State Department Official Lobbied by Former Employer

Robin Raphel, the State Department's nonmilitary aid coordinator for Pakistan and a former lobbyist for Pakistan, attended meetings to help that country craft lobbying strategy until shortly before her new position was announced last summer. Now, new lobbying disclosure reports show her former firm contacted her regarding Pakistan within a month after the announcement.

A filing submitted to the Justice Department this month by lobbying firm Cassidy & Associates reports that the firm, which has a $700,000-a-year contract to represent Pakistan, e-mailed Raphel on Sept. 2 regarding "ROZ legislation" - economic development legislation giving the president authority to establish “Reconstruction Opportunity Zones” (ROZs) in Pakistan’s frontier area with Afghanistan.

The filing also shows two more e-mails from Cassidy to Raphel in September regarding a Senate bill known as the Kerry-Lugar bill, which increased nonmilitary aid to Pakistan. The bill was signed into law by President Barack Obama in October.

Tom Alexander, a spokesman for Cassidy & Associates, said in an e-mail to The BLT that the firm had "contacted Ambassador Raphel to discuss the status of" the aid bill and "to seek clarification of statements she had made to the press."

In August, a State Department spokesman said Raphel was a temporary worker who can only work 130 days out of 365 and, because of that, was subject to different conflict-of-interest requirements, though he did not provide specific information about what those requirements were. The State Department has since not answered questions about Raphel's appointment, despite repeated requests.

The Obama administration has been extremely vocal about its conflict-of-interest policies, and repeatedly promised to limit the influence lobbyists have in Washington. Obama signed an executive order shortly after taking office banning federal appointees from participating in matters involving former clients or employers. Read a previous BLT item on this issue here.

Source:legaltimes.typepad.com/

Senators Add the Ornaments and Trimmings

The term “Christmas tree” has its own special meaning on Capitol Hill. It usually refers to a bill that has been decorated with “ornaments,” loaded up with special goodies for the folks back home.

But the term is particularly apt this week, as Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, works to have a vote on a heavily festooned health care bill by Christmas Eve.

They decorations include these:

The “Louisiana Purchase,” as it is being called, a provision for Senator Mary Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana, who obtained an extra $300 million in Medicaid funds for her state.

The Hawaii exemption, a measure that allows the state to keep its own health care system.

A break on the excise tax on so-called Cadillac health insurance plans for people in the 17 states where premiums are the highest. (The measure was initially intended to apply to the 10 states with the highest premiums, a Senate aide said, but some other senators wanted in and the number was bumped to 17.)


An exemption for small makers of medical devices from a new tax — relief that was sought by Democratic senators from states including Indiana, Massachusetts and Minnesota, where such device makers are based.

Favors for Nebraska as yet undescribed, sought by Senator Ben Nelson, a Democrat, for his home state as he demanded that the bill contain strict anti-abortion language.

Supporters of the bill say these sugar plums are a small price to pay to round up the necessary votes to pass landmark legislation that will result in most Americans having health insurance, many with subsidies, and will end some of the insurance industry’s most discriminatory practices.

Lavish Lobbying

But these ornaments are mere baubles compared with some of the neon measures that some lawmakers and lobbyists have fought to keep out of the bill.

Most prominent was the demand by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, that leaders drop two provisions that the insurance industry and big business had been lobbying vociferously against.

One, of course, was a government-run insurance plan, or public option, which would have competed with private insurance companies. The other was an expansion of Medicare to include some people ages 55 to 64, a change that hospitals and doctors fought because it would have meant taking care of more patients at lower Medicare rates.

Insurers also beat back an attempt to strip the industry of a partial antitrust exemption that it has long enjoyed.

To achieve these goals, the lobbying campaign on health care legislation has been lavish, even by Capitol Hill’s inflated standards.

Final spending amounts for the year will not be known until mid-January. But in the first nine months of the year, health care lobbyists spent at least $396 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks the influence of money on elections and policy.

Because the lobbying intensified in the fourth quarter as both the House and Senate prepared their final bills, the year-end total is likely to shatter the previous record for money spent on a single issue in a single year.

Perhaps not surprisingly, that record was set just last year, when health care lobbyists spent $486 million in anticipation of the legislative action this year.

“If spending this quarter remains on pace with the first three quarters — just on pace — lobbying in the health care sector will obliterate the high-water mark that it set last year,” said Dave Levinthal, a spokesman for the center.

But even those figures do not give the full picture of the flood of cash funneled into lobbying on health care in 2009.

For example, the center’s health care figures do not include lobbying by the insurance industry. Mr. Levinthal said the center could not isolate the amount the industry spent only on health insurance, as opposed to other forms of insurance.

Nor do the figures include spending by groups like the United States Chamber of Commerce, which has multiple issues pending before Congress but led the effort to kill the public option.

Some of the lobbying, especially in the early days, was done on behalf of remaking the health care system. But over all, more has been spent against it. Because Democrats control both houses, they have received more money than Republicans.

Corporate Glee

The insurance companies were probably among the merriest of industries last week. Because the legislation mandates that everyone buy insurance, those companies stand to gain 30 million new customers — and there will be no government plan to compete with.

But the drug companies were certainly joyful too. So far, they have kept intact a deal with the White House to bar the importation of cheaper drugs from Canada and elsewhere. In exchange, the drug companies agreed to give up $80 billion over 10 years through discounts and rebates.

Some Senators fought the pharmaceutical deal, noting that $80 billion represents only about 2 percent of the $3.6 trillion that Americans are expected to spend on drugs in the next 10 years. But the Senate effectively voted last week to keep the drug pact in place.

The pharmaceutical industry has spent more money by far than any other on lobbying in the first nine months of the year, laying out $199 million. That is also the single highest amount that any industry has ever spent on lobbying in a nine-month period, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Citizens who do not normally pay attention to Congressional gift exchanges may have been galled at the process, particularly with the health care of the nation’s citizens and one-sixth of its economy at stake.

But they will see more maneuvering in the weeks ahead, as lobbyists seek to ensure that the measures they kept out of the Senate bill will also be excluded from the final bill that the Senate produces in conference with the House.

On Capitol Hill, decorating the Christmas tree is always in season.

Source:prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/

Supreme Court declares NRO unconstitutional

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday threw the controversial National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) into the dustbin of history for being ultra virus of the Constitution because it ensured legal cover to corruption by the privileged class.

In its landmark and the expected judgment, a 17-member bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry declared the NRO an instrument void ab initio, being ultra vires and violative of various constitutional provisions including Articles 4, 8, 25, 62(f), 63(i)(p), 89, 175 and 227 of the Constitution.

Former federal minister Dr Mubashar Hassan, former bureaucrat Roedad Khan, Qazi Hussain Ahmed and Chief Minister Punjab Mian Shahbaz Sharif had challenged the NRO before the Supreme Court in 2007.

“All steps taken, actions suffered, and all orders passed by whatever authority, any orders passed by the courts of law including the orders of discharge and acquittals recorded in favour of the accused persons, are also declared never to have existed in the eyes of law and resultantly of no legal effect,” the court ruled in its short order read out by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry.

The larger bench of the apex court ruled that all cases in which the accused persons were either discharged or acquitted under Section 2 of the NRO or where proceedings pending against the holders of public office had got terminated in view of Section 7 thereof, a list of which cases has been furnished to this Court and any other such cases/proceedings which may not have been brought to the notice of this Court, shall stand revived and relegated to the status of pre-5th of October, 2007 position.

The Court directed the concerned courts including the trial, the appellate and the review courts to summon the persons accused in such cases and then to proceed in the respective matters in accordance with law from the stage from where such proceedings had been brought to an end in pursuance of the above provisions of the NRO.

The Court directed the Federal Government, all the provincial governments and all relevant and competent authorities including the prosecutor general of NAB, the special prosecutors in various accountability courts, the prosecutors general in the four provinces and other officers or officials involved in the prosecution of criminal offenders to offer every possible assistance required by the competent courts in the said connection.

The SC ruled that all cases which were under investigation or pending enquiries and which had either been withdrawn or where the investigations or enquiries had been terminated on account of the NRO shall also stand revived and the relevant and competent authorities shall proceed in the said matters in accordance with law.

The short order clarified that any judgment, conviction or sentence recorded under Section 31-A of the NAB Ordinance shall hold the field subject to law and since the NRO stands declared as void ab initio, therefore, any benefit derived by any person in pursuance of Section 6 thereof is also declared never to have legally accrued to any such person and consequently of no legal effect.

“Since in view of the provisions of Article 100(3) of the Constitution, the attorney general for Pakistan could not have suffered any act not assigned to him by the Federal Government or not authorised by the said government and since no orderor authority had been shown to us under which the then learned attorney general namely Malik Muhammad Qayyum had been authorised to address communications to various authorities/courts in foreign countries including Switzerland, therefore, such communications addressed by him withdrawing the requests for mutual legal assistance or abandoning the status of a civil party in such proceedings abroad or which had culminated in the termination of proceedings before the competent fora in Switzerland or other countries or in abandonment of the claim of the Government of Pakistan to huge amounts of allegedly laundered moneys, are declared to be unauthorised, unconstitutional and illegal acts of the said Malik Muhammad Qayyum,” the court ruled.

The short order also ruled that since the NRO stands declared void ab initio, therefore, any actions taken or suffered under the said law are also non est in law and since the communications addressed by Malik Muhammad Qayyum to various foreign fora/authorities/courts withdrawing the requests earlier made by the Government of Pakistan for mutual legal assistance; surrendering the status of civil party; abandoning the claims to the allegedly laundered moneys lying in foreign countries including Switzerland, have also been declared by us to be unauthorized and illegal communications and consequently of no legal effect, therefore, it is declared that the initial requests for mutual legal assistance; securing the status of civil party and the claims lodged to the allegedly laundered moneys lying in foreign countries including Switzerland are declared never to have been withdrawn.

The court ordered the Federal Government and other concerned authorities to take immediate steps to seek revival of the said requests, claims and status. The court further ruled that in view of the above noticed conduct of Malik Muhammad Qayyum, the then learned attorney general for Pakistan in addressing unauthorised communications which had resulted in unlawful abandonment of claims of the Government of Pakistan, inter alia, to huge amounts of the allegedly laundered moneys lying in foreign countries including Switzerland, the Federal Government and all other competent authorities are directed to proceed against the said Malik Muhammad Qayyum in accordance with law in the said connection.

The court expressed displeasure about the conduct and lack of proper and honest assistance and cooperation on the part of the chairman of the NAB, the prosecutor general of the NAB and of the additional prosecutor general of the NAB.

“It is not possible for us to trust them with proper and diligent pursuit of the cases falling within their respective spheres of operation,” said the short order. The court suggested that the Federal Government may make fresh appointments against the said posts of persons possessing high degrees of competence and impeccable integrity in terms of Section 6 of the NAB Ordinance as also in terms of the observations of this Court made in the case of Khan Asfandyar Wali Vs Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2001 SC 607).

The Court however, ruled that till such fresh appointments are so made, the present incumbents may continue to discharge their obligations strictly in accordance with law. They shall, however, transmit periodical reports of the actions taken by them to the Monitoring Cell of this Court which is being established through the succeeding parts of this judgment.

The larger bench also ruled that a Monitoring Cell shall be established in the Supreme Court of Pakistan comprising of the chief justice of Pakistan or a judge of the Supreme Court to be nominated by him to monitor the progress and the proceedings in the noticed and other cases under the NAB Ordinance.

“Likewise similar monitoring cells shall be set up in the high courts of all the provinces comprising chief justice of the respective province or judges of the concerned high courts to be nominated by them to monitor the progress and the proceedings in cases in which the accused persons had been acquitted or discharged under Section 2 of the NRO,” the ruling added.

The court directed secretary Law Division to take immediate steps to increase the number of accountability courts to ensure expeditious disposal of cases. Earlier, during hearing of the petitions against the NRO, the chief justice said even parliament has no right to change the basic structure of the constitution.

“In accordance to oath, we are committed to safeguard the constitution,” he remarked. The chief justice warned the NAB Chairman Naveed Ahsan about stern action if something false was detected in the list. He ordered the NAB chairman to sign the list if it was correct. On the court’s order, he signed the list.

The court also summoned the summary file of directives issued for the elimination of Swiss cases. On the excuse of acting attorney general, the court summoned principal secretary and secretary law. Secretary law while presenting the file in the court said attorney general wrote the letter for withdrawal of cases on the directives of Asif Zardari’s lawyer Farooq H Naek that was opposed by the then Law Minister Zahid Hamid.

The court also expressed displeasure on acting attorney general and said he hid the truth. The principal secretary of president Salman Farooqi informed the court that cases files are not present in the Presidency but are in the president’ camp office in Rawalpindi.

Mian Allah Nawaz, amicus curie (friend of court) in his arguments termed the NRO as filthy law and said anything, which is beneficial for some individuals, is illegal. Shaiq Usmani, another amicus curie submitted before the court that there was no legal ground of giving amenity under NRO. The president could only issue the ordinance, which will convert into law by the assembly.

During the course of the proceedings, the chief justice said how the assembly could declare corruption as legal. Other members of the bench included Justice Javed Iqbal, Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, Justice Mian Shakirullah Jan, Justice Tassadduq Hussain Jillani, Justice Nasir-ul-Mulk, Justice Raja Fayyaz Ahmed, Justice Chaudhry Ijaz Ahmed, Justice Muhammad Sair Ali, Justice Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui, Justice S Khawja, Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali, Justice Khilji Arif Hussain, Justice Rahmat Husain Jafferi, Justice Tariq Parvez and Justice Ghulam Rabbani.

Source:thenews.com.pk/