TPMMuckraker

Spakovsky Likely Headed Back To Voting Rights Agency, In Volunteer Post

2009-07-09T20:42:48Z

The US Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) is scheduled to vote tomorrow on the nomination of Republican voter-suppression guru Hans Von Spakovsky to a state-level body that advises the commission.

Lenore Ostrowsky, a spokeswoman for the USCCR -- whose mission is to defend voting rights -- confirmed to TPMmuckraker that commissioners will vote at a Friday morning meeting on Spakovsky's nomination to the State Advisory Committee for Virginia, where he lives. According to a source, it is likely that Spakovsky's nomination will be approved.

Ostrowsky additionally confirmed to TPMmuckraker that commissioners are also scheduled to vote tomorrow on the nomination of Cameron Quinn, a member of the Republican National Lawyer's Association, to serve on the State Advisory Committee for Virginia alongside Spakovsky.

Commissioner Todd Gaziano, a Spakovsky backer who is also the director of the conservative Heritage Foundation's Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, told TPMmuckraker that he was "at least one of the people" who recommended both Spakovsky and Quinn for the advisory committee -- which is an unpaid, volunteer position -- calling both "well-qualified to serve". As we reported last year, it was also Gaziano who recommended Spakovsky for a gig as a "consultant and temporary full-time employee" at USCCR in the run up to last fall's election.

According to the commission's website, the state advisory committees are "composed of citizens familiar with local and State civil rights issues." They're designed to "assist the Commission with its fact-finding, investigative, and information dissemination functions." Gaziano -- himself a former state advisory committee member for Virginia -- noted that the commission's rules require an "intellectually diverse" slate of state of advisory committee members, and said he believes the Virginia panel is "especially balanced and diverse."

Spakovsky has long been a controversial figure in voting-rights circles. He has consistently championed voter ID laws and other measures that, the evidence suggests, make it disproportionately harder for poor people and minorities to vote. As a senator in 2007, Barack Obama assailed Spakovsky's "efforts to undermine voting rights" and his "record of poor management, divisiveness, and inappropriate partisanship" during his tenure as an official at the Bush DOJ. Spakovsky was nominated by President Bush to be an FEC commissioner but his nomination was withdrawn last year when Democrats refused to confirm him.

Presented By:

2009-07-09T20:42:48Z

Ensign Still Bringing Dirty Laundry Home To Be Washed

2009-07-09T19:33:39Z

It looks like John Ensign's sexual dignity -- which hasn't been high lately -- has plunged to new depths. His lawyer has just released a remarkable statement saying that Ensign's parents paid the Hamptons $96,000 after the 51-year-old senator told his Mom and Dad about the affair.

The senator's father, Mike Ensign, is a casino mogul who sold his shares in the Mandalay Group for around $300 million earlier this decade.

The statement is a response to Doug Hampton's claim that Ensign paid a severance package of over $25,000 to Cindy Hampton when she left his political committee -- which would be a felony violation of campaign finance law if he wasn't reimbursed. A good government group called today for a criminal probe into the matter.

Here's the full statement:

In April 2008, Senator John Ensign's parents each made gifts to Doug Hampton, Cindy Hampton, and two of their children in the form of a check totaling $96,000. Each gift was limited to $12,000. The payments were made as gifts, accepted as gifts and complied with tax rules governing gifts.

After the Senator told his parents about the affair, his parents decided to make the gifts out of concern for the well-being of long-time family friends during a difficult time. The gifts are consistent with a pattern of generosity by the Ensign family to the Hamptons and others.

None of the gifts came from campaign or official funds nor were they related to any campaign or official duties. Senator Ensign has complied with all applicable laws and Senate ethics rules.

Paul Coggins
Fish & Richardson P.C.

Counsel for Senator John Ensign

Here at TPM, we frequently ask our parents to pay off the families of the people we sleep with, so this seems pretty standard.

Coburn On Hampton Claims: "Ask What's the Motivation Here"

2009-07-09T19:05:42Z

It looks like when Tom Coburn denied today that he urged his friend John Ensign to pay restitution to the family of the woman he had an affair with, the Oklahoma senator wasn't speaking just to Roll Call (sub. req.). Rather, in a sign of the potential trouble the story could represent for Coburn, he appears to have given an impromptu press conference, in what's likely to be a failed effort to nip it in the bud.

Politico reports that, along with his denial, Coburn had some choice words for Doug Hampton.

Said the Oklahoman:

John Ensign hasn't put me in a tough position at all. The person that's deceiving now is Doug. And you all need to go do the investigation now on that side of it and quit asking us and ask what's the motivation here.

Coburn also attacked the media for focusing on the story:

You've got two families that are back together and you guys are going to help tear them apart. What do you think their kids are thinking about what you're writing right now? You're helping tear apart two families that are back together - you need to quit.

Meanwhile, the good-government group Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington (CREW) has called on the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into Hampton's allegation that Ensign paid Cindy Hampton a severance package of over $25,000 when she left his political committee during the affair. That would be an in-kind contribution to the committee -- a felony violation of campaign-finance law if Ensign was not reimbursed. CREW had previously called for Senate Ethics committee and FEC probes into the affair.

Coburn Denies That He Urged Ensign To Pay "Restitution" For Affair

2009-07-09T17:47:04Z

We just told you about Doug Hampton's allegation that Sen. Tom Coburn urged his friend Sen. John Ensign to pay "restitution" money to the Hamptons on account of Ensign's affair with Hampton's wife. And now Coburn is denying the claim.

Roll Call reports:

Coburn repeatedly denied allegations that he urged Ensign to pay Doug Hampton, the husband of his mistress Cynthia, millions in hush money following a confrontation with Hampton. "I categorically deny everything he said," Coburn said.

Coburn also said he won't reveal -- even as part of a Senate ethics probe or legal proceeding -- what he told Ensign during the now-famous February 2008 confrontation over the affair, because he was acting in his capacity as a doctor and a deacon.

Said Coburn:

I was counseling him as a physician and as an ordained deacon. ... That is privileged communication that I will never reveal to anybody. Not to the Ethics Committee, not to a court of law, not to anybody.

When asked how he got involved, Coburn said: "Ya'll don't know about all the people I've counseled."

UPDATED: Coburn Not Denying Claim That He Urged Ensign To Pay "Restitution" To Girlfriend's Family

2009-07-09T16:35:03Z

SEE LATE UPDATE BELOW

Doug Hampton's TV interview about his wife's affair with Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) is hardly a model of clarity. Hampton meanders away from some questions, jumps forwards and back in time, and seems, perhaps understandably, still to have trouble viewing the situation dispassionately.

But there's one point on which Hampton is particularly lucid. He clearly says that when Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) confronted Ensign over the affair in February 2008, the Oklahoma senator urged Ensign to pay "restitution" to the Hamptons, including helping them to pay the mortgage on their $1.2 million house and to move out of state. And Coburn isn't denying it.

Let's look closely at what Hampton said.

He told his interviewer, Jon Ralston, that in February 2008, he went to a group of men associated with C Street, the Christian fellowship that has a house on Capitol Hill, and asked them to confront Ensign.

Said Hampton: "So I confront him with these men, and Tom Coburn." (Coburn has also been associated with the C Street fellowship, and his role in the Ensign confrontation was mentioned in Hampton's letter to Fox News, which came out last month.)

Asked by Ralston about the charge from the Ensign camp that Hampton had tried to extort him, Hampton continued:

The first money that was presented was from these men that confronted John. These men were the ones that said, 'what we need to do is get Doug Hampton's home paid for, and we need to get Doug Hampton some money, and we need to get his family to Colorado.

Hampton added:

The money and all those things came from this group initiating, initially, what they believed it was gonna take to take care of this.

Asked by Ralston whether he or his lawyer asked Ensign for money, Hampton replied:

Our attorneys did talk...because Sen Tom Coburn asked and was involved in these negotiations out of good will and good faith.

When Ralston asked what those negotiations were for, Hampton replied: "The belief from Tom Coburn and many that some restitution needs to take place here." He added, a bit later: "They just thought this was gonna be best for both of our lives."

Ralston then went over things one last time, to make sure there was no mistake:

Tom Coburn, a US senator, told John Ensign, listen you gotta deal with this, make these folks whole, let them get out of your life, and let's move on. Isn't that exactly what happened?

Replied Hampton: "Absolutely."

Seems pretty clear. And here's how Coburn's office has responded to the claim. In a statement to Politico, it said:

Dr. Coburn did everything he could to encourage Sen. Ensign to end his affair and to persuade Sen. Ensign to repair the damage he had caused to his own marriage and the Hampton's marriage. Had Sen. Ensign followed Dr. Coburn's advice, this episode would have ended, and been made public, long ago.

Politico adds:

Coburn spokesman John Hart wouldn't confirm or deny whether his boss spoke with Ensign about payments but said Coburn "categorically denies" Hampton's claim that he urged Ensign to pay millions to the couple.

(Hampton appears to say in the interview that the "millions" figure was discussed between his and Ensign's lawyer after Coburn had urged Ensign to pay restitution, not that Coburn himself said the figure should be millions.)

If Coburn acted to urge his friend to end the affair, and to help him keep it private, it would be hard to blame him. But if, as now seems likely, he pressed Ensign to pay a significant amount of money in restitution to Hampton and his family, that would seem, at a minimum, to place Coburn, as a US senator, in a very difficult position indeed. Something tells us this won't be the last we'll be hearing on this.

Late Update: Coburn has now given what appears to be a categorical denial that he urged Ensign to pay restitution to the Hamptons.

Doug Hampton Breaks Silence On Wife's Affair With Ensign

2009-07-08T21:14:29Z

Doug Hampton has spoken publicly for the first time about his wife Cindy's affair with Sen. John Ensign. And it's good...

The highlights from Hampton's interview with Las Vegas Sun political columnist Jon Ralston:

- Hampton said that Ensign paid Cindy more than $25,000 in severance when she stopped working for his campaign committees -- a possible felony violation of campaign-finance law if he didn't report it as an in-kind contribution. (Campaign reports show no such payment.)

- Hampton said Ensign continued the affair for months after Hampton found out about it, and even well after the Ensigns and the Hamptons had confronted the issue together!

- Hampton also said that Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) urged Ensign to end the liaison and to sweep it under the rug, suggesting that Ensign pay the Hamptons millions and help them resettle in Colorado.

- Hampton released a letter written by Ensign to Cindy Hampton, in which he expresses deep remorse for the affair -- which continued for around six months after the letter was written! (It reads like the words of a six-year-old who has been ordered by a parent to apologize, but has no independent grasp of what he did wrong.)

The whole report from the Sun makes good reading, so we'll quote at length. On the severance payment:

Hampton said Ensign paid the woman $25,000 in severance when she stopped working for the senator.
If true, Ensign faces a possible felony violation of campaign finance law if he paid the severance but failed to report it as an in-kind contribution to the campaign committees where she worked, according to ethics complaints filed against him.

Knowingly and willfully failing to report a contribution of more than $25,000 is a criminal violation subject to five years in prison, according to complaints filed last month by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

Campaign reports show no such in-kind payment from Ensign to either his personal campaign committee or his Battle Born leadership Political Action Committee, according CREW, which filed complaints June 24 with the Federal Elections Commission and the Senate Ethics Committee.

On how the affair got started, and Ensign's inability to break it off:

Hampton said the affair began while his family was staying at the Ensign home. Hampton said his family's house was broken into just before Christmas 2007, at which time the Ensigns invited the Hamptons to stay with them in a nearby Summerlin neighborhood.
The families each have three children and their friendship goes back decades.

Hampton discovered the affair when he saw an incriminating text message, he said.

The families confronted the issue in full on Christmas Eve.

Still, Hampton said, Ensign continued to pursue Cynthia Hampton with text messages and phone calls.

Hampton seemed to suggest his wife Cynthia was powerless to prevent the continuing affair.

On Coburn's role, and that of C Street, the Christian fellowship on Capitol Hill that we've written about before:

Hampton and Ensign were bonded by their conservative evangelical faith. Hampton said he reached out to intermediaries involved in a Christian fellowship home in Washington, D.C., where Ensign and several other powerful Washington figures live.

The group, including Coburn, a well-known conservative, confronted Ensign and suggested that the Hamptons needed to be given financial assistance -- in the millions of dollars -- to pay off their $1 million-plus mortgage and move them to a new life away from Ensign.

On the letter from Ensign to Cindy Hampton:

During the confrontation, Ensign agreed to write a letter to Cynthia Hampton expressing remorse, Hampton said.

The letter, which was authenticated by Ralston's executive producer Dana Gentry, is filled with contrition: "I was completely self-centered and only thinking of myself. I used you for my own pleasure not letting thoughts of you, Doug, Brandon, Blake or Brittany come into my mind," he wrote, referring to the Hampton children.

But after sending the letter, which bears the date "Feb. 2008," Hampton said Ensign quickly disavowed it in a conversation with Cynthia Hampton and continued to pursue her.

Hampton said that on that same February weekend, Ensign told him, "I'm in love with your wife."

And some more, because why not?

Some time later, according to Hampton, Ensign's wife Darlene Ensign reached out to top Ensign political aide Mike Slanker, asking him to set up Hampton with political and lobbying work.

Hampton said he tried but failed to extricate himself from the situation.

"John is so focused, hyper-focused on what he wants....that he's not seeing the collateral damage that's going on in people's lives," he said.

The interview, teased by the Sun, was a two-part sit-down with Ralston, to air tonight and tomorrow on Face to Face with Jon Ralston.

Late Update: Coburn's office tells Politico in a statement:

Dr. Coburn did everything he could to encourage Senator Ensign to end his affair and to persuade Senator Ensign to repair the damage he had caused to his own marriage and the Hampton's marriage. Had Senator Ensign followed Dr. Coburn's advice, this episode would have ended, and been made public, long ago.

The claim that the affair would have "been made public" seems to conflict with Hampton's description of Coburn's role. A Coburn spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Also, the Sun has posted a slideshow of shots of Hampton giving the interview, and a blog post called "Wooing Hampton," about the paper's efforts to get him to agree to the sit-down.

Only Three Palin Ethics Complaints Were Still Pending

2009-07-08T19:01:52Z

If you had to pick out a coherent explanation given by Sarah Palin for her decision to quit as Alaska governor, you'd probably have to settle on the notion that she felt her agenda was being paralyzed by frivolous ethics complaints, and that she only foresaw additional ones. So she stepped down so as not to continue to drag Alaskans through the process.

"Palin Says Ethics Complaints Were Paralyzing" reported the Anchorage Daily News after the governor's round of beachside interviews Monday. And Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell, who'll soon replace Palin as governor, had given that line over the weekend, saying on Fox News that Palin had talked to him about the toll the complaints had taken.

Obviously, the ethics complaint excuse doesn't make sense for a lot of reasons. Still, it's worth taking a close look at the list of 18 complaints filed against Palin during her tenure as governor, as compiled by the ADN.

The roundup offers a useful resource for anyone who was having trouble keeping the various Pain scandals and mini-scandals straight. But it also makes clear that, for all Palin's concern about dragging Alaskans through a traumatic process, only three of the complaints were still pending.

What are they? Here's the paper's description:

Jan. 26: Two complaints filed by McLeod alleged two of Palin's top aides misused their official positions for Palin's personal and political gain. The complaints said then-press secretary Bill McAllister and Kris Perry -- director of the governor's Anchorage office -- worked on state time to benefit Palin's interests during and after her vice presidential quest.

...

April 27: Contends Palin is misusing the governor's office for personal gain by securing unwarranted benefits and receiving improper gifts through the Alaska Fund Trust. The fund was recently established by supporters to help Palin pay off more than $500,000 in legal debts stemming from other ethics complaints, including troopergate. Complaint filed by Eagle River resident, Kim Chatman.

Aside from those, everything's been dealt with, in most cases by the state personnel board, which handles such matters. (Since Palin, as governor, has the power to fire the personnel board's members, the independence of its judgments is hardly beyond reproach -- but that's a whole other story.) And most of the more frivolous complaints seem to have been dismissed pretty promptly. As for the three that are pending, for a woman who weathered Trooper-Gate, it's hard to see how any of these could tip her over the edge.

Of course, Palin seems to be claiming that, because her enemies are so unscrupulous, there would no doubt have been more complaints soon. And maybe there would have been. But it seems likely that any future frivolous charges would have been dealt with as quickly as those in the past.

The notion that this barrage of complaints was preventing her from doing her job just doesn't seem to hold up.

Texas Tech Announces Gonzales Hire

2009-07-08T16:46:33Z

Texas Tech has officially announced the hiring of Alberto Gonzales.

The press release, which says Gonzales will work as both a recruiter and teach a junior-level course on "contemporary issues in the executive branch," makes no mention of Gonzo's involvement in the U.S. attorneys scandal (among other things) or his subsequent resignation. Instead, it ends with, "...and later was appointed Attorney General."

Nice.

Specifically, Gonzales will be responsible for "recruiting and retaining first generation and underrepresented students," and will help plan a leadership training program for minority and first generation students at both Texas Tech and Angelo State University. In addition to his class, he'll also guest lecture for other courses.

"His own upbringing in Houston as part of a migrant family with eight children makes him qualified to tell underrepresented Texas students that college is possible," said Kent Hance, chancellor of Texas Tech. "He will help Texas Tech and ASU prepare our students for success and to be future leaders in the State of Texas and beyond."

Rove Testifies, But Next Steps In Probe Remain Murky

2009-07-08T16:36:25Z

The news that Karl Rove has finally testified before lawyers for the House Judiciary committee about his role in the US Attorney firings and the prosecution of Don Siegelman represents, in one sense, the culmination of years-long battle. That fight has pitted Congress, determined to get to the bottom of the firings, against the Bush White House, which has dragged its feet at virtually every stage. And yet, the path from here to a full public accounting of what happened remains unclear at best.

Rove's deposition put a cap on a protracted legal standoff between the committee, chaired by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) and the Bush White House. Conyers, investigating the late 2006 firing of nine US Attorneys, had first subpoenaed Rove in 2007. Citing executive privilege, the White House refused to let Rove testify. That eventually prompted Congress to hold Rove in contempt, and ultimately to file a lawsuit seeking to compel Rove to testify. A district court ruled in Congress's favor last year, but the White House appealed that ruling, and Rove continued to be a no-show at several committee hearings to which he had been called to testify. Eventually, in March, lawyers for President Bush reached an agreement with the committee, securing Rove's and Harriet Miers' testimony. Even since then, though, it's taken over four months to arrange for Rove's sit-down. (Miers had hers last month.)

The White House's foot-dragging may have inflicted some measure of political damage. But in terms of the legal repercussions, by coming to a deal while the case was still pending in an appeals court, the Bushies have largely succeeded in one of their goals: ensuring that no clear precedent has been established limiting the president's power to claim executive privilege in such cases. And the Obama White House's role in helping to secure the deal for Rove's testimony suggests that's an outcome they wanted too.

As for the underlying issue -- the quest to learn what really happened in the firings and the Siegelman prosecution, things remain murky at best. There are conflicting reports about whether Rove will sit for another day of testimony. It's also unclear when and how the committee will decide which parts of Rove's testimony, if any, can be made public, and in what form the probe's findings will be released.

A committee spokesman declined to comment to TPMmuckraker. And Robert Luskin, Rove's lawyer, did not immediately return a call.

Siegelman, however, was happy to talk. The Democratic former governor of Alabama, who in 2006 was convicted on corruption charges in what many have labeled a politicized prosecution, told TPMmuckraker he doesn't hold out much hope that Rove's testimony yesterday will have revealed much about the GOP political guru's alleged role in the case. "Karl Rove is one of those who can lie under oath and take a lie detector test and pass it," said Siegelman.

But the ex-guv added that, based on conversations with Conyers and his staff, he feels confident that the investigation will help get to the truth. "I have looked [Conyers] in the eye, and he has had discussions with me that have convinced me completely that he is 100 percent committed to this investigation," said Siegelman.

Second WaPo Doc Offers More Info On Salons

2009-07-07T18:21:21Z

When a leaked flier last week revealed the Washington Post's plan to organize a corporate-sponsored "salon" on health care, the paper portrayed the flier as the hastily-created product of an over-zealous business department which misrepresented the Post's genuine vision for the event.

But now Politico -- which broke the original story -- has obtained a copy of a word document, sent out over two weeks ago, for the planned July 21 event. The document's existence will intensify questions about how, as the Post has claimed, the business and news sides of the paper could have been on such different pages over the event.

It also reveals more information about what the Post had in mind -- and suggests additional similarities between the paper's vision and the approximately 100 salons that, TPMmuckraker revealed yesterday, The Atlantic has hosted since 2003.

For instance, the document says that the Post intended to hold 11 different salons a year -- just slightly off the pace that The Atlantic seems to have kept up over the last six years.

And, perhaps in the Post's partial defense, the document also makes clear that it wasn't just health-care lobbyists, Post-ies, and politicians who would get a seat at the table. Other potential invitees are said to include "leading researchers from key think-tanks and academic institutions," and "patient advocate group representatives." (Though unlike the corporate interests, neither of those groups would be "underwriters," of course.) That slightly more mixed guest list echoes The Atlantic's stated efforts to provide a range of differing viewpoints at its own salons.

The Post is conducting an internal review to understand how the original flier went out. So one would think the paper will be taking a close look at this new document as well.

Here's the text of the word document:

The Washington Post

Health Care Salon - July, 2009

The Washington Post is seeking two underwriters to support its inaugural Salon Dinner on the topic of Health Care Reform. One evening during the week of July 20, 2009, The Washington Post will host a Salon dinner-discussion on the topic of U.S. health care reform and funding. Washington Post Salons, which are limited to 20 participants, are underwritten by two organizations each of which may send a senior representative to participate in the discussion.

Topics Discussed Will Include:

· Who pays for health insurance?

· The government's role in the health insurance market

· Could there ever be a single-payer system in the U.S.?

· Should health insurance be taxed?

· Should there be a payment cap for health care providers?

Hosts and Discussion Leaders:

· Katharine Weymouth, CEO, Washington Post Media; Publisher, Washington Post'

· Marcus Brauchli, Executive Editor, Washington Post

· Other Washington Post health care editorial and reporting staff

Invited Guests Will Include:

· Congressional leaders at the forefront of building health care legislative initiatives

· Administration and agency officials involved in creating health care policy

· Leading researchers from key think-tanks and academic institutions

· Hospital and medical group trade association representatives (may be an underwriter)

· Health care insurance trade association representatives (may be an underwriter)

· Patient advocate group representatives

· Corporate leaders in health care delivery, health care IT, and / or insurance (may be an underwriter)

Why Underwrite a Washington Post Salon?

· Participate in an issues-based discussion as an equal at the table with key policy-makers

· Interact with core players in an off-the-record format

· Build key relationships in an informal setting

· Discuss critical topics of interest to you and your organization in a neutral environment with Washington Post news executives

· Acknowledgement in formal printed invitations and at the dinner of your underwriting role

Financial Support and Sponsor Involvement:

· Individual salon sponsorship offered at $25,000 per salon, per sponsor

· Investment of $250,000 provides sponsorship of an annual series of Salons

· Maximum of two sponsors per salon

· Underwriter CEO or Executive Director has a seat at the table

· Formal invitations clearly state that the dinner is underwritten by the sponsors

About Washington Post Salons

Washington Post Salons, held monthly in the home of Publisher and CEO Katharine Weymouth, provide an intimate and informal dinner and discussion setting where leading policy makers and business leaders discuss issues, options and solutions relating to major international, national, local and cultural affairs with top Washington Post editors, columnists and journalists.

The Washington Post is the media brand that sits at the intersection of business and policy. It engages in dialogue with readers, business leaders and Washington-area policy-makers and influencers through three platforms: The Washington Post newspaper and printed special reports; washingtonpost.com; and through a series of live, face-to-face conferences and roundtables.

Washington Post Conferences reflect up-to-the-minute thinking and analysis provided by The Washington Post newsroom. All conferences, including Salons, are editorially driven. Washington Post Conferences take The Washington Post newspaper and Web site and help them come alive.

Overall Salon Frequency:

· Up to 11 times annually, monthly except for August

Format:

· Two-and-a-half hour dinner discussions

· No more than 20 participants

· Discussion moderated by Washington Post editorial

Editorial Involvement:

· Executive editor, key section editor, beat reporter (optional)

· Discussion topics and scripts produced in conjunction with Washington Post Conferences

· Off-the-record

For Information on Sponsorship, Participating and Attending

· Charles Pelton

· [email and phone numbers redacted]

Atlantic Publisher On "Salons": I Didn't Read The Marketing Materials Either

2009-07-07T13:13:45Z

Atlantic Media publisher David Bradley is defending the corporate-sponsored, off-the-record "salon" dinners that his company has been organizing since 2003, in response to TPMmuckraker's report yesterday on the dinners.

In a 1500-word "letter" posted on The Hotline, Bradley refers to "concerns I'm reading now on the web" (no attribution, naturally), before explaining why he thinks the salons -- which, as we wrote yesterday, are very similar to the Washington Post's planned event that ignited a furor last week -- "are full of good purpose." (He adds that they're also "part of my best thinking on how we carry forward (read fund) modern journalism.")

But Bradley falls back in part on the same defense that Post publisher Katherine Weymouth used, unconvincingly, last week: I didn't read the marketing materials -- obtained by TPMmuckraker -- and they don't reflect the true nature of the events. He writes:

The Washington Post's Katharine Weymouth had not begun, in fact, the hosting of policy dinners; I am six years into this work. What we do share in common is that I, too, had not read our marketing materials. I don't believe ours are egregious but I now know they do not all reflect the central fact of our conversations - dialogue and debate, without the advance of a particular interest. Due diligence now begun, we will make sure that future materials reflect exactly the spirit and facts of the dinners.

That may not be the only modification to the events in the future. Bradley also suggests that the off-the-record nature of the salons may change:

Responsive to the situation, The Washington Post is evolving its view as to off-the-record settings. I am addressing this topic in the company of our colleagues.

And he admits:

I would not rank this last week among my favorites in publishing.

You sort of get the impression that, from the moment Politico's report on the Post's planned salon came out last week, Bradley knew it was only a matter of time before the focus turned to his own events.

Report: John Conyers Leads "Separate Life" From Corrupt Wife

2009-07-06T20:54:49Z

It looks like it's not just us and the local press asking questions about what Rep. John Conyers knew of the bribery scheme to which his wife pleaded guilty last week.

The Washington Post got in on the game yesterday -- but it also offered a bit of detail about John and Monica Conyers' marriage which may support the House Judiciary chair's claim that he was in the dark.

First, a refresher on the piece of the Monica Conyers story that seems to come closest to touching her husband. In 2006, Jim Papas, a Detroit entrepreneur and supporter of Monica Conyers, hired Sam Riddle, a top Monica Conyers aide, as a consultant, and paid him $20,000. Riddle has said he did no work for the money and that Monica Conyers asked for half the money as a "finder's fee." A year later, in a what appears to have been a shift of position, John Conyers wrote a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency in support of a Michigan waste-management project that would have benefited Papas.

Federal prosecutors have said they received "no suggestions" that John Conyers had any knowledge of the broader bribery scheme to which his wife has pleaded guilty.

In most marriages, that might seem faintly implausible. But the Post portrays the Conyers union as unusually distant. The paper reports:

Allies of John Conyers, who prizes his record of jousting with the Bush administration over its approach to civil rights and national security, say that he attends to few details outside his legislative duties and largely leads a separate life from his wife of nearly two decades.

And later it adds:

The marriage has been elusive from the start. The former Monica Ann Esters took a job in the lawmaker's Washington office in the late 1980s, before moving on to work on his mayoral campaign. They married in 1990, a month before their first son was born in Detroit's Grace Hospital. Conyers was marrying for the first time at age 61. Esters was 25. Her political ambitions were only beginning.

If John and Monica don't share their lives in the way most married couples do, that could explain how he could have had no inkling of what she was doing.

If nothing else, the whole situation puts the veteran lawmaker in an odd position. After all, when else does a politician actually benefit from the press reporting that he and his wife lead separate lives?

Did Ensign Hire Doug Hampton To Stop Himself From Having An Affair?

2009-07-06T19:38:41Z

We can't blame you if you'd almost forgotten about John Ensign. Since the GOP senator confessed last month to an affair, he's been unceremoniously knocked out of the headlines by the successive implosions of two other Republican 2012 hopefuls.

But the philandering Nevadan doesn't deserve to go gently into that good night just yet. And yesterday the Las Vegas Sun had a report on the relationship between Ensign and Doug and Cynthia Hampton -- the latter was Ensign's paramour from December 2007 until August 2008 -- which jibes in places with what we reported several weeks ago.

The Sun asks why Ensign hired his "best pal" Doug Hampton in 2006 for a high-paying job in the senator's office, despite Doug Hampton's apparent lack of qualifications for the post. The paper notes that Darlene Ensign -- the senator's wife -- and Cynthia Hampton went to high school together, but then adds:

The Hampton and Ensign families also shared conservative evangelism, according to people who know them. The men shared a commitment to the principles of Promise Keepers, a Christian fellowship that espouses strong marriages and families.

We reported last month on the Promise Keepers connection, and noted that one of the seven promises to which participants commit themselves is "pursuing vital relationships with a few other men, understanding that he needs brothers to help him keep his promises."

A source told us for that post that when Hampton was hired, the attitude among other staffers was, "This is the boss's religious buddy. We're not gonna bitch about him, but we don't really like him."

In other words, could it be that Ensign -- who had had a long unexplained absence from his job in 2002, which many observers believe was triggered by another affair -- brought his religious friend onto the staff in part to help keep himself on the path of righteousness, but then ended up straying from that path, with disastrous consequences, with his friend's wife?

The word irony would hardly do it justice...

Presented By:

2009-07-06T19:38:41Z

Not Just WaPo: Atlantic's Corporate-Sponsored "Salons" Tout "Private Conversations" With Top Journos, Lawmakers

2009-07-06T17:13:06Z

Last week, Politico reported that the Washington Post had planned to put on an exclusive off-the-record "salon" at the home of its publisher, where corporate lobbyists would pay as much as $250,000 to gain access to Post reporters and editors, as well as Obama administration officials and members of Congress. The news provoked an outcry in DC journalism circles -- the Post's own ombudsman called it "pretty close to a public relations disaster" -- and the the event was quickly canceled.

But the notion that the Post's gambit represents some sort of new and uniquely outrageous collapsing of the wall between the editorial and business sides of a news publication is badly off the mark. In fact, it would be closer to the truth to say that the paper got caught pushing the envelope on a money-making and influence-building strategy that other outlets had been quietly deploying for years.

Check out this undated flier, obtained by TPMmuckraker. Sent out by Atlantic Media, which publishes The Atlantic, the flier advertises the magazine's "Salon Dinners," which it describes as "private conversations among thought leaders."

These aren't one-off events, by a long shot. The Atlantic has held approximately 100 of them since 2003, according to Zachary Hooper, a spokesman for the magazine.

And they're by and large initiated by the corporation that pays for them, according to Hooper. "The corporate sponsor" -- with whom the magazine generally has a longstanding business relationship -- "comes to us and says, 'We're interested in having a discussion on a certain topic.'" The magazine's business staff, said Hooper, takes things from there.

The events, as described in the flier, appear strikingly similar to the dinner planned by the Post -- right down to the use of the word "salon" to create an aura of intellectual inquiry. Just as the Post reportedly sought to have health-care lobbyists pay for an event on health-care reform, the Atlantic flier makes clear that the "salons" are paid for by corporations and focused on a public-policy issue in which the corporate sponsor has a major stake. It offers the following "sampling of salon dinner sponsors and topics":

• AstraZeneca on "Healthcare Access and Education"
• Microsoft on "Global Trade,"
• GE on "Energy Sustainability and the Future of Nuclear Power"
• Allstate on "The Future of the American City"
• Citi on "The Challenge of Global Markets"

Hooper declined to say how much these corporations put up to sponsor the events.

And just as with the Post, the Atlantic dinners are strictly off-the-record, and not open to the public. The flier describes them as:

Private, custom, off-the-record conversations of 20-30 key influential individuals, moderated by an Atlantic editor, designed to bring a thoughtful group together for unbounded conversation on key issues of the day.

And -- again like the Post's planned dinner -- the draw for corporations is access not just to the hosting publication's reporters and editors, but to other big-name journalists, not to mention members of Congress and other Washington heavy-weights. Among the "sampling of attendees" listed on the flier are Chris Matthews, George Stephanopoulos, David Brooks, Fred Hiatt, Maureen Dowd, Andrea Mitchell, James Carville, John Kerry, John Sununu, Gary Hart, Norm Coleman, Chris Dodd, Mitt Romney, and Rahm Emanuel (listed as a congressman, a position he held from January 2003 until the start of 2009).

Since last week, at least two separate posts on the Atlantic's website have drawn attention to the Post's misadventure. Both note in passing that the Atlantic itself organizes corporate-sponsored events, without elaborating.

There do appear to be differences between the Atlantic's events and what the Post had in mind. Hooper, the Atlantic spokesman, stressed that the magazine makes an effort to put together a guest list that will allow journalists and politicians in attendance to hear a range of viewpoints. For instance, said Hooper, the Astra Zeneca-sponsored dinner on health care included representatives from the National Business Coalition on Health, and Leapfrog, both of which are advocacy groups that support efforts to lower health-care costs, as well as from the National Alliance on Hispanic Health, and the American Lung Association. And the GE-sponsored event on nuclear power involved the Natural Resources Defense Council and the non-partisan research group Resources for the Future, among others.

"At the end of the day, it's something that helps our journalism," said Hooper. "It gives [our journalists] more perspectives for their journalism." He added that the money from the dinners "helps underwrite the broader journalism we do."

The salons aren't the only high-fallutin' corporate-sponsored events put together by The Atlantic. Last week, the magazine hosted its yearly "Aspen Ideas Festival," which brings together a similar roster of media, political and business elites, and is paid for in part by corporations. But those confabs are on the record and open to the media. Nor does there appear to be quite as close a link as with the salons between the discussion topics and the interests of the corporate sponsors.

It's not just the Atlantic, of course. As the Post helpfully pointed out in its effort to do damage control on the scandal, the Wall Street Journal earlier this year "brought together global finance leaders -- including Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd -- for a two-day conference sponsored by Nasdaq and hosted by Robert Thomson, the Journal's top editor, and other editors and reporters." But that too was on-the-record, and was web-cast by the Journal.

The Post added:

The Journal also holds conferences with its All Things Digital unit. A session in May, described as offering "unmatched access to the technology industry's elite," was sponsored by Hewlett-Packard and Qualcomm, among others, and featured the CEOs of Microsoft, Yahoo, NBC Universal, AT&T and Twitter, as well as Weymouth.

And of course The New Yorker holds an annual corporate-sponsored festival, featuring its editors and writers, as well as other big-name cultural figures. The one planned for this fall is paid for American Airlines, Delta, Westin Hotels and Banana Republic, reports the Post.

What to make of all this? Clearly, there are degrees of egregiousness here. A corporate-sponsored event that's off the record and closed to the media and the public seems more objectionable than one that's open and on the record. Equally, an event that's focused on a public-policy issue that's of particular interest to the event's corporate sponsor seems more objectionable than, say, having a clothing company or an airline put up money for a festival that treats everything from the global economy to indie rock, as in the case of The New Yorker. An event whose advertising seeks to lure corporate lobbyists by promising the ability to directly influence elected officials or journalists seems, perhaps, more objectionable than one where the potential for influence-peddling is at least less explicit. It's also worth noting that when a daily newspaper risks compromising its coverage of a key policy issue, it probably does more damage than when a monthly ideas magazine appears to do the same.

So it's fair to say that the Post's plans, as described, seem to rank highest on the egregiousness scale than any arrangement that's yet surfaced -- with the Atlantic's own long string of corporate-sponsored "salons" perhaps coming in second. But the key point is that, even before this latest occasion for outrage, there was hardly the kind of clear and distinct line between the news and business sections of many major media outlets that the reaction to last week's news would suggest.

Late Update: Atlantic Media publisher David Bradley responds. Our take is here.

Rumsfeld On Abandoning Geneva: 'All Of A Sudden, It Was Just All Happening'

2009-07-03T22:03:34Z

Donald Rumsfeld has finally said he's sorry. Sort of.

In an interview with biographer Bradley Graham, the former secretary of defense says he has regrets about the administration's controversial detainee policy.

The twist is that Rumsfeld doesn't regret the policy itself -- specifically the abandoning of the Geneva Conventions for detainees picked up in Afghanistan. Rather, he regrets how the policy was formulated.

"All of a sudden, it was just all happening, and the general counsel's office in the Pentagon had the lead," Rumsfeld told former Washington Post journalist Bradley Graham, as quoted in By His Own Rules: The Ambitions, Successes, and Ultimate Failures of Donald Rumsfeld. "It never registered in my mind in this particular instance--it did in almost every other case--that these issues ought to be in a policy development or management posture. Looking back at it now, I have a feeling that was a mistake. In retrospect, it would have been better to take all of those issues and put them in the hands of policy or management."

Primarily at issue is the Bush Administration's decision -- in which Rumsfeld played a key role -- to not grant prisoner-of-war designation to detainees from Afghanistan. In the Department of Defense, which had authority for Gitmo, the policy initially took the form of a since-declassified January 2002 memo, written by Rumsfeld, that said Al Qaida and Taliban detainees "are not entitled to prisoner of war status" under the Geneva Convention.

This memo, as Graham puts it, "effectively nullified half a century of U.S. military adherence to the [Geneva] conventions."

But Rumsfeld, whose own memoir will hit the shelves in 2010, still sees the problem as one primarily having to do with process.

Here's the relevant section from Graham's book:

With the passage of time, Rumsfeld has come to recognize that he made a mistake, although he sees the error as one of process, not basic judgment. He faults himself for taking too legalistic an approach initially, saying it would have been better if senior Pentagon officials responsible for policy and management matters had been brought in earlier to play more of a role and provide a broader perspective. As he explained in an interview in late 2008, policies were developing so fast in the weeks after the September 11 attacks that he did not follow his own normal procedures. "All of a sudden, it was just all happening, and the general counsel's office in the Pentagon had the lead," he said. "It never registered in my mind in this particular instance--it did in almost every other case--that these issues ought to be in a policy development or management posture. Looking back at it now, I have a feeling that was a mistake. In retrospect, it would have been better to take all of those issues and put them in the hands of policy or management."
Further, Rumsfeld conceded, more should have been done to engage Congress in drafting the new policies on detainees--something he said that White House officials had opposed. Although Congress did eventually get involved, he noted that this occurred "in duress" after the Supreme Court ruled in 2006 against the administration's original approach.