John McCain's Lobbying Scandal


Democracy Now! Stream Video video on John McCain's Lobbying Scandal

John McCain's "friends", starring Vicki Iseman
John McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, and yet he said "I'm the only one the special interests don't give any money to."

Files and McCain Letter Show Effort to Keep Loophole
Published: February 23, 2008
WASHINGTON — In late 1998, Senator John McCain sent an unusually blunt letter to the head of the Federal Communications Commission, warning that he would try to overhaul the agency if it closed a broadcast ownership loophole.

Tom Strickland/Associated Press
Senator John McCain of Arizona addressing a crowd Friday at a campaign stop in Indianapolis.
The letter, and two later ones signed by Mr. McCain, then chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, urged the commission to abandon plans to close a loophole vitally important to Glencairn Ltd., a client of Vicki Iseman, a lobbyist. The provision enabled one of the nation’s largest broadcasting companies, Sinclair, to use a marketing agreement with Glencairn, a far smaller broadcaster, to get around a restriction barring single ownership of two television stations in the same city.
At a news conference on Thursday, Mr. McCain denounced an article in The New York Times that described concerns by top advisers a decade ago about his ties to Ms. Iseman, a partner at the firm Alcalde & Fay. He said he never had any discussions with his advisers about Ms. Iseman and never did any favors for any lobbyist.
One of the McCain campaign’s statements about his dealings with Ms. Iseman was challenged by news accounts on Friday. In discussing letters he wrote regulators about a deal involving another of Ms. Iseman’s clients, Lowell W. Paxson, the campaign had said the senator had never spoken to her or anyone from the company. But Mr. McCain acknowledged in a 2002 deposition that he had sent the letters after meeting with Mr. Paxson.
On Glencairn, the campaign said Mr. McCain’s efforts to retain the loophole were not done at Ms. Iseman’s request. It said Mr. McCain was merely directing the commission to “not act in a manner contradictory to Congressional intent.” Mr. McCain wrote in the letters that a 1996 law, the telecommunications act, required the loophole; a legal opinion by the staff of the commission took the opposite view.
A review of the record, including agency records now at the National Archives and interviews with participants, shows that Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona, played a significant role in killing the plan to eliminate the loophole. His actions followed requests by Ms. Iseman and lobbyists at other broadcasting companies, according to lobbying records and Congressional aides.

Over the years, Mr. McCain has taken varying positions on broadcast ownership issues. He has supported the relaxation of the ownership rules, but he has also been sharply critical of rules that permit too much concentration of ownership in a single market.
By November 1998, the F.C.C. was planning to strike down broadcasting marketing agreements, a potentially ruinous development for Glencairn. But after receiving Mr. McCain’s Dec. 1 letter, it put off consideration of the issue.
“To the extent the F.C.C. shows itself incapable of following Congressional intent,” the letter said, “these issues will become part of our overall review of the commission’s functions and structure during the next session of Congress.”

The letter, sent from Mr. McCain’s office by his staff at the commerce committee, was also signed by Senator Conrad Burns, Republican of Montana and chairman of a communications subcommittee. It was uncharacteristic of Mr. McCain, according to a review of dozens of letters sent by him to the commission during the same period.
It was the only letter that contained a suggestion that a failure to act would result in the possible overhaul of the agency.
The letter said that “as a leading participant in the passage of the 1996 Act, I have a very clear understanding” of the law’s intent and why it required the ownership loophole to be preserved. Mr. McCain was one of five senators — and the only Republican — to vote against the act. He has also been an outspoken critic of it.

While other companies also complained to Congress about the plan to close the loophole, the issue was particularly important to Sinclair because it had more marketing agreements than any in the nation. For its part, Glencairn appeared to have been getting little support in Congress until it retained Ms. Iseman in 1998.
Edwin Edwards, who was the president of the company at the time, said in a recent interview that after retaining Ms. Iseman, he was able to get heard by Mr. McCain.
“We were pounding the pavement in Washington,” Mr. Edwards said. “We recruited help from as many people as we could. We knocked on every door just trying to get support.”
The campaign said that Mr. McCain never spoke with Ms. Iseman about the issue, but that she did speak to his staff about it. Mr. Edwards and Mr. McCain met on July 20, 1999, according to the campaign.

After the commission postponed consideration of the issue, Mr. McCain signed a second letter to the agency on Dec. 7, 1998, in support of local marketing agreements, and a third one on Feb. 11, 1999. The third letter was signed by four other lawmakers. Ultimately, the F.C.C. loosened the rules to permit a company to own two television stations in some markets.
The letters Mr. McCain wrote to the commission in the Paxson matter were sent in late 1999 and prompted the agency’s chairman to chastise him for interfering in a licensing matter. The incident embarrassed Mr. McCain, then making his first presidential run, because Mr. Paxson was a campaign contributor and fund-raiser.
While the campaign said Thursday that Mr. McCain never spoke to anyone from Paxson or Ms. Iseman’s lobbying firm before sending those letters to the commission, an article posted Friday on Newsweek’s Web site said Mr. McCain had previously acknowledged first speaking to Mr. Paxson. Recounting that conversation, Mr. McCain testified in the deposition, “I said I would be glad to write a letter asking them to act.”
The Washington Post reported Friday on its Web site that Mr. Paxson acknowledged in an interview that he had met with Mr. McCain to discuss the letters before they were sent and that Ms. Iseman was probably at the meeting.
In three interviews with The Times since December, Mr. Paxson has provided varying accounts about the letters. In the first, he said Ms. Iseman was involved in the drafting of them and had lobbied Mr. McCain. He later said he could not recall who had been involved.


February 21, 2008

Is John McCain Uncomfortably Close to Lowell ‘Bud’ Paxson?

By Drew Clark

Sen. John McCain’s close relationship with media and telecom company lobbyist Vicki Iseman poses a challenge for his presidential campaign – if it can be demonstrated that he took specific actions on behalf of one of the companies she represented.

Today’s story in The New Times Times about McCain’s interactions with Iseman reports on legislative actions that he took on behalf of television broadcaster Paxson Communications from 1998 to 1999. That was the period of time in which Iseman’s relationship with McCain, then chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, was of concern to members of McCain’s staff, according to The Times.

A spokesman for the Arizona Republican said that The Times story was “gutter politics,” and that there was nothing in the article “to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career.” The Page provides additional reactions from McCain.

The Times does not report about a more recent – and potentially more dramatic – action by McCain on behalf of Paxson.

After a brief period of Democratic dominance, McCain returned to become chairman of the committee in 2003 and 2004. During that period, he took crucial legislative action that saved Paxson Communications from a bill that would have, in the words of CEO Lowell “Bud” Paxson, finally ruined his company.

Even more ironically, McCain took this action for Paxson in spite of his long-standing position that television broadcasters had inappropriately used the transition to digital television (DTV) to benefit themselves financially at the expense of the American public.

McCain initially supported legislation that would have forced Paxson and handful of broadcasters – but not the great bulk of television stations – off the air by December 31, 2006. Bud Paxson himself personally testified about this bill with “fear and trepidation” at a hearing on September 8, 2004.

Two weeks later, McCain had reversed himself. He now supported legislation that would grant two-year reprieve for Paxson – and instead force all broadcasters to stop transmitting analog television by December 31, 2008. Paxson and his lobbyists, including Iseman, were working at this time for just such a change.

The Times reports none of this more recent history of McCain’s actions benefitting Paxson Communications, which renamed itself Ion Media Networks.

The Times reports none of this more recent history of McCain’s actions benefitting Paxson Communications, which renamed itself Ion Media Networks. McCain later fought hard to push the digital television transition date back in time, citing the needs of public safety officials. Those efforts were not successful. The DTV transition date now stands only a few weeks from the year-end 2008 date that McCain – and Paxson – first proposed: February 17, 2009.

A Close Relationship With the Florida Broadcaster

The Times’ story has this background about McCain’s close relationship with Paxson and his lobbyists, including Iseman:

Mr. McCain and Ms. Iseman were friends and nothing more[, according to a McCain friend and campaign aide]. But in 1999 she began showing up so frequently in his offices and at campaign events that staff members took notice. One recalled asking, “Why is she always around?”

That February, Mr. McCain and Ms. Iseman attended a small fund-raising dinner with several clients at the Miami-area home of a cruise-line executive and then flew back to Washington along with a campaign aide on the corporate jet of one of her clients, Paxson Communications. By then, according to two former McCain associates, some of the senator’s advisers had grown so concerned that the relationship had become romantic that they took steps to intervene.

A former campaign adviser described being instructed to keep Ms. Iseman away from the senator at public events, while a Senate aide recalled plans to limit Ms. Iseman’s access to his offices.

In interviews, the two former associates said they joined in a series of confrontations with Mr. McCain, warning him that he was risking his campaign and career. Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman.

The Times links McCain’s interactions with Iseman to two aspects of legislative action by the senator on behalf of Paxson Communications: McCain’s support for the broadcaster owning two or more stations in a single market, and McCain’s attempt to intervene in Federal Communications Commission’s consideration of a pending Paxson merger.

Indeed, the relationship between the company and McCain has been strong.

According to information compiled by the Center for Public Integrity’s “Well Connected” Project on Telecommunications and Media, John McCain is the single largest recipient of campaign contribution by Ion Media Networks and its predecessor, Paxson Communications. McCain received $36,000 from the company and employees from 1997 to mid-year 20006. McCain’s donations edged out former Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., who received $27,000, and former Rep. W.J. “Billy” Tauzin, R-La., who received $22,500.

The Well Connected Project also documents the $860,000 that Ion Media spent from 1998 to mid-year 2006. All of that money went though the lobbying firm of Alcade & Fay, where Iseman has been and remains one the principal lobbyists for Ion Media. According to documents available online from the Senate Office of Public Records, Ion is the client that Iseman has represented the longest, since at least 1998.

According to the Senate public records, these are the issues on which she lobbied, for each of the six-month periods in 2004 and 2005:

Media Ownership Issues
Cross-Ownership of Broadcast, Cable, Newspaper and Radio
Digital Must Carry
700 MHz Spectrum Auction
Digital Transition
UHF Discount
Satellite Reauthorization
Cable A la Carte

Paxson has done more than simply contribute, and have his company contribute, to McCain. Paxson held at least one fund-raiser for McCain in Florida, where Ion Media is based.

Just as some of McCain’s aides had feared with regard to Iseman, McCain’s ties to Paxson became a brief issue in his 2000 campaign for president.

In an interview with Tim Russert following the GOP debate on January 6, 2000, NBC’s Tim Russert asked these questions of McCain:

RUSSERT: You’ve been under the gun the last couple of days, in the spotlight, because a contributor to your campaign went to the FCC, got a favorable decision, and urged the FCC to make a decision. You canceled a fundraiser with the same gentleman, Mr. Paxson, Friday. The appearance of Mr. Reformer being a pawn of special interest money — has it hurt your campaign?

MCCAIN: Oh, no. But this is the reason why I’m so dedicated to reform because we’re all tainted by it. We’re all under suspicion. Look, my job, as the chairman of the oversight committee of the FCC, is to make them do their job. They went 700 days without making a decision. I didn’t tell them, as eight other members of Congress did, how they should decide. I said, Just do your job and decide. And I’ll continue to do that because that’s my — as long as I’m chairman of the Commerce Committee.

RUSSERT: No apologies?

MCCAIN: Oh, no.

The “Spectrum Wars” For Radio Frequencies

The battle over the right to use the nation’s radio frequencies has been one of the most intensively lobbied issues before the Senate Commerce Committee – before, during and after the time of McCain’s chairmanship. And putting aside the broadcasting, cable, satellite, telephone and technology industries, a new lobby was in the offing: homeland security. In a feature story about the “Spectrum Wars” published in National Journal in February 2005, I recounted the legislative state of play at that time:

When the terrorists crashed the airplanes into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, the fire chiefs responding to the attack had no means of communicating with the police. Arriving on the scene, New York Fire Department Battalion Chief Joseph Pfeiffer could hear only two fire department channels and could not get reports on the towers from the police helicopters circling overhead.

New York City police officers, whose radios used 55 frequencies, heard the warnings from the helicopters, and most of them got out. Firefighters and fire chiefs, including special operations chief Ray Downey, heard nothing. These communication failures prompted the national 9/11 commission to recommend that broadcasters promptly vacate four television channels for public safety. It has yet to happen.

Moreover, this deadly situation was not new. After the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, police officers could not communicate with firefighters on the very next floor, according to Downey, who supervised those rescue efforts. In 1995, the same problems occurred after the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City. Downey, who led an NYFD contingent to aid the Oklahoma City rescue effort, had to send runners to coordinate orders.

A Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee was formed in Washington, and it had one key recommendation: “Public safety agencies will not be able to adequately discharge their obligations to protect life and property” if they don’t get more frequencies within five years. The report was released on September 11, 1996.

Five years later, Pfeiffer and Downey still didn’t have the spectrum they needed. After the tragedy, fire and police officials boiled with anger. At an FCC field hearing in Brooklyn weeks after the towers came down, Peter Meade, chief of the Nassau County fire department on Long Island, spoke for many in his profession: “Television be damned,” he said.

Meade coordinates police and fire frequencies in New York for the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International. He and his public safety colleges in the organization took their outrage to Washington. They worked with Reps. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., and Jane Harman, D-Calif., on a bill forcing broadcasters to vacate television channels 63, 64, 68, and 69. It went nowhere. Reintroduced in the last Congress, the bill did get a hearing, at which Weldon, a beefy former firefighter, mourned Downey, who did not survive the towers’ collapse.

“Is a TV show in my district in Pennsylvania more important than saving Ray Downey’s life?” Weldon said at the hearing. Later, he said, “I am not speaking, I am shouting against the broadcasters.”

McCain, as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee and eyeing another run for the White House, gravitated to public’s safety’s cause. With the release of the 9/11 report in July 2004, McCain decided to go on the offense against the National Association of Broadcasters, just as he had done in 1996 and 1997, when NAB successfully lobbied for a second television channel, free of charge. Broadcasters’ second channel allowed them to transmit their over-the-air signals digitally, without forcing them to immediately cut off analog television.

Few Americans were receiving digital television, even as late as this time, in 2004. Ever since the transition was put into effect with the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, there had been a December 31, 2006, target date for the switch-over. But this year-end 2006 date was non-binding: so long as at least 15 percent of Americans received their over-the-broadcasts via analog televisions, broadcasters – including Paxson – would never give up their spectrum.

With the heightened attention to the needs of public safety, McCain saw an opportunity. Just before the third anniversary of the September 11 attack, McCain introduced Weldon and Harman’s bill together with Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, then a Democrat. With that bill, there would finally be an end-date to the decades-long digital television transition.

Paxson versus the National Association of Broadcasters

Paxson Communications, however, was in a particularly tough spot by the Weldon/Harman – and now the McCain/Lieberman – legislation. At least 17 of his 65 television stations were numbered channel 60 or above, including WPXP-67 in West Palm Beach, Fla., and WBPX-68 in Boston. Back in 1997, channel numbers 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68 and 69 had been reserved for use by public safety – as soon as the broadcasters vacated. In other words, someone would have to move them out.

At the same hearing in which Weldon made his empassioned pitch, Paxson also appeared before McCain. This is what he said:

If the Harman Bill is enacted as is currently written, my company would face severe financial hardship and the likelihood of failure is a possibility. Naturally, we would seek court relief and compensation from the government from the losses and impairment of our assets.

Please make no mistake about my testimony. I’m enjoying my 50th year as a wireless communicator better known as a broadcaster, but I have never experienced such fear and trepidation, and I do not say these words lightly.

I live in Florida and the two recent severe hurricanes prove a point. Five of our Florida television stations were among the first providers of safety and survival information for many Floridians 24/7. Now that information saved lives and I’m sure the storms also demonstrate the need for more spectrum for public safety services. The faster the digital transition proceeds, the quicker public safety will get its needed spectrum, but not at the expense of free over the air broadcasting.

But something funny happened on the way to the markup on September 22, 2004. McCain changed his mind about the best end-date. He and Paxson would end up on the same side, supporting each other – against the National Association of Broadcasters.

Other legislative and regulatory officials, while supporting McCain’s idea of a fixed end-date, thought it better to give a bit more time – until December 31, 2008. Among them were Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and then-FCC Chairman Michael Powell, who had been hand-picked for his position by McCain.

McCain re-introduced his bill with a cut-off of December 31, 2008. More significantly, the broadcasters in the public safety zone – like Paxson – would no longer be singled and forced off-air before other television broadcasters.

Sensing political danger in the emerging consensus for an end to the DTV transition, the NAB quickly enlisted Sen. Burns in their cause. Burns, a former broadcaster, introduced an amendment to McCain’s bill that boasted an earlier cut-off date: January 1, 2008. But it would have impacted Paxson and comparable high-frequency broadcasters, like Univision.

At the markup, McCain was mad. “As usual, the National Association of Broadcasters is up to their old tricks, using their water-carriers,” he said, in a reference to Burns. “This is public safety versus the NAB, and we will all be on record as to where we stand. I want to tell my colleagues: If we adopt the Burns [amendment], and this results in delaying this channel, and there is another disaster in this country, and there is not interoperability, will will be making a very serious mistake.”

But Burns had out-maneuvered McCain. Burns had 13 votes – most of the Republicans and most of the Democrats – to McCain’s nine votes.

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., who supported McCain’s approach had this to say about what the NAB did to Paxson and Univision. “I don’t see how the NAB can take this position to stick it to two of their major members.”

McCain said: “Sometimes, I guess, they have to throw someone over the side.”



FEC Investigates McCain, Maybe Forced to do Public Financing

by: krazypuppy

Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:47:28 PM CST

I know the big McCain story for today is the one covering McCain's inappropriate and intimate friendship with influential lobbiest Vicki Iseman. It would certainly be sensational if Iseman, 30 years younger than McCain, did in fact have more than a professional relationship with McCain. However, the real story in that story IMHO opinion is not any innuendo of an affair but that once again it exposes John "Do as I say not as I do" McCain ethical problems.

You would think that after being implicated the Savings & Loans scandal which cost US taxpayer dollars billions, ala the Keating 5, that McCain would really smarten up about conflict of interests and obvious influence peddling relationships.

As a married man, McCain had no real reason to be so close to Iseman and as the chairman of the Senate commerce committee with whom Iseman's clients had business, McCain must have known better. You cannot cavort with lobbiests in private while publicly admonishing them. It's called duplicity and hypocrisy.

McCain is either unable to see such an obvious conflict of interest -- or worse, he's unwilling to acknowledge it. And that is very troubling.

BUT that's not the subject of this story though coupled with the Iseman story, "straight talking" McCain's ethical take on himself seems to be self-righteous and another well-fabricated political spin machine in operation.

Ok, already, what are we talking about? The FEC is investigating John McCain for possibly misleading (diplomatic speak for "lying") them so that he could get a loan from them back when his candidacy was struggling at the beginning of the campaign.

And get this: They are threatening to FORCE John McCain to take public financing if he doesn't testify before them about the conditions he accepted for his loan. In other words, John McCain

may get stuck with the $85 million limitation that public financing places on him!

And what librul at the FEC is challenging McCain to prove his integrity? Why none other than the REPUBLICAN chairman of theFEC, David Mason, in a letter directed to McCain.

Federal Election Commission Chairman David Mason, in a letter to McCain this week, said the all-but-certain Republican nominee needs to assure the commission that he did not use the promise of public money to help secure a $4 million line of credit he obtained in November.

Citing the loan agreement, Mason wrote: "We note that in your letter, you state that neither you nor your (presidential campaign) committee has pledged the certification of matching payment funds as security for private financing. In preparation for commission consideration of your request upon establishment of a quorum, we invite you to expand on the rationale for that conclusion."

This couldn't come at a worse time for McCain. We've already heard about the Iseman-lobbiest story. Now this story, where the FEC is investigating John McCain for possibly misleading the FEC to get a loan to keep his campaign afloat. At least, McCain looks like he's backing out of a legal contract -- not exactly an ethical or fiscally responsible thing to do.

But here's a more pragmatic problem: if McCain is forced to his pledge, he can't spend more than $54 million for the Republican primaries -- and he's almost approached that number! If McCain suddenly goes dark, it will help Huckabee. It probably won't be enough to give Huckabee the win given McCain big lead - but it will make it that much more difficult for McCain to connect with voters who may not see as much of him.

I personally can't believe that it's going to happen. The Chair is Republican and he'll get all kinds of pressure to back off. But this does embarrass McCain again - on top of the Iseman-lobbiest-affair story.

Now here's a final teaser: FEC Chair Mason said he needs the votes of 4 commissioners to accept McCain's withdrawal from public financing. Unfortunately, the commission only has 2 members because Republicans are fighting Democrats on who should fill the final four spots.

And if the commission isunable to meet to resolve the matter, then the Democratically controlled Senate has to give McCain permission to back out of public financing.


I know, I know! This is too good to be true - BUUUUUT (1) it's further embarrasses McCain, (2) it proves how hypocritical McCain's ethics are, and (3) it just might MIIIGHT happen!


Did Vicki Iseman “Steal Honor” in THREE Presidential Elections?
2-24-2008  •  EmptyWheel 
For the moment, though, I'm more interested in the 2004 election--the one McCain didn't run in. You see, I find it a mighty curious coincidence that two of the companies for which Iseman was lobbying John McCain in 1999 and 2000 also happen t  Read Full Story


John McCain’s denials start to unravel in tale of the blond lobbyist
2-24-2008  •  London Times 
If anything was going to derail John McCain’s White House bid, it was the fear that he was too old to be president, not the likelihood of being embroiled in a sex and favors scandal. But when the Arizona senator reached for the lawyer who steered Bil  Read Full Story


Democrats to File FEC Complaint Over McCain's Financing Request
2-24-2008  •  Bloomberg 
Howard Dean, head of the Democratic National Committee, said the party will oppose Republican Senator John McCain's attempt to turn down public financing for his presidential campaign.  Read Full Story


Backer disputes McCain remarks
2-24-2008  •  Washington Post 
Broadcaster Lowell "Bud" Paxson yesterday contradicted statements from Senator John McCain's presidential campaign that the senator did not meet with Paxson or his lobbyist before sending two controversial letters to the Federal Communi  Read Full Story

CLICK: JOHN MCCAIN Lobbyist Bundlers: 59

Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain

H-1B Hall of Shame


Absence of Malice video clip

John McCain Affair? Links To Female Lobbyist Exposed

Hall of Shame:John McCain proud co-sponsor of H-1B

Subscribe to apfn-1
chooser.gif (706373 bytes)
Powered by

 flagbar.jpg (5392 bytes)

American Patriot Friends Network

"....a network of net worker's..

Message Board

APFN Sitemap

APFN Home Page

APFN Contents Page


 **COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any
copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without
profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for non-profit research and
educational purposes only.

Hit Counter

Last updated 08/26/2010