With an offer of frinedship such as yours, I prefer enemies: Politco has the story three places, here, here and here; as, respectively, the July 16 Andy Barr reporting, then the July 17 Ben Smith follow-up citing Mike Allen for breaking the story, and lastly, the Allen reporting. Fox also reports, while Ben Smith posts the letter [image below at close of the post].And, please, click and enlarge that above image to see the names of the luminaries listed as "columnists" owned and/or loved by the American Conservative Union [the only "union" where I'd enjoy seeing a little old-fashioned Pinkerton union busting]. Read the Barr piece as it names several high profile names [okay, mid-level names if you want to split hairs], and read the Allen item because it excerpts and focuses well; while Ben Smith briefly writes:
The American Conservative Union asked FedEx for a check for $2 million to $3 million in return for the group’s endorsement in a bitter legislative dispute, then flipped and sided with UPS after FedEx refused to pay.
For the $2 million+, ACU offered a range of services that included: “Producing op-eds and articles written by ACU’s Chairman David Keene and / or other members of the ACU’s board of directors. (Note that Mr. Keene writes a weekly column that appears in The Hill.)”
The conservative group’s remarkable demand — black-and-white proof of the longtime Washington practice known as “pay for play” — was contained in a private letter to FedEx that was provided to POLITICO.
The letter exposes the practice by some political interest groups of taking stands not for reasons of pure principle, as their members and supporters might assume, but also in part because a sponsor is paying big money.
Maury Lane, FedEx’s director of corporate communications, said: “Clearly the ACU shopped their beliefs and UPS bought.”
Why only a small bravo for this situation?
For the answer, the two package delivery giants were at war over relative advantage and disadvantage in how bargaining units were arranged at each, to screw the workers more effectively one way vs. the other - yilelding, allegedly, a competitive advantage for FedEx where "Brown" [UPS] sought to even terms for each against their respective union employee groups -- something that [absent the more lurid details] Fox supprisingly presents here in fair and balanced, though abbreviated and incomplete, terms (even crediting Politico for breaking the story):
[W]hen FedEx refused to pay the American Conservative Union, the group sided with UPS, FedEx's rival in the dispute.
FedEx and UPS are battling over a provision being weighed by Congress that would expand union power at FedEx.
The House passed a bill that would force FedEx, which currently has one U.S. union contract for its entire express business, to negotiate union contracts for individual locations -- like UPS -- which FedEx argues would make it much more difficult to promise worldwide regularity for deliveries. The bill is awaiting action in the Senate.
After FedEx said it rejected the offer, Keene reportedly signed onto a two-page July 15 letter supporting UPS as part of a conservative consortium that accused FedEx of "misleading the public and legislators."
"Clearly the ACU shopped their beliefs and UPS bought," Maury Lane, FedEx's director of corporate communications told Politico.com.
But Dennis Whitfield, ACU's executive vice president, said that neither the group nor Keene took any money from UPS and that the group has never received a response to its initial offer to FedEx. He said Keene endorsed the second letter as an individual, even though the letter contained the logo of ACU.
[italics added] And while that is an excerpt, it gives the gist of the Fox item and of the delivery giants at battle; so - check it if you doubt my excerpting.
Read for yourself the three page solicitation letter. Surprisingly as if expecting it could not go public, the for-hire-Conservatives organization wrote FedEx this letter [downloaded per the earlier Politico link]:
Click the successive thumbnails to read the scope and detail of the three-page American Conservative Union's fee-for-services proposal. You have to make it at least three pages, to semi-justify the amount of money the proposal was soliciting.
I saw on that third page the cc "Charlie Black BKSH" and my first instinct was to presume "BKSH" was an abbreviation for baksheesh. Not so, it is instead another conservative priced advocacy services outlet, by all appearances, here.
This is one of those "rare insightful" peep-under-the-kimono situations where two corporate interests, the two package delivery firms, are battling over level-playing-field contentions between them on screwing over their respective employee bargaining units, so that the traditional "conservative value" interests can shop both sides, i.e., ably can walk both sides or either side of this street, for the right John.
For those readers still not understanding the inner-world of the American Conservative Union, and the BKSH & Associates Worldwide, and how Washington DC in general, our capital city, Capitol and all operates, with capital making the rules and playing the game; here is a link on state-of-the-art easy-to-maintain cesspools, reasonably priced, ones you can buy - probably either lump sum or on an installment plan.
_______UPDATE_________
More info to weigh, do you guffaw, or cry, or hold judgment in abatement until more of the truth in the saga unfolds? Make that decision in light of whether Washington Post may recently have compromised itself in tawdry ways, [Crabgrass link].
First, one of the Politico stories; here; mentioned an astroturf [fake grassroots] website FedEx had set up to cast UPS in a bad light; here.
So far, nothing tantalizing, just two opponents facing each other, each getting the shoes wet and yellow from the other. Same story we've heard before.
But there is this, via three screenshots, explained below them:
First, a screenshot of http://www.brownbailout.com/ the anonymous attack site FedEx put up against UPS. Note the highlight on a link to a George Will op-ed. Second, that link is to an Arizona Republic item, not any other paper. When the link is toggled, the second screenshot shows the Will op-ed was pulled from the Arizona paper's site. The third screenshot shows the item was still up elsewhere, e.g., Seattle Times. And in that third item, the terminology, "union-supporting ploy" in the headline might refer to the Teamsters Union, per the text Will wrote, or as a Freudian Slip, to the American Conservative Union, choosing the other side when FedEx ponyed up no cash for favors. So, the lingering worrisome question, did FedEx pony up anything for George Will's favorable commentary, or was it a pure, clean, journalistic decision of Will, where he stood on the issue independent of any personal stake favoring either side?
The way American Conservative Union acted is something which, in the next few days, ought to force a statement from Will about whether he had any fiscal motivation to write as he did, beyond the syndication fee income his column ordinarily earns regardless of what he writes and who it favors.
More simply stated; George Will, did you or did you not take payola in exchange for publishing an opinion? Yes/no?