Washington Babylon — August 5, 2008, 11:33 am

Silent Armey: Former House majority leader lobbies for defense contractor

Whenever the cry goes up in Washington for lobbying reform, lobbyists insist that there’s really no need for any serious change. After all, they’ll say, we are already required to report our activities under disclosure laws, so the public and the press already have ways to monitor our actions.

The truth, of course, is that lobbyists routinely fail to disclose the scope of their activities. Indeed, by some estimates as many as half of all lobbyists working for foreign clients don’t bother to register.

A number of lobbyists I met with during my undercover story for the magazine last year told me that disclosure laws required them to report very little information, and that part of the work I said I wanted them to do on behalf of the Stalinist regime of Turkmenistan would not need to be disclosed at all. (Incidentally, that story is the basis for a book, Turkmeniscam, that will be published in September and shamelessly peddled here). Stephen Payne, the lobbyist recently busted for seeking to sell access to the Bush Administration, seems to have been “strangely absent from the Justice Department’s database for registering foreign agents.”

There are a number of loopholes in disclosure laws that make it simple, and sometimes legal, for lobbyists to keep their activities quiet. Consider here the case of former G.O.P. House Majority Leader Dick Armey, who retired in 2003 and immediately joined the firms of DLA Piper. Armey holds the title of senior policy advisor and has registered to lobby for a number of Piper’s clients.

But Armey has worked for at least one client–Interdigital, a Pennsylvania-based defense contractor–without disclosing his involvement. I’ve seen documents and have other firm evidence showing that Armey lobbied at least one congressional office in both 2005 and 2006 on behalf of a defense appropriation for Interdigital. Piper did register as a lobbyist for the firm, but Armey’s name does not appear on the list of employees who handled the account. (One name that did appear: Mark Murray, who previously “served for a combined 26 years as professional staff on the House and Senate Appropriations Committees and has extensive knowledge of the appropriations process, especially the area of law governing foreign assistance, defense, and military” issues.)

With Armey’s help, it looks like Interdigital received a $1 million defense earmark in 2006. The earmark was announced by Senators Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton of New York–the company has a major office in Melville, on Long Island–but the request for the funding originated in the House, according to research by Taxpayers for Common Sense.

I asked Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, if Armey should have been required to register to lobby for Interdigital. “He wouldn’t have to register…unless he devoted 20% of the total time he spent representing Interdigital to lobbying activities as defined by [lobby law],” she said. “Many former members, like Armey, avoid individual registration by making sure they don’t cross this 20% threshold.”

“It’s extremely easy for an individual to avoid having to register under the [law],” another ethics expert I whom asked about the situation told me.

So it’s possible that Armey didn’t break the rules by not registering–perhaps the law is so loophole-riddled he didn’t need to. I called Armey to ask about his activities for Interdigital but he didn’t reply to a request for comment. I spoke to two other Piper officials who initially promised they would look into the matter, but never got back to me with definitive answers.

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
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
Post
CamperForce·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

After losing their savings in the stock market crash of 2008, seniors Barb and Chuck find seasonal employment at Amazon fulfillment centers.

Minimum number of shooting incidents in the United States in the past year in which the shooter was a dog:

2

40,800,000,000 pounds of total adult human biomass is due to excessive fatness.

Trump’s former chief strategist, whom Trump said had “lost his mind,” issued a statement saying that Trump’s son did not commit treason; the US ambassador to the United Nations announced that “no one questions” Trump’s mental stability; and the director of the CIA said that Trump, who requested “killer graphics” in his intelligence briefings, is able to read.

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