The Curious Case of Joe Lieberman's Work as a Lobbyist Who Isn't 'Advocating'
Lieberman's disclosure registering him as a lobbyist for the Chinese telecom ZTE put a fresh spotlight on the blurry lines that define reportable lobbying activity in the Washington influence market.
January 03, 2019 at 01:35 PM
6 minute read
When former U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman registered to lobby late last year for ZTE Corp., he made one thing clear: He was not “advocating” for the Chinese telecom giant but, rather, conducting an “independent assessment” of national security concerns that the company's products could pose in the U.S.
Lieberman, now senior counsel at Kasowitz Benson Torres, told Politico he planned to register to lobby but wouldn't actually lobby. Rather, his job would be “listening and asking questions,” he said, adding that he didn't expect to be “giving ZTE's point of view.”
Lieberman and two other lawyers at Kasowitz Benson Torres—Nicholas Rendino and Clarine Nardi Riddle, his former chief of staff at the Senate—would stress that point in their lobbying disclosure. The disclosure marked the first time that Lieberman, the former Connecticut independent, registered to lobby under the Lobbying Disclosure Act.
“Although Lieberman/[Kasowitz Benson Torres] will not be advocating for ZTE, we have decided to register in the interest of transparency and caution because we will be talking with Members and other covered officials as part of the assessment we are conducting,” the lobbying disclosure stated.
Lieberman's disclosure put a fresh spotlight on the blurry lines that define reportable lobbying activities in the Washington influence market. The filing comes in an atmosphere of heightened scrutiny on lobbying for foreign government and corporate clients and escalating trade tension with China. Lieberman wasn't reached for comment Thursday.
“His mission is to listen, assess and then make recommendations to ZTE on how to address U.S. national security concerns. While these activities are not associated with the common understanding of 'lobbying,' the Lobbying and Disclosure Act can be interpreted to require registration because he is meeting with 'covered officials' under the statute,” Riddle, who leads Kasowitz Benson's government affairs practice, told Center for Responsive Politics. “Out of an abundance of caution, Senator Lieberman will register under the LDA so that there will be no question about his and ZTE's transparency and compliance.”
ZTE, which draws on a stable of U.S.-based lobby shops and law firms, including Hogan Lovells, has drawn particularly close attention in recent months.
Last year, the U.S. Commerce Department imposed a ban on U.S. exports to ZTE after determining that the telecom giant had failed to comply with an earlier settlement over violating sanctions against Iran and North Korea. The ban, which prevented ZTE from acquiring parts and software from American companies, was later lifted after ZTE agreed to pay a $1 billion penalty and allow compliance monitors to oversee the company for a decade.
A Covington & Burling partner who was reportedly in line to be the ZTE compliance monitor was rejected after U.S. officials discovered his name on a “Never Trump” letter. Commerce appointed Roscoe Howard, a white-collar defender at Barnes & Thornburg, as the compliance monitor.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, the first high-profile Democrat to formally enter the 2020 presidential race, on Wednesday criticized Lieberman over his new role.
“ZTE is a giant foreign telecom company that's close with the Chinese govt. They've violated serious U.S. sanctions on Iran & N. Korea. Their lobbyists keep blocking accountability. And today former Senator @JoeLieberman joined them,” Warren tweeted. “Should that be legal? No.”
Reuters reported last month that the White House is looking at a new executive order that would prohibit U.S. companies from using ZTE equipment. U.S. officials have eyed ZTE warily, warning that the company could open opportunities for the Chinese government to conduct espionage.
Lieberman has been tasked with talking with U.S. officials to assess the national security concerns and provide ZTE with a report outlining “appropriate measures that may be taken to resolve/or ameliorate them,” the lobbying disclosure states.
The job description and ZTE's close ties to the Chinese government have raised questions about whether a disclosure from Kasowitz Benson was required under a more stringent federal law: the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
FARA requires U.S.-based lobbyists to disclose their advocacy for foreign governments and other overseas clients. Passed in 1938 to uncover Nazi propaganda campaigns, the law requires fuller disclosures of lobbying work, including copies of materials presented to U.S. officials and agreements revealing the sums paid by foreign principals.
Lieberman in 2013 registered as a foreign agent in connection with his work for Basit Igtet, a Zurich-based entrepreneur a bid for political office in Libya, his native country.
Foreign corporations can disclose their advocacy under the Lobbying Disclosure Act, the statute covering the vast majority of federal-level advocacy in the United States, unless the company is effectively doing the bidding its country's government.
“This can be a factual question—in effect, is the principal a foreign corporation acting on its own behalf or, on the other hand, is the foreign corporation really an alter ego of the foreign government?” said Wiley Rein partner Daniel Pickard. “If it's the latter, then the LDA exception may not be applicable.”
Within ZTE's own lobbying corps, different approaches have been taken.
A Hogan Lovells team including former Sen. Norm Coleman—along with the firms Appo-G, Black Diamond Strategies and American Continental Group—registered last year to lobby for ZTE under the Lobbying Disclosure Act. But Mercury Public Affairs, hired by Hogan Lovells to advocate for ZTE, registered as a foreign agent. Mercury Public Affairs and Coleman did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllInvestors Sue in New York Over $440M International Crypto Ponzi Scheme
4 minute readBinance's Singapore-Based General Counsel Is Shattering Crypto's 'Bro Ceiling'
4 minute readSkadden Partners: String of Securities Wins Highlights Cross-Border Practice
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250