In 2006, you couldn’t pick up a newspaper without hearing about how many Burns staffers took jobs as lobbyists. I believe Montana Democrats used the phrase “revolving door” quite a few times. I actually never had too big a problem with this since realistically there was nothing he could have done to prevent it. If a staffer wants to take a new job with a giant pay increase and more perks there’s not much to be done about it. It’s still a free country.
As Max Baucus could undoubtedly explain since he too has to deal with a lot of staffers heading for the gold-laced hills of lobbying.
Since 1996, a fifth of U.S. Sen. Max Baucus’ highest-paid staff members have left their jobs to become lobbyists, usually for industries regulated by the powerful committee that Baucus heads, a Gazette State Bureau analysis shows.
I’m not going to fault Baucus for this. As with Burns, Baucus doesn’t have any way to prevent this. My problem is with how the Montana media covered the Burns story in 2006. Knowing that the “revolving door” wasn’t just Burns’ problem in 2006 would have helped shape the corruption story that proved Burns’ undoing.
If the media had spent a few hours doing the research that they did for this story about Baucus, it would have been clear that the “revolving door” was not just Burns’ problem but one that afflicted any powerful Senator as a natural course of their power. Their influence gives their staff influence that makes them attractive to the private sector - which has a lot more money.
Posted in Max Baucus, media bias | | Write a Letter to the Editor
Jack at Western Word did a pretty good write up on this, but my major problem with the article is Max saying his former staff does not have any special access.
The former staffers turned lobbyists in all likelihood have friends who are still on staff. There is no way to regulate how these people interact outside of work, nor should there really. Yet those afterwork interactions at the bar or each other’s houses is exactly the special kind of access not open to you and me.
It is a point that should have been made in the article. These guys are not recruited for their access to the Senator, they are recruited for their access to his advisors.
I’ve been critical of some of the coverage of Baucus, so I’ve got to give them credit for taking a more indepth look than usual at this topic. It would have been nice if they had started doing this a while before the filing deadline, so that a more substantial GOP candidate might have been encouraged to enter the race, so we could have had a good debate on the issues.
Probably the fact that there isn’t a good GOP candidate is why they feel they can up their credentials by writing intellectually honest pieces about Baucus. As I dig into this deeper I get more and more frustrated that Keenan didn’t run - almost to the point where I’m not sure I could support him if he decided to throw down in 2 or 4 years. Max was vulnerable and he knew it.
When we start seeing some investigative reporting about Schweitzer, well then I’ll start giving the media some credit.
Brad - you mean these big lobby shops are getting what they pay for? Imagine that!
