Cordray's tough talk upsetting lobbyists

Attorney General Richard Cordray riled the Capitol Square lobbying community by issuing what some characterized as an overly strong news release that mentioned corruption and using his authority to investigate lobbying activity.

The release came Tuesday night, after Legislative Inspector General Tony Bledsoe sent the names of 15 lobbyists and employers to the attorney general's collections enforcement section for failing to pay $2,200 in late fees. The penalties were assessed for not filing expenditure statements on time.

The release, which attributed quotes to Cordray, made little mention of the late fees. It did note that "lobbying activity in Ohio is at an all-time high," and "any hard-working Ohioan in this tough economy would love to see that kind of job growth."

"They put some lines in there that were probably unnecessary," said Victor Hipsley, president of the Ohio Lobbying Association.

In the line that got the most attention, Cordray said: "Clearly, more than ever, the expertise of the attorney general's office is needed to help prevent corruption as wealthy and well-connected special interests increasingly attempt to shape the laws and public policies that affect ordinary Ohioans."

Hipsley and other lobbyists thought Cordray was implying he knew of corruption. They also worried that Cordray was trying to move in on the enforcement of state lobbying laws, a role handled by Bledsoe's office under Ohio law.

Hipsley said he was satisfied that is not the case after he met with Cordray yesterday afternoon.

A Cordray spokeswoman said: "We shared with them and the Ohio legislative inspector

Source:dispatch.com/

My one thought about Charles Freeman

I've received a bunch of e-mail queries asking me what I think of the Charles Freeman affair. One could argue that Freeman's actual policy positions got him into trouble. (When a letter to the Wall Street Journal on his behalf allows that "Chas has controversial political views, not all of which we share," it suggests that something is amiss). One could also argue pretty persuasively that the Israel Lobby flexed its muscle (as Freeman himself argues in his missive to FP's Laura Rozen).

In the wake of Freeman's withdrawal, I think everyone is vastly overestimating the influence of outside forces and underestimating the idiosyncracies of Freeman in trying to interpret what the hell happened. I don't mean his positions -- I mean his relative eagerness to get back into the game. Freeman's statements on the matter suggests that he was not all that eager to re-enter government life:

"As those who know me are well aware, I have greatly enjoyed life since retiring from government. Nothing was further from my mind than a return to public service. When Admiral Blair asked me to chair the NIC I responded that I understood he was “asking me to give my freedom of speech, my leisure, the greater part of my income, subject myself to the mental colonoscopy of a polygraph, and resume a daily commute to a job with long working hours and a daily ration of political abuse.” I added that I wondered “whether there wasn’t some sort of downside to this offer.”

"I wasn't so eager to go back to the government, anyway."

Sometimes these statements are boilerplate, but I don't get that sense from Freeman.

To put it another way -- if Hillary Clinton had been in the same situation as Freeman, there's no way in hell that she withdraws her name.

Steve Walt claims that, "this incident reinforces my suspicion that the Democratic Party is in fact a party of wimps." He's got a point, but I'm not sure it's the one he intended to make. Freeman is just one of a longer list of policy wonks -- Wendy Sherman, Caroline Atkinson, Robert Gallucci, etc. -- who have either declined or changed their minds about high-ranking postings. While none of these other names were targeted by the Israel Lobby, they all found the opportunity costs of entering goverment service too onerous.

Question to readers: Has the vetting process in DC become too absurd, or are Obama's subcabinet candidates too thin-skinned?