Op-Ed Reax

A couple of reactions to this disingenuous op-Ed.

Democracy 21:

In her op-ed article attacking the Executive Order, Senator Collins states:

If more transparency is truly the goal, why don't these requirements apply to organizations receiving federal grants? Campaign contributions to candidates and political committees already are required to be reported to the Federal Election Commission and, with a click of a mouse, can be viewed on FEC.gov.

This is an interesting comment coming from Senator Collins, since she abandoned her past support for transparency last year and refused to provide the deciding 60th vote for the DISCLOSE Act. If the DISCLOSE Act had been enacted last year, we would today have full campaign finance disclosure for all groups, including organizations receiving government grants.

If Senator Collins thought that this government grants information was important information to have, her vote alone for the DISCLOSE Act last year would have made the difference in enacting the law and ensuring that the American people had this campaign finance information and all of the campaign finance information currently being hidden from the American people.

Furthermore, the statement by Senator Collins that campaign contributions can be viewed with "a click of a mouse" masks the fact that more than $135 million in secret donations to section 501 (c) tax-exempt groups were spent by those groups to influence the 2010 congressional races...

As for the claim made by Senator Collins that the Executive Order would politicize the contracting process, Senator Collins has this backwards. It is widely recognized that pay-to-play prohibitions and disclosure requirements protect the integrity of the contracting process. Absent disclosure, the donors and the recipients know who gave and who received the benefit of campaign funds. The only people who don’t know this information are the American people.

David Vance of the Campaign Legal Center adds:

To say that this type of disclosure would politicize the process is laughable. Everyone knows the process is already hopelessly politicized and it's one of the reasons Americans think so little of the "inside the Beltway" culture. The status quo equation with contracting and campaign finance has everybody in the know except citizens and changing that will only help to depoliticize the process.

Hypocrisy and Worse On Liu

One of the "Gang of 14" senators who promised not to block judicial nominees from up-or-down votes except in "extraordinary circumstances", Sen. Collins voted yesterday to filibuster the nomination of constitutional scholar, Berkeley law professor, former Rhodes Scholar and Stanford Board of Trustees member Goodwin Liu to a US circuit court vacancy.

Why did she vote to prevent a majority of senators from approving the obviously qualified Liu, whose confirmation has been endorsed by right wing court watchers like Kenneth Starr and John Yoo?

After some snarky throat-clearing--Collins complains about Liu's demonstrably true claim that Justice Alito "is at the margin of the judicial spectrum, not the mainstream"--we get this:

It is Mr. Liu's views that are far outside the mainstream. His writings demonstrate what National Journal columnist Stuart Taylor calls his "sweeping vision of court-ordered social justice." Mr. Liu has written that "Some [say] that courts...can only do so much to change society, that some things, some problems are best left to politics and not principle....I want to disagree with this view...." In other words, Liu embodies the very essence of judicial activism.

That's the entire substance of the junior senator's critique of Liu.

But aren't you just a little bit curious about what Liu said inside those ellipses? Here's the full passage, minus the selective editing:

You know, it has become fashionable, I think today, fifty years after [Brown v. Board of Education] to believe that Brown was not all that it was cracked up to be. Schools are still segregated. The achievement gap is still too wide, and equality of opportunity is still more a theory than a reality.

And from these facts some observers conclude that the legacy of Brown is that courts, and more broadly law, can only do so much to change society. That some things, some problems are best left to politics and not principle, and that to believe otherwise is to indulge a hollow hope. I want to disagree with this view.

Is Liu embodying the very essence of judicial activism here? Or is he simply making a point about pessimism and the law--a point that has absolutely nothing to do with judicial activism?

More specifically: Does Collins think the desegregation sought by the Brown plaintiffs--which is what Liu is clearly referring to when he alludes to "chang[ing] society"--should have been denied by the Supreme Court? Should it have been dealt with through "politics and not principle"? Or is she simply bent on smearing Liu, and mangling his words to fit the preconceived rhetorical frame of "judicial activism" whether it fits or not?

I think the evidence here is pretty clear.

What's also clear: This kind of deliberate, ideologically-motivated misrepresentation is ugly, cynical and undignified. It's the kind of thing the "Susan Collins" you hear about in the Maine media and elsewhere would never indulge in.

And yet there it is.

Learned Helplessness and Interest Groups

Last week I had an interesting back and forth on Twitter with Bruce Lesley, president of DC-based children's advocacy organization First Focus, after he praised Sen. Collins for refusing to endorse the budget proposal put forward by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI).

I found the praise irksome: In the context of the junior senator's history of disingenuousness, bad faith and hypocrisy on fiscal issues--and given that she's never come anywhere near articulating how she'd balance the budget, even as she demagogues the issue--his kind words seemed misplaced. To put it mildly.

In fact, the rejection of Ryan's draconian proposal seemed to me like just another example of Collins sidestepping the logical implications of her own actions and policy commitments: Ryan, at least, is owning up to the fact that large new tax cuts will require shredding Medicare. Collins, who favors such tax cuts, has made no similar admission.

So when Lesley doubled down on his praise, asserting that, "[Collins] has never supported gutting Medicare and Medicaid" I thought it was necessary to note that he was giving a vastly incomplete picture of her stance.

I also drew attention to Collins' recent vote for the 2011 House budget--a piece of legislation Lesley's own organization condemned. And I noted the irony that First Focus had given Collins an award for work on children's issues just two weeks after she'd voted to slash funding for food stamps and Head Start, a move that earned her condemnation, by name, in The New York Times.

And that's when things got weird.

Lesley informed me that Collins was merely presented with the award last month, and that it was given earlier, based on her work in 2010. And that's fair enough.

But he seemed totally ignorant of Collins' vote for the 2011 House budget proposal, which his own organization had blasted, even after I made a couple of attempts at clarification.

What's more, rather than researching the issue to find out what I was referring to, or entertaining the idea that I might be correct, he tried to make me the issue ("I get that you don't like her") and lashed out at me for drawing attention to the tension between his organization's praise of Collins and the reality of her recent record ("Do you hate Obama for signing that bill [sic] into law?")

In short, Lesley seemed more interested in challenging me--and putting me on the defensive--than he was in exploring Collins' children's issues bona fides, holding the junior senator accountable, or accurately conveying the substance of her record.

What does it all mean? Maybe not much. But it underscores a couple of unhealthy dynamics:

--Most DC interest groups seem to think that the best way to win the junior senator's loyalty is to shower her with awards. There are exceptions, like NRDC. But whether it's because of political gamesmanship, inside-the-beltway coziness or economic self-interest, the fact is that speaking truth to Collins and/or holding her accountable almost never figures into the plans of left-leaning DC-based groups.

--As the Republican party moves further to the right, there are a slew of nominally "nonpartisan" progressive organizations that are willing to go through all sorts of unseemly contortions to maintain the fiction that their issues transcend partisanship. But this often requires some airbrushing. And so these organizations find themselves coddling unworthy pols rather than telling their constituencies the unvarnished truth.

Collins on Bin Laden

Via WGME:

The junior senator told News 13 she was contacted by the director of the National Counterterrorism, Michael E. Leiter, at 10:20 p.m. Sunday. She released the following statement shortly before midnight.

"The director of the Counterterrorism Center informed me tonight that Osama Bin Laden was killed in a U.S. Operation. This welcome news is a credit to our intelligence efforts and brings to justice the architect of the attacks on our country that killed nearly 3,000 people on September 11, 2001."

Learned Helplessness in the Maine Press

It's worth taking a couple of minutes to unpack what happens at the 13:30 mark in Pat Callaghan's recent interview with Sen. Collins.



After a lobbing a few simple, open-ended questions at the junior senator (i.e. softballs) a discussion of port security ensues. Then we get the following:

Callaghan: What about preparations and protection from cyber attack on this country--I mean this is the kind of thing that, when you think about it, could take down your electrical grid, it could shut down water supplies. There's all sorts of problems that the right computer hacker could really wreak on this country.

The question--really a statement and an invitation for a response--seems unremarkable as long as you know nothing about the context.

But given that Collins recently reintroduced extremely controversial cybersecurity legislation, panned by prominent commentators and institutions across the political spectrum (even after a spin campaign was launched to muddy the issues) Callaghan's way into the topic is just plain weird. And telling.

He doesn't inform viewers about the controversy or the substance of the critiques of the proposed bill. Instead, he simply tees the topic up for Collins. And he lards up his formulation with questionable, Collins-friendly premises. (Is it really true that hackers can take down "your electrical grid"? Does Callaghan know this for a fact?)

Don't get me wrong: I'm used to Maine reporters treating Sen. Collins more like a visiting dignitary than an accountable pol, and internalizing the idea that she should be handled with kid gloves.

But here Callaghan is taking that cowed, sycophantic posture a step further, playing something closer to the role of infomercial sidekick than classic journalist: Collins has a product to sell (cybersecurity legislation and, more generally, the notion that she's a "serious" legislator) and he clearly does his best to frame the issue in a way that will make her shine.

This is journalism?

I e-mailed Callaghan to ask how he came to choose the cybersecurity question and how he decided to frame it the way he did. Here's his response:

The topic was not suggested by the senator or anyone on her staff. And I don't tell anyone specifically what questions I will ask in advance.

I did tell her communications director Kevin Kelley that I would be asking questions about the budget, homeland security and whatever else came up.

The internet security question was just something that seemed worth discussing, especially in light of the fact that it is a homeland security matter, something with which Sen. Collins is very involved.

The "In The Arena" segment is an opportunity for the guest to talk about a subject at greater length than the typical news story allows. So, I brought the question up in a general way and let her have her say.

I don't think the context was obscured. Viewers can judge for themselves whether they think her proposal is a good idea or not.

I take Callaghan at his word. And maybe he didn't know about the controversy swirling around the legislation.

But either way, there's simply no place in legitimate political journalism for the cozy, collaborative approach that Callaghan adopts here.

Nothing To See Here

If a media organization is willing to use $47,000 in stealth political contributions to help swing an election, chances are it won't see anything untoward about creating awards to dole out to incumbent politicians:

MaineToday Media will honor 15 women in its first "Great Women of Maine" event.

The women selected as Great Women of Maine will be recognized for their leadership, excellence, community involvement and contributions to the community.

Maine's two Republican senators, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, will be among those honored.

Collins and Snowe will share the Margaret Chase Smith Award, which was created to recognize women pioneers who are not only successful, but well known for leading distinctive careers.

[...]

Full stories about each woman will be published in a special section on April 24.

Richard L. Connor, Editor and Publisher of MaineToday Media, will present the awards along with Ira Rosenberg, owner of Prime Motor Group.

No word on whether Jeannine Guttman, Mark Woodward or any of Sen. Collins' many other friends in the Maine media will be in attendance.

Times Takes Aim

Along with the rest of the national media, The New York Times has long followed the unwritten beltway rule: Everyone has to be very very nice to Sens. Snowe and Collins.

Skepticism about their motives? Off-limits. Scrutiny of their actions and how they line up with their words? Afraid not.

But something seems to have changed:

Sightings are reported of that rarest of Washington species--Republican moderates. If only.

The Republicans in question are Senators Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. The four voted in lockstep with the rest of their caucus in support of the House Republicans' ludicrous and destructive budget-slashing bill. But then they put out word that they did not much like it that the bill had eliminated one popular and valuable government program: funds for family planning.

[...]

Ms. Snowe and Ms. Collins once creatively worked the middle ground. In recent years all we've heard is how they'd like to reach across the aisle, but somehow the time or the deal or the we're not sure what else isn't right.

They, as well as Mr. Brown and Ms. Murkowski, certainly could have voted no in the first place and--who knows?-- struck a spark for the art of compromise...

Scathing.

Delayed Reaction

After four days of silence about the internationalization of the Libyan conflict (but just hours after Sen. Snowe made her own views known) Sen. Collins took to Twitter late this afternoon and declared herself troubled by President Obama's decision to take military action without congressional approval.

Presumably, the series of tubes the junior senator uses to access the internet were stopped up on Saturday. And Sunday. And Monday.

Military-Industrial Round-Up

This week in war making:

--Late Friday, Sen. Collins passed along the news that General Dynamics subsidiary Bath Iron Works had received a $28 million contract from the Navy to build a new a DDG-1000 destroyer. No word on whether the vessel, once assembled, will be deployed to the Navy's Fifth Fleet, hosted by US military partner Bahrain, an autocracy that this week adopted a policy of killing its own people in the street. (Warning: link contains gruesome video.)

--Elsewhere, General Dynamics won even more business.

Defense giant General Dynamics has been awarded a $7.8 million contract to produce Gatling gun systems for the U.S. Navy.

U.S. Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine said about half the work for 22 lightweight Gatling gun systems used on fighter jets will be done at General Dynamics' plant in Saco, Maine.

It just so happens that through its PAC and via its employees, General Dynamics has funneled more campaign contributions to Collins over the course of her career than all but one other corporation. (For Snowe, General Dynamics has been the third largest contributor.)

--To our knowledge, there was no word this week from Sens. Snowe or Collins on their views of military intervention in Libya.

Collins, it should be remembered, visited Libya and its leader Muammar Qadhafi in 2009, as part of a US delegation tasked with discussing a possible military equipment sale or transfer. (Video here.)

UPDATE: Some context that may or may not be relevant: Jefferson Consulting Group, the lobbying shop that employs Sen. Collins' investment partner Tom Daffron, has purportedly worked on behalf of defense giants BAE Systems, Dyncorp, Halliburton and Northrop Grumman among others.

(For some reason, none of those companies appear on the client list posted on Jefferson's website.)

It is not known whether Daffron or his colleagues have lobbied Collins formally or informally on defense-related issues.

Susan Collins and Bahrain

Nothing.

Incoherence

Did Jonathan Riskind at PPH botch the story on the Senate budget vote? Did Sen. Collins flip-flop?

Those seem like the only two possibilities, but there may actually be a third: That Collins wants Mainers to swallow the idea that she voted for a bill which she nonetheless does not support.

It's actually not as crazy as it sounds. After all, pretty frequently legislators face votes where the outcome is in doubt, and where the bill has some provisions they love and others they loathe. In those situations, pols have to choose between backing a bill they see as fundamentally flawed or voting against legislation with lots of goodies buried inside it.

It's a professional hazard and it happens all the time. But let's be clear: This isn't one of those situations.

Why? Because as Collins acknowledges in her press release, the House GOP budget was never going to pass. The vote was all about sending a message.

And in that case--when symbolism is the only thing at stake--there's simply no reason to vote for a bill unless you actually support it. To suggest otherwise is to be guilty of incoherence.

The junior senator, of course, is not above a little strategic incoherence every now and then.

But if that's what she's up to here, shame on the Maine press for letting her get away with it.

UPDATE: From Collins' press release:

"I am left with a choice between a proposal that doesn't go nearly far enough and one that makes many wrong choices."

That's just false. There were two separate, up-or-down votes on two separate bills. At no time was the junior senator forced to choose one over the other.

Susan Collins is lying.

Rewriting History

Portland Press Herald, March 9:

Collins dismissed a proposal by Senate Democrats, backed by the White House, that would cut $4.5 billion through the end of the 2011 fiscal year as not nearly sufficient "given the seriousness of the deficit problem."

But Collins said in a Capitol Hill interview Tuesday that she also doesn't support the House GOP-approved bill, which would cut $61 billion.

Portland Press Herald, later the same day:

As expected, Maine's two GOP senators voted against a Democratic budget proposal and for a House GOP proposal, even as they expressed unhappiness with the latter option, too.

(Emphasis added.)

Deficits and Double Standards

Politico:

When the requests were coming from President George W. Bush, moderate Republicans in the Senate such as Susan Collins and Dick Lugar had no problem voting to hike the federal debt ceiling year after year.

Now, with a Democrat in the White House and full-blown deficit anxiety taking over Congress, these Republicans are avoiding taking a firm stand, realizing that unquestioned support for increasing the U.S. borrowing limit is politically toxic with voters--not to mention many in the right wing of their party.

I've seen no evidence that increasing the debt limit is "toxic" with general election voters--given that the alternatives are shutting down the government or making draconian cuts.

But beltway reporters seem to feel obligated to advance that faith-based narrative.

They Ask "Questions"

Keith Shortall of MPBN (an organization capable of excellent, incisive reporting) had five minutes with Sen. Susan Collins.

He asked the following questions--and only the following questions:

--So you're talking about the erosion of etiquette or rules of decorum in the Senate or the House?

--You mentioned occupying the center. Are you not maybe feeling more of the brunt because you're getting it from both sides [chuckling]?

--Are there colleagues do you think who agree with you on the civility issue but sort of feel pressure to be loud and to be divisive in order to protect themselves politically?

--And it's your belief that colleagues who go along with that [a more civil approach] and make an effort will not suffer politically?

In short, he prods Collins to flesh out her views; commiserates with her about her position in the debate; and then lobs a couple of softballs that implicitly accept her basic thesis.

No push back. No attempt to play devil's advocate. Not even a hint of an effort to hold her accountable for her own words and actions.

Why does a serious, aggressive news organization switch over to propaganda mode when the subject is Sens. Snowe and Collins?

Bait And (Kill) Switch

A spate of headlines yesterday spread the word that a chastened Sen. Collins, stung by criticism from across the ideological spectrum, had revamped her "cybersecurity" legislation, abandoning efforts to give the government power to shut down parts of the internet:

--US Bill Would Prohibit Internet "kill Switch"

--Senators Dump Internet 'Kill Switch' for Cyber-Attack Response

--New Cyber Security Bill Kills the 'Kill Switch'

But did Collins and friends really revise the bill fundamentally to address concerns and answer objections?

Or did she and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) instead just make a few cosmetic changes in a bid to reframe the debate and snooker lazy reporters into showering their pet project with a flurry of press release journalism?

What do you think?

The revised wording (PDF) continues to alarm civil liberties groups and other critics of the bill, who say the language would allow the government to shut down portions of the Internet or restrict access to certain Web sites or types of content.

And:

The Electronic Frontier Foundation said today that it continues to have concerns about the Lieberman-Collins bill. "The president would have essentially unchecked power to determine what services can be connected to the Internet or even what content can pass over the Internet in a cybersecurity emergency," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. "Our concerns have not changed."

And:

Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the free-market Cato Institute and a member of a Homeland Security advisory panel, says that supporters of the bill have yet to make the argument that such governmental emergency powers will do more good than harm.

"They recognize that a total Internet kill switch is totally unacceptable," Harper said today. "A smaller Internet kill switch, or a series of kill switches, is also unacceptable...How does this make cybersecurity better? They have no answer."

LIHEAP Then and Now

Sen. Collins is aghast at the prospect of cuts in LIHEAP funding. But she didn't make so much as a peep when funding for the program was trimmed in 2009 during the stimulus debate--even though she was arguably the key player on that legislation.

Dodge In His Own Words

Via Dirigo Blue, we learn that Andrew Ian Dodge has announced that he'll challenge Sen. Snowe in the 2012 Republican primary.

Here are some excerpts of an e-mail interview I did with Dodge earlier this week.

--On the key issues in a GOP primary

"I believe the key issue of the 2012 election cycle will be the state of the economy and the effect government is having on it. Factors like the debt burden, spending and taxation will be as important in 2012 as they were in 2010.

The fact is that in order for the economy to recover, the Federal budget needs to be drastically cut, the debt needs to be paid down and the tax burden on Americans needs to be decreased."

--On Sen. Snowe

"Sen. Snowe's record is absolutely terrible, both in the areas of preserving our freedoms and of creating a responsible fiscal policy.

She was the cosponsor of a proposal to give the government power to shut off the internet, and has come out in favor of the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold legislation, so she obviously doesn't care very much about the First Amendment.

She claims to be a fiscal conservative, but what kind of fiscal conservative would help vote a massive new entitlement out of committee in the teeth of her party and the people? She also voted against making the Bush tax-cuts permanent while voting for TARP and every other bailout."

--On Snowe's lurch to the right

"I'm not surprised Sen. Snowe has been making efforts to reach to the tea party movement. When you're staring down a group that could end your career, you don’t tend to antagonize them...If she wins, she'll go right on being moderate and won’t bat an eye about having lied to her constituents."

--On the Maine media's fawning coverage of Sen. Snowe

"Politicians aren't answerable to the media; they're answerable to the people...I hope Snowe keeps up her strategy of only talking to those who sing her praises. It'll keep her from ever hearing that she has weaknesses."

--On the conventional wisdom that he's not a serious challenger

"Spreading this meme is one that has worked successfully in the past for the Snowe machine. That and the one claiming that only Snowe can win in the general election. I wonder how that worked out for Robert Bennett or Charlie Crist.

I remember a time when the conventional wisdom said the tea party movement would not be a factor in the 2010 cycle. That turned out to be wrong...I know the burden of proof is on me to prove skeptics wrong, but I welcome that challenge."

--On raising enough money to be competitive

"The Snowe machine is an impressive leviathan to stand up against. However there are millions of people in this country that loathe Snowe with every inch of their being. Its not just the tea party movement that reviles her. While not letting on too much, we will be tapping into resource streams that look to defeat Snowe wherever they might be."

Friendship and Scrutiny

One idea that seems to be circulating is that Collins' participation in a $705,000 investment is unworthy of scrutiny because Collins and Daffron are friends who have known each other for a long time. But that's crazy.

The potential conflict of interest inherent in a pol and lobbyist participating together in a $705,000 investment doesn't dissolve simply because the two are friends.

And while there's no reason to assume that a financial transaction between friends is automatically suspect, the existence of a friendship doesn't preclude the possibility of impropriety either.

Bottom line: When two people call each other "friends" that designation should not function as a trump card shielding all dealings between them from press scrutiny.

Facts and Questions

It's worth stressing upfront: I have no grounds to believe there's anything improper or untoward about Sen. Collins' recent Washington house purchase.

That said, none of the public discussion so far has addressed--let alone answered--the very salient, public interest-minded questions that the purchase raises.

Since no one seems particularly inclined to put these questions to the junior senator, what follows is an attempt to get a handful of relevant facts on the table and draw attention to some of those outstanding questions:

--Collins and Thomas Daffron, with whom she bought the $705,000 house, have a professional relationship going back to the 1970s. He has worked on at least one of her political campaigns and donated at least $6350 to Collins over the course of several election cycles.

--Daffron is currently the Chief Operating Officer at Jefferson Consulting Group, a lobbying shop that helps clients "win access to the government contracting market." The firm also does consulting for government agencies.

Recent clients include the Lewin Group and the Department of Homeland Security. The company appears to have also done work for the Halliburton unit Kellogg Brown and Root.

--Whether Jefferson Consulting Group employees have lobbied Collins on behalf of these and other clients isn't clear. What kind of professional access Daffron has had to Collins (who is ranking member on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which is charged with oversight of "the management, efficiency, effectiveness and economy of all agencies and departments of the Federal government") is not clear.

--During the early 2000s, Daffron was a lobbyist with Chesapeake Enterprises at a time when one of its largest clients was the Mortgage Bankers Association of America. Prior to that, he worked in the same capacity at American Defense International.

--Whether Daffron lobbied Collins on behalf of his clients during this period--or informally on behalf of his firm's other clients--is not clear. Whether other lobbyists at Chesapeake Enterprises and American Defense International lobbied Collins during this period is not clear.

--According to a financial disclosure form made public in June, Sen. Collins recently had assets of between $110,000 and $300,000.

--How the $705,000 home was paid for and/or financed is not clear.

--The structure of the financial agreement between Collins and Daffron is not clear.

--Collins' aim in purchasing the house remains unclear. (A Collins spokesman told the AP that Collins will be using the home as a secondary residence. In the same article, however, the house was described as an "investment property.")

--During her 1994 campaign for Senate, Sen. Collins promised voters she would serve two terms and then "come home" to Maine.

Quote of the Day

Duncan Black:

One thing I've learned is that being a senator probably isn't very much fun, at least for most people. To do your job minimally requires a lot of work. You oversee multiple offices of largely underpaid staffers...

It's the Senate, so if you care about getting things done you're inevitably going to be very frustrated...

If you move your family to DC you've moved out of the state you're supposed to represent. If you don't move your family to DC you have to travel hundreds or thousands of miles to see them...

It's a very high profile position, which means having a private life is almost impossible...

To actually enjoy the job you have to get some enjoyment out of the semi-corrupt aspects of the job such as the fundraising, hanging out with lobbyists, the general thrill of everyone kissing your ass, etc.