Politico got the scoop:

The American Conservative Union asked FedEx for a check for $2 million to $3 million in return for the group’s support in a bitter legislative dispute, then the group’s chairman flipped and sided with UPS after FedEx refused to pay.

For the $2 million plus, ACU offered a range of services that included: “Producing op-eds and articles written by ACU’s Chairman David Keene and/or other members of the ACU’s board of directors. (Note that Mr. Keene writes a weekly column that appears in The Hill.)”

The conservative group’s remarkable demand — black-and-white proof of the longtime Washington practice known as “pay for play” — was contained in a private letter to FedEx , which was provided to POLITICO.

The letter exposes the practice by some political interest groups of taking stands not for reasons of pure principle, as their members and supporters might assume, but also in part because a sponsor is paying big money.

…

After the rebuff, American Conservative Union changed sides. ACU Chairman David A. Keene was one of eight conservative leaders who signed a letter to FedEx Chairman Frederick W. Smith, a champion of capitalism who in the past has been a favorite of conservatives.

The letter accuses FedEx of “falsely and disingenuously” labeling the rules change a “bailout” for UPS, since FedEx would become subject to the same arduous union structure.

ACU responded with a statement that labeled the story “false:”

“An article containing a false headline has been published by Capitol Hill newspaper Politico today regarding an issue with expansion of the National Labor Relations Board.

This article concerns two letters; one issued by ACU and another issued by a separate organization.

Mr. David Keene’s name was on a letter prepared by another organization.  This was a personal decision on his part and he was not representing ACU at the time.  No permission was given by ACU, and no logo was provided by ACU, to the organization who issued the letter in question.

ACU’s policy position on this issue has not changed and it will not change.

ACU’s positions on important policy issues have never been for sale.

Does that mean we are to assume that the ACU’s positions are for sale on unimportant issues? I know, I know. That was a cheap shot.  On to the merits.

Politico implies that the ACU is selling itself to the highest bidder.  If this is true it’s certainly damning for the conservative organization.  UPS denies paying anything, while the ACU insists that its position has not changed.  The ACU release claims they still oppose the efforts of UPS to handicap their chief competitor with onerous union rules.   The only evidence Politico presents to suggest otherwise is a letter signed by Keene, which includes the ACU logo, criticizing FedEx for likening the UPS position as a “Brown Bailout.”  The letter does not endorse the UPS position on the union issue in general.  So on its face, it does not support Politico’s implication that the ACU has “changed sides.”

Politico also labels the story as a pay-to-play issue.  I don’t think that’s accurate.  What the ACU did was offer itself as a PR firm to FedEx.  That’s a bit different than a politician supplying political favors for money.  There is a fine line that any ideological organization must be aware of here, but I don’t think it precludes their teaming up with those who stand to benefit from their positions, so long as the alliance is natural and not created merely for the sake of financial gain.  In other words, the danger to avoid is taking positions just for the benefit of soliciting funding.  Given that most conservative and libertarians take the side of FedEx already based on principle, there’s level evidence of that here.  So it’s difficult to see this as pay-to-play.

So is that it? Is the ACU in the clear?  Most certainly not.

If they had simply left well enough alone after FedEx turned them down there would be no story.  The letter is where things get fuzzy.  By signing onto a letter that is overly critical of FedEx on what is, at worst, a minor bit of self-serving political framing (of the type all political organizations – including the ACU – employ regularly), Keene was clearly sending a message.  That message was: there are repercussions for turning down my offers.  This is not pay-to-play; it’s extortion.

Keene argues that he signed the letter as a private individual and not on behalf of the organization.  The ACU’s logo, however, appeared at the top of the letter along with the logos of the organizations to which the other signatories belonged.  The ACU insists it was not sent to the group putting the letter together.  Essentially, it was attached without their permission.  This is plausible.  But thanks to Keene, it doesn’t really matter.  Either he willfully signed his organization onto the letter to enhance the weight of his Godfather-esque broadside aimed at FedEx, or he is simultaneously naive in not understanding how his personal actions reflect on his organization, and grossly negligent in allowing their logo to be used without permission.

This is not the first time Keene’s actions have been called into question.  In 2003 he took heat from conservatives for endorsing liberal Arlen Specter over a principled conservative in Pat Toomey.  A possible conflict of interest was suggested as an explanation.  Regardless of the reason, his claim that, “[Specter's] word is always good,’” is laughable based on what we know today – and it should have been recognized as such even then.  It certainly reflects poorly upon his judgment in how best to advance the conservative movement.

Although Politico’s reporting went overboard and was a bit reckless, the ACU’s defense against the more outlandish charges are weakened by Keene’s very real missteps.  The best way for the organization to salvage the situation and begin to regain credibility is to ask for Keene’s resignation.  Though if he truly believes in doing what’s best for the conservative movement, he won’t have to be asked.

 Print This Post