webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Wiley Rein

Wiley Rein & Fielding

primary 6 23 scotus

see ~ affirmative action voter suppression ed blum pjt for fair rep BS

[https://www.washingtonian.com/2013/06/25/meet-the-lawyer-involved-in-both-of-this-weeks-big-race-based-supreme-court-cases/](suspense%20continues%20over%20how%20the%20Supreme%20Court%20will%20rule%20in%20cases%20deciding%20the

constitutionality%20of%20California’s%20same-sex%20marriage%20ban%20and%20the%20Defense%20of%20Marriage

Act.%20But%20the%20court%20has%20handed%20down%20two%20other%20highly%20anticipated%20rulings%20this%20week,

both%20regarding%20the%20treatment%20of%20racial%20minorities—and%20both%20involving%20the%20same%20lawyer,

Bert%20Rein.

Though%20Rein%20cofounded%20the%20firm%20Wiley%20Rein%20in%201983,%20he’s%20often%20overshadowed%20by%20its

other%20name%20partner:%20the%20higher-profile,%20former%20FCC%20chairman

Richard%20Wiley.%20But%20this%20week,%20Rein%20is%20the%20one%20in%20the%20spotlight.

The%20former%20deputy%20assistant%20secretary%20of%20state%20during%20the%20Nixon%20administration%20focuses

on%20antitrust,%20commercial%20litigation,%20and%20food%20and%20drug%20law.%20Rein%20is%20certainly%20not

known%20as%20a%20Supreme%20Court%20lawyer,%20but%20this%20term,%20he%20found%20himself%20arguing%20twice%20before

the%20justices—his%20first%20ever%20appearances%20at%20the%20high%20court.

In%20his%20first%20case,%20he%20advocated%20for

Abigail%20Fisher,%20a%20Caucasian%20woman%20who%20claimed%20the%20affirmative%20action%20policy%20at%20the%20University%20of

Texas%20prevented%20her%20from%20being%20admitted.%20In%20his%20second%20case,%20he%20argued%20on%20behalf%20of

Shelby%20County,%20Alabama,%20that%20a%20key%20piece%20of%20the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act—the%20landmark%20civil

rights%20legislation%20passed%20to%20combat%20voter%20discrimination—should%20not%20have%20been%20reauthorized

by%20Congress.

The%20high%20court—sort%20of—decided

Fisher%20v.%20University%20of%20Texas%20at%20Austin%20yesterday.%20In%20a%207-1%20decision,%20with

Elena%20Kagan%20recusing%20herself,%20the%20justices%20sent%20the%20case%20back%20to%20the%20lower%20appellate%20court%20to

reevaluate%20the%20college’s%20policy.%20It%20was%20neither%20a%20loss%20nor%20a%20win%20for%20Rein.

But%20today,%20Rein%20got%20a%20clear%20victory%20when%20the%20justices%20decided

Shelby%20County%20v.%20Holder.%20They%20determined%20in%20a%205-4%20ruling%20that%20section%204%20of%20the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%20is%20unconstitutional.

The%20historic%20decision%20will%20be%20among%20the%20most

controversial%20of%20the%20term%20and%20has%20already%20been%20denounced%20by

President%20Obama,%20who%20called%20it%20“a%20setback”%20for

efforts%20to%20end%20discrimination.

So%20how%20did%20Rein,%20a%20newbie%20at%20the%20high%20court,%20land%20such%20big%20cases?

Edward%20Blum,%20a%20former%20stockbroker%20backed%20by

conservative%20donors%20and%20the%20founder%20of%20the%20Project

on%20Fair

Representation,%20found

plaintiffs%20for%20both

Fisher%20and

Shelby%20County,%20convinced%20them%20to%20file%20their%20lawsuits,

and%20linked%20them%20up%20with%20Rein.%20Blum%20reportedly

first%20got%20connected%20with%20Wiley%20Rein,%20widely%20regarded%20as%20a

Republican-leaning%20firm,

nearly%20two%20decades%20ago%20when%20he%20himself%20was%20a%20plaintiff%20in%20a

case%20involving%20a%20Texas

redistricting%20plan,)

suspense continues over how the Supreme Court will rule in cases deciding the

constitutionality of California’s same-sex marriage ban and the Defense of Marriage

Act. But the court has handed down two other highly anticipated rulings this week,

both regarding the treatment of racial minorities—and both involving the same lawyer,

Bert Rein.

Though Rein cofounded the firm Wiley Rein in 1983, he’s often overshadowed by its

other name partner: the higher-profile, former FCC chairman

Richard Wiley. But this week, Rein is the one in the spotlight.

Theformer deputy assistant secretary of state during the Nixon administration focuses

on antitrust, commercial litigation, and food and drug law. Rein is certainly not

known as a Supreme Court lawyer, but this term, he found himself arguing twice before

the justices—his first ever appearances at the high court.

In his first case, he advocated for

:{:{Abigail Fisher}:, a Caucasian woman who claimed the affirmative action policy at the University of

Texas}: prevented her from being admitted. In his second case, he argued on behalf of

Shelby County, Alabama, that a key piece of the Voting Rights Act—the landmark civil

rights legislation passed to combat voter discrimination—should not have been reauthorized

by Congress.

The high court—sort of—decided

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austinyesterday. In a 7-1 decision, with

Elena Kagan recusing herself, the justices sent the case back to the lower appellate court to

reevaluate the college’s policy. It was neither a loss nor a win for Rein.

But today, Rein got a clear victory when the justices decided

Shelby County v. Holder.They determined in a 5-4 ruling that section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional.

The historic decision will be among the most

controversial of the term and has already been denounced by

President Obama, who called it “a setback” for

efforts to end discrimination.

So how did Rein, a newbie at the high court, land such big cases?

Edward Blum, a former stockbroker backed by

conservative donors and the founder of the [Project on Fair

Representation](http://www.projectonfairrepresentation.org/), found plaintiffs for both

Fisher and

Shelby County, convinced them to file their lawsuits,

and linked them up with Rein. Blum reportedly

first got connected with Wiley Rein, widely regarded as a

Republican-leaning firm,

nearly two decades ago when he himself was a plaintiff in a

case involving a Texas redistricting plan,...

==

blum ~ AA:

Big Donors, Elite Lawyers

For much of the year, Mr. Blum works out of a gray-shingle house in South Thomaston, Me., overlooking Penobscot Bay, in a stark landscape famously painted by Andrew Wyeth. He has a consulting business analyzing esoteric municipal bonds for a handful of wealthy families.

But hiring lawyers for his kind of litigation takes a lot of money, and Mr. Blum has found it.

The DonorsTrust, which distributes money from conservative and libertarian contributors to various causes, and nonprofits related to DonorsTrust gave almost $2.9 million to support Mr. Blum’s work from 2010 to 2015, said Lawson R. Bader, the trust’s president, citing the most recent publicly available figures.

Most of that money came from the Searle Freedom Trust, according to tax records and Kimberly O. Dennis, the president and chief executive of the trust, which was founded by Daniel C. Searle of the Searle pharmaceutical company.

The goals of the Searle trust, as stated on its website, are to create “an environment that promotes individual freedom and economic liberties, while encouraging personal responsibilities and a respect for traditional American values.” The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, another small-government group, gave $100,000 to the DonorsTrust for Mr. Blum’s causes in 2014 and $50,000 in 2012, tax records show.  For Mr. Blum’s first suit, the racial gerrymandering case in 1993, he hired a real estate lawyer who agreed to represent him for six months for $7,000, Mr. Blum recalled. But when the case went to the Supreme Court, he knew he needed a Washington lawyer, and found a rising young lawyer willing to take it for nothing at the prestigious Wiley Rein law firm.

Since then, Wiley Rein has been practically his house counsel. Fisher and Shelby were argued by Bert Rein, an antitrust and commercial litigator who was a State Department appointee in the Nixon administration. Mr. Rein described Mr. Blum as a client like any other, but one who believed in legal activism, and said his cases were not done pro bono but for a fee, which may be negotiable. “We are not a ‘cause’ law firm,” Mr. Rein said. (In some cases Mr. Blum has won, his side has been able to recoup legal fees from the losing side.)

The Harvard case is being argued by William Consovoy, a younger partner who recently split away. He clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas, whom he has called “my hero.”

Some civil rights activists think that in suing Harvard, Mr. Blum is picking the wrong fight. Armand Derfner, a civil rights lawyer and constitutional law scholar in residence at the Charleston School of Law in South Carolina, said that admission to the Ivy League was arbitrary for reasons that had little to do with race.

...

==

The legal team challenging Harvard’s admissions policy as racially discriminatory will be comprised of four former law clerks to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, the court’s only African-American member. Adam Mortara and John Hughes, both partners at Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott, are joining William Consovoy and Patrick Strawbridge, partners at Consovoy McCarthy Park, in the case Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. 

:{

}:

The lawyers declined to comment. Strawbridge filed a motion on Wednesday with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking pro hac vice admission for Mortara and Hughes to appear in the trial set to begin Oct. 15. A team from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr represents Harvard, which has denied it discriminates against any group in the admissions process. The plaintiffs claim Harvard’s policy discriminates against Asian-American students in favor of African-American and other applicants, in violation of civil rights laws. Mortara clerked for Thomas in 2002 and 2003, and Hughes did so from 2005 to 2006. Consovoy and Strawbridge clerked for Thomas in 2008 and 2009. Mortara clerked for Thomas during the term in which the court issued the landmark affirmative action case Grutter v. Bollinger.

:{

}:

 The majority ruled that “narrowly tailored” use of race in university admissions was constitutional. In a partial dissent, Thomas expressed his long-standing opposition to affirmative action. “I believe blacks can achieve in every avenue of American life without the meddling of university administrators,” he wrote. “A university may not maintain a high admission standard and grant exemptions to favored races. … Racial discrimination is not a permissible solution to the self-inflicted wounds of this elitist admissions policy.” 

:{

}:

Thomas voiced similar views in Fisher v. University of Texas, litigation that was backed by the Project on Fair Representation, the same organization that is behind the challenge to Harvard and, in a separate suit, the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. In the University of Texascase, the justices in 2016 upheld policies that permitted the consideration of race in admission decisions. Thomas has drawn from his own experience at Yale Law School in asserting that affirmative action programs stigmatize black students, though starting in 2011 he began a reconciliation with the school.  

:{

}:

 Read more: Justice Thomas Ventures Beyond Elite Schools to Fill Clerkship Posts Trump's Justice Dept. Takes Swipe at Harvard in Admissions Lawsuit Will University Affirmative Action Policies Survive a Kennedy-Less Supreme Court? Harvard, Citing Justices' Affirmative-Action Ruling, Defends Admissions Policy Justices Thomas and Gorsuch Call for Curbs on Federal Agency Power

cult corrupt winow --> smash and grab?

https://www.ecowatch.com/scott-pruitt-epa-industry-2575035190.html

see below

New Reports Highlight Industry Influence on EPA Head Pruitt

:{

New evidence emerged Friday and Saturday revealing how U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt's close relationships with industry leaders and lobbyists might impact his environmental decisions.

On Friday, the lobbying firm Williams & Jensen disclosed evidence that its former chairman J. Steven Hart, whose wife rented a Washington, DC condo to Pruitt, did in fact lobby the EPA on behalf of three clients during Pruitt's tenure despite his denials, The Hill reported.  Then, on Saturday, The New York Times broke the news that Pruitt had attended a University of Kentucky basketball game in December in special, front-and-center seats belonging to coal billionaire Joseph W. Craft III, whose close relationship with Pruitt had not been previously examined.

Hart, who stepped down from Williams & Jensen in April, told E&E news in March that he did not lobby the EPA in 2017 or 2018. But lobbying disclosures released hours after his departure revealed he did contact the EPA to lobby for Smithfield Foods during that period.

In Friday's disclosures to the Senate, the firm revealed further that Hart did more for Smithfield Foods that previously believed and also contacted the EPA on behalf of Coca-Cola and the Financial Oversight and Management Control Board of Puerto Rico.

The new information turned up after Williams & Jensen hired Jan Baran atWiley Rein to review Hart's schedule and communications, as well as the firm's disclosure filings, from 2017 and the first three months of 2018, to make sure the firm was accurately disclosing Hart's activity.

Hart and others lobbied the EPA for Coca-Cola on "environmental issues impacting the beverage industry; clean water supply and water conservation," according to the updated disclosures.

The EPA told The Hill that the inclusion of Coca-Cola was an error.

"This meeting involving Coca-Cola and their clean water steward did not occur," EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox said in a statement. "The request was submitted and it went unfilled."

The disclosures said that lobbying by Hart and others for Coca-Cola to the EPA and other government agencies and Capital Hill also included "general market access issues in foreign countries; Commerce 232 investigations, including re: aluminum" and "[e]nvironmental issues impacting the beverage industry, including hydroflourocarbon replacement; commodity pricing legislation."

In 2017, Hart also lobbied the EPA for more potable water for Puerto Rico following Hurricane Maria, on behalf of the Financial Oversight and Management Control Board of Puerto Rico.

Even if he wasn't an official lobbyist, coal executive Craft's close ties to Pruitt suggest fossil-fuel industry influence on key deregulatory moves such as October's repeal of the Obama-era Clean Power Plan,which Pruitt announced in Craft's hometown of Hazard, Kentucky with Craft in the audience. Craft also served on the board of an industry group that urged the EPA to postpone enforcement of a rule preventing coal plants from dumping toxic metals into rivers, a request Pruitt honored in September, The New York Times reported.

The New York Times further uncovered the fact that Pruitt had met with Craft at least seven times during the first 14 months of his tenure at the EPA, more than he met with any environmental advocate. The two are close enough to be on texting basis, and their relationship has deep roots: Craft was a major donor to Pruitt's state government campaigns in Oklahoma.

Heath Lovell, vice president for public affairs at Craft's company Alliance Resource Partners, told The New York Times that Pruitt paid "market value" for the basketball tickets.

The game was not included on Pruitt's official calendar, but was videotaped and mentioned in university communications requested by The New York Times through public records requests. According to those communications, Kentucky state police provided additional security for Pruitt during the trip, backing up his own detail.

}:

==

In conclusion, the majority reiterated that the University has an ongoing obligation to use available data "to assess whether changing demographics have undermined the need for a race-conscious policy; and to identify the effects, both positive and negative, of the affirmative-action measures it deems necessary."

In a lengthy dissent joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas, Justice Alito wrote that the university's stated interest in diversity were not specific and were "shifting, unpersuasive, and, at times, less than candid." Additionally, Alito reiterated the circuit court dissent's claim that the Circuit Court majority believed that automatically admitted minority students were "somehow more homogeneous, less dynamic, and more undesirably stereotypical than those admitted under holistic review."

Justice Thomas also authored a dissent. In this dissent, he reiterated the thoughts expressed in his concurrence in Fisher I, namely that "a State’s use of race in higher education admissions decisions is categorically prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause".[22][23]

==

Shelby County v. Holder (2012)

http://abovethelaw.com/2013/02/voting-rights-act-oral-argument-just-how-drunk-with-power-has-justice-scalia-become/

his morning the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the challenge brought by Shelby County, Alabama, to the Voting Rights Act. I’m not really concerned with the particulars of the argument as articulated by the attorneys (U.S. Solicitor General Don Verrillifor the government, Bert Rein arguing for Shelby County), or the substance of the justices’ questions. The Court has been jonesing to strike down Section Five of the Voting Rights Act, which requires certain jurisdictions to “preclear” changes to their election laws with the federal government to be sure that they aren’t racially discriminating against minorities.

Chief Justice John Roberts seems to subscribe to the butthurt view that after 400 years of the enslavement and oppression of African-Americans in this country, now the only way to protect the rights of minorities is to make sure white people don’t feel discriminated against. Justice Anthony Kennedy seems to think he can make policy for the rest of the country, even though Citizens United should have shown him that he has no idea how the real world works. And the other three conservatives on the Court, Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, think that racial equality involves keeping your mouth shut while majorities do whatever they want.

The conservatives have the votes to overturn one of the most successful weapons against racism in this country, and I can’t say I’m really surprised that conservatives are eager to take this away.

But is anybody else getting a little sick and tired of Justice Antonin Scalia’s constant grandstanding? I don’t know if it was getting passed over for Chief Justice or if he’s really pissed he didn’t get to decide who won the 2008 presidential election, but isn’t his whole “conservative intellectual hero” act starting to interfere with his job as “impartial member of the judiciary”?

Scalia has been acting like “Justice Scalia Superstar” for some time now. But I think most people noticed it during his incredibly political dissent in the Arizona immigration case. Remember, that’s where Scalia criticized the president’s funding and enforcement of immigration laws on the books.

Scalia’s also gotten into fights with Judge Richard Posner. And he apparently no longer respects questions about his most famous and controversial decision in Bush v. Gore. Scalia has a great mind and an acerbic wit, but maybe all of that adulation has gone to his head?

Scalia’s political leanings were on full display today during oral arguments on the Voting Rights Act. Talking Points Memo reports on some of the questions — really they were just pontifications — from Scalia today:

Justice Antonin Scalia attributed the continued congressional reauthorization to a perpetual “racial entitlement” and suggested that it will be renewed into “perpetuity” because members of Congress would never let it lapse for fear for political repercussions.

“I don’t think there is anything to gain by any senator by voting against this Act,” Scalia said. “This is not the kind of question you can leave to Congress. They’re going to lose votes if they vote against the Voting Rights Act. Even the name is wonderful.”

Look, I think there are legitimate questions one can raise about pre-clearance. Roberts, for instance, asked, “Is it the government’s submission that citizens in the South are more racist than citizens not in the South?” Now, the obvious answer to that is yes (yes folks, they are, we have evidence), and I think Roberts’s desire to live in a world magically devoid of racist Southerners outpaces the reality on the ground. But whether or not the South is too racist to be trusted is a legitimate line of inquiry in this case.

Scalia’s soliloquy about perpetual racial entitlementis not.

In fact, Scalia’s suggestion that caring about voting rights in the South (where people have been murdered trying to register minorities to vote) is akin to racial entitlement is offensive and, frankly, stupid. Scalia might not believe that conditions in the South currently warrant enhanced federal scrutiny, but the “entitlement” to vote isn’t racial, it’s constitutional.

Honestly, I’m not surprised anymore by rank racial insensitivity from Justice Scalia. That’s his shtick. He’s the freaking Jeselnik Offensive of the Supreme Court.

Actually, it’s the second part of Scalia’s statement that I find most troubling: “This is not the kind of question you can leave to Congress. They’re going to lose votes if they vote against the Voting Rights Act. Even the name is wonderful.”

I know Scalia has forgotten more about the law than I’ve ever even contemplated, but I thought the question wasn’t whether or not Congress could be trusted to vote the way Scalia wants them to, I thought the question was whether Congress acted within its constitutional authority. Oh, they did (according a mountain of precedent)? Then WHO THE F*** ASKED YOU ABOUT THE POLITICAL WILL OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTORS?

Is the Court now empowered to strike down acts of Congress that are named too well? If so, let’s have the Court bring back the “death tax” and finally do something about the comfortable-sounding “global warming.”

Can you imagine how Scalia’s beloved founding, slave-holding fathers would react to a judge pontificating on the political expediency of Congressional actions?

How would Scalia feel if sometime in the future Justice Breyer says, “You can’t leave the gay marriage question to Congress. They’re all too homophobic to be pro-‘gay.’ Even that word ‘gay,’ they’d lose votes for being ‘too gay.'”

I don’t know if people are going to notice this. Conservatives are usually the ones who claim to be worried about an “activist” Court, but they don’t say a peep when the Court overreaches rightward. And liberal Court watchers have been used to Scalia’s originalist hypocrisy since at least Bush v. Gore.

But Justice Scalia seems to have abandoned even the pretense of impartiality or judicial restraint. The Roberts Court has been the era of Scalia Unchained, and I think we’re not even halfway through this movie.

Conservative Justices Hammer The Voting Rights Act [TPM]

Argument recap: Voting law in peril — maybe [SCOTUSblog]

bert

==

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/top-gop-law-firms-seeks-2-million-fees-destroying-voting-rights-act

AlterNet [1] / By Steven Rosenfeld [2]

Republican Lawyers Who Gutted 1965 Voting Rights Act Seek Millions From Taxpayers

November 8, 2013

Whomever said crime doesn’t pay isn’t looking at one of the nation’s top Republican political law firms. The firm is seeking [3] $2 million in legal fees from the government after litigating its “successful” Supreme Court case gutting the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

“U.S. Department of Justice lawyers and attorneys from Wiley Rein, who represented Shelby County, Ala., in the voting rights dispute, are expected to fight over two issues: whether the challengers are entitled to fees in the first place and whether $2 million is too much,” reported the BLT: the blog of the Legal Times, earlier this week.

This past June, a U.S. Supreme Court, dividing along the usual ideological lines, struck down the VRA’s Section 4 of the law [4], which contained a formula used to decide which states and jurisdictions should have to take special steps before making changes to their voting procedures. Essentially, this formula—based on whether changes in voting laws or rules are racially discriminatory—allowed the Department of Justice to prevent most Southern states and a handful of other counties across the U.S, with long histories of discrimination from turning away eligible voters.

The Supreme Court’s ruling, which didn’t throw out the law but dramatically undermined its potential for action, immediately led to red states such as Texas and North Carolina instituting a catalogue of well-known voter suppression tactics. What’s outrageous is that the lawyers who argued the case destroying the law—whose initial funding came from wealthy right-wingers—now want taxpayers to pay them too.

According to the BLT blog, that decision also has to be argued before a federal court.

“The fee request [5] ‘appears to present novel legal issues,’ the attorneys in the case said in a Nov. 4 court filing [6]. The government and civil rights groups involved in the litigation plan to oppose the fee request. U.S. District Judge John Bates will first decide whether Shelby County's lawyers are entitled to fees before looking at how much compensation is appropriate…

“Bert Rein, a founding partner of Wiley Rein and lead counsel for Shelby County, said in an interview today that they met the requirements for claiming fees. The county sued, he said, ‘to protect the right of Shelby and its citizens’ right to put in place procedures it thinks will protect everyone's right to vote.’

“If the judge finds Shelby County is entitled to fees, the focus would then shift to the amount of money the county's lawyers are seeking. Wiley Rein reported billing its standard hourly rates for the respective years it worked on the case (2010 rates for work in 2010, 2011 rates for work in 2011, etc.).”

The firm claimed its rates were in line with other top law firms, charging$920 per hour in 2012, BLT reported. “This year, Rein’s hourly rate went up to $950.”

Rein told BLT that he “reduced the firm’s fees by more than 15 percent to avoid disputes about inefficiencies in how the firm managed the case and to account for clerical work by lawyers and paralegals. After rounding down to $2 million, the firm’s overall average hourly rate was approximately $431.”

It’s not enough that the political hit men savaged one of the most important civil rights laws in the latter half of the 20th century. Now they want to make taxpayers pay them millions for that dirty work.

See more stories tagged with:

voting rights [7],

Voting Rights Act of 1965 [8],

u.s. supreme court [9],

Wiley Rein [10],

republican war on voting [11]

Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/top-gop-law-firms-seeks-2-million-fees-destroying-voting-rights-act

Links:

[1] http://alternet.org

[2] http://www.alternet.org/authors/steven-rosenfeld

[3] http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2013/11/wiley-rein-seeks-2m-in-fees-in-voting-rights-case.html?kw=Wiley%20Rein%20Seeks%20%242M%20in%20Fees%20in%20Voting%20Rights%20Case&cn=20131105&pt=Legal%20Times%20Afternoon%20Update&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=National%20Law%20Journal

[4] http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2013/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-voting-rights-act-formula.html

[5] http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/shelby-county-motion-for-attorney-fees.pdf

[6] http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/joint-motion-to-bifurcate-attorney-fee-issues.pdf

[7] http://www.alternet.org/tags/voting-rights

[8] http://www.alternet.org/tags/voting-rights-act-1965

[9] http://www.alternet.org/tags/us-supreme-court-1

[10] http://www.alternet.org/tags/wiley-rein

[11] http://www.alternet.org/tags/republican-war-voting

[12] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B

SW

Jump to: navigation, search

Wiley Rein & Fielding (WRF) is a law firm with offices in Washington DC and northern Virginia that works in a wide variety of corporate law areas. In February 2007, Fred Fielding left "to become a counselor to President George W. Bush" in the Office of Counsel. The firm is also referred to as Wiley Rein. [1]

Contents [hide]

Defending fake news

In October 2006, Wiley Rein & Fielding law and lobby firm filed an appeal with the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), on behalf of the Radio-Television News Directors Association (RTNDA), asking the agency to halt its investigation of 77 television stations found to have aired video news releases (VNRs) without disclosure. [2] [3]

In the RTNDA filing, WRF portrayed the FCC's investigation as "an unprecedented regulatory intrusion into newsroom operations." Information the agency requested of the TV station owners will "consume the time, attention, and energy of innumerable station managers and employees, lawyers and consultants, professional membership and trade association representatives, etc. ... The investigation already has had a chilling effect on the dissemination of newsworthy information to the public," the filing states. Its conclusion opens, "Determining the content of a newscast, including when and how to identify sources, is at the very heart of the responsibilities of electronic journalists, and these decisions must remain far removed from government involvement or supervision." The filing was authored by WRF's Kathleen A. Kirby and Lawrence W. Secrest III. [4]

Interestingly, at least one WRF lawyer's interpretation of the FCC's April 2005 Public Notice on VNRs was substantially different than what the firm's October 2006 filing stated. In early 2005, WRF partner Rosemary Harold told Advertising Age that "What the FCC is saying is if it appears that someone got paid for putting it together and it's run in its entirety, even if furnished free to the stations, then it should be identified" (Ira Teinowitz and Matthew Creamer, "Fake news videos unmasked in FCC crackdown: Forced disclosure of VNR sources deals blow to controversial PR tactic," Advertising Age, April 18, 2005).

Defending drug companies' fake news

In March 1994, WRF authored a brief on behalf of the Media Institute, filed with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The brief was in support of an earlier Washington Legal Foundation filing, urging the FDA to not regulate pharmaceutical companies' promotion of off-label uses for drugs. "Far from being harmful, drug company distribution of information about off-label uses of their products 'can be a positive force,'" the filing claimed, according to a May 1994 article by James G. Dickinson in Medical Marketing & Media.

While the WRF filing was on behalf of the Media Institute, several other groups supported it, including the "Association of American Publishers (representing most commercial book publishers), the Society of Professional Journalists (representing 13,500 members), the Radio-Television News Directors Association, and the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression (a University of Virginia affiliate in Charlottesville, VA, devoted solely to safe-guarding freedoms of speech and press in all forms)," according to Medical Marketing & Media.

The WRF filing "broadens the controversy beyond the mere policy statement that would impact industry-supported scientific and educational activities, to condemn FDA's longer-established policy requiring preclearance of video news releases," reported Medical Marketing & Media. "Boiled down to their essence, the Media Institute's comments would have FDA limit its regulation of medical product promotion to after-the-fact sanctions against proven false-and-misleading statements, as practiced by the Federal Trade Commission, which the Media Institute says 'is far more consistent with First Amendment values.'"

The WRF filing, in part, states, "FDA would have to show that its preclearance of video news releases is necessary to substantially alleviate whatever potentially harmful effects it identifies. With the enormous range of more reasonable remedies available to it, such as disclosures and after-the-fact enforcement, the FDA could not carry the burden imposed upon it by the Constitution and justify its preclearance requirement" (emphasis added).

Indecency issues

WRF has opposed FCC actions and Congressional legislation sanctioning TV and radio stations for broadcasting "indecent" content.

In April 2004, WRF's Kathleen Kirby told Broadcasting & Cable that "while the FCC has generally not focused on news programs for indecent material, local newscasts are now vulnerable. ... Alluding to the NBC-Bono decision, she noted that 'some words are inherently indecent and profane.' Context, she said, has been completely removed from the debate" (Steve McClellan, "Bleepinator Anyone? Stations install protection against on-air indecency," Broadcasting & Cable, April 26, 2004).

Personnel

Founding partners

Other notable partners

The head of its Food and Product Safety division, is Andrew S. Krulwich, theformer General Counsul of the US Consumer Product Safety Commission.:{[:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:6]

Other staff

Notable former staff

Clients

WRF's lobbying list

WRF lobbyists registered in 2005 as working on behalf of the RTNDA are Susan Buck, Senior Public Policy Consultant, Bryan Cunningham, Gregg Elias (Partner), Kathleen A. Kirby, Of Counsel, Peter Krug, Public Policy Consultant and Mary Jo Manning, Of Counsel.

The Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives lists WRF as the registered lobbyist, as at October 2006, for: [8]

Contact info

Washington office

1776 K Street NW

Washington, DC 20006

Phone: 202.719.7000

Fax: 202.719.7049

Northern Virginia office

7925 Jones Branch Drive

Suite 6200

McLean, VA 22102

Phone: 703.905.2800

Fax: 703.905.2820

Website:http://www.wrf.com

Resources and articles

Related SourceWatch articles

External articles

Categories:

Attachments