Tweet
crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters
One thing I despise about the religious right is how they swoop down on an issue in order to exploit it before all of the facts come in.
They act like a bunch of vultures with crosses stitched in their wings.
A perfect example of this is the recent controversy involving King & Spalding, the law firm which decided not to defend DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) in the courts.
We have heard the constant whining from the religious right about how King & Spalding are cowards for refusing to take the case. We have heard junk from the religious right regarding the supposedly bullying tactics of the Human Rights Campaign in this controversy. However, the following is something we won't hear from the religious right.
According to The Wall Street Journal and The Fulton County Daily Reporter, the lawyer in the center of the controversy, Paul Clement, may have overstepped his bounds in taking the case. He allegedly signed the contract to defend the case before going through proper channels:
Clement has stated that he felt that he had the backing of the firm before he took on the DOMA case. But the Daily Report spoke to two firm lawyers and a third source anonymously who said that the DOMA matter was not fully submitted to King & Spalding's business review committee, a firm requirement, before Clement signed a contract obligating the firm. They said the committee immediately began reviewing the case the day after the firm learned of the contract—and rejected it the next day, according to the Daily Report.The sources said the firm’s partners were taken by surprise when news broke that Clement had taken the case. “Any matter that is controversial in any way or where there is a discounted rate goes through the business review committee,” one of the sources told the Daily Report, noting that the DOMA engagement was both controversial and had a discounted rate.
The article also said that there was widespread opposition to the case from inside the law firm and that the case didn't fit the law firm's mission.
These facts something to keep in mind as the folks at the National Organization for Marriage, the Family Research Council, etc. will continue to put their own spin on this controversy.
My guess is that the organizations will conveniently ignore these new revelations. I wonder how many times NOM and the Family Research Council will mention this incident as an example of how “homosexuals are trying to silence people” instead of letting everyone of the real story.
After all, why let truth stand in the way of a good fundraising tool?
UPDATE – And now from the Huffington Post comes even more details about the GOP in this matter. Apparently no one knows where the House of Representatives is going to get the money to pay for the DOMA defense. And laws could have been broken because of it:
The House of Representatives has signed a contract to pay a law firm up to $500,000 (and possibly more) to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in federal court. But there's a problem with this arrangement: No one seems to know where that money is going to come from, and at least one lawmaker believes House Republicans may be violating federal law.
. . . Rep. Michael Honda (D-Calif.) pressed House General Counsel Kerry Kircher on the matter. Although the contract states that “the General Counsel agrees to pay the Contractor for all contractual services,” Kircher said he was told by the House Republican leadership that no funds would come out of the Office of General Counsel's budget for this purpose.
. . . Dan Strodel, the House's chief administrative officer, is the man who, according to Honda's office, would ultimately write the checks to Brancroft PLLC. But at the hearing, he also said he had no knowledge of where the money would come from.
. . .Honda believes that Boehner's agreement could be violating the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits “involving the government in any obligation to pay money before funds have been appropriated for that purpose.” Knowingly violating the law could lead to being fined or imprisoned.
Why doesn't the House of Representatives ask the National Organization for Marriage for the money? I'm sure than an organization which mysteriously goes from having $500,000 to $10 million in a three-year span has money just laying around.
Hat tip to AmericablogGay for the update.
14 Comments
It wasn’t Congress that started this hot messIt was some Republicans in the House of Representatives. And Republicans breaking federal law, using money they have no right to access? Not at all surprising.
There’s a common thread, here.What links these two incidents beyond both being part of the DOMA case? Heterosexual-supremacists thinking they’re above the rules and above the law. One lawyer decides that not feeling like going through the required process shouldn’t stop him from committing the firm he works for to a case that most of the firm wouldn’t be willing to take. A few members of congress and the associated administrators decide that rules and laws (not to mention the uncertain nature of the funding source) on the matter shouldn’t stop them from committing congress to a specific and expensive course of action.
It’s simple: “The rules are for the little people, not us proud straight-supremacist supermen.”
Let the GOP pay for it out of its own pocketsWhy not compel the governors in the 30 states that have DOMA on the books cough up, especially those in power at the time and who supported it? Yes, I agree, NOM couldalso be one place to start as an alternative, Focus on the Family,and the rest of the hate groups. Maybe the Koch brothers will step in and lend a hand like they do everything else, the bankrollers of the GOP.
Other laws were broken as wellK&S is a HUGE law firm, with nearly a thousand on-staff attorneys, all over the world, which translates into many thousands more paralegals, administrators, managers, IT support, and all the infrastructure it takes to run a law firm that big.
Paul Clement signed a contract which would have prohibited ALL K&S employees from supporting or advocating for DOMA repeal or overturning, or on anything related to same-sex marriage. No giving a few bucks to GetEQUAL for the mailroom clerk. No writing letters to newspapers or posting on blogs in favor of same-sex marriage rights. No right to protest.
As unfair as this sounds, it is also flat out illegal in two of the states where K&S has offices: New York and California. Both of them have laws which make it a crime for a company to prohibit the political activities of employees on their own time.
Had Clement not been blinded by his own bigoted anti-gay zeal to get this case, he might have realized he was committing the entire law firm to what could have been massive civil and criminal liabilities. Had he run the contract past the in-house panel in charge of vetting incoming cases and clients, they would have struck that provision — and also called into question whether they, a law firm specializing in corporate law, had any business inserting itself into social policy cases which could result in bad PR and taking a position which was actually contrary to K&S’s rather progressive and explicit policies of diversity.
Half a million bucks is a “discounted rate”?!I wish I could get such a discounted rate for my writing. I’ll have to have my agent demand that figure for my next book. All she has to do is tel the publisher it’s a discount. Think it’ll work?
Can you say “right-wing gravy train”? Can you say “jobs for the boys”? Let’s cut government benefits for Americans who need them so we can give lots of cash to our old pal Paul Clement!
Our government gets more disgusting by the day.
Not to play devil’s advocatebut I seem to remember HRC crowing about their successful intervention with K&S about this case.
Wonder if we’ll hear anything from them on this news.
Do you think the NY Times & WaPoand all those other outlets are sorry they went off on a big gay-bashing binge calling us bullies that were ruining the judicial system?
You know, now that it turns out it wasn’t our influence that made K&S drop the case?
When has ANY mainstream outlet EVER apologized for demonizing our community?
Excellent point!That had slipped my mind for the moment, and I’m really glad you brought it up. Taking credit for everything that happens is business as usual for HRC. But oh, good golly, what’s wrong with me for expecting organizations that claim to represent our community to be honest with us?
I thought the DOJ was supposed to pay!I seem to recall Boehner saying that the DOJ should pay for it, since they are the ones who are supposed to be defending it and are not doing their job.
I just assumed he was blowing hot air to take a slap at Obama and the DOJ, but maybe he actually believed it.
Pretty much hot airCongress could pass a new budget cutting the DOJ operating budget by a given amount, and assign it to the House BLAG committee (which at present has no budget at all) to spend on DOMA defense.
But to do this would require a measure pass both houses of Congress and be signed by the President. Otherwise the DOJ is under no obligation — or even legal authorization — to hand part of its operating budget over to the House.
As usual for Republicans, they thought expediency trumped legal process, and Boehner thought he could simply spend a half million bucks on nothing more than his say-so.
Actually, yesBilling rates at BigLaw firms like K&S are pretty outrageous. I wouldn’t be surprised if Clement’s “standard” rate is in the $800/hour range.* Add in the cost of a couple of associates (at $200-$500 per hour depending on experience level) a paralegal or two (at another $150) and string the representation out over the course of several months and suddenly half a million is looking pretty darn cheap.
*It’s important to note that the hourly rate does not directly reflect what any attorneys are actually paid. Hourly billing is the only source of revenue at a law firm, so that money is needed to pay for overhead, salaries, research costs such as Lexis, Westlaw, and other subscription databases, marketing, etc. Point is that this was hardly a boondoggle for Clement.
*rolls eyes and sighs*Literal-mindedness is not only an intellectual disability, it is BORING.
Even more not nice SPAM