Castellanos’ Firm Also Has Contract With U.S. Chamber Of Commerce
We’ve spent some time here looking at the web of contracts and clients that pay GOP consultant Alex Castellanos’ firms, even as he also goes on CNN regularly to discuss the main issues of the day as an onstensibly independent-minded, if right-leaning commentator.
One of Castellanos’ firms, as you know, was the ad buyer behind a major insurance industry TV campaign against health care reform. His firm also has raked in nearly $500,000 from the Republican National Committee, which enlisted him to craft anti-reform talking points.
Here’s one more interesting data point: Another one of his firms, Purple Strategies, also has a contract with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, one of the most determined and well-funded foes of Obama’s governing agenda.
J.P. Fielder, the Chamber’s spokesperson, confirms that Castellanos’ firm is doing the advertising on the Chamber’s ongoing multi-million-dollar campaign hailing the virtues of the free-market system — which has the specific goals of derailing Obama’s climate change and health care reform initiatives.
To be clear, there’s nothing necessarily amiss here, and I wanted to take this occasion to clarify something. The reason we’re digging into Castellanos is not because of Castellanos per se, but because his case tells a larger story about how Washington works. You hear a lot about the revolving door between government and lobbying. But there’s another, less-remarked-on revolving door: One between consulting and commentary.
Castellanos is by no means the only figure who cycles back and forth between the two, and there are plenty of high-profile Democrats who do the same thing. It’s an accepted fact of life in D.C. that commentators — Republicans and Democrats alike — offering ostensibly independent-minded commentary also take in big bucks consulting for businesses with specific legislative goals.
There’s nothing necessarily wrong with that in and of itself, but it does create journalistic challenges for the networks, who have to grapple with how to identify these commentators. Witness how CNN is struggling to deal with Castellanos’ case. More broadly, the commentary/consulting revolving door is a story we’re hoping to dig into more and more on this blog. Castellanos is just one example. We’re hoping to document much more of it here going forward.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Isn’t this at heart exactly what ails our media?
” But there’s another, less-remarked-on revolving door: One between consulting and commentary.”
Bravo, greg.
Greg – as you’ve been a guest on a high-profile news show, I’d be interested in hearing from you the procedures by which your appearance was facilitated. I understand there might be protocols in place that limit what you can say but whatever details might be acceptable to discuss, I’d be interested in hearing them.
Greg,
Do you want to explain any further why, after 24 hours of trying to make this a scandal about Castellanos, Republicans, and CNN, you are suddenly at pains to say it is really just part of a bipartisan, across-the-board phenomenon, as a certain poster (hint: me) said it was?
In any event, we eagerly anticipate your exposes of Democrats in like circumstances. Perhaps you could also explore, for example, the financial ties of folks actually in the Obama administration like David Axelrod and his media/PR interests.
This Just In:
CNN Discovers Americans Want News
Castellanos is by no means the only figure who cycles back and forth between the two, and there are plenty of high-profile Democrats who do the same thing.
Really? The SAME thing? Plenty of them, Greg? Please name 5 Democrats who do the SAME thing as this slimeball. I won’t accept you naming someone like Joan Walsh of Salon.com or John Podesta at ThinkProgress. Name some Democrats who run this kind of multi-pronged scams while simultaneously and secretly shilling for their Big Business clients as a hired analyst on CNN. I hold you guilty of false equivalence.
…or consulting and BLOGGING! Traitor to the American people!
Honestly though. Here’s what I’d really like to see and I think both conservatives and liberals could get behind it.
Get corporate money out of politics. I don’t know how. I just know that after seeing how the shaping of this health care from both sides, that corporate interests are being appeased much too easily at the detriment of the rest of us.
It’s out of control completely.
If politicians A doesn’t shape laws to benefit company X, then company X will turn around and donate to politician B.
qb. There was a high profile commentator that was exposed on MSNBC three months or so ago.
You probably didn’t notice because you don’t follow what goes on there.
MSNBC changed their toon quickly and identified him as such shortly after.
mike,
No reason to doubt you. I honestly don’t think this consulting/commenting revolving door thing is a big deal. Maybe it’s better to know than not to, but I believe the truth is that 90% or more of these talking heads are saying what they actually think, and they find ways to get paid that are consistent with their views. On both sides.
I mean, just to pick random names, does anyone really think that, because a Carville or Castellanos make money consulting or advising or buying media or whatever for interests that align with their views, the views we hear from them in TV gabfests aren’t still views? I don’t. These people are known quantities with established political records.
Plus, they are commentators, pundits. They go on TV and make arguments and state opinions. People can take them for what they are, and caveat emptor. It really doesn’t bother me much.
The frigging arm-chair pundits are there in the first place because the pathetic, overpaid teevee ‘journos’ are too lazy to research, probe and analyse stories and news. So little talent, yet so highly paid. Only in america.
James, yesterday’s posts were primarily about getting CNN to identify this guy properly.
“So little talent, yet so highly paid. Only in america.”
So true – but they have good hair – almost to a man and woman.
Bernie, can you shoot me an email?
Greg: why are you backpedalling? The problem with our commentariat and those who use them is that we don’t get a clear picture of the vested interests they represent. Basically the commentators and the gasbags who interview them are part of the same Village drinking and dining crowd. For CNN to pretend that they did know enough about Castellanos’ “finger in the Republican message machine” tells me that either the managers/bookers are incompetent, lazy or more probably he is a Latino so the diversity quota was made. He often comes off as a slimeball. And Bill Bennett? Don’t they know about him: does he make up the “I have repented” quota? I’d say the same for that odd couple used by John King: The New Orleans Duo whom my brother calls The Baldy and Bimbo Show.
Same rule for Dems.
Here is the story qb.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/04/richard-wolffe-will-not-b_n_250776.html
Re: “There’s nothing necessarily wrong with that in and of itself, but it does create journalistic challenges for the networks, who have to grapple with how to identify these commentators.”
I agree there’s nothing wrong with it, but unmasking it sure does neutralize the desired advantage of a presumed unbiased commentator.
Imagine if Alan Grayson, pre-informed about Castellanos’ ties, had stepped into that CNN triple team being able level the playing field by asking Castellanos on camera if he had any ties to the insurance industry. Grayson held his own, but the effect would have been shattering.
Bias is something people understand and always seemingly suspect even when there is no real evidence. To be able to simply call attention to a commentator’s very real bias by association in the flow of a debate simply blows it up. It will be interesting to see how much bird-dogging Castellanos the commentator does in the days ahead.
Muzzy – It would have been more like Rachel Maddow and the head of Americans for Prosperity. She was tearing him up.
That was one angry interview – I’ve never seen Rachel lose it before, but she did with him. She told him just what she thinks of him and she probably shouldn’t have – she never got control back after she lost it. But it was nice to see someone tell that prick that we’re onto him.
alan — I don’t think I’m backpedaling.
I agree with 3/4 of what amk said. A sign of the apocalypse for sure.
But I largely disagree with what Muzzy said about the value of “unmasking.” In the scenario mentioned, would it really tell us anything for Grayson to “dramatically” expose Castellanos for having a contract? Castellanos is a long-time Republican/conservative consultant/op/commentator, whatever. Does anyone really doubt he holds he view about health care he expresses? Greg’s own piece, for example, showed that he wrote a memo back in July that was detailed and well thought out.
Seems to me that, while knowing what contracts someone has might be nice, this kind of scenario is unrealistic and probably counterproductive. We could just as well say that politicians like Grayson shouldn’t be on TV except with a full dislcaimer about all the hard and soft money they have received, their own business interests, etc. I just don’t think it makes much sense as a sort of “ethic” for TV programming. It’s stupid TV anyway, a bunch of people bickering, for the most part, and all assumed to be partisans and half-way or fully corrupt to begin with.
Maybe I’m naive about it, but that’s how it looks to me. Much ado about nothing.
Maddow’s attack on that guy was dishonest. But what else is new.
OK Greg. Thanks for the courtesy of a reply. Take care
I think the key thing here is transparency. If we know ahead of time the vested interests of commentators on both sides of the political persuasion, we can better judge for ourselves the validity of their arguments.
My question is to what extent is CNN voluntarily offering up this information or are they merely bending to pressure to do so? I can’t really give them too many props until we see how this plays out across the board with all commentators.
Don’t know if yall caught this the other day but check out Jon Stewart. This exactly what he means about CNN bringing on two people pushing different agendas and instead of fact checking it just “leaving it there”…
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-12-2009/cnn-leaves-it-there
“I mean, just to pick random names, does anyone really think that, because a Carville or Castellanos make money consulting or advising or buying media or whatever for interests that align with their views, the views we hear from them in TV gabfests aren’t still views?”
I’ve always thought that Carville and his wife must go home each night and laugh themselves silly at the the joke they are pulling on the public and those who pay them. I don’t think either one of them sincerely believes what they are saying…
Sam The Eagle has spoken. Harrumph Harrumph.
What do you mean that you see Rush Limbaugh on video making racist remarks? Who are you going to believe, Sam The Eagle, or your lying eyes and ears?
“Maddow’s attack on that guy was dishonest. But what else is new.”
I am so glad you think so – please think that very loudly.
I think quarterback, Bilgeman, yippie (where is that sock puppet?) are our very best allies in keeping our majority.
The only way the Republicans are a threat to us is if they sane-up. But their constituents – quarterback, Bilgeman, et al, won’t let them.
And I love it.
I’m glad you are happy with things. Keep the Obama train running full steam, and soon the rump/racist party will disappear completely. And you will be in Cloud Cuckoo Land.
@Greg,
James, yesterday’s posts were primarily about getting CNN to identify this guy properly.
I know, and I commend you on your good work. I am objecting to your false equivalence in asserting, without basis, that “plenty of Democrats do it too.” Where’s your evidence of that? Name them. Name “plenty” of them.
“and soon the rump/racist party will disappear completely.”
That’s exactly what I’m counting on and I don’t think I have to wish that hard for it to come true.
“and soon the rump/racist party will disappear completely.”
Beck, apparently, will be creating a new party to replace them.
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/10/whats_glenn_beck_up_to_something_big_he_says.php
“Beck, apparently, will be creating a new party to replace them.”
Really? O man, that makes my weekend.
Will his followers be known as Becker Heads?
amk-
re: lazy TeeVee “journalists”-bingo!
I was just watching Beck crying and going on about how “tired” he is. Tired? Dude – we’re only 10 months into this administration. Man you guys are weak – liberals endured over 8 years of utter hell and we’re still here.
Glenn is going to wind up in a hospital getting a nice long sedated nap at this rate before we ever get to another election.
“re: lazy TeeVee “journalists”-bingo!”
I’m telling y’all – it’s all about the hair!
… and some cleavage in faux news.
“… and some cleavage in faux news.”
I hope Beck creates a third party. He would pull off quite a few Republicans from voting the Republican ticket.
Three cheers for Beck?
“… and some cleavage in faux news.”
So long as all these newscasters/pundits are just mindless corporate shills who don’t really bring us news or unbiased analysis then they may as well be attractive, right?
sbj – I’ll watch faux news when they have their anchors in stingy string bikinis. That day is not far off.
I am more conservative than Beck — or at least probably more consistently and informedly (if that is a word) — but he really doesn’t do much for me. I can only listen to him for a bit. His style and persona grate after a while. To much melodrama and too wired. Can’t see a third party going anywhere with him.
qb, are you saying you’re not glenda here ? You sure sound like him.
“sbj – I’ll watch faux news when they have their anchors in stingy string bikinis. That day is not far off.”
Even I am amazed on occasion. I sometimes watch TMZ. They’ve lately started to crotch-watch and play close-up videos of the Governor of California “Walking the Dinosaur.” How far we’ve come.
“”"I was just watching Beck crying and going on about how “tired” he is.”"”
Did he really? Wow. Gotta watch that.
100% accurate = The party of whiners. Bitter and clinging to their Bible and their guns.
Ethan – It’s at HuffPo – I can get the link – it’s worth watching.
‘Beck is exhausted, to hear him tell it. And he cries and cries over “our simpler times.” Whenever the hell that was.
Ethan –
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/15/glenn-beck-cries-again-on_n_323197.html
Ethan – it’s interesting to me – a troll at HuffPo was going on about our simpler times and talked about those halcyon years when American families had only one wage earner, as a rule. When Eisenhower was president.
During the Eisenhower administration, which was a big time for the American middle class, tax rates for the top tax bracket was close to 95%.
Why aren’t we also examining David Axelrod’s client list?
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com