Author of ‘Extortion’ Book Draws Heat From Boehner’s Office

Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) pumps his fist after leaving a meeting of House Republicans at the U.S. Capitol October 16, 2013.
National Journal
Billy House
See more stories about...
Billy House
Oct. 23, 2013, 4:26 p.m.

A new book that ar­gues politi­cians in Wash­ing­ton man­u­fac­ture crises and ma­nip­u­late vote schedul­ing and oth­er le­gis­lat­ive activ­ity as part of a Mafia-like “pro­tec­tion rack­et” to ex­tort cam­paign dona­tions is draw­ing at­ten­tion from such di­ver­gent corners as The New York Times and Sarah Pal­in.

But the book, Ex­tor­tion: How Politi­cians Ex­tract Your Money, Buy Votes and Line Their Own Pock­ets, is pre­dict­ably not draw­ing rave re­views from House Speak­er John Boehner, whose of­fice is lash­ing out at au­thor Peter Sch­weizer, a fel­low at the con­ser­vat­ive Hoover In­sti­tu­tion and an ed­it­or-at-large at Breit­bart.

“He should prob­ably read ‘Con­gress for Dum­mies’ be­fore he starts mak­ing bogus and sa­la­cious claims to sell books,” Boehner spokes­man Brendan Buck said in a state­ment.

Sch­weizer, in an in­ter­view on Wed­nes­day, said he’d not yet heard dir­ectly from Boehner’s of­fice. But he ex­pec­ted blow­back, giv­en his as­ser­tions.

Sch­weizer ad­vances a nov­el ar­gu­ment: Rather than spe­cial-in­terest money in Wash­ing­ton be­ing funneled to politi­cians in or­der to gain ac­cess and fa­vor, politi­cians run gov­ern­ment in ways de­signed to ex­tract spe­cial-in­terest money from vari­ous con­stitu­en­cies. He also says that the no­tion that Wash­ing­ton dys­func­tion is a product of par­tis­an­ship and ideo­lo­gic­al en­trench­ment can be looked at in a dif­fer­ent light: that grid­lock, le­gis­lat­ive threats, and fear of un­cer­tainty help prime the dona­tion pump.

“It’s one of the old­est and most ef­fect­ive forms of ex­tor­tion: the pro­tec­tion rack­et,” he writes in one chapter. “Pay me money and I will prom­ise not to make your life miser­able. Fail to pay and bad things will hap­pen to you.”

Sch­weizer writes that that has been the “bread and but­ter” of or­gan­ized crime for cen­tur­ies, but that “the Per­man­ent Polit­ic­al Class in Wash­ing­ton plays the pro­tec­tion rack­et, too. Fail­ure to pay will not get you killed — but it could kill your busi­ness.”

To make his case, Sch­weizer de­scribes vari­ous man­euvers in which he ar­gues politi­cians en­gage in a form of leg­al ex­tor­tion to ex­tract cam­paign con­tri­bu­tions from busi­ness or oth­er spe­cial in­terests. His book throws out col­or­ful terms for these man­euvers, such as “toll-booth” re­quire­ments, “milk­er bills,” “double-milk­er bill,” and “juicer bills.”

“Twenty-sev­en states’ le­gis­latures have put re­stric­tions on al­low­ing state politi­cians to re­ceive con­tri­bu­tions while the le­gis­lature is still in ses­sion,” said Sch­weizer, who sug­gests the same types of re­stric­tions should be con­sidered for Con­gress.

In one case, Sch­weizer points to what he calls the “toll­booth” man­euver. In the in­ter­view, he said he first head of that phrase from a mem­ber of the “busi­ness com­munity,” who used it to de­scribe con­tri­bu­tions he had to pay be­fore get­ting floor ac­tion on a tax-ex­tender. Sch­weizer said that led him to ex­plore fur­ther.

In his book, he de­picts Boehner as the mas­ter of the toll­booth, and fo­cuses in part on the events sur­round­ing a 2011 vote on the Wire­less Tax Fair­ness Act, a bill with wide­spread sup­port that sailed through com­mit­tee in Ju­ly of that year on a voice vote. Yet, Sch­weizer notes that the schedul­ing of a floor vote on the bill lingered un­til the fall.

Boehner even­tu­ally an­nounced a vote would be held on Nov. 1. Sch­weizer notes that the day be­fore the vote, 37 checks from wire­less-in­dustry ex­ec­ut­ives total­ing nearly $40,000 rolled in to his cam­paign, in­clud­ing 28 from ex­ec­ut­ives at AT&T. The day of the vote, he writes, em­ploy­ees at Ve­r­i­zon, an­oth­er com­pany with a lot at stake in the bill, sent 28 checks to mem­bers of Con­gress.

“Checks don’t just ma­gic­ally ap­pear, and they don’t ar­rive by chance,” he writes, adding, “When cor­por­ate ex­ec­ut­ives make dona­tions on the same day at the same time, es­pe­cially when a large group of them do “¦ it is likely there has been an or­gan­ized so­li­cit­a­tion.”

Of­fi­cially, the ma­jor­ity lead­er sets the votes on the House floor, not the speak­er, al­though typ­ic­ally the lead­er­ship team works to­geth­er on such de­cisions. One House aide, in re­spond­ing to this part of the book about the Wire­less Tax Fair­ness Act, notes that it was not con­tro­ver­sial and passed without even a re­cor­ded vote. The wait after com­mit­tee ac­tion, the aide said, was less than two months, if the Au­gust re­cess is taken in­to con­sid­er­a­tion.

The book also iden­ti­fies oth­er bills for which Sch­weizer says votes ap­pear to be delayed, only to see even­tu­al floor ac­tion ac­com­pan­ied in by a flurry of con­tri­bu­tions by in­di­vidu­als or busi­nesses with in­terests in the le­gis­la­tion.

But Buck de­nounced the en­tire no­tion. “The idea that floor votes are sched­uled based on cam­paign dona­tions is ab­surd,” he said, adding that some of the bills cited ac­tu­ally saw a short peri­od of time between com­mit­tee ac­tion and floor con­sid­er­a­tion — less than a week in one in­stance — and that that could not pos­sibly be called a delay.

The book goes on to de­scribe “milk­er” bills as those that al­low a politi­cian to “squeeze” an in­dustry or spe­cial in­terest for dona­tions out of simple fear a bill might pass. He notes that, “in Wash­ing­ton, it is far more im­port­ant to be feared than loved” and that the “Per­man­ent Polit­ic­al Class” op­er­ates that way.

He also writes that the best of these bills al­low two sides to be so­li­cited at the same time, “one on each side of the is­sue.”

Sch­weizer al­leges that Pres­id­ent Obama and Vice Pres­id­ent Joe Biden seemed to use the tac­tic in 2011 in con­nec­tion with two bills: the Stop On­line Pir­acy Act and the Pre­vent­ing Real On­line Threats to Eco­nom­ic Cre­ativ­ity and Theft of In­tel­lec­tu­al Prop­erty Act. By pit­ting sup­port­ers in Sil­ic­on Val­ley, who op­posed the bills, against those in Hol­ly­wood, who sup­por­ted the meas­ures, Sch­weizer sug­gests they were able to cre­ate a sort of fund-rais­ing arms race.

Sch­weizer’s books also dis­cusses the fun­drais­ing dues that ac­com­pany as­sign­ments on plum com­mit­tees, and how funds from so-called “lead­er­ship” polit­ic­al ac­tion com­mit­tees help to pur­chase law­maker’s loy­alty.

But some in Con­gress say the au­thor simply does not un­der­stand the le­gis­lat­ive pro­cess.

“This ‘ex­pert’ is ut­terly clue­less about the le­gis­lat­ive pro­cess and guilty of pathet­ic­ally sloppy re­search,” Buck said, adding, “This ‘ex­pert’ did not even both­er to con­tact our of­fice. If he had, we would have been happy to ex­plain the facts.”

While Boehner’s of­fice lashed out, The New York Times on Monday pub­lished an op-ed from Sch­weizer in which he out­lined many of the as­ser­tions found in his book. And on Wed­nes­day, an item on the pa­per’s “Ed­it­or­i­al Page Ed­it­ors Blog” re­it­er­ated how Sch­weizer’s book ar­gues that “politi­cians ran­ging from Speak­er John Boehner to Pres­id­ent Obama raise money by threat­en­ing to push pro­voc­at­ive le­gis­la­tion, then hold­ing back to see which in­terests con­trib­ute the most cash for or against the meas­ures.”

The blog post said the is­sue “can­not get enough pub­li­city, but the best news of all is that the book was writ­ten by a con­ser­vat­ive,” adding, “There’s no reas­on why re­du­cing the in­flu­ence of money should be a con­ser­vat­ive or a lib­er­al pro­ject.”

And an art­icle un­der Pal­in’s byline ap­pear­ing Monday on the Breit­bart site says of Sch­weizer’s find­ings, “Enough is enough. If the per­man­ent polit­ic­al class won’t drain the swamp, we will.”

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
25 minutes ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
25 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
25 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
25 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
1 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×