowe, she has repudiated that vote.)

In Minnesota, meanwhile, Sens. Klobuchar (D) and Franken (D) have been vocal opponents of a referendum to add a ban on same-sex marriage to the state's constitution. Franken and his wife Franni have appeared in a poignant ad on the subject.

That leaves Sens. Collins and Snowe. Neither senator has taken a public position on Maine's referendum, which they'll be voting on in three days. Their silence hasn't garnered a single mention from the state's major media outlets--not a single article or blog post on the subject.

All we've got to go on, courtesy of the Washington Blade, is this:

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said she's "considering" her position on the initiative in an email provided Thursday morning to the Washington Blade...
"Next month, the voters in Maine will be asked to decide if they will allow the state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Like voters in my state, I am considering this issue very carefully."
Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), who's set to retire Congress at the end of this year, expressed a similarly neutral position in a separate statement later Thursday.
"It is left to individual states through the legislature or referenda to make their own determinations on this personal issue--and the people of Maine will now make this final determination come Election Day," Snowe said.

As I noted last week, Collins's response--that she's still "considering" the issue--is both cowardly and insincere. Indeed, it takes a special kind of cowardice to ask for a pass on the most contested social issue of the decade mere days before you'll be voting on it.

But looking at the cowardice of Collins and Snowe in isolation would be a mistake. It's important to ask why Snowe and Collins think they can get away with it. And the answer there is clear: It's only a viable political strategy because of the deference of the Maine press.

In a healthier media ecosystem, this kind of dynamic would never exist. Reporters, hungry for good stories, would be more interested in challenging Snowe and Collins than coddling them. Editors would be more worried about churning out salient copy than about tiptoeing around powerful pols. And outlets would be tripping over each other to be the first to report out such a high profile scoop.

Take Minnesota, whose media scene I'm at least loosely familiar with: If Franken and Klobuchar tried to dodge such a major issue, they would be pressed for answers by print, radio and TV reporters; ducked question would yield unflattering headlines; and ridicule on the opinion pages and in the alternative weeklies would follow soon after.

But in Maine, since Collins and Snowe would prefer not to discuss the topic, the question never gets asked. Even as reporters work with both senators to advance the narratives they're interested in pushing.

This isn't a blind spot. It's a systemic failure. And when you've been watching it for as long as I have, it's hard to accept that it's an accident.

Collins Drops Gay Marriage Hint?

noreply@blogger.com (Contrapositive) — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 15:02:00 +0000

Is Sen. Susan Collins laying the groundwork to come out in support of gay marriage? Seems like a real possibility.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said she's "considering" her position on the initiative in an email provided Thursday morning to the Washington Blade as she recalled her previous opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment.
"Historically, laws regulating family and domestic affairs have been almost exclusively regulated by the states which is why I have voted against federal constitutional amendments defining marriage," Collins said. "Next month, the voters in Maine will be asked to decide if they will allow the state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Like voters in my state, I am considering this issue very carefully."

Three points are in order.

--First, supporting marriage equality after years of opposition, once the idea gains widespread acceptance and popular support--if that's what Collins is up to--doesn't exactly make you a gay rights crusader. It makes you a follower.

And three weeks before an election, it stinks of finger-in-the-wind politics.

So while I'd expect Collins to receive lots of accolades and fawning press coverage in the wake of such an announcement, it's worth keeping in mind that the heavy lifting on this issue was done by others. Over years and years. Collins could have been one of those people--her center-right seal of approval would probably have given the cause a real jolt back in 2006 or 2008 or even 2010. But the junior senator decided to keep her head down.

--Second, how lame is it that in 2012 (!) Collins is still resorting to an answer that amounts, basically, to "I'll get back to you."

I understand that marriage equality is a tough issue for a lot of people. But it's been part of the national discussion for almost 20 years. So what principles is she weighing? What conflicting values is she wrestling with? What reservations does she have?

Or are we supposed to believe that three weeks before voting on the biggest hot-button issue of the decade, the junior senator is just now starting to work through her feelings on the topic? The insincerity is breathtaking.

--Third, it won't surprise anyone who's been paying attention that this issue was raised by a publication based outside of Maine. Inside the state, no mainstream outlet would have the temerity to press Collins on such a sensitive social issue until the junior senator had telegraphed her interest in discussing it. It's that simple.

Of course, once the senator makes her position known--especially if the new position is likely to be viewed favorably by Maine's center-left media consumers--the same outlets that had previously ignored the subject will then trumpet the announcement as a watershed development and major news event.

It's reactive and deferential. But that's just the way the Maine press works.

Revolving Door Watch

noreply@blogger.com (Contrapositive) — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 13:25:00 +0000

Whaddaya know? Sen. Collins' former legislative director--he worked for the junior senator as recently as earlier this year--is becoming a lobbyist.

Collins Rallies for McMahon

noreply@blogger.com (Contrapositive) — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 12:17:00 +0000

From the Hartford Courant:

Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski...were the featured speakers at a "Women for Linda" rally McMahon held Saturday afternoon at a Norwalk hotel...
Both Collins and Murkowski said McMahon would bring a woman's common sense touch to the dysfunction of Washington. Murkowski noted that the Senate was in session into the wee hours of the morning on Saturday, "and let me tell you, if the women were running the Senate, we wouldn't be voting at midnight."
Collins said she and the 16 other women Senators gather for dinner every six weeks or so. One day, a male colleague asked what those dinners were all about. Collins said she smiled sweetly and responded that the women were planning a coup. "And I can't think of a better person to help us execute that coup than Linda McMahon," she said as the crowd cheered.

Quote of the Day

noreply@blogger.com (Contrapositive) — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:04:00 +0000

Sen. Susan Collins:

Referring to Medicare and Social Security, [Collins] said she feared that [Romney's] comments at the fund-raiser would paint him as being against "earned programs that people pay into" and have "widespread support."

"He has just not brought sufficient clarity to what his vision for America is," Ms. Collins said.

In A Box

noreply@blogger.com (Contrapositive) — Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:17:00 +0000

The Phoenix's Lance Tapley--one of Maine's best reporters--has this superb short piece about solitary confinement for apes and humans.

Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins is a key cosponsor of legislation that, among other provisions, would outlaw psychologically damaging solitary confinement for more than 500 chimpanzees caged for research in federally supported laboratories. In July the bill bipartisanly passed the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee on its way to a floor vote.

[...]

Some prisoner-rights advocates think it's ironic when laws give rights to animals that aren't extended to humans. Prison Legal News editor Paul Wright noted that, for example, "there are existing laws saying how much living space primates should have in captivity. By contrast, no such laws apply to humans in captivity."

[...]

S. 810, the Great Ape Protection Act, "corrects the pain and psychological damage that apes often experience as a result of needless experiments and solitary confinement," Senator Collins said in a recent statement. Repeated requests to her office for her views on human solitary confinement did not get a response.

It's been a while since a Maine journalist asked members of the congressional delegation a question they--or at least two of them--would rather not answer.

Talking Down Jefferson

noreply@blogger.com (Contrapositive) — Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:09:00 +0000

Forty-one paragraphs into Colin Woodard's 2154-word profile of Sen. Collins' fiance Tom Daffron, the Chief Operating Officer at Jefferson Consulting Group has this to say about his company:

"We do very little lobbying at Jefferson as a general rule, and I don't do any and haven't for at least five years," he adds. "I've never lobbied Susan and would not because I think it would be inappropriate."

That all seems to be true as far as it goes--Jefferson did only $40,000 in lobbying in 2011, down from almost $1 million in 2007--but it obscures a larger point.

Jefferson's two other practice areas are government consulting (helping "federal agencies across the government" develop procurement programs, etc.) and federal business development, which the company describes thus:

Drawing on decades of experience and deep relationships with key decision makers across civilian and defense agencies, Jefferson matches client capabilities with government needs to create effective and innovative solutions for the government and sustainable revenue for our clients.

(Jefferson's client list includes the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Defense, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Labor, the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the General Services Administration and the Internal Revenue Service among others.)

In short, Daffron runs a company that helps people figure out how to sell things to the federal government and helps the government figure out what to buy and how.

Did I mention that his future wife is the ranking member and past (future?) chairwoman of the committee charged with oversight of "the management, efficiency, effectiveness and economy of all agencies and departments of the Federal government"?

It may not have anything to do with lobbying, but that's one doozy of a conflict.

I'm not optimistic that we'll hear from Collins or Daffron about how they intend to manage that conflict. Nor do I think we're likely to learn what steps, if any, they'll take to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

Which is not to say that such a conflict is insurmountable--or that it's unique.

But it would be a mistake to simply pretend that it doesn't exist.