UPDATE: CMW responds to charges from Schaffer that they are ‘attacking Gold Star Mothers’ in a new statement (follows previous after the jump). Asks Director David Donnelly, “Did this lobbying firm, Russo, Marsh & Rogers, encourage Bob Schaffer and his company to seek oil deals in Iraq? Did the lobbying firm know that Schaffer’s company was developing a deal that contradicted U.S. foreign policy? Was it merely coincidence that members from this controversial group were also touring Kurdistan during the same month that Schaffer was there?”
Senate candidate Bob Schaffer’s handlers should have checked this endorsement out a little a lot more carefully, as the Grand Junction Sentinel reports:
A conservative political group scheduled to endorse Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer on Wednesday has ties to a public relations firm that worked in 2005 to attract international oil companies and other firms to do business in northern Iraq against U.S. policy at the time.
Sal Russo, chief strategist for the political arm of Move America Forward, said he and his California-based public relations firm, Russo, Marsh & Rogers, were involved in helping promote international business deals in Kurdistan, the semi-autonomous northern region of Iraq.
“We were trying to make people aware that there was a part of Iraq that is secular, safe, booming economically … and to encourage people to invest, because it is a booming economy,” Russo said Monday.
Move America Forward, a nonprofit, has advocated in favor of U.S. intervention in Iraq and veterans issues.
Schaffer, who is running against Democratic Congressman Mark Udall, was one of several executives from Denver-based Aspect Energy who laid the groundwork in November 2006 for an oil deal between the company and the regional government.
The U.S. State Department has cited the Aspect Energy deal and two dozen other similar deals as problematic for the fledgling democracy.
On the campaign trail this year, Schaffer said he never heard firsthand the U.S. government opposed international oil deals with the Kurds.
State Department correspondence, however, shows Aspect Energy finalized its oil production agreement with the Kurdistan Regional Government in November 2007, long after the State Department had broadcast its stance on foreign oil deals, including in a May 1 letter to the man Schaffer hopes to succeed, U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo.
Russo said there is no nexus between the Aspect Energy deal and the Schaffer endorsement…
The Rocky Mountain News reports Schaffer campaign manager Dick Wadhams is extremely unhappy this endorsement is being questioned.
A Washington group called Campaign Money Watch on Monday noted that Move America Forward has ties to business enterprises in Kurdistan. Schaffer visited the region in northern Iraq in 2006 as part of an oil and gas trip that has come under fire in the campaign.
“All roads run through Kurdistan,” said David Donnelly, director of Campaign Money Watch.
Schaffer’s campaign manager, Dick Wadhams, was livid at the attempt to make the endorsement a controversy.
“They’re attacking a group of women who lost their kids in Iraq? How much more despicable can you get than that?” he asked…
Ryan Gill, operations director for Move America Forward, said he had no idea that Schaffer had visited Kurdistan when he recommended that the group endorse him.
Indeed. But who is hiding behind whom? The Sentinel has the Kurdistan lobbyist in question, Sal Russo, denying he even knew that Schaffer was being endorsed by the MAF at all. But Source Watch lists Russo as Move America Forward’s “chief strategist” — are we seriously to believe he did know who the group is endorsing? Even more telling, MAF’s original listed address is the office of Russo’s lobbying firm, as is the domain name “moveamericaforward.com.”
“Move America Forward” is by casual examination a manufacture of Russo Marsh & Rogers, which makes these inconsistent denials of either knowledge of Schaffer in Kurdistan or knowledge of Schaffer bring endorsed by the organization depending on who you get on the phone–especially after Schaffer’s Kurdistan connections have been so widely publicized–totally ridiculous. It’s stunning how quickly their story is falling apart.
So who is hiding behind whom? Would these Gold Star mothers, themselves obviously above reproach, still get up on MAF’s soapbox to praise Schaffer if they knew both Schaffer and MAF’s principle figures engaged in activities the US government says have needlessly prolonged the war?
We see Beauprez-magnitude disaster written all over this–Campaign Money Watch’s new TV spot and release from yesterday follow.
“Big Oil Bob” Is Back In Watchdog’s Latest Ad
Second spot this month exposes Schaffer’s shady oil deal, loyalty to oil industry donors
Washington, D.C. – Campaign Money Watch, a nonpartisan campaign finance reform watchdog, today released a new ad highlighting U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer’s (R-CO) involvement in an oil deal that Iraq war veterans have called “war profiteering,” as well as his support for $13 billion in tax breaks for his Big Oil donors.
The ad, now airing in the Denver market, is the group’s second of this month and third of the 2008 election cycle. Last week, Campaign Money Watch launched an ad detailing Schaffer’s ties to jailed lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the sweatshop owners who have given him thousands in campaign contributions.
The new ad, titled “Deal,” spotlights an oil contract that Schaffer, while working for Denver-based Aspect Energy, helped negotiate in Iraqi Kurdistan even though the U.S. State Department, according to a Rocky Mountain News report, said it could be “problematic for Iraq and its attempts to establish a national oil policy.” A leader of a national veterans organization said Schaffer’s work on the deal made him “a war profiteer – 100 percent.”
The ad airs as a controversial group with connections to the Kurdistan government, MAF Freedom PAC, plans to endorse Bob Schaffer on Wednesday. The group’s members toured Kurdistan at virtually the same time Schaffer was trying to cut Aspect Energy’s deal with the regional government. The group’s lead strategist is a principal of a political consulting firm in Washington that led public relations and lobbying campaigns on Kurdistan’s behalf since 2005. [Pols emphasis]
As the ad documents, Schaffer’s ties to the oil industry extend back to his time in Congress. While in office, he voted to give Big Oil $13 billion in tax breaks. Meanwhile, he has been on the receiving end of $224,000 in campaign contributions from the industry.
“No matter where he works, Bob Schaffer can’t seem to put anything above the interests of Big Oil, not even national security,” said David Donnelly, director of Campaign Money Watch. “Whether the oil industry is paying Schaffer’s salary or filling his campaign war chest, he does exactly what it asks. It’s time for Schaffer to put voters first, reject the wishes of Big Oil, and embrace comprehensive campaign finance reform.”
Campaign Money Watch is a project of the nonpartisan Public Campaign Action Fund. The organization works to hold politicians who are against comprehensive campaign finance reform accountable for where they get their political donations.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
CONTACT
David Miller, Communications Manager
(202) 448-6154
Watchdog Demands Answers, Not Attacks, From Schaffer and Controversial Group
Washington, D.C. – Campaign Money Watch, a national campaign finance watchdog group, issued the following statement from its director, David Donnelly, today in response to the unfounded attacks by U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer (R-CO) and his campaign:
“This is a time for answers, not attacks. Bob Schaffer’s campaign hasn’t respond to charges that he went to Iraq to help cut an oil deal with the government of Kurdistan, a region of Iraq, for his former oil company. A veterans leader called Bob Schaffer is a ‘war profiteer’ because of the deal. Now we find out Schaffer is about to accept an endorsement from a controversial group, Move America Forward PAC, whose political strategist’s firm was hired to lobby by Kurdistan Development Corporation to promote business deals. In addition, members from the group also toured Kurdistan during the same month Schaffer went there.
“Did this lobbying firm, Russo, Marsh & Rogers, encourage Bob Schaffer and his company to seek oil deals in Iraq? Did the lobbying firm know that Schaffer’s company was developing a deal that contradicted U.S. foreign policy? Was it merely coincidence that members from this controversial group were also touring Kurdistan during the same month that Schaffer was there?
“Let the record be clear: Move America Forward is not a veterans group, but rather a pro-Iraq war, pro-Bush group that has engaged in overheated rhetoric and political stunts. Campaign Money Watch demands answers from the Schaffer campaign, this controversial group, and the lobbying firm, not attacks that serve to divert the public’s attention away from serious issues.”
Campaign Money Watch is a project of the nonpartisan Public Campaign Action Fund. It has recently launched two ads in Colorado focusing on Schaffer’s ties to lobbyists and special interests. The organization works to hold politicians who are against comprehensive campaign finance reform accountable for where they get their political donations.
19 thoughts on “Endorsement Reopens “War Profiteer” Accusations”
An associate of mine was contracted to do some work by Aspect Energy. Because of something I can’t get into without revealing specifics, Aspect terminated their relationship.
To this day my associate’s company has not received payment for the work they did, or the equipment they bought. Aspect has repeatedly told them they’ll have to sue to get the money they’re owed.
The bright side is that my associate is now incredibly committed to voting for and supporting Udall (even though he’s no fan) purely because of Schaffer’s ties to Aspect. They’re a bunch of crooks.
He’s had to lay off at least 5 of his 20 employees in the last few weeks, and he’ll probably have to lay off a few more before it’s all over. I feel very badly for him.
THE OIL DEALS WITH THE KURDS WERE A BIG BENEFIT TO IRAQ. (Sorry for yelling.) The progress made by the Kurds forced the Baghdad government to get their act together and get an oil law passed, which helped the entire country immensely. Furthermore, the Kurds had been under 10 years of the most severe economic sanctions that the UN had ever imposed. These sanctions were intended to control Saddam Hussein, but hurt the Kurds too. International trade, in oil or anything else, allowed the Kurds to get medical care for their children, and hosts of other things you take for granted.
And, did anyone else notice that the first deal signed by the new Iraqi government was with CNP? That’s China National Petroleum. I am no big fan of the Iraq invasion, it was the stupidest thing I’ve seen in my lifetime, but our guys are dying over there and we are paying the bills so China can get stronger? I’m not sure I even care whether the US Government thinks Kurdish oil deals are a good or a bad idea, they had so little credibility on their Iraq strategy at that time.
This “war profiteering” accusation is pretty slimy. I will vote for Schaffer just because of the lack of ethics of the Udall campaign in this race.
the State Department specifically said that it would undermine the US mission. Schaffer defied the Federal government by going there to secure the deal.
If Aspect was so concerned about the Kurds that they wanted to help so very badly, then they could have worked it out with the State Department before they went. Instead, they defied the edict, and went anyway.
Regardless of it’s actual effect, Aspect Energy went against the express wishes of the government – in a war zone. If it had turned out badly, they might have been looking at charges of treason (except that they’re Republicans).
of a greater problem with Schaffer as a candidate. He feels that he is not beholden to anyone except himself and his vociferous supporters (read as: the GOP base.)
He feels no need to question whether defying the State Dept. was a good idea, or even explain to the voters why he went to Iraq. He doesn’t see a problem with associating himself with Jack Abramoff. He scoffs at bipartisanship and reaching across the aisle. He demonizes the left in Colorado every chance he gets by diminishing them as being “Boulder Liberals”.
If he showed even an ounce of courtesy or respect for his opponent, or his opponent’s supporters, or anyone who disagrees with him, then he might come across as someone we could send to the US Senate. Instead, he comes across as arrogant, mean, and too extreme.
the State Department issued its warnings AFTER Schaffer went to Iraq to negotiate the KRG deal, but BEFORE the deal was finalized. He didn’t “(defy) the Federal government by going there.” But you’re right, there were enough questions about cutting separate deals with the Kurds to give an old Washington hand like Schaffer some pause and should have encouraged him to earn his pay by advising Aspect about what the deals could mean. Pols is exactly right, he can’t have it both ways.
but either way, Schaffer has not properly explained why he went to Iraq, and why he sought it fit to continue the deal after the State Dept. asked them not to.
and Wadhams blustering about Gold Star moms doesn’t address it, either (obviously, that’s the point). Remember at that debate earlier this summer when Schaffer stated, unchallenged, that he did not go to Iraq to negotiate an oil deal? He’s never said why he did go, or explained that outlandish statement.
He has claimed he didn’t know the feds were opposed to independent deals with the Kurds, despite his mentor and hero, Wayne Allard, having received notice from the State Dept. months before Aspect sealed the deal. Was he an expert on the ways of Washington or not? Why was Aspect paying him so handsomely, if he couldn’t keep track of the obvious signals? (Mike Saccone at the GJ Sentinel has done some excellent reporting on this.)
Doesn’t matter if the the State Department says you’re wrong, that these deals with the Kurds have made the national reconciliation process harder, made secession and civil war a greater possibility. Never mind the foreign policy experts who agree.
You can’t have it both ways–you can’t praise the American invasion of Iraq like Schaffer does, while praising Schaffer’s actions that have prolonged it according to the same US government.
October 14, 2008 05:53 PM UTC
19 Comments
An associate of mine was contracted to do some work by Aspect Energy. Because of something I can’t get into without revealing specifics, Aspect terminated their relationship.
To this day my associate’s company has not received payment for the work they did, or the equipment they bought. Aspect has repeatedly told them they’ll have to sue to get the money they’re owed.
The bright side is that my associate is now incredibly committed to voting for and supporting Udall (even though he’s no fan) purely because of Schaffer’s ties to Aspect. They’re a bunch of crooks.
n/t
He’s had to lay off at least 5 of his 20 employees in the last few weeks, and he’ll probably have to lay off a few more before it’s all over. I feel very badly for him.
OK, six votes.
And it’s a front group for a bunch of Kurdistan lobbyists?! These people truly have no shame, do they? It defies belief.
Where are the rightie Polsters with their “Zzzzzzz” diversionary bullshit? Perhaps even they won’t defend this hypocritical outrage?
She has been racking up some dubious awards this past week. She should probably fire her PR folks.
THE OIL DEALS WITH THE KURDS WERE A BIG BENEFIT TO IRAQ. (Sorry for yelling.) The progress made by the Kurds forced the Baghdad government to get their act together and get an oil law passed, which helped the entire country immensely. Furthermore, the Kurds had been under 10 years of the most severe economic sanctions that the UN had ever imposed. These sanctions were intended to control Saddam Hussein, but hurt the Kurds too. International trade, in oil or anything else, allowed the Kurds to get medical care for their children, and hosts of other things you take for granted.
And, did anyone else notice that the first deal signed by the new Iraqi government was with CNP? That’s China National Petroleum. I am no big fan of the Iraq invasion, it was the stupidest thing I’ve seen in my lifetime, but our guys are dying over there and we are paying the bills so China can get stronger? I’m not sure I even care whether the US Government thinks Kurdish oil deals are a good or a bad idea, they had so little credibility on their Iraq strategy at that time.
This “war profiteering” accusation is pretty slimy. I will vote for Schaffer just because of the lack of ethics of the Udall campaign in this race.
the State Department specifically said that it would undermine the US mission. Schaffer defied the Federal government by going there to secure the deal.
If Aspect was so concerned about the Kurds that they wanted to help so very badly, then they could have worked it out with the State Department before they went. Instead, they defied the edict, and went anyway.
Regardless of it’s actual effect, Aspect Energy went against the express wishes of the government – in a war zone. If it had turned out badly, they might have been looking at charges of treason (except that they’re Republicans).
of a greater problem with Schaffer as a candidate. He feels that he is not beholden to anyone except himself and his vociferous supporters (read as: the GOP base.)
He feels no need to question whether defying the State Dept. was a good idea, or even explain to the voters why he went to Iraq. He doesn’t see a problem with associating himself with Jack Abramoff. He scoffs at bipartisanship and reaching across the aisle. He demonizes the left in Colorado every chance he gets by diminishing them as being “Boulder Liberals”.
If he showed even an ounce of courtesy or respect for his opponent, or his opponent’s supporters, or anyone who disagrees with him, then he might come across as someone we could send to the US Senate. Instead, he comes across as arrogant, mean, and too extreme.
the State Department issued its warnings AFTER Schaffer went to Iraq to negotiate the KRG deal, but BEFORE the deal was finalized. He didn’t “(defy) the Federal government by going there.” But you’re right, there were enough questions about cutting separate deals with the Kurds to give an old Washington hand like Schaffer some pause and should have encouraged him to earn his pay by advising Aspect about what the deals could mean. Pols is exactly right, he can’t have it both ways.
but either way, Schaffer has not properly explained why he went to Iraq, and why he sought it fit to continue the deal after the State Dept. asked them not to.
and Wadhams blustering about Gold Star moms doesn’t address it, either (obviously, that’s the point). Remember at that debate earlier this summer when Schaffer stated, unchallenged, that he did not go to Iraq to negotiate an oil deal? He’s never said why he did go, or explained that outlandish statement.
He has claimed he didn’t know the feds were opposed to independent deals with the Kurds, despite his mentor and hero, Wayne Allard, having received notice from the State Dept. months before Aspect sealed the deal. Was he an expert on the ways of Washington or not? Why was Aspect paying him so handsomely, if he couldn’t keep track of the obvious signals? (Mike Saccone at the GJ Sentinel has done some excellent reporting on this.)
Doesn’t matter if the the State Department says you’re wrong, that these deals with the Kurds have made the national reconciliation process harder, made secession and civil war a greater possibility. Never mind the foreign policy experts who agree.
You can’t have it both ways–you can’t praise the American invasion of Iraq like Schaffer does, while praising Schaffer’s actions that have prolonged it according to the same US government.
Didn’t you get the memo – IOKOYAR
He’s Gabe Schwartz, and he feels like it’s our right to compensate ourselves for “liberating” Iraq by making sure we get in on the good oil deals.
…to lil’ol me. I think it will be difficult to make hay of it.
War profiteering is a crime, because war is a crime against humanity.
On a deeper level, the military-industrial complex is strangling our country and seriously polluting the world.
…but I was having trouble adding the parts to equal that sum.