Lobbyist Jeannemarie Devolites Davis: hypocrite on ethics
By: Rob
Published On: 10/12/2007 7:03:04 PM
Recently, Jeannemarie Devolites Davis attacked Chap Petersen because he worked for a law firm while he was a Delegate (pretty standard) and that firm had clients that "do a tremendous amount of lobbying." She has called this "an integrity issue." Of course, she's neglecting the key logic link that would make this an actual issue:
Her opponent's campaign said that none of Petersen's old law firm's clients, including any of Petersen's own clients, had lobbied the Virginia state government while the candidate was employed with the firm.
Oops! Integrity issue go poof! Okay, but Devolites Davis isn't just being deceptive. She's actually being a hypocrite:
Devolites Davis' recent campaign mailer comes on the heels of one sent out by Petersen stating that he would sponsor laws to crack down on legislators receiving what was described in the mailer as "unearned income" from lobbyists.
The Republican's name does not appear in the mailer, but the Petersen campaign piece may have been prompted by a 2006 article in the Washington Post that says Devolites Davis works for a consulting firm that has close ties to her husband, U.S. Rep. Tom Davis (R-11th) and which also does business with the federal government.
"I'm running against someone who is employed by a lobbyist," Petersen told The Times.
Amazing, isn't it? I mean, check out this bit from the original expose by the Washington Post after the flip ...
[Tom] Davis's wife, a part-time ICG consultant, has contacted senior government technology officials on behalf of clients, including an undersecretary at the Department of Homeland Security. Upson paid her $78,000 last year for working "10 to 20 hours a week," primarily at home on her cellphone, she said. She makes $18,000 a year as a Virginia legislator....
"The issue is: Are they lobbying?" said Jan Baran, a former general counsel of the Republican National Committee who specializes in lobbying and ethics law. "Their activities [at ICG] strongly resemble what lobbyists here in Washington do every day."
Can she get anymore brazen? She's a lobbyist! Here she is on ICG's website! And she's lobbying federal government agencies that her husband has legislative oversight over! I mean, the chutzpah of some people.
Comments
Nailing Jeannemarie (jsrutstein - 10/12/2007 7:24:32 PM)
Chutzpah is the perfect word for what Jeannemarie has done here. She deviously slimes Chap by tossing out boogeymen like Enron and Bechtel as if just mentioning their names in conjunction with Chap's old firm means anything. She employs the Newt Gingrich/Karl Rove trick of insinuating Chap himself has ethical problems by merely claiming the existence of "an integrity issue" as if that term means anything. Meantime, the Washington Post itself reported that Jeannemarie was being paid handsomely by a company that makes its money touting its access to Tom Davis. I've been criticized a lot by people who say Jeannemarie is her own person, and voters should not decide how to vote this November based on how they feel about Tom. Clearly, however, Tom and Jeannemarie have chosen to link their political and professional careers. I hope that the Washington Post follows up on this latest outrage by Jeannemarie. I also hope that Chap can find a way to be more outspoken on this, naming names this time, without being perceived as being too negative or nasty.
Is Peterson going to run ads (jiacinto - 10/12/2007 8:14:14 PM)
on TV responding to Jeanmarrie Devloites-Davis's negative ads?
Who would pay for it? (snolan - 10/12/2007 11:34:25 PM)
Chap is fundraising within the district. JMDD is pulling on huge war-chests courtesy of Tom. It's all legal - but who the heck can afford to go toe to toe with that kind of buying power.
No, this election will be won by Chap going door to door.
Chap's Ad on Basic Cable (jsrutstein - 10/13/2007 8:45:28 AM)
I've seen a very positive ad on basic cable, run during Hardball on MSNBC. Ironically, the theme of this ad is Chap knocking on doors. Janet Oleszek and Rex Simmons have also used basic cable to run ads, although the most recent Janet ad I saw was negative, and the Simmons ad depicting Hugo and Cheney as two peas in a pod, literally, is very negative. I'm not a huge fan of negative ads on principle, but they do seem to work. In this case, Chap could liberally borrow clips from the Wash Post expose on Tom and Jeannemarie's lucrative joint venture. If he were to do this, I hope he doesn't even bother to mention Jeannemarie's slimy statements about him. He should define the debate and avoid looking defensive. It won't be until after this election that we're able to see if ads on basic cable are worth it. I'm guessing they are. By the time of Chap's next race, I bet we'll start to see more ads on blogs, youtube, etc.
Actually... (BobSmith - 10/12/2007 8:54:00 PM)
You all might be missing the point Davis was trying to make. It is illegal for a Virginia legislator to be employed by a law firm if any member of that firm is registered as a lobbyist on the state level. It's what lawyers call an "imputed" conflict of interest. If Petersen's firm does any state-level lobbying he cannot be employed there. If they don't, he's golden. It is the same issue that crept up on Creigh Deeds last year and forced him to change firms.
It is perfectly legal to be employed by a lobbyist at the federal level. Whether it's ethical or not is a different story.
Bob
if only (jsrutstein - 10/12/2007 9:16:08 PM)
No, you miss the point. Jeannemarie wasn't making any "point" at all. She merely trotted out a couple of names with bad reputations, linked them to Chap's old firm, and implied Chap's integrity was at issue. Ethical violations ought to matter to voters as much as legal violations, in some cases, more. If no one is willing to go on the record with facts about questionable conflicts concerning Chap, it is outrageous for Jeannemarie to engage in tabloid campaigning, especially when it is a matter of record that she's paid a lot of money for part-time work by a company that seeks to attract business by claiming special access to her husband.
Two points. (Lowell - 10/12/2007 9:18:57 PM)
1. Chap's old law firm (Bracewell & Petersen) NEVER LOBBIED in Richmond. They couldn't do so under state law while Chap was in the General Assembly. Nor did they do so afterwards.
2. Ironically, the head of Bracewell & Petersen is now Rudy Giuliani. In fact, the firm is now called "Bracewell & Giuliani." And guess who's a state co-chair of Giuilani's Virginia presidential campaign. That's right, Jeanneamarie Devolites Davis! Hahahahahahaha. :)
and the laughs just keep on comin' (jsrutstein - 10/12/2007 9:27:52 PM)
I wonder what Giuliani's GOP competitors think about his choice of a RINO for his state co-chair. hahahahahaha
Jeannemarie's firm violates lobbyist registration laws, gets caught (Andrea Chamblee - 10/12/2007 10:42:16 PM)
First, Jeannemarie is the
only person employed by ICG Govt who lists her spouse on her
bio on the site. By advertising her contacts to Congress for money, doesn't that raise an ethical issue?
Also, her firm ICG had to register as lobbyists after they got caught by the Post last year. According to the story by Robert O'Harrow Jr. and Scott Higham:
A day after receiving questions from The Post last week about his business practices and his relationship with Davis, Upson consulted with his attorney and filed a lobbying report disclosing his work on behalf of one of his clients, Juniper Networks Inc. He declined to identify his other clients.
When will JDD release her list of clients to show which ones have business with Tom Davis's Committee on Government Reform -- which ones bid on government contracts and which ones have Committee hearings? Most of her donors don't even have business in VA. They have business with Tom.