Rep. Roy Blunt whores himself out to Philip Morris- and gets caught

[elf6c]

Disgusting-- even his own party shot him down. Notice the unnamed Republican’s who dropped the dime on this sleazy bag of shit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41839-2003Jun10.html

Only hours after Rep. Roy Blunt was named to the House’s third-highest leadership job in November, he surprised his fellow top Republicans by trying to quietly insert a provision benefiting Philip Morris USA into the 475-page bill creating a Department of Homeland Security, according to several people familiar with the effort.

The new majority whip, who has close personal and political ties to the company, instructed congressional aides to add the tobacco provision to the bill – then within hours of a final House vote – even though no one else in leadership supported it or knew he was trying to squeeze it in.

How it was sleazy:

It is highly unusual for a House Republican to insert a last-minute contentious provision that has never gone through a committee, never faced a House vote and never been approved by the speaker or majority leader. Blunt’s attempt became known only to a small circle of House and White House officials. They kept it quiet, preferring no publicity on a matter involving favors for the nation’s biggest tobacco company and possible claims of conflicts of interest.

Several in that circle say they were struck by Blunt’s willingness to go out on a limb for a company to which he has ties. What’s more, he did it within hours of climbing to the House leadership’s third-highest rung, a notable achievement for a man who came to Washington less than six years ago.

Why it was sleazy:

Scruggs said in an interview that the provision was “pretty important to us.” Philip Morris, the nation’s largest cigarette producer, would have benefited from the measure more than any other company.

Several Republicans who learned of the November effort have privately expressed concern that Blunt pushed the provision partly because of his personal relationship with Philip Morris lobbyist Abigail Perlman. Blunt, who several Republicans said spends considerable time with Perlman, would not discuss their relationship or whether the two had talked about the provision.

“I am just going to talk about policy here,” he said. Perlman did not return two phone calls placed last week requesting comment.

Andrew B. Blunt, one of the lawmaker’s sons, is a lobbyist for Philip Morris in Missouri, where his work is confined to state matters. Andrew Blunt did not return two phone calls requesting comment. Rep. Blunt did not talk to his son about the tobacco provision, the congressman’s spokeswoman said.

Philip Morris has contributed more than $150,000 to political committees affiliated with Blunt since 2001, according to Federal Election Commission records.

Nice, you sleazy fucking shitbag. Even your own party was embarassed by your actions, and that is saying something.

More from sleaze from the Congressman for Sale:

Because Blunt’s actions in the Philip Morris matter were kept quiet, there were no apparent repercussions or threats to his leadership ambitions. Meanwhile, there is evidence that the majority whip has continued to work aggressively on behalf of companies to which he has ties.

In April, for instance, Blunt managed to have a provision inserted into a Senate bill, without debate, on behalf of United Parcel Service Inc. and FedEx Corp. The two companies were seeking to block the expansion of a foreign rival’s U.S. operations. Blunt’s son Andrew also represents UPS in Missouri, as the Wall Street Journal first reported, and the two companies have contributed a total of $120,000 to Blunt since 2001, according to Federal Election Commission data.

Idiot.

:mad:

[Kent Brockman] I will say it again people, democracy simply doesn’t work [/Kent Brockman]

[UrbanChic]

C’mon, you had to see this coming, right? I mean the man’s last name is Blunt.

[Arnold_Winkelried]

elf6c, instead of copying and pasting several portions of the article (I didn’t fill out the Washington post “survey” to be able to read the original), could you just rephrase the essentials in your own words?

[elf6c]

*Originally posted by Arnold Winkelried *
**elf6c, instead of copying and pasting several portions of the article (I didn’t fill out the Washington post “survey” to be able to read the original), could you just rephrase the essentials in your own words? **

No problem- I always try to ensure my quotes are within the fair use guidelines for criticism and discussion, but 4 quotes from the same source may have been pushing it. Given the sensitive topic I wanted to ensure that my OP was well Cited, but may have overdone it.

That survey bit is new-- grumble.

Also thanks for killing off the evil twin- my browser said the first one didn’t go through. Sorry to make extra work for you.

[JohnBckWLD]

*Originally posted by JuanitaTech *
**C’mon, you had to see this coming, right? I mean the man’s last name is Blunt. **

You’d almost expect as much from [ul][li]Rep. Eshoo[/li][li]Rep. Graves[/li][li]Rep. Kildee[/li][li]Reps. Peter & Steve King[/li][li]Rep. Musgrave[/li][li]Sen. Brownback[/li][li]Sen. Burns[/li][li]Sen. Herb Kohl[/li][/ul]

[Weirddave]

So, uh, what did the provision he inserted do for PM?

[RexDart]

Yeah, I too would like to know what the provision did. And as a smoker, anything that benefits tobacco companies is probably good for me, as it might bring the cost back down towards where it was before all these damned lawsuits happened.

Missourians smoke at a much higher rate than many other states, and just last year voted down a proposed cigarette tax, I think a Missouri representative is on safe ground proposing a bill friendly to tobacco.

[peepthis]

*Originally posted by Weirddave *
**So, uh, what did the provision he inserted do for PM? **

From the article:

The provision would have made it harder to sell tobacco products over the Internet and would have cracked down on the sale of contraband cigarettes, two practices that cut into Philip Morris’s profits.

[Weirddave]

They also seem to be fairly common sense provisions to me. Just because PM benefits, does that mean we shouldn’t agressively prosecute lawbreakers or regulate the sale of tobacco ( a controlled substance ) to keep minors and the like from buying online?

[snac]

So they’re common sense, okay. But in that case, what’s wrong with putting such measures up for a fair and open vote, where everyone knows what the bills actually are and what they’re voting on?

[peepthis]

The other big concern is Blunt’s numerous close ties to Phillip Morris, making his attempt to sneak in this provision all the more questionable.

[Steve_Wright]

As a matter of principle, shouldn’t all legislation be freely and openly debated, rather than sneaked onto the statute books arbitrarily?

I mean … you Americans are supposed to get annoyed when somebody imposes arbitrary laws that you don’t get any say in. I remember you got all cross about it back in, when was it, 1776?

(Seriously. Whether the provision was reasonable or not, putting it in by stealth is an abuse of the system.)

[SkipMagic]

*Originally posted by Steve Wright *
**As a matter of principle, shouldn’t all legislation be freely and openly debated, rather than sneaked onto the statute books arbitrarily?

I mean … you Americans are supposed to get annoyed when somebody imposes arbitrary laws that you don’t get any say in. I remember you got all cross about it back in, when was it, 1776?

(Seriously. Whether the provision was reasonable or not, putting it in by stealth is an abuse of the system.) **

That’s what I think; in fact, I hate these stupid “riders” (I’m not sure if that’s the proper term or not) that they latch on to a bill–things that have N-O-T-H-I-N-G to do with the bill currently being voted on. It’s terribly deceptive and dishonest (even if it’s legal) and shouldn’t be allowed.

[elf6c]

Plus there was a bill introduced earlier to do this. It failed. So this clown tries to sneak one in ay the behest of his masters- and gets stone cold busted by his own party.

Why he had to sneak, and why he was slapped down for it:

A senior Republican lawmaker who requested anonymity said some GOP members worried at the time that it would be “embarrassing” to the party and its new whip if details of the effort were made public. Another Republican said Blunt’s effort angered some leaders because there was “so little support for” a pro-tobacco provision likely to generate controversy.