RDP Newsletter 5
Many were disappointed to learn that this would not, in fact, be the week in which we laid eyes on Mueller’s findings. While we too are very eager to see additional results from the Special Counsel’s investigation, we were somewhat relieved to have the brief reprieve in which to focus on other deserving topics. Chief among these is what feels like the real start of bold oversight.
Housekeeping: RDP finally has an official twitter account! Follow us @revolvingdoorDC if you haven’t already.
Congressional Oversight:
As committees staff up and the new majority finds its footing, the pace of oversight has quickened. More important, however, is the noticeable change in the tone and the target of that oversight. This week’s hearings are finally beginning to channel the populist energy that propelled Democrats to power.
In hearings with officials from Health and Human Services, the Environmental Protection Agency, and with CEOs of the country’s three credit reporting agencies, Democratic lawmakers asked tough questions. In most cases, witnesses’ weak answers helped to illustrate the extent of this administration’s depravity and corporate America’s eagerness to capitalize on it. We were particularly impressed with Rep. Katie Porter, whose line of questioning for Equifax CEO Mark Begor expertly exposed the company’s hypocrisy regarding its 2017 data breach. Porter’s questioning demonstrated how Congress can use aggressive oversight to reclaim the mantle of populism--we hope Porter’s colleagues were paying close attention.
Hearings scheduled for next month suggest that this vigorous oversight will continue. We were encouraged to hear that the House Judiciary Committee Antitrust Subcommittee Chair, Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI), may add leading antitrust thinker Lina Khan to the subcommittee’s staff. Hiring Khan would definitely alarm corporations, such as the tech giants, which have successfully undermined our nation’s underenforced antitrust laws.
Finally, it is worth reiterating that Democrats’ recent moves not only represent good policy, but also good politics. For proof of that assertion look no further than Republican Rep. Chip Roy joining Democrats in voting to subpoena Trump administration officials regarding family separation policy. Oversight is popular and the President is not. For lawmakers facing tough races (Roy who won his district by a narrow 2.6%), supporting oversight makes good political sense. While Rep. Richard Neal holds out hope for bipartisan tax legislation, it seems like Democratic lawmakers would do better to reach across the aisle via oversight.
Spotlight: After nearly two months in office, Democrats have finally availed themselves of their subpoena power. House Oversight voted Tuesday to subpoena the heads of the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, and Department of Health and Human Services for documents relating to the administration’s family separation policy. We hope to see more committees following their lead soon.
Hall of Shame: Meanwhile, nearly two months have passed and Rep. Richard Neal still has not requested President Trump’s tax returns. With Neal remaining woefully negligent, state-level lawmakers are stepping up. A bill in the New York State legislature that would require NY tax authorities to release the President’s tax returns has nearly gained support from a majority in both houses. While we still hope that Richard Neal uses the existing, well-tested law to get the President’s returns, we are heartened to see that others are exploring other possibilities in case Neal sticks with his wrongheaded position.
2020 (and Potentially 2021)
Even Senate Republicans were riding the oversight train this week, targeting perhaps America’s most hated corporate villains, pharmaceutical companies. That Republicans, who have shown themselves willing to turn a blind eye to almost any corporate abuse, decided that the pharmaceutical companies’ actions cross their red line is a potent indication of the industry’s political toxicity.
That made presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand’s decision to double down on fundraising support from a Pfizer executive seem politically tone deaf. That the executive is a “dear friend” is less a defense than a worrisome admission. When considering a potential President Gillibrand’s executive branch appointments, one has cause to worry about Big Pharma executives who are donors, her friends, and especially people who are both.
Of course, we cannot draw definitive conclusions from such actions. Unfortunately, no candidates have yet articulated a personnel platform. With more voices rallying around the need for candidates to shift their focus from legislative “laundry lists” to plans for executive branch appointments, we hope that such personnel proposals are forthcoming. In the meantime we will continue to glean clues wherever we can.
While such clues from the Gillibrand campaign have been discouraging, other candidates inspire more optimism. This week Elizabeth Warren announced that she would not raise money at private high dollar fundraising events that have so often allowed the wealthy to build useful relationships with current and future lawmakers. Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders recognized that “personnel is policy” by stating that building a Cabinet that reflects America’s diversity will be among his strategies to fight racial inequities in this country.
Executive Branch Personnel
If there is one thing Trump is good at, it is sucking all of the oxygen out of the room. Often times his distractions are enraging but lack impact -- and perhaps equally often “distractions” are not merely enraging but also deeply threatening. Either way, deserving stories often end up getting short shrift.
That was certainly true last week when discussions of Mueller and Trump’s dangerous national emergency drowned out other important scandals from throughout the executive branch. Here are some of the stories that you might have, reasonably, missed while focusing on the ongoing constitutional crisis:
Senior officials at the Education Department reportedly tried to shut down an ethics investigation into Devos’s decision to reinstate the college accreditor ACICS.
The Office of Government Ethics finally released Wilbur Ross’s 2017 financial disclosure (an issue about which we had previously raised alarm bells here and here) but declined to certify them because officials determined that he had lied about selling one of his holdings. This is unprecedented.
A judge ruled that sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein’s enormously favorable plea deal, which now secretary of Labor, Alex Acosta helped negotiate, was illegal. While Acosta’s role in the case was previously known, it has never received the attention it deserves.
The Department of Homeland Security has been gutting its election protection task forces, despite official assessments that the system will likely be the target of more attacks in 2020 than ever before.
These are important stories that under any other administration would be extraordinary. Now, however, they mostly just slide under the radar.
This is why we need bold, congressional oversight that connects these seemingly disparate scandals. What we are witnessing fits within a single, cohesive narrative: the wealthy extract what they want from our political system by undermining democracy and destroying protections for ordinary American workers and consumers. Effective oversight would illustrate this common theme across all 20 House standing committees. In that way, each new piece of news would no distract, but rather would reinforce a common understanding of how the Trump administration exists to enrich and entrench itself while aiding its corporate allies.
Independent Agencies
Up to this point we have largely focused our attention on the leadership issues that independent agencies face. This week, however, we would like to shine a light on the ways in which the revolving door corrodes the integrity of these agencies’ day-to-day functions, undermining public trust in vital regulatory institutions.
On Monday, the Revolving Door Project submitted a public comment on the Staples/Essendant merger that is presently before the Federal Trade Commission. We highlighted the troubling fact that the attorney representing the acquiring company (Sycamore Partners), Matthew J. Reilly, formerly led the FTC division (Mergers IV) tasked with reviewing the deal. Reilly was likely in a position to recommend promotions and bonuses for the attorneys working on this merger, a potential close connection that would undermine the public’s faith that the deal was reached impartially.
The fact that such conflicts of interest are not illegal is deeply troubling and should encourage a broader conversation about the deficiencies in our ethics laws. For more about our concerns and our suggestions for the FTC, read our comment here. You can also read more about long standing revolving door issues at the FTC in this piece.
Finally, it is encouraging to see the Oversight committee addressing the ongoing leadership crisis at the Merit Systems Protection Board. This issue has remained in the shadows for too long; we hope that the committee’s scrutiny will help to prompt appropriate action.
Want more?
Check out some of the pieces that we have published or contributed research or thoughts to this month:
Blackrock’s ‘Greenwashing’ Threatens to Undermine Climate Action
Watchdog Group Slams FTC for Revolving Door Practices Ahead of Pending Staples Merger
Shadow Lobbyist Joe Crowley is Poised to Advance Shell Oil’s Tax Interests
Is Trump heading for a fall over the border wall?
The Rick Smith Show, February 25
NYT’s Whitewash of Revolving Door Figure, Robert Khuzami
Americans Should Fear Trump Apathy
Fannie and Freddie stock moves may be insider trading, watchdog groups suggest
If you have been forwarded this newsletter and would like to subscribe, please click here.