Connect with us


Wirecard: the scandal spreads to German politics



In September 2019, Angela Merkel’s top economic adviser, Lars-Hendrik Röller, met a delegation from payments group Wirecard, which at the time was still seen as one of Germany’s most successful tech companies.

One of Mr Röller’s visitors in the chancellery in Berlin was Burkhard Ley, a strategic adviser to Wirecard and its former chief financial officer. A year later, Mr Ley is in police custody, accused of fraud, embezzlement and market manipulation. He denies any wrongdoing.

The get-together highlighted the extraordinary access the payments group enjoyed to Germany’s top decision makers until shortly before its collapse this summer — access which has shone an unforgiving light on the influence of lobbyists over German politics.

Wirecard has gone down as the most spectacular case of financial misconduct in postwar German history. But it is now fast becoming a political scandal too. Earlier this month the Bundestag decided to launch a full parliamentary inquiry into the affair, ensuring that it will continue to capture headlines well into 2021 — a year when Germans go to the polls to elect a new parliament — and potentially cast a shadow over Angela Merkel’s final months as chancellor.

One key area of interest for MPs is why the authorities seemed so slow to recognise the gravity of the situation at Wirecard. The Röller-Ley meeting took place months after whistleblowers had raised serious concerns about fraud at the payments processor that triggered a police probe in Singapore. Members of the German government — including Ms Merkel herself — continued to lobby for Wirecard, despite mounting doubts about its accounting practices.

The scandal has also exposed the weaknesses of Germany’s system of financial regulation, and in particular the toothlessness of its markets watchdog BaFin. Opposition MPs are still incredulous that instead of investigating the substance of the allegations against Wirecard, BaFin and criminal prosecutors in Munich went after the very journalists and short-sellers who had highlighted suspicious activities at the payment provider.

“With the knowledge we have today, this is an utterly hair-raising situation for us,” a senior German official told the Financial Times, conceding that “the level of [alleged] criminality at Wirecard by far exceeded the power of my imagination”. Government bodies as well as private-sector institutions such as auditors had, he said, all failed miserably.

For Germany’s opposition parties, it is the political failures which are particularly egregious. Many MPs single out Olaf Scholz, finance minister and Social Democrat candidate for chancellor in next year’s Bundestag elections, who oversees both BaFin and the Financial Intelligence Unit, Germany’s anti-money laundering agency. The FIU has come under fire for failing to pass on dozens of Wirecard-related suspicious activity reports to the German public prosecutor’s office.

The links between German finance minister Olaf Scholz, centre, and deputy finance minister Jörg Kukies and Wirecard are being scrutinised in the wake of the scandal © Tobias Schwarz/AFP/Getty

“No government agencies played any role in uncovering the crime — neither BaFin, nor the FIU, nor the public prosecutor,” says Florian Toncar, an MP for the pro business Free Democratic party. “The state made zero contribution to getting to the bottom of the Wirecard affair.”

The Bundestag’s committee of inquiry is not yet constituted, its remit still unclear. But it is already obvious what kind of questions might interest MPs.

Why, for example, did Ms Merkel lobby for Wirecard while on an official trip to China in September last year when her own finance minister was aware of continuing investigations into the company? Why did deputy finance minister Jörg Kukies visit Wirecard boss Markus Braun at his Munich headquarters last November, on the day of the chief executive’s 50th birthday?

Why did BaFin appear so reluctant to investigate a company that had been generating negative headlines for months? Why were BaFin employees able to trade Wirecard shares while the agency was investigating the payments group?

And why did BaFin respond to FT articles alleging accounting fraud by banning investors from betting against the company’s shares for two months, and later filing a criminal complaint against two FT journalists who had authored the reports?

Fabio De Masi, an MP from the hard-left party Die Linke, who was one of the few lawmakers to take an early interest in Wirecard, says the signal Bafin’s actions sent was “just terrible”. “It was a message to all critics of the company that they were spreading malicious rumours,” he says. “And it was a message to German journalists to be very, very careful before you write anything negative about Wirecard.”

The German police’s wanted poster, pictured last month, for Jan Marsalek, the fugitive former Wirecard COO © Clemens Bilan/EPA/Shutterstock

‘Fig leaf’ inquiry

Wirecard was once seen as a rare German tech success story. In 2018 it replaced Commerzbank in the prestigious Dax index and a year later dreamt of taking over Deutsche Bank. But that fantasy unravelled in June when it admitted that €1.9bn in cash was missing from its accounts. Within a week Wirecard had collapsed into insolvency, and €13bn in stock market value had been wiped out.

At least seven of its former top managers are suspected of running a criminal racket that defrauded creditors of €3.2bn. Four people are in police custody and Jan Marsalek, Wirecard’s fugitive former second-in-command, is on Interpol’s most wanted list.

For Lisa Paus, MP and finance spokesperson for the opposition Greens, there is a pattern to this. “Wirecard is the latest in a whole series of financial scandals in Germany that BaFin failed to uncover,” she says. “You need a really tough watchdog with proper investigative skills to identify fraud, and that’s the opposite of what we have right now.”

She cited the “Cum-Ex” fraud scheme, the controversial share trades which exploited a design flaw in Germany’s tax code to rob the country’s exchequer of billions of euros in revenues. Then there are the various misconduct scandals at Deutsche Bank, which were unearthed by US and UK regulators, and the Volkswagen diesel affair, which was uncovered not by German authorities but by the US Environmental Protection Agency.

Some suspect that the German authorities were motivated by a desire to shield a national tech champion from external criticism. “You have the impression the regulators said — hey, we have this model German company, . . . it’s a victim of attacks by foreign hedge funds, and the FT is their tool,” says Mr Toncar. “And that was a grave miscalculation.”

Asked by the FT if it was true that the government and BaFin deliberately sought to protect the payments processor, Mr Scholz said there was “no evidence” of that.

He also brushed off the claim that the government could have done more to uncover wrongdoing at Wirecard — implicitly pointing the finger instead at EY, the accounting firm that gave the disgraced tech group unqualified audits for more than a decade.

Mr Scholz drew parallels between the Wirecard debacle and the Enron scandal in the US. There was not only a “gigantic accounting fraud”, but in both cases, “auditors who checked the company every year failed to identify this manipulation”.

That is why, he said, he was pushing for reform of the accounting industry. One finance ministry proposal would force large companies to switch auditors more frequently, and for accountancy firms to better separate their audit units from their consultancy businesses.

BaFin, too, has tried hard to fend off criticism that it failed to act. Felix Hufeld, its president, has argued that German capital markets laws left the agency no alternative but to act as it did. The authority, he told the German parliament, lacked a legal mandate to supervise Wirecard as a whole and instead oversaw only Wirecard Bank, a small subsidiary of the group.

Meanwhile, he argued, under German law BaFin did not itself have the right to launch a special audit of Wirecard’s accounts. All it could do was to turn to a body called the Financial Reporting Enforcement Panel, a private sector organisation which monitors the accounting practices of listed companies on behalf of the government, and ask it to investigate Wirecard. This is what happened in mid-February 2019.

BaFin then hunkered down for a long wait. Under Germany’s so-called “two-tier procedure”, the regulator cannot initiate its own investigation into a company until it has received the results of a Frep probe. Yet Frep, which has only 15 employees and an annual budget of just €6m, is ill-equipped to conduct the kind of forensic investigations required to uncover fraud.

Felix Hufeld, president of BaFin, argues that Germany’s capital markets laws left the watchdog agency no alternative but to act as it did © Hayoung Jeon/EPA/Shutterstock

When Wirecard went bust, the Frep probe was still continuing. Only after the company’s insolvency did Frep formally conclude that its financial statements were inadequate, according to a person with first-hand knowledge of the situation.

The slowness of Frep’s work had far-reaching consequences. Over the summer of 2019, Wirecard was able to raise €1.4bn in new debt from external investors. While the cash was partly needed to fund the company’s cash-burning operative business, prosecutors also suspect that hundreds of millions were siphoned out of the group.

In any case, critics dispute the assertion that BaFin’s only option was to request a probe by Frep: they argue that the Wirecard situation was so serious that BaFin should have considered more drastic action — and that it had the option to do so.

“BaFin did not take the allegations seriously,” says Rudolf Hübner, a capital markets lawyer at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan in Hamburg. “Commissioning Frep was just a fig leaf, as that body has neither the remit nor the resources for a forensic audit.” He argues that German law provides BaFin with several options to intervene decisively to uncover accounting fraud. “The problem wasn’t a lack of power,” says Mr Hübner.

Just days after Wirecard filed for insolvency, the government announced sweeping changes to the way accounting is policed in Germany. It terminated its contract with Frep and promised to give BaFin more investigative and forensic powers.

“[BaFin] used the powers that it had at the time [when it commissioned a Frep probe] — but they weren’t enough,” Mr Scholz tells the FT. “That’s why we now want to give [it] the capabilities it needs to act with more bite.”

Former defence minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg. His advisory firm Spitzberg Partners counted Wirecard as a client © Michael Dalder/Reuters

Chinese move

It is not only Mr Scholz and the finance ministry who have come under scrutiny over the Wirecard affair. Ms Merkel, too, is in the spotlight.

On September 3 last year she received a visit from a former colleague, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, according to a timeline of contacts provided by the chancellery. He had once served as German defence minister, but was forced to resign in 2011 over a scandal about plagiarism in his doctoral thesis. He now works for an advisory firm, Spitzberg Partners: one of its clients was Wirecard.

Mr zu Guttenberg brought up Wirecard in his chat with the chancellor and shortly afterwards emailed her adviser Mr Röller to say Wirecard was planning to enter the Chinese market by acquiring a Chinese payments company, the Beijing-based AllScore Financial, and needed the approval of the regulator, the People’s Bank of China.

A couple of days later, Ms Merkel flew off on a state visit to China, and, while there, brought up Wirecard and the planned acquisition. After the trip, Mr Röller wrote to Mr zu Guttenberg promising “further political support”, according to the chancellery’s timeline. Wirecard announced the acquisition of AllScore, which came with a price tag of up to €109m, in early November 2019.

Ms Merkel has defended her lobbying for Wirecard. “It’s common practice, not only in Germany, to bring up the concerns of companies on foreign trips,” she said in August. Wirecard was, after all, a “Dax 30 company”, and at the time of the China trip she had “no knowledge” of irregularities at the payments provider.

But that argument does not wash with the opposition. “She essentially did her former cabinet colleague zu Guttenberg a favour by bringing up Wirecard during the China trip,” says Mr Toncar. “And she did it without checking what was happening at the company.”

Some are now calling for a sweeping reform of lobbying in Germany. “The question is: who has access to the chancellor?” says Ms Paus, the Green MP. “There doesn’t seem to be any sensible criteria. No one is checking who knocks on the door and who’s let in.”

Mr zu Guttenberg was not the only ex-government member lobbying for Wirecard. On September 11, Klaus-Dieter Fritsche, a former chancellery official who co-ordinated the work of the German intelligence services, introduced Mr Röller to Wirecard’s current and former CFOs — Alexander von Knoop and Burkhard Ley. According to the chancellery timeline, the meeting was a “getting-to-know-you session” and a chance for Wirecard to inform Mr Röller about its “business activities in the Far East”.

Others were more circumspect when it came to the payments company. Mr zu Guttenberg approached the German embassy in Beijing in late 2019, asking it to help Wirecard win Chinese regulatory approval for the AllScore acquisition.

But in November of that year a financial attaché at the embassy emailed the ambassador, Clemens von Goetze, warning him not to support Wirecard “at the present time”. He said it would be better to wait until the accusations of accounting fraud had been “cleared up unreservedly”, according to a copy of the email seen by the FT.

“[The attaché] clearly had a better sense of what was up at Wirecard than almost everyone who was dealing with the issue at BaFin,” says Mr Toncar.

Angela Merkel with Premier Li Keqiang on a state visit to Beijing last year. During the trip the chancellor brought up Wirecard’s planned acquisition of a Chinese payments company © Roman Pilipey/AFP/Getty

Beefing up BaFin

Since early September, an army of experts from Roland Berger, a management consultancy, has been sweeping through BaFin’s headquarters in Bonn.

Commissioned by the finance ministry in Berlin, they have been asked to figure out the lessons that Germany’s financial watchdog needs to learn from the Wirecard affair.

Critics say BaFin was asleep at the wheel, targeting short-sellers and journalists who raised concerns about Wirecard rather than investigating the substance of the allegations they made.

One thing that is already clear is that in any future reform, BaFin will be given the power to launch its own investigations into potential balance sheet manipulations by any listed company in Germany.

A member of the financial committee of the Bundestag in Berlin, Hans Michelbach, during a press briefing in July © Felipe Trueba/EPA/Shutterstock

However, according to people familiar with the discussions, it is increasingly unlikely that the country’s two-tier regulatory system, in which Frep, the private-sector institution, played a semi-official role, will be abolished completely. Frep is likely to negotiate new arrangements, though its role will be limited to conducting routine checks of corporate annual reports to ensure they are in line with legal requirements and accounting standards.

The big change is that BaFin will have greater freedom to launch its own forensic audit of a company at any time without being required to wait for the outcome of any Frep investigation.

In addition, BaFin is considering the creation of a new internal unit better able to identify unsound banks and insurance companies. This would pay special attention to institutions that have particularly risky clients, have grown extremely fast over a short period of time or are part of a larger, complex group that faces allegations of accounting fraud.

A third focus of reform is possible changes to the way BaFin deals with information from whistleblowers. People familiar with the matter say that the authority needs to improve its capacity to analyse data and connect the dots between separate pieces of information provided by different whistleblowers.

The German finance ministry is already making progress on another key reform — restricting BaFin employees from trading in shares of companies they supervise. The revelation that many of them had been dealing in Wirecard shares in the months leading up its downfall has only added to the political scandal around the company.

Source: – Financial Times

Source link


How to talk to kids about the election and fraught politics – CNN



Now, some 30 years later, it’s impossible for my kids to not pay attention. Their lives have been deeply impacted by the decisions made by someone far away. Their parents are emotional, the politicians are emotional and sometimes, adults express these emotions in a manner children are all too familiar with.
The election season civic lessons imparted to me as a child no longer feel adequate. Today’s kids have big questions and big feelings about this election year, and it’s up to parents to help them process.

Children are experiencing politics more intensely

There have been few moments in recent history in which children’s lives have been so directly affected by politics — think the 1918 flu pandemic, the Depression, World War I and World War II, the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
“I think a lot about how children are on the front lines of all major political challenges today,” said Tamara Mann Tweel, program director at the Teagle Foundation and co-founder of Civic Spirit, a civic education initiative for middle and high school teachers and their students.
Two-year-old Aissatou Barry accompanies her father at an early voting center at Union Market Tuesday in Washington, DC.
“They have to do active shooter drills, they are directly confronted with climate change, and they are truly on the front lines of Covid, with school closures. Politics are not abstract for them. They’re corporeal,” she said.
This reality could help students grow into more active citizens as they see firsthand how decisions made from on high can affect them personally, Mann Tweel said.
But there is also a risk of trauma. “This could also end up being destabilizing and overwhelming (to children). And the level of hostility can be scary.”
Then there is the political discourse, which has changed substantially in the era of President Donald Trump. My husband and I put on the first presidential debate assuming our 7-year-old would turn to a book or Legos.
He was, like much of the nation, transfixed. What’s more, he attempted to psychoanalyze some of the name-calling using the same tools I had taught him to digest playground spats. “Mom, sometimes when someone calls someone else dumb, it’s because they’re worried about being dumb themselves.”
The debate unsettled him, and I felt I myself was to blame. I had, absentmindedly, allowed him to witness a complicated and uncomfortable chapter in American politics without giving him the practical or emotional tools to understand it.

Give them a sense of control

It’s important to not let the anger and noise remain anger and noise, Mann Tweel said. “You need to help them see how they are part of a country that they want to improve.” The key is teaching them that, even though they can’t vote, they do have some agency.
You could start with a conversation about how it feels to go to school during the pandemic and what they would want elected officials to know about it, she suggested. They could even write a letter to local politicians expressing their fears and frustrations.

Help them understand the rules

Children also benefit from understanding that, just like in their home, there are rules in the United States, and even our leaders aren’t always free to do whatever they want.
Kerry Sautner, chief learning officer at the National Constitution Center, suggested reading the US Constitution as a good place to start. “The Constitution tells us whose job it is to do what, and what power citizens have,” she said.
Children might be interested in understanding how voting works and how the government is structured. As important as the US President is, there is a lot more to the federal, state and local governments, and they might not be aware of it.
It also helps children understand that Americans have a tradition of believing in freedom, equality and common good, even if there is a history of not allowing everyone their rights and rigorous debate about how we achieve those goals. As they get older, children can begin to understand that our rules don’t always align with these values, and what we can do about it.

Teach them to try to see both sides

It’s good practice, Sautner said, to have children explore how people on the other side of an issue might think, even if everyone in the family disagrees with their position.
“You need to teach them how to listen to others,” Sautner said. “Civic engagement is a learned experience. We don’t just turn 18 and know how to be a citizen.”
You can ask your children why they wear a mask and why some people might not want to. Then help them consider what is at stake: Do you think it’s important for other people to wear masks? Why? What is the difference between what you do at home or when you are alone and what you do outside your home or when you are in a community?
“This is a good way to introduce them to the ideas of individual and collective freedom — even if it is clear that because of a public health crisis it is incumbent on us all to side with collective freedom,” Mann Tweel said.

Use stories from history

Use narratives as much as possible to help kids understand politics, Sautner suggested. This helps build empathy, and makes the struggles real.
“They need to understand this is a system, but you can’t forget that in the system there are people,” she said. “Stories help them hold on to all the information a thousand times better.”
When one of her sons was in third grade, he got drawn into the story of Ruby Bridges. In 1960, Bridges became the first Black student in the South to integrate an elementary school.
He learned about her story through books, and a Disney movie, and it led to him asking a series of questions that quickly turned into a civics lesson. Why were people upset about a Black girl going to a White school? What were the police doing about it? What could her parents do about it? “He wanted to understand the adults around her, and who had authority in the situation,” she said.
Teach them about how change happened in the past, and they will better understand how change can happen in the future.

Remember each family, and child, is different

Considering the near-infinite differences in political views, family dynamics and child psychology, there is not a one-size-fits-all way to help your children make sense of political life.
Melissa Braunstein, a politically conservative mother of four ages 9 and younger in the Washington, DC, area, said her main aim is to protect her kids from election anxiety. She does this, in large part, by avoiding bad-mouthing political opponents.
“I don’t sit my kids down and say this person is a good person and this person is a bad person,” she said. “We live in an area where nearly everyone else votes the opposite way. I don’t want them to think that anyone who disagrees with them is a bad person.”
If her kids ask questions about a politician’s behavior, she tries to make it about conflicting value systems, rather than the individual.
Brady Dewar, a politically progressive dad of two children, ages 7 and 4, in Oakland, California, tries to keep his kid’s attention away from the nastiness and toward what small actions they can take. His children know which candidate he and his husband prefer, but they try to keep their anxiety around the opponent away from their kids.
“All of their involvement is driven by their questions: What is going on with Donald Trump? What is going on with all the homeless people?” he said.
His kids have attended marches, written get-out-the-vote letters and delivered sandwiches to the homeless. Through it all, Dewar said they keep it focused on how they can make things better, rather than the nitty-gritty of why things are wrong.
“We try to come up with a positive message that they can understand and is relatively universal,” he said.
In our home, we’ve been making a point to ask our children what questions they have about politics, what they are worried about and if they would like us to help them come up with ideas on how to take action.
In addition to helping relieve their anxieties, this exercise also sets a precedent that I hope will stick with them for life: Their voice matters, their concerns matter, and there is almost always something to be done about it.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Continue Reading


Trump administration vetted stars' politics for planned ad blitz promoting U.S. president's virus response –



Public relations firms hired by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services vetted political views of hundreds of celebrities for a planned $250-million US ad blitz aimed at portraying U.S. President Donald Trump’s response to the coronavirus outbreak in a positive light, according to documents released Thursday by a House committee.

A political appointee at the department suggested creating a government-funded campaign to rival the Second World War icon Rosie the Riveter, according to the documents, and taglines such as “Helping the president will help the country.”

None of the celebrities agreed to participate — they may not have known they were being vetted — and the campaign has been put on hold.

Director Judd Apatow believes Trump “does not have the intellectual capacity to run as president,” according to notes made on a list of names of more than 200 celebrities compiled by one of the firms.

Singer Christina Aguilera “is an Obama-supporting Democrat and a gay-rights supporting liberal,” the document says, and actor Jack Black is “known to be a classic Hollywood liberal.”

A public service announcement by comedian George Lopez was “not moving forward due to previous concerns regarding his comments regarding the president,” according to the documents.

The names were among the spreadsheets, memos, notes and other documents from September and October released by the House oversight and reform committee.

The firms’ vetting came as political appointees planned to spend more than $250 million US on a confidence-building campaign surrounding the virus, which has killed more than 228,000 people in the United States and is a core issue in the presidential race between Trump and Democrat Joe Biden.

Pushback from federal employees

While government public health campaigns are routine, the ad blitz planned by HHS was mired from the start by involvement from department spokesperson Michael Caputo, a fierce loyalist and friend of Trump with little experience in the field. In September, a spokesperson for Caputo said he was taking a medical leave from HHS as he battled cancer.

WATCH | Trump claims he is now immune to COVID-19:

U.S. President Donald Trump has claimed he now has immunity to COVID-19 before he heads for a series of swing-state rallies as polls put him behind Joe Biden with just over three weeks before election day. 2:03

Trump, a Republican, has repeatedly minimized the dangers of the coronavirus, even as the nation is in its third wave of infections, with tens of thousands of cases reported each day.

According to one memo compiled by a subcontractor to Atlas Research, one of the firms hired by HHS, Caputo suggested a series of sound bites and taglines for the campaign, including “Helping the president will help the country.”

The notes say that Caputo wanted the campaign to be “remarkable” and to rival Rosie the Riveter, the character who symbolized women who worked in factories and shipyards during the Second World War against Germany.

“For us, the ‘enemy’ is the virus,” Caputo said, according to the memo.

The documents also show pushback from some of the federal employees leading the work, who removed Caputo from an email chain and thanked one of the contractors for dealing with a “challenging” environment.

The Democrat-led Oversight panel said Caputo was overstepping his bounds, interfering in work that is supposed to be done by contract officers at the department and politicizing what is supposed to be nonpartisan.

The ad blitz planned by the Department of Health and Human Services was mired from the start by involvement from department spokesperson Michael Caputo, a fierce loyalist and friend of Trump with little experience in the field. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)

“Of course, it is completely inappropriate to frame a taxpayer-funded ad campaign around ‘helping’ President Trump in the weeks and days before the election,” said House oversight chairwoman Carolyn Maloney, a Democrat from New York, and Reps. James Clyburn of South Carolina and Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois, both subcommittee chairmen, in a letter to HHS Secretary Alex Azar.

“This theme also ignores the reality that more than 220,000 Americans have died from coronavirus — a fact that should not be whitewashed in a legitimate public health message.”

Azar put the entire project on hold earlier this month, telling the oversight subcommittee led by Clyburn that it was being investigated internally.

“I have ordered a strategic review of this public health education campaign that will be led by our top public health and communications experts to determine whether the campaign serves important public health purposes,” Azar told the subcommittee, which is investigating the federal government’s response to the coronavirus outbreak.

Celebrities backtracked 

Because public health policy around the coronavirus pandemic has become so politically polarized, it’s unclear how well a confidence-building campaign from the government would play.

HHS officials acknowledge a major challenge to any campaign would involve finding trusted intermediaries to make the pitch to average Americans. On health-care matters, people usually trust doctors first, not necessarily celebrities. And Trump has alienated much of the medical establishment with his dismissive comments about basic public health measures, such as wearing masks.

The 34-page “PSA Celebrity Tracker” compiled by Atlas Research and released by the committee does not say whether the celebrities were aware they were even being considered or if they had agreed to participate. The report says that no celebrities are now affiliated with the project but a handful did initially agree to participate.

In an Instagram video post, actor Dennis Quaid said he was frustrated that a taped interview he did with Dr. Anthony Fauci for the campaign was portrayed in the media as an endorsement of Trump. (Steve Marcus/Reuters)

Singer Marc Antony, who has been critical of Trump, pulled out after seeking an amendment to his contract to “ensure that his content would not be used for advertisements to re-elect President Trump.”

Actor Dennis Quaid also initially agreed and then pulled out, according to a document from Atlas Research. In an Instagram video post last month titled “No good deed goes unpoliticized,” Quaid said he was frustrated that a taped interview he did with Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious-disease expert, for the campaign was portrayed in the media as an endorsement of Trump.

“Nothing could be further from the truth,” Quaid said, noting that the interview was still available on his podcast.

Antony and Quaid were among just a few celebrities who were approved for the campaign, according to the documents. Others included TV health commentator Dr. Oz and singer Billy Ray Cyrus.

“Spokespeople for public service campaigns should be chosen on their ability to reach the target audience, not their political affiliation,” the letter from the Democrats reads. “Yet, documents produced by the contractors indicate that the Trump administration vetted spokespeople based on their political positions and whether they support President Trump.”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Continue Reading


Bipartisan Politics | Politics and Public Affairs – Denison University



But the ties that bind these four individuals are stronger than most. They, and several other Big Red alumni, are connected through Forbes Tate Partners, a bipartisan, full-service government and public affairs advocacy firm, founded by Forbes and his partner Dan Tate.

In today’s divisive political landscape it might be difficult to imagine that colleagues from opposite sides of the aisle can be, well, collegial. But according to Forbes, who has worked on Democratic campaigns since Al Gore’s presidential bid, that’s the whole point.

“People forget about the moderate factions in politics — and that’s where real work can be done,” says Forbes. So it made sense to build a firm that could work well with both parties and provide positive results for everyone.

And the work has become more complicated. “Lobbying has changed,” he says. “It’s not as much who you know – though that still matters. Today, you have to run a full-fledged campaign with traditional PR, social media, news updates. You have to make sure the people back home see the reason for what you are doing, to create that support before you move forward.”

So how did all these Denisonians find their way to Forbes Tate? You can credit another Denison tie, the Hilltoppers men’s a cappella group. Forbes was a member of the popular campus group, and several years ago a student Hilltopper reached out to him, struggling to figure out what to do for the summer. Forbes’ impulsive response, “Why don’t you come here?” became the beginning of an internship program that has brought scads of students from Denison’s hill to Capitol Hill.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Continue Reading