To the Editor:

Hank Shaw’s “ad watch” on Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund’s recent TV spots needs its own fact check. The column does exactly what journalists often criticize political ads for doing – telling only part of the story, misstating the facts and (I hope inadvertently) simply making things up.

Our two recent ads, called “Principal” and “Office,” criticize Rep. Richard Pombo for his unethical conduct and abuse of his office. Unfortunately, Shaw’s review is off base on just about every substantive issue.

First, Shaw reviews our criticism of Pombo’s 2003 family vacation to seven national parks on the taxpayer tab by giving Pombo’s spin on the trip, but leaving out a critical fact that completely undermines Pombo’s furious efforts at damage control. Pombo himself called the trip a family vacation on his official government website. Here are his exact words: “This August, my family and I rented an RV and set out to explore the West. We spent two weeks on vacation, stopping along the way to enjoy the splendor of our national parks.” Of course Pombo left out the fact that he billed the taxpayers for his family’s RV. We stand by the description of the vacation in our ads.

Second, Shaw fails to accurately describe Pombo’s proposal to sell 15 national parks and have the National Park Service sell naming rights to visitors’ centers and trails. Shaw’s says Pombo’s committee staff was “charged with saving money” during the budget process and that is how the proposal came about. That is not the real story. As was widely known at the time, Pombo made his legislative proposal because he was frustrated that Congress had not passed legislation to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The park sale was intended as a threat by Pombo to bully those in Congress who disagreed with him about drilling in the fragile coastal plain of the Arctic refuge. Shaw’s assertion that the staff quickly dismissed the proposal is disingenuous. Pombo and his staff quickly retreated on the proposal for the simple reason that the public reaction was swift and overwhelmingly negative. In fact, the Stockton Record itself joined the chorus, calling the proposal a “wacky idea” in a scathing editorial.

Shaw also states that it is “patently false” to say the parks would be sold to developers who are some of Pombo’s largest campaign supporters. Really? Perhaps Shaw didn’t read Pombo’s proposed park sale legislation because it very specifically instructs the Secretary of the Interior to “...make such lands available for sale or for energy or commercial development by 2010.” If you’re going to direct the sale of parks for commercial development it seems rather obvious you’re going to sell them to developers. Moreover, Pombo has taken money from every major real estate and development trade group in Washington, from the Association for Commercial Real Estate to the National Association of Home Builders. In all, he has taken over $350,000 from individual developers and their PACs. Clearly Pombo intended that the parks be sold to developers and developers clearly support him. We stand by the statement in our ads.

Third, Shaw gives another pro-Pombo spin to the facts when describing Mr. Pombo’s decision to give 47 of his Republican committee staff members paid leave in the middle of the 2004 campaign. It was clearly documented that committee aides worked in the congressional campaigns of Republicans Rick Renzi and Steve Pearce. Again, it was widely reported at the time that Pombo was giving his Republican staffers extra paid time off right before the election. He didn’t say to them that they could use their personal vacation time, as Shaw suggests. It was a taxpayer-financed gift of additional paid leave. One would have to be pretty gullible to assume this massive leave taking in October of an election year had nothing to do with politics. These were congressional employees with taxpayer paid salaries who were being given a chance to work on campaigns because Pombo granted the extra paid leave. Shaw might have also pointed out that no other committee chair in the Congress committed such a blatant political move with his or her staff that October. And that the Democratic staff on the committee did not receive extra time off. We stand by our criticism that Pombo gave his congressional staff paid leave to work on political campaigns.

Shaw’s final critique of our criticism of Pombo’s taxpayer funded Lincoln is off-base in so many directions it is hard to catalog. Shaw claims we said Pombo leases a car that “is more expensive than the cars used by most other members of Congress.” We don’t make such a claim or ever compare him to others. We said he used “taxpayer dollars to rent a luxury Lincoln.” The lease is a fact and federal records document it. Pombo’s Lincoln has a base price of $39,285, certainly classifying it as “luxury” car in most people eyes. Moreover, if Pombo leased a four-door midsized sedan through the Government Services Administration, which he could have done, his lease would be $258 a month. His current lease on the Lincoln is $590 a month. We stand by the statements in our ad.

But Shaw’s critique of our ad is flat out wrong in other ways. He says that Pombo’s Lincoln is cheaper than 70 other members of Congress, making it cheaper than “most.” This is simply ridiculous math. There are 435 members of Congress and “most” have declined to use taxpayer money to lease personal cars. How can Mr. Shaw not count those several hundred members who don’t use taxpayer funds for a car, and note that that is certainly cheaper than Mr. Pombo’s $590 per month? By any accounting, Mr. Pombo has one of the most expensive leases in Congress and is spending more on a car than over 80% his fellow members of the House.

Finally, we want to correct a small point. Shaw says we claim Pombo has a “Lincoln Town Car.” We don’t make that claim. Pombo leases a Lincoln LS. In fact, Defenders Action Fund staff got a photo of Pombo’s Lincoln LS last week after he had driven that government car – a taxpayer funded luxury ride – to an event for the Contra Costa Republican Party. If your readers would like to see the photo, they can go to www.pombointhierpocket.org. Members of Congress are not permitted to use government property for political activities, but Richard Pombo doesn’t think he has to play by the rules. That is the very point of our ads and why we call it, “Pulling a Pombo.”

Sincerely,

Rodger Schlickeisen
President
Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund

 

###

The Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund www.defendersactionfund.org provides a powerful voice in Washington to Americans who value our conservation heritage. Through grassroots lobbying, issue advocacy and political campaigns, the Action Fund champions those laws and lawmakers that protect wildlife and wild places while working against those that do them harm.