The John McCain School for Lobbyists

While the Arizona senator was decrying Washington’s “revolving door,” his own staffers were zipping back and forth through it.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


As one of the leading critics of Washington’s quid pro quo culture, John McCain has not just denounced the influence lobbyists have over policy and the legislators who make it. He has repeatedly bashed the “revolving door” through which government officials move from federal jobs overseeing an industry to high-paying private positions repping for that same sector—and vice versa. He has supported legislation that would strengthen lobbying restrictions on former members of the Executive Branch, former Members of Congress, and former congressional staff. On his campaign website, McCain declares that he “has fought the ‘revolving door’ by which lawmakers and other influential officials leave their posts and become lobbyists for the special interests they have aided.”

Yet, McCain’s offices have been part of the revolving door culture. Mother Jones conducted a review of lobbying disclosure forms and publicly available information at OpenSecrets.org and Legistorm.com. The records show that since the Keating Five scandal, which by McCain’s own account turned the Arizona senator into a crusader for reform, at least 20 McCain staffers—working for McCain’s personal Senate office or for one of the committees he has chaired—either came to McCain’s employ from a lobby shop or joined one after leaving the congressional payroll.

It is common practice for congressional aides from both parties to head to lucrative lobbying positions after working on Capitol Hill. And often lawmakers themselves leave Congress and return to lobby their former colleagues. But McCain has a special lobbyist problem. It’s not just that his presidential campaign has been managed by former lobbyists for corporations and foreign governments. (Though several lobbyists have recently left his campaign, McCain’s two closest aides—Charlie Black and Rick Davis—used to be top-tier lobbyists.) McCain has surrounded himself with lobbyists and lobbyists-to-be, all while positioning himself as the revolving door’s top critic. McCain vows that if he’s elected he’ll change the revolving door culture of Washington. But if he can’t do so in his own outfit, how can he do so for the entire town?

Below are several case studies demonstrating how the revolving door has worked at McCain’s Capitol Hill offices:

Currently the head of John McCain’s Senate office, Mark Buse started working as one of McCain’s legislative assistants in 1987. He went on the serve as staff director for the Senate Commerce Committee from 1997 to 2001, when McCain was the committee’s chairman. From there, Buse decamped to the law firm Mintz Levin and its affiliate ML Strategies, where he spent six years lobbying for financial services companies, pharmaceutical firms, telecoms, oil and gas interests, and other corporate clients. Apparently, Buse’s trip through the revolving door didn’t taint him in McCain’s eyes. In 2007, McCain hired him to be his Senate chief of staff.

Buse wasn’t the first McCain chief of staff to take this route. Christopher Koch headed McCain’s office from 1987 to 1990. He then spent three years as the chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission, an independent federal agency that regulates America’s ocean-based commerce. He left the commission to spend the majority of the ’90s lobbying for the shipping industry and in 2000 became the president of the World Shipping Council, the industry’s trade group in Washington. Early this month he announced that he would be taking a temporary leave of absence to work as the policy coordinator for the McCain campaign.

Paul Martino took over as Republican counsel for the Senate Commerce Committee in June 2001. In 2005, when the committee chairmanship transferred from McCain to Senator Ted Stevens, Martino left to lobby for Alston & Byrd, where he now advances the agendas of clients as diverse as Goodyear and the Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse. Martino touts his connection to McCain on Alston & Byrd’s website, and he currently serves as a fundraiser for McCain’s presidential campaign.

Then there’s former McCain staffer Mary Phillips, currently an official at the Federal Highway Administration. Prior to arriving in Washington, Phillips held a number of positions within the railroad industry. From 2002 to 2004, Phillips served on McCain’s commerce committee staff, advising him “on surface transportation matters, including Amtrak policy,” according to her bio on FHWA’s website. She left McCain’s staff to become vice president for legislative affairs for the American Trucking Association, lobbying for the trucking industry on Capitol Hill. Now that she’s back on the government payroll, she currently helps to make federal policy that effects the same industry she until recently represented.

In these instances McCain staffers left the Arizona senator’s office or committee staff to become lobbyists. Sometimes the process happened in reverse. McCain has employed staffers who had previously lobbied on the same issues they would be overseeing on his staff. For example, lobbyist John Tahsuda was general counsel and legislative director for the National Indian Gaming Association from 1999-2000. From there, he switched to First Nations Strategies and Hobbs Straus Dean & Walker, where he lobbied for Indian tribes. In 2002, he was hired by the Senate Indian Affairs committee and served as Majority Staff Director during McCain’s tenure as chairman.

A call requesting comment from the McCain campaign was not returned.

McCain certainly cannot be blamed for the actions of his staff. But it is clear that McCain’s passion for ending the access and power of lobbyists did not influence his staff aides. Many of them practiced Washington’s business as usual even as their boss was condemning it.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate