The Washington Post, Dan Froomkin, 3/4/2008

It's a case study in how the Bush administration intimidated the press after 9/11.

The publication of a new book by Eric Lichtblau, one of the two New York Times reporters who in late 2005 broke the story of the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program, is calling attention to how the White House successfully persuaded the Times to suppress its expose in the fall of 2004 -- when it might have had a profound effect on President Bush's reelection hopes.

In an interview with Terry Gross that aired yesterday on NPR, Lichtblau spoke about the paper's decision.

"Why didn't it run then?" Gross asked.

Lichtblau: "Well, this was obviously a decision made by the top editors at the paper, and I think it was a very tough one. I think you got to remember, these were somewhat different times for the media in 2004. We were only, at that point, a couple of years after 9/11. I'm not sure, in hindsight, there were many newspapers that would've gone ahead and published that story, given the intense, intense pressure and the claims that were made by the White House. Our reporting had shown a lot of things about the cracks in the program, about the concerns about the legal foundations. The White House was armed and ready to refute every single one of those with what, in hindsight, turned out to be, I believe, misstatements about how every lawyer at the Justice Department, for instance, had found this program to be legal. We certainly know that now in hindsight not to be true.

"But, you know, in 2004, those were difficult things for the newspaper to refute; and we had the White House, at the highest levels, insisting that this program would harm national security were we to write about it. And I think the concern from the editors--and I didn't necessarily agree, you know, I pushed for publication, I don't think that's any secret. The concern from the editors was would we be merely outing an operational program that was on a firm legal foundation, and they made the decision that we could not do that at that point."

But is there a happy ending here? Did the Times's decision to run the piece in 2005 -- even after a personal warning from Bush that it would be responsible for the next terrorist attack -- signify the end of a period of fear and intimidation?

In an excerpt from his new book " Bush's Law: The Remaking of American Justice" published in Slate last week, Lichtblau writes about the terrified, credulous environment in the nation's top newsrooms that lasted for several years after the 9/11 attacks that the White House was able to exploit. He writes that "a healthy, essential skepticism . . . was missing from much of the media's early reporting after 9/11, both at home in the administration's war on terror and abroad in the run-up to the war in Iraq."

The 2005 decision to publish the story, by contrast, reflected "the media's shifting attitudes toward matters of national security--from believing the government to believing it less," Lichtblau writes. But he also indicates that a major factor in that decision was that his co-author, James Risen, had announced that he was going to expose the program in his own book.

That announcement led to additional reporting, and by late 2005, Lichtblau wrote: "Our reporting brought into sharper focus what had already started to become clear a year earlier: The concerns about the program - in both its legal underpinnings and its operations - reached the highest levels of the Bush administration. There were deep concerns within the administration that the president had authorized what amounted to an illegal usurpation of power. The image of a united front we'd been presented a year earlier in meetings with the administration - with unflinching support for the program and its legality - was largely a façade. The administration, it seemed clear to me, had lied to us."

But as Lichtblau notes: "Jim and I had already learned about much of the internal angst within the administration over the legality of the NSA program at the outset of our reporting, more than a year earlier in the fall of 2004."

Times executive editor Bill Keller spoke at some length about his decision-making process in an interview with PBS's Frontline in 2006. He was asked if the changing times made him more comfortable publishing.

Keller: "I would say no. It wasn't so much a matter of the popularity of the president or his war on terror. But one thing that did change between 2004 and 2005 was . . . the concentration of executive power in the hands of the president. There had been a whole series of stories that had made that one of the fundamental questions of our time, and that added to the sense that the story that we published was important."

In his NPR interview, Lichtblau recounted how the White House pressure not to publish the story culminated in a December 2005 Oval Office meeting with Bush, Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Keller and several top Bush aides.

"[I]t was made clear in several meetings that, again, this was a program that was vital to national security and that if The New York Times outed this program we would be as responsible as anyone for the next terrorist attack. And I was not in on the meeting that President Bush held with our publisher, Arthur Sulzberger, but there have been published reports about that. And I've certainly heard about that from our own people, and that message was made crystal clear from Bush himself that The New York Times would be responsible. The metaphor that was used at one point to me was that The New York Times would be there at the table across from Congress next to the White House explaining how the next attack had happened."

Joe Hagan also wrote about the meeting in New York magazine in late 2006; and Keller described it in his Frontline interview.

In his NPR interview, Lichtblau also describes the White House's efforts to get him and the Times to spike another story -- this one in June 2006, disclosing that counterterrorism officials were using a vast international database to examine banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others.

Gross: "And the Bush administration sent Lee Hamilton from the 9/11 Commission to talk the Times out of running the story, and what happened?"

Lichtblau: "Well, what happened there was that Lee Hamilton made--I wouldn't even call it a half-hearted effort to stop publication because it was not really an effort at all. He proceeded to tell us that the White House had asked him to come talk to us, that from the limited amount he knew of the program he considered it valuable, but that he was concerned about some of the broader ramifications on executive power and at that the same time he was concerned about the secrecy with which this operated. And when we asked Lee Hamilton at this meeting, at which I was present, why the Times should not run the story about this financial surveillance program, he said, quite bluntly, `I'm not telling you not to run the story.' And I know that we were all quite stunned to hear him say that because this was the person the White House had sent for the very reason of getting us to not run the story.

"And what, for me made this even more remarkable was once the Times did decide to run that story, for the next several days we heard from the White House press people and also from some of its allies in the talking head circuit how even Lee Hamilton, even a Democrat had urged the Times not to publish this story and we defied the pleas of Lee Hamilton and others, which was just simply not true."

In another excerpt from his book, published in the New York Times on Sunday, Lichtblau wrote about the internal arguments that the White House so vehemently denied had taken place.

"The National Security Agency's eavesdropping program sparked heated legal concerns and silent protests inside the Bush administration within hours of its adoption in October 2001, according to current and former government officials.

"In making its case to Congress for broadened spy powers, the White House has emphasized the firm legal foundations of the program conducted after the Sept. 11 attacks."

Pamela Hess and Lara Jakes Jordan write for the Associated Press: "For at least 16 months after the Sept. 11 terror attacks in 2001, the Bush administration believed that the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures on U.S. soil didn't apply to its efforts to protect against terrorism.

"That view was expressed in a Justice Department legal memo dated Oct. 23, 2001. The administration on Wednesday stressed that it now disavows that view.

"The October 2001 memo was written at the request of the White House by John Yoo, then the deputy assistant attorney general, and addressed to Alberto Gonzales, the White House counsel at the time. The administration had asked the department for an opinion on the legality of potential responses to terrorist activity.

"The 37-page memo has not been released. Its existence was disclosed Tuesday in a footnote of a separate secret memo, dated March 14, 2003, released by the Pentagon in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union.

"'Our office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations,' the footnote states, referring to a document titled 'Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States.'

"Exactly what domestic military action was covered by the October memo is unclear. But federal documents indicate that the memo relates to the National Security Agency's Terrorist Surveillance Program, or TSP. . . .

"'The recent disclosures underscore the Bush administration's extraordinarily sweeping conception of executive power,' said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's National Security Project. 'The administration's lawyers believe the president should be permitted to violate statutory law, to violate international treaties and even to violate the Fourth Amendment inside the U.S. They believe that the president should be above the law.'

"'Each time one of these memos comes out you have to come up with a more extreme way to characterize it,' Jaffer said."

I coined it the Abu Ghraib Memo in yesterday's column.

David Johnston and Scott Shane write in today's New York Times: "A newly disclosed Justice Department legal memorandum, written in March 2003 and authorizing the military's use of extremely harsh interrogation techniques, offers what could be a revealing clue in an unsolved mystery: What responsibility did top Pentagon and Bush administration officials have for abuses committed by American troops at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and in Afghanistan; Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; and elsewhere?

"Some legal experts and advocates said Wednesday that the document, written the month that the United States invaded Iraq, adds to evidence that the abuse of prisoners in military custody may have involved signals from higher officials and not just irresponsible actions by low-level personnel. . . .

"Scott L. Silliman, head of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security at Duke University and a former Air Force lawyer, said he did not believe that the 2003 memorandum directly caused mistreatment. But Mr. Silliman added, 'The memo helped to build a culture that, in the absence of leadership from the highest ranks of the Pentagon, allowed the abuses at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.' . . .

"In an e-mail message, Mr. Yoo, now a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, rejected the idea that his memorandum helped create a culture for mistreatment.

"'The "culture of abuse" theory has no reliable evidence to support it,' Mr. Yoo wrote. He noted that several military investigations had found that what he called 'the appalling abuses' at Abu Ghraib were not authorized by any military policy."

Steven Aftergood blogs for the Project on Government Secrecy that "the document itself exemplifies the political abuse of classification authority. Though it was classified at the Secret level, nothing in the document could possibly pose a threat to national security, particularly since it is presented as an interpretation of law rather than an operational plan. Instead, it seems self-evident that the legal memorandum was classified not to protect national security but to evade unwanted public controversy.

"What is arguably worse is that for years there was no oversight mechanism, in Congress or elsewhere, that was capable of identifying and correcting this abuse of secrecy authority. (Had the ACLU not challenged the withholding of the document in court, it would undoubtedly remain inaccessible.) Consequently, one must assume similar abuses of classification are prevalent."

In a major and timely story in Vanity Fair, Phillipe Sands writes about the relationship between top Bush aides, the coercive interrogations at Guantanamo, and the abuse at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.

"The Bush administration has always taken refuge behind a 'trickle up' explanation. . . . This explanation is false. The origins lie in actions taken at the very highest levels of the administration -- by some of the most senior personal advisers to the president, the vice president, and the secretary of defense. At the heart of the matter stand several political appointees -- lawyers -- who, it can be argued, broke their ethical codes of conduct and took themselves into a zone of international criminality, where formal investigation is now a very real option."

The first victim of what most of us would call torture was Mohammed al-Qahtani, allegedly a member of the 9/11 conspiracy, and a prisoner at Guantanamo.

Writes Sands: "On September 25, [2004] as the process of elaborating new interrogation techniques reached a critical point, a delegation of the administration's most senior lawyers arrived at Guantanamo. The group included the president's lawyer, Alberto Gonzales . . . ; Vice President Cheney's lawyer, David Addington . . . ; the C.I.A.'s John Rizzo . . . ; and Jim Haynes, Rumsfeld's counsel. They were all well aware of al-Qahtani. 'They wanted to know what we were doing to get to this guy,' [the former military commander at Guantanamo, Major General Michael E. Dunlavey] told me, 'and Addington was interested in how we were managing it.' I asked what they had to say. 'They brought ideas with them which had been given from sources in D.C.,' Dunlavey said. . . .

"[Lieutenant Colonel Diane Beaver, the staff judge advocate at Guantanamo,] confirmed the account of the visit. Addington talked a great deal, and it was obvious to her that he was a 'very powerful man' and 'definitely the guy in charge,' with a booming voice and confident style. Gonzales was quiet. Haynes, a friend and protege of Addington's, seemed especially interested in the military commissions, which were to decide the fate of individual detainees. They met with the intelligence people and talked about new interrogation methods. They also witnessed some interrogations. Beaver spent time with the group. Talking about the episode even long afterward made her visibly anxious. Her hand tapped and she moved restlessly in her chair. She recalled the message they had received from the visitors: Do 'whatever needed to be done.' That was a green light from the very top -- the lawyers for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the C.I.A."

Dahlia Lithwick writes for Slate: "Someday, when we look back at the Bush administration's 'war on terror,' we'll be unable to point to the 'bad guys' because they will turn out to be a bunch of attorneys in starched white button-downs, using plausible-sounding legal analysis to beat precedent and statute and treatise from ploughshares into swords. And not one of them will be held to account."

Lithwick writes that "the Bush solution . . . seems to be to hire lawyers who don't believe in the law."

Sherly Gay Stolberg writes in the New York Times: "For a man who came into office as the nation's first M.B.A. president, Mr. Bush has sometimes seemed invisible during the housing and credit crunch. As the economy eclipses Iraq as the top issue on voters' minds, even some Republican allies of the president say Mr. Bush is being eclipsed and is in danger of looking out of touch. . . .

Stolberg also notes that "because the public has little faith in Mr. Bush, it may be tough for him to be the point man on the economy, even with a Harvard business degree. Just 25 percent of the public approves of the way Mr. Bush is handling the economy, a figure even lower than his overall job approval rating, a CBS News Poll in mid-March found."

So maybe he didn't know something we didn't know.

Terence Hunt writes for the Associated Press: "President Bush suffered a painful diplomatic setback Wednesday when NATO allies rebuffed his passionate pleas to put former Soviet republics Ukraine and Georgia on the path toward membership in the Western military alliance. . . .

"It was a sour outcome for Bush at his final NATO summit as he sought to polish his foreign policy legacy. Instead, he wound up sidetracked by opposition and splits among European allies. It was a result that was foreshadowed by public statements from France and Germany but Bush nevertheless put his prestige on the line and even made a stop in Ukraine on Monday to argue his case."

Steven Erlanger and Steven Lee Myers write in the New York Times: "Mr. Bush, entering his last NATO summit meeting as president, was described by the official as wanting to 'lay down a marker' for his legacy and not wanting to 'lose faith' with the Ukrainian and Georgian peoples and the other former Soviet republics. As Mr. Bush did more often early in his presidency, he expressed his views candidly despite warnings from allies that he was complicating efforts to find diplomatic solutions."

But at a dinner for NATO leaders last night, "the German and French position was supported by Italy, Hungary and the Benelux countries, a senior German official said. Mr. Bush was said to have accepted that his position was not going to prevail, and officials were asked to find some construction overnight that would encourage Ukraine and Georgia without asking them to enter a membership plan now."

Peter Baker writes for The Washington Post that Bush had more success in winning "support from NATO on Thursday for his plans to build a limited missile defense system in Eastern Europe." Bush also "finalized a separate agreement to station part of it in the Czech Republic.

"The twin developments represent significant advances for Bush's plans to establish a sophisticated new radar facility in the Czech Republic and station 10 interceptor missiles in Poland as a hedge against potential threats from Iran or other Middle East nations. They came just as Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has strongly fought the system, was arriving here to meet with NATO leaders. . . .

"'NATO is united in embracing missile defense as a strategic concept, embracing NATO's role and endorsing the U.S. system . . . as part of a comprehensive U.S.-NATO system possibly, possibly -- if the Russians agree -- involving them,' a senior Bush administration official told reporters on condition of anonymity. 'Not only is that progress, but that's a turnabout from 14 months ago.'"

David Brown write in The Washington Post: "The House of Representatives yesterday passed a five-year reauthorization of the Bush administration's global AIDS program, adding $20 billion to the $30 billion the president requested.

"The program, originally known by the acronym PEPFAR (President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief), provides money to treat people infected with HIV and to help support their families, as well as for a long list of activities aimed at preventing infection. . . .

"Unlike the original PEPFAR, the renewed global AIDS bill would not stipulate the percentage of prevention spending that must be used to promote abstinence, but abstinence and sexual faithfulness would remain important strategies."

Lisa DePaulo interviews Karl Rove for GQ.

DePaulo: "[W]hen people say, 'You've created this climate of fear--'"

Rove: "I laugh."

DePaulo: "You laugh?"

Rove: "Yeah. I laugh. Sure. How? What, exactly? I'm not apologetic about what this administration has done. It's protecting America. It has won important battles in a war that we as a nation better win or we will leave the future to our kids, a much darker and dangerous future."

Peter Baker blogs for The Washington Post that Bush "stumbled over his prepared text several times," during a speech in Romania yesterday. "The White House stenographers who record his every public remark were left to insert [sic] in the transcript left and right:

"'Welcoming them into the MATO [sic] -- into the Membership Action Plan would send a signal to their citizens that if they continue on the path to democracy and reform, they will be welcomed into the institutions of Europe.'

"'Afghanistan is the most daring and ambition [sic] mission in the history of NATO.'

"'Our alliance must maintain its resolve and finish the fight in NATO [sic].'"

Brock Keeling blogs at SFist: "Looking to honor the forty-third President of the United States of America, George W. Bush, the recently formed Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco is looking to change the name of the Oceanside Wastewater Treatment Facility. It seems the group would like to rename the SF Zoo adjacent facility to the 'George W Bush Sewage Plant.'"

Cartoon Watch

Tom Toles sees Bush in hell; Mike Keefe on Bush's cheerleading; Mike Luckovich on Bush's best friend.

The Washington Post, Lyndsey Layton, 4/4/2008

The Obsever,  Nick Kochan, 6/4/2008

An Amercian consultancy accused of bringing 'union-busting' tactics to Britain has been condemned for its 'unfortunate track record' by a government committee, but allowed to continue operating in this country.

The Burke Group, based in Malibu, California, advertises itself as a 'management consulting firm specialising in union avoidance and preventative industrial labor relations'. It is one of several US 'union-busting' consultants which has caused alarm at the TUC about the use of underhand methods to persuade British workers against joining unions.

A recent report for the TUC said union-busting is a multi-billion-dollar business in the US and consultants from firms such as the Burke Group have been so successful that, despite some 60 million Americans saying that they would like to join a union, membership currently stands at just 7.5 per cent of the US private sector workforce.

The report claimed that the tactics used by union-busters are designed to frighten and intimidate workers away from any union attempt to recruit them at work. Consultants hired by employers in the US warn the workforce that the union will start harassing them in their homes, risk their job security, and cause them a loss of earnings and benefits. Employees are also given company leaflets warning them that if they join the union they are likely to be permanently on strike.

The Burke Group has worked in the UK for eight years and been responsible for the exclusion of unions from a number of companies including Kettle Chips and T-Mobile. It is currently working for Cable & Wireless, the telecommunications company, which is seeking to thwart the efforts of the Communications Workers Union to win recognition for 370 field engineers.

Last week the wrangle came before the government's Central Arbitration Committee (CAC), a statutory body which rules on the recognition of trade unions. The panel of the CAC said in its report that 'it shares the union concern that the Burke Group has an unfortunate track record'.

But that CAC ruled that a ballot of the Cable & Wireless employees must be held to determine whether a majority endorses union recognition. The decision was a rebuttal of the union's requests for recognition without a ballot.

The panel says that the company is entitled by UK employment legislation to employ Burke, but the union can complain to the CAC if there are breaches of statute or code. George Rankin, an organising officer for the Communications Workers Union said, 'We will be watching the Burke Group very carefully. We have seen their tactics in the past.'

The union told the CAC, in its evidence, that the 'presence of the Burke Group made it difficult to establish an honest, high-trust relationship with the employer which was a prerequisite for the successful conduct of a ballot'.

According to the CAC report, Cable & Wireless saw the Burke Group's role as 'advising on the complexities of the CAC process, providing guidance on manager-led factual communications as well as to promote best practices'. Simon Broome, Cable & Wireless human resources director for operations, said: 'The unfortunate track record is the CAC's view, and relates to activity elsewhere. I don't see how it relates to Cable & Wireless.'

The consultants' presence came to employees' attention as early as last summer, shortly after the union made its bid for recognition at Cable & Wireless. A meeting to dissuade employees from voting for recognition was attended by two individuals who were not introduced to the employees or named. The same people subsequently conducted one-to-one interviews with staff, where they asked them about their views on unions and collective bargaining.

Paul Nowak of the TUC believes that 'there are many of these firms operating behind the scenes in disputes where we have no idea of their presence'. He said they regard the UK as a relatively untapped market. 'The more successes they obtain, the more employers will bring them in.'

The Burke Group was approached for comment but did not return calls.

The Toronto Star, Richard Brennan, 7/4/2008

Canadians are increasingly being kept in the dark by the federal government and its agencies on matters ranging from the war in Afghanistan to the most routine information, experts say.

Critics are alarmed at the growing trend to deny basic information that Canadians are entitled to, especially in the two years since the Conservative government came to power with a promise to be open and accountable.

Suzanne Legault, assistant federal information commissioner, says that government and its institutions have to "move from disclosing information on a need-to-know basis to disclosing information on the right-to-know basis."

Legault said the John Manley-led panel report into the Afghanistan mission "hit the nail on the head when it said the government has to understand that Canadians have an interest in what is going on in Afghanistan and various issues that the government is tackling."

"The government has to do a better job at disclosing information," she told the Star last week.

Former Ontario Liberal MPP Sean Conway, who spent 28 years in politics before leaving in 2003, said the simple truth is that Canadians have a right to know.

"It is one of the assumptions of a democratic society that its citizens are going to be provided with timely, relevant and understandable information," said Conway, a former cabinet minister and now special adviser at Queen's University.

Conway said when governments frustrate that flow of information "they are doing something quite destructive to one of the key pillars of democratic society."

During its more than two years in power, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government has often been criticized for being unnecessarily secretive.

Just recently, Harper's aides refused to confirm whether the Prime Minister talked with Mexican President Felipe Calderón. But Mexican officials released a page-long news release not only confirming the two leaders spoke but providing highlights of the topics they discussed.

Meanwhile, Legault said Canadian should not have to resort to using the Access to Information Act to get information that should be readily available.

"The Access to Information Act should only kick in as an exception. It should not be the norm," Legault said.

"The norm should be that we proactively disclose information."

Legault noted that complaints filed under the Access to Information Act have doubled in the past year, to 2,164 from 1,050. But she is quick to point out that 70 institutions, including the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, are now subject to the act, as a result of changes included in the Conservative's Accountability Act.

Legault said the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada is investigating additional layers of approval needed before information is released that are creeping into the process, as well as the routine applications for extensions.

Critics say the access to information act is also proving to be less and less useful.

National security and other exemptions are cited to deny the release of information. And even when Canadians are lucky enough to pierce the wall of secrecy, the information is either so heavily edited that it is virtually useless, or is so dated because of delays that it's no longer timely.

The Conservative government promised during the last election campaign that it would be more accountable and transparent in the wake of the Liberal sponsorship scandal.

Recent stories by The Canadian Press show the lengths the government or its agencies will go to restrict information.

The national wire service found that government refused to release information on compensation paid to Afghan civilians or their families for accidental deaths or injuries.

The Canadian Press' access to information request was returned almost entirely censored.

The agency also discovered through another access to information request that the RCMP is now refusing to release information on the use of Tasers that must be recorded each time an officer draws the electronic weapon.

The information – such as whether the person on whom the Taser was used was armed or injured – used to be released, but the national police force unilaterally decided to stop.

Taser report forms obtained under the Access to Information Act show the Mounties have used the weapons more than 4,000 times since introducing them seven years ago.

"In the last 15 years, as governments advertise great openness often through legislated mandate like freedom of information and other such policies, ... citizens get less information," Conway said.

On Parliament Hill, access to Harper and his cabinet has been so restricted that it's a standing joke among reporters. The Hill Times recently carried a story on how Harper goes to great lengths to avoid reporters by taking the freight elevator and slipping out the back door.

Harper runs a very tightly controlled government where MPs are expected to toe the line and where permission must be granted in many cases before they are allowed to talk to reporters.

Conway said he has been struck by Harper's reluctance to make himself available.

The Hill Times, Simon Doyle, 7/4/2008

In advance of high-stakes CRTC hearings this week that observers call the first major review of the cable and satellite television industry in roughly 10 years, lobbyists were busy last week doing "mock Q&As" and spending "endless" hours making final preparations.

"I think this is probably the biggest proceeding and the most important proceeding the commission has held for some time," Jay Thomson, vice-president of policy and regulatory at the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, told The Hill Times last week. "There's potentially a lot at stake here, depending on which way the Commission ends up going, with all of the different positions it has before it."

Lobbyists have been in strategy mode since last fall, when companies, lobby groups and interested parties made their written submissions to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. Last week they were making their final preparations for hearings that begin April 8, with Rogers Communications up first. Parties are preparing statements and answers, conducting mock Q&As, and refining their arguments and defences for questioning.

"A lot of the effort is on preparing, question and answer sessions, trying to figure out what issues the commission's going to be interested in, and where your arguments may be a little weak," a consultant close to the proceedings told The Hill Times. "A lot of it right now is focused on sort of mock Q&As and rehearsals."

Phil Lind, vice-chairman of Rogers Communications, told The Hill Times last week that he and senior officials have been holding "endless meetings" to prepare for the hearings.

"We just talk about these issues for days and weeks on end, trying to shape our position in front of the commission. It's weeks and weeks and weeks of preparation," he said. "We get people to act as adversaries and people to act as commissioners. They sit there and they grill us constantly." Mr. Lind added with a laugh: "Sometimes they ask really dumb questions."

Mr. Lind travelled to Ottawa last week with Rogers Communications officials Pam Dinsmore, vice-president of regulatory and broadband, and Jan Innes, vice-president of communications, to hold preparatory meetings and meet with media (including The Hill Times).

The CRTC has distributed a notice to industry that says the hearings will focus on what is the "appropriate distribution model" for video and put forward a regulatory model that "represents the minimum regulation necessary to achieve [the broadcasting system's] objectives."

One of the most contentious components of that model is a question the CRTC has put to stakeholders: "Is there a need for genre protection?" Genre protection is a component of the regulatory system that gives Canadian specialty channels, such as the Weather Network, the Food Network, or TSN, exclusive protection against competition from Canadian and foreign broadcasters, to help the channels compete.

A major question before the CRTC is whether it's still appropriate to offer genre protection against foreign competitors when the Canadian media landscape has been consolidating over the years. Lobbyists and company officials will weigh in before the CRTC commissioners on whether specialty channels need the protection to compete or whether the protection may have the opposite effect—and stifle competition.

Broadcasters and cable companies are divided on the issue, with broadcasters arguing that Canadian networks should be protected from American competition, and cable companies arguing that that the rules are preventing companies from meeting subscriber demand. Cable companies say they get requests for U.S. services such as the USA Network, the Tennis Channel, or VHI, and that blocking those services from entering Canada feeds the "grey market" of U.S. satellite signal theft.

"There's got to be more than one voice, and consumers insist on it. If we tell a customer we can only offer one Italian service, they say, 'Fine.' Then they just go down the street and get the grey market. Then the Canadian system gets nothing," Mr. Lind said.

Mr. Thomson, from the CAB, said that Canada's broadcasting system now represents a "success story" and that, with technological changes and advances in internet distribution, it's important that the broadcast system "build on, rather than dismantle, the success story that we have here." Mr. Thomson said the regulatory system should "ensure that Canadians can continue to access the wide range of programs and choices, both Canadian and non-Canadian, that they can now, and that no particular party, organization or sector comes to be in a position where they can determine the amount of choice that's available to Canadians."

The CAB will be appearing before the commission on April 10, and Mr. Thomson said the association is arguing that allowing foreign services such as HBO or ESPN into Canada would affect the Canadian television market because the networks here own the Canadian rights to shows broadcast on the American networks. He said that if foreign services are permitted in Canada they should have to add something new to Canadian programming without damaging those Canadian rights.

"The program rights have already been purchased by Canadian broadcasters, so even if for some reason those services were allowed in Canada, they wouldn't have the rights to show a good portion of their schedule here. What we'd end up having is a Swiss cheese service. That's not going to be very popular with anyone," Mr. Thomson said.

Submissions were made in advance of the hearings last year, and The Writers Guild of Canada, in its submission, argues in favour of genre protection, saying that it is necessary to protect Canadian services from American competition. The Canadian service Comedy Network should be protected from the U.S. Comedy Central, it says, whose "financial resources would allow it to dominate the market by prohibiting the licensing of non-Canadian services in the comedy genre."

The WGC points to YTV, Teletoon and Family as successful specialty channels. "Given the lack of children's programming on the conventional networks and particularly CTV and Global, it is essential to Canada's children and youth that genre exclusivity continues to support a strong children's programming industry," the submission says.

The Public Interest Advocacy Centre, in its submission, warns the CRTC of creating a regulatory system that may enhance business but not Canada's diversity of choices. "PIAC believes that the greatest threats to the health of the broadcasting system do not come from unnecessary regulation, but from a concentration of market players with scant competition and regulatory controls to shape a fairer customer relationship," its submission says.

Shaw Communications Inc. argues in its submission that the video broadcast landscape is seeing "unprecedented competition" and that the broadcasting system needs to "embrace the forces of competition" for it to "emerge and flourish." Consumer demand should be met with services such as HBO, ESPN, USA Network, Nickelodeon and Comedy Central available in Canada, Shaw argues.

Ms. Dinsmore told The Hill Times that a decision should come down from the CRTC sometime in the summer. "I think the commission definitely wants to come out of this hearing with a new framework for how the rules operate," she said.


CRTC to hear 'fee-for carriage' arguments

The CRTC is also going to hear from companies about another contentious issue called "fee-for-carriage," over which Rogers Communications is accusing CTV and Global of "crying poor" and needlessly thrusting onto the hearing agenda.

The hearings were originally scheduled for early February but were rescheduled due to introduction of the fee-for-carriage issue, which the CRTC has dealt with in the past, Ms. Dinsmore said. She added that Rogers would not be discussing the issue before the CRTC if it were not put on the agenda.

"The fee-for-carriage issue will be a big issue at the hearing because the broadcasters will make it a big issue," she said.

In a joint submission to the CRTC from CTVglobemedia and Canwest, the broadcasters proposed the collection of fees from cable and satellite companies for carrying over-the-air television signals that are free to the public. The submission says that cable and satellite companies are "flourishing" in their growth and subscribers and "should pay for the content that they use to operate their businesses."

The joint submission goes on to say: "It is fundamental to recognize that distributors have grown to this level of profitability in part by expropriating the signals of OTA [over-the-air] broadcasters, which have been the foundation of basic service since the inception of cable distribution in Canada."

Broadcasters have proposed fees for cable and satellite companies that Rogers argues would increase consumers' monthly bills by $10 to $14 per month. "Essentially the broadcasters are crying poor. They're saying we need more money," Ms. Innes told The Hill Times.

Mr. Lind said it will be an advantage for Rogers to go first at the hearings this week, but acknowledged that the company must try to counter fee-for-carriage arguments from Global and CTV before hearing from the companies.

"I think it's an advantage. We get to set the stage, and in that, we will set out what we think is the way to go," Mr. Lind said. "Fee for carriage is something that we'll attack alright, but it shouldn't interfere with the general thrust of this hearing, which was for greater deregulation, greater consumer choice."

Mr. Thomson said the CAB's members have varying positions on fee-for-carriage issue, so that its members will be making representations on the issue independently of the association.

"I think there's always a strong level of lobbying, if you want to call it that, that takes place, with people trying to get their positions out in the public before the regulator and decision makers, primarily so that they're understood," he said.
 

The Irish Times, Charlie Taylor, 7/4/2008

The Labour Party has issued new proposals for institutional reform which it claims would lead to a reduction in tribunals and help to restore confidence in politics.

Among the plans announced this afternoon are a new bill which would prohibit a TD or Senator from becoming a paid lobbyist, an amendment to the Freedom of Information (FOI) act and the establishment of an independent electoral commission.

Speaking at a press conference in Dublin this afternoon, Labour’s spokesperson on Constitutional Matters and Law Reform, Brendan Howlin, said that the proposed legislation would lead to greater transparency and give citizens greater access to information about themselves and the institutions which govern them.

If passed, the Labour’s party's Electoral Commission Bill would establish a new Electoral and Public Offices Commission that would become responsible for the electoral register, the running of national and local elections and for constituency reviews.

The legislation would also lead to voters using their PPS numbers to establish their true names and addresses in order to ensure that electoral registers are accurate and up-to-date.

An amendment to the Freedom of Information Act to amend the definition of a public body is also proposed to ensure that the act applies to organisations such as the Garda Síochána automatically. The Labour Party is also seeking to scrap charges for access to information under the act.

The Party is also seeking the introduction of a Registration of Lobbyists Bill which would introduce a system for the registration of paid lobbyists and the disclosure of their activities.

In addition to debarring TDs and Senators from being paid lobbyists, the bill would also restrict members of state boards and ministerial special advisors from becoming paid lobbyists for two years after leaving office.

Speaking this afternoon, the Labour Party’s deputy leader, Joan Burton, claimed that if such legislation had been in place in the past there wouldn’t have been the need for so many tribunals as there have been.

“Much of the matters which have given rise to the tribunals arose from lobbying accompanied in many cases by tons of money which was not publicly disclosed and which subsequently had to be excavated through long and expensive tribunals,” said Burton.

The proposals announced today form part of a major programme of institutional reform planned by the Labour Party. It said that it is currently preparing new Bills in a number of different areas. These include legislation covering whistleblowers, official secrets, ethics and judicial standards.

The Washington Post, David Wiessler, 6/4/2008

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's chief political strategist, Mark Penn, stepped aside on Sunday after news that he lobbied for a free trade treaty with Colombia that Clinton opposes.

A meeting between Penn and Colombia's U.S. ambassador over the trade deal posed political problems for the campaign of the New York senator, who is vying with Illinois Sen. Barack Obama to become the Democratic nominee in the November election.

"After the events of the last few days, Mark Penn has asked to give up his role as chief strategist of the Clinton campaign," the campaign manager, Maggie Williams, said in a statement.

Anxiety about free trade is widespread among the working-class voters Clinton and Obama are courting and both candidates oppose the deal with Colombia.

Penn apologized for the March 31 meeting with the Colombian envoy, which he said was held in his separate role as CEO of Burson-Marsteller Worldwide, a lobbying firm hired by Colombia to promote a U.S. trade deal with the South American country.

New Europe, Alexander Stubb, 7/4/2008

Brussels nowadays plays host to around 15,000 lobbyists from 2,500 organisations; there are law firms, think-tanks, international companies and non-governmental organisations. There are lobbyists for producers and consumers, industrialists and green campaigners. You name it and someone is bound to be lobbying here on its behalf.
For some people, the term “lobby” still has negative connotations. They think it’s a shady activity carried out in smoke-filled rooms. This image is unfair and outdated. Today, most lobbyists are experts in their field who professionally represent their clients’ interests. They are part of our modern pluralistic democracy, keeping MEPs informed on subjects they might otherwise lack adequate knowledge about.
In the majority of member states there are no detailed rules on lobbying at the parliamentary or governmental level. On the other hand, in the US a lobbyist needs to read a 577 page manual to get everything right. The EU is somewhere in between. The European Parliament has a voluntary register of lobbyists and the Commission is due to publish one this spring. The Commission wants the two institutions to share a common register in future.
However, keeping in mind the fundamental differences between the two institutions, the implications of a common register should be carefully considered.
There is also a debate on whether registration should become mandatory. This has implications for the types of penalty that could be imposed on transgressors. In the current voluntary system, the highest possible sanction is expulsion; anything else – fines, for example – would require a legal base to enforce. While there is scope to improve the way that regulations are supervised, the argument between voluntary and mandatory registration is rather academic. Credible lobbyists register anyway.
The Commission’s new register will also introduce rules on disclosing financial data. Professional consultancies and law firms will be required to declare the turnover linked to lobbying EU institutions, plus the relative weight of major clients. “In-house” lobbyists and trade associations will have to estimate the costs associated direct lobbying of EU institutions. NGOs and think-tanks will need to disclose their overall budgets and a breakdown of their main sources of funding. It is true that we need to clarify what financial information is really useful to help us balance our judgments, but we should avoid the misconception that money equals influence.
Personally, I feel that transparency is a two-way street: if we require greater transparency from lobbyists, then we – as legislators – should be more transparent as well. That is why I have proposed that each piece of EU legislation could include a footnote naming all the organisations whom the parliamentary rapporteur has listened to when preparing that law. Critics of the idea say it would be difficult, if not impossible, to decide which lobbyist had actually been heard. In addition sometimes valuable information is provided confidentially. These, too, are all subjects for discussion.
However, debate over practical questions should not mask the underlying principle that whatever method of regulation we adopt, it must apply equally to all. It does not matter if someone comes from Greenpeace or McDonald’s, a trade union or employers’ federation, a think-tank or a firm of lawyers; when they are trying to influence an MEP’s position on a piece of legislation, they are all lobbyists.
Lobby groups can be seen as equals in another sense too: not one of them can take political responsibility away from parliamentarians. It is we who have the democratic mandate to decide whose information will influence our decisions. Lobbying, when done properly, is an essential part of the parliamentary process in Europe: the more transparent the system, the better for European democracy.

The Nation, Aram Roston, 3/4/2008

With the invasion of Iraq still three years in the future, Ahmad Chalabi would step into the lobby of the modern granite office building at 1801 K Street in Washington--the heart of the nation's lobbying corridor. He would walk past the security guard and ride the elevator up to the ninth floor. The ride was, in some sense, one small vertical leg of Chalabi's journey back to Iraq. This particular way point was the office belonging to Black, Kelly, Scruggs & Healey (BKSH), one of the most powerful lobbying firms in the United States, owned by public relations powerhouse Burson-Marsteller.

No one could have guessed, back in 2000, what would come of Chalabi's efforts in Washington. Few people knew who "neoconservatives" were, and even those who did could not have grasped their remarkable affection for and loyalty to Chalabi, a shrewd Iraqi Arab from a family of Shiite bankers. No one could have predicted that Chalabi's group, the Iraqi National Congress (INC), would go on to push false stories about terror and weapons of mass destruction with such great success as the group campaigned against Saddam Hussein's quite sadistic regime. Nor, certainly, was it possible to foresee that the massive propaganda campaign run by Chalabi to encourage the United States to invade Iraq would be fully paid for with US taxpayer funds.

One thing people did know, even in 2000, was that Ahmad Chalabi, whose thickly accented English seemed only to enhance his charisma, had lots and lots of friends on Capitol Hill. Congress had passed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998, written largely to achieve Chalabi's vision for toppling Saddam. And every year Congress was earmarking money for him. But he had opponents, too, in the government: American diplomats who were skeptical of him, despite his charm and his claims of inside knowledge about Iraq. These Americans knew all about his murky past: a bank embezzlement conviction in absentia in the Kingdom of Jordan years earlier. They knew that the Central Intelligence Agency considered him a phony and a liability and, after working with him for years, had cut all ties with him.

Aljazeera.net, 6/4/2008

It is said to be the most powerful interest group in Washington DC - but what is the Israel lobby? And how exactly does it operate?

As the race to the White House heats up, there is one policy on which all the presidential candidates can agree - the US relationship with Israel.

Israel is the world's largest recipient of US aid, taking in roughly $3bn in direct assistance every year.

It is an aid relationship unlike any other in the world - and by far the most generous foreign aid programme ever between any two countries.

Yet for decades, the US has criticised Israel for its policy of building settlements on occupied Palestinian land.

Every president from Jimmy Carter to George Bush has warned Israel to put a halt to its settlement expansion - and yet the settlements continue to go up, and the aid money continues to pour in.

How could this be? Many have attributed it to the so-called Israel lobby - a powerful coalition of interest groups working to promote a pro-Israel agenda in Washington DC.

For Israel's friends on Capitol Hill it can mean tens - sometimes hundreds - of thousands of dollars worth of campaign contributions from political action committees.

For Israel's enemies? It can mean the end of a political career.

So just how powerful is the pro-Israel lobby in America, and where is US policy heading from here?

That is the question for this week's Frontline USA.

Watch part one of this episode of Frontline USA on YouTube

Watch part two of this episode of Frontline USA on YouTube

The Telegraph, Ben Leapman, 7/4/2008

A married couple, both Labour MPs, claimed almost £40,000 of household expenses in a year without submitting one receipt.

Alan and Ann Keen were paid the money from the public purse even though they gave no explanation of why they needed it.

The payout emerged as details of MPs' expenses were released to The Sunday Telegraph by the House of Commons three years after they were requested under freedom of information laws. The Speaker, Michael Martin, will go to the High Court to challenge a tribunal ruling that further disclosures should be made.

The money paid to the Keens came from the additional cost allowance (ACA), which is intended to help MPs meet the cost of maintaining a second home. The Keens have two homes: a flat in central London and a constituency home nine miles away in the west London commuter belt.

While other MPs submitted detailed accounts of how they spent their ACAs, the Keens, who have been branded "Mr and Mrs Expenses", each put in monthly claims for £1,640, a figure calculated as one-twelfth of the annual permitted total, without stating what the money was for. Each received the maximum payout of £19,681.75 during 2002/3 - a total of £39,363.50 between them.

The Independent, 6/4/2008

"There is a difference between private and secret." So said Ken Livingstone when he told journalists last week – to pre-empt the disclosure by a Sunday newspaper – that he was the father of five children by three women. The Mayor of London is absolutely right, and makes an important distinction that ought to guide our judgement of the standards of conduct in public life.

The Speaker and the Prime Minister tried to use the privacy argument in their doomed attempt to prevent full disclosure of MPs' expenses. Twelve days ago, the House of Commons Commission decided, at the last minute and against its previous legal advice, to appeal against a ruling by the Information Tribunal that details of expenses should be published. That decision – a decision that will cost the public purse thousands in legal fees – was taken at a meeting of the commission called at short notice and attended by two members: Michael Martin, the Speaker, and Harriet Harman, the Leader of the House. It is inconceivable, therefore, that they were acting without the knowledge and approval of Gordon Brown.

It was one of the Prime Minister's poorer judgements, not least because it looks like an attempt to delay the inevitable. More water started to pour over another part of the dyke last week, with the publication of expenses claimed by 11 MPs and one former MP three and five years ago, as a result of separate Freedom of Information requests. Yet the Commons authorities continue their High Court appeal to try to prevent the publication of all expenses at a greater level of detail, item by item.

Initially, their argument against full disclosure was that it would lead to the addresses of MPs' second homes being made public – in other words, information that is private and therefore secret. Unsurprisingly, it is not an argument that survived for long. It would be perfectly possible to publish information about MPs' expenses with the addresses removed. So the argument shifted. The legal grounds for the appeal are that MPs claimed their expenses on the understanding that the information would be confidential. "MPs did not have a reasonable expectation it would be published," claims the document filed by the commission with the High Court.

This is a weak argument. The presumption of Labour's Freedom of Information law is that things should be made public unless there are specific reasons not to do so. It ought to be an elementary principle that elected representatives are accountable to their voters for their use of public money. Yet, at every turn, the House of Commons has given the impression of resisting it – and Mr Brown has shown a depressing lack of leadership. Last May, the month before he became Prime Minister, several allies, including Ed Balls, Nick Brown, Doug Henderson, John McFall and Tom Watson, voted for a Private Member's Bill brought in by David Maclean, the Tory former chief whip, to exempt Parliament from the Freedom of Information Act. This shabby Bill was killed only when it failed to find a single member of the Lords to support it.

Of course, many MPs feel the scrutiny they already attract is intrusive and unfair. It sometimes is. But they would be on stronger ground if they willingly accepted they were publicly accountable for every penny of taxpayers' money they spend – and then invited the media to observe the proper distinctions between the secret, the private and the public.

It is also true that an MP's salary, £62,000, might be modest compared with many professions. But it is not the only factor in attracting high-calibre entrants to the profession of politics: theirs is a calling that offers opportunities for both public service and personal glory. In any case, it would be difficult to secure public support for higher pay – and it is counterproductive, having failed to do so, for MPs to take the money out of the public till when they think the voters are looking the other way.

The time has surely come for MPs to accept the principle of full disclosure. The Derek Conway affair shone a harsh light on an undergrowth of indefensible practices. In what other walk of life could one claim £400 in "expenses" without producing a receipt? When that was exposed to sunlight, the Commons authorities reluctantly cut the figure to £25; but why should any amount be payable without a receipt? To save on administration costs, say the authorities. Sorry, that will not wash any more.

MPs feel their second homes, dishwashers, Sky subscriptions and groceries are private. They are wrong. Ken Livingstone is right. Their children are private – unless they employ them as researchers. Their sexual partners are private – unless they show them favouritism in the public sphere. But what they do with public money is not private, and it should not be secret.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 2/4/2008

Special Minister of State John Faulkner has ruled out allowing disgraced Labor powerbroker Brian Burke to register as a lobbyist on the federal government's proposed list.

Senator Faulkner has released a draft code of conduct for lobbyists - industry and special industry group representatives who work behind the scenes to influence government policy.

And while Mr Burke - a convicted fraudster and former West Australian prime minister - could technically qualify for listing, Senator Faulkner said there was no way any application from him would be approved.

"Would Brian Burke be allowed on the register of lobbyists? No. End of story," Senator Faulkner said.

Most Labor MPs are banned from having any contact with Mr Burke, who works as a lobbyist in WA and whose connections with state and federal politicians have ended several promising careers.

Under the draft guidelines released, lobbyists can be included on the register as long as they have never been sentenced to a jail term of 30 months or more and have not been convicted of fraud or dishonesty offences in the past 10 years.

Burke has twice been found guilty of fraud or theft offences and has done two separate stints in jail.

Both were in the mid to late 1990s, falling outside the 10-year limit.

And while his 1997 sentence was for three years - over the 30-month condition - the conviction was quashed on appeal, technically allowing him to apply for registration.

Under the proposed guidelines, Senator Faulkner as cabinet secretary would have absolute discretion over who could be listed, and could also direct the register secretary to remove anyone from the list.

Opposition special minister of state spokesman Michael Ronaldson said that equated to "unfettered" power for the minister.

"There is no mention in this draft code about provisions for recourse or publication of any breach," Senator Ronaldson said.

Under the code, lobbyists will be forced to disclose their clients and the nature of their business on a register, to be available publicly on the department of prime minister and cabinet website.

They will have to update their details every three months and will have to identify themselves as lobbyists when they first approach a minister, parliamentary secretary or staffer.

Ministers and parliamentary secretaries who leave politics will be banned from lobbying in their former portfolio for 18 months.

Ministerial and departmental staff face a 12-month ban on lobbying.

There will be penalties for ministers, staffers and lobbyists who breach the code.

Senator Ronaldson described the proposed code as a reasonable first draft and broadly sensible, but he said it needed considerable redrafting before it could be considered a workable code.

He said the code did not mention unions, or conflicts of interest relating to spouses or close relatives, which could exempt Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's chief of staff David Epstein, whose wife is a senior lobbyist.

And he said staffers could be unfairly punished if they were blocked from using their expertise in a particular area.

"Whilst the provision ... for former ministers appears reasonable, the prohibition ... affecting current Labor ministerial staffers does not appear to take into account situations where they may lose their jobs under reshuffles or the like," Senator Ronaldson said.

But Senator Faulkner said the Liberals had no right to criticise the code.

"Senator Ronaldson has an absolute hide. There were no constraints or controls on lobbyists under the Liberals in the past 11-and-a-half years when they were in government," he said.

The Canberra Times, Jack Waterford, 5/4/2008

It rather looks as if the lobbyists have got to the Government over plans to regulate the activities of lobbyists. The exposure draft of a code of conduct for lobbyists issued by "Minister for Integrity" John Faulkner this week is the very model of a brightly coloured bitter-tasting medicine for a disease other than the one which brought the patient to the doctor.

Not that there was anything wrong with lobbyists approaching Government on the issue; they would have been generally speaking common sense, with advice and experience well worth listening to. Most professional lobbyists in this parish, whether freelancers for hire, paid and known advocates for particular causes, or people who occasionally give businessmen or interests good advice about having their voice heard in government, are decent and honourable people, whose conduct on their client's behalf will usually survive scrutiny. On one level, in short, there is no great need to regulate them.

But it is not so much the regulation of them that many members of the public want. It is the regulation of politicians, their minders, advisers and urgers, and even public servants and others whom they are seeking to influence. Only at the margins is the public worried about lobbyists bribing or blackmailing decision-makers, or trading favours, party donations or information though they would like to be reassured that if such things happened, there are mechanisms for exposing and punishing it.

The public concern which Faulkner ought to be addressing, and which his white paper does not is about the idea of special access and undue influence, about an uneven playing field in the battle of ideas, and about the public's not even knowing about who is blowing in the decision-maker's ear, let alone what is being said. All the more so when many crucial decisions are made in ministerial offices, rather than in the more process-oriented public service, and where ministers' offices are so consciously and protectively careless about a paper trail, documentation, or discussion about what the minister knew or was told, and by whom, and when.

Lobbyists are usually careful about facts, especially in written submissions. Not surprising given the experience of most lobbyists in practical and political government. But such presentations, interested or disinterested, may be as nothing compared with the undocumented and unrecorded assertions of someone with insider access to the minister, or a senior adviser, particularly when it is done after other advice is in, and not cross-checked or tested against the advice of others without the privileged, and late, access.

In many such cases, moreover, lobbyists will not even be directly involved. A good many of the best lobbyists do very little direct lobbying for their clients. Their first expertise is in their knowledge of how government works, and which levers are best pulled. Their second expertise is in knowing what sort of arguments are likely to work. And their third bit of expertise is in setting up a meeting between the client and the person likely to be most influential in making the decision. It will be the client making the representations, perhaps with materials prepared by the lobbyist, but not with the lobbyist present.

Likewise, a key type of service provided by many lobbying groups is what might be called the watching brief keeping a close eye on government for things which might affect the interests of a client. Relationships like that are not sought to be regulated by Faulkner perhaps they need not be, though, if they were, it might cast some light on decision-making. Likewise, he apparently sees no need whatever to regulate one-issue lobby groups such as the Australian Medical Association or the Australian Hotels Association; public interest groups or associations such as the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Lone Fathers or Animal Liberation; or people or businesses who lobby through "professional" groups such as lawyers and accountants. A number of big law and accountancy firms have "government relations" units that behave exactly like professional lobbyists, and there is no reason why they should be treated differently.

Any citizen or body of citizens and any business has a right to lobby government. There is nothing wrong with anyone listening to any representations made and, if they are sound enough, acting on them. Any efforts to regulate lobbying should not undercut such citizen access or right to be heard.

Regulation is needed to cope with the perception or the reality that there are those with special access, insiders whose knowledge of the players and the system gives them an unfair advantage. A good deal of private-enterprise Canberra indeed turns on that perception: its stock is information, intimate knowledge of processes and players, the way governments go about making decisions, capacity to intervene at early stages of processes, ability to track decisions, instincts for the sorts of arguments which work, and personal relationships which can ease access, including casual access, to key decision-makers.

Faulkner is sound in his instinct to use the draft code to reiterate new rules which would bar ex-politicians, staffers, senior military officers and top bureaucrats from trading on their "insiderness" for at least 12 months after leaving government. He is also right to exclude "open" representations such as making submissions to parliamentary committees, going to public meetings and responses to public calls for submissions.

As well, petitions and grass-roots campaigns, requests to government for information and communications about tenders are not covered.

What would be nice would be to have simple lists, available to the public, about all those who made representations and to whom. In cases where the representations were made through third parties, such lists should include the actual client. In my ideal legislation, there would be a running, online, list for each major decision of government. It would record all representations made by people with financial interests in the outcome and, briefly, who was seen and on whose behalf.

Archives legislation could be amended to reiterate the need for recording such contacts, and their substance. The point might be underlined for politicians, minders and public servants perhaps as much as lobbyists by the development of a tendency to regard unrecorded meetings as improper, perhaps suggesting corruption or a voidable decision.

Throw in a watchdog with teeth the secretary of PM&C is too loyal to the interests of whatever government to be such a beast and I think the "problem" could be filed away for a while.