Lobbyist for Pakistan Maxed Out Donations to Clinton

The following piece was produced by the HuffPost's OffTheBus.

Like others in the race for the White House, Hillary Clinton has strong words for Pakistan, but has yet to propose the United States seriously consider limiting its aid to the country. But unlike the other leading Democratic presidential hopefuls, Edwards and Obama, she has accepted tens of thousands of dollars from Pakistan's lobbyists, Cassidy & Associates. Its founder, Gerald Cassidy, long ago maxed out his donations to her.

According to the Foreign Agents Registration Act website, Pakistan recently hired Cassidy and Associates for a one year, $1.2 million/year contract. The Cassidy contract with Pakistan makes for good reading. For the $1.2 million, "target audiences will be identified for critical message reception," and Cassidy will inventively move beyond pushing pieces in the mainstream media, also focusing on blog outreach. In other words, Cassidy will shill and propagandize for one year, and use its contacts in Washington--presumably including Clinton--to ensure that the billions in aid are not diminished, regardless of what the government does to its citizens and its elections. According to The Hill, Pakistan's lead lobbyist is Robin Raphel, who served in the Clinton administration.

While not prohibited by law, accepting such a donation necessarily raises questions about the effect this relationship--and similar ones--will have on her policies in the White House towards Pakistan should she win the 2008 contest, or in the US Senate should she not. The influence of money is never straightforward, of course. Joe Biden, the other democratic Presidential candidate to receive money from Cassidy, has called for cutting off support to Pakistan if it does not change course.

The Pakistan example is not isolated. Foreign influence from around the globe is present behind the curtains in our electoral process, as lobbyists and lawyers for Russian oligarchs, African dictators, and Middle Eastern sheiks donate heavily to the Presidential campaigns. DLA Piper, a massive campaign contributor, represents the President of the Cote D'ivoire, the Prime Minister of the UAE, the Government of Ethiopia, and the Government of Turkey. Oleg Deripaska, the powerful Russian oligarch, has hired Alston & Bird--the employees of which have already donated over $100,000 to Presidential campaigns.

DLA Piper, for a fee of $1.2 million/year agreed to provide lobbying and governmental relations services to Turkey including, but not limited to: "Preventing the introduction, debate, and passage of legislation that harms turkey's interest or image."

All told, DLA Piper has given half a million to candidates in the 2008 cycle, including nearly $300,000 to Clinton's campaign. John Merrigan, whose name is on the Turkish contract, has personally bundled over $100,000 for Clinton.

Comments

[loki]

Yeah, Hillary is expensive. But if its a tyrant, killer or capitalistic billionaire, Bush comes for free!

[frank67]

There is a money party and a people party. The people party has not won an election in too many years to count.

[jwod]

Interesting, but "presidential campaigns" doesn't exactly tell who received the money, especially when Biden and Clinton are called out by name. This isn't transparency, just an opportunity to take shots.

[splashy]

We need publicly funded campaigns to take this type of thing out of politics.

That being said, what about other candidates? How much have they taken, and what are their chances of winning compared to how much was offered? Obviously, the supposed front runners are going to be offered more.

[drkazmd65]

Why is it that foriegn interests are allowed to contribute to the 'War Chests' for those running for public office in the US?

Yet another reason to:

1) Have real campaign finance reform

2) Have public manditory public financing of campaigns for elected offices.

[Reddaddy]

I think a vote for Hillary is vote coporate America. She should change her last name to Bush. It's just going to be the same. I think our best hope for change is a Team of Edwards and Richerson. They are more in touch with the people.

[Artboyz]

Until there is publicly funded campaigns any discussion of who's taking what has to be taken with a grain of salt. The system sucks. We can't blame the players for playing the system. If they didn't they wouldn't be successful.

It's time to stop making believe that the candidates have a real choice about where their money will come from. Support public campaign financing or stop complaining that the system is corrupt. the personal choices of individual politicians is not going to fix this.

[Bondaroid]

The dirty foreign money does love the Clintons. The Chinese, Pakistanis, Taliban and Osama the head of Al-Qaeda himself all pulling for Hillary to win. You wonder why Norman Hsu, Abdul Rehman Jinnah, Vinod Gupta, the Chinese dishwashers, all giving money to Hillary, and why Osama Bin-Laden and the leaders of the Taliban want Hillary to win. And you know the Clintons haven"t met a dollar they couldn"t launder. You know, I thought Hillary was giving that $3 Million to charity. And maybe, for Bill, the Chinese thing is a payback for furthering their Nuclear Missile Technology by 50 years under the direction of Clinton by Lorimar. Until they met Bill their missiles rarely made it off the launch pad, most tipped over an exploded. Now the can fly straight and true directly into the heartland. If I were the Chinese I would give them money too.

[Susanholmes]

There are two things that need to be understood first before any serious analysis of Clinton's plans vis a vis Pakistan can be made.

The first is her history in terms of what she says, who's money she takes and what she actually does. When Hillary was first lady she talked a lot about "That Awful Bill." This rhetoric of hers was aimed at what we now know of as the Bankruptcy Bill. She went on and on at great length about what a terrible thing this bill would be, remember?

Then she turned around, took the second highest amount of campaign donations from credit card companies during her first senatorial election cycle, and went ahead and voted in favor of "That Awful Bill."

Hmmm....

The other thing that has to be considered is the Clinton's famous (and oft-wrongheaded) pragmatism. Pakistan is a bit of a strange bird in that part of the world. It's an Islamic dictatorship, a nuclear power, and an ally of the United States.

I mean... Huh?

It's weird on the surface, isn't it? It's also Exibit Effing A in the "Bush doesn't actually believe this WMD islamofascist" case.

However, when you examine who Pakistan shares borders with things become much clearer - at least through the filters of Clintonian Pragmatism. In addition to the now-famous border with Afghanistan, Pakistan shares a border with China, India and Iran. A close relationship with Pakistan "helps" us (i don't agree with this point of view, by the way) keep India (also a nuclear power with a strong diplomatic relationship with China, another nuclear power) in check and gives us a base to launch land operations into China, Iran or India from.

So, what do You think Clinton's really going to do? Her history and philosophy make it quite clear for me - she'll say one thing, take the money, get elected, and do something else. It's her regular M.O., after all.

[janmB]

A SMART person will take the money to RUN campaigns with because that's the way the system is set up if you want to WIN.
Those who DON'T LIKE IT need to vouch for changing it.
Until then SHUT UP about it.

[jimshady]

How about this. Lets make it illegal for foreign countries and also foreign corporations to donate ANY monies to any American political candidate!! And then lets go a few steps further. Why allow DUAL CITIZENSHIP to others when we know that their allegience is not to America? Bill Clinton and Hillary prostituted themselves to these foreign corp.s and will continue to do so because of the huge amounts of money they accepted from them. If the American people believe that the democratic party will do whats right, think again! It was garbage in and garbage out last November and it will be the same next November.

[Toole]

American politics thrives on campaign contributions from lobyists. The countries mentioned in this blog does not include Israel -- by far the most aggressive 'contributor' to American political campaigns (through AIPAC) and the one that benefits the most.

[mouselion]

Why act shocked,?

All nations that have the means to lobby the U.S. do.

If you are perceived as the likely leader of the most powerful and influential nation, you are going to get pandered to from every direction.

Is there a negative implication? Of course there is. It's about power, greed and the world and how that intersects our belief that we can run a country insulated from the destructive side-effects of power and greed.

[godlessclif]

The Air America character Johnny K. Street is
based on Gerald Cassidy, king of the earmarks.

In a bizarre conflict of interest he is also
general council of the Democratic National Committee's Party Reform Commission.

A K street lobbyist counciling the Reform Commission is like is like having Alberto
"Gonzo" Gonzales as general council for a Human Rights Commission.

Bob Dornan chairing a mental health taskforce?

Do not confuse this crook with artist
Gerald Diamond Cassidy, I googled
Gerald -Diamond Cassidy.

[ObamaSeeChange]

So what's new? If Clinton is elected she will have been bought and paid for by national and international corporatist's that could give a hoot about everyday Americans and middle class economic interests.