Reality Check, again

Late Friday, Progress Illinois posted a diary raising questions about John Fritchey's work as a lobbyist before the city government of Chicago. The post represents a point of view, "In relation to some of the issues we've covered over the past year," or what is defined as the interests of "working families."

This happens to be a point of view I am happy to see represented in the blogging community, which I think is heavy on the idealist or romantic end of politics and incredibly light on the practical or real world end of politics. But this post appears to be something of an ambush -- and a bit misleading. So I asked the writer what Fritchey's response to the post was, and came to find that he never requested a comment from the subject of the story.

So I did.


Three things first. First of all, Progress Illinois is underwritten by SEIU Illinois. The blog's FAQ states:

Our sole sponsor at the moment is the SEIU Illinois Council. We are reaching out to other progressive organizations that wish to sponsor our work.

Secondly, SEIU was widely reported to be about to endorse Sara Feigenholtz in the IL-05 special election. In Progress Illinois' own reportage of the impending endorsement, it noted:

On Monday, Crain's Greg Hinz reported that SEIU Illinois (which sponsors this site) is leaning towards endorsing Sara Feigenholtz, which is what we've been hearing as well.

So it might seem a bit curious that Progress Illinois would note the apparent conflict of interest when the news is positive but not when the news is negative -- especially when the "some" left "scratching their heads" were obviously those within SEIU.

I had no trouble reaching out to the Fritchey campaign on this. Granted, I know Josh Levin, Fritchey's campaign manager (just as I know Josh Kalven, the editor of Progress Illinois), as well as the campaign managers of several of the other campaigns. When I was in the city on Sunday (to interview Mike Quigley), I called Josh (Levin) when I was a few blocks from his headquarters.

"Is John Fritchey available to answer a couple of questions about this," I asked Josh. "No," Josh told me, "we're not at the headquarters." Which was true, as I didn't see any lights on as I passed Berry on the way home.

"You can email the questions, though," Josh (Levin) offered. So I did.

The questions were simple, to give the candidate an opportunity to respond to the budding controversy on a couple of Illinois blogs. "by now," I wrote, "you've read the post on progress illinois. do you have any reaction to the story?"

This week most of the labor organizations and the oldest good government group in the 5th District lined up behind me. Apparently that’s all it takes to provoke attacks and distortions.

I am proud of my legal work, even though it requires me to register as a lobbyist. That means that unlike all the other lawyers in this race, each of my clients and every one of my retainer letters is —and has always been— on file publicly at the Board of Ethics. But beyond that disclosure, any reporter in the city will tell you that my door has always been wide open to anyone that wants to know more. It’s disappointing that no one from Progress Illinois called me before publishing an unresearched piece that misrepresents my work and insinuates special interest ties that my record flatly disproves.

I worked with Bank of America in 2006 as they and the City tried to deal with the dozens of new competing branches opening in gentrifying neighborhoods. Financial institutions were forcing out shops and businesses that are the backbone of our retail corridors. With the fiscal crisis, it's all the more obvious why we needed to limit the number of banks the could build branches in a given area, and that's what I negotiated to do. Bank of America's bad acts in the public sphere - misusing bailout funds, organizing against Card Check - didn't come until years later and, if elected to Congress, I'll hold them accountable.

But voters know a one-time piece of legal work from three years ago doesn’t say anything about my pro-worker record. A 97% lifetime AFL-CIO rating, on the other hand, says something about my pro-worker record. Endorsements from the IFT, HERE, AFSCME and the AFL-CIO say something about my pro-worker record. Carrying bills that mandate breaks for hotel room attendants, protect nurses from forced overtime work and protect workers’ rights to picket - those say something about my pro-worker record.

When I first saw the story, the question I had was, where's the beef? I understand the knee-jerk reaction to the term, "lobbyist," but I thought the reason people had that reaction was because they viewed an inherent conflict of interest between lobbyists and the money they put into politics -- that they were buying access. This story had none of those issues; rather, it seemed Progress Illinois took exception to the assertion of another union's (not SEIU but the AFL-CIO) glowing press release on their endorsement of Fritchey:

Rep. Fritchey has a 97 percent lifetime voting record with the Illinois AFL-CIO, supporting important legislation like the minimum wage increases, the Equal Pay Act, employee misclassification regulations, Prevailing Wage Act enforcement, mine safety measures, health care expansion, Workers’ Compensation improvements, corporate accountability, whistleblower protections, day laborer protections, pay day loan reform, the freedom to picket during work disputes and card check recognition for public employees.

So I asked, "can you think of any potential conflicts of interest -- including the potential appearance of conflicts of interest -- between your lobbying work before the city government of chicago and your position as an elected state representative?"

Like a lot of people in this race, I have stated that my interests are aligned with my constituents. Unlike a lot of people in this race, I have the 12 year record to prove it. I have worked with Bank of America and Cash America on non-controversial dealings with the City and my record as a Representative is clear: I am a public servant and not for sale or rent. I led the charge against predatory payday lenders, I joined now-Governor Pat Quinn in fighting banks - like Bank of America - which were increasing ATM fees at every turn. I've been a sponsor of virtually every pro-consumer bill to come out of the General Assembly over the last 12 years.

My final question: "what would you say to those who suggest that being a lobbyist somehow disqualifies you for election to congress?"

If someone’s lobbying work determines how they legislate, they shouldn’t be in government. But working with Bank of America doesn’t mean voting for big business, and helping Cash America open a pawn shop through a community-supported zone change isn’t the same thing as voting for predatory lenders. If someone can’t work on issues with groups they don’t always agree with, that also means they shouldn’t be in government.

Voters are sick of politicians making promises they don’t keep, and it makes perfect sense that voters want as much information as possible before casting their vote. Voters also know a legislator who has served 12 proud years in the General Assembly, the easiest way to find out what he’ll do is to look at what he’s done. My record is clear—no candidate in this race has been more consistently and more successfully pro-worker and pro-reform.

That's John Fritchey's reaction to the story. I'm still trying to figure out the beef. In trying to use a toxic term, the story labels a candidate without ever providing any context. As the writer puts it,

I'm not accusing Fritchey of being a lobbyist. He is one. The only one in the 5th District race, in fact. And I thought that this public information deserved to be reported on, particularly considering no one ever seems to talk about it. It's not mentioned on his bio page. And a search of the Lexis-Nexis database brings up no articles that refer to his work in this capacity.

He is correct -- as far as it goes. But Fritchey is not a lobbyist before the body to which he is elected (or to which he's seeking election), he's a lobbyist before the city of Chicago. If John Fritchey was running for mayor of Chicago, I'd think this criticism was fair. But I'm left wondering what this has to do with running for Congress (outside the blanket use of a toxic term, and possibly setting up a quote for a mailer from its sponsor. Maybe it's just me, but I've certainly fed a story to the media in order to get a quote I'd later use in an attack mailer).

The whole thing just seems a bit rushed. The story was posted on late Friday, posted without attempting to contact the candidate (or campaign), and posted without the disclaimer that its primary (possibly only) sponsor was about to endorse a different candidate. If I didn't know better, I'd conclude that it was rushed to print (as it were) before that endorsement was officially made -- which doesn't excuse Progress Illinois. They had already acknowledged that they were "hearing" that SEIU was about to endorse Feigenholtz.

Here's the thing. Most of the (perhaps all the other) lobbyists I know who lobby the city of Chicago are former Daley aides, many of them former "fixers," people who are somehow closely associated with the Daley machine. And then there is John Fritchey. Progress Illinois does not dispute Fritchey's reform credentials or even the accuracy of the AFL-CIO's words (that "Rep. Fritchey has a 97 percent lifetime voting record with the Illinois AFL-CIO"). I am left wondering if we haven't been placed into the middle of the SEIU/AFL-CIO food fight (full disclosure: I happen to support Andy Stern's position here, that the unions have to be more aggressive in organizing, which underlied the split between SEIU and the AFL-CIO). And Josh Kalven will tell you that, when we first talked about Progress Illinois, I told him I hoped that they would cover the politics of the unions because it is something that is almost completely absent from the progressive blogosphere. Which is why the full disclosure thing is so important (even when you might think it isn't required). It's about transparency and providing context. It's about educating the public, not misleading it. Those are our (I believe) shared values.

So where's the conflict of interest? The Obama campaign ran against lobbyists, but was very precise in how it defined it. They defined a lobbyist as someone who lobbies the federal government -- iow, the government in which he (Barack Obama) sought to lead. He refused money from FEDERAL lobbyists, but took money from state and local lobbyists. Candidate Obama took money from non-federal lobbyists because there was no conflict of interests in their contributions, nor even an *apparent* conflict of interest. They weren't going to ask his government for anything. The same thing is true here. As a local government lobbyist, there is not a conflict of interest with Fritchey's work in the state legislature OR his campaign for Congress. The money they paid to John Fritchey was, well, for his work before the city of Chicago. They got what they paid for -- and nothing more.

One will note that SEIU (and the other unions) have lobbyists on their payroll, as well. This fact strongly suggests to me that using the term against Fritchey was a bit of misdirection. Lobbyists are only bad, it seems, when they work against your defined interests. SEIU supports someone else, so Fritchey's presence in the race is therefore against their defined interests. Progress Illinois should have made that clear.

Finally, I will note that I've had this charge used against me. The Clinton campaign in Pennsylvania attempted to make something out of the fact that I "lobbied" Hillary Clinton to come out against the pending invasion of Iraq. I ended up having to talk to the National Journal because they (the Clinton campaign) were kicking up a storm, trying to impune the Obama campaign for having a "lobbyist" on their side. Nothing came of it, except to give me a giant headache. But it was true. I helped the United Methodist Church in their efforts to arrange a meeting with the president to explain their position that its Just War tenets prohibited the invasion of Iraq. I did, indeed, lobby Clinton to convince her to join our church in its declaration against the invasion. And I failed. But my meager lobbying efforts allowed the Clinton campaign to use this toxic term against me (and the Obama campaign). I don't think it will surprise anyone why I asked John Fritchey for a response to this story...