Washington Babylon — June 24, 2007, 10:40 pm

Lobby Shops for Turkmenistan: Will lie for money

My story in the July issue of the magazine details how two beltway lobby shops I approached, on the pretense that I represented a shady London-based energy firm with a stake in Turkmenistan, proposed to whitewash the image of that country’s Stalinist regime. Now, having been punk’d (as PR Week put it), Cassidy & Associates and APCO are seeking to lie and spin their way out of the embarrassing situation in which they find themselves.

Both lobbying firms have complained that my tactics were “unethical.” Now APCO has issued a press release acknowledging that it met with the Maldon Group–the name of my fictitious energy firm–but saying that it was never actually interested in winning the contract to work for Turkmenistan. “If Silverstein had bothered to have even a second meeting or to further engage, he could have found out that he would not make the cut to become one of our clients,” the press release says.

It’s true there was no second meeting, but only because I rejected overtures from the firm to hold one. Indeed, APCO began cravenly groveling to win the Turkmenistan deal immediately after my meeting with the firm at its Washington offices in late February. In an email a few days later, senior vice president Barry Schumacher wrote:

On behalf of all my colleagues, I want to thank you for meeting with us yesterday. I hope you took away from our meeting a good sense of our capabilities, experience and expertise . . . I know you will be returning to London to discuss with your colleagues the results of your DC meetings. If, prior to, or as part of those meetings, you need anything else from us, please do not hesitate to contact me.

In March, Schumacher emailed to ask for “an update on where the Maldon Group is on potentially retaining a firm here in DC to assist the Turkmenistan government,” and asking if there was “anything else you need from us” before making a decision. That same month, after being told that the Maldon Group had still not made a decision, Schumacher emailed again to say that he was soon coming to London on business:

If APCO is still under consideration to be your partner on the Turkmenistan initiative, and if there is any value, I would be delighted to meet with you and your colleagues on Thursday at a time and location of your choice,” he wrote. “That way, if there is more you would like to know about us, or if you feel you wish us to be your partner, we could either answer questions or move the effort forward.

This threw me into a brief panic as the Maldon Group, being non-existent, had no London office and I was of course in Washington, D.C., not London, so I couldn’t possibly meet with Schumacher. So I emailed back to say that the Maldon Group would in fact be making its decision on which lobby firm to hire the very next day and that I’d let him know the outcome; whatever the decision I would be traveling in the Middle East and unable to see him when he came to London. Schumacher, hopeful that APCO was about to win the fat Turkmen contact, emailed back:

Thanks. I look forward to your update. I would be happy to meet with anyone you think I should. If after your meeting tomorrow you want me to get together with your colleagues, just give me their coordinates and I will be in touch with them to set up a time on Thursday.

The next day I gave Schumacher the bad news: the Maldon Group had decided to hire a different Washington lobby shop. “Needless to say, we are disappointed,” Schumacher replied. “When we do not get work we always try to find out why and what, if anything we could have done better. Feedback?” When I sent an email offering my condolences, Schumacher wrote back to say, “If something changes, please feel free to contact us. We enjoyed our meeting with you and would welcome a future opportunity to assist you.”

So much for APCO’s claim that it never really wanted to work for Turkmenistan.


Cassidy & Associates, incidentally, was just as eager to win the contract. Gordon Speed, the firm’s Director of Business Development, emailed me soon after our meeting in Washington to set up a follow-up conference call with senior firm officials (including Gregg Hartley, firm vice chairman and a former top aid to former House Majority Whip Roy Blunt). Additionally, he said, Cassidy wanted to “submit a more formal proposal detailing our plan for a possible future engagement with your company. Our hope is that this document would help give you a better understanding of our proposed strategy.” I accepted this generous offer and the proposal (which I quote from extensively in the article) was soon forthcoming.

In April, I told Speed that the Maldon Group had decided to delay a decision on which firm to hire but said I’d probably be returning to Washington in June and we might want to meet again with firm officials. “Please know that we would welcome the opportunity to work with you at a future date, and would be willing and able to travel to London or another location of your choosing for a second meeting,” he replied by email. “In the meantime, please keep us apprised of your decision-making, and certainly let us know if there is anything we can do to help.” In May, Speed, having heard nothing from me, emailed again to ask about my travel plans. If I was still coming to Washington, “we would welcome the opportunity to meet again and discuss any of your firms [sic] projects which we might be helpful. If you don’t have plans to travel to the US, I will again express our willingness to meet you in London if that might be more advantageous to you and your schedule.”


As to the question of ethics: beyond the irony of being questioned on the matter by lobbyists who were eager and willing to lobby for Turkmenistan, and who in the past have among them represented clients such as Azerbaijan and Equatorial Guinea, I’m comfortable with a side-by-side comparison. I did trick the firms–in order to demonstrate just how easy it is for lobbyists to manipulate political and public opinion. The lobbyists, on the other hand, offered to go to work on behalf of one of the world’s most horrific regimes in exchange for the lavish fees they proposed to charge the Maldon Group. The bottom line is that Cassidy and APCO were blinded by greed, thereby exposing their own low ethics as well as the crying need for lobbying reform.

Undercover journalism should be used sparingly, but it has often yielded rich benefits. One of my favorite cases came in the 1970s, when the Chicago Sun-Times bought its own tavern and exposed gross corruption on the part of city inspectors. Unfortunately, few news outlets are willing to use undercover journalism to get a story, or to practice investigative journalism in general. It’s just too expensive and risky; media organizations would rather spend their money on tables at the White House Correspondents dinner and watch Karl Rove rap.


David Henderson sums it up nicely when he points out how flimsy my cover story actually was. For example, Henderson said it took him all of one minute to discover that the web site for my firm–themaldongroup.com–was “registered to someone in Chesterbrook, PA . . . another red flag.” As I said, the firms were blinded by greed.

Share
Single Page

More from Ken Silverstein:

Commentary November 17, 2015, 6:41 pm

Shaky Foundations

The Clintons’ so-called charitable enterprise has served as a vehicle to launder money and to enrich family friends.

From the November 2013 issue

Dirty South

The foul legacy of Louisiana oil

Perspective October 23, 2013, 8:00 am

On Brining and Dining

How pro-oil Louisiana politicians have shaped American environmental policy

Get access to 167 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

February 2018

The Bodies in The Forest

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Minds of Others

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Modern Despots

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Before the Deluge

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Notes to Self

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Within Reach

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Pushing the Limit·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In the early Eighties, Andy King, the coach of the Seawolves, a swim club in Danville, California, instructed Debra Denithorne, aged twelve, to do doubles — to practice in the morning and the afternoon. King told Denithorne’s parents that he saw in her the potential to receive a college scholarship, and even to compete in the Olympics. Tall swimmers have an advantage in the water, and by the time Denithorne turned thirteen, she was five foot eight. She dropped soccer and a religious group to spend more time at the pool.

Illustration by Shonagh Rae
Article
The Minds of Others·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Progress is impossible without change,” George Bernard Shaw wrote in 1944, “and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” But progress through persuasion has never seemed harder to achieve. Political segregation has made many Americans inaccessible, even unimaginable, to those on the other side of the partisan divide. On the rare occasions when we do come face-to-face, it is not clear what we could say to change each other’s minds or reach a worthwhile compromise. Psychological research has shown that humans often fail to process facts that conflict with our preexisting worldviews. The stakes are simply too high: our self-worth and identity are entangled with our beliefs — and with those who share them. The weakness of logic as a tool of persuasion, combined with the urgency of the political moment, can be paralyzing.

Yet we know that people do change their minds. We are constantly molded by our environment and our culture, by the events of the world, by the gossip we hear and the books we read. In the essays that follow, seven writers explore the ways that persuasion operates in our lives, from the intimate to the far-reaching. Some consider the ethics and mechanics of persuasion itself — in religion, politics, and foreign policy — and others turn their attention to the channels through which it acts, such as music, protest, and technology. How, they ask, can we persuade others to join our cause or see things the way we do? And when it comes to our own openness to change, how do we decide when to compromise and when to resist?

Illustration (detail) by Lincoln Agnew
Article
Within Reach·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

On a balmy day last spring, Connor Chase sat on a red couch in the waiting room of a medical clinic in Columbus, Ohio, and watched the traffic on the street. His bleached-blond hair fell into his eyes as he scrolled through his phone to distract himself. Waiting to see Mimi Rivard, a nurse practitioner, was making Chase nervous: it would be the first time he would tell a medical professional that he was transgender.

By the time he arrived at the Equitas Health clinic, Chase was eighteen, and had long since come to dread doctors and hospitals. As a child, he’d had asthma, migraines, two surgeries for a tumor that had caused deafness in one ear, and gangrene from an infected bug bite. Doctors had always assumed he was a girl. After puberty, Chase said, he avoided looking in the mirror because his chest and hips “didn’t feel like my body.” He liked it when strangers saw him as male, but his voice was high-pitched, so he rarely spoke in public. Then, when Chase was fourteen, he watched a video on YouTube in which a twentysomething trans man described taking testosterone to lower his voice and appear more masculine. Suddenly, Chase had an explanation for how he felt — and what he wanted.

Illustration by Taylor Callery
Article
Before the Deluge·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In the summer of 2016, when Congress installed a financial control board to address Puerto Rico’s crippling debt, I traveled to San Juan, the capital. The island owed some $120 billion, and Wall Street was demanding action. On the news, President Obama announced his appointments to the Junta de Supervisión y Administración Financiera. “The task ahead for Puerto Rico is not an easy one,” he said. “But I am confident Puerto Rico is up to the challenge of stabilizing the fiscal situation, restoring growth, and building a better future for all Puerto Ricans.” Among locals, however, the control board was widely viewed as a transparent effort to satisfy mainland creditors — just the latest tool of colonialist plundering that went back generations.

Photograph from Puerto Rico by Christopher Gregory
Article
Monumental Error·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In 1899, the art critic Layton Crippen complained in the New York Times that private donors and committees had been permitted to run amok, erecting all across the city a large number of “painfully ugly monuments.” The very worst statues had been dumped in Central Park. “The sculptures go as far toward spoiling the Park as it is possible to spoil it,” he wrote. Even worse, he lamented, no organization had “power of removal” to correct the damage that was being done.

Illustration by Steve Brodner

Percentage of Republicans who said they prioritized gun control over gun rights in 1999:

53

The kangaroo’s tail is a fifth leg.

Trump tweeted that he had created “jobs, jobs, jobs” since becoming president, and it was reported that Trump plans to bolster job creation by loosening regulations on the global sale of US-made artillery, warships, fighter jets, and drones.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Report — From the June 2013 issue

How to Make Your Own AR-15

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

"Gun owners have long been the hypochondriacs of American politics. Over the past twenty years, the gun-rights movement has won just about every battle it has fought; states have passed at least a hundred laws loosening gun restrictions since President Obama took office. Yet the National Rifle Association has continued to insist that government confiscation of privately owned firearms is nigh. The NRA’s alarmism helped maintain an active membership, but the strategy was risky: sooner or later, gun guys might have realized that they’d been had. Then came the shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, followed swiftly by the nightmare the NRA had been promising for decades: a dedicated push at every level of government for new gun laws. The gun-rights movement was now that most insufferable of species: a hypochondriac taken suddenly, seriously ill."

Subscribe Today