My Role Involving Today's Times/Post Story on John McCain

I have direct knowledge of a part of the issue reported in the New York Times and Washington Post stories on Senator McCain published on February 21, 2008.

I was a lobbyist for one of the parties, WQED, a Pittsburgh public television station, which sought help from Senator John McCain with the FCC on its matter. The other two parties involved in this matter were Cornerstone Broadcasting and Paxson Broadcasting.

Bottom line: what was omitted from both the Times and the Post stories was that what I wanted Senator McCain to do, he refused to do. And he did so out of a concern of appearances of impropriety. That is a fact.

In the spring of 2000, I was quoted in the Washington Post stating that fact or something close to it when this story was first written - I believe shortly after Senator McCain had defeated then Governor Bush in the 2000 New Hampshire Primary.

I repeated that fact to a Washington Post reporter several weeks ago. I never heard from the New York Times, even though, as just stated, I was on-the-record in 2000 with the Post. Yet neither newspaper, for whatever reason, included that fact in either story.

I have no ax to grind on behalf of Senator McCain. I have a high regard for him and often say so when I do TV appearances to discuss the presidential campaign. I disagree with him on most issues - especially the Iraq War. I am known to be a pretty strong liberal Democrat. I do not plan on voting for Senator McCain for president.

I make this post only to set the record straight. Senator McCain did not include in his letter what we hoped he would.

Some brief background (forgive minor errors of memory - it's been more than eight years):

The issue on which Pittsburgh's WQED asked me for help, I believe, in the fall of 1999, was that it was in serious financial distress and, possibly to save its very existence, it wished to sell its second public TV station in Pittsburgh reserved for public television, WQEX, to Cornerstone. The latter was a Christian-content broadcaster. The plan was for Cornerstone to then sell its commercial station to Paxson Broadcasting, a commercial broadcaster.

Opponents of the transaction opposed the transaction because, among other reasons, they did not want to "de-reserve" the second public TV station, WQEX, which was a "reserved" and or dedicated channel for public TV, i.e., they did not want to reduce the total (and limited) number of stations in the U.S. that were "reserved" for public television. As a long-time supporter and fan of public TV, I was personally sensitive to this concern.

The group of lobbyists and lawyers for WQED/WQEX, Paxson and, I believe, Cornerstone (not sure about the latter) met to discuss strategy. I urged that the main reason the FCC should approve this transaction is to save a great public TV station in Pittsburgh. I proposed asking Senator McCain to write the FCC and at least point out the economic distress faced by WQED and that this transaction could help save them. It was natural to think of Senator McCain to write such a letter since he was then the Chair of the Senate Commerce Committee and, thus, would be the obvious person to communicate this legitimate position to the FCC.

But I was informed by FCC experts in the room (I was not one of them) that the FCC's "ex parte" rule forbade a member of Congress from communicating with the FCC and from taking a position or advocating on the merits for any side during an ongoing proceeding. I thought that rule would not be violated if Senator McCain simply pointed out the fact of the financial distress faced by the public TV station, WQED, and then went on to state that he is not taking a position on the merits, one way or the other, as to whether the transaction should be approved.

The group agreed to ask Senator McCain to send such a letter.

I do not recall which of the lobbyists in the room was asked to approach Senator McCain's office to ask for a letter along the lines that I had proposed. I think there were several who volunteered.

I then learned that Senator McCain and his staff were not comfortable with mentioning the economic danger to WQED, even if Senator McCain went on to state in the letter that he took no position on the merits of the decision. I was told Senator McCain was only willing to send a letter with a "vanilla" status inquiry, together with a request that the matter be handled as expeditiously as possible (or words to that effect) - i.e., taking no position on the merits of approval or disapproval of the WQED/WQEX-Cornerstone-Paxson transactions whatsoever.

The letter that Senator McCain sent dated November 17, 1999 to then FCC Chairman Bill Kennard expressed "concern about the Commission's continuing failure to act on the pending applications for assignment of the licenses" [after two years], and went on to say: "This letter is not written to secure a favorable resolution for any party on any substantive issue pending before the Commission." Subsequently, on December 10, 1999, Senator McCain sent a copy of that letter to the four other commissioners, asking each Commissioner to advise him on whether they have already acted on the matter and then, stating in part: "The sole purpose of this request is to secure final action on a matter that has now been pending for over two years. I emphasize that my purpose is not to suggest in any way how you should vote - merely that you vote."

The final outcome of all this, ironically, that neither the Cornerstone nor the Paxson deal ever got closed. Cornerstone backed out because the FCC imposed too many conditions on the transaction, which Cornerstone believed discriminated against them as a religious organization.

Another fact not included in the Times's and Post's account: Mr. Paxson, the individual cited in the Times and the Post as engaging a lobbyist to help get his purchase of Cornerstone's channel approved as part of the three-way transaction, failed to get what he wanted because this deal did not close.

Opponents of the transaction from a Georgetown University legal clinic filed a complaint with the FCC alleging that McCain's letter violated the ex parte rules. The FCC investigated the matter and found no violation by Senator McCain. That fact was also omitted, for whatever reason, from both the Times and the Post story today.

Comments

[Dannydel]

Lanny. What a staunch, upright fellow you are. Unfortunately, no matter how many of you and your cronies come to the defense of McCain on this matter, I think anyone with at least half a brain, will see that what he did was ethically ambiguous. The FCC didn't put up with his nonsense and told him so. So Lanny, here's a tip. Save your breath.

[RunningForHillary]

Actually, I think Lanny is one of the more honorable and honest individuals I have ever met in politics. Everyone wants to read in ulterior motives to every action, and I don't think Lanny deserves it. I think he just wanted to set the record straight, as he saw it, even though it would have been easier to keep quiet and let the story damage McCain (and indirectly help his preferred candidate).

[NtFourSale]

Not so honorable about his Middle East positions.

[SEQUOIABISON]

Mr. Davis as the attorney for the Clintons, I can only say that if by some miracle Hillary should become our next president you will be kept quite busy all over again defending their past improprieties. It will be Ground Hog Day over and over for the bored American people.

[Congoboy]

Lanny, Lanny, Lanny. When a powerful senator, chair of a committee with direct supervision over an area also of concern to the FCC, writes to the FCC to ask for quick action, do you really think the FCC just thinks he wants them to move things along? This is specious and surely you know that. The FCC did, because they issued a blistering letter calling McCain's letters improper.

[ICUP]

Davis worked for the Clintons, thus he does have an axeto grind against McCain. If HRC wins the White House, one can surmise that Mr. Davis' lobbying business will boom due to his close connections to the Clintons.

[NAMI]

if you are a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT, then it was silly to expect Senator McCain to do you a favor.

[mansky]

Lanny

You're a lobbyist ? Oy,,,boichik....say it ain't so !

[iswearington]

charlie chaplin...er..er..i mean john mccain as far as i am concerned would be the worst president in history.even worst than bush. i wrote chaplin...i mean mccain a while back and asked him and other senators not to support john roberst for chief justice. i explained to him that roberts grew up in the long beach area of north west indiana...the worst klu klux klan enclave in the united states. i explained to chaplin...i mean mccain that every black person in indiana and illinois knows that you never travel through the long beach indiana area on your way to chicago, even the catholic diocese warmed blacks to stay away from that area.i told mccain...that to pick a supreme court judge from that area would be the worst thing this nation could do.mccain wrote back blowing sugar up roberts sorry racist ass.even though i too am a vietnam veteran i have despised him ever since.charlie..i mean mccain is capable of a lot worse things than cheating on his cocaine addicted wife and scandalizing her name and dragging her through the mud. he will do the same thing to this country if he is given a chance.do not forget...he is the only one of the keating 5 that escaped conviction. he plead that his mental condition from being a POW made him not pay attention to his involvement and got off.

[selma]

The blogosphere (esp on the right) is agog with Bill Keller's own salacious past. Keller, the NYT editor, is living in a glass house. He appalled journalistic circles in the late nineties by impregnating his mistress, and then walking out on his wife (who had cancer) and son to marry her.
http://deceiver.com/2008/02/21/quick-which-one-had-an-affair/
And now, he throws unfounded accusations on Mccain. So only he can have affairs?

[biglover]

You mean like McCain who cheated on his wife with Cindy and then divorced her and his three children - or and Newt Gingrich who left his wife while she was suffering with Cancer then he left that woman he cheated with for another. You have a selective memory selma!!!

[CFDelehanty]

Herm's comments seem to make sense. Lanny seems to be someone trying to still curry favor with McCain since Lanny represents entities trying to influence government action.

As Herm suggested, Lanny has no idea of all the actions on WQED's and Paxson's behalf McCain took. And his "read between the lines" remark seems right on.

Is McCain a wolf in Cindy's clothing.

Speaking of Cindy McCain and her past reported percocet problem makes one wonder if, when introducing her she might be termed a "perky" wife?

Now to be fair and balanced, what scares me about Obama is that he has not been in a position of power so we know what he would do when great political incluence is imposed on him.

What's this story that Obama speaks to black audiences in a manner which supposedly makes him look like a pro black anti white candidate?

Somebody named Sheldon ???? noted soemthing like this on one of the Sunday morning political talk shows (Meet The Press or the ABC show.) a few weeks ago. This Sheldon is dark skinned.

I've seen no follow up on Sheldon's comment.

Is it politically incorrect for whites to raise the issue of anti white against Obama?

[Emman]

This is another classic example of how we let the media shape our mind on who should be president. Remember when the media could not find anything but praise for George W Bush? They had so much to say about Gore, even telling us most Americans would prefer to have Bush over for dinner. Bush looks more in touch with people, or he's more real a person than Gore who seems programmed. The result? Recession. McCain is their new target, search and destroy mission. Hillary Clinton is out of their radar or so it seems, they are onto a new mission. Yet, we have the new liberal messiah that talks about cynicism. Nothing of significance has Obama reached across the aisle to find a common solution. Oh no, McCain who have a proven record of reaching across the aisle, the only candidate who has the staunch support of his fellow senator from the other party, suddenly, the media is set to destroy patriot. Some people talk about bringing people together while others live it. One is a doer and the other a talker. And we democrats complain of the way Kerry was 'swift boated'. Enough of this politics of destruction!!!!

[jbcowan]

Hey Emman: "We Democrats" ? "WE" ?

BULLSHIT. You're no Democrat....if you were you would damn well know the difference between being "Swift-boated" and being a liar !

[JackW]

Hey jbcowan, read the article written by a very liberal democrat and actually soak up Lanny's words and try to understand them! A smart person, not necessarily a jbcowan democrat, would be able to understand that McCain did nothing wrong in his letter to the FCC. Where is the lie?
If I recall it, "Swift Boating" was actually lies wrapped up in such a way as to deceive people in much the same way as the NYT and WaPo story, which has the Huff Post and MSNBC going along with. Hmmm! It seems to me jbcowan, that unless one's opinion matches your dim view, then one is not allowed to be a democrat!
God, you make me so proud of this country...it's the proudest I've ever felt in my adut life!

[stoprollingover]

You said: "Enough of this politics of destruction!!!!"

It appears to me that you are doing the same thing that you're railing against when you make statements like the following:

"Yet, we have the new liberal messiah that talks about cynicism. Nothing of significance has Obama reached across the aisle to find a common solution."

If you will look up Senator Obama's record in the Senate, you will find that he has been instrumental in getting significant legislation passed that required reaching across the aisle.

That being said, I do agree with you that John McCain is a patriot and that his reputation is being damaged before the news media even has all the facts. As to John Kerry, I believe that the television news media, especially, was as guilty in the "swiftboating" of Kerry as the "swiftboaters" themselves. They definitely assisted in his destruction. That's all we heard about in the months before November. And remember Howard Dean? He was crucified by tv talking heads just for his yahoo-style victory speech in 2004, and it ruined his campaign. He got a little overly exuberant, and they destroyed him.

[seepee]

Yes the King maker- the media and press are going after McCanin & Hillary
- Yes we saw groupie democracy in action the last two presidential cycles

[LARiverWater]

I disagree with those who feel a political figure’s personal life is not as important as his policies. The higher the position (and President is paramount), the more they need to hold themselves up to a higher standard. Not us. We should expect more from them, but they should expect more from themselves. It’s become clearer in the years following Clinton that the responsibility to higher office, affects not just the politician as a person, but the population as a whole. No one would dispute that, had Bill “not had sex…” that the world would not be in a whole different place today. For far too long we have given a pass to politicians who ask for our collective trust, but they don’t seem able to live up to the covenants they’ve made with their own spouses. It’s unfortunate and probably not fair, but the truth is if my neighbor cheats on his wife it’s of no concern to me, but an elected official without a doubt has a bigger responsibility (as we’ve seen) and needs to be held accountable. It’s not the same, one person holds the fate of millions, the other does not. It speaks to character, honesty and integrity in a person elected to office. Without sounding like a prude, a politician who cheats on his wife or has a hidden sexual proclivity, is someone with a weak character flaw which, in my opinion makes him untrustworthy and vulnerable to his own self interest. His actions can harm us far greater than we know. He cannot be trusted, period. It might not be fair, but it’s reality. The world has become a different place (especially since 9/11). It’s time we raise the bar for choosing our leaders.

[NAMI]

LARiverWat­er........­.........b­ravo for your comment.
He cannot be trusted. AND REALLY he looked as if he had to lie in his press conference.
WE THE PEOPLE should expect our officials to behave better than us.
LET US RAISE THE BAR.

[jayne]

The 800 lb. gorilla in the room that no one is mentioning is news and media consolidation, in this country, and the nascent First Amendment threat posed by the pairing of McCain and Rupert Murdoch a decade ago.

Sadly, the focus of the MSM has been largely on the Monica redux story, and not on the Rupert Murdoch connection such as it is. The buying up of the media by News Corp poses a far graver threat to "democracy," as we know it, than Al Qaeda or bin Laden ever could.

[gtt]

jayne, very valid point. Corporate right/wing control of the MSM is a real problem in this country.

I'm not sure I really understand what Lanny is trying to say here. Looks to me like he is just interested in reminding us that he is a "player" - one of those great powerful Washington insiders.
He seems hurt that he was not included somehow in the NYT story. If his message is that McCain really was not that easily manipulated by the lobby, alright. But he seems to miss the over all theme of the article, that McCain, a Keating Five member, seems to not really had the backbone or character to separate himself from the big money, private jet flying financial titans that he was elected to regulate. Even that "appearance of impropriety" thing was too hard for him to grasp during the 2000 campaign.
McCain is not brillant, consider him singing "bomb bomb Iran" as a joke. Find it and watch it. It is as silly as him hugging GWB around the neck.

[JJinWI]

I concur, "don't forget me..." is about all he's saying. The MSM has been protecting McCain, kudos to the Times for running this story. It's just the tip of the iceberg for McCain Lobby Connections. For years, he's been getting by on his "hero" status. He's a loose cannon on the floor, with no respect for anyone's opinions other than his own. His contributions to McCain/Feingold were a farce. Nothing more than an attempt to cover-up his past illegal dealings with campaign finances. This is far from over for McCain, he serves no one other than himself, yet he knows what's best for America. What a pathetic man.

[musselmanm]

Personally, I am tired of the shit slinging from both directions. the past years of Bush/Clinton have burned my ass up. I just think we should not jump all over this in either way. We should calm down and see what shakes out.
I do not like McCain in any way but I am not going to rush to judgement.

[ACunningham]

The NYT Hopes that disillusioned white male voters in TEXAS & OHIO - who would not vote for a black man - would go for Hillary Clinton.

Bear in mind that the NYT endoresed McCain WHILE they were working on this story, since December 2007.

[Gailv]

I think many are missing the point. Lanny Davis is trying to show that McCain was acting above board by refusing to ask the FCC for direct action (which would have been illegal). Instead McCain writes a letter urging that the action be expedited. Don't you think it is likely that the FCC can read between the lines that McCain is asking for a favor for his lobbyists? I don't really care about McCain's love life, but I do care that he is a hypocrite that pretends to be against political favors but acts to the contrary. He did take political contributions from Paxson. Besides being unethical, he's not very smart.

[Herm]

People, puhleeeez! My God, stop treating as "gospel" anything you read in any media forum anywhere, anytime.

Re: gospel, permit me an aside. The first "gospel" was written about 400 years after the events referred to. Hello?

Anyway, Davis doesn't know if 'the' letter contains what he thinks it does. Davis doesn't know if any other letters were written, either by McCain or on his behalf. Davis doesn't know if McCain, or anyone else, called a FCC commissioner or three at home at night to 'spell it out' for them.

The internet, and internet 'freedom', will not save us from ourselves. Nothing has to date and I am not hopeful.