Intro: "A well-known DC lobbying firm with links to the financial industry has proposed an $850,000 plan to take on Occupy Wall Street and politicians who might express sympathy for the protests, according to a memo obtained by the MSNBC program 'Up w/ Chris Hayes.' The memo proposes to pay the firm to conduct 'opposition research' on Occupy Wall Street in order to construct 'negative narratives' about the protests and allied politicians."
Occupy Oakland Supporters rally at the Oakland Public Library before attempting to march back to Ogawa Plaza, where they had been evicted hours earlier, 10/25/11. (photo: Marc Ash/RSN)
Memo: DC Lobbying Firm Spells Out Plan to Undermine OWS
20 November 11
Lobbyists plan to use big money to thwart Occupy Wall Street and politician sympathizers. -- NFM/RSN
well-known Washington lobbying firm with links to the financial industry has proposed an $850,000 plan to take on Occupy Wall Street and politicians who might express sympathy for the protests, according to a memo obtained by the MSNBC program "Up w/ Chris Hayes."
The proposal was written on the letterhead of the lobbying firm Clark Lytle Geduldig & Cranford and addressed to one of CLGC's clients, the American Bankers Association.
CLGC's memo proposes that the ABA pay CLGC $850,000 to conduct "opposition research" on Occupy Wall Street in order to construct "negative narratives" about the protests and allied politicians. The memo also asserts that Democratic victories in 2012 would be detrimental for Wall Street and targets specific races in which it says Wall Street would benefit by electing Republicans instead.
According to the memo, if Democrats embrace OWS, "This would mean more than just short-term political discomfort for Wall Street. ... It has the potential to have very long-lasting political, policy and financial impacts on the companies in the center of the bullseye."
The memo also suggests that Democratic victories in 2012 should not be the ABA's biggest concern. "... (T)he bigger concern," the memo says, "should be that Republicans will no longer defend Wall Street companies."
Two of the memo's authors, partners Sam Geduldig and Jay Cranford, previously worked for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. Geduldig joined CLGC before Boehner became speaker; Cranford joined CLGC this year after serving as the speaker's assistant for policy. A third partner, Steve Clark, is reportedly "tight" with Boehner, according to a story by Roll Call that CLGC features on its website.
Jeff Sigmund, an ABA spokesperson, confirmed that the association got the memo. "Our Government Relations staff did receive the proposal - it was unsolicited and we chose not to act on it in any way," he said in a statement to "Up."
CLGC did not return calls seeking comment.
Boehner spokesman Michael Steel declined to comment on the memo. But he responded to its characterization of Republicans as defenders of Wall Street by saying, "My understanding is that President Obama is the single largest recipient of donations from Wall Street."
On "Up" Saturday, Obama campaign adviser Anita Dunn responded by saying that the majority of the president's re-election campaign is fueled by small donors. She rejected the suggestion that the president himself is too close to Wall Street, saying "If that's the case, why were tough financial reforms passed over party line Republican opposition?"
The CLGC memo raises another issue that it says should be of concern to the financial industry -- that OWS might find common cause with the Tea Party. "Well-known Wall Street companies stand at the nexus of where OWS protestors and the Tea Party overlap on angered populism," the memo says. "... This combination has the potential to be explosive later in the year when media reports cover the next round of bonuses and contrast it with stories of millions of Americans making do with less this holiday season."
The memo outlines a 60-day plan to conduct surveys and research on OWS and its supporters so that Wall Street companies will be prepared to conduct a media campaign in response to OWS. Wall Street companies "likely will not be the best spokespeople for their own cause," according to the memo. "A big challenge is to demonstrate that these companies still have political strength and that making them a political target will carry a severe political cost."
Part of the plan CLGC proposes is to do "statewide surveys in at least eight states that are shaping up to be the most important of the 2012 cycle."
Specific races listed in the memo are US Senate races in Florida, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin, Ohio, New Mexico and Nevada as well as the gubernatorial race in North Carolina.
The memo indicates that CLGC would research who has contributed financial backing to OWS, noting that, "Media reports have speculated about associations with George Soros and others."
"It will be vital," the memo says, "to understand who is funding it and what their backgrounds and motives are. If we can show that they have the same cynical motivation as a political opponent it will undermine their credibility in a profound way."
Jonathan Larsen is executive producer of "Up w/ Chris Hayes"; Ken Olshansky is a producer for the show.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |














Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
1. Was this the only offer ABA received? (Or is this a competitive marketing ploy?)and to CLGC
2. Is this the only offer you extended? (If not, who else was solicited?)
NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN !!
Go Occupiers, we stand with you.
NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN !!
He lied. Obama extended those tax cuts fairly recently. Do you have selective amnesia? Obama is a torturer and a war monger. No different than Bush. He also wants to cut SS, Medicare, Medicaid and privitize all.
Democrats dine at the same trough as Republicans while they all play good cop, bad cop.
Wake up!
DON"T VOTE FOR OBAMA OR DEMOCRATS! Same crapola, different party.
We must unite to take this always abused power away from all banks and give it back to the people. Otherwise we will always be enslaved to the banks.
In case you are not aware of what I am talking about here, or maybe not sure if what I am saying is true, check this out: www.myhealthoptimizer.com/a-journey-to-financial-freedom-and-health-the-web-of-debt/
This is what the right-wing has been doing SO effectively for the past 30 years. If we don't have an answer to this sort of manipulation, we can expect more of the same outcomes.
MoveOn.org isn't enough. Neither is assuming that everyone realizes what conservatives are up to.
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00003675&type=I&newmem=N
http://www.opensecrets.org/index.php
Let's be first and disable their plan of action.
http://www.nrapvf.org/grades-endorsements.aspx
and here
“That’s My Congress,” http://thatsmycongress.com/house/
And on the financial sources
www.propublica.org
That right there is the heart of the issue, and it is the weakest link in the chain eventually. If there is one place to start filing at the chain, that's it. Make it politically toxic for Republicans to stand up for the 1% at the relentless expense of the 99%.
We can do this.
Well put. My thoughts exactly.
The vulnerability of WS is exposure of their unchecked greed.
When the mainstream press asks about the goals of the Occupy Movement the answer is simple: Throwing off the chains that subjugate the planet and 99.99% of its inhabitants to the unchecked greed and imorality of Wall Street + Co.
Fax: (202) 628-2589 Email: info@clgcdc.com is the corporate arm of Speaker of the House John Boehner, All of the partners, Steve Clark, Gary Lyte, Sam Geduldig and Jay Cranford have worked either directly or indirectly for Beohner. Therefore John Beohner and his Party of the 1% is using his political muscle to try to shut down Occupy.
OWS just stood up and said, stop be abusing the Democracy that you do not own.
The pitiful thing is this: just do the right thing, fairness, equality, bring back jobs, pay your fair share, stop wasting money on wars. Put the people first and we will all be okay. It's not rocket science 1%.
The OWS can back up their claim that of representing 99% of the population. Of course, not all the 99% back the OWS; but popularity does not make one correct. In fact if 100% of the 99% agreed with the OWS, then there would be no need for OWS to exist. In fact one of their mission goals is to educate enough of the 99% so that OWS is no longer needed.
OWS actually stands for something unlike the vapid teaparty. They made unsubstantiated claims. Their websites are full of bluster without any information or background. They will not even let people join their discussion groups unless they are vetted first. You call that democracy?
The system I used to obtain what I needed to live a useful and happy life involved working for a living, respecting others, doing a good job, volenteered to defend my country, going to church, and other efforts an individual can do. I did not need to depend on the government to achieve my goals. Oh yea, I used the highways that Eisenhower got built.
Everytime I think of the OWS the French Revolution and the Jacobites come to mind.
Luck had nothing to do with where I am. And, that's not arrogance.
Oh ye hypocrites, how long must we endure ye?
It is the teachers, family, friends, community support groups drawing people and funds from the community that are the important ways a person in need gets what they need beyond what they are able to do on their own. I don't see you using words such as entitlement or government support in how you made it. The core of one's situation depends primarily on what the individual can do. There should not be an expectation of being owed anything particularly from the government. If the time comes that someone needs support beyond their situation then that support comes from family first expanding out to community support. It does not begin at the government level. As I watch the OWS people I see mostly handout seekers. There are more than 300 million of us making it work primarily through our own effort cooperating with each other.
Wanna see handout seekers? Go look at the Big Bank Bailout recipients. The same billions in handouts to keep a handful of corporate bigwigs solvent and enable them retain hegemony over the system that entraps all the rest of us could have helped millions of more typical people. Which would really have been better for society and the economy?
I am not advocating free handouts to everyone. But surely there are ones more deserving and more needy than the wealthiest people on the planet? I can think of better uses for that money. Can you, JoeConserve?
OWS is about restructuring society and our political process in a more equitable way, among other things. It is not about looking for a free ride. It is about ensuring fairness and equality under the law, including the Constitution, and removing (or at least reducing) the corrupting influence of hyper-wealth and immoral control of the entire economy by a plutocracy. Among other things - OWS has more than one goal in mind.
It was Lynn Anderson who sang the song to her boyfriend, "I didn't promise you a rose garden." Life is not fair. Our writers of the Declaration of Indepence recognized that when they said the entitlements we have are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution speaks not of fairness but establishing a more perfect union. That requires work to achieve. It does not require entitlements or government handouts to achieve. Finally, I recommend the book "Who Really Cares" by Arthur C. Brooks.
You seem to be doing a lot of complaining about how "unfair" it is that the rest of us have a say in how this country is run. Life isn't always just either. We're working on making it atleast a little bit more just in this country.
Many lower-income students have no chance to better their lives or achieve even a modest realization of the "American Dream" without some sort of help like this. They would instead revolve around for another generation in painful, boring dead end work and poverty, which perpetuates itself yet again into the generation beyond that.
I don't understand how some people can't grasp that there are plenty of individuals in our nation who literally DO NOT HAVE the opportunity to better their lives. They either don't know the pathways exist (an issue of education and being informed) or they can't afford it (an issue of economic unjustness.) As ConnieJo says, some people do not have bootstraps.
Most people will, when offered a genuine chance, take it. This is especially true when they're still young and not so jaded by the system. I think investing in opportunities for such people pays great social dividends, over decades. I don't consider this a handout. It's a long-term investment strategy.
I finished college under the GI Bill. In both yours and my case we had to perform the task of finishing college otherwise we would have lost the grant. That is much different from a handout. President Clinton revised the welfare program by requiring those on welfare to find work or lose their benefit. The result was a reduction of people on welfare. Those people you talked to are not the ones I see on TV. (I recognize that TV finds the most reactionary situation but I look beyond the focus of the cameras and see much more.) I'm with you on their needing help. I spent a lot of time in Russia and saw how a controling government decimated the Russian people. I equate OWS to those who were in control in Russia during the Soviet time.
Maybe you can allow for the fact that while there are perhaps some people you don't like or respect at OWS, that there are many others you'd consider respectable who are protesting the inequity perpetuated by the wealthiest people in America and the politicians they purchase? That they recognize the fact that the political process in America has been corrupted by power and money and horrific Supreme Court decisions, and want to do something about it?
Dude, quit the stereotyping. I highly doubt that you've "looked beyond the cameras" and actually attended an OWS protest to talk with a good cross-section of the people there. You're coming off as ideologically blinkered, and I don't think there's much to admire about that.
That one sentence speaks VOLUMES. You've accidentally revealed why you're having such a hard time understanding the facts.
Do you honestly think MORE than 1% were helped out by the oil wars for profit, or the bank bailouts? Far LESS than 1% would be more accurate.
We can't help the fact that about 20% of the population will agree with the tee-off-party even if they don't belong to the country club where the scheme was first hatched.
The 99% movement can only speak for people actually paying attention.
Naomi Wolf 10 steps towards fascism
How to set aside the culture war some TP and OWS members and concentrate on the economic machine that oppresses both the conservative and liberal common citizen? In that nexus is probably the establishment's worst fear.
And it was only a matter of time before their "customers" made offers worthy of their beloved "marketplace "
Still, one doubts that the pros can satisfy the customers expectations this time. There are some things that money won't buy, or am I wrong about that ?
That's a Conservative.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/atrfiles/files/files/072911-federalpledgesigners.pdf
This is not news, to many of us, but expectation. There is none of us that want to see our negative history in print; and the one thing that will help getting through this kind of thing is to very leary of what is said and written.
Verify, verify, verify and make sure you know who the source is working for. Money has a very long arm.
It's a plan to be 'sold to the highest bidder', on just how to "destroy the OWS Movement forever! And, without firing a shot..."
While I can't give you the gist of it all, I can give you a hint. "You can thank G.E. for this, & the Corp Media, for NOT saying a thing about it"!
What's the hint? "when the background readings exceed safe levels, any place, can be rendered a hazardous waste site."
And the back ground readings, have exceeded safe levels, for over 6 months, for most of North America & Canada.
BUT, will it backfire & "make the hornets, ONLY angrier"?!? By making Zucotti Park a hazardous waste site, the true owners, could get pissed!
But, is it better to be pissed off, than pissed on??
Interesting what the conservative response has been to that "control group", don't you think?
By the way, don't you think the majority of citizens should have "control" over OUR government, rather than the other way around?
RSS feed for comments to this post