| Page 2 of 2 < |
When Public Advocates Line Up for Corporations
|
Discussion Policy Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post. |
"This is yet another example of the way Washington, D.C., resolves issues. They don't rely on facts. They rely on lobbyists posing as analysts, and on hired guns," said Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information, and a former longtime Senate staffer. "It's standard behavior."
There's typically no way to determine who is giving money to nonprofit groups, unless the groups decide to say. Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, said nonprofit organizations that advocate good government are taking sides on this contract in a way she has not seen before.
"I can't remember a case where public interest groups have become such vocal, aggressive advocates on behalf of corporations," said Brian, adding that CAGW asked her group to join the effort, an offer she declined. "There's so much money flying around on this issue. I suspect it is playing a significant role in some cases."
Much is at stake. The Air Force has called the deal to replace 179 of its refueling planes -- which have been in service for a half-century -- its top acquisition priority. And the $40 billion price tag is just a starting point. Over the next few decades, the deal could be worth up to $100 billion as the Air Force replaces its entire fleet of 500 tankers. It also means allowing a European company to play an unusually large role in U.S. defense.
The reaction to the contract's award to the Northrop-EADS team -- and Boeing's unexpected loss of the contract -- has stimulated fervent, patriotic, even nationalistic rhetoric.
Congressional leaders in Washington state and Kansas, where Boeing has major facilities and close ties to lawmakers, have demanded that the Air Force reconsider its decision. Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the Appropriations defense subcommittee, threatened to cut off funding for the tanker.
"This is not a done deal," Murtha declared, opening the way for the unusual possibility of Congress overturning a contract decision by the government's procurement specialists.
On Monday, officials from four conservative nonprofit groups on Boeing's side used a news conference to attack the contract award and raise dire questions about the deal's national-security implications.
Two of those groups acknowledged receiving contributions from Boeing in recent years.
On Tuesday, 22 former senior Air Force officials weighed in on Northrop's side in a full-page advertisement -- a letter urging Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to defend America's war fighters against "scurrilous and politically motivated attacks that have no basis in the source selection criteria for our next tanker."
Northrop paid the bill for that ad. All of the 22 retired Air Force generals who signed that letter to Gates "either work for or consult for" Northrop or EADS, according to Northrop spokesman Randy Belote.
All eyes are now focused on mid-June. That's when the Government Accountability Office will rule on a contract protest by Boeing, which claimed there were flaws in how the Air Force selected Northrop's tanker. Last week, the Air Force and Northrop filed counter-motions for the GAO to dismiss Boeing's protest. Yesterday, Northrop and Air Force officials said the counter-motions were denied.
"This is going to be with us at least until the November elections, if not beyond," said Richard Aboulafia, an aviation analyst with Teal Group, which is an aerospace consultant that says it has no stake in the fight.
Some players in these battles play down the significance of their roles, saying this is standard operating procedure in Washington these days.
CAGW officials said their group -- known in part for its Congressional Pig Book, which details pork-barrel projects in the federal budget -- has been interested in the tanker issue for a long time.
Documents, including material prepared with Northrop, show CAGW is working closely with the defense giant on the tanker issue. Last week, a new group called America's New Tanker sent an e-mail imploring recipients to speak out against Boeing's efforts to reverse the tanker decision and call their lawmakers. "The United States Air Force is Under Attack!" the missive is headlined. "Our military men and women need your help!"
A Northrop spokesman said America's New Tanker is a Northrop group. Links in the document take readers to a CAGW Web page.
"Our friends at Citizens Against Government Waste have been actively engaged for six years in making sure that this tanker project is awarded through a fair and open competition," the e-mail said. "They are convinced the process was just that -- open and fair, resulting in the best company winning the contract."


Discussion Policy

