Exclusive: Conservative group offers to sell endorsement for $2M

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
This sounds like partisan extortion - pay for play - etc.

Thankfully, FedEx told them to hump sand.

Exclusive: Conservative group offers to sell endorsement for $2M

The American Conservative Union asked FedEx for a check for $2 million to $3 million in return for the group?s endorsement in a bitter legislative dispute, then the group?s president flipped and sided with UPS after FedEx refused to pay.

For the $2 million plus, ACU offered a range of services that included: ?Producing op-eds and articles written by ACU?s Chairman David Keene and/or other members of the ACU?s board of directors. (Note that Mr. Keene writes a weekly column that appears in The Hill.)?

The conservative group?s remarkable demand ? black-and-white proof of the longtime Washington practice known as ?pay for play? ? was contained in a private letter to FedEx , which was provided to POLITICO.


The letter exposes the practice by some political interest groups of taking stands not for reasons of pure principle, as their members and supporters might assume, but also in part because a sponsor is paying big money.

In the three-page letter asking for money on June 30, the conservative group backed FedEx. After FedEx says it rejected the offer, Keene signed onto a two-page July 15 letter backing UPS. Keene did not return a message left on his cell phone.

Maury Lane, FedEx?s director of corporate communications, said: ?Clearly, the ACU shopped their beliefs and UPS bought.?

ACU's executive vice president, Dennis Whitfield, said that neither the group nor David Keene, the chairman, took any money from UPS. Whitfield said the group has never received a response to its original proposal to FedEx. He said Keene endorsed the second letter as an individual, even though the letter bore the logo of ACU.

"Our position hasn't changed," said Whitfield, who was a deputy secretary of labor in the Reagan administration. "It won't change. I am fundamentally, philosophically opposed to doing what the Obama administration wants to do [to FedEx], and so is our organization."

FedEx and UPS, fierce competitors in the package delivery business, are at war over a provision under consideration in Congress that would expand union power at FedEx.

FedEx currently has one U.S. union contract for its entire express business. Under a change passed by the House and awaiting action in the Senate, FedEx ? like UPS ? would have to negotiate union contracts for individual locations, which FedEx claims would make it much more difficult to promise worldwide regularity for deliveries.

The American Conservative Union, which calls itself ?the nation's oldest and largest grass-roots conservative lobbying organization,? took UPS?s side on Wednesday as part of a conservative consortium that accused FedEx of ?misleading the public and legislators.? ACU's logo is at the top of the letter, along with those of six other conservative groups.

Just two weeks earlier, ACU had offered its endorsement to FedEx, saying in a letter to the company: ?We stand with FedEx in opposition to this legislation.?

But there was a catch ? an expensive one. ACU asked FedEx to pay as much as $3.4 million for e-mail and other services for ?an aggressive grass-roots campaign to stop the legislation in the Senate.?

?For the activist contact portion of the plan, we will contact over 150,000 people per state multiple times at a cost of $1.39 per name or $2,147,550 to implement the entire program,? the letter says. ?If we incorporate the targeted, senator-personalized radio effort into the plan, you can figure an additional $125,000 on average, per state? for an estimated 10 states. The total would be $3,397,550.?

The letter shows one reason why activists get so much junk mail, both on paper and electronically: Some groups that send it charge handsomely for the service.

Under the grass-roots program ACU proposed, ?Each person will be contacted a total of seven times totaling nearly 11 million contacts total in the 10 targeted states.? ?Within 72 hours of an agreement on the whole plan, we can have the data sets delivered and the first round of e-mail ready for delivery,? the offer states. ?Within seven days, the mail can be in the USPS system and the phone call delivered.?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25072.html

Wonder if that conservative group running all of the anti-government healthcare ads is in someone's pocket too? Principles schminciples.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
This stuff happens on both sides of the aisle, it's washington politics, and it's dirty stuff. This is just one of the only times anyone's been caught red handed. If it was a liberal group who got caught the conservatives would be going nuts of course, but this is bipartisan corruption.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: jonks
This stuff happens on both sides of the aisle

Not nearly equally.
So true.

The Republicans have nothing like the unions who take mandatory dues and use them to support political stances that large numbers of their members disagree with.

Look at the All-Time donors summery from Open Secrets
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Democrat leading groups dominate the top of the list with nearly all of them being union groups.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/20...lts/polls/#val=USP00p3
Via CNN exit polls 37% of union members voted for McCain.

So 37% of members vote for McCain, but 90%+ of union political spending goes to Democrats.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: jonks
This stuff happens on both sides of the aisle

Not nearly equally.

You can persist in your belief that a conservative person or organization is more likely to be corrupt than liberal ones. It just sounds silly if you actually knew any conservatives. We're people first, way before political leanings, and corruption does not discriminate by party. I don't know how you reconcile your thoughts on the matter.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: jonks
This stuff happens on both sides of the aisle

Not nearly equally.
So true.

The Republicans have nothing like the unions who take mandatory dues and use them to support political stances that large numbers of their members disagree with.

Look at the All-Time donors summery from Open Secrets
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Democrat leading groups dominate the top of the list with nearly all of them being union groups.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/20...lts/polls/#val=USP00p3
Via CNN exit polls 37% of union members voted for McCain.

So 37% of members vote for McCain, but 90%+ of union political spending goes to Democrats.

But, but, but corporations are all corporationy in their corporation buildings. And they make money.

It will be interesting to see Craig attempt to spin this.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: jonks
This stuff happens on both sides of the aisle

Not nearly equally.

You can persist in your belief that a conservative person or organization is more likely to be corrupt than liberal ones. It just sounds silly if you actually knew any conservatives. We're people first, way before political leanings, and corruption does not discriminate by party. I don't know how you reconcile your thoughts on the matter.

You as an individual conservative have basically nothing to do with the party leadership/organization behavior. I'm not saying individuals are corrupt.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: jonks
This stuff happens on both sides of the aisle

Not nearly equally.

Bull. Intellectual dishonesty at its finest.

Bull. It's statistically impossible for both sides to be even.

Sorry, you're right. Leftists are more egregious. ;)

I'd believe that more readily, if only you had the data to back it up. ;)
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
:)
Now where would we be if we actually used and acknowledged facts in P&N!
 

Slick5150

Diamond Member
Nov 10, 2001
8,760
3
81
I love how these threads always turn into "but both sides do it!!!" arguments. As if that's what matters, and that makes everything ok. Wrong is wrong, and yes, both sides are guilty of it. But just because both sides do it doesn't mean we just shrug our shoulders at it and have a pissing match over who's actually worse about it, we challenge both sides and demand changes until this kind of crap stops.

 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Slick5150
I love how these threads always turn into "but both sides do it!!!" arguments. As if that's what matters, and that makes everything ok. Wrong is wrong, and yes, both sides are guilty of it. But just because both sides do it doesn't mean we just shrug our shoulders at it and have a pissing match over who's actually worse about it, we challenge both sides and demand changes until this kind of crap stops.

I wasn't saying both sides do it therefore it's ok. I was anticipating a landslide of invective against conservatives, so I pre-empted by saying both sides do it, it's wrong when both sides do it, and of course guilty parties should be called on it.

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: jonks
This stuff happens on both sides of the aisle

Not nearly equally.

Bull. Intellectual dishonesty at its finest.

Bull. It's statistically impossible for both sides to be even.

It's statistically impossible for both parties to have an exactly equal number of corrupt members? Perhaps you meant statistically unlikely. Either way, it's an unknowable statistic. You can base it on how many people are convicted or criminally charged, but that can't capture the number of people who successfully evade detection. What if Dems were just better at being corrupt, or vice versa?
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: jonks
It's statistically impossible for both parties to have an exactly equal number of corrupt members? Perhaps you meant statistically unlikely. Either way, it's an unknowable statistic. You can base it on how many people are convicted or criminally charged, but that can't capture the number of people who successfully evade detection. What if Dems were just better at being corrupt, or vice versa?
Basically, yes. When it approaches a very low probability, it's effectively impossible.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
:thumbsup: for FedEx telling them to go screw themselves.

And :thumbsdown: for Obama and Congress sticking their nose into FedEx's business.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: bamacre
:thumbsup: for FedEx telling them to go screw themselves.

And :thumbsdown: for Obama and Congress sticking their nose into FedEx's business.

I guess I need to re-read the article. I didn't see that.

Edit: I now see it. Not sure what it means, but I see it.