Law Firm Dems Hired to Probe Attorney Firings Gave Heavily to Dem Campaigns

Photo of Ken Shepherd.
By Ken Shepherd (Bio | Archive)
March 28, 2007 - 22:15 ET

This is a developing story, so there's room for it to play out a bit, but the law firm congressional Democrats are hiring to help plow through the U.S. attorney firings, Arnold & Porter, has a history of heavy donations towards Democrats.

From the last two paragraphs of a March 28 Associated Press story:

[House Judiciary Committee Chairman John] Conyers , meanwhile, has signed a contract with the law firm Arnold & Porter worth up to $225,000 through the end of the year to help with the investigation.

Republicans said the contract, which was first reported by The Washington Times, was evidence that Democrats were willing to invest taxpayer money in efforts to conduct political investigations of the administration.

The AP story doesn't mention it, but the lion's share of political donations in recent years coming from Arnold & Porter employees has flowed to Democratic candidates, PACs, and Democratic Party committees (pre-2002 and the soft money ban). You can find a comprehensive list of donations from the firms attorneys and staff at OpenSecrets.org.

While a few attorneys donated to conservative Republicans such as former Sen. Rick Santorum or President Bush, liberal Republicans such as Sen. Arlen Spector (Pa.) former Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R.I.) and former Rep. Connie Morella (Md.) were far more common recipients of donations from the firm's attorneys.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I was under the impression th

March 28, 2007 - 22:43 ET by Gat New York

I was under the impression that Congressional committees already had attorneys. If so why retain an outside firm?

Conyers, Waxman, and Leahy are doing precisely what I thought they would do which is to waste taxpayer money on a series of witch hunts in the name of political destruction campaigns – rather than focusing on issues that mattered. I am also certain that this will result in Americans kicking the bums out of office in 2 years.

Gat New York - The Democrats

March 29, 2007 - 00:32 ET by ding7777

Gat New York - The Democrats have a long way to go to catch up with wasteful Republicans.

Mr. Conyers, however, told The Washington Times today in a prepared statement that "over the last twelve years under Republican control, House Committees entered into consultant contracts more than 40 times at a cost of more than $1.6 million."

Try, just for a moment, to

March 29, 2007 - 05:53 ET by sarcasmo

Try, just for a moment, to imagine being a partisan Libertarian and constantly hearing this kind of excuse-making, unrebutted, from Democrats & Republicans in the news media as if you don't even exist...And you people hardly have a long way to go to get close to eachother in the fiscal-irresponsibility department, or did your idiocy forget the spinach-subsidies, peanut-storage subsidies, etc. your party just tried to pawn-off on taxpayers like me in trade for taking even-more of my money to fund Bush's ill-advised Iraq-War that should have been a simple hit on Saddam & family? Sheesh. And I was gonna make a sarcastic crack about Santorum's alleged fiscal "thrift," but I'm not even in the mood after this kind of excuse-making. There's not a dime's worth of fiscal difference between the 2 "major" parties sometimes, and this is one of those times.
JMR

sarcasmo -   Maybe your idi

March 29, 2007 - 09:27 ET by ding7777

sarcasmo -   Maybe your idiocy forgot that there was pork in each and every previous Iraq "emergency funding" and Bush signed them all. 

And why is Bush still having an Iraqi War "emegency funding"?  Why didn't he request these funds in his budget?   Some of the stuff Bush requested in the "emergency" bill doesn't even hit the road until 2010.

You don't like the pork - then tell Bush not to use the "emergency" supplemental to fund his war.  No supplemental = no pork.

Previous Iraq War spending bi

March 29, 2007 - 09:36 ET by Gat New York

Previous Iraq War spending bills were only about the war, so show us the pork if you think it was there, idiot.

Why is there emergency funding? It's a war stupid -  strategies and tactics change and so does the cost. This isn't a video game.

Gat New York -  take a look

March 29, 2007 - 12:55 ET by ding7777

Gat New York -  take a look at 2003 (you can do you own homework for the other years of pork-laden war emergency bills that Bush always signs):

In April 2003, Congress passed a $78.5 billion War Supplemental Appropriations bill. Lawmakers shamefully seized the opportunity to tack on funds for 29 unrelated projects, which cost more than $348 million, including: $110 million for the National Animal Disease Center in Ames, Iowa; $22.7 million for a Capitol power plant; and $200,000 for Light of Life Ministries in Allegheny County, Pa.

Maybe you're unaware of what an emergency is, but an MBA like Bush should not be:

The Bush administration has used supplementals to hide the true cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Three years in, the Iraq war can hardly be called an emergency or an unpredictable event. This is especially true since one of the largest expenditures goes to the salaries and benefits of Army National Guard personnel and reservists called to active duty. Yet each year President Bush leaves out all war costs when he presents his budget to Congress, knowing that he will be able to secure the funding later through the supplemental process.

Keep making excuses, you're

March 29, 2007 - 09:40 ET by sarcasmo

Keep making excuses, you're making my point. Pork is pork to me, period, so your excuses still don't rise near the level of making an actual point. Both "major" political parties are the same when it comes to pork in spending bills, as I've repeatedly said. For someone like you to even pretend fiscal responsibility is laughable, when all you can do is make schoolchild-excuses about the other kid being just-as-bad, as if I give a crap about either big-government political party. I stand by all my words, as usual.
JMR

sarcasmo - In your initial po

March 29, 2007 - 13:03 ET by ding7777

sarcasmo - In your initial post you complained about the Democrats and pork when you know that Bush has signed each and every pork laden bill that crosses his desk. 

So please stop prtending to be a non-partisian pork complainer.   

OK you dont see a difference

March 29, 2007 - 07:10 ET by Ron was RIGHT

OK you dont see a difference between the Republicans hiring consultants (doesnt say what they consulted on although I know my firm has provided consulting on how to make some agencies run more efficiently) and the Democrats hiring Lawyers (that contributed to their reelections) not for the good of the country but for partisan political witch hunts?

I didn't say consultants. I s

March 29, 2007 - 08:23 ET by Gat New York

I didn't say consultants. I said lawyers. There are political consultants throughout the government and both political parties. That's not news.

As far as spending is concerned, I trust that the Democrats will catch up in record time if the pork they slammed into the emergency spending bill for the war is any measure.

I heard about this today some

March 28, 2007 - 22:47 ET by bigtimer

I heard about this today somewhere...maybe Rush.

These are the critters hiring one of the biggest contributers(I am speaking of the lawyers/trial lawyers system) to the leftist party to do anything to get their hands on anything with tax-payer money...not enough that their aides cannot find anything...and we pay for that too.

...and this is suppose to be the cleanest most ethical party that has taken over congress on the House floor...so far not one thing Blinky Pelosi has promised has been true, whatsoever....just the opposite.

I do not think they realize what a hole they are digging for themselves...they may quit digging when it is too late...

Yippee!

I poeted it in another thre

March 29, 2007 - 05:09 ET by motherbelt

I commented on it in a thread yesterday, and gave a link to the Washington Times story. I was flabbergasted. Conyers even changed the name of his committee, adding the word "Oversight" to its title and duties. He definitely has delusions of grandeur.

If the MSM were really balanced

March 28, 2007 - 23:44 ET by nkviking75

If the MSM were really as balanced as they'd like us to believe, we'd be seeing extensive profiles of the fired US attorneys, with an emphasis on their political histories and their adherence to the Bush agenda.  I haven't done the research, so maybe these firings are unfair (not likely, IMHO).  But my suspicion is that at least some of these folks relish the opening they've been given to stick it to the Republicans.  The MSM would also make the case that the President is not obligated to retain US attorneys who are undermining him.

This doesn't look good for

March 29, 2007 - 00:03 ET by WhichWing

This doesn't look good for the Dems. How much were the donations and stuff, I couldn't figure out the opensecrets.org search.

Wouldn't it just be common sense to not do something stupid like this? I'm always amazed at the scandals we see. Seems like any of us with half a brain could accomplish these tasks scandal free.

What does it matter?

March 29, 2007 - 00:47 ET by E4Puke

What does it matter? We, I say we as in people right of the main media outlets, do not set the talking points of the day. I hate to use this tactic of arguing cause it sounds like a 12 year old but I am going to do it anyway. If this crap happened in Bill Clinton's time in office, not only would the fired attorneys be the worst human scum ever to infect the planet, but this law firm would be part of the vast right wing conspiracy. After that was told to the main news networks then reported to us the american people, then everyone that these law firms donated to would be suspected and investigated for drumming up this conspiracy. So I say what does it matter because there is no way to combat this other than sticking our fingers out like 12 year olds and saying "mommy mommy, jimmy did it too".

I haven't heard anything abou

March 29, 2007 - 07:11 ET by rimsky

I haven't heard anything about any of the AG's that were fired except for Carol Lam, and the only thing the MSM can focus on regarding her is the fact that her court convicted Duke Cunningham.  I suspect that there is nothing good that Democrats or the MSM can use on the other 7 AG's because otherwise we'd have heard it all over the media.  So, if the real focus is on Lam, exactly what is the big deal with her? I found this article over at NRO by Byron York > http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGIyNGU4MjdhYWIzNWE1ODNlMWQ3NzQwMzdiOGU3YmE==

which cleared up a lot for me regarding her dismissal..  not that I needed anything, but for the sake of aurgument, she certainly deserved to be fired.  There is nothing these firings, but the MSM drum beat continues.  MR. PRESIDENT! FIGHT BACK...  PLEASE!!!!!!!! 

Where's There's Dem Hypocrisy There's Lawyers

March 29, 2007 - 09:58 ET by emjem24

This is yet another reason I'm glad I'm not an ambulance chaser like John Edwards. I was actively encouraged after I graduated from college to go to law school. I decided against it. I decided to be a teacher. I don't know who panders to dems more lawyers or teachers? In many instances both are charlatans.

Lawyers have a problem disseminating truth from fiction as do teachers. Lawyers will chase any cause (attention ACLU) that will enrich them monetarily. Teachers will ensure that only one political voice will be given credence in the public schools...

I say we stop using tax payer money to allow these two classes of people...lawyers and teachers....access to political preeminence. I don't know about you guys, but as a teacher, I feel very uncomfortable that my tax money is going to public education that has proven nothing but a failure (these are the same people - educators - who think Iraq is a failure). I also feel uncomfortable with my tax dollars for legal charlatans to be used as investigators to reinvent the dog and pony show. Here's a tip for Mr. Conyers: why don't you investigate your fellow dems that have some of the biggest ethical issues out there instead of just the administration. You wouldn't want to be seen as a biased, double standard hypocrite now would you?

The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer.  Air Force Motto

emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.