It’s not the lobbying; it’s the lying

July 19, 2007

We recently learned that the pro-choice National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Assn. reportedly hired Thompson to lobby the H.W. Bush White House in 1991. Specifically, the group paid Thompson quite a bit of money to push the White House to ease restrictions that barred abortion counseling at clinics that received federal money.

The Thompson campaign, initially, denied that this had ever happened. Despite the word of six people and meeting notes, Team Thompson insisted, vigorously, that the entire story is fantasy, fabricated out of whole cloth. Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo said, “Fred Thompson did not lobby for this group, period.”

Thompson backers and Republican observers in general rallied to the former senator’s defense, and argued that Dems afraid of Thompson had orchestrated some kind of plot. They started looking kind of silly when Thompson started hedging on his original denial.

Today, the NYT resolves the lingering questions.

Billing records show that former Senator Fred Thompson spent nearly 20 hours working as a lobbyist on behalf of a group seeking to ease restrictive federal rules on abortion counseling in the 1990s, even though he recently said he did not recall doing any work for the organization.

According to records from Arent Fox, the law firm based in Washington where Mr. Thompson worked part-time from 1991 to 1994, he charged the organization, the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, about $5,000 for work he did in 1991 and 1992. The records show that Mr. Thompson, a probable Republican candidate for president in 2008, spent much of that time in telephone conferences with the president of the group, and on three occasions he reported lobbying administration officials on its behalf.

Thompson’s allies are, predictably, moving the goalposts. Hinderaker, for example, argues, “[T]he line is that there is nothing here: a lawyer represents all kinds of clients. This particular representation, on Thompson’s part, amounted to very little.”

I think that intentionally misses the point.

The reason this story mattered, at least at first, was that the Dobson crowd might care about the pro-choice policy position Thompson was paid to advocate. But the issue took on an entirely different significance when Thompson and his aides started issuing blanket denials about the work, and Thompson allies argued publicly that the whole story was a sham. Now, before the campaign even gets underway officially, they’re off to a dishonest start.

Now, the obvious defense for the someday-candidate is that Thompson apparently didn’t do a lot of work for his pro-choice client and it’s possible he forgot about it. A total of 3.3 hours of actual lobbying isn’t much.

But according to the newly released materials, Thompson talked to the president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Assn. 22 times. When she said last week that Thompson was helping her, the former senator acted as if he had no idea who she was.

As James Joyner explained, “The story itself is rather innocuous; that his first instinct was to lie about it, though, says something about the man’s character…. [T]o the extent that Thompson’s appeal is that he’s not a professional politician, this hurts.”

I think that’s right. Getting away with lobbying for a pro-choice client is a minor challenge. Getting caught lying about it can dog a presidential campaign for quite a while.

Of course, it’s always possible that he billed for the work, but never actually did it. Would that make him look any better???

  • Thompson is definitely slimy enough to be a top-tier Republican candidate.

  • “Getting away with lobbying for a pro-choice client is a minor challenge. Getting caught lying about it can dog a presidential campaign for quite a while. ” Only if the media reports on it, and provides context. Given that the political msm doesn’t seem to understand anything that might reflect badly on ReThugs, I have my doubts that this will stick with them. Witness the astonishing exchange on the Post’s political blog this morning (warning, it drove Atrios insane):

    Washington Post’s Lyndsey Layton:

    Crestwood, N.Y.: Lyndsey, I like this Harry Reid strategy of late night theater to break the filibuster, because it underlines how many of the GOP Senators are making touchy-feely speeches about opposing the war, but refusing to support any real efforts to end it. I think the next step should be to hold up votes on almost anything Bush wants a vote on, starting with his judicial nominees. I know that this back-fired on Newt Gingrich in the ’90s when he tried it on Clinton, but can anybody remember what noble cause Gingrich was fighting for back then? Ending this war is of a different order of magnitude, and I think the voters appreciate the Dems finally, finally taking a strong stand on something instead of wringing their hands about the iniquities of the senatorial system. Your take?

    Lyndsey Layton: Hi Crestwood,

    I’m not as certain. Recent polls show Americans are frustrated with this Congress and its inability to pass legislation. If the Democrats start blocking every initiative – even in the name of a cause that 70 percent of Americans support – it’ll be hard to peel off the obstructionist label. As it is, the party is worried that it won’t have enough of a legislative record to tout during the ’08 campaigns.
    -Atrios 09:22

    not to put too fine a point on it, but this is one of the Post’s political reporters. And she has absolutely no idea what she is talking about. Another reader called her on it and this was the exchange:

    New York:”If the Democrats start blocking every initiative…” Did you really just write that? Bills are being fillibustered by Republicans, not Democrats. How is it then that Democrats are the ones blocking initiatives?

    Lyndsey Layton: Blocking confirmation of appointees to the bench, to various federal commissions, etc.

    I knows I’m a broken record on this site, but the msm is THE problem. Honest, accurate reporting and editorials and the reThugs are dust.

  • Thompson’s denials are the denials of a child: I didn’t do it, I SWEAR I didn’t do it…but even if I did it, it’s no big deal.

    Can’t speak for the rest of the nation, but I’ve had enough childish behavior in the WH the past 6.5 years, thank you.

  • The real test of how damaging it is will be how vigorously the media report on it, and if, as I suspect, Thompson is the media’s anointed one, we won’t be seeing a whole lot about it.

    The difference, as I see it, between lobbying and legal representation is that one can always – and rightly – make the argument that everyone is entitled to legal representation, and as a lawyer, if you believe in that basic principle, you can – and some often do – represent clients whose positions on issues are different from the lawyer’s. Your advocacy in that case, however, is for the client and not necessarily for the position – you can defend someone who is accused of theft because you believe that person is presumed to be innocent under the law, and has to right to representation – but that is not the same as advocating for someone’s right to steal.

    Lobbying is advocacy of the position – the right of women to choose for themselves whether to carry a pregnancy to term or to terminate it – and that is the sticky wicket Thompson has found himself in, and he knows it. It is much harder to make the case, I think, that one can lobby a position one is opposed to.

  • Of course, this forces me to add another verse to my entry for Freddy Thompson’s campaign song. My sincere apologies to music majors and anyone else with taste and breeding who may be reading this.

    (Sung to the tune of “Davy Crockett, King of the Wild Frontier:)

    Bored representing ol’ Tennessee,
    Greenest state in the land of the free.
    Moved up to K Street in Washington DC
    To lobby for the rich and powerful, you see

    Freddy, Freddy Thompson – Acting King of the Wild Frontier

    Muddied every creek as a GOP whore,
    Said war is peace and peace is war.
    And while he was handling this bushy chore,
    Compared himself with legends on Fox News 4.

    Like Daniel Boo . . . uh . . . I mean . . ., Davy Crockett – Whatever! . . . from Tennessee.

    He went off to Congress and served a spell
    A lawyer for the lawless writing laws so well.
    They took over Washington, and I heard tell,
    Stuffed our rights up the crack in the Liberty Bell.

    Freddy, Freddy Thompson, seein’ his duty clear.

    Didn’t come home, when his term was done,
    Thar’s money to be made with the friends he’d won.
    Dust off the red pickup, time to use it some
    Fixin’ up his act for a Presidential run.

    Now a family planning group said Honest Fred
    Lobbied to help them kill some fetuses dead
    Ol’ feller looked like he’d been kicked in the head
    So he said “Family who?” and lied instead.

    Freddy, Freddy Thompson, Acting King of the Wild Frontier.

  • “Getting caught lying about it can dog a presidential campaign for quite a while.”

    In this case, I disagree. The strain of christianity practiced by the religious right is all about redemption and salvation. If Thompson admits to “wrongdoing,” even at this late date, he will be forgiven.

    More to the point, given the baldfaced opportunism of Dobson, et.al., the religious right has no option but to back Thompson. McCain’s campaign has imploded. Giuliani’s will soon implode (I’ll take wagers on this prediction…people still love the FDNY), leaving the Mormon (read apostate) from Taxechusetts as the only other credible candidate. Look for the religious right to market Thompson as the second coming of St. Ronnie. Richard Land has already said as much, calling Fred a southern-fried Reagan.

  • I don’t know that Dobson et al will be as forgiving as Hinderaker, but leaving that aside, Thompson’s response reveals poor poor campaign judgment. My thought on him is that before they anoint the guy as the second coming of the Gipper, they might look for some evidence that he has decent political instincts. If he doesn’t then they may regret putting him in the lead.

    My current favored scenario is that Thompson will spontaneously implode sometime before the primaries actually start, and the GOP poobahs would be left to choose between going with Romney or setting out one of the minor wingnuts (Huckabee, Brownback, Tancredo) as a sacrificial lamb. (Rudy I always figured to be a nonstarter due to the pro-choice angle, to say nothing of all his baggage and his temperament.) My guess is they’d swallow hard and go with Mitt.

  • So, in what other instances do we “…need to separate a lawyer who is advocating a position [Corporate Military Industrial Lobbyist/Frontman Fred Thompson] from the position itself”?

    Worst case scenario: if Freddie “Got Fingered” Thompson was selected President by the Corporate Military Industrial Government, in his alternate reality, we could expect him to separate himself as a President who is advocating for interminable war, from the war itself (much like the current Coward-In-Chief). And we could expect him to separate himself as a President who alleges to represent the interests of the American People, from the interests of the American People.

    The “man” is nothing but a Corporate whore.

  • “even though he recently said he did not recall doing any work for the organization.”

    Sounds to me like he would make a fine Attorney General

  • Lying is important, but comparing a lobbyist to a lawyer is more than a bit insincere, especially for a Republican. First, in our justice system, a defendant has the right to an attorney, and if he can’t find one, one will be assigned. Not so with lobbyists. But also during the last six years, especially during lobby reform hearings,they talked about how important lobbyists are as an educational tool. Can you imagine relying on Johnny Cochran to find out what really happened at OJ’s house?

  • Senator Fred Thompson’s voting record on abortion issues can be found at: Senator Fred Thompson’s Voting Record

    Senator Fred Thompson’s history of speeches on abortion can be found at: Senator Fred Thompson’s Record of Speeches

    Senator Fred Thompson’s ratings from special interest groups on abortion issues can be found at: Senator Fred Thompson’s Interest Group Ratings

    Project Vote Smart produces the National Political Awareness Test (NPAT), which essentially asks each candidate “Are you willing to tell citizens your positions on the issues you will most likely face on their behalf?” You can find Senator Fred Thompson’s responses to the NPAT at: Senator Fred Thompson’s NPAT

    For more information on Senator Fred Thompson’s position on abortion issues please visit Project Vote Smart or call our hotline at 1-888-VOTE-SMART.

    • Comments are closed.