October 31, 2003
NEWSFLASH--MAJOR CONSTRUCTION CORPORATIONS HAVE TIES TO GOP!:
Study finds cronyism in Iraq, Afghanistan contracts (Bryan Bender, 10/31/2003, Boston Globe)
Many of the companies that have received government contracts to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan have collectively contributed more money to President Bush's election campaigns than to any other candidate in more than a decade, according to a study released yesterday.In one of the most detailed studies of postwar contracts, the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit government watchdog, found that at least 70 companies have been awarded a total of $8 billion in contracts in the past two years.
While some of the contractors were previously known to have ties to White House officials -- such as Halliburton, formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney -- the group found several lesser-known firms that also are linked to senior government officials. One small company's sole employee is married to a deputy assistant secretary of defense, the study found.
Allegations of cronyism were quickly denied yesterday by government officials and company spokesmen. But the report raised new questions about whether political allies of the White House or Congress are being repaid for their support with lucrative, taxpayer-funded contracts. Most of the 70 contracts -- for tasks ranging from restoring electricity to rebuilding ports and schools -- were put out to bid, but some were not.
This report is done precisely backwards. The interesting question would be: Has any American company capable of doing large scale reconstruction work been shut out of Iraq and does it not contribute to the GOP? The point is that there are a few companies in the world capable of doing the kind of work a Halliburton does. Was the Administration supposed to award the contracts to companies incapable of fulfilling them? Posted by Orrin Judd at October 31, 2003 11:26 AM
The only major company I've seen with extensive operations in the United States that has not been mentioned in connection with Iraq is the world's largest oilfield service firm, Schlumberger.
Of course, since they're headquartered in Paris and have some close ties with the current government there, I really don't think the Democrats want to jump on this horse and try to ride the idea of pushing for more business for France to a 2004 election victory.
Posted by: John at October 31, 2003 12:17 PMJohn beat me to it - but I suspect that the American press, at least, would not object to French and German companies swooping into Iraq. Although some enterprising reporter could make a name for himself by unraveling the skeins of corruption between the French government and Total Fina Elf. Prof. Instapundit was writing about this 9 months ago, but I doubt if anyone is following the scent now.
Posted by: jim hamlen at October 31, 2003 12:21 PMTo expect anything resembling journalism to come from the Boston Globe is wildly optimistic.
If I ever see one mention of the fact that Brown-Root (The Haliburton susidiary that has the large contracts in question) was once one of LBJ's largest contributors I will probably faint. That fact (and the fact that B-R had some spectacular contracts during the Vietnam era) never seems to make it into the articles. Puzzling.
Posted by: RDB at October 31, 2003 12:22 PMJust for the record, corporations may not, directly or indirectly, contribute to political candidates. If Bender had found what he claims to have found, he would have a major story. Instead, he's just lying.
Posted by: David Cohen at October 31, 2003 1:11 PMDaniel Drezner claims that there's no story here if you actually look at the data rather than writing headlines.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at October 31, 2003 1:52 PMCalling it lying is too harsh. There are certain idioms used when discussing politics, and one is to say that companies "contribute" to candidates or parties when every (honest) commentator involved knows and understands that this is shorthand for saying that they've found and used all the various and legal ways to support such candidates. Which is why if these were improper contributions, the term used would be "illegal campaign contributions," which is a bit redundant.
The real problem is that every ~reform~* just breeds a new set of ways to work around it and acheive the same results as if the reform didn't exist. You'd think the ~reformers~ would learn by now, but nooooo.... These people would try to repeal the Laws of Motion if even they didn't realize it's not gonna happen. (Then again, a lot of their schemes do seem to be based an a desire to violate the Laws of Thermodynamics.)
*those are sneer quotes.
Raoul -- I think you are being overly nice.
Posted by: David Cohen at October 31, 2003 2:27 PMIsn't the real question whether enough minority firms were awarded contracts? ;)
Get Rev. Sharpton on the case!
Posted by: Jason Johnson at October 31, 2003 3:03 PMEconopundit had this up early AM.
Posted by: Sandy P. at October 31, 2003 8:08 PMMy guess is these companies believe in the 2 party system and contribute to both sides.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at November 1, 2003 9:56 PM