This is the fourth of a 4-part series about a defense contracting scandal in North Mississippi and Alabama with possible Roger Wicker connections. Part 1 outlined the facts involving a criminal prosecution against Michael Cantrell involving defense contracting in North Alabama. Part 2 involved a New York Times story fleshing out additional details. Part 3 described earmarks Roger Wicker obtained for a North Alabama contractor, and this part will outline the factual identities between the Cantrell case and the Wicker contractor. Finally, there will be an epilogue drawing some conclusions about all of this.
My father has a favorite jury argument that he particularly loves because after he used it to good effect in a case before Judge William Keady (the federal judge who defined the concept of federal judge for many lawyers who practiced in Mississippi in the 70s and 80s), in a later case, Judge Keady looked down from the bench with bemusement and said, "Mr. Freeland, is this a coincidence or a phenomenon?" The other side was puzzled.
In the story, a rural minister is trying to explain to his congregation the limits of coincidence. He said, "If you see an elephant sitting on a fence post, that may be a coincidence. But if you see that elephant is whistling Dixie, that, my friends, is a phenomenon."
The question here is whether what we have is a coincidence or a phenomenon.
Before getting to analysis of what we know, there’s one stray fact that doesn’t exactly have a pigeonhole. In 2005, there was a conference at Mississippi State about high tech defense systems at which then-Congressman Wicker was a speaker. Another speaker described in the press release was Cantrell, the now-convicted defense department employee.
Here’s what we know about Michael Cantrell and the unnamed company involved in his bribery and corrupt-earmarking scheme. The company:
- Was based in Huntsville and had "a branch office in Oxford";
- Was in the business Cantrell supervised–doing missile defense systems research;
- Was the beneficiary of Congressional earmarks that the defense department didn’t want; and
- May have been one of Cantrell’s "contractor allies" involved in a missile range in Alaska supported by Ted Stevens.
Here’s what we know about Roger Wicker and one of his pet earmarks involving a company whose executives have given him substantial contributions:
- It was the beneficiary of Congressional largess, getting substantial earmarks from 2000 to 2006.
That would fit the period of Cantrell’s piracy.
- It has a headquarters in Birmingham, a facility in Oxford, Mississippi, and business in Alaska.
That matches.
- It was involved in a missile launch facility in Alaska supported by Ted Stevens.
That matches at least one of the companies bribing Cantrell.
- Its business is "missile sensor systems" or "missile and aerospace system design, development, integration, and testing."
The Cantrell prosecution identifies the business involved there as "missile defense systems." I’d call this a match.
I’m about prepared to declare this a phenomenon and not a coincidence.
So what’s wrong with this? Why should it be a problem for Roger Wicker if he helped get earmarks (and jobs in North Mississippi) for a company that was corruptly bribing government contract officials?
I guess that question may answer itself, but there’s more, and it has to do with the way Cantrell operated, and the way the pay-for-play culture in Washington in the last eight years has worked. And all of this would suggest earmarks that aren’t just about jobs for one’s district. I’ll talk some about all of that in an epilogue.
Having said that, I’m going to promise some lagniappe: You’ll notice a mention of Trent Lott in the second post, without elaboration. I’ll also expand on that in the epilogue.
NMC, are you telling us that Hal Freeland started the post turtle joke? Wow.
uh…
I don’t think I’m telling you he started it. I’m telling you he used it to good effect in jury arguments.
Shucks. I figure some good ol’ Southern lawyer started it. Woulda been fun to know that was your daddy.
He may have. It’s certainly his story as far as I’m concerned.
There’s a book called The Flush Times of Alabama and Mississippi, written by a lawyer who started out here, but by the 1860s was in California and on their Supreme Court. It’s a hilarious book– I quoted a passage about a liar and lies on this blog some time ago. I’ve heard stories told as “this happened about 10 years ago over in Pontotoc” or some such that were in Flush Times.
I am all in favor of eliminating earmarks, and have had a problem with this “system” where politicians use the earmarks to “bring home the bacon” and obtain legal campaign contributions from those benefiting from the earmarks. It is simply a legal form of bribery, IMO, and has the appearance of impropriety.
Unless Wicker knew of this person’s illegal activities, then what he is doing is pretty much what all of them do —see above. Not sure I see the criminal conduct here that you imply on the part of Wicker, unless the laws have been changed. Wicker admits he uses earmarks to “bring home the bacon” to MS (ok, he didn’t use those words, but that is what it is), and he does not apologize for it. A LOT of folks in his district think that is exactly what he should be doing. While I disagree, I think I am in the minority on this issue.
IF this is a legitimate attack upon Wicker, then the barn door should be wide open to attack pretty much every member of Congress (House and Senate) —including Obama — for doing the same type of things. Follow the money with all of them on the earmarks, and it will be eye opening.
AFOTL:
I think your reaction is reasonable, with a large “but except):
I’m willing to lay aside the question of whether earmarks in the entirely abstract are good or bad. Personally I think bad. But lay that aside. Add in a couple of elements: What about earmarks where someone (a congressman, a senator, a contractor) decides the government should buy something that the “normal” channels says don’t buy.
That’s a problem. And it may be the problem with a huge proportion of earmarks (e.g.– some involve doing scientific research funded outside the peer-reviewed process, such as the earmark Gov. Palin got for dna res. in Alaska). But I’ll assume for now that sometimes going outside the channels is a good thing.
But then there’s the issue of adding in very invisible political influence in place of normal processes of vetting govmt expenditures. And that’s where non- criminal earmarks present a problem that suggest we should get rid of them.
Here we’re going two notches worse. I’m going to blog on this later, but I’m very alarmed by a system (and it’s literally a consciously established one) of pay-for-play for graft with lobbyists had to be insiders to get the deals. I think it’s what has been established in Washington the last decade, and Roger Wicker is part and parcel of it.
And then there’s this: If Wicker delivered an earmark that Cantrell advocated, I have to ask why, and whether he was involved in the criminality. What are the alternatives? Either he was the willing tool of pirates and didn’t learn their projects were a scam, or he was the conscious participant. Are there other options?
I can’t honestly tell you that Ronnie put a stop to this. But it’s clear to me that if we have any impulse to “throw the rascals out”, Wicker is one of the rascals.
Anyhow, I’m pretty sure I’ve not convinced you, AFOTL, but partly because I’m not done. Keep reading. We’ll see where it goes.
I’m not saying you can’t make the case you imply, but right now I see no true smoking gun. Keep in mind that I know both of these candidates personally, and like them both. I supported Musgrove the first time he ran for Gov. and won, and then during his unsuccessful re-election bid against Barbour. And I have always voted for Wicker for the House seat –not so much that I think he has done anything great, but moreso due to the lack of any better alternative. Right now, it is a close decision, but Wicker, for me, is getting the nod due to the Harry Reid factor. I just cannot stand the thought of contributing to this idiot’s continued service as majority leader of the Senate. IF Musgrove would pledge NOT to support Reid for this position, and to support some other Democrat in the Senate — one with some backbone and less creepy, then I would likely reconsider.
I have never heard Musgrove attack earmarks, and can only assume that, if elected, he will carry on the time honored MS tradition of bringing home as much pork as he can, primarily through earmarks —a long tradition carried on by masters of the game such as Jamie Whitten, James O. Eastland, Trent Lott, etc. NMC, you state: ” I think it’s what has been established in Washington the last decade, and Roger Wicker is part and parcel of it.” I would submit that its been going on just a tad bit longer than that —-try longer than I have been alive.
I am not saying that all earmarks are necessarily bad, but I just don’t like the system. It literally begs for corruption and often has the appearance of impropriety even if there is none. The members of Congress wait until some big bill emerges that is needed and has a lot of public support and finally bi-partisan support in Congress, that they know the president will be under immense pressure to approve, and then, like vultures, they start attaching to these type bills all sorts of earmarks for pet projects at home —the types of things that would never pass either branch of Congress on its own merit. Other congresspersons, claiming the greater good as their rationale, send the bill on up to the president, with all the earmarks attached, because the only person who will bear any real responsibility for each earmark is the sponsor of the earmark. And those sponsors will only have to answer to their constituents, who are not likely to complain much, if any, about the bacon being brought home —after all, its expected. And then the president faces a big dilemma — veto an otherwise good, popular bill due to all the unecessary and wasteful earmarks, or sign it, warts and all, claiming the greater good was served. The latter scenario plays out most often. Its really a form of blackmail, with no real accountability —a bypass of what should be the normal process.
Obama has defended the earmarks (in the most recent debate), claiming that, as a percentage of total spending, it is very small and thus not something of great importance. Of course, with the exception of a handful of major spending programs that you could probably count on one hand, the same could be said for the remainder of govt. spending items —if isolated, they would appear small from a percentage standpoint.
But, to me, it is very important. When you are out here in this world working hard and struggling to make ends meet, to support your family, paying your own way, and paying the taxes you owe, it is very, very demoralizing to read about wastful government spending — amounts that would more than negate an entire lifetime of your paying your hard-earned money for those tax dollars —dollars that were just wasted —flushed down the damn toilet. That is why it is important. The govt. needs to be good stewards of OUR money. And if this were done on every spending matter, then it would indeed add up. I really can’t think of anything they can do that would be more important.
One way to solve this situation, and add some accountability to the process, without eliminating the ability to add earmarks, would be to grant the president a limited line item veto power applicable only to earmarks. This veto could be overridden by a simple majority, but on the condition that after the veto the earmark must be voted on the floor of the House and Senate separately, passing or failing on its own merits. With this type of system, no longer could presidents shirk responsibility by claiming, reasonable or not, that the greater good was served by passing the bill even with the earmarks of which the president states disagreement. Now, the president could eliminate and isolate the earmark from the bill before signing it, and thus, by logic, if the line item veto is not exercised, would be specifically agreeing with the earmark. And that brings needed accountability to the president. And this system would also bring the same accountability to members of Congress, as after a line item presidential veto, they would have to vote yes or no or absent/pass on the specific earmark. IF it turned out to be a bad deal, all who voted for it could be called on it.
Something tells me that this type of accountability and sunshine with respect to these earmarks would result in a LOT less earmarks making it through the system, with primarily only the ones with great merit being the few that survive.
This is an idea I floated out here a while back without much response. Like I said above, I may be in the minority with respect to my dislike of earmarks.
AFOTL wrote:
First, I know that I’ve made posts that are strongly suggestive but not solidly tied together.
Second:
“I have never heard Musgrove attack earmarks, and can only assume that, if elected, he will carry on the time honored MS tradition of bringing home as much pork as he can”
I agree with that. I also (from knowledge of both candidates) can’t tell you that Musgrove would not be likely to support the sort of problem earmark (by “problem earmark” I mean to distinguish plain-old-pork-barrel from earmarks that try to end run around normal decisionmaking and try to compel the govmt to buy things it doesn’t even want) that I think Wicker has clearly supported.
“NMC, you state: " I think it’s what has been established in Washington the last decade, and Roger Wicker is part and parcel of it." I would submit that its been going on just a tad bit longer than that —try longer than I have been alive.”
There is a difference in kind about what has gone on in the last 10 years, beginning with the K Street Project that Grover Norquist and DeLay started. It really is different in kind. I’ve got materials about that as part of an epilogue post that I’ve not had time to stitch together and write yet. I don’t mean to ask you to just accept my word on it, but for now I don’t have time to fill out my thoughts on it.
I dislike earmarks for many of the reasons you do.
I have serious separation of powers issues with line-item vetoes. The constitutional structure has a balance– just as the house and senate have to pass the whole same bill or send it to conference to repass the whole thing, I think it better to require the president to sign an entire bill or send it back. This is an instinctive reaction (that is, I’ve not bothered to back it up by research).
IMO, Roger Wicker thought he was earmarking money to Ole Miss rather than enabling a known criminal or known criminal activity. I would suspect he and Chancellor Khayat had conversations about keeping this money flow to the university.
And why is former governor Ronnie Musgrove’s request for campaign money from the Georgia company not “pay to play” in regard to the beef plant? It’s appears to me that Musgrove made that clear when he asked for the money–whether he stated it in those terms or not.
Nomiss, that is indeed plausible, as I had thought that the earmarks pushed by Wicker that are the subject of this thread had sent money to UM’s acoustics research center —- something that most here in MS would think is a good thing. But, this thread by NMC does raise some interesting questions that Wicker probably needs to address. If it is fair game for Wicker to bring up the beef plant related prosecutions as an attack on Musgrove, then this connection of Wicker to this unsavory character from Alabama should be fair game also.
Politics is such a dirty business. Always has been, always will be. And don’t anyone try to tell me it hasn’t always been like this —every generation has thought that politics is dirtier than before — anyone who has studied American political history knows I speak the truth. The only differences now are the ability to mass communicate and the amount of money involved in campaigns.
Maybe you should rethink, before you publish. I’d be on the street with my family homeless now if it wasn’t for earmarks giving money to a company that needed it to start and grow. There are plenty of others that would be homeless as well all over the country. You think it is waist, but it gives people jobs. Sure there might be some money off the top kept in pockets, but on the bottom people with regular incomes get jobs out of it.