Belarusian Charter97, 9/4/2008

«We clearly understood that you came in Minsk for money. Everything that was hiding behind the inspired with confidence formulation “a specialist in Public Relations”, in reality appeared just a banal desire for making money on somebody’s misfortune», -- - reads the open letter of the Free Theatre headship to Lord Timothy Bell.

Mr. Bell,

Epistolary genre became an extremely rare way of communication during the last years. We are not talking here about e-mails, contenting dry business text, and not even, of course, about SMS-messages. Epistolary genre – it is a genre of a considerably detailed letter. In the modern world people resort to it, as a rule, in two cases: when they want that the expressed thought will be recorded, or with the purpose that the addressee will be able repeatedly reread the message in case he can not understand the matter of the letter. Very likely, both of those propositions were the cornerstones of our wish to write you this letter.

We knew your name for the first time when we saw a report on Belarusian TV. You in a company of another Lord – Lord Cecil Parkinson had a nice conversation with Belarusian ruler Alexander Lukashenko about Belarus’ image. You articulated: “I had browsed through numerous of the Internet-resources with the information about your country and saw a lot of double-standard and hypocritical comments there. We have to work to fix it” . That phrase had us to pay close attention to the TV report and found out that you were a specialist in Public Relations and came to our country not just for rendezvous with Alexander Lukashenko but “to fix Belarus’ image” .

Frankly speaking, we did not quite understand the sense of your spoken out words. What was the meaning of it? Was it that somebody in the information space tried to embellish the Belarusian reality and hide the human rights violations? Or was it that some kind of plotters cast suspicion on the country of “flourishing democracy” and “political stability”?

Your passage was not understand by Irina Krasovskaya – a godmother of our younger daughter, whose husband Anatoliy together with the Vice-Speaker of the Parliament Victor Gonchar was abducted and killed because of their belonging to the Belarusian democratic forces.

Your passage was not understand by the family of Dmitriy Zavadskiy, who was abducted and killed because of the fulfilment of his professional duties, and who could not meet even his thirties birthday.

Your passage was not understand by the former Candidate for the President and now a political prisoner Alexander Kozulin, who serves now a five-year term sentence in prison and has outlasted the death of his wife there.

Your passage was not understand by thousands of Belarussian, who, for the last fourteen years, went through assaults and batteries, unfair trials, jail imprisonments, firing from the jobs, discharging from the universities only because they could not accept the injustice and violence, reigning today in the country.

But pretty soon all those people understood the sense of your passage. We clearly understood that you came in Minsk for money. Everything that was hiding behind the inspired with confidence formulation “a specialist in Public Relations” , in reality appeared just a banal desire for making money on somebody’s misfortune. Or how another English Lord – Lord Byron wrote in his poem “The Corsair”: “His heart was form’d for softness – warp’d to wrong; Betray’d too early, and beguiled too long…”

Right after your departure from Belarus, on March 25 a traditional annual action took place and was dedicated to the 90th anniversary of the Declaration of the Belarusian National Republic. The authorities suppressed that peaceful action with the use of the special military forces, and about a hundred of demonstrators were beaten up, arrested and sentenced. And on March 27 all around the country Militia and KGB officers detained independent journalists, searched their apartments, seized equipment and other data carriers, destroyed offices of “Radio Racyja”, “Radio Europe” and satellite TV-channel “Belsat”. More than thirty journalists went through KGB interrogations and confiscation of computers, Dictaphones and video cameras.

We must suppose that your words “we have to work to fix it” became the epigraph to the violent actions of the authorities. Those actions of Belarusian Militia and KGB were already nicknamed by the people “the first PR-action of Lord Bell”. But that kind of formulation would hardly stop you, - as thousands of victims of Chile’s junta could not stop “fixing of the image” of dictator Augusto Pinochet.

In February this year we with the Belarus Free Theatre went on tour in London and Leeds, and we were astounded by the depth of the concern British displayed for Belarusian problems. We had full houses even during public discussions after the performances, close attention of all without exception mass media, participation of the British Theatre and Movies stars in one of our shows, where they read letters of Belarusian political prisoners from the stage… Among Patrons of our theatre there are Tom Stoppard, who has become a member of our family, and Mark Ravenhill, who has come to rescue us at the first call. Harold Pinter and Mick Jagger, Alan Rickman and Diana Quick, Kim Cattrall and Henry Goodman, Michael Billington and Richard Wilson became our close friends… All these people when we meet them ask only one question: “How can we help you and your country?”. And we associate Britain precisely with these people. As well as we associate Britain with the words “Honour” and “Dignity”.

“We have to work to fix it” . This phrase can become constructive if to change the sense of the word “it” which you put into it. We, Belarusian, are trying almost fifteen years to fix the consequences of that irresponsibility, we participated with in the first in our national history presidential elections. During that time the whole new generation of Belarusian grew up, being brought up on the ideas of non-violent resistance. All that time tens of thousand of citizens came out in the streets, despite the violence and arbitrariness of the authorities, to declare their democratic pro-European choice. We are trying to do our very best to become the People and we will go to the very end, despite of who and how tries to stay in our way. As one of great British – Sir Winston Churchill said: “You Do Your Worst – and We Will Do Our Best”.

Today the European Union and the United States of America have a coordinated position about Belarusian problem, which is clearly revealed in the “12 demands of the European Union”. They include the basic democratic postulates – release of political prisoners, transparent elections, freedom of the mass media, economy liberalisation and so on. With the fulfilment of these demands Belarus will stop to be “the last dictatorship in Europe” and begin the process of forward entry into the European Union. From that particular moment the whole Continent will begin to explore an absolutely new and unknown before way of coexistence – life without dictatorship at all.

We were staggered that you, an educated person, did not have any desire to explain to the Belarusian government all the benefit virtues of that particular choice for Belarus. Instead of it you were preoccupied by absolutely different problem – how “to fix” the opinion of those who wanted to live as decent human beings and had the right for freedom of speech to criticise the violence and arbitrariness of the authorities. Of course, we forgot about the major point of it: Who will pay you for the explanation of the benefit virtues of the democratic choice for Belarus? Nobody pays for that kind of deeds, but people, who come forward as the initiators of the negotiation processes, stay in the history.

By the way, about the money. We hope, you are an adult, Mr. Bell, and understand, that there is no such column as “PR-technologies of Lord Bell” with eight figures sum in the Belarusian budget. It means, that for the money which you will, probably, receive for your job, you will have, anyway later, to give the detail explanation to the competent agencies, authorised by the Belarusian taxpayers.

Belarusian people always had a consciousness stereotype, which was formed by the British Literature and History – title “Lord” was steady associated with an adult educated man, with the impeccable reputation, good manners and irreproachable taste. You partially succeeded in debunking of that stereotype, even though, frankly speaking, Belarusian people did not have any desire to part with it.

Don’t you think that, may be, it doesn’t worth to disappoint the whole nation in romantic filling of the honourable title, and simply, finally, pay close attention to your own image and start to correct it for the better? Of course, we understand, that it will be difficult for you to do it, but, after all, you simply “have to work to fix it” .

At the end we would like to say thank you that you allowed us to recall and remember so forgotten epistolary genre. And for now, unfortunately, it is the only thing we can thank you for.

Nikolai N. Khalezin

Art Director of the Belarus Free Theatre

Natalia A. Koliada

General Director of the Belarus Free Theatre

PR Week, David Singleton, 10/4/2008

The Downing Street media team is pressing ahead with a plan to hire Burson-Marsteller's global CEO Mark Penn as its chief pollster.

With Gordon Brown's leadership rating falling to its lowest level yet this week, senior figures in Number 10 believe that Penn could be Brown's answer to Philip Gould - the polling guru credited with reversing Lab­our's declining fortunes in the 1990s.

Number 10 comms chief Stephen Carter and recen­t­ly recruited director of pol­itical strategy David Muir are und­erstood to have held talks with Penn last week - when Penn was still working as chief strategist for US pre-s­idential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Carter has put Muir in charge of the important areas of polling and research, and has told the former WPP ad man to pinpoint a handful of policy areas on which the Government needs to focus in order to win votes. Muir is a strong admirer of Penn and became acquainted with him while working at WPP, which owns Burson-Marsteller.

The plan to recruit Penn gathered more momentum on Monday this week when Penn was forced to resign from the Clinton campaign after details of con­troversial Burson-Marsteller dealings were made public.

Penn came under attack for meeting representatives of the Colombian government to help promote a free trade agreement that Clinton opposes because it could cost Americans jobs.

The resignation frees him up to work for the Prime Minister. A senior Burson-Marsteller source in regular contact with Penn said there was a high chance that Penn would now work for Brown. ‘It would not surprise me at all,' said the source. ‘He has a tremendous ability to spot trends in public opinion.'

But some in the party have questioned Penn's recent track record as Clinton's strategist and asked whether Labour can afford him.

Meanwhile, it emerged this week that Brown has a new adviser, former BBC producer Nicola Burdett, whose job is to concentrate on broadcast media.

Brown's top media hand­ler Damian McBride called for the extra help amid concern that Brown's presentational gaffes were making his job harder.

The Times,  Robin Pagnamenta, 15/4/2008

Jeroen van der Veer, the chief executive of Royal Dutch Shell, has given warning that a proposed European Union scheme to force companies to pay for carbon emissions permits previously handed out free threatens to destroy Europe’s petrochemicals and refining industry.

Mr van der Veer told The Times that the EU needed to be careful not to trigger an exodus of European jobs and investment offshore with no net reduction in global emissions.

Speaking in The Hague, he said that the proposals would undermine the competitiveness of a struggling industry and have a cascading impact on Europe’s wider economy because of the close links between the region’s oil, chemicals and plastics industries, which collectively support nearly two million jobs.

He said: “In the past 20 years the refining industry in Europe has been very difficult . . . But if we have additional penalties because we move away from a system of free allocations to a large extent, then in such a marginal industry that is a real problem.”

EU Observer, Renata Goldirova, 15/4/2008

Lack of transparency, including refusal of information, continues to top the list of EU institutions' sins against citizens, the European ombudsman said on Tuesday (15 April).

According to a fresh report, ombudsman Nikiforos Diamandouros received 3,211 new complaints in 2007 - compared to 3,830 in 2006 - with German citizens (16 percent), Spain (11 percent), France (eight percent) and Poland (seven percent) registering the most complaints.

The overwhelming majority of cases - 413, amounting to 64 percent of the total - were targeted against the European Commission.

The report goes on to recount how the European Personnel Selection Office received 14 percent of all complaints, while the European Parliament received nine percent and the European Anti-Fraud Office three percent.

The council, representing EU governments, managed to worry one percent of complainants.

Some 28 percent of complaints fall into a 'lack of transparency' rubric, with Mr Diamandouros saying this fact should provide "an opportunity for EU institutions and bodies to demonstrate their willingness to be as open and accountable as possible".

"I hope that the commission's proposals for reform of the legislation on public access to documents will contribute to realising this important goal," he added when presenting the 2007 report on his activities.

To illustrate the difficulties people face in contact with EU bodies, the report mentions a Maltese journalist's request for access to details on the payments received by MEPs such as payments for general expenditure, travel and subsistence allowances, as well as allowances for their assistants.

The European Parliament turned down the request, arguing it would violate data protection - an argument rejected by the ombudsman, after consulting the European Data Protection Supervisor. The inquiry is still ongoing, however.

Absolute transparency diminishes privacy, while absolute privacy undermines transparency, the ombudsman said, calling on EU institutions to strike the right balance.

Ombudsman's statute
The report comes as Liberal lawmakers in the European Parliament (ALDE) are pushing for a review of the ombudsman's duties in order to allow him access to classified documents if needed.

But these efforts have been temporarily frozen due to objections from the parliament's two major groups, the conservatives (EPP-ED) and the Socialists (PSE) - something that the liberals read as a "reluctance to greater transparency".

"It is very regrettable and quite extraordinary that EPP and PSE show so little enthusiasm on matters of transparency," UK Liberal Democrap MEP Andrew Duff said.

"This delay is irresponsible, since the Slovenian [EU] presidency has explicitly asked us to deal with this matter rapidly," Mr Duff added.

Mr Diamandouros, for his part, said he was "still waiting for the decision by the parliament".

"I very much hope there will be a decision on a compromise, which I think is a fair one," he added.

The statute of the ombudsman is now to be discussed during the upcoming plenary session in Strasburg (21-24 April).

LA Times, Borzou Daragahi, 15/4/2008

BAGHDAD -- A series of conflicts with insurgent groups along Iran's borders may be impelling Tehran to back its own allies in Iraq in what it regards as a proxy war with the U.S., according to security experts and officials in the U.S., Iran and Iraq.

Dozens of Iranian officials, members of the security forces and insurgents belonging to Kurdish, Arab Iranian and Baluch groups have died in the fighting in recent years. It now appears to be heating up once again after an unusually cold and snowy winter.

In recent weeks, Iranians have begun the now-routine bombardment of suspected rebel Iranian Kurd positions in northern Iraq, and guerrillas have claimed incursions into northwestern Iran.

Some Iranians blamed Sunni Arab radicals for an explosion Saturday that killed 12 and injured 202 at a gathering where a preacher criticized the Wahhabi form of Islam that inspires Osama bin Laden.

None of the groups appear to pose a serious threat to Iran, but Tehran regards them as Washington's allies in an effort to pressure it to scale back its nuclear program and withhold support for militant groups fighting Israel. American and Iraqi officials in turn accuse Iran of supporting Shiite Muslim militias and other militant groups in Iraq to keep the U.S. preoccupied and the Baghdad government weak.

Although a U.S. intelligence estimate in December undercut claims that Iran has a secret nuclear weapons program and appeared to lower the possibility of a direct military conflict over Iran's uranium enrichment operations, tensions over Iraq have increased. U.S. officials accuse Iran of backing Shiite militias close to cleric Muqtada Sadr that fought Iraqi government forces to a standstill in Basra and Baghdad two weeks ago.

Tempting assets

Analysts say the anti-Iranian groups are tempting assets for the U.S. They say it would be a surprise if the groups were not receiving U.S. funding, but that the strategy would probably not work.

"It will give more encouragement to Iran's hard-liners to step up their own efforts to assist anti-American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA analyst now at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

Among the most active groups is the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan, known by its Kurdish acronym, PEJAK. It has hundreds of well-trained fighters along with camps in northern Iraq.

Iranian soldiers guarding the border are sometimes ambushed by PEJAK fighters. Iran responds with artillery attacks that send Iraqi villagers scurrying for cover. Border skirmishes last summer and fall between Iranian security forces and PEJAK left dozens dead on both sides.

PEJAK emerged this decade as an Iranian offshoot of the Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK, an armed group formed to fight a separatist war against the Turkish government.

Former members say PEJAK was meant to circumvent Western restrictions on contacts with the PKK, which has been labeled a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department and the European Union.

"The PKK wanted to have a relationship with America, so it formed and used PEJAK," said Mamand Rozhe, a former commander who defected from the group four years ago.

U.S. military officials visited PEJAK's camps in northern Iraq just after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, said Osman Ocalan, a brother of the PKK's imprisoned leader and a founder of PEJAK.

"Since the beginning, we thought we would get the American help," said Ocalan, who left the group two years ago. "And it's a good relationship now. . . . They are in talks with each other, and there is some military assistance."

Ocalan and others say U.S. help has included foodstuffs, economic assistance, medical supplies and Russian military equipment, some of it funneled through nonprofit groups. Every two or three months, U.S. military vehicles can be seen entering PKK and PEJAK strongholds, Ocalan said.

"There's no systematic relationship, no number to call," he said. "Americans do not intend to have an official relationship. Whenever there's any kind of question by the Turks, they can say we don't have a relationship."

A PEJAK leader, Abdul Rahman Haji-Ahmadi, was publicly given a cold shoulder when he went to Washington last summer.

PEJAK's activities may have created obstacles for those working inside Iran for peaceful change. Dozens of Kurdish activists in Iran have been thrown in jail on charges of supporting the rebel group.

"I think that on balance PEJAK does more harm than good," said Aso Saleh, an Iranian journalist and ethnic Kurd who fled his country after being charged with state security crimes that carry a possible death sentence.

"PEJAK's actions give the government the excuse to militarize the region," Saleh said. "It gives the Islamic Republic the excuse to crack down on civil opposition."

Elsewhere, Iranian authorities blamed U.S.-backed elements for a series of bomb attacks in the oil-rich southwestern province of Khuzestan that killed dozens of people from 2005 to 2007. Baluch militants have killed dozens of members of Iran's security forces, including 11 elite Revolutionary Guards in a car bomb attack last year in Zahedan, a town near the border with Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Last fall, a young Kurdish woman killed several officers and soldiers in a suicide attack along Iran's northwestern border.

Other groups can provide precious intelligence to the U.S. The decades-old Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran, or KDPI, whose members have been the victims of scores of assassinations in Iraq and Europe, allegedly at the hands of Iranian intelligence operatives, has relations with Washington that stretch back decades.

"It's a very warm relationship," said Rostam Jahangiri, leader of the group's Irbil, Iraq, office. "We interact here and in Washington. . . . Sometimes it's once a month. Sometimes it's after three or four months."

The secretive Mujahedin Khalq, also regarded by the U.S. and EU as a terrorist organization, may have little support among Iranians, but its networks extend deep into Iranian territory, and it is credited with exposing Iran's nuclear program in 2002.

Other groups include Jundollah, which operates out of the southwestern Pakistani province of Baluchistan, and Arab groups in Iran's southwest.

The leftist Komala Party of Iran hasn't staged any military operations inside Iran since 1992, but several hundred or so fighters continue to train at their base camp in Zergwe in the autonomous Kurdish northern region of Iraq.

Abdullah Mohtadi, a leader of one of two Komala factions, said he met with White House and State Department officials in 2005 and 2006 to discuss Iran.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asked Congress in early 2006 for $75 million to promote democracy in Iran, of which $66 million was approved -- most of it for Persian-language broadcasting. But about $20 million was set aside for unidentified groups the State Department described as "nongovernmental organizations, businesses and universities," for Internet development and "cultural affairs." Congress set aside an additional $60 million for the effort in the current fiscal year.

U.S. officials did not respond to a request for comment on claims that PEJAK or other groups receive funding.

No group officially acknowledges receiving U.S. aid. But many say they would welcome it.

"If you're a political movement that is part of an opposition, you need help from abroad," Mohtadi said. "We're not ashamed to admit it."

A push for rebel aid

Many in Washington have advocated such aid. The rebels fight the same Revolutionary Guard that oversees at least part of Iran's nuclear program and probably funnels support to militant groups in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.

"It would be a scandal if the U.S. was not funding these groups," said John Pike, director of globalsecurity.org, a website about intelligence and military issues. "The support would be covert and might be done in ways that the groups themselves remain unaware of the ultimate source of their funding."

Still, most of the groups suffer severe weaknesses. KDPI and Komala have endured tumultuous splits in recent years, KDPI in part over whether to align itself with the U.S.

Both PEJAK and the Mujahedin Khalq operate like cults, barring members from having sexual relations and discouraging personal lives. Each touts a strict Marxist ideology.

Iranian diplomats and politicians say they have intelligence to back up their claims that the U.S. aids these groups, but have never publicly provided proof.

"We know the MKO and PEJAK both have relations with the U.S.," said Hamidreza Taraghi, an official of the Islamic Coalition Party, which is close to Iran's conservative religious leadership.

"The Americans have given the MKO a lot of technology to monitor Iranian phone traffic," he said in an interview. "Where is the Baluchistan separatist money coming from?"

Iraqi Kurds say perceived U.S. support for PEJAK and other anti-Iranian groups prompted Iranians to reactivate Ansar al Islam, a Sunni Muslim group with ties to Al Qaeda that has been launching attacks against Kurdish officials.

The Ansar al Islam fighters have been used as a "pressure card" by the Iranians, said Jafar Barzinji, the minister of affairs for peshmerga, or Kurdish security forces, who oversees military issues in Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region.

Iraqi Kurds say they have asked Iranian authorities to rein in Ansar. "They never deny that they're supporting them," Barzinji said. "They always promise a solution in the near future." Sometimes, he said, they bring up PEJAK.

Fareed Asasard, head of the Kurdish Strategic Studies Center, a think tank in the Iraqi Kurdish city of Sulaymaniya, recently visited Tehran to meet with analysts at a research institution close to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

"The reason for their support of Ansar is PEJAK," he said. "They're 100% worried about PEJAK's actions."

news-press.com, Amy Bennett Williams, 12/4/2008

Aide says infiltrators have been at meetings

Who would spy on a couple of nonprofit human rights groups? Who would hire a professional infiltrator to sit in on the organizations’ planning sessions? Who would attack them on the Web for their efforts to improve the lives of workers who pick produce for the world’s largest fast food chains?

That’s something the Coalition of Immokalee Workers and the Student/Farmworker Alliance would like to know.

In recent months, they’ve been vilified online and in e-mails that can be traced to the Miami headquarters of Burger King, a company that’s opposed the groups’ efforts.

The alliance also identified a spy in its ranks.

Burger King spokesman Keva Silversmith says he knows nothing about any Burger King effort to spy on the Immokalee groups.

“I have no idea what should be secret about helping farmworkers,” Silversmith says.
And unless the e-mails or postings came from the company’s communications office, they’re not official, Silversmith says.

“Are employees allowed to use our corporate Internet for personal e-mails?” he asked. “Yes, but only communications that come from this office can be considered representative of Burger King’s official position.”

The coalition works to improve the lives of its mostly immigrant members, many of whom do low-wage labor in Florida’s fields; the alliance is a key ally. In recent years, the coalition has scored a number of hard-fought, high-profile victories. McDonald’s and Yum! Brands, the world’s biggest fast-food chain and restaurant company, respectively, agreed to a coalition-supported penny-per-pound pay increase for tomato workers. Yum! signed on in 2005; McDonald’s in 2007. That penny more could add about $20 to a daily wage of $50, workers say.

The Age, Katharine Murphy, 14/4/2008

I LIKE lots of lobbyists; some are friends. Yes, I did say lobbyists, those notorious characters hired by vested interests to make imaginative assertions like "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".

Most lobbyists I have encountered over more than a decade in political journalism are good company, professional and effective at what they do. Most are normal people, who cheer on their offspring at soccer matches, sponsor starving kids in Africa and hit the beach when there's a quiet weekend.

Nice folks to be sure, but an obscure tribe requiring considered anthropology. Good lobbyists are powerful people who can access the small group of people running the country in their private domains, and do it with limited public scrutiny.

This private world needs greater transparency to keep everyone honest, given there are cross-overs between money and professional advocacy. Big companies hire lobbyists to make their case to politicians and they also donate to political parties, as do the lobbying firms themselves. But it is hard to draw these diffuse boundaries of accountability. Is regulation actually the answer or are we looking at it the wrong way? If politicians were less inclined to give favours, would we need a lobbying industry to systematise carving up the spoils?

Cabinet secretary John Faulkner gets a tick for his push to improve transparency. He has produced a code of conduct designed to regulate the lobbying industry. Put simply, it requires lobbyists to register and declare their clients before they are cleared to meet ministers.

I am also taken with Faulkner's keen sense of irony. His code requires some gravity-defying ethical standards, the most amusing being a clause that would stop lobbyists bragging. Lobbyists always brag, otherwise how would they persuade people to pay enormous fees to do work they could probably do themselves?

Look at their websites, which promise clients access to the decision-makers and sophisticated understanding of the intricacies of government. Go to lunch with a few and hear stories about their close relationship with this or that politician, or their capacity to deliver this or that journalist.

But the code prohibits "misleading, exaggerated or extravagant claims" about the nature or extent of their access to government representatives. Now that is funny, almost like requiring cats not to catch mice, or men to like power ballads from the 1980s.

But while I applaud the intention, much more needs to be done. The draft code of conduct circulated by Faulkner hands him extraordinary unfettered power at one level — it allows him to boot lobbyists off the register at his "absolute discretion" — but allows all sorts of activity to go on unhindered behind closed doors.

The code has a clear bias against lobbyists with third-party clients, and they range from large national lobbying firms to sole traders. They must register, declare their clients, stop bragging and dabbling in politics and run the moderately terrifying gauntlet of Faulkner's disapproval.

Others, by contrast, get a free pass: trade unions, big business groups, lawyers by and large, but most significantly, the in-house government relations people employed by big corporations. This powerful bunch remains off the map.

Consider the practical effects of this basic discrimination. For example, a major corporation involved in a large commercial transaction that requires approval by the Foreign Investment Review Board can make representations to the relevant minister, say the treasurer or prime minister, but that transaction is never disclosed or recorded. But if the corporation hires a professional lobbyist to pitch its case to politicians, the lobbyist must obtain a registration and must disclose the client, thereby making public the fact the company is having its interests represented. Journalists can join the dots. Ah, we would think, how interesting: Joe Blogs is looking after such-and-such a company and that must relate to such-and-such a transaction. Isn't that worth looking into. If one transaction requires scrutiny, why not the other?

Perhaps some recent comments from Faulkner's cabinet colleague, Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner, provide a clue. He told The Australian Financial Review: "Why does big company X need to use a lobbyist to set up a meeting with a minister? Their importance is overblown. If someone has got an issue with me, or that involves my department, there's no need to employ an intermediary. Just call my office and set up a meeting."

Perhaps the intention is less about disclosure and more about cutting out the middle man. Time will tell. Call Faulkner's office and set up a meeting, you might find out.

The Telegraph, Christopher Hope and James Kirkup, 14/4/2008

Saudi middle man put pressure on Government to drop investigation into BAE Systems' funding of lavish spending

The Saudi princes and princesses were treated to every extravagance available when they were flown to the Hawaiian paradise island of Oahu in 1998 to enjoy the run of one of the world’s best hotels.

There was even a fleet of cars and a private Boeing 707 to take them another Hawaiian island, Maui, to stay at the five-star Grand Wailea hotel.

The total cost of the trip was more than £250,000, including £25,000 spent on car hire.

Such extravagant spending would never normally have come to the attention of British fraud investigators.

But it was later claimed the trip had been one of many allegedly paid for by BAE Systems, Britain’s biggest defence company.

Evidence of the largesse emerged during the Serious Fraud Office’s probe into “allegations of false accounting and corruption’’ linked to Britain’s Al Yamamah arms deal with Saudi Arabia.

This opulence would have been far from the mind of the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, when she agreed the original arms deal with the Saudi Government in 1985.

The deal - one of the world’s biggest, worth over $43billion - involved the supply of Tornados and other aircraft, missiles, mine-hunters and base facilities to Saudi Arabia, with BAE Systems as the main beneficiary.

Although it was signed off many years before tough anti-bribery laws were imposed on British companies operating in overseas markets, it was soon mired in controversy.

One early allegation was that millions of pounds were paid in commissions to middle men, with some estimates suggesting as much as 30 per cent of the contract value was paid out.

Some of the commissions were allegedly paid to Sir Mark Thatcher, the son of Lady Thatcher, although he has always vehemently denied any wrongdoing.

Suspicion about the deal was fanned when the National Audit Office, the public spending watchdog, started to investigate the contract and reported in 1992 there was “no evidence of fraud or corruption”.

The report remains the only NAO study never to be published, prompting speculation that it contained sensitive and compromising material about commissions paid to middlemen.

This report later became a key focus for the investigators involved in the SFO probe.

Minnesota Monitor, Andy Birkey, 11/4/2008

The telecommunications industry is working hard to kill a cell phone reform bill at the Minnesota legislature that would guarantee customers accurate information about billing and service area coverage. And it’s using an industry front organization masquerading as a grassroots citizens’ group to do the deed.

Cell phone billing practices and service area coverage limits are among the top consumer complaints both in Minnesota and nationwide. The Minnesota Wireless Telephone Consumer Protection Act (S.F. 833) would require wireless phone salespeople to provide a coverage map to customers at the time of sale, to clearly state both price and fees at the time of sale and to indicate whether that price will remain the same throughout the contract. In addition, providers would have to lay out any early termination fees, and separately list government taxes and fees on billing statements.

The telecom industry has responded by using a nonprofit faux-grassroots organization to spread disinformation about the bill and to encourage unsuspecting consumers to send e-mails opposing its passage to legislators. Mywireless.org presents itself as “a non-profit consumer advocacy organization” that gives wireless consumers “a powerful and unified voice to protect the freedom, value, security and mobility they enjoy with wireless services.”

But in fact, Mywireless.org is staffed almost entirely by telecommunications industry executives, drawn mainly from the ranks of the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (also known as CTIA-The Wireless Association), a lobbying group for the mobile phone and telecommunications industry headed by Steve Largent, the former football star and Oklahoma Republican congressman (1994-2002). (There’s more information about Mywireless’ officers below the jump.)

In Minnesota, Mywireless has employed a three-pronged strategy to fight the cell phone reform bill:

On the last count, Minnesota lobbyists for Mywireless.org include Chris Tiedeman, Republican strategist, blogger for the Party of Pawlenty blog, and friend and regular radio guest of Republican operative Michael Brodkorb. In addition, Greg Johnson of Weber Johnson Public Affairs, a company that works for corporate and Republican interests, is a lobbyist for Mywireless.org. Johnson’s other lobbying clients at the Minnesota Capitol include Exxon Mobil Corp., General Motors Corp., and Goldman Sachs. Brian Johnston of Washington, D.C., is also a lobbyist for Mywireless.org at the Minnesota Capitol.

Though dominated by CTIA, the Mywireless.org coalition comprises more than 30 organizations that include 16 chambers of commerce along with sharply right-wing organizations such as the American Conservative Union, Center for Individual Freedom and Frontiers of Freedom. Mywireless.org has also spread its coins generously among some of the pillars of the anti-tax, anti-regulation right through its “grants.” The Heritage Foundation has received funds from Mywireless.org, as did the Hispanic Alliance for Progress Institute, an organization founded by President George H.W. Bush and his Secretary of the Interior, Manuel Lujan, Jr.

FreedomWorks, an outfit led by Republican heavyweights such as former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Jack Kemp (for whom Mywireless.org executive director Kim Kuo once worked) and former White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray, have gotten Mywireless.org grants, as has anti-tax radical Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform, which in 2006 was implicated in super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s influence-peddling scandal.

One Minnesota legislator who got inundated by the Astro Turf e-mailing campaign, Sen. John Marty, railed against the group’s efforts in a note to constituents and supporters:

This year Minnesota legislators have received countless emails urging us to oppose Senate File 833, which “threatens the affordability and accessibility of (cell phone) services for all of Minnesota’s families and businesses.” To stimulate public opposition to this, the cell phone industry’s ad campaign showed a picture of a frustrated woman looking over a document labeled “State Wireless Taxes and Fees” with a caption: “So why are state legislators threatening to increase the cost of our wireless?” But there was nothing in the bill that even remotely reflected what one would expect based on the lobbying. It is no more expensive to make the terms of a contract transparent than to hide billing and pricing practices from the consumer. Honest disclosure does not cost more. Most consumers who contacted legislators would support preventing cell phone companies from deceptive practices. Yet the wireless companies lied to the public, convincing many to oppose a bill they would support if they saw the legislation.

In the House, the bill has passed three committees and is awaiting a hearing in the Committee on Rules and Legislative Administration, and in the Senate, the bill has passed two committees and awaits a hearing in the Business, Industry and Jobs Committee.

Mywireless.org’s executive officers

Steve Largent is the board chairman for Mywireless.org. He is also the president and CEO of CTIA-The Wireless Association. Prior to his experiences lobbying for telecom interests, he was an NFL Hall of Fame wide receiver and a Republican Congress member from Oklahoma.

Jot Carpenter is the director for Mywireless.org. He is also vice president of government affairs for CTIA. Previously, Carpenter held a similar role at AT&T and worked for a Republican member of Congress.

John Walls is secretary of the board of Mywireless.org and vice president of public affairs for CTIA. Before that, he was an anchor for Fox Sports Net.

David Eisenberg, the treasurer for Mywireless.org, worked for Sprint and Centel for a total of 21 years previously.

Kimberly Kuo, the executive director of Mywireless.org, is a past vice president of communications for CTIA and a former executive at enfoTrust, a mobile services and telecom company based in Georgia. She also served as press secretary for campaigns by Republicans Jack Kemp and Bob Dole.

Bobby Franklin is a director for Mywireless.org. He is also the executive vice president of CTIA. Prior to CTIA and Mywireless.org, Franklin was a lobbyist for telecom Alltel. He also worked for a Democratic Congress member.

Globe and Mail, 9/4/2008

Toronto's first lobbyist watchdog quit yesterday after just 14 months on the job, amid political infighting and mounting discomfort among councillors over the rules that now record who talks to whom at city hall.

The lobbyist registry, the first of its kind at the municipal level, was one of 32 recommendations of the 2005 Bellamy inquiry into a computer-leasing scandal that exposed influence-peddling at city hall.

Marilyn Abraham, 64, a veteran administrator tapped for the new post last year, offered no specific reason for her departure only two months after the launch of the city registry.

"It has been a very challenging year, and it will be that and much more ahead," she said. "I felt I have done as much as I was prepared to do."

Others, who describe Ms. Abraham as an able civil servant, say she suffered setbacks at the hands of councillors from across the spectrum who chafed at new oversight bodies monitoring their activities.

Last July, council slashed Ms. Abraham's $711,000 budget in half, forcing her to rescind the hiring of three members of her five-person office and delay the registry's startup.

When the funds were restored last December, she rehired them for the February launch.

Lobbyist Bernie Morton of Sussex Strategy, among those consulted as the rules were drafted, said Ms. Abraham's departure was "a loss" and argued that the registry was working with minor hiccups.

He said Ms. Abraham had told him that she was not getting the funding or the support she needed from council.

The July vote, some say, was the tipping point for Ms. Abraham, who had quietly signalled her decision to city officials weeks ago.

The restored funds ensured a budget for this year, but she apparently was unwilling to endure another budget battle that would open the door to a wider debate on the need for her office.

Lobbying legislation expert Guy Giorno said "she did a very good job faced with a council, many members of which didn't want a lobbyist registry, many other members of which didn't understand the lobbying bylaw they passed, and many members of which didn't understand or appreciate the role played by an independent lobbyist registrar to enforce the law."

A spokesman for Mayor David Miller, who promised the registry in his 2006 re-election platform, praised Ms. Abraham for "terrific work" in getting the office up and running.

"The fact there have been some hiccups, others will have to explain their actions around that," said Stuart Green, deputy press secretary to the mayor, adding "the bottom line is we do have the office, and hopefully it will mean a more open and transparent city."

The new office seemed to have few political champions at city hall - and fewer still once the office was in operation.

Councillor Case Ootes (Ward 29, Toronto-Danforth), a critic of the mayor, said Mr. Miller should take much of the blame for the registry's teething problems.

"He's the one that pushed it," Councillor Ootes said yesterday.

Even allies of the mayor criticized the new lobbying rules as too complex and confusing, with constituents and politicians befuddled over who had to register on the city website.

"People get very frustrated," said Councillor and council Speaker Sandra Bussin (Ward 32, Beaches-East York), who sat on the committee that hired Ms. Abraham last year.

Ms. Bussin said Ms. Abraham told her it took her six months of working with legal staff to understand the bylaw.

The councillor added that she voted with the majority last July to cut Ms. Abraham's budget as a "reality check" to restrict her office to the same size as a councillor's, in a move meant to signal how difficult it is for councillors to comply with the rules.

Ms. Abraham, who said she plans to stay on until a successor is chosen, expects to report to council's executive committee in May on "tweaking" some of the rules, in an effort to make them clearer.

"It's going to be a work in progress," she said, adding that growing pains "are to be expected with a new law."

*****

Birth of the registry

Toronto is the first municipality in Canada to administer its own lobbyist registry. Some key dates:

September, 2005: Bellamy inquiry into corruption at city hall recommends establishment of a lobbyist registry.

September, 2006: City council delays approval of a new registry until after the November election, but votes to begin the hiring search for a registrar.

February, 2007: Council votes 33-9 to set up the oversight body, with Marilyn Abraham hired later that month as registrar.

July, 2007: Council slashes her $711,000 annual budget almost in half, forcing a delay in the proposed August start-up date.

December, 2007: Council reinstates her budget.

February, 2008: Registry opens.

Mother Jones, James Ridgeway, 11/4/2008

NEWS: Meet the private security firm that spied on Greenpeace and other environmental outfits for corporate clients. A tale of intrigue, infiltration, and dumpster-diving.

A private security company organized and managed by former Secret Service officers spied on Greenpeace and other environmental organizations from the late 1990s through at least 2000, pilfering documents from trash bins, attempting to plant undercover operatives within groups, casing offices, collecting phone records of activists, and penetrating confidential meetings. According to company documents provided to Mother Jones by a former investor in the firm, this security outfit collected confidential internal records—donor lists, detailed financial statements, the Social Security numbers of staff members, strategy memos—from these organizations and produced intelligence reports for public relations firms and major corporations involved in environmental controversies.

In addition to focusing on environmentalists, the firm, Beckett Brown International (later called S2i), provided a range of services to a host of clients. According to its billing records, BBI engaged in "intelligence collection" for Allied Waste; it conducted background checks and performed due diligence for the Carlyle Group, the Washington-based investment firm; it provided "protective services" for the National Rifle Association; it handled "crisis management" for the Gallo wine company and for Pirelli; it made sure that the Louis Dreyfus Group, the commodities firm, was not being bugged; it engaged in "information collection" for Wal-Mart; it conducted background checks for Patricia Duff, a Democratic Party fundraiser then involved in a divorce with billionaire Ronald Perelman; and for Mary Kay, BBI mounted "surveillance," and vetted Gayle Gaston, a top executive at the cosmetics company (and mother of actress Robin Wright Penn), retaining an expert to conduct a psychological assessment of her. Also listed as clients in BBI records: Halliburton and Monsanto.

BBI, which was headquartered in Easton, Maryland, on the eastern shore of the Chesapeake Bay, worked extensively, according to billing records, for public-relations companies, including Ketchum, Nichols-Dezenhall Communications, and Mongoven, Biscoe & Duchin. At the time, these PR outfits were servicing corporate clients fighting environmental organizations opposed to their products or actions. Ketchum, for example, was working for Dow Chemical and Kraft Foods; Nichols-Dezenhall, according to BBI records, was working with Condea Vista, a chemical manufacturing firm that in 1994 leaked up to 47 million pounds of ethylene dichloride, a suspected carcinogen, into the Calcasieu River in Louisiana.

Like other firms specializing in snooping, Beckett Brown turned to garbage swiping as a key tactic. BBI officials and contractors routinely conducted what the firm referred to as "D-line" operations, in which its operatives would seek access to the trash of a target, with the hope of finding useful documents. One midnight raid targeted Greenpeace. One BBI document lists the addresses of several other environmental groups as "possible sites" for operations: the National Environmental Trust, the Center for Food Safety, Environmental Media Services, the Environmental Working Group, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, and the Center for Health, Environment and Justice, an organization run by Lois Gibbs, famous for exposing the toxic dangers of New York's Love Canal. For its rubbish-rifling operations, BBI employed a police officer in the District of Columbia and a former member of the Maryland state police.

Beckett Brown's efforts to penetrate environmental groups and other targets came to an end when the business essentially dissolved in 2001 amid infighting between the principals. But the firm's officials went on to work in other security firms that remain active today.

Beckett Brown International began when John C. Dodd III met Richard Beckett at a bar in Easton in 1994. Dodd had recently become a millionaire after his father had sold an Anheuser-Busch beer distributorship on Maryland's eastern shore. Beckett ran a local executive recruiting and consulting business. Soon after they met, according to Dodd, Beckett introduced him to Paul Rakowski, a recently retired Secret Service agent, who had put in two decades protecting presidents and foreign heads of state and had become regional manager of the agency's financial crimes division. Rakowski told Dodd he had an idea for a new security business.

Dodd subsequently received a fax of a business plan for the new company. The sender's address at the top of the fax, according to Dodd, read: "11/02/94 USSS Financial Crimes Division/Forgery"—which suggested it had come from a Secret Service office. But Dodd was reluctant to put in the start-up money for the enterprise, because he didn't know who all the partners were. To impress him, Dodd says, Rakowski and his former Secret Service colleagues began taking him and his friends on special tours of the White House. "This wasn't a White House tour conducted by tour guides," he says. "They would take us…to areas that said 'Do not pass this line.'"

At one point, Dodd says, a senior Secret Service agent named Joseph Masonis arranged for him to tour a Secret Service facility. "To encourage me to invest in this company," Dodd notes, "they all said 'why not go up to technical security headquarters [of the Secret Service] and you will get an exclusive tour.'…They showed me everything....They were worried about someone flying way up high in a plane, miles from the White House, jumping out of a plane, skydiving, popping the chute and getting on the White House grounds without anybody knowing it. They were working on the technology to pick that up." Dodd says he was blown away by what he saw. (Masonis says, "I have never taken Mr. Dodd to any facility in D.C.") And at a waterfront party, Dodd says, he was introduced to and deeply impressed by George Ferris, another Secret Service officer and an expert in demolitions.

Eventually, Dodd says, he agreed to be the sole investor of the new firm, and he put up $170,000, the first of what would be several loans at 15 percent interest. (His investment in the firm, Dodd estimates, would grow to a total of $700,000.) The company was officially launched in August 1995, named after Beckett and Sam Brown, a lawyer who helped get it started. Rakowski, Masonis, and Ferris were officials in the firm.

Business was good. In early 1997, Beckett Brown provided security services for Bill Clinton's second inauguration, landing a contract worth nearly $300,000. Early clients also included Phillip Morris, Mary Kay, Browning-Ferris Industries, and Nichols-Dezenhall, a Washington-based firm founded in 1987 by Nick Nichols and Eric Dezenhall that specialized in crisis communications, particularly for corporations involved in biotechnology, product safety, and environmental controversies. BBI provided protection for retired General Norman Schwarzkopf, Dodd says, and there was talk it might also get a job to guard the Rolling Stones.

The New Zealand Herald, Claire Trevett, 12/4/2008

Act leader Rodney Hide says it must only be a matter of time before New Zealand MPs have to open their books to taxpayers in a similar way to their British counterparts.

Last week, UK residents discovered their taxes paid for Tony Blair's dishwasher and Gordon Brown's Sky subscription. The MPs' expenses were released, despite a three-year battle by the House of Commons, after the Information Commissioner ruled it was in the public interest.

However, different laws and a lack of political will make it unlikely our own MPs' expenses will be on display any time soon.

In the UK, the Freedom of Information Act covers the House of Commons and House of Lords. However, in New Zealand details of what MPs spend taxpayer money on remains tightly under lock and key because the Parliamentary Service - which administers individual MPs' accommodation, travel and office allowances - is exempt from the Official Information Act.

Ministerial Services are covered by the OIA, opening Crown ministers to scrutiny.

Center for Media and Democracy, 9/4/2008

Junk mail kills trees, clogs mailboxes, packs landfills, wastes natural resources, and everyone would be glad to be rid of it. Right?

Well, maybe not.

Whether out of environmental concern or sheer annoyance, legislated efforts to reduce junk mail are on the rise, but companies that have vested interests in its continuance have started organizing to save it--in a big way. Of course, they don't call it junk mail. Their preferred euphemisms are "advertising mail," "direct mail" or even "standard mail."

Industry Ramps Up Efforts to Preserve Junk Mail

A little-noticed, April 2008 press release from an organization called the National Association of Printing Leadership (NAPL) announced that it had awarded its 2008 "Technical Leadership Award" to Benjamin Y. Cooper for his work as "a dedicated champion and eloquent spokesman for the print media." Sounds innocent enough, but who exactly is Cooper, and what did he do to merit this award?

Cooper is a principal in the Washington, D.C.-based lobbying firm Williams & Jensen, who for almost three decades has been the chief lobbyist for the U.S. printing industry. He also heads Mail Moves America (MMA), a pro-junk mail front group that works to prevent the passage of "Do Not Mail" laws that would give consumers a way to opt out of receiving junk mail, similar to the way "Do Not Call" lists have helped people end unwanted telemarketing calls. Formed in 2007, MMA is the creation of the Direct Marketing Association (DMA), a trade association for companies and industries that profit from the creation and sending of junk mail, like printers, advertisers, paper manufacturers and paper catalogue retailers.

On its web site, MMA says "Do Not Mail" laws would be "bad public policy." It dismisses the accusation that junk mail destroys trees as "a myth," saying simply, "Direct mail is not trees, it is printed communication." In a July 10, 2007 press release, DMA President & CEO John A. Greco, Jr. called state bills to set up "Do Not Mail" lists "misguided legislation" that is "being driven by environmental, privacy, and consumer groups who often distort the facts in their efforts to eliminate advertising mail to consumers." Greco said MMA responds aggressively to Do Not Mail list initiatives with "convincing information about the consumer benefits of advertising mail."

U.S. Postal Service: Using Third Party Technique to Preserve Junk Mail?

The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) is another player with a vested interest in the junk mail issue. It derives a substantial portion of its revenues from bulk mailers, so giving people the ability to opt out from receiving junk mail would threaten its budget. The Postal Service is prohibited from lobbying Congress on its own behalf, so it cannot directly oppose “Do Not Mail” legislation. According to the Washington Post, however, the USPS is "working closely with the Direct Marketing Association ... in its new campaign -- Mail Moves America -- which is designed to quash the Do Not Mail initiatives." Thus, even our trusted post office is not beyond using the third party technique to achieve a business goal.

A related pro junk-mail effort is a new web site called IP Moves the Mail, started by the International Paper Company. International Paper is a multinational corporation with offices around the world, and as a paper manufacturer, it stands to lose business if laws are enacted that reduce the quantity of paper being dropped into mailboxes. "IP Moves the Mail" therefore facilitates pro-junk mail activism, urging visitors to contact their legislators and oppose passage of "Do Not Mail" bills.

Most people don't like the mounting number of unsolicited ads that arrive in their mail and would be happy to have a way to be rid of them. In a world of diminishing resources, junk mail consumes tremendous amounts of dwindling resources, most of which ends up as trash. At a time when people are increasingly using electronic communication, is it right or sensible to give credence to a fight to preserve what might be an anachronistic industry whose time might be naturally winding down anyway? Would it be so bad to create a way for only those consumers who want paper junk mail to be the ones to receive it? Despite the junk mail industry's "sky-is-falling" attitude, legislation allowing consumers to block unwanted mail probably wouldn't end the world. "Do Not Mail" bills, in addition to saving increasingly precious natural resources, just might give people some peace until advertisers start finding more ingenious and less harmful ways to put their ads under our noses.

The Globe and Mail, Jennifer lewington, 10/4/2008

Toronto's new lobbyist registry is working well despite a "little bit of a breaking-in period," Mayor David Miller said yesterday, as some councillors argued for an early review of the office.

His comments came one day after lobbyist registrar Marilyn Abraham announced she is leaving her post early, after only 14 months on the job and two months after the launch of a mandatory system to record who talks to whom at city hall.

"She has done a commendable job in establishing the first lobbyist registry for a city in this country," Mr. Miller said.

Early next month, Ms. Abraham expects to report to council's executive committee on "tweaking" to simplify rules on planning applications, grassroots lobbying and enforcement.

The Guardian, Roy Greenslade, 9/4/2008

The New York Times, 8/4/2008

There have been all-expense paid trips to Colombia for more than 50 members of Congress, featuring coffee tastings and dinner at a posh restaurant inside an old Spanish fort. The Colombian president has visited Washington to make personal appeals. Major corporations like WalMart and Citigroup are taking up the cause. And former Clinton administration officials have landed lucrative lobbying contracts.

This barrage of activity is over the trade pact that cost Mark Penn, a top adviser to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, his job over the weekend. Mr. Penn had been working for a presidential primary candidate opposed to the trade deal with Colombia, while also running a public relations firm hired by the Colombian government to promote it.

The debate has been quietly brewing ever since the Bush administration finished negotiating the pact to ease trade restrictions in late 2006. Human rights groups and labor leaders have urged Congress to put off considering the deal or to reject it outright, citing paramilitary violence against labor activists in Colombia.

The behind-the- scenes dispute has now escalated to a classic Washington boil in recent weeks after President Bush, growing impatient with Democrats on Capitol Hill, decided to send the agreement to Congress anyway, an action he announced formally on Monday.

“The need for this agreement is too urgent — the stakes for our national security are too high — to allow this year to end without a vote,” Mr. Bush said.

He and others cited the need to support Colombia, which does $18 billion of trade with the United States annually and is battling leftist rebels that Colombian officials assert have received financing from the Venezuelan government.

To help make its case, Colombia had already hired at least three firms on Capitol Hill, in addition to the work by Mr. Penn’s firm, Burson-Marsteller, paying out from $15,000 to $40,000 a month. Collectively the Colombian government has paid more than $1 million to firms that have negotiated or lobbied on behalf of the deal.

They include the Glover Park Group, the fast-growing firm set up by former Clinton White House aides including Joe Lockhart, who was chief spokesman for the president. (Howard Wolfson, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign communications director, was a partner at the firm but has taken a leave of absence.)

The firm has approached more than a dozen members of Congress, focusing on moderate Democrats who the lobbyists believe might be persuaded to disregard their party leaders and vote in favor of the deal.

Lobbyists at Johnson, Madigan, Peck, Boland & Stewart — whose partners include another former aide in the Clinton White House, Bill Danvers — have separately met with pro-business Democrats like Representative Joseph Crowley of New York. And Andrew Samet, a deputy secretary of labor in the Clinton administration, has been hired under yet another lobbying contract.

Mr. Penn got into trouble last week after he attended a meeting with Colombia government officials, as they prepared for the move by Mr. Bush to force a debate in Congress. His firm had been representing the Colombian government since last April, helping it promote the deal with news media, among other tasks.

But Mr. Penn, a strategist and pollster, ended up getting blasted by both sides. The Colombian government canceled the contract with his firm after he called the meeting an “error in judgment.” Mr. Penn then stepped down from his campaign post after Mrs. Clinton was criticized for having a close adviser lobbying for a pact she opposed. Mr. Penn’s advocacy was particularly awkward because Mrs. Clinton increasingly has taken a stance opposing free trade during her campaign.

The ties between the lobbying firms and the Clinton campaign illustrate the complexity of Washington’s political world, where players are often switching positions or playing multiple roles. While Mr. Wolfson has taken a leave from Glover Park, for example, he still has equity in the firm valued at $500,000 to $1 million, according to a disclosure form.

A long list of former Clinton administration aides, including Mack McLarty, the former counsel to the president; Donna E. Shalala, the health and human services secretary; and Leon E. Panetta, the onetime chief of staff, also have come out in support of the deal. It puts them in alliance with Mr. Bush and Republican leaders.

Besides the Colombian government, the Bush administration has perhaps been the most forceful player in the fight, holding more than 400 meetings or telephone conference calls with officials on Capitol Hill to push the deal, the president said Monday. It has also paid most of the cost of the Congressional delegations, although an administration spokesman said on Monday that he could not estimate what the tab