Top Bush Donors Gain Top Reconstruction Contracts (Should I Be Surprised?)

[cgannon64]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iraq-Contracts.html

Report Links Iraq Deals to Bush Donations
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: October 30, 2003

Filed at 11:32 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Companies awarded $8 billion in contracts to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan have been major campaign donors to President Bush, and their executives have had important political and military connections, according to a study released Thursday.

The study of more than 70 U.S. companies and individual contractors turned up more than $500,000 in donations to the president's 2000 campaign, more than they gave collectively to any other politician over the past dozen years.

The report was released by the Center for Public Integrity, a Washington-based research organization that produces investigative articles on special interests and ethics in government. Its staff includes journalists and researchers.

The Center concluded that most of the 10 largest contracts went to companies that employed former high-ranking government officials, or executives with close ties to members of Congress and even the agencies awarding their contracts.

Major contracts for Iraq and Afghanistan were awarded by the Bush administration without competitive bids, because agencies said competition would have taken too much time to meet urgent needs in both countries.

``No single agency supervised the contracting process for the government,'' Center executive director Charles Lewis said. ``This situation alone shows how susceptible the contracting system is to waste, fraud and cronyism.''

J. Edward Fox, an assistant administrator at the U.S. Agency for International Development, took issue with Lewis' statement and aspects of the report.

``It would ... be incorrect to suggest that there is no overall oversight of this process,'' he wrote the Center. ``The USAID inspector general's review of all Iraq contracts which was requested by USAID Administrator Andrew S. Natsios on April 14th has shown that all Iraq contracts to date have been done in compliance'' with federal regulations.

The top contract recipient was the Halliburton subsidiary KBR, with more than $2.3 billion awarded to support the U.S. military and restore Iraq's oil industry.

Halliburton was headed by Vice President Dick Cheney before he resigned to run with Bush in 2000.

Halliburton's top executive, Dave Lesar, said Wednesday he was offended by criticism of the company's Iraq work but believed it was ``less about Halliburton and more about external political issues.''

``As a company uniquely qualified to take on this difficult assignment, we will continue to bring all of our global resources to bear at this critical time in the Middle East. We have served the military for over 50 years and have no intention of backing down at this point,'' he said.

Bechtel was second with a $1 billion capital construction contract involving Iraq's utilities, telecommunications, railroads, ports, schools, health care facilities, bridges, roads and airports.

The company's Internet site says, ``We do engage in the political process, as do most companies in the United States. We have legitimate policy interests and positions on matters before Congress, and we express them in many ways, including support for elected officials who support those positions.

``We do not expect or receive political favors or government contracts as a result of those contributions.''

The Center's analysis of contractor political donations showed:

--The top 10 contractors contributed $11 million to national political parties, candidates and political action committees since 1990.

--Fourteen of the companies won contracts in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Those companies, combined, have given more than $23 million in political contributions since 1990.

--Most contractors, their political action committees and their employees have contributed just under $49 million to national political campaigns and parties since that year.

--In the same time period, contractor donations to Republican Party committees outpaced contributions to the Democrats, $12.7 million to $7.1 million.

Many of the companies with large contracts have important political connections.

Former Secretary of State George Shultz is a member of Bechtel's board of directors, although he has no management role, according to the company's Web site.

Riley Bechtel, the chairman and chief executive officer, was named early this year to the President's Export Council, which advises the president on programs to improve U.S. trade.

Jack Sheehan, senior vice president in Bechtel's petroleum and chemicals business, served on the Defense Policy Board, which advises the defense secretary on a variety of issues.

Other contractors also had connections. Among those cited by the Center:

David Kay, head of the Bush administration's search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, is a former vice president of Science Applications International Corp. He left the company in October 2002.

Christopher ``Ryan'' Henry left the same company as a vice president in February 2003 to become principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy.

Scott Spangler, principal owner of Chemonics International, was a senior U.S. Agency for International Development official during the first Bush administration. The company receives 90 percent of its business from USAID.

Sullivan Haave Associates Inc. was founded by Carol Haave, currently the deputy assistant secretary of defense for security and information operations.

The Center's findings are based, in part, on 73 Freedom of Information Act requests and an analysis of a federal contractor database.

Should I be surprised?

 

[thestonesfan]

That's politics.

Setting aside my disdain for politics, someone does have to do it.

 

[cgannon64]

Not true, man! If you just get into an anarcho-communist system, then it will be better! No corporations, no leaders, no corruption!



You're right, which is why I added the "Should I be surprised?". But I just thought I'd let the forum know anyway.

 

[onejayhawk]

You should not be surprised that any company which has a serious interest in gaining contracts for work in Iraq turns out to be a campaign donor. I suspect that all of the top three finishers made campaign contributions, though the story does not say whether this is so or not. IMO it should. That would be balanced reporting. As it is, it reads like an opinion piece, which is innappropriate.

Generally speaking, money does not buy policy, but it does insure access to the people that make decisions. If a company wishes to do business with, or through, the government, it has to invest money, time and effort in contributions and lobbying. Then, after it has its desired effect, you get stories like this. At least its bipartisan. They used to write the same story about Clinton.

J

 

[Norlamand]

You should be suprised when a politician in power DOESN'T reward his loyal followers and supporters.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Between Jackson and Bush, I'm afraid I'll run out of ammo...

 

[Toasty]

Just because we're not surprised doesn't mean we should accept it.

I'm surprised how okay it's become to be jaded.

 

[amadeus]

So?

 

[JollyRoger]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
So?

The most solidly pre-emptive part of the Bush Pre-emption doctrine is to pre-emtively decide who we, the American taxpayers, are going to give our grandchildren's money to to pay for reconstructing something that should not have been destructed without first giving more full and honest disclosure to us, the American taxpayer. Gives new meaning to the phrase "Contract With America".

 

[Pongui]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
That's politics.

That's US politics, specifically. I get the feeling this is acceptable practice in the US, or that citizens believe they're powerless to stop it.

 

[Archer 007]

Lets just mark it up as more corruption.

 

[Speedo]

Originally posted by Norlamand
You should be suprised when a politician in power DOESN'T reward his loyal followers and supporters.

Indeed. Last time I looked that how most of the high slots in DC are filled.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

The spoils system. I don't know which is more appalling, appointing complete incompetents, or saboteurs. Our environmental policies are being run by former energy CEOs.

We should look at this as part of a wider economic phenomenon. We have an economic aristocracy of several big names that are effectively running several large companies at once [by holding multiple directorships on different boards]. One example: the directors of JP Morgan Chase [a bank] help run 27 other organizations. Among them: Bechtel, Boeing, Dell Computers, Exxon Mobil, Hearst, Honeywell, JC Penney, Metlife, Motorola, NYSE, Pfizer and Co, Ralph Lauren, Prudential Insurance, Rockwell, Schering-Plough, Verizon, Viacom, and Wyeth. One man [William Gray] sits on eight boards whose companies have an annual turnover of about 200 billion dollars. Since all the same people sit on each other's boards, or have connections, "compensation", as CEO welfare is called, is extravagant. At the same time, for instance, that American Airlines was cajoling its unions into accepting a two billion dollar wage slash over the next few years, the bosses had secretly voted themselves a 41 million dollar protected bank account which was immune, even if the company filed bankruptcy. The top one percent of America's population controls 43% of its taxable wealth [up from around 33% in 1990]. These high-power execs see the White House as yet another Board of Directors, one with the power to give free handouts to every company in the nation. Competition is tough but the winner is irrelevant. The corporate handouts of so-called liberal paragons like Carter and Clinton has largely been ignored.

That's the background of the economic "spoils system". The political spoils system is just one facet of that.

 

[Sims2789]

this doesn't suprise me.

 

[RedWolf]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
So?

So.... money buys political power and sets government policy which really means that your democracy is in the hands of the corporate elite who have the most to gain. What this means is that one dollar - one vote is a crappy thing when the few at the top happen to have more money (and thus votes) than everybody else.

I would think that somebody who so dearly loves "freedom" such as yourself would be outraged at this concept.

Apparently not.

The funny thing about die hard capitalists is that they steadfastly refuse to admit ANY flaw in their beloved system as if it was delivered from some divine being and that to criticize would be to condemn oneself to the pits of hell.

 

[newfangle]

Redwolf:

Your opinions of corporations are quite amuzing. Corporations can ONLY exert influence through capital, where as governments can only use the gun.

Your "revolt against the exploiters" argument is unfounded.

 

[bobgote]

i think we all knew that this would happen from the start of the war. it's the only valid reason i can see that the war even took place. even if you don't agree with that, this shouldn't really be news at all.

 

[MrPresident]

Another example of the spoils system used by America ever since its creation. Having said that if the people didn't vote for these candidates this wouldn't be a problem.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

There were a very limited number of contractors with the resources, technical skill and other capabilities to quickly launch there massive undertakings halfway around the world with a long mobilization lead time. That said, the traditional goverment method of contract preferment is to rig the specification for a contract (such as the size and what experience is needed) to fit a particular contractor.

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by RedWolf

The funny thing about die hard capitalists is that they steadfastly refuse to admit ANY flaw in their beloved system as if it was delivered from some divine being and that to criticize would be to condemn oneself to the pits of hell.

The flaw is with the government, not with the economic system.