Presidential Senator Candidates Take Big Lobby $$

Hillary was a Senator and just recently a lobby issue could be a problem given the Transpacific Partnership Pact that is so contentious in the country right now.

Per Lee Fang: While Hillary Clinton has demurred over her position on the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, her campaign has partnered with a pro-TPP law and lobby firm to raise money.

At The Intercept, Lee Fang reports that Clinton’s campaign held a fundraiser in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday with the political action committee of a law firm called McGuireWoods. Lobby registration documents reveal that a subsidiary of the group lobbies on behalf of Smithfield Foods, the world’s largest producer of pork, to pass both the TPP and “fast track”—a special presidential mandate that nearly eliminates Congress’ role in crafting trade legislation.

The fundraiser occurred as Congress rescheduled a vote on fast track, also known as Trade Promotion Authority (TPA).

Fang continues:

Despite mounting pressure to take a position, Clinton has only provided [noncommittal] answers regarding her stance on both TPP and TPA. On Sunday, at a rally in Iowa, Clinton said there should be better protections for American workers and called for the president to work with Democrats in Congress — hardly a clarifying statement. Earlier that day, her chief pollster dismissed a call from ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos to provide a clear stance on TPA, casting the issue as simply “Washington inside baseball.”

For the event in D.C., billed as a “Conversation with John Podesta, Campaign Chair,” the Clinton campaign website said that I could learn the exact location only after RSVPing through a donation. I gave one dollar to find out. Apparently, that wasn’t enough. Instead of providing the address of the fundraiser as the campaign website had said it would, the campaign directed me to a site where I could volunteer.

Lobby money owns Washington DC, of this there is no dispute. The 10 largest lobby operations include the following industries:

The Technology lobby, the Mining lobby, the Defense lobby, the Agriculture lobby, Big Oil lobby, the Financial lobby, the Big Pharma lobby, the AARP lobby, the Pro-Israel lobby and the National Rifle Association lobby. The primer of these lobby groups is found here.

So what Senators that are running for president are on some lobby dollar hooks?

From Open Secrets:

Three of five senators running for WH have big backing from lobbyists

Three of the five U.S. senators running for president have made super-fans out of a few K Street lobbyists, an analysis of campaign finance data by OpenSecrets Blog shows.

Republican Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) have each raised hundreds of thousands of dollars from current or one-time federal lobbyists throughout their careers, the analysis shows. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has raised $82,050 from the same pool and Sen. Bernie Sanders‘ (D-Vt.) total fundraising haul from lobbyists stands at an even more paltry $50,075.

Neither Sanders nor Paul have hidden their disdain for lobbyists, so there’s some logic to their low fundraising totals from those in the profession. Both candidates, in their announcement speeches, railed against those who want to influence politics with money — Sanders referred to “billionaires…and their lobbyists,” Paul called them “special interests” — and struck similar tones.

“Both [Paul and Sanders] have publicly decried the influence of corporations in American public life,” Joshua Rosenstein, a Washington, D.C.-based lawyer and expert on lobbying, said. “If you are a corporation, is it possible that you view each of them as relative lost cause? Sure.”

For some candidates, it’s not bad politics to keep K Street at arm’s length. In 2008 and 2012, Barack Obama pledged not to accept donations from lobbyists and refunded money to those who did contribute. After taking office, he barred federally registered lobbyists from joining advisory boards in his administration, before partially rolling back that ban last year.

But no 2016 hopeful has followed that lead, as the Wall Street Journal reports. And setting Paul and Sanders aside, the other senators running for president have already wooed a handful of lobbyists with deep pockets and a willingness to give to anyone who might help their clients.

In all, Graham has taken in $753,841 during his congressional career from current or one-time federally registered lobbyists who contributed more than $200 to him. Rubio and Cruz have received $571,952 and $265,043 from the same group, respectively. Those sums include donations to the senators’ campaign committees and leadership PACs.

Rubio, Cruz and Graham each have at least one lobbyist donor who, along with their spouses in some cases, has given in excess of $20,000 to the candidate’s campaign and PAC. Rubio has Ignacio Sanchez, a presidential bundler for Mitt Romney in 2012 from the firm DLA Piper; he represents Al Jazeera Satellite Network and Diageo PLC. Cruz has lobbying revolver Charles Cooper of Cooper & Kirk and his wife, Debra.

Graham, a senator since 2003, has enjoyed financial support from current or former lobbyists longer than his GOP Senate colleagues running for president. William H. Skipper, Jr. of the American Business Development Group, Reed Scott of Chesapeake Enterprises and his wife, and presidential bundler Van D. Hipp of American Defense International and his wife, have each given Graham more than $20,000 over the years.

The most Paul has received from any one lobbyist barely tops $6,000; that came from Charles Grizzle of Grizzle Co., who currently represents several Kentucky-based clients like the University of Louisville and the Louisville Regional Airport Authority. Sanders topped out at $3,000 from Nancy Zirkin of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and her husband.

The data analysis only covered sitting U.S. senators. Other presidential candidates or potential candidates who have served in federal office, like former Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and one-time House member, now governor, John Kasich (R-Ohio), haven’t run a Senate or House campaign in some time. And for former governors like Rick Perry and Jeb Bush, state data on which of their donors were lobbyists isn’t available. Fundraising reports for candidates’ presidential campaigns won’t be available till mid-July, and the super PACs backing them don’t have to report until the end of that month.

Still, it’s clear that the non-Senate candidates also have their eyes on K Street money. Clinton has already reached out to prominent lobbyists on her side of the aisle, while Jeb Bush started seeking commitments from Washington allies even earlier this year. Lobbyists are reportedly starting to line up behind him.

Despite that fact that making contributions may be good for business, Rosenstein noted, many lobbyists also donate for ideological reasons.

“While they certainly have to be pragmatists about what they’re doing…and that certainly drives some of the giving,” he said, “there might very well be an equal or greater ideological segment of the lobbying community that aren’t driven by pragmatic reasons,” Rosenstein said.

 

Obama’s 1983 Essay vs. Iran Nuclear Today

From the NYT’s in part:

TEHRAN — With exactly a week left before the deadline for a final agreement to limit Iran’s nuclear program, the country’s supreme leader appeared to undercut several of the central agreements his negotiators have already reached with the West.

In a speech broadcast live on Iran state television, the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, demanded that most sanctions be lifted before Tehran has dismantled part of its nuclear infrastructure and before international inspectors verify that the country is beginning to meet its commitments. He also ruled out any freeze on Iran’s sensitive nuclear enrichment for as long as a decade, as a preliminary understanding announced in April stipulates, and he repeated his refusal to allow inspections of Iranian military sites.

That self imposed June 30 deadline is no deadline at all.

From the WSJ:

LUXEMBOURG—Iranian and Western officials for the first time publicly said they were willing to go past a June 30 deadline for sealing a final nuclear deal, insisting they could still unblock remaining obstacles in coming days.

The comments, made after talks between Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif and his counterparts from the U.K., France and Germany on the sidelines of a European Union meeting in Luxembourg on Monday, underscore recent warnings that the nuclear talks have stalled as the deadline approaches.

So, how does this square with the talks going on today versus what Barack Obama wrote in 1983?

 SANE Students Against Nuclear Energy

Obama wrote a 3 page commentary while at Columbia where is assumes expertise on war, history, nuclear energy, nuclear weapons and the military. After a reading of this Obama essay, many things become much more clear, yes clear like mud.

Here is a link to read the text in an easier format.

The Lost Tea Party Invitation to Dinner at WH

Do you ever ask yourself where the invitation is inviting the Tea Party to the White House for dinner? How about the invitation for Family Security Matters or the Center for Security Policy to attend a State dinner? Will the Concerned Veterans for America organization be invited to the White House anytime soon?

Nah….but look who did just have dinner at the White House.

Expected Attendees at the White House Iftar Dinner

This evening, President Obama will continue a White House tradition by hosting an Iftar in observance of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan in the East Room. This is the seventh Iftar, the traditional breaking of the fast at sunset, hosted by the President. This year’s dinner will have a special focus on young leaders and women, some of whom will be seated at the President’s table this evening.

Below is a list of some of the expected attendees at tonight’s White House dinner recognizing Ramadan:

Guests Seated at the President’s Table

  •          Ms. Batoul Abuharb, Houston, TX
  •          Mr. Ziad Ahmed, Princeton, NJ
  •          Ms. Samantha Elauf, Tulsa, OK
  •          Ms. Munira Khalif, Fridley, MN
  •          Ms. Kadra Mohamed, Saint Paul, MN
  •          Ms. Riham Osman, Houston, TX
  •          Mr. Wayne Rucker, Philadelphia, PA
  •          Ms. Wai Wai Nu, Rangoon, Burma

Members of Congress:

  •          The Honorable Andre Carson, United States Representative, Indiana
  •          The Honorable Richard Durbin, United States Senator, Illinois
  •          The Honorable Keith Ellison, United States Representative, Minnesota

Diplomatic Corps:

  •          His Excellency Michael Moussa Adamo, Ambassador of the Gabonese Republic
  •          His Excellency Lukman Al Faily, Ambassador of the Republic of Iraq
  •          Her Excellency Hunaina Al Mughairy, Ambassador of the Sultanate of Oman
  •          His Excellency Yousif Mana Saeed Al Otaiba, Ambassador of the United Arab Emirates
  •          Mr. Sami Alsadhan, Deputy Chief of Mission and Charge d’Affaires a.i., Embassy of Saudi Arabia (Guest of His Excellency Adel Ahmed Al-Jubeir)
  •          His Excellency Sheikh Salem Al-Sabah, Ambassador of the State of Kuwait
  •          Her Excellency Hassana Alidou, Ambassador of the Republic of Niger
  •          His Excellency Abudlla Mohamed Alkhalifa, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Bahrain
  •          Mr. Adel Ali Ahmed Alsunaini, Charge d’Affaires a.i., Embassy of Yemen
  •          Chief Representative Maen Areikat, PLO Delegation to the United States
  •          His Excellency Madjid Bouguerra, Ambassador of People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria
  •          His Excellency Rachad Bouhlal, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Morocco
  •          Her Excellency Alia Bouran, Ambassador of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
  •          His Excellency Budi Bowoleksono, Ambassador of the Republic of Indonesia
  •          Her Excellency Wafa Bughaighis, Charge d’Affaires, Embassy of Libya
  •          His Excellency Antoine Chedid, Ambassador of the Lebanese Republic
  •          His Excellency Tiena Coulibaly, Ambassador of the Republic of Mali
  •          His Excellency Daouda Diabate, Ambassador of the Republic of Cote d’Ivoire
  •          His Excellency Mohamed El Haycen, Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania
  •          Her Excellency Floreta Faber, Ambassador of the Republic of Albania
  •          The Honorable Sheikh Faye, Ambassador of the Republic of The Gambia
  •          His Excellency Ufuk Gokcen, Ambassador and Permanent Observer of the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation to the United Nations
  •          His Excellency Faycal Gouia, Ambassador of the Republic of Tunisia
  •          His Excellency Bakhtiyar Gulyamov, Ambassador of the Republic of Uzbekistan
  •          His Excellency Mahamat Hassane, Ambassador of the Republic of Chad
  •          His Excellency Awang Adek Bin Hussin, Ambassador of Malaysia
  •          His Excellency Akan Ismaili, Ambassador of the Republic of Kosovo
  •          His Excellency Jalil Abbas Jilani, Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan
  •          His Excellency Serdar Kilic, Ambassador of the Republic of Turkey
  •          His Excellency Subhas Mungra, Ambassador of the Republic of Suriname
  •          Her Excellency Jadranka Negodic, Ambassador of Bosnia and Herzegovina
  •          His Excellency Meret Orazov, Ambassador of Turkmenistan
  •          His Excellency Farhod Salim, Ambassador of the Republic of Tajikistan
  •          His Excellency Ahmed Sareer, Ambassador of the Republic of Maldives
  •          Mr. Seydou Sinka, Charge d’Affaires a.i., Embassy of Burkina Faso
  •          His Excellency Bockari Stevens, Ambassador of the Republic of Sierra Leone
  •          His Excellency Elin Emin Oglu Suleymanov, Ambassador of the Republic of Azerbaijan
  •          Her Excellency Amelia Sumbana, Ambassador of the Republic of Mozambique
  •          His Excellency Mohamed Mostafa Mohamed Tawfik, Ambassador of the Arab Republic of Egypt
  •          His Excellency Kadyr Toktogulov, Ambassador of the Kyrgyz Republic
  •          His Excellency Kairat Umarov, Ambassador of the Republic of Kazakhstan
  •          His Excellency Mohammad Ziauddin, Bangladesh – Ambassador of Bangladesh

Cyber Security on the Skids, Blinking RED

Recorded Future is a real time open source intelligence collection company that determines trends and predictions of emerging threats.

Recorded Future identified the possible exposures of login credentials for 47 United States government agencies across 89 unique domains.

As of early 2015, 12 of these agencies, including the Departments of State and Energy, allowed some of their users access to computer networks with no form of two-factor authentication. The presence of these credentials on the open Web leaves these agencies vulnerable to espionage, socially engineered attacks, and tailored spear-phishing attacks against their workforce.

The damage has yet to be fully realized and cannot be overstated. Where is the White House? Where are the protections? Where is a policy? Major alarm bells as you read on.

From Associated Press:

Tech company finds stolen government log-ins all over Web

WASHINGTON (AP) — A CIA-backed technology company has found logins and passwords for 47 government agencies strewn across the Web – available for hackers, spies and thieves.

Recorded Future, a social media data mining firm backed by the CIA’s venture capital arm, says in a report that login credentials for nearly every federal agency have been posted on open Internet sites for those who know where to look.

According to the company, at least 12 agencies don’t require authentication beyond passwords to access their networks, so those agencies are vulnerable to espionage and cyberattacks.

The company says logins and passwords were found connected with the departments of Defense, Justice, Treasury and Energy, as well as the CIA and the Director of National Intelligence.

From the WSJ: Obama’s Cyber Meltdown

“While Russia and Islamic State are advancing abroad, the Obama Administration may have allowed a cyber 9/11 at home.”

If you thought Edward Snowden damaged U.S. security, evidence is building that the hack of federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM) files may be even worse.

When the Administration disclosed the OPM hack in early June, they said Chinese hackers had stolen the personal information of up to four million current and former federal employees. The suspicion was that this was another case of hackers (presumably sanctioned by China’s government) stealing data to use in identity theft and financial fraud. Which is bad enough.

Yet in recent days Obama officials have quietly acknowledged to Congress that the hack was far bigger, and far more devastating. It appears OPM was subject to two breaches of its system in mid-to-late 2014, and the hackers appear to have made off with millions of security-clearance background check files.

These include reports on Americans who work for, did work for, or attempted to work for the Administration, the military and intelligence agencies. They even include Congressional staffers who left government—since their files are also sent to OPM.

This means the Chinese now possess sensitive information on everyone from current cabinet officials to U.S. spies. Background checks are specifically done to report personal histories that might put federal employees at risk for blackmail. The Chinese now hold a blackmail instruction manual for millions of targets.

These background checks are also a treasure trove of names, containing sensitive information on an applicant’s spouse, children, extended family, friends, neighbors, employers, landlords. Each of those people is also now a target, and in ways they may not contemplate. In many instances the files contain reports on applicants compiled by federal investigators, and thus may contain information that the applicant isn’t aware of.

Of particular concern are federal contractors and subcontractors, who rarely get the same security training as federal employees, and in some scenarios don’t even know for what agency they are working. These employees are particularly ripe targets for highly sophisticated phishing emails that attempt to elicit sensitive corporate or government information.

The volume of data also allows the Chinese to do what the intell pros call “exclusionary analysis.” We’re told, for instance, that some highly sensitive agencies don’t send their background checks to OPM. So imagine a scenario in which the Chinese look through the names of 30 State Department employees in a U.S. embassy. Thanks to their hack, they’ve got information on 27 of them. The other three they can now assume are working, undercover, for a sensitive agency. Say, the CIA.

Or imagine a scenario in which the Chinese cross-match databases, running the names of hacked U.S. officials against, say, hotel logs. They discover that four Americans on whom they have background data all met at a hotel on a certain day in Cairo, along with a fifth American for whom they don’t have data. The point here is that China now has more than enough information to harass U.S. agents around the world.

And not only Americans. Background checks require Americans to list their contacts with foreign nationals. So the Chinese may now have the names of thousands of dissidents and foreigners who have interacted with the U.S. government. China’s rogue allies would no doubt also like this list.

This is a failure of extraordinary proportions, yet even Congress doesn’t know its extent. The Administration is still refusing to say, even in classified briefings, which systems were compromised, which files were taken, or how much data was at risk.

***
While little noticed, the IRS admitted this spring it was also the subject of a Russian hack, in which thieves grabbed 100,000 tax returns and requested 15,000 fraudulent refunds. Officials have figured out that the hackers used names and Social Security data to pretend to be the taxpayers and break through weak IRS cyber-barriers. As Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson has noted, the Health and Human Services Department and Social Security Administration use the same weak security wall to guard ObamaCare files and retirement information. Yet the Administration is hardly rushing to fix the problem.

Way back in March 2014, OPM knew that Chinese hackers had accessed its system without having downloaded files. So the agency was on notice as a target. It nonetheless failed to stop the two subsequent successful breaches. If this were a private federal contractor that had lost sensitive data, the Justice Department might be contemplating indictments.

Yet OPM director Katherine Archuleta and chief information officer Donna Seymour are still on the job. Mr. Obama has defended Ms. Archuleta, and the Administration is trying to change the subject by faulting Congress for not passing a cybersecurity bill. But that legislation concerns information sharing between business and government. It has nothing to do with OPM and the Administration’s failure to protect itself from cyber attack.

Ms. Archuleta appears before Congress this week, and she ought to remain seated until she explains the extent of this breach. While Russia and Islamic State are advancing abroad, the Obama Administration may have allowed a cyber 9/11 at home.

Truck Hijacked in Mexico, Visas Stolen

Sheesh, can it get worse?

MEXICO CITY (AP) — The U.S. Embassy in Mexico says a truck carrying visas was hijacked in northern Mexico and the visas stolen.

The embassy says in a statement Wednesday that the theft occurred on June 7 “in northern Mexico,” without specifying where.

The truck was making a trip from the United States to U.S. Consulates in the cities of Monterrey and Guadalajara.

Some approved border crossing cards also were stolen. An electronic alert has been issued so that the stolen cards cannot be used to cross the border.

The cards were re-issued for the intended holders, but they have also been advised of the robbery in case the cards are used in attempts at identity theft.

***

The Vice Admiral of the Coast Guard delivered testimony on drug interdiction on the waterways. In part:

Emerging Threats: Transnational Organized Crime, Violence, and Instability
One of the goals of the Coast Guard’s drug interdiction program is to interdict illicit traffic as close to the source zone1 as possible. This helps to keep the drugs from reaching the shores of Central America where it is transported over land into Mexico, and then to the United States, where the proceeds from the sale of drugs fuel TOC networks. These nefarious organizations operate with impunity throughout Central America while vying for power through drug-fueled violence and corruption of government officials; in fact, eight out of the ten most violent nations in the world are along these trafficking routes in the Western Hemisphere. Traffickers have also increasingly moved product through the Central and Eastern Caribbean vector. Corresponding with this movement, the homicide rate in Puerto Rico is five times that of the rest of the United States. Drug trafficking has destabilized regional states, undermined the rule of law, terrorized citizens, and driven both families and unaccompanied children to migrate to the United States. To be clear, the flow of illicit drugs funds TOC networks which pose a significant and growing threat to national and international security.

Then Border Patrol has their terrifying summary. Yes, it can get worse and Border Patrol is telling the media just how bad it is, but who is really listening, who will address the issues and how is this breaking national security policy? The clarion call is being made, but is there a busy signal?

From the LA Times in full:

Rank-and-file Border Patrol agents are furious that they have lost some of their favorite enforcement tools and say that intense public criticism of border shootings has led to a morale crisis.

“We lack the political will to enforce the law and allow our agency to be effective,” said National Border Patrol Council spokesman Shawn Moran in a conference call with reporters Wednesday. The call was coordinated by the union that represents the agents.

Among the most far-reaching and damning accusations from agents working entry points in Arizona, Texas and California was that the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol administration in Washington does not want agents to make drug busts and has taken away their ability to do so.

Shane Gallagher, an agent in the San Diego sector, said roving interdiction patrols — in which agents would stop suspicious vehicles north of the border — were extraordinarily successful at nabbing border crossers with drugs. But those patrols would then create uncomfortable questions for the ports through which the vehicles had just passed, he said.

“Now the port of entry has to explain who was in the primary lane, what actions were taken, if the vehicle was inspected, so you can see there’s a whole host of implications,” he said.

Though rank-and-file agents saw the value in drug interdictions, Gallagher said, agency leadership did not and drastically reduced the number of agents doing such work.

“There was a lot of pressure for us to get out of the [drug] interdiction game,” Gallagher said.

The decision to speak with reporters comes as rank-and-file agents have come under intense criticism for their involvement in fatal cross-border shootings – including the slaying of a 15-year-old boy who was walking home from a basketball game in Nogales, Mexico, when he was hit by a bullet fired by an agent on the Arizona side of the border.

According to records released last month, only 13 out of 809 abuse complaints sent to Customs and Border Protection’s office of internal affairs between January 2009 and January 2012 led to disciplinary action, and last week, the agency’s head of internal affairs was removed from his post.

A Customs and Border Protection spokesman declined to comment Wednesday when reached by the Los Angeles Times.

The agency also handcuffed agents by instituting civil liberties protections for potential targets of investigations at public transit stations or on agricultural land, colloquially known as a “farm and ranch check,” Moran said.

For such checks, Moran said, agents are required to create an “operations plan” and be able to show supervisors some kind of intelligence that connects targets of investigations to potential criminal activity. No longer, he said, can Border Patrol agents simply question random people.

Amid a flood of women and children turning themselves in at the border, agents also criticized administration directives to lend help to neighboring agencies.

The Border Patrol “grew but other agencies didn’t grow,” said Tucson sector Agent Art Del Cueto. “They’ve been butchering our agency to assist other agencies.”

According to Agent Chris Cabrera of the Rio Grande Valley sector in southern Texas, in one hour last week, 80 people, mostly women and children, turned themselves in to the Border Patrol in the Rincon Village area of his sector.

Overall, the agency finds itself holding 500 people in the Rio Grande Valley sector each day, he said, down from 700 people each day last year, when a flood of women and children from Central America overwhelmed the U.S. immigration sector.

Typically, one or two agents are stationed near Rincon Village to get people into a shelter and check them for weapons. Those agents can handle 10 or 15 people at once, Cabrera said. But when scores arrive, the agency must call on other agents to respond.

“You’re leaving large swaths of the area unprotected,” Cabrera said. “You take a few agents from the field, then you take a few more, and before you know it, you’re down to five agents covering a 53-mile stretch of river.”

Agents criticized the Border Patrol as top-heavy, with a ratio of four or five agents per each supervisor, a ratio that the agents said should be closer to 10 agents per supervisor.

Cabrera said the issue isn’t a lack of resources, but the way in which they’re used.

“We do not have what we need,” he said, “to do the job we need done.”