Obama's Lobbying Crackdown Leaves His Pentagon No. 2 -- a Former Lobbyist -- Stalled in Senate
Carl Levin (D-MI), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, just told reporters that Barack Obama's nominee for deputy defense secretary, Bill Lynn, may need a waiver from the administration's one-day-old executive order curbing lobbyist involvement in government.
Lynn's confirmation vote is on hold, Levin said, "unless and until this is resolved ... until there's a decision on a waiver." As Mother Jones points out, the Obama team certainly knew when they nominated Lynn that he was a longtime lobbyist for a major defense contractor, Raytheon. When you couple that with the following language from the executive order ...
If I was a registered lobbyist within the 2 years before the date of my appointment, in addition to abiding by the limitations of paragraph 2, I will not for a period of 2 years after the date of my appointment:(a) participate in any particular matter on which I lobbied within the 2 years before the date of my appointment;
(b) participate in the specific issue area in which that particular matter falls; or
(c) seek or accept employment with any executive agency that I lobbied within the 2 years before the date of my appointment.
... it seems clear that Lynn needs a waiver. Section (c) is particularly direct in its language. Another Obama appointee at the department of health and human services, Bill Corr, is a former anti-tobacco industry lobbyist whose prior employment could also require a waiver.
The Weekly Standard is predictably incensed at the notion of rules being "broken" -- but then, so is the Project on Government Oversight. The whistleblower-backing nonprofit group believes that Obama should withdraw Lynn rather than waive him through.
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) isn't so sanguine either. "I'm not going to object or vote no," the Obama ally said as she left the Senate chamber today, "[but] I feel so strongly that [Lynn] must take on the role of reformer."
Now I'm wondering what this means for possible procurement reform under Obama.
Late Update: Thanks to the commenters for noting that I'd omitted a crucial "anti-" prefix there. Bill Corr is indeed a former lobbyist for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a group that opposes Big Tobacco's agenda.














WTF? Sounds like the Bush administration is back in this case.
January 22, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Corr is a tobacco industry lobbyist unless "The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids" is an Orwellian name for a Big Cig front group. Per SourceWatch, it looks like it's legit and has no ties to the tobacco industry:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_Campaign_for_Tobacco-Free_Kids
From Corr's bio on the Tobacco Free Kids site:
"Bill Corr is Executive Director of the CAMPAIGN FOR TOBACCO-FREE KIDS, a privately funded organization established to focus the nation's attention and action on reducing tobacco use and its many harms among both kids and adults. Mr. Corr joined the CAMPAIGN in March 2000 after twenty-three years in Congress and the executive branch.
From March 1998 until his arrival at the CAMPAIGN, Mr. Corr served as Chief Counsel and Policy Director for U.S. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle. Before working for the Minority Leader, Mr. Corr served as the Chief of Staff for the Department of Health and Human Services. In that capacity, he was principal advisor to Secretary Donna E. Shalala on all major policy and management issues and initiatives. While at the Department, he also served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health and Counselor to the Secretary."
Based on his bio and ties to Daschle, his appointment makes a lot of sense. And I really don't think working for a group that discourages underage smoking should qualify as lobbying, even though I'm sure they lobby.
As for Lynn...well, he's extremely qualified, but I don't like establishing rules and then breaking them as soon as they are put in place. I'm also not crazy about exceptions. Couldn't they have chosen somebody else. Or, if he's that good and you want to have the best possible person in every position - and I have no problem with that - then don't establish rules that prevent you from doing that.
The irony is that based on Lynn's background, I have a feeling he (along with Geithner, another ironic situation) is one of the Obama nominees the GOP likes. He's qualified, apparently not an ideologue...and when has a member of the GOP disliked a defense contractor?
January 22, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
My comments were made before the update. I didn't check up on it and "former tobacco industry lobbyist" above seemed pretty cut and dried that Corr lobbied for tobacco. Sorry.
January 22, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Obama Administration has painted themselves into a corner here - are they going to end-around a one-day old executive order?
I've also read elsewhere that Mr. Lynn is uniquely qualified for the post, head and shoulders above other candidates.
Quite the pickle.
January 22, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh come on now...the "rules" don't really apply to us...we're the good guys...remember?
January 22, 2009 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL, sadly it looks like idealism trumped pragmatism here.
January 22, 2009 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The never ending battle between pragmatic idealism and idealistic pragmatism...
January 22, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can't really "waive" away ethics reforms whenver you want. It is a pickle, but Obama should take the opportunity to show he is serious about his reforms and withdraw these two nominations. They can come back after their two year wait is up. I'm sure they can find someone else who is qualified and hasn't been a lobbyist for the military industrial complex.
January 22, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. That order is meaningless if Obama is just going to waive it whenever he feels like it. Waivers should be reserved for the rare case of someone who really does have unique, irreplaceable expertise.
January 22, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
He needs to dump the appointments. End of story. If either are waived through, the precedent will seriously undermine the credibility of the entire ethics reform project.
January 22, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doh!
January 22, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lynn Vows to Reform Processes if Confirmed as Deputy Secretary
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
January 22, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "Fox guarding the hen house?" remark, was obviously mine. I mucked up the tags and didn't scroll the the bottom when previewing to make sure the formatting worked.
Also forgot to provide a link to the story - http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=52718
January 22, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Elana, I understand the concern about lobbyists (and ex-lobbyists) moving in and out of government.
But why exactly would Lynn require any kind of waiver?
True, under (a) and (b) of the executive order, he would be obliged to recuse himself from any discussion involving Raytheon.
But (c), which you say is "particularly direct in its language," is simply irrelevant to Lynn's eligibility for the job.
The ban on seeking employment with an agency he lobbied kicks in only AFTER the date of his appointment. It does not apply to the appointment itself.
Reread the executive order. He needs no waiver to take the post.
January 22, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's funny, but I actually think that's poor writing on the part of whoever wrote the order. Gibbs himself says that they intend to use a waiver.
January 22, 2009 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the other hand, as No. 2 at the Pentagon, it may prove impossible to insulate himself completely from any decision involving Raytheon, even if he avoids nuts-and-bolts discussions.
So it might be wise to issue a partial waiver on (a) and (b). No need to do it on (c), though.
January 22, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
In another time a waiver might be appropriate. Today, lobbyists' influence is clearly out of control and needs to be reined in. Add to that the fact that Obama made a big deal over his lobbyist ban during the campaign and I think he has to bite the bullet on this one. Lynn may indeed be the best man for the job, but a waiver sends exactly the wrong message.
January 22, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's wrong with the Obama team that they would mess up this badly. It makes them and Obama look like a bunch of hypocrites. Stupid hypocrites at that. I'm pissed at them for f*cking up so early.
January 22, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not hypocrites, just careless. Really careless.
January 22, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the easiest thing is to get rid of the 2 lobbyists. That will be easy enough.
January 22, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually there was a waiver option built into the executive order, at least that's how Gibbs made it sound. 99% of administration workers will abide by this mandate - Obama believes, as I indicated above, that Mr.Lynn is uniquely qualified for this role and it is in the public's best interest that he get the job.
Do I wish there was an equally qualified candidate with no lobbyist ties that President Obama could turn to - of course. I might take somebody even a little less qualified to get away from the lobbyist stink, but Obama knew exactly what he was doing with both the executive order regarding lobbyists and choosing Mr. Lynn and he felt Lynn was necessary enough to take the political hit.
I do think all waiver's granted to this order be made public, and further that all those appointed through waiver have another level of watchdog/scrutiny placed on them.
January 22, 2009 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink