Foreign Agent Fred

The mainstream media is starting to pay attention to Fred Thompson's decades-long gig as a well-heeled Washington lobbyist. His client list has been noted in this space and elsewhere. What Thompson actually did for one of these clients, the British insurance firm Equitas Ltd, was fleshed out in a must-read column by the Washington Post's Jeffrey Birnbaum today.

His main assignment: to use his connections to then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) to extract information about goings-on inside Congress and use it to benefit his multibillion-dollar client.

In exchange for this insider wisdom he was paid a cool $760,000...

Thompson's client, London-based Equitas Ltd., held billions of dollars to pay off claims from people sickened by asbestos, a once-common building material. It wanted Congress to limit how much it had to pay into a trust fund to cover those liabilities.

In an earlier era, the term of art for what Thompson did would have been "foreign agent."

So the so-called folksy outsider in the Republican presidential field was until recently an access man aka foreign agent for a British insurance giant. My colleague David Corn notes that this story appeared on page A23, as part of Birnbaum's "On K Street" column, with no mention or tease on the front page. David invokes the old I.F. Stone adage: "you never know where in The Washington Post you'll find a front-page story."

Comments (21)

1. Mr Berman, here's a problem I see on the horizon....

   after your articles on Mark Penn, chief strategist for "Hillary, Inc."....

   if Thompson and Clinton become the nominees...isn't it going to be a BIT difficult explaining the subtle "wrongness" of Thompson being a lobbyist, but Hillary's chief strategist being a "union buster" isn't that big of a deal, especially when the INEVITABLE "Nation" "regretable, but necessary" endorsement of Hillary comes around in mid-2008?

   Posted by Mask at 06/12/2007 @ 12:23pm

2. In an earlier era, the term of art for what Thompson did would have been "foreign agent."

   No matter what the term or on behalf of which `clients', what Thompson did is exactly what every Lobbyist DO, be they "officially registered" or a Brother Billy type! What would be even more interesting is to compare what Thompson do/did, with what potential First Hubby Bill have done since leaving the WH!

   One thing we already know, an ex-President is worth quite a few multiples of what an ex-Senator commands. Yep, Bill Clinton has a higher P/E ratio and is an expensive "foreign agent", but then, his `Buyers' have much deeper pockets and don't have a hostile media after them!

   Posted by Happy at 06/12/2007 @ 12:33pm

3. I don't really have a problem with Thompson on this as everything seems to be within the boundaries of what has (unfortunately) become normal.

   What I'm inclined to look into is who wrote the 1995 bill (which was passed by a Republican controlled Congress and signed by Clinton).

   What I'm also slightly concerned about is why this Thompson guy would WANT the Presidency. He just doesn't seem like the type of guy that would be insane enough to go through the meat grinder of a Presidential run.

   Posted by freedomplease at 06/12/2007 @ 1:25pm

4. He just doesn't seem like the type of guy that would be insane enough to go through the meat grinder of a Presidential run.

   Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 06/12/2007 @ 1:25pm

   Kind of an odd statement, FREE....does that mean that guys like Ron Paul and DENNIS KUCINICH are "insane"?!?!?

   BTW, agree with you on this being pretty weak soup of a "scandal" to hit Thompson with. "He was a lobbyist and made $760,000 from a British insurance agency"?!!??!? Hardly even "Hillary cattle futures" or "Dubya was stoned and couldn't take his physical for the Texas Air Guard" stuff.

   Posted by Mask at 06/12/2007 @ 1:31pm

5. Havn't had much of a chance to look seriously at Thompson yet. Suffice it to say if writers like Ari Berman & David Corn don't like him, he's probably got something to offer.

   Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 06/12/2007 @ 1:38pm

6. Everyone except Phred are seasoned politicians. (Yes I'm aware Fred was a Senator, but he stepped in when an elected Senator died. I don't think he's been put through the ringer).

   Fred gets kicks / chicks / cash out of acting and supplements it with a bit of power brokering. I'm just not seeing him being capable of gracefully handling the swarms of Paula Jones type accusers which will definitely be territory for an actor seriously running for President.

   Furthermore I just don't see him as a guy that is going to revel in 100-120 hour routine work weeks.

   I could be wrong, and frankly I couldn't give a toss whether he's seriously running or not.

   Posted by freedomplease at 06/12/2007 @ 1:48pm

7. How many posts has the nation written on a guy who hasn't even declared yet? They must be skeered s***less about his chances to win the presidency.

   Free,

   As much as I may like his ideas (from what I've heard anyway), I also have heard that he might not possess the "energy" required to be president. I'll have to wait and see how he handles the campaign, if he finally tosses his hat in the ring.

   Posted by usc1 at 06/12/2007 @ 2:04pm

8. The Nation writers continue to demonstrate their morbid fear of Thompson. That should be reason enough for conservatives to mass support for him.

   Posted by antiliberal at 06/12/2007 @ 2:04pm

9. Thompson doesn't have gravitas either. McCain does, and maybe Guiliani, not so much because of his Mayorship but because of his reputation as a proscutor. Hillary, definitely. Thompson does well as an actor but the last thing this country needs is another actor as President. We're still recovering from the last one.

   Posted by FRANKGRITS 06/12/2007 @ 2:31pm

   Hillary has gravitas? That may be your funniest line ever.

   As to Reagan, this country badly needs another Reagan if it is to regain some sanity with the liberal agenda to destroy our country.

   Posted by antiliberal at 06/12/2007 @ 3:12pm

10. Thompson and JC Watts will slaughter a Hillary/Obama ticket.

    Posted by antiliberal at 06/12/2007 @ 3:12pm

11. Thompson will never make in onto the ticket. follow the money, it leads to Romney.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/12/2007 @ 3:42pm

12. The Nation writers continue to demonstrate their morbid fear of Thompson. That should be reason enough for conservatives to mass support for him.

    Posted by ANTILIBERAL 06/12/2007 @ 2:04pm | ignore this person

    that's setting the bar awfully low.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/12/2007 @ 3:44pm

13. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 06/12/2007 @ 1:38pm | ignore this person

    I'll translate: "I got nothing but dogma"

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/12/2007 @ 3:45pm

14. Thompson will do very well in those times where he has a script to follow; much like Reagan did. The problem however is that the Presidency is so much an unscripted day in; day out thing that may be where Thompson runs into trouble both running for the job and actually running the country. That was where Reagan's presidential performance was so seriously flawed. Plus, how much do we actually know about this guy yet? His public record is fairly scant considering all the time he's spent in D.C.

    Posted by The Goods at 06/12/2007 @ 4:30pm

15. ANTILIBERAL is back. Wonderful.

    Maybe you can take time out of your busy schedule posting nonsense about liberals and get back to making an effort to understand the United States legal system, habeas corpus and the Geneva Convention. All problems introduced by the Bush administration and the Republican-controlled Congress that actually do threaten to destroy the country.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/12/2007 @ 4:38pm

16. I also believe it will be Hillary and Obama..and they will lose if Thompson enters...Thompson?Guliani?...Fred will ask Hillary the questions the press has been afraid or wouldn't ask Hillary...and Fred will do it "unscripted", during a debate..and I can't wait to watch the battle...08 is going to be fun no matter which way it turns...

    Most here do not know Thompson, especially Frank, after reading his post, I don't think he knows Hillary either, ...But Fred is going to be a handfull to deal with as he seems to lead his own parrade...and he is not afreaiod of the press....ABC,NBC, CBS, OR EVEN MIGHTY FOX..as are some "leaders" seeking leadership jobs!! and others..well, political jobs.

    Posted by john maasch at 06/12/2007 @ 4:48pm

17. Oh my God, a "foreign agent"! Gee, that's not a loaded term or anything. I thought that we Good Leftists were supposed to like foreigners. But I guess a little jingoism is okay if the target is in the GOP?

    It's terrible, though: Thompson went to the actual place where policy is created (the fiend!) and sought information (has he no shame!?!?!?) about what was going on there and relayed this information to someone who was interested (I for one am aghast!). Worse yet, this "someone" wasn't even American!! (damn dirty slimy foreigners!) And Thompson got paid money (the root of ALL EVIL!!!!!!!).

    Posted by BlueSpark at 06/12/2007 @ 5:04pm

18. Maybe you can take time out of your busy schedule posting nonsense about liberals and get back to making an effort to understand the United States legal system, habeas corpus and the Geneva Convention. All problems introduced by the Bush administration and the Republican-controlled Congress that actually do threaten to destroy the country.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 06/12/2007 @ 4:38pm

    From our last debate and this most recent post, it appears that you are the one who is devoid of understanding of our Constitution and treaties such as the Geneva Convention.

    As I recall, you want to extend to terrorists more rights than POW's are afforded by Geneva.

    Posted by antiliberal at 06/12/2007 @ 5:15pm

19. Thompson's client, London-based Equitas Ltd., held billions of dollars to pay off claims from people sickened by asbestos, a once-common building material. It wanted Congress to limit how much it had to pay into a trust fund to cover those liabilities.

    Well, of course they did. Who would want to pay an infinite amount of money into a trust fund? Did Equitas make the people sick? Wanting to limit one's contribution does not imply the desire to shirk one's responsibilities; the company may actually have a good argument as to why they should pay only a certain amount. Of course, any case they may have is left unstated--the mere mention of asbestos is deemed sufficient (and it probably is for many of us on the Left, but not me). I grow tired of these sloppy pieces (they're incessant) in which the use of adjectives such as "corporate" or "foreign" or "well-heeled" or "lobbyist" (that one's a noun) acts as a shortcut for actual arguments.

    Posted by BlueSpark at 06/12/2007 @ 5:16pm

20. Posted by ANTILIBERAL 06/12/2007 @ 5:15pm

    Let's see. You are apparently still having trouble understanding:

    1. The differences in the Third and Fourth Geneva Convention

    2. Why U.S. law (in the form of MCA) does not apply to foreign nationals.

    3. The problem of using "alien" given the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 349.

    As you recall, I'm in favor of the rule of law, not Reagan-style death squad democracy based on torture, secret prisons and systematic human rights abuses - NOW, NEW and IMPROVED where U.S. citizens can start to enjoy the same level of state sponsored terror that the U.S. government has previously been engaged in elsewhere.

    Thankfully, some people in our judicial system have not forgotten what "rule of law" is supposed to mean.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/11/AR200706 1101135.html

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/12/2007 @ 6:26pm

21. Posted by FRANKGRITS 06/12/2007 @ 2:16pm

    Curious FRANK...what is it about the Hillary Campaign Committee (like yourself) that has to make her nomination seem "inevitable"?

    Not just "she's the best candidate", but "she IS going to win, just back off Barack and John, it's over!"....only thing I can figure is she's bound to commit a gaffe...and ruin her "smartest woman in the room" REPUTATION. And the quicker she gets the nomination, the less the chances of a gaffe sinking her.

    Posted by Mask at 06/12/2007 @ 9:26pm