@jbtaylor on tech

For nearly 30 years, Rick Boucher represented the people of Southwest Virginia in Congress with distinction. I personally was disappointed that he was defeated for re-election in 2010. Mr. Boucher has a keen understanding of many of the complex public policy issues in telecommunications. He was fantastic at forging compromises among his fellow Members of Congress. People on the Hill, even when they disagreed with him, liked him. I sure do. He was the kind of Congressman who most closely represented my personal views.

When he was defeated, Boucher became a lobbyist for Sidley Austin. "Sidley offers a truly unique opportunity for me to promote the growth of a public policy group that brings together lawyers renowned for their leadership in areas I have focused on for much of my career, such as technology, telecommunications, life sciences, financial services, energy and the environment,” said Mr. Boucher in a news release announcing his new job in May last year.

Sidley Austin is one of the most respected law firms and lobbying firms in Washington, D.C. The folks at Sidley proudly tout their work on behalf of AT&T -- they've represented AT&T and its predecessors for more than a century. There's an entire page on Sidley's website about its work for AT&T.

I have absolutely no problem with any of that.

But I am disappointed that Mr. Boucher continues to publicly advocate for AT&T's public policy positions without disclosing that he is now an AT&T lobbyist.

Today's oped in Roll Call on spectrum policy is the latest example. His oped today is not unique in its lack of disclosure.

Throughout the fight over AT&T's failed bid to acquire T-Mobile, Mr. Boucher gave dozens of interviews and penned dozens of opeds claiming that the proposed T-Mobile takeover would benefit rural America. Never once did he disclose his new relationship with AT&T.

Usually, Mr. Boucher would describe himself as the chairman of the Internet Innovation Alliance. Never once were readers told that IIA is largely funded by AT&T and the other large landline phone companies.

Mr. Boucher, were he still in office, may very well have advocated for AT&T's failed merger with T-Mobile. He also may have advocated for AT&T's public policy positions on spectrum and other issues. I would like to think so.

At least when he was in office, voters knew that AT&T was his third largest campaign contributor. That was fully disclosed and voters could decide for themselves the significance of AT&T's donations to his campaign.

But now that he is a lobbyist, he doesn't have to disclose his relationship to opinion page editors. He should though. I don't know one editor who wouldn't find that relevant and worth sharing with readers.

Disclosure in politics is important. Even though this is my personal blog and the views I present here aren't necessarily those of my employer, I think it's important for you to know I work for Sprint. That's why I disclose that on this blog and elsewhere online.

Mr. Boucher should do the same. Doing so would be consistent with his reputation he earned over many years of public service.

As I mentioned yesterday, the Washington Post's Cecilia Kang has a must read story and blog post out about how AT&T has showered politicians and groups of all types with cash contributions.

Lo and behold, these same politicians and groups are backing AT&T's bid to takeover T-Mobile.

Kang writes:

"We went through some of these supporters and found it’s just plain hard to find politicians or organizations that haven’t received some financial support from AT&T over the years."

This is the kind of Washington, D.C. Inside-the-Beltway politics as usual that disgusts the rest of America. AT&T is banking that reporters covering this story won't do the digging that Kang has done.

What I am urging media to do is to ask questions to uncover who is working for whom before they act on what a source tells them.

Consider the recent opinion pieces in Politico and Roll Call backing AT&T.

Politico ran a pro-AT&T piece by former FCC commissioner Henry Rivera which never disclosed that Rivera's law firm, Wiley Rein, is representing Deutsche Telekom and T-Mobile USA.

A few days later, Roll Call ran a pro-AT&T opinion piece by former Congressman Rich Boucher which never disclosed that his employer, Sidley Austin, represents AT&T. Furthermore, the Internet Innovation Alliance of which Boucher is an honorary co-chair is an AT&T-funded outfit.

Suppose Rivera was still an FCC member and Boucher still represented Virginia in Congress (something I personally wish was the case, BTW), would either man still come out in support of AT&T?

I'm assuming they would.

But readers of Roll Call and Politico were never told of the financial ties between AT&T and the two gentlemen.

On May 18, Roll Call ran a piece about Boucher's new job at Sidley Austin. Would it have been that hard for the opinion page to read the news story which Roll Call's Kate Ackley had reported less than two weeks earlier?

A quick check of Boucher's Open Secrets profile discloses that between the 1998 and 2010 elections, the former Congressman's campaign committee received $110,500 in campaign cash from AT&T and all the competitors it's gobbled up during that time.

Here's the thing, the Internet makes this really easy to do. AT&T is banking on reporters not taking the time to investigates these ties.

My expectation is that neither Politico nor Roll Call will make this mistake again. Politico, to its credit ran a piece yesterday which looked into AT&T's financial ties to lawmakers.

There should be more of this type of reporting in my personal view.

With disclosure of financial ties, the public can decide for itself what is being said and what the motivations are behind the message.