McCain's Cronies: Busting Media Myths On McCain's Lobbyist Hypocrisy

Today, Media Matters releases another report in its series on McCain media myths, documented fully in Free Ride. It goes to the heart of McCain's phony public persona of "do what I say, and don't look at what I do:"  his cozy, long-term relationships with some of the biggest lobbyists in town, a lot of whom work directly for McCain's presidential campaign. 

That's right, "the straight talking Maverick" is a myth.  It's a fabrication meant to be sold by the spoonful to the masses.

To keep up this illusion, McCain needs a willing media which looks the other way. Based on recent reports of media suck-up-itude, "Sprinkles" McCain has that going for him in spades.  Here's what all the fawning coverage overlooks (from the Media Matters report and Free Ride):

Even before his current campaign, the senator reached out to lobbyists in preparation for his run. A March 8, 2006, story in The Hill reported that "lobbyists say that McCain has been reaching out to K Street to strengthen his national fundraising network." A February 3, 2007, National Journal article by Peter H. Stone and James A. Barnes reported that McCain and Mitt Romney are "working overtime to line up influential allies on K Street who can deliver supporters and campaign cash." The article reported that on "January 22, David Girard-diCarlo, the chairman of Blank Rome, which is headquartered in Pennsylvania, escorted McCain to Pittsburgh and Harrisburg to meet with influential donors and fundraisers. And on January 31, the senator attended a Capitol Hill luncheon at the Monocle restaurant that drew two dozen trade association leaders and potential allies."  

According to Public Citizen, McCain's campaign has more current and former lobbyist bundlers -- lobbyists who raise money by pooling donations from themselves and others -- than any other candidate....And a study by Media Matters for America has also found numerous McCain staffers or advisers who were registered to lobby Congress as of year-end 2007 or were previously lobbyists. The current or former lobbyists working for McCain include his campaign manager, his deputy campaign manager, his chief political adviser, his chief fundraiser, and the chief of staff of his Senate office.

For those keeping track, that would be campaign manager Rick Davis, deputy campaign manager Christian Ferry, senior political advisor Charlie Black, chief fundraiser Tom Loeffler, his Senate chief of staff Mark Buse,  and a whole host of others we've talked about over the last few months.  

Davis bragged about the many corporate contributions that McCain's team has sought from the very industries McCain is charged with overseeing and holding accountable from his perches on the Armed Services and  Commerce Committees, saying that they are "very much in the friend-making business."  That includes big tobacco and defense contractors.  Cozy.  

Can you say "all about the benjamins" but not so much about the integrity?  Again, from Free Ride:

Unfortunately, such realistic assessments of McCain are few and far between. One rare instance came in 2000 on the Comedy Central program The Daily Show, when correspondent Steve Carell sat down with McCain aboard the Straight Talk Express in New Hampshire. "Senator," Carell asked, "how do you reconcile the fact that you are one of the most vocal critics of pork-barrel politics, and yet while you were chairman of the Commerce Committee, that committee set a record for unauthorized appropriations?" McCain looked stunned, and after an uncomfortable silence, Carell blurted out, "I'm just kidding! I don't even know what that means!" Everyone laughed. (Pages 107-108)

Politics is a dirty business, at least the way it is played in the Beltway.  Pretending that McCain has clean hands when his highest-ranking advisors are shoveling the muck is both illogical and dishonest.  And the media knows it.  But keeping "Sprinkles" McCain happy is more important to them than ferreting out the whole truth for the public so that we can know exactly what is and is not on the table for the upcoming election cycle.  

Take a look at this graphic put together by Media Matters of McCain's lobbyist ties -- and ask yourself why there has been repetitive coverage of bowling and orange juice and tears, and so little coverage of this enormous network of moneyed-lobbyist interest in the campaign of a man who is a self-styled, self-proclaimed anti-lobbyist kinda guy.  Hypocrisy, much?  

Especially since the media elites have known about these deep McCain/lobbyist ties since the 2000 presidential campaign.

Americans deserve the whole truth -- not just the finger-licking-rib buddy treatment that the media has been giving McCain.  Hypocrisy on a signature PR issue ought to be a big story, if the media were functioning properly in its role of asking the tough questions.  But, as Media Matters shows, what we've been getting is the rare glimpse of good reporting on these issues surrounded by a whole lot of fluff and nonsense.  We deserve better.

Comments

[noneIn2008]

I'm shocked. You mean to tell me special interests and lobbyist are influencing a Presidential candidate? You mean to tell me a politician is in the back pocket of banks, trial lawyers, defense contractor­s.........­..
Next, you'll try to convince me these politicians are not really in it for the little guy.

[JulieSA]

"Davis bragged about the many corporate contributions that McCain's team has sought from the very industries McCain is charged with overseeing and holding accountable from his perches on the Armed Services and Commerce Committees"

Hillary is also on the Armed Services committee, and she's received more defense industry donations than McCain has:

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/sectors.asp?sec=D

Also, McCain's Commerce Committee deals with all legislation related to interstate commerce, so that applies to almost all big corporations. Even so, Hillary and Obama have received more corporate employee money than McCain.

[JulieSA]

OK, I'm sorry, but this is incredibly dumb:

"Unfortunately, such realistic assessments of McCain are few and far between. One rare instance came in 2000 on the Comedy Central program The Daily Show, when correspondent Steve Carell sat down with McCain aboard the Straight Talk Express in New Hampshire. "Senator," Carell asked, "how do you reconcile the fact that you are one of the most vocal critics of pork-barrel politics, and yet while you were chairman of the Commerce Committee, that committee set a record for unauthorized appropriations?" McCain looked stunned, and after an uncomfortable silence, Carell blurted out, "I'm just kidding! I don't even know what that means!" Everyone laughed. (Pages 107-108)"

Maybe McCain looked stunned because the Commerce Committee DOESN'T MAKE APPROPRIATIONS. "Free Ride" calls this a "realistic assessment"? It's obvious the authors don't even know what the committee does! I don't wish to insult, but this is just lame.

[JulieSA]

Wow. They gave him doughnuts??! Soros and friends' $40 million were well-spent exposing "Doughnutgate".

Obama has received three times as much money from lobbyists as McCain has. Clinton and Obama have each received much more corporate employee money than McCain.

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/sectors.asp?sec=K

Not to mention the earmarks Obama made for his wife's employer and the company of one of his big campaign donors. (McCain doesn't do earmarks.) Don't forget the Rezko trial, which is ongoing and we're finding out more about the Auchi connection.

[Snowball]

Yes, the Corporate Media knows all about McCain and his disingeniousness, but they will not mention it. The fact is, being major corporations, the media has a financial stake in keeping Republicans in charge and controlling the FCC, the regulatory agency that is responsible for controlling their business supposedly in the public interest. Since the abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine, the Corporate Media has been looking out for its own financial interests. That is the root of the reason why they continue to debase our national debate and denigrate our democratic system by focusing on horse races and frame every debate in Republican terms as if they were sacrosanct.

[JulieSA]

"the media has a financial stake in keeping Republicans in charge..."

Really? Then why has that industry sector's employees given Obama five times the money they've given McCain?

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/sectors.asp?sec=B

[Canaris]

I'll tell you exactly why employee's in the media sector have given five times the money they've given McCain.

The Employees of these companies, as opposed to the top executives, have been devastated by the deregulation started by Bill Clinton, and continued by Dubya. I'm a Program Director of a radio station in a medium sized market, making around 40 k a year, and to get that, I have to work 50-60 hour weeks, because the first thing a Clear Channel or a Cumulus does when they buy a radio station is gut the air staff, the news staff, and the promotions staff. It's cheaper to pay a disc jocky in Chicago, or St. Louis, or Los Angeles a couple of thousand dollars extra a year to voice track an airshift on a station they just bought in Scranton than it is to pay a disc jockey in Scranton 20-30 thousand dollars a year to go in and do the shift live. Chances are that the DJ on the station you listen to on your way in to work in the morning doesn't live within 500 miles of your town. This of course means big profits for the owners and CEO's of the big radio groups, but that profit comes on the backs of the "blue collar' radio guys that actually go on the air. Our jobs didn't get outsourced to China, they got outsourced to a piece of software called (not coincidentally) Prophet.

[SteveClements]

I may be cynical, but i'm guessing the media is waiting til they've used up all they think they have with Hillary and Obama. Right now they are having a heyday stoking controversy between the two dems. When the convention is over and they need something to dwell on, then they will finally unleash the dirt on McCain. Otherwise, they are a complete sell-out to corporate special interests.

[nogimmicks]

The Media serves the fancy of their owners. What they know is their private matter.

[lboucher]

This comment is pending approval and won't be displayed until it is approved.

So Obama losses the debate to HRC because he fumbles his responses to direct questions and it's ABCs fault???

Wow he better man up and get a lot better with his responses or McCain will roll over him in the fall.

Obama needs to say that Wright and Ayers are bad people and he will no longer associate with both of them, until he makes such a statement he will be toast in the general election.

[Oldchef]

Um, this post was about McCain, not the ABC democratic debate.

[PioneerKing]

Christy, have you just realized that the media is in the tank for McCain? As your good friend Chuck Todd likes to say McCain has plenty of media goodwill locked up in the bank.
Your colleagues in the media are too weak to confront McCain and many have no desire to ensure that they report the truth.
Your colleagues are afraid to be objective about McCain because he was a prisoner of war.
A war that 95% of your colleagues evaded and as for the current war they don't worry about it because like the republicans who hold office your colleagues in the media are not sending their sons and daughters to fight in Iraq.
Your colleagues in the media sold America on the war in Iraq and now they are palming off another disaster on Americans - a McCain presidency.
It is regrettable that your cohorts in the media do not have any compunction about the travesty that they are creating by being complicit in spinning the McCain fallacy.

[BethStuart]

The Keating Five Scandal should have disposed of McCain's clean hands image once and for all. It cost the American taxpayers billions.

[JulieSA]

Except that it's really the Keating Three. Senators McCain and Glenn were found by the Ethics Committee not to have been complicit.

[kae]

No - McCain & Glenn were criticized by the senate ethics committee for "Questionable Conduct". McCain was still involved.