McCain Comments Distort FCC Matter

[cal04]

By Paul Kiel - February 21, 2008,
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/mccain_comments_distort_fcc_ma.php

Whatever you may think of this morning's New York Times and Washington Post stories, they turn on whether John McCain did legislative favors for Vicki Iseman, the lobbyist with whom McCain denies having had a romantic relationship.

And McCain was keen to hit back hard on that account at his news conference this morning. When one reporter asked him about one of the key details in the Times piece -- that McCain, then the chairman of the Senate commerce committee, had written a letter to the Federal Communications Commission on behalf of one of Iseman's clients -- he responded:

On the "letters" to the FCC. Interestingly, this was brought up in the year 2000 by The New York Times. I wrote a letter because the FCC, which usually makes a decision within 400 days, had gone almost 800 days. In the letter, I said I’m not telling you how to make a decision, I’m just telling you that you should move forward and make a decision on this issue. And I believe that was appropriate. And the former chairman of the FCC at the time in 2000 said that was more than an appropriate role for me to play as chairman of the oversight committee.

While it's true that the letter did not request a particular decision (more about that below), it's not true that the FCC chairman saw no issue with the letter.



Update: You can see the exchange of letters between McCain and Kennard here.
McCain's Letter to F.C.C. and Excerpts From Replies
http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/010600wh-gop-mccain-text.html

[Ichingcarpenter]

1. I posted this story too on the front page

It is a story that needs to get out


:toast: :hi:

[cal04]

3. hi Ichingcarpenter

thanks. I'm sorry I didn't see it. I wouldn't have reposted

:hi:

[cal04]

2. An Artful Dodge

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/an_artful_dodge.php

TPMm Reader AC writes in with a little more context to McCain's December, 1999 letter to the FCC.

As I mentioned in my post, the McCain campaign has responded at length to the New York Times story, and the statement strives to beat back any impression that McCain had given any undue consideration to clients from Vicki Iseman's firm, Alcalde and Fay -- in this case, Paxson Communications, which was seeking the FCC's approval of a deal.

The statement goes out of its way to claim that no one from Alcalde and Fay had ever "personally asked" McCain to send the letter. The statement also says that while McCain's staff had met with "representatives" from that firm, the staff had also met with activists who opposed the deal. Both camps wanted the issue resolved, and "both parties asked the staff to contact the FCC regarding the proceeding," according to the statement.

There are a couple things wrong with that. For one, the lawyer who represented opponents of the deal told The Boston Globe back in 2000 that McCain's letter was " improper, unethical, violated FCC rules barring such contacts on pending FCC matters, and appeared designed to assist a major contributor." It certainly doesn't sound like she or her clients were consulted.

And when The Washington Post posted a story the next day, the paper had a clear take as to who had wanted the letter sent:

As for the Paxson letter, McCain's aides confirmed that he had written the missive at the request of Alcalde & Fay, the Washington lobbying firm retained by Paxson.

[cal04]

4. Update: McCain's FCC Remark

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/update_mccains_fcc_remark.php

Jake Tapper over at ABC takes a look at John McCain's remark during this morning's press conference that we noted earlier.

And the McCain campaign tells him that when McCain said "the former chairman of the FCC at the time in 2000 said that was more than an appropriate role for me to play," he meant the then-former chairman, Reed Hundt (a frequent TPMCafe contributor) -- not the FCC chairman in 2000, William Kennard. Kennard, obviously, felt unduly pressured by the letter. Hundt, apparently, thought "nothing was objectionable."

As we noted in another post, the McCain camp has stretched to the limit of credibility in trying to downplay McCain's role in the Paxson letters. But certainly this meaning of the line would have substantially changed the way we approached our earlier post.


What Did McCain Actually Do for Iseman's Clients?
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/what_did_mccain_do_for_isemans.php

[WilyWondr]

5. She is a registered lobbyist

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/lobbyist.asp?txtname=Iseman%2C+Vicki&year=a&txttype=l

Has a list of her clients.