Yesterday I speculated that McCain picked Sarah Palin as his VP over the objections of his advisers. I thought that McCain -- who prides himself on fighting corruption in politics -- somehow saw himself in her. But both politicians have experience with the very thing they pride themselves on fighting.
In the case of McCain, his efforts to rid politics of the corrupting influence of corporate money followed his protection of Charles Keating who was securing a real estate deal for his wife, Cindy. The bankruptcy of Keating's S&L cost taxpayers $3.4 billion. More recently former McCain Finance Chair Tom Loeffler, a lobbyist for French company EADS, parent of Airbus, helped it and Northrop Grumman (NYSE: NOC) to prevail in a $35 billion competition for airborne refueling Tankers in February over Boeing Inc. (NYSE: BA) before the General Accounting Office (GAO) concluded that the process was flawed.
Alaska's governor, Sarah Palin, knows a thing or two about lobbyists. The New York Times reveals that she won that post after taking on bribery charges from the oil industry against politicians -- her attack against such corrupting influences helped her prevail over former Alaska governor, Frank Murkowski. That's why it came as a surprise to learn that as governor Palin employed a lobbyist for an energy company for which she procured $500 million in state subsidies so it could build a gas pipeline.
How so? According to the Times, Palin appointed as her chief adviser on the project to build a gas pipeline from Alaska's North Slope, a former lobbyist for TransCanada, the company that ultimately won state subsidies to build it. The adviser was Marty Rutherford, her deputy commissioner of natural resources, who in 2003 "earned about $40,000 lobbying the state government" for a subsidiary of the Canadian pipeline company. Palin is proud that the Alaska legislature this summer approved her plan to "give a $500 million subsidy to TransCanada to help build the project" according to the Times.
Like McCain who prides himself on fighting money in politics, Palin passed an increase in oil production taxes after charging that oil companies had previously bribed legislators to keep those taxes low. And she rose to power by challenging the corrupting role of oil and gas money in state politics. For example, the Times reports that she challenged Alaska's Republican Party chairman, "accusing him of abusing his role on a state oil and gas commission to do political work."
Was Rutherford's role in Palin's administration an example of the very intertwining of politics and money that she fought to gain the governor's office? And doesn't Loeffler's senior finance position in McCain's campaign while lobbying for Airbus suggest a similar abuse of power in pursuit of corporate interests?
It takes one to know one.
Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter
The Money Man Behind Rick Santorum: Who Is Foster S. Friess?
Savings Experiment: Snow Removal


Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
8-30-2008 @ 9:12AM
Doug said...
Do you remember the time when lobbist were called 'drummers'. Although times have changed, it still remains the same.
8-30-2008 @ 10:15AM
Chris K. said...
Shouldn't this post be on Kos, not Bloggingstocks?
8-30-2008 @ 11:27AM
carol vinzant said...
Great numbers and analysis, Peter
8-30-2008 @ 2:27PM
william lindblad said...
"That's why it came as a surprise to learn that as governor Palin employed a lobbyist for an energy company for which she procured $500 million in state subsidies so it could build a gas pipeline."
I did read the explanation. It does not hold water unless one can prove some kind of complicity. It is little more than political rhetoric. If I were to use this logic I would have a much better case of making Treasury Sec. Paulson appear to be a pawn of Wall St. as this is HIS previous employment.
While economics and politics have some integral aspects, political commentary in this forum should remain non-partisan.
8-30-2008 @ 2:31PM
John Feltman said...
An obvious political smear veiled in the cloaks of worthy analysis when ,in fact ,it just reveals who Peter Cohan is. Probably a liberal who just loves Roe V. Wade and thinks Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy have no dirty laundry and Obama and his equally morally incompetent VP are just what America needs. I don't know why AOL features this guy but I am not impressed and suggest that AOL check Peter's IQ and motivations before allowing this financial forum to be polluted by his political bias.
8-30-2008 @ 5:55PM
Tanks said...
Great Article! It suggests not enough time was spent vetting the Female Neocon.
8-31-2008 @ 12:23AM
Vinny said...
My gut feeling concludes that if she's Republican she's corrupt. I can broad= brush this because most all Republican politicians are criminals or corrupt so why should she be any different. She's already under investigation but to Republicans I guess that's an excellent qualification, and even with her bleak resume I'm sure they believe she'd make a fine president. I'm not saying Democrats are innocent little lambs but on a scale of corruption by politicians the balance will tip toward Republicans. McBush has said, in his flip-flopping fashion, 'gender and color doesn't matter, qualifications are paramount'. Then he chooses an inexperienced female to be the potential president of the US. I think he's in the early stages of senility and he shouldn't even be on the ticket. My God, this would be even WORSE than the last eight years.
8-31-2008 @ 7:30AM
rexx said...
Peter Cohan is such an obiovus political partisan, that it's sometimes painful to read his postings. One one hand, I like his biting tone when he pokes at corporate issues, but on the other hand, his incessant anti-Republican harping - is grating.
8-31-2008 @ 9:42AM
Mike Drescher said...
While most commentators suggested McSame picked Palin for her gender and right wing extremism, I always suspected it was for her ties to the oil industry and the money they could provide him. With billions in excess profits this year, they have more than enough to fund massive smear campaigns.
9-03-2008 @ 2:29PM
Richard said...
What a pathetic post. Are you kidding? Do you heat your house with gas? Then thank the Gov for getting some to you after 30 years of glad handing politicians doing nothing. And gee how unique for a Governor to hire a former lobbyist. You have nothing to show there was any wrong doing.
And you might want to look into Joe Biden and his sons while you are at it. It seems that Sen. Biden's largest donor - the law firm of Simmons Cooper in Illinois - gave $1 million to a hedge fund started by Biden's brother and Biden's son. Biden happened to be involved in passing a law involving asbestos claims that benefited Simmons Cooper since they are involved in litigating such claims. And surprise, they hired another Biden son to do work for them in Delaware.
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stomes.
9-15-2008 @ 5:55PM
Judy P said...
What in the world does Palin's pregnant daughter & the fact Palin didn't have a
passport until 2007 have to do with her
governing abilities? And, I reallly laughed at Palin's teaching creationism alongside
evolutionism. I personally LIKE to hear both sides of a story, so I can make my own choices (is that too democratic??). As for the lobbyist, I think that was great!. Why not turn the tables on lobbyists, and get great help at the same time? I doubt she did anything dishonest or we definitely would have heard about it from from the get-go. I believe McCain knew everything about Palin before he
selected her. That was important!
Also, I noticed she had a bent toward
listening to her constituents. What a novel idea!!! "We the people" got lost a long time ago - is it now "we the interest groups & lobbyists"? It's possible Palin may make a difference or not. At least she's not so jaded, nor accepting of
corruption in the government. Sad to say, but many (myself included) people just accept the govt. as being corrupt. Any ideas??