Buying Justice

[khaosworks]

GOP Attorneys General Asked For Corporate Contributions
By R. Jeffrey Smith and Tania Branigan
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, July 17, 2003; Page A01

Republican state attorneys general in at least six states telephoned corporations or trade groups subject to lawsuits or regulations by their state governments to solicit hundreds of thousands of dollars in political contributions, according to internal fundraising documents obtained by The Washington Post.

One of the documents mentions potential state actions against health maintenance organizations and suggests the attorneys general should "start targeting the HMO's" for fundraising. It also cites a news article about consolidation and regulation of insurance firms and states that "this would be a natural area for us to focus on raising money."

The attorneys general were all members of the Washington-based Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA). The companies they solicited included some of the nation's largest tobacco, pharmaceutical, computer, energy, banking, liquor, insurance and media concerns, many of which have been targeted in product liability lawsuits or regulations by state governments.

The documents describe direct calls the attorneys general made, for example, to representatives of Pfizer Inc., MasterCard Inc., Eli Lilly and Co., Anheuser-Busch Cos., Citigroup Inc., Amway Corp., U.S. Steel Corp., Nextel Communications Inc., General Motors Corp., Microsoft Corp. and Shell Oil Co., among other companies. They also make clear that RAGA assigned attorneys general to make calls to companies with business and legal interests in their own states.

One of those soliciting funds between 1999 and 2001, according to the documents, was Alabama Attorney General William Pryor Jr., a pending nominee by President Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Sources said that a former RAGA employee recently turned some of the fundraising documents over to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which could vote as early as today on his nomination. A source who asked not to be named provided the documents to The Post.

The nomination had already provoked a partisan battle, with Democrats contending that Pryor is a conservative ideologue and raising the possibility of a filibuster.

Other attorneys general mentioned in the documents include then-Virginia Attorney General Mark L. Earley; Delaware Attorney General Jane Brady; then-South Carolina Attorney General Charlie Condon; then-Texas Attorney General John Cornyn, now in the Senate, and then-Ohio Attorney General Betty Montgomery.

One document states, for example, that Cornyn was asked to collect a donation from Shell Oil in late 1999, but does not mention whether Shell gave the group money. The firm was one of five energy companies that reached a $12.6 million settlement with Cornyn in August 1999 in a dispute over unpaid royalties. Two years later, Shell was one of 28 oil and petrochemical companies to reach a $120 million settlement with him and the U.S. Department of Justice in a separate dispute over toxic waste.

Last night, Don Stewart, a spokesman for Cornyn, said the senator does not recall telephoning Shell Oil. Stewart also said he was "troubled by the inference that there is some kind of connection" between any such phone call and a legal settlement that "benefited the citizens of Texas."

"This is incredibly tawdry," said Charles Lewis, director of the Center for Public Integrity, an independent group that highlights the link between money and politics. "That famous statue of the lady of justice with the blindfold -- this kind of throws that out the window. There is an incredible mercenary element to this that implies that policy is bought and sold."

"I do not see anything wrong with that," Earley said. "Attorney generals are elected officials and regularly solicit funds for their own campaigns from organizations and businesses in their states. With RAGA, it was being done on a group basis."

Well, yeah, but you don't solicit from parties which are engaged in pending state litigation in which said group is involved - can you even say, "conflict of interest"?

What really gets to me is this line, from the same article:

Pryor, who did not return a phone call to his Alabama office seeking comment yesterday, has told reporters that he does "not want corporations to be punished" by trial lawyers and favors a "market-oriented" approach to state law enforcement. He has also said that contributions do not influence legal decisions by RAGA members.

"Market-oriented" approach to state law enforcement - that just kills me, I swear to God. Pryor has forgotten a basic adage of legal PR - "Justice must not just be done, but must be seen to be done." And frankly, the latter is more important than the former. Whether or not it influences the decisions of members is irrelevant - the fact is, it has the potential to. Anybody who can't see that doesn't deserve to be a person charged with the public trust.

But then you didn't need me to say that.