Politico carried an overhyped and underreported hit job last week on the American Conservative Union and its chairman, David Keene. Still, the article raised important questions about the conservative movement’s symbiotic relationship with Big Business.
The story focused on two letters from ACU officials: One, from ACU fundraisers, asked FedEx for millions of dollars in exchange for a national grass-roots campaign supporting FedEx in its effort to ward off a UPS-supported bill that would saddle FedEx with the same labor laws as UPS. The second, a conservative coalition letter Keene signed the next day, chided FedEx for calling UPS’ ploy a “bailout.”
Politico asserted that Keene “flipped and sided with UPS after FedEx refused to pay.”
The two letters — the first telling FedEx, “we believe we could strongly support your position,” and the second, stating “you cannot honestly call it a bailout” — certainly sound dissonant, but the second letter is about word choice and is neutral on the merits of the UPS bill, so it does not contradict the first. Also, the assertion that Keene signed the second letter only “after FedEx refused to pay,” is simply false, Keene insists.
Keene told me he signed the don’t-call-it-a-bailout letter one day after his colleagues had sent their fundraising proposal to FedEx, and that the ACU never got a rejection from FedEx. In fact, by signing the second letter, Keene was hurting his organization’s corporate fundraising by criticizing an ally and potential donor. Keene still publicly agrees with FedEx on the substance even if he rejects the word “bailout” here. Neither company has given the ACU money.
Keene’s version of events contradicts the notion that the ACU sold its support to the highest bidder. But one question remains, and it raises a broader problem for conservatives.
The ACU offered to rally its members — grass-roots conservatives — to oppose UPS’ bill. Is a corporate knife-fight really an important battle for conservatives?
If, while opposing a capital-gains tax increase, you call on Morgan Stanley for financial support, that’s one thing. But if a group lets the donors pick when to rally the troops, that’s exploitation of the base. The ACU’s members trust the ACU to watch Washington for important issues, and to sound the battle horn when a fight is worth fighting, not just when a fight is worth $3 million to the organization.
Sure, UPS is playing dirty by using regulation to raise FedEx’s costs, but the substance of the issue — should the same labor laws apply to FedEx as to UPS? — hardly strikes at the heart of conservatism as taxes, bailouts, or abortion do.
Keene denied the UPS-FedEx battle is tangential or irrelevant to conservatism. He told me: “I think the issue of forced unionization of a successful company is not a trivial issue,” and is part of a Democratic campaign to “forcibly unionize the country.”
Keene agreed that conservative groups sometimes march to the donors’ drum, and that some of that might be occurring in the current major policy debates.
Why did House Republican critiques of climate change legislation ignore that the bill is a huge boondoggle for Big Business?
On health care, why are Republicans and conservatives most vehemently battling the government insurance plan and efforts at cost savings, rather than the bills’ tax increases, mandates on private citizens, and subsidies? Why did a recent conservative coalition letter opposing the bills omit opposition to taxpayer funding of abortion?
I suspect donor priorities become activists’ priorities. Of course conservative groups and politicians need to raise money, and Big Business has the big money. But there’s a problem: Big Business’ agenda often entails handouts and regulations that crowd out competitors — witness health care reform, cap and trade, the stimulus, and bailouts.
Is it coincidental that Republicans’ recent major transgressions against the free market — the Wall Street bailout and the Medicare prescription drug benefit — aided Big Business?
Conservative obeisance to business distracts the movement and sacrifices its principles. Even if this dynamic wasn’t behind the ACU-FedEx flap, conservatives should use the episode as inspiration to tell Big Business, “We’re with you as long as you’re for freedom, and we won’t let you set our priorities.”
Timothy P. Carney, The Examiner’s lobbying editor, can be reached at [email protected]. He writes an op-ed column that appears on Friday.
