About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Buchanan claimed McCain's FCC letters were "in the normal course of business of a congressman" -- not according to then-FCC chairman

February 21, 2008 4:21 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: Discussing reports about Sen. John McCain's ties to lobbyist Vicki Iseman, Pat Buchanan asserted: "I don't have a problem with John McCain writing a letter there, depending on what he says in the letter," adding, "[B]ut McCain shouldn't be denying that, I don't think, because it seems to me that's in the normal course of business of a congressman." But contrary to his description of McCain's actions as "the normal course" for a congressman, the FCC chairman at the time criticized McCain for his request, calling it "highly unusual."

41 Comments

On the February 21 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, discussing February 21 articles in The New York Times and The Washington Post on Sen. John McCain's ties to telecommunications lobbyist Vicki Iseman -- including her role in what the Post called "a successful lobbying campaign to persuade McCain and other members of Congress to send letters to the Federal Communications Commission [FCC] on behalf of Paxson [Communications, now ION Media Networks Inc.]" -- MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan asserted: "I don't have a problem with John McCain writing a letter there, depending on what he says in the letter, 'Can you get off the dime and make a decision here?' " Buchanan added, "[B]ut McCain shouldn't be denying that, I don't think, because it seems to me that's in the normal course of business of a congressman." But contrary to Buchanan's description of actions by McCain -- who chaired the Senate Commerce Committee, which has oversight over the FCC, and was acting on behalf of a nonconstituent company, facts that Buchanan did not note -- as "in the normal course of business of a congressman," as both the Post and the Times reported, then-FCC chairman William E. Kennard criticized McCain for his request, calling it "highly unusual."

On the February 21 edition of National Public Radio's Morning Edition, host Steve Inskeep asked senior correspondent and Fox News contributor Juan Williams whether McCain "ever d[id] anything for" Iseman's clients. Williams replied: "Well, yes," adding, "[T]he McCain campaign has been very clear in saying that nothing out of the ordinary was done for these clients." Like Buchanan, Williams did not note that FCC commissioners challenged the notion that McCain's letters were "the normal course" for a member of Congress, as the Times and the Post did.

On January 6, 2000, the Times published a December 1999 letter from McCain to Kennard and excerpts from Kennard's reply, as well as a reply from then-FCC Commissioner Gloria Tristani. McCain wrote: "I respectfully request that each member of the commission advise me, in writing no later than close of business on Tuesday, Dec. 14, 1999, whether you have already acted upon these applications in the course of the notation voting process. If your answer to the latter question is no, please state further whether you will, or will not, be prepared to act on these applications at the open meeting on Dec. 15. If your answer to both of the proceeding questions is no, please explain why." McCain concluded: "This letter is not written to obtain favorable disposition of any matter on behalf of any party to any proceeding before the commission."

Kennard's response, in part, read:

As you know, this application raises important and very difficult policy issues. I wholeheartedly agree that prompter commission action on this matter would have been preferable.

Your letter, however, comes at a sensitive time in the deliberative process as the individual commissioners finalize their views and their votes on this matter. I must respectfully note that it is highly unusual for the commissioners to be asked to publicly announce their voting status on a matter that is still pending. I am concerned that inquiries concerning the individual deliberations of each commissioner could have procedural and substantive impacts on the commission's deliberations and, thus, on the due process rights of the parties.

And Tristani responded in part:

Respectfully, I cannot comply with your request. In order to preserve the integrity of our processes, it is my practice not to publicly disclose whether I have voted or when I will be voting on items in restricted proceedings prior to their adoption by the full commission.

In its article about McCain's relationship with Iseman, the Post described McCain's interactions with then-Paxson Communications head Lowell Paxson in the following way:

In the years that McCain chaired the commerce committee, Iseman lobbied for Lowell W. "Bud" Paxson, the head of what used to be Paxson Communications, now Ion Media Networks, and was involved in a successful lobbying campaign to persuade McCain and other members of Congress to send letters to the Federal Communications Commission on behalf of Paxson.

In late 1999, McCain wrote two letters to the FCC urging a vote on the sale to Paxson of a Pittsburgh television station. The sale had been highly contentious in Pittsburgh and involved a multipronged lobbying effort among the parties to the deal.

At the time he sent the first letter, McCain had flown on Paxson's corporate jet four times to appear at campaign events and had received $20,000 in campaign donations from Paxson and its law firm. The second letter came on Dec. 10, a day after the company's jet ferried him to a Florida fundraiser that was held aboard a yacht in West Palm Beach.

The Post also reported that "when the letters became public, William E. Kennard, chairman of the FCC at the time, denounced them as 'highly unusual' coming from McCain, whose committee chairmanship gave him oversight of the agency." Similarly, the Times reported that McCain "sent two letters to the commission, drawing a rare rebuke for interference from its chairman."

From the February 21 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:

BRZEZINSKI: I found very interesting when McCain's attorney came on Morning Joe this morning and said that they met repeatedly with The New York Times, of course trying to get them not to run this story, and gave them several -- I think it was 14, the number he said --

BUCHANAN: Yeah. Twelve, right?

BRZEZINSKI: -- I'll have to check the tape -- instances in which John McCain made a decision -- 12. OK, there's the number. Thank you.

SCARBOROUGH: Voted against their interests.

BRZEZINSKI: Voted against or made a decision against this client in question's interests.

BUCHANAN: Right.

BRZEZINSKI: That's -- I mean, I'll look again, but I don't think that's in the piece.

SCARBOROUGH: Talk about that.

BUCHANAN: Yeah, well, I think that -- well, that suggests -- look, I think where McCain makes a mistake where he says, "I've never done a favor for anybody and I've never done" -- look, I was in the White House. People come into you, I know. Ted Turner had a problem with the FCC. They come in and talk to you, and that's where you learn about problems. And this is about some TV station in Pittsburgh, and the guy makes some case, "Look, I'm losing money. I need a decision. Would you write and tell them to make a decision?" There's nothing wrong with that. I mean, and congressmen -- because a lot of these regulators, some of them can be ham-fisted, some of them can be dictatorial, some of them can be problems -- you've got to watch what you write in the letter, obviously. But I don't have a problem with John McCain writing a letter there, depending on what he says in the letter, "Can you get off the dime and make a decision here?"

SCARBOROUGH: Pat --

BUCHANAN: Yeah, and so -- but McCain shouldn't be denying that, I don't think, because it seems to me that's in the normal course of business of a congressman.

From the February 21 broadcast of National Public Radio's Morning Edition:

INSKEEP: It's Morning Edition from NPR News. Good morning, I'm Steve Inskeep. This may be the moment when John McCain gets the normal treatment facing most presidential front-runners. People scrutinize the candidate's life even more intensely than they did before. And this morning, John McCain, the crusader against special interests, can open his New York Times if he wants to find a long exploration of his relationships with lobbyists. NPR News analyst Juan Williams is tracking the presidential campaign and joins us. Good morning.

WILLIAMS: Good morning, Steve.

INSKEEP: What's the story say about McCain?

WILLIAMS: The New York Times is reporting on its front page that Senator McCain was involved in a very close relationship with a number of lobbyists, including one particular woman --

INSKEEP: This is in the year 2000, you're talking about -- his campaign for the presidency then.

WILLIAMS: That's right, and it became so close that it was a matter of concern because there was all sorts of possibilities of a scandal that would damage his reputation --

INSKEEP: Did he ever do anything --

WILLIAMS: -- even beyond the idea that he's a Washington reformer.

INSKEEP: Did he ever do anything for her clients?

WILLIAMS: Well, yes. Her clients included Cablevision, Echostar, and the like, and there were some efforts on behalf of those clients, but the McCain campaign has been very clear in saying that nothing out of the ordinary was done for these clients and also, pointedly denying that there was any romantic link.

INSKEEP: Now given that the story here goes on to describe his relationships with other business leaders and so forth -- and we should emphasize professional relationships here -- favors he accepted and so forth, how much of a problem is this going to be for John McCain?

WILLIAMS: Well, you know, it's a matter of what happens now. This morning already the McCain campaign says that the senator will have a major press conference and address this issue, but already, what you can see is that people who were opposed to Senator McCain on the Republican side because of his moderate stances are seizing it as an opportunity to portray him as a man who is not a true conservative and a man who is in tow to the power of Washington lobbyists and therefore not a good representative of the GOP in the November campaign. So, it may be that you now have people who didn't like John McCain who plan to use this to try and unsettle what looks to be a sure route to the nomination.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by dexteritas0071418 (February 21, 2008 4:37 pm ET)
         
      Was Kennard Clinton or Bush's man?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (February 21, 2008 4:38 pm ET)
         
      This story is less than a day old, and I've already heard a dozen talking heads like Buchanan running interference for McCain. These are the same people who wanted Clinton's head on a platter for his little tryst with Monica.

      Watch closely... this will demonstrate once and for all just how liberal the "Liberal Media" really are. You'd think that they would do whatever they can to run down the Republican nominee... right? There was no more evidence against Bill Clinton when the bobbleheads launched their witch hunt over Monica... will they treat McCain the same way? Any bets?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bruce1ace (February 21, 2008 4:45 pm ET)
           
        First of all, Buchanon, Hannity and any other conservative voice you are lumping in as a "talking head" were never part of the "liberal media" as defined by conservatives.  However, the NYT was.  I'd say they're off to a pretty good start.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (February 21, 2008 4:49 pm ET)
             
          That is something I never understood. There were always a lot more avowedly conservative voices in the media than liberal counterparts among the talking heads and the NYTimes editorials consistantly had very conservative voices in their stable.  It just never made any sense to say the media itself was liberal.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by bruce1ace (February 21, 2008 4:57 pm ET)
               
            It's a POV issue.  I always felt my viewpoint was underrepresented in the media in the 80's and early 90's.  Conservative talkers have exploded in the past twenty years or so.  It's definitely changed with cable news channels and the internet.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (February 21, 2008 7:08 pm ET)
                 
              Avowedly conservative voices were underrepresented as were avowedly LIBERAL voices. I understand thinking your point of view was underrepesented. Mine has ALWAYS been underrepresented and STILL IS. Where were the voices damning the contras and our misadventures in Nicaragua and the rest of Central America for instance? It used to be more neutral. Neutral isnt liberal. I watched the news since I was a little kid, it was something we always did at our house. No one was touting MY point of view THEN and they still arent today.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by bruce1ace (February 21, 2008 7:38 pm ET)
                   

                Solon, have you tried the Moscow Times?  (Just Kidding).

                Report Abuse
                • Author by solon (February 21, 2008 11:54 pm ET)
                     

                  As I said the media is not monolithic. No question for instance the Nation magazine published since the civil war IS liberal. Overall, its not liberal and never has been. No ad hoc references of a liberal message popping up here or there can refute this.

                  Report Abuse
        • Author by dbeden4153 (February 21, 2008 4:52 pm ET)
             
          ahh, so the entire media was never liberal?  Only factions of it?  As in any other democracy?  I see...
          Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (February 21, 2008 7:11 pm ET)
               
            That is right. It is also not a complaint. I am not saying I think we ought to have a liberal media. It was also not conservative. There were always liberal and conservative islands in the media sea. The media has always known it serves power. It reflects elite opinion. If you ran it down bit by bit you would see a liberal leaning on social issues and a conservative leaning on economic and foriegn policy issues. It also has never been monolithic. I am just arguing against the constant refrain that the media is liberal. No it isnt, it never has been.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (February 21, 2008 5:00 pm ET)
             

          Bruce,

          It is what I suspected all along, the media was in love with darling McCain when he stood up to the conservatives in his party, when he bucked his own party......but now that he is battling liberals, he is no longer the darling he once was.  Now they, the NY Times, the liberal bastion that they are, can't wait to eat McCain for lunch.

          I guess the McCain love-fest is over....... 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Sueelldd (February 21, 2008 5:02 pm ET)
               
            it is over now. Let the bloodbath begin. 
            Report Abuse
          • Author by dbeden4153 (February 21, 2008 5:07 pm ET)
               

            Tommy, the New York Times editorial board is definitely liberal.  However, their reports trend toward objectivity, as any good news outlet should.  And seeing as how this was a news article, not a column or editorial, I do believe they're not pushing a specific agenda with this.

             

            BTW, the NYT spoke to two different campaign staffers (McCain staffers mind you, Oh those liberal John McCain campaign staffers...) And both staffers corroborated the story independent of the other.  I'd say the story is legit, or else McCain's staff is eating their own for the sake of....well, I just don't know. 

            Report Abuse
            • Author by tommy (February 21, 2008 5:13 pm ET)
                 

              I have no idea whether it's true or not true, until it is proven to be true, then it is of little value to me in any fashion.  If it does turn out to be true, then I will evaluate it at that point and decide if it has any bearing on any decision for me.  

              At this point I am not supporting McCain, so it is even less relevant to me than to others, I would imagine. 

              Report Abuse
            • Author by anotheramerican (February 21, 2008 5:25 pm ET)
                 

              Someone said this morning on TV, (Today Show?) something like, print journalists would rather be wrong than be scooped. They felt that was the story here and the NYT felt they would be scooped by some conservative publication, (I forget which), so they published what is in effect, a story, that so far, has nothing to back up it's claims. 

              Report Abuse
              • Author by lostlogic (February 21, 2008 5:28 pm ET)
                   

                Mark down this date...I think the same thing as you on this one AA. 0-:  They didn't want to get scooped so they printed a story that they had no business running with.  If anyone should be looking at there ethics right now it is the NYT.  Not the first time they let a reporter run an article on shoddy evidence...can we all say Judith Miller.

                Report Abuse
              • Author by dbeden4153 (February 21, 2008 5:41 pm ET)
                   
                I get your point, and though I believe the story to be true...not that he had a romantic relationship, just that the relationship was perceived to be romantic...I still understand that it could very well be wrong.  My point is, the NYT tries its hardest to maintain objectivity in news reports, at least as far as left vs. right is concerned.  
                Report Abuse
          • Author by lostlogic (February 21, 2008 5:19 pm ET)
               
            You may be right Tommy.  I was watching CNN yesterday and Cafferty basically ripped into McCain and his speech while claiming Obama was a breath of fresh air.  I wondered what would happen when 2 media darlings ran against each other would the love affair continue for both or would one have to be sacrificed.  I don't think we can say just yet but it does seem to be blowing a certain way in the last few days.  McCain just may get dumped in favor of their other darling Obama. 
            Report Abuse
          • Author by tman418 (February 22, 2008 2:22 am ET)
               
            Tommy, I highly doubt, from what I've seen, that it's "liberals" bashing McCain right now.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by DorisRussell (February 21, 2008 4:41 pm ET)
         
      Media Darling McCain finally getting some scrutiny.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (February 21, 2008 5:07 pm ET)
         
      Here's the puzzling thing: the Conservatives are portraying this as a "hit job" on McCain by the "liberal" NYT. Two things don't fit. First, they had this story over two months ago, and could have published it when there was still time to deny McCain the nomination. They waited until he had it pretty much sewed up; why? Second... the NYT endorsed McCain, presumably while this story was in the works. WTF?

      My theory? The Troglodytes will use this as their excuse to finally back McCain... to protect him from this hatchet job by the "Liberal" NYT. This is a gift to the GOP.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by dbeden4153 (February 21, 2008 5:09 pm ET)
           
        actually, a third thing doesn't fit.  The story was revealed by two McCain campaign staffers, independent of each other.  If it's just some "hatchet job," then this conspiracy goes all the way up to the higher levels of McCain's campaign itself.  
        Report Abuse
        • Author by nerzog (February 21, 2008 5:13 pm ET)
             
          If you'll notice, the troglodytes repeatedly refer to them as "disgruntled" ex employees... implying that they can't be believed.

          Joe Scarborough was all over himself trying to dismiss the story this morning, as was Pat Buchanan and Tucker Carlson.

          Personally, I think it may be true... will the Press run with it, or let it drop? We'll see.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by lostlogic (February 21, 2008 5:15 pm ET)
             
          They weren't current staffers they were former staffers supposedly.  I think if they want to make these accusations they should do so on the record otherwise they shouldn't be allowed to make allegations based solely on what they suspected and not even on claims that there suspicions were even true.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by lostlogic (February 21, 2008 5:12 pm ET)
         
      Having read the content of McCain's correspondence I don't see any conflict.  He specifically said this was not to influence a decision one way or the other but to find out the status of resolution of an issue that was pending for over 2 years.  He even went so far as to say do not contact him by phone because he did not want any apperance that there was anything done to pressure a decision one way or the other.  He reiterated several times in the letter that his letter should not be viewed as favoring one outcome over the other just a check on when a decision will be made.  I really don't see anything in this story.  If they have more information they should produce it because otherwise it realy does look like a hatchet job based on anonymous unnamed sources that don't even claim to know if there is a relationship just that they had suspisions.  According to the information out there he voted against this women's client's interest on numerous occasions and the ones the NYT cited as him voting with their issues they seemed to be in line with normal postions and not votes out of the norm.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (February 21, 2008 5:18 pm ET)
           
        I saw Bob Bennett making that claim this morning. I wonder how many votes were actually suspect? This is where a real investigative journalist is needed. Too bad there aren't any left.

        Do you remember the last time Bob Bennett was in the news? Seems that he was vigorously defending Bill Clinton over the Lewinski affair.... we saw how that turned out, didn't we?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by lostlogic (February 21, 2008 5:25 pm ET)
             
          I am not a fan of the accused has to prove he is innocent...sort of hard to prove a negative.  If these reporters want to raise these issues then they should have laid out the proof.  SHow me the votes for and against and show me where he deviated from his normal behaviour and voting in their favor.  Put it in the article and show me your research.  I think as it stands now this is a hit piece.  If they follow it up with research showing me where he violated public trust by voting against what he believes to be the interest of the people in favor of the interests of this client.  If they don't have that information than stop the tabloid journalism and print a retraction and an apology.   This is how I want it for anyone on the left or right of the political spectrum. 
          Report Abuse
          • Author by nerzog (February 21, 2008 5:41 pm ET)
               
            The question remains... if this is a hit piece, why did they sit on it for two months, giving McCain time to wrap up the nomination? You might argue that they wanted McCain to get the nomination to keep Romney from getting it, so they could then knock off McCain with this story. I guess that's possible, but I think most polls have shown that McCain is the most likely of the Republicans to win in November, and there is no guarantee that he'll be damaged in the least by this story.

            Is a puzzlement.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by lostlogic (February 21, 2008 6:04 pm ET)
                 
              I wouldn't even attempt to hazard a guess as to the motives of the NYT in running with this at this time.  I have heard ideas from all spectrums that benfitted the left and benefitted the right.  I really don't know that I care what there motives are...I just don't like this type of journalism.  I will say this I think MCCain has currently said all he needs to on the subject and the ball is now in the NYT court to prove their case or retract and apologize.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by lostlogic (February 21, 2008 6:19 pm ET)
                   
                BTW, even stranger...the NYT had this story before they endorsed MCCain...kinda weird if you believed in the veracity of the claims you make in the article then why would you endorse someone you believe corrupt?  The whole thing just smells funny to me.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by BillJ-MN (February 21, 2008 7:13 pm ET)
                     
                  Just speculating, but isn't it very possible that those in the Times who made the endorsement were unaware of the investigation in progress?  How much does the news staff share with the editorial board?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by lostlogic (February 21, 2008 7:51 pm ET)
                       
                    You could be right.  I don't really know much about the inner workings of the NYT.  I have no idea who knew what.  It just struck me as odd. 
                    Report Abuse
    • Author by copiousdissent.blogspot.com (February 21, 2008 5:22 pm ET)
         

      I know many of your read HuffPo.

       

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanny-davis/my-role-involving-todays_b_87788.html

       

      This disputes MMFA 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by bruce1ace (February 21, 2008 5:27 pm ET)
           

        Yeah, but Lanny Davis is a right-wing hack.  Errr, ummm...

        Thanks for posting the link.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by dbeden4153 (February 21, 2008 5:45 pm ET)
           
        How in any way does that dispute MMfA's contention that the then-FCC Chairman said the letter was highly suspicious?  It doesn't.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by lostlogic (February 21, 2008 6:10 pm ET)
             
          Where does she say it was a highly suspicious letter.  From what I read she said it was highly unusual to announce where they are in resolving a pending matter.  Doesn't sound like the letter is unusual to her just the request to announce the status of deliberations.  I think you are trying to make more of this then there is by subtle spins like calling the letter suspicious and attributing that view to the official.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by lostlogic (February 21, 2008 6:12 pm ET)
               

            Here is the actual quote:

            "I must respectfully note that it is highly unusual for the commissioners to be asked to publicly announce their voting status on a matter that is still pending."

            Report Abuse
    • Author by Kyle_Broflovski (February 21, 2008 5:22 pm ET)
         

      I'm surprised MMFA didn't pick up on these comments from Pat's wife:

      We -- we -- you know, conservatives are -- we believe that we are the family value party. We believe it seriously. We expect our candidates to live up to those values, not just to talk about them and expect us to vote for them, and not be there really when it counts.

       

      And our -- we have a basic belief. If can you lie to your wife and your children, then the voter doesn't have a prayer. And, so, that's where we stand. We assume our candidates are that way, unless we -- we have reason to believe otherwise.

      BWAAAAAHAHAHHAA! 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by jmmartin3402 (February 22, 2008 12:06 am ET)
         

      I think this story -- to use Daily Variety parlance vis-a-vis movie releases -- "has legs."  It might even be something that will go right up to November, something Obama or Clinton can count on for points in a debate where McPain's veracity is questioned.  Yes, of course, all of them are senators and therefore, by definition, on the take, so to speak, where lobbyists are concerned.  But Billary has never made such a big to-do as McPain about fighting K-Street, and Barack only says that the "system" in D.C. needs changing (no specifics).  Neither Dem has made a career out of claiming maverick status.

      Besides, the pundits are now bringing up the Keating savings and loan scandal.  That, coupled with this new revelation about helping someone in the telecommunications lobby get favorable legislation passed after he allegedly got cosy with her -- well, you can easily see how these things undermine the dread many express when they wonder which Dem will best run against McPain.  The answer now is: either one.  McPain (and, for '08 purposes, the whole GOParty) are toast.  Take them out of the fire; they're done.

       

      Report Abuse
    • Author by military_husband (February 22, 2008 8:39 am ET)
         

      The NYT should wait until all of the facts are in before reporting this story, just as Drudge did with the "Kerry had a mistress" story 4 years ago. What? They didn't? Well at least no one picked up the story and started putting it out on the air waves as fact...Oh wait, I heard Sean Hannity doing just that at the time.

        Maybe they will let it lie like they did with Jennifer Flowers back in the 90's. Oh wait, they jumped all over that and still bring it up whenever they can dispite never being proven.

        Yes poor poor John McCain. It is clear that the left wing media attacks him unfairly and the right would never do such a thing, just ask his black child born out of wedlock about that. Only the left smears.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.