Contrary to what the New York Times would have you believe, John McCain acted honorably

So the New York Times has finally “reported” its held-back (since December) story on John McCain and Vicki Iseman.  For those of you saying “Vicki who?”, Ms. Iseman is the lobbyist who supposedly influenced McCain to do favors for her telecommunications clients (she didn’t, but I’ll get into that later) via campaign contributions or – as they used to say in a more modest era – “her feminine wiles”.

Here’s the background: Sometime in the late 1990s, Vicki Iseman, a lobbyist representing some telecommunications firms, approached Senator McCain – then Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee – to help some firms involved in mergers being held up by the Federal Communications Commission.  The firms simply wanted their market actions ratified by the FCC.   They asked for no interference in market activities and no favors; they just wanted the government off their backs.  McCain, whom even the Times admits is “a champion of deregulation” agreed to help.  The lobbyist then shows up for some of McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign events, including a fundraiser in Miami.  Some campaign staffers get concerned and ask her to “get lost” (Washington Post).  She does, and – In terms of actual fact - that’s it.

Now, while the Post report linked above doesn’t even bother with the ridiculous notion of a “romantic” relationship (even the Times has to use the fear of others in the campaign to bring in that angle), neither report makes McCain look good at first blush.  After all, why would Mr. Straight Talk be asking regulators to make decisions that would help certain firms? 

Well, there is a perfectly good reason for it, and oddly enough, it is the Times that provides it to us:

A champion of deregulation, Mr. McCain wrote letters in 1998 and 1999 to the Federal Communications Commission urging it to uphold marketing agreements allowing a television company to control two stations in the same city, a crucial issue for Glencairn Ltd., one of Ms. Iseman’s clients . . . And he twice tried to advance legislation that would permit a company to control television stations in overlapping markets, an important issue for Paxson.

In late 1999, Ms. Iseman asked Mr. McCain’s staff to send a letter to the commission to help Paxson, now Ion Media Networks, on another matter. Mr. Paxson was impatient for F.C.C. approval of a television deal, and Ms. Iseman acknowledged in an e-mail message to The Times that she had sent to Mr. McCain’s staff information for drafting a letter urging a swift decision.

Mr. McCain complied. He sent two letters to the commission, drawing a rare rebuke for interference from its chairman.

Now, while the Times would rather focus on the potential beneficiaries of McCain’s actions, I noticed they would all actually do the same thing -  reduce government involvement in the telecommunications industry.  Each action McCain takes – from letter sent to bills introduced - either prevents the government from interfering in market decisions or asks the government not to intervene.  This should not be a surprise coming from a deregulation advocate like McCain.

So why the whiff of scandal?

In part, I think it’s due to people looking at this from the wrong angle.  The idea of telecommunications (or any economic industry) being an ideological issue only works for free-market supporters.  For everyone else, it’s about who benefits and who doesn’t.  Thus, unless you agree with McCain on deregulation (as I do), all of the above actions smack of favoritism; whereas for limited-government supporters, they make perfect sense.

It reminds me of the early 1990s, when the gun-control lobby accused the NRA of “buying” legislators through campaign contributions.  It took years for the gun-controllers to figure out that the NRA was merely looking for folks who agreed with them on gun rights, and then supporting them.  The very idea that anyone would support gun-rights was so foreign to the gun-control crowd that they genuinely believed politicians were being “bought” – and I’m guessing some gun-controllers still believe that.

In McCain’s case, instead of fighting gun-control measures, he was fighting telecommunications-control policies and agencies.

Sadly, all it takes is for some people to see this through the wrong angle, get together and share their ill-informed fears, leak the story years later, and you have a “scandal.”  Throw in an attractive woman and we’re off to the races.

Two other digressions:  For anyone curious, the part I ellipsed out of the first paragraph was as follows: “He introduced a bill to create tax incentives for minority ownership of stations; Ms. Iseman represented several businesses seeking such a program.”  This is basically a juxtaposition of facts that would trick the reader into inferring something that isn’t really there.  After all, “minority ownership” incentives show up in nearly every government contracting industry in the United States, and I’m guessing Ms. Iseman was one of a whole slew of lobbyists who “represented several businesses seeking such a program.”  I kept it out of the excerpt mainly to keep this post focused on one issue at a time.  Secondly, I wouldn’t get too worked up over the “rare rebuke for interference” form the FCC chairman in late 1999.  Lest we forget, said Chairman was a Clinton appointee, and McCain was a Republican candidate for President.

If the folks at the Times actually possessed any objectivity, they would have noticed all of the above and given McCain’s actions the proper context.  Of course, there wouldn’t have been much of a story either.

How do I know the Times wasn’t being objective here?  Because they had all of this stuff two months ago, but rather than release it then, or when McCain upset Romney in New Hampshire, or before South Carolina, or before Florida, or before Super Tuesday, the Times waited until the first day it was mathematically impossible for anyone other than John McCain to acquire 1,191 Republican delegates.  Coincidence?  I don’t think so.

So what we have here is a Senator who acted according to his principles, only to have those actions misinterpreted by some and pretzelized by the New York Times.  If this is a scandal, it’s a journalistic one.