E!!

In re: to this, the always-on-the-ball Victor Joecks at NPRI dropped us a comment with a link to a 2003 National Review story about David Keene, the ACU, and political advocacy groups trying to moonlight as lobbyists. (See here for my earlier post on the current ACU dust-up due to a leaked letter from FedEx.)

It is a sobering piece, and has me thinking about whether people and/or organizations can “do” both effective issues advocacy and paid lobbying while still maintaining philosophical-political integrity.

I suppose it is possible, but it seems to me they are best kept separate and that people ought to make a choice.  The temptation to bend and accept lobby money on a “lesser” issue while (rationalizing that) you are still right on all the “core” issues can be great and should not be underestimated. As is often said at round-table meetings where political purity is challenged by the need for operating cash, “You can’t change the world if you can’t pay the rent.”

Unfortunately, once one accepts even a little money for not-quite pure reasons, one has begun to compromise, which makes it that much more likely that the next time a trade-off presents itself, one will do it again.  And again.

The next thing you know, you end up like David Keene and the ACU:  wealthy, powerful, and part of the problem with politics and public policy debates in this country.  You no longer consistently stand on principle, and everything is for sale.

God forbid I ever find myself there.

We must resist the alluring song of those enchanting twin sirens, Money and Power, or in the end suffer our good ship to veer off course or be smashed to pieces on the rocks. The siren song is beautiful; but its end is always death.

Since writing about the Fed Ex/UPS dust-up here and here - and taking a fair amount of heat for it (see the Comments) – I’ve occasionally been checking the web for new articles, columns, and updates. 

This morning, before I even checked my Google alerts, I saw a Corner post referring to this story on Politico.  It seems that FedEx has leaked letter from the American Conservative Union detailing the suggested terms for an expensive email campaign on FedEx’s behalf.  (Politico has all the cut-and-pastes from the letter.)

“Oops.”

Where to begin?

Before I lament the loss of integrity or rip the ACU for being so stupid as to detail a “pay for play” proposal in writing without a strict confidentiality clause, I don’t think David Keene would have sent such a letter without an invitation to do so.  I bet someone at FedEx asked for a proposal, thinking the ACU could be a natural ally in their anti-union fight.  Don’t have any facts to support that theory, but I’m guessing that’s what happened.

Obviously FedEx passed on the ACU’s offer to run a $2 to $3.4M (yes, million) email campaign and is now going after Keene and the ACU because he/they recently threw in their hat with UPS via a coalition letter on ACU letterhead and signed by various grassroots conservative groups.  Whether or not the ACU took any money from UPS in exchange for public support is anybody’s guess.  ACU reps are saying “no.”

A purist would say something like, ”Better to lose on issues and at the ballot booth than debase the conservative movement with questionable tactics.” 

A strategist would say, “The other side does this kind of thing all the time, raising gazillions of dollars as they go, and we have to do it also in order to have a chance against them.”

E!! says:  Smooth move, genuises.  Now the reputation of one of the oldest, biggest conservative grassroots organizations in the country is tarnished, and it will be even harder for the ACU to raise money in this already anemic fundraising environment.  Or to have any political clout when they take a stand on issues.