Mike Turner: Key Votes Show Loyalty to Bush, Party First

It's no surprise that Mike Turner voted with the president and the GOP today against the amended FISA bill that denied blanket, retroactive immunity to telecoms who participated in illegal spying against Americans. It's a pattern of Turner's votes that follow the party line against the best interests of his district.

For starters, Turner has repeatedly voted to maintain an open ended, unlimited military presence in Iraq. He voted against a bill that "requires the president to submit a "comprehensive strategy" for Iraq to certain congressional committees by January 1, 2008 and requires him to update that strategy again in July, 2008 and every 90 days thereafter" (HR 2956). Over and over again, Turner has voted against accountability for the president's handling of the disastrous war in Iraq. He also voted against an appropriations bill for military operations (HR 1591) that included funding for healthcare for veterans and hurricane recovery. But because it too held the president accountable for progress in Iraq, Turner voted no.

Mike Turner pretends to be a defender of American workers, but he voted to create a Central American free trade zone, enabling coporations to transfer American jobs to Central America and the Dominican Republic.

While oil companies reap record profits, Turner voted against a repeal of the Bush tax cuts for big oil companies. Here's the Post's summary of the bill Turner voted against:

This bill would repeal tax cuts to oil companies and mandate that they pay a fee to remove oil from the Gulf of Mexico. It would also fund renewable energy programs. The act would repeal a tax break that oil and gas firms received in 2004. That break effectively lowered their corporate tax rates. It would also bar oil companies from bidding on new federal leases unless they pay a fee or renegotiate improperly drafted leases from the late ‘90s. Those leases did not require royalty payments on Gulf of Mexico oil production. Oil firms would pay a “conservation fee” for oil taken from the gulf. Additionally, the bill would set aside an estimated $13 billion to $15 billion in revenues over a five-year period for tax breaks relating to renewable energy sources

Sounded like a bad idea to Mike Turner and President Bush. (HR 6)

Turner joined the Republicans in voting against a bill which would have allowed the government to negotiate for lower drug prices (HR 4).

When a bill banning the degrading treatment of detainees in American captivity came up for a vote (HR 2863) Turner again voted with President Bush, and voted against the bill. He voted against accountability for the Director of Intelligence.

Turner voted for restrictions on federal funding of stem cell research (HR 810) and voted for the courts' intervention in the Terry Schiavo case.

In a further display of loyalty to the party, Turner voted for ethics changed designed to benefit Tom DeLay (HRes 6, 2005). He voted against a reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine so that broadcasters could continue to spew partisan hate on the radio.

Turner voted against prohibiting discrimination based on sexual preference.

On other occasions, Turner has simply not shown up. He refused to hold Bush accountable again when he didn't vote on contempt of Congress resolutions last month. Overall, Turner has voted with the GOP 88% of the time.

Read More...

Summary only...

It's not just McCain: Lobbyists and Legislators are Too Cozy

Update: Lots of others making the same points better than I.

In Henry IV, one of Shakespeare's villains says, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." If Shakespeare were writing today, he might have said "lobbyists."

American media is so obsessed with sex that it overlooks the real importance of the John McCain-Vicki Iseman story. It's not really about whether McCain and Iseman were sleeping together. While it's fun for some to tut-tut about the septagenarian having a romp with a woman thirty years his junior, the more important question for our democracy is why are John McCain and other legislators so easily bought with flattery and charm of lobbyists selling their influence to the highest bidder? McCain's story is no different than John Husted's or Mike Turner's.

Over and over again we see stories of people in the legislature having cozy personal relationships with people trying to influence their votes. This is what should outrage voters--the friendly relationships that grant the rich and powerful access and influence that the rest of can't dream of having.

Look at just a couple of the recent examples, starting McCain's long history of bumping and grinding with lobbyists.


First, read the CPI's invaluable 2000 report on McCain. It reads like a dummy's guide to St. John the Deceiver. Here's just an excerpt, dealing with the Keating S & L scandal. Notice the first graph below on McCain's close personal relationship with Keating:

McCain got more than just campaign money from Keating. McCain, his family, and their babysitter flew on Keating-owned or -chartered jets nine times, including three trips to Cat Cay, Keating’s vacation estate in the Bahamas. And in 1986, Keating cut Cindy McCain and her father into Fountain Square Shopping Center, a strip mall that American Continental Corporation built and managed, for a $359,000 investment. (emphasis mine)

It was just a matter of time before Keating called in his chits. When he did, it was over Lincoln Savings and Loan, a thrift in Irvine, California, that he’d bought in 1984. It turned out that Keating was raiding the assets of Lincoln’s depositors to finance posh real estate projects such as The Phoenician, a $300 million, 654-room hotel and spa in Scottsdale, Arizona, and his own lavish lifestyle. By 1986, Edwin Gray, the chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, grew worried that Lincoln had strayed too far from its core mortgage business, and began to clamp down. Keating turned to his friends in Washington for help.

On March 19, 1987, Keating appealed to McCain in person to meet with federal regulators on his behalf. At first McCain balked, but then, on April 2, he joined Senators Alan Cranston of California, John Glenn of Ohio, and Dennis DeConcini of Arizona in DeConcini’s office to meet with Gray. On April 9 the four senators, joined by Don Riegle of Michigan, sat down in San Francisco with four more regulators from the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. Following the meetings, the board delayed its seizure of Lincoln Savings and Loan for two more years.

When the federal government finally took over Lincoln in 1989, the bailout cost taxpayers $2.6 billion, making it the most expensive S&L bailout in U.S. history. About 17,000 small investors also lost a total of $190 million.

Here in Ohio, the leader of our State House was caught doing the very same things. John Husted was caught by Ohio papers travelling back and forth on fishing trips and to college bowl games as the guest of corporate lobbyists. These revelations amounted to little more than a minor embarrassment for Husted, who simply explained that the lobbyists in question were friends of his and that should settle it.

And then there's the case of Ohio 3rd Rep. Mike Turner, whose GOP cronies in Dayton first created a slush fund to pay for his consultants under the table, then most recently directed a million dollar no-bid contract to his wife.

Stories like this happen day after day after day in Washington and Columbus. When it's a good looking blonde and a presidential candidate, it makes front page news. But the run-of-the-mill, day-to-day, instititionalized corruption doesn't seem to generate the same kind of interest.

Read More...

Summary only...

Dayton Daily Publisher: Republican Shill

(UPDATE: Visit Daytonology for more on the DDC and their partisan leanings.)

Mike Turner's wife, Lori, CEO of Turner Effects, pulled the company out of the Dayton Development Coalition's marketing effort yesterday.

Tom Beyerlein of the DDN has done a terrific job of reporting on this story. So it's unfortunate that Lori Turner took a cheap shot at him in her resignation letter, and it's also unfortunate--disgusting, actually--that Doug Franklin, publisher of the DDN and Beyerlein's boss, decided to carry water for the Turners by defending them in print.

(However, Beyerlein missed a major aspect of this story: Turner was recently turned down for a seat on the House Appropriations Committee. More on that in a sec.)

Turner went after Beyerlein personally, accusing him of in accurate reporting. Today's front page story includes the following quote from Turner's letter to the DDC:

"During the past several weeks, the Dayton Daily News has knowingly and publicly misrepresented my involvement in the Dayton Development Coalition community branding process..."

That's a cheap shot, especially since, as Beyerlein notes in the article, she doesn't specify how she was misrepresented, and she didn't respond to his calls for comment. Without defending her accusation, Lori Turner's assertions are little more than playground name calling.

But what disturbed me most about the article wasn't Lori Turner's predictably weak facing saving parting shot, it was Publisher Doug Franklin's ridiculous quote defending the Coalition.

Franklin said: "I think everybody involved has been well-intentioned to advance the Dayton region. And while everything was done aboveboard, I think people have to understand there was a perception — and I emphasize perception — of conflict."

It's interesting that Franklin's quote is inserted in this manner. There's no context, no lead in, such as, "asked about the conflict, Franklin said," etc. Since Franklin is Beyerlein's boss, it leads me to wonder whether Franklin's comments were inserted at his instructions. There's no way to know, since Beyerlein isn't going to say, but the simple lead in of "Franklin said:" is curious, to say the least.

It's also curious because the publisher of the DDN is going out of his way to defend the Turner's actions in the quote. "I emphasize perception." Well, sorry to disagree with you Mr. Franklin, but it isn't simply a matter of perception. Maybe you should read your own paper, and start with Mary McCarty's excellent column on the subject:

But these circumstances are far from ordinary. In 2006, the Dayton Development Coalition chose — without competitive bidding — the Turner Effect as the lead branding contractor. The company has been paid more than $300,000 so far. Former Development Coalition staffer Evan Scott, who coordinated the project, explained that the Turner Effect was "the only local firm with the capacity to do the job."

Really? Dayton is so small-town there's only one competent marketing firm? Kind of goes against the branding concept, doesn't it?

"That argument is ludicrous," said M.J. Leman, president of the Beavercreek-based Implications marketing, communications and Web development firm. "And it's flat-out inexcusable that it was not put up for bid, when there are several good firms with more expertise in brand design or brand strategy. They had to know it was going to create the appearance of being a slush fund for Mike Turner."

Hiring the congressman's wife, Leman said, provides exactly the wrong kind of branding for the Miami Valley: "It tells people you have to have connections to make it in this town."

Turner Effect's choice for the campaign is a problem because the DDC lobbies Turner on behalf of the community. And with community development the wealthy benefactors of the DDC benefit. That isn't the perception of a conflict of interest, it's a real conflict of interest. I don't know Doug Franklin's politics but he seems awfully interested in defending the Turners' integrity. It might have been better if he had let Pete Luongo speak on behalf of the Coalition, even if his company is one of Mike Turner's largest contributors.

If Turner had been selected for a spot on the House Appropriations Committee, which he had sought, the conflict of interest might have drawn more attention, and perhaps that explains the timing of Lori Turner's decision more than the DDN's reporting. The Hill lists Turner as one of the Republicans who had been turned down for the seat. Too bad Turner wasn't asked about this--even though his response would be predictable enough. Or, maybe the timing was based on the fact that the DDN and local bloggers like David Esrati, who has questioned Turner Effect's work in other areas, were getting a little too close to a bigger story.

In a separate piece on the Dems' response, Jane Mitakides said, "They knew there would be political blowback, I think what they misunderstood was the amount of the blowback." The always blunt David Esrati was quoted also: Turner's resignation also "doesn't change the fact that Get Midwest/Be Midwest stinks" as a slogan.

That about sums it up. This whole story stinks.

Read More...

Summary only...

DDC Should Be Politically Neutral, Not a PAC in Disguise

It was interesting to read the statemtents in today's Dayton Daily News and on Lori Turner's website suggesting that there is nothing improper about the $1.5 million contract awarded to Congressman Mike Turner's wife. The DDN piece today begins,

Leaders of local business groups have slammed the Dayton Daily News for its coverage of a no-bid contract of more than $300,000 to a company owned by U.S. Rep. Mike Turner's wife, and asked the chairmen of the Montgomery County political parties not to "politicize" the issue.

So... they hire the wife of a sitting GOP congressman and they accuse others of "politicization"? To hear the local GOP-leaning business community tell it, they didn't even know Lori Turner had a husband. Huh? A congressman? Who knew?

Likewise, Lori Turner is simply aghast that anyone would imply an improper connection between her work and her husband's.

When the Coalition hired Turner Effect and Real Art Design Group to staff the regional brand project, the Coalition unanimously approved the involvment of both firms based on the recommendations of their professional staff and the approval of brand committee co-chairs Doug Franklin, Publisher of the Dayton Daily News, and Pete Luongo, retired CEO of the Berry Company.

In Doug Franklin's own words, "One of the reasons we determined that there was not a conflict is because the DDC advocates with the federal government for the community and not for its operations."

(To see Mrs. Turner's letter, go to Turner Effect and click on "News", then "Response to recent articles in the DDN")

Franklin seems to be admitting here that Turner Effect has been employed by an organization that lobbies--"advocates"--her husband, but that it's ok, since they aren't benefitting personally from it. Really? Is he serious here? It's OK for a lobbying group to employ a congressman's wife? The publisher of the DDN thinks that's ok? And we supposedly have a liberal local paper here in Dayton?

Let me get this straight. Franklin and the DDC want the Dayton area to get more business. More defense business, especially. Which in turn will benefit business leaders like Franklin. So they lobby Congressman Turner for government business in the area. And they wonder why hiring his wife is a conflict of interest?

There's a further point that Franklin and the DDC are missing.

The DDC says they think the watchdog groups like CREW (funny how the watchdog groups aren't named in today's DDN piece) are "politicizing" the issue. If the DDC is politically neutral, why are they hiring the wife of a Republican Congressman? If the DDC and its members aren't getting preferential treatment from Turner, and so far there is no evidence I've seen that they are, then at the very least it appears that Turner is getting favorable treatment from the DDC. As a politically neutral organization, if that's what they are, they should not be funneling lucrative contracts to the spouse of a Republican Congressman. It sure gives the impression that they have a cozy relationship with the Turners, and would like to see him returned to Washington in the fall. So is the DDC a politically neutral community development organization, or is it a political action committee in disguise, whose work for community development merely masks is support for GOP candidates like Turner?

The Berry Company, incidentally, whose former CEO co-chairs the DDC, is one of Turner's top donors in this election cycle, having given $8,000 so far to Turner's uncontested primary bid. Let's not forget also that Clay Mathile was reported by the DDN to have financed much of the contract to Turner Effect, the same Clay Mathile who has a history of financing a secret slush fund used in part to fund a previous Turner primary bid for the House.

It certainly appears that there is a cozy, to say the least, relationship between the DDC and the Turners. It certainly deserves more scrutiny.

By the way: See some great digging by Jeffrey at Daytonology on Turner and the Defense industry.

Read More...

Summary only...

Here's What $300,000 Gets You

As I wrote Monday, Clay Mathile directed a $1.5 Million contract to Lori Turner, the wife of Mike Turner, a GOP Congressman who Mathile and the rest of the Dayton Development Coalition hope will bring lucrative federal dollars to the Dayton area.

So far, a reported $300,000 has been spent, and this is what Mrs. Turner and her company, Turner Effect have come up with:




Seriously. I think it's a bad rip-off of the "Got Milk" campaign. Anyone have an idea what the orange thing around "get" is supposed to be?

But I'm no marketing specialist. Maybe I should see what the experts have to say:

"It doesn't mean anything to me," said Jack Trout, principal of Trout & Partners, a Greenwich, Conn., marketing strategy firm that serves Fortune 500 companies. "You put an ad out there and say, 'I want you to come here.' That's obvious ... I'd much rather hear or see important news about what's happening in the area."

Anyone else?

Branding campaigns must deliver a focused and comprehensible message to attract consumers, said Shashi Matta, an Ohio State University assistant professor of marketing.

"What's missing for me when I look at this logo is, 'What is it telling me?'" Matta said. "It needs to be specific to Dayton. 'Think Midwest,' 'Be Midwest' or 'Get Midwest' is way too broad for Dayton.'"

"In branding, it's a heck of a lot more effective and cost-efficient to build on what you have," said Lightle, who previously worked for years developing brands for Thailand, Colombia and Taiwan to help them sell goods in the United States. "The coalition has taken the position that they're going to start with something all new. That's inherently more risky."

Seems unanimous.

Thanks to the guys at DaytonMostMetro for the image. They generously included the "Dayton Region" part of the logo, although it doesn't appear to be part of the plan. Dayton Most Metro have also come up with a list of other suggestions (wonder how much they're getting from Mr. Mathile) you should go read and judge for yourself. I decided to add my own:

Dayton: Ever heard of it? (One I use frequently when travelling)

Dayton: We're better than Lansing (based on personal experience)

Dayton: Someday, we will stop messing with I-75

Dayton: Our river never caught on fire (Take that, Cleveland)

Get Midwest?: Get out!

Feel free to add your own snark in the comments. Who knows, you might get a $300,000 contract out of the deal.

Read More...

Summary only...

Ohio 3rd: Turner's Ethical Lapses Questioned

(Update Below)

Overview: Big GOP donors funnel a $1.5 million contract to Rep. Mike Turner's wife

Representative Mike Turner has enjoyed a good reputation in Dayton and, for the most part, has appeared to be at arm's length from the scandals that have rocked Ohio politics in recent years. While the rest of the Ohio Republican Party fought for their political lives in 2006, Turner's seat remained relatively safe.

However, the ethical lapses discussed Sunday in the Dayton Daily News by Tom Beyerlein could change all of that. Beyerlein shines a light on the Turner Effect, a marketing firm operated by Mike Turner's wife Lori. According to the DDN article, Turner's firm was contracted by the Dayton Development Coalition (DDC), a group that promotes the Dayton area and which lobbies members of Congress. The DDN article says that there's nothing illegal about Turner's wife's firm receiving a $1.5 million no-bid contract from people who occasionally support the Republican Party and have lobbied the congressman. But it doesn't pass the sniff test.

According to the DDC's own website (more after the jump), getting federal contracts is a big part of what they're about. And hiring a Congressman's wife is the next best thing to hiring the Congressman himself.

It's worth noting that Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew) list Turner Effects as one of the biggest recipients of campaign cash among relatives of members of Congress, with over $51,000 rolling in between 2001 and 2006. That alone raises alarms, but there are more questions raised by the Dayton Daily piece that need to be answered. Among them:

1. What is Turner's relationship to Clay Mathile, the billionaire who funded a slush fund for the Montgomery County Republican Party, and whose funding of a "marketing concept" led directly to the no-bid contract received by Turner Effect?

2. Why does Turner's 2007 disclosure form report that the Turner Effect generates no income, when it has been paid $300,000 for its work for the Dayton Development Coalition?

3. Why does the Turner Effect's website advertise its specialty in working with government and offer NAISC codes for how to pay for services if they aren't lobbyists, or if they aren't selling access to Lori Turner's husband?

4. Looking beyond this episode, What is Turner's connection to Jack Abramoff, and the tribes represented by him, and Bob Ney?

More, much more, after the jump, including some background not provided by the Dayton Daily News piece.


For several years, the Republican Party in Montgomery County, under the direction of Jeff Jacobsen, operated a secret fund. The donors to the fund were kept secret, and even though Ken Blackwell's office began an investigation into the matter, nothing--predictably--was done until Jennifer Brunner came into the office. She concluded the investigation, and exposed billionaire Clay Mathile as one of the fund's major donors. Among other things, this fund was used to fund Mike Turner's campaign. Jacobsen wrote a letter to fellow GOP members explaining that the funds supported Turner's campaign, and this financial support from the secret fund was not revealed in 2004 FEC reports. Jacobsen also admitted that Nathanson in turn hired two other consultants, Kyle Sisk and Brett Buerck, who wrote a leaked memo describing how to launder campaign money.

In a recent interview with The Plain Dealer, the Dayton-area Republican concealed the extent of his relationship with the two consultants, denying that they’d done anything other than offer friendly advice.

Two days later, he admitted they’d done much more. Jacobson acknowledged that he had used the Montgomery County Republican Party’s operating account, which he controlled, to hire Dayton political consultant Jim Nathanson. In turn, he said, Nathanson hired Buerck and Sisk to promote Jacobson’s campaign for the Senate presidency.

“I know, I know, I know. All right. I am a jerk,” Jacobson said when asked why he had repeatedly denied that Nathanson had hired Buerck and Sisk to help him become Senate president. “I’m sorry I was cute.”

The question for Turner is, why didn't he disclose the funds he received from the Montgomery County secret fund, and how those funds were used? Why was Turner's consultant seeking advice on how to launder money?

After all of this, you would think Clay Mathile, one of the major funders of the Montgomery County secret GOP slush fund, would be radioactive. But he has also funded a "marketing concept" which promptly led to the Dayton Development Coalition's award of a no-bid $1.5 million contract to Turner's wife's firm. As CREW and Public Citizen point out, at the very least the appearance is bad:

Past and present coalition officials say the Turner Effect was hired in 2006 without competitive bidding simply because it was the best choice among local companies. But two congressional watchdog groups in Washington said the situation creates, at best, an appearance of conflict of interest. "There is an appearance of impropriety," said Naomi Seligman-Steiner, spokeswoman for the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "It's not illegal, but it is problematic."

Craig Holman, legislative representative for Public Citizen's Congress Watch, said, "That's something we've seen over and over again. If a lobbyist can find a way to funnel money to a member of Congress, they'll do it — even if it means hiring the congressman's spouse."

Lori Turner can say the Dayton Development Coalition doesn't lobby her husband--not formally anyway--but that doesn't mean they won't do so in the future, and that's a clear conflict of interest. The Coalition's website says as much:

Once the various priorities have been developed, we want to maximize our region’s ability to secure funding and other needed support from our state and federal government delegation. We facilitate the effort to ensure that the Dayton Region speaks with one voice to this end. We recognize that a collaborative approach is the key to success. Nowhere is this more evident than in pursuing the involvement of the state and federal governments. It allows us to maximize the regional benefits when new initiatives are unveiled in the community, and enables the Dayton community to leverage past successes to achieve future success. (emphasis mine)

Pretty clear then, that the DDC is looking to influence federal dollars, and to that extent, employing the wife of a Congressman would be a pretty clear conflict of interest in anyone's book. This is exactly why Ohio Republican politics have gotten a bad name, and why the culture of corruption has continued unabated.

Turner's past contributors deserve some scrutiny as well. Turner has received contributions from Bob Ney and Jack Abromoff and tribes represented by him, which according to the National Journal he hadn't returned as of 2006. He's a big recipient of De Lay money, to the tune of $20,000. (I've emailed Turner's office asking if those contributions have been returned.)

What do these donors get in return? A loyal Republican who's voted with Tom De Lay 94% of the time and a loyal Bush partisan who attacks witnesses baselessly when they dare to criticize the President. He may not have done much to help Dayton, but he sure has helped himself and his Republican cronies in Washington.

FINAL POINT related to this story. The concept Turner Effect came up with to promote Dayton? "Get Midwest." Seriously. That's what 1.5 million gets you. "Get Midwest." Wow, businesses will be flocking to Dayton now, with a great slogan like that. Every consultant interviewed by the Dayton Daily agreed: it's a dumb slogan.

Update: Good diary here at Kos on the same subject.

Read More...

Summary only...

Turner Can't Be Beaten? Wrong: Ohio 3rd In Play

It's time to turn out Turner

The Dayton Daily News endorsed Jane Mitakides yesterday in the Democratic primary.

But in doing so, they declared her post-primary campaign DOA.

Among their reasons (Democrats who chose not to run), to be sure, is the assumption that Rep. Turner has a virtual lock on his office. Some congressional seats in Ohio are considered by the professionals to be in play, including some that have been consistently Republican before. But not this one.

Not so fast.

The editorial board dismissively concedes that Mitakides has the "best chance" against Turner. But what about all of the evidence that the Democratic party is gaining strength in Ohio?

As Mitakides points out on her just-started website (and yes, the site needs work), Ted Strickland won solid majorities in all parts of the Ohio 3rd district except Warren County.

In fact, Democratic candidates posted solid gains throughout the state of Ohio in 2008. The political landscape continues to favor Democrats. Has the Dayton Daily noticed that Democratic turnout is overwhelming in all of the primary states so far--even Florida, where delegates aren't being counted? Is it hard to believe that Democratic gains will continue into the Ohio 3rd?

Let's look at what else Turner has working against him:

-The Ohio Republican Congressional delegation is weak and getting weaker.

-Turner has no signature legislation and has had little impact on the House: he's not a leader, and carries little if no clout in Washington.

-The GOP is unlikely to have an exciting nominee upticket to turn out the GOP base.

-Turner has been one of the most pro-war, pro-Bush legislators in Congress.

The Democrats' challenge in this campaign will be to make Turner defend his stance on the war and the Bush agenda. If voters can be reminded of who Turner really is, and what he really stands for, he is vulnerable. But for the Dayton Daily to suggest that he is unbeatable is ridiculous. Turner, I'm sure, is worried, as should any Republican be who is facing the voters in 08. He doesn't have a single success he can point to.

It's time to turn out Turner.

Additional note: Someone at the DDN is obviously reading IMO. The paper discussed Esrati's interview with Into My Own (without attribution of course), referring to his response to my question about who he supports in the presidential campaign:

Online, Mr. Esrati has said that when he takes those tests one sees occasionally about which presidential candidate one shares the most views with, he comes up with Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich. He thinks this is mainly because of his views on Iraq. He says the war there was "concocted to bolster the bottom line of the military industrial complex."

Thanks, guys... keep reading.

Read More...

Summary only...