Roberts "Forgets" His Past as a Lobbyist for Corporate Special Interests
Posted by DNC Research on August 3, 2005 at 05:43 PM
According to a Newsday article, in Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' 83-page Senate questionnaire he failed to disclose his past as a lobbyist for the Cosmetics, Toiletries, and Fragrance Association. The Senate had asked for all of Roberts' lobbying clients as part of the questionnaire.
Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts failed to include his lobbying of Bush administration officials on behalf of the cosmetics industry in 2001 in his Senate questionnaire released yesterday.
The omission is notable because the Senate asked for a list of all of his lobbying, and his work for the Cosmetics, Toiletries and Fragrance Association resulted in the controversial suspension of stricter rules for labeling sunscreen products.
The White House did not have an immediate comment.
Roberts listed two 1998 lobbying registrations for peanut grower associations. In another section, he lists an address he delivered to the cosmetics association in April 2000, but does not note the lobbying.
Senate records show Roberts was registered to lobby for the cosmetics association in March 2001 when he was a partner at Hogan & Hartson. The registration form was signed by Robert P. Brady, another partner at the firm.
It said Roberts would lobby on the "impact of Food and Drug Administration regulations" on labeling and advertising and "protection of commercial speech under the First Amendment."
An August 2001 lobbyist filing shows the association paid less than $10,000 to Roberts and Brady. No other listing appears in Senate online records.
The FDA's public calendar shows that on Oct. 29, 2001, Roberts and two officers of the group, Edward Kavanaugh and Thomas Donegan, met with FDA chief counsel Daniel Troy and others on "sunscreen labeling issues."
Kavanaugh last night confirmed that Roberts served as outside counsel.
An FDA rule to go into effect in 2002 would have banned sun-protection factors higher than 30, because little protection is added after that.
It also would have cracked down on labels with "unsupported, absolute, and/or misleading and confusing terms such as 'sunblock,' 'waterproof,' 'all-day protection' and 'visible and/or infrared light protection.'"
Two months after the meeting, Troy put an indefinite stay on the rule. Consumer groups criticized Troy for the action.
"They've done what we asked," Donegan said last year.
This the second association that could affect Roberts' judgments that he has "forgotten," -- Roberts would most likely have to recuse himself from any cases involving the Cosmetics, Toiletries and Fragrance Association. This is why it is so important for the Senate to be provided with all of the documents they are asking for -- the American people deserve to know about this possible Justice, especially his lobbying and business ties, before he is seated on the court, not after.
Comments (11) «
I heard today that Randi Rhodes show on the Air America affiliate in that part of Ohio MYSTERIOUSLY went off the air yesterday in that area during the last half hour that people could go in and vote. My god – don't you see what is going on here? People going home who didn’t listen on the internet wouldn’t have realized you only need to be IN LINE at the poles by the time they “close” to vote! Almost all people listening to Air America are STRONGLY Democratic and Very motivated and all they needed to know is that they could stand in line after work to swing that vote. What are the chances that that ONE channel that ONE day at the PERFECT time would just stop transmitting??? 3000 votes could have been driving home listening to NPR instead!
wd, where are you? hello...anybody home?
I think this illustrates what sets Fat-Cat Repubican partisans apart from most people. I don't know about you, but I don't have too much trouble recalling the instances when people have paid me $10 grand.
Apparently thats such a piddling amount for Mr. Roberts its not even worth remembering.
And I heard Junior doesn't want to let some of this guy's papers be seen either. I wonder why.
New Open Thread. 6 Comments
Is there anyone this lawyer hasn't represented?
That's why no other President was stupid enough to nominate a career corporate/government lawyer instead of a judge with decades of experience. He won't be able to function as a full member of the Supreme Court, because he haa too many conflicts of interests. And if he has to recluse himself every other case, what good is he to the country?
And if he does write a judgement on a case and it's found out later that he "forgot" about representing a party involved, will that compromise the high court's standing?
Time for Bush to release all the papers they have on this guy...from the Solicitor General's Office cases to the 2000 election pro bono work he did on Bush vs. Gore. And any other pro bono work he's done for anybody. It appears his law firm keeps pretty sloppy records, too.
Instead of paying back Roberts for the favors he's done for him in the past, why doesn't the President just nominate the best qualified conservative judge? The respect and reputation of the Supreme Court is at stake.
Gee wiz. The incompetence and low standards of this administration is dragging down the whole country.
I forgot?
I FORGOT!?
That is so unbelievably weak... he's not some kid who didn't clean his closet making some lame-ass excuse to his mother! "Uh... I forgot."
This has become a theme for these filthy pigs (my apologies to swine everywhere).
Raising the corporate lobby background of Roberts is one of the best areas for the public to judge whether his corporate interests are the public's interests. I immediately raised his work for the diry and polluting coal industry on my Website about Roberts.
I've also tracked the big money donors to Progress For America, the well funded right wing 527 running ads to put Roberts on the court.
PROGRESSIVE VALUES
I think we have to be careful about jumping on the "I forgot" bandwagon. I don't know about everyone else who reads this stuff, but my memory is not perfect, and to say that because Roberts is smart he should have a photographic memory is dangerous too. After all, when Hillary was testifying before congress, she could barely remember what she had for breakfast. I'm just cynical enough to suspect that both of them had an attack of "convenient forgetfulness." If we are going to defeat Roberts it has to be with the substance of his opinions and not the fact that he forgot something, or that his wife dresses his kids funny. I know that there are legions of intelligent people digging through his writings and opinions to come up with something that will show his true colors, but I would like to see the debate kept on a higher level in the future.
« Hide Comments
Comments are now closed for this entry.
