More muttering about the conspiracy between industry lobbyists and expert sources, this time as a result of the debate in the U.S. about the acceptable levels of perchlorate in drinking water. The WSJ (article republished in Pitt. Post-Gazette) examined the conflict between the Environmental Protection Agency and users of perchlorate (including manufacturers and the Defense Department), in the process identifying another tactic in the lobbyist’s arsenal: co-opting sympathetic expert sources.

[At an EPA peer review meeting one of] … the speakers was La Donna White, president of an African-American doctors’ group, who said the EPA proposal would divert funds from “real health issues” affecting blacks and “scare the public.”(Video) She later repeated her points in an op-ed essay in a local newspaper — and in a news release put out by a lobbying group for perchlorate users, the Council on Water Quality.

Dr. White, a family physician, says she had learned about the issues from a guest at one of her medical-society meetings, Eric Newman. He is a lobbyist for a Sacramento firm that has lobbied on perchlorate matters for defense contractors. Dr. White says she didn’t know he was a lobbyist when he asked her to speak to the EPA. She didn’t reply to an email asking whether anyone had helped her draft her perchlorate commentaries — two of which misspelled her first name. Mr. Newman didn’t return messages left for him.”

To be fair - it seems that “misspelled her first name” means the paper didn’t put the space between “La” and “Donna”. It’s not like the byline read “Madonna White, M.D.”

Still, the story certainly implies that Dr. White and Mr. Newman wanted to limit their public exposure once the WSJ started asking about the provenance of Dr. White’s commentaries. Is this a case of ghost-written work or simply a remarkable similarity between the key messages pushed by the industry and the work of Dr. White?

While the picture painted by the WSJ may not pass the smell test, is it really out of place for an industry lobbyist to communicate his clients’ point of view to an interested subject expert? (Okay, it may be immoral or illegal to provide an expert with a prepared - but unattributed - commentary for publication under their name. But I don’t know if the WSJ proved this argument to my satisfaction in this case)

Oh - the LA City Paper ran a story in 2004 about the level of another contaminant, Chromium 6, in Los Angeles’ water - which also mentions the lobbying efforts of Eric Newman.

Note: I think there is a place for lobbying in an open and democratic system where not all citizens have full knowledge (as they should) of the levers of power and influence. Still, from time to time I like to highlight the tactics, foibles, peccadilloes and outright deception of some members of the lobbying industry.

Technorati: govt comms lobbying community relations risk comms