While I applaud John Edwards quest to never take a registered lobbyists from Washington, D.C.'s money, taking money from a crypto-lobbyist is far worse. These people not only flaunt the rules and regulations set up to make money in politics more transparent, they create new and interested loopholes to make sure their ilk can continue to sway the political process without any reprecutions. I have a short list of these people I keep a watch on, with a special place reserved for the true bastards of propaganda.
Near the top of that list is Ben Goddard, and he has given money to John Edwards in 2004 and 2007. Who is Ben Goddard, and why should you care? Meet me after the flip.
The year is 1993, and the Big Dog and Hillary are now in the White House. Hillary Clinton, as we all remember, has proposed a new universal health care plan to bring America into the modern era with other Western civilization. Then came the famous "Harry and Louise"television commercial funded by the Health Insurance Association of America, a health insurance industry lobbying fund. If you don't remember the commercial, here you go:
For those without YouTube privileges, the ad shows an middle-class, middle-American couple decrying the scarecrow of an allegedly bureaucratic hellhole Bill & Hill's health care plan would be. It was also a call to action for people to call their representativea in Congress to destroy the plan. It crushed Universal Health Care, leaving us with our current health care dilemma. It was also cited as landmark moment in the use of attack ad style public relations techniques for lobbying.
It also put Ben Goddard of Goddard Claussen, located in Washington, D.C., on the map. It also helped pave the way for Swift-boating not only of campaigns like Kerry's, but of bills before Congress. And the best part is since they hide behind the mask of public relations for issue advocacy, people like Ben Goddard do not have to register as lobbyist. He just plays one on TV.
Edwards took money twice from Ben Goddard, from Washington, DC 20005, in 2004.
http://www.opensecrets.org/...
Edwards took money this year from Ben Goddard, from Washington, DC 20001, on March 28, 2007.
http://www.opensecrets.org/...
Now, Edwards is correct in saying he was not taking money from registered lobbyists from Washington, DC. But what about a man who is called the King of Television Lobbying?
Direct from the K Street Confidential by Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, here is a lobbying tribute piece about Ben Goddard:
Returning to the Genre He Started
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Monday, November 29, 2004; Page E01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
But not long ago, lobbying never appeared on TV. Commercials were considered too expensive and too ephemeral to be a legitimate weapon in an issue campaign.
Then came Ben Goddard. In 1993, several chief executives of health insurance companies approached Goddard and his partner in media consulting, Rick Claussen. President Bill Clinton had just proposed a sweeping health care program. If he got his way, one of the executives told Goddard, "I'm out of business."
Goddard suggested a radical solution -- an advertisement nicknamed "Harry and Louise" after the fictional couple that did all the talking. To the shock of many insiders, it killed the president's initiative and launched a lobbying-by-television wave.
-----
Now, at age 61, Goddard is at it again, this time building a new business in Washington and trying to expand the borders of the industry that he created a decade ago.
In an interview in his art-filled office across the street from The Washington Post, Goddard said he foresees rapid growth in the already widely used method. He also expects an increasing use of innovative formats, especially via the Internet. Unfortunately, he said, a lot of folks who make commercials for pressure groups don't do a very good job.
His opinion matters. Goddard is recognized as the godfather of TV lobbying and remains a master writer and director of the technique. "He opened the door," said Carter Eskew of the Glover Park Group, which produces so-called issue ads. " 'Harry and Louise' was a breakthrough campaign."
He also is both a pioneer and a victim of lobbying's largest trend: consolidation. He cashed in on his fame with "Harry and Louise" (and also his success in defeating anti-business referendums in states) by selling his company to the communications conglomerate Omnicom Group Inc. in 1999. That was the height of a buying frenzy for public affairs shops and, as a result, he made a pretty penny.
------
But Goddard isn't too pleased with the state of the industry overall. "A lot of money is wasted" on interest group ads, he said, because the commercials' messages aren't adequately researched, focused or coordinated with lobbying at the grass roots. The secret to Goddard Claussen's victories, he said, is message discipline: Its ads are tested with voters down to their minute details and are considered just one part of a much larger lobbying exercise, which invariably repeats an identical point-of-view.
Now, I know for the record, Ben Goddard is not a registered lobbyist, he just does a much larger lobbying exercise all the time under the guise of issue advocacy. For the exact difference between the two is such a murky discussion, I turn to Open Secrets for an answer:
http://www.opensecrets.org/...
Issue Advocacy:
Following soft money as one of the biggest loopholes in the campaign finance law is "issue advocacy." Groups across the political spectrum are spending millions of dollars on issue advocacy advertising campaigns - "issue ads" for short - to influence elections and garner access to elected officials without triggering contribution restrictions or disclosure requirements. So far, every attempt by the FEC to regulate issue ads has been thwarted by the federal courts on the theory that such regulation would infringe upon the First Amendment rights of the advertisers. Should the trend continue, issue advocacy may surpass soft money as the most threatening loophole to federal prohibitions on corporate and labor contributions. In addition, this loophole provides contributors with a way around disclosure requirements, since the reporting of contributions to issue ad campaigns is not now required.
Gets better:
ISSUE ADVOCACY VS. EXPRESS ADVOCACY: THE MAGIC WORDS
In Buckley v. Valeo,9 the Supreme Court held that campaign finance limitations applied only to "communications that in express terms advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for federal office." A footnote to the opinion says that the limits apply when communications include terms "such as `vote for,' `elect,' `support,' `cast your ballot for,' `Smith for Congress,' `vote against,' `defeat,' `reject.'" The phrases in the footnote have become known as the "magic words" without which a communication, no matter what its purpose or impact, is often classified as issue advocacy, thus falling outside the reach of the campaign finance laws.
Issue campaigns differ from another common loophole, "independent expenditures" (See part III), because they avoid using the magic words to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate. Therefore, unlike independent expenditures, they are not subject to any of the limitations on sources or amounts of contributions. Corporations and labor unions can embark on issue campaigns (or contribute to other organizations engaging in issue advocacy) using their general treasury funds. Likewise, wealthy individuals can make unlimited contributions towards issue campaigns. In addition, although groups are prohibited from coordinating with candidates before making independent expenditures, it is open to debate whether such restrictions apply to issue campaigns. Finally, there are no disclosure requirements imposed on issue campaigns, which leaves the public in the dark about who is behind them.
So as long as you don't use magic words, you are not a lobbyist for the issue. Right?
Right?
Well, let's take a look at exactly Goddard Claussen does, of K Street Confidential fame, and located in Washington, D.C. (I'd copy and paste, but's a Flash site, so here are some screenshots):
http://www.gcsa.com/
Here is their screenshot explaining exactly what they do. Notice they cite the language from exactly what Open Secrets says is the problem, using the guise of free speech and redress to government to hide their crypto-lobbying. And yes a few lobbyists alone can no longer win legislative battles, it takes hidden hands like Goddard Claussen to bring home the bacon these days.
So this illustrates how Goddard Claussen helped raise their profile among the Beltway crowd, making them into one of the most recognized brands within the critical Washington, DC opinion-makers. They represented them so well they got a Summit Award and a Pollie Award. Of course, that's not lobbying, that's just good PR for the drug industry.
So they represent EEI in Washington, D.C., but you are not a lobbyist, just an issue advocate? Ben Goddard must have a good lawyer, or know one, or know one who knows a lot of them in Washington.
So, how does one go to Congress in the name of a client, the National Association of Broadcasters, and lobby lawmakers with reminders of the NAB's charity and community commitment while NAB is facing onerous legislative action and not call it lobbying? Crypto-lobbying is how! And you don't even have to register, you can operate without any oversight.
And for style points, when the Nuclear Threat Initiative needed yellow press, Goddard Claussen was more than happy to help. Goddard Claussen stepped in and wrote, produced and directed the HBO feature, "Last Beast Chance", which was used to scary Americans out of their minds.
http://www.lastbestchance.org/...
Last Best Chance is a docudrama that shows the threat posed by vulnerable nuclear weapons and materials around the world and underscores what the stakes are.
In the movie, al Qaeda operatives organize three separate operations aimed at getting nuclear weapons. The material is then fabricated into three crude nuclear weapons by small groups of trained terrorists, who have recruited bomb-making experts to help them manufacture their weapons.
Governments around the world discover clues to the plot, but are unable to uncover the scheme before the weapons are en route to their destinations. The film clearly demonstrates that the hardest job for terrorists is gaining control of a nuclear weapon or material. Because the governments had failed to take sufficient action to secure or destroy the nuclear weapons material, they are helpless to prevent an attack.
The film stars Fred Thompson.
Yes, that Fred Thompson. He plays the President, which I thought was a nice touch.
John Edwards is taking a bold step in not taking lobbyists' money in the Rome of America. What I want is for campaigns to keep a better eye on who exactly they are taking money from election. Most PR shops make the wonderful ads you see for candidates, others use it to skirt campaign finance law.
Since Ben Goddard is not a registered lobbyist, I am giving John Edwards the benefit of the doubt, considering how many people donate to his campaign. But I would like to see him return Goddard's money.
It is after all, only small change in the overall fundings of his campaign, and it would be a big change in business as usual in Washington, D.C. if people like Ben Goddard were also cut out of the political process.
It would not only take the foot soldiers of lobbyists out of the equation, it would also take the ones who give them their marching orders out of the chain of command as well.
So Mr. Edwards, are you going to give Goddard his money back, or not?