[DMCA-Activists] Who Railroaded Peter Quinn? Following Gates' Attack Money

[Seth Johnson]

> http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/38971/index.html


Following Bill Gates' Linux Attack Money if you still wonder
about who railroaded Peter Quinn


LXer; By Tom Adelstein

Posted by tadelste on Dec 29, 2005 2:27 PM


Recently, we witnessed the power of Microsoft's political machine
when one of the champions of free and open source software, Peter
Quinn resigned as CIO of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In my
opinion, Microsoft just blinked and everything went south. Other
writers have also commented on the chain of events in
Massachusetts. For example, Andy Undegrove writes a farewell
piece in his blog to the maligned public servant
(http://www.consortiuminfo.org/newsblog/blog.php?ID=1872). Steven
J. Vaughan-Nichols also writes an article about this issue in
Microsoft Wins, Open Standards Lose
(http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1906388,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03129TX1K0000616).
Steven writes: "CIO Peter Quinn's story tells us that if you go
up against Microsoft, you can expect everything and the kitchen
sink to be thrown at you."

Well Steven, as much respect and admiration as I have for you,
Microsoft didn't even breathe hard. They looked in the direction
of bean town and people started doing their bidding. That's what
happens when you own a country.

One of the top stories of the year at LXer warned mightily of
Microsoft's capabilities. So, I brought it back out and rewrote
it. It you don't get it this time, you never will.

Anyone doubting the power of Microsoft, should consider what we
said at the end of June 2005. We've also added the preceding
article to this text - and made some changes. But the documents
we uncovered are still in place. The people within Microsoft's
grasp politically are still listed. This isn't a story you scan.
This is one you read.

The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the
growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than
their democratic State itself. That in its essence, is Fascism -
ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any
controlling private power.

In a letter to the Department of Justice addressing Microsoft's
Proposed Final Judgment in their anti-trust case, a well-known
consumer advocate wrote:

    "The agreement should require that this information
(interoperability) be as freely available as possible, with a
high burden on Microsoft to justify secrecy. Indeed, there is
ample evidence that Microsoft is focused on strategies to cripple
the free software movement, which it publicly considers an
important competitive threat. This is particularly true for
software developed under the GNU Public License (GPL), which is
used in GNU/Linux, the most important rival to Microsoft in the
server market."(1)

In the same letter he writes, "One of Microsoft's high-level
executives says (published) that freely distributed software code
such as Linux could stifle innovation and that legislators need
to understand the threat."

Little doubt exists that Microsoft has reached legislators. In an
earlier article added to this one below, we discussed how a
dispute in the House Ethics Committee has kept the members from
meeting and considering House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's
activities that could have ramifications for Microsoft
(http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/38800/index.html). In
making legislators aware of many issues, the Redmond company's
financial reach may be part of why the committee has delayed
their investigation. Perhaps everyone involved hopes that a delay
will allow the heat to pass on this and other issues.

    A dispute that has kept the House Ethics Committee from
considering Majority Leader Tom DeLay's activities may have
ramifications for Microsoft. When one begins to untangle the
remarkable political organization created by Microsoft and
lobbyists Preston, Gates Ellis et al, you find some uncanny
coincidences. 

The text from the earlier article appeared in the blockquote
below:

    The ethics committee, the House's mechanism for enforcing
rules for members, has operated for exactly one day since
Congress convened in January. In the meanwhile, a former Preston,
Gates and Ellis lobbyist, Jack Abramoff has become the target of
several serious investigations and the focus of the D.C. media.

    Abramoff left Preston Gates in 2000. Even so, he's a problem
for the firm's management. Reports have surfaced questioning
Abramoff's financing of travel for lawmakers, especially House
Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas). All of the spending under
investigation happened while Abramoff worked at Preston Gates.

    The Washington Post reported that airfare to London and
Scotland in 2000 for House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) was
charged to an American Express card issued to Jack Abramoff.
House ethics rules bar lawmakers from accepting travel and
related expenses from registered lobbyists.
    How Does This Affect Microsoft

    Many people believe that Microsoft helped construct Preston,
Gates & Ellis as an alter ego for the Business Software Alliance.
The firm of William H. Gates Sr., father of Microsoft co-founder
Bill Gates, merged with Preston in 1990. The later old line
Seattle firm started when Harold Preston located in Seattle from
Iowa in 1883 and began practicing law. Jim Ellis joined Preston
in 1949.

    By getting William Gates Sr. together with Preston, Microsoft
suddenly had an organization that looked like a law firm and not
the legal department of Microsoft. The Seattle firm also had a
small office in Washington, D.C. which helped Microsoft and the
Business Software Alliance reach out and affect government
policy.

    But, Preston, Gates & Ellis needed to show some lobbying fees
and clients other than Microsoft and the BSA. Adding Abramoff did
just that. Additionally, he had his own clients and did not have
to work on any Microsoft or BSA business.

    Bad Choice

    Adding Abramoff accomplished the goal of diversifying
Preston, Gates & Ellis revenue and client base. But, Jack
Abramoff didn't fit the culture. While most lobbyists seem happy
with a six figure salary, Jack made millions annually. He also
could be considered a maverick.

    Now, the partners of Preston Gates must deal with the
consequences of discovering their firm is listed on the invoice
for Tom DeLay's plane fare to Scotland. They may also have to
consider how deep and far the probe of their firm may go. For
example, both Preston Gates and the Business Software Alliance
are listed as contributors to the campaign of Senator Patrick J.
Leahy, the Chairman of the Senate Judicial committee that ruled
on the Government's settlement with Microsoft.

    Meanwhile House majority leader Tom DeLay says that expenses
on his trip were paid by a nonprofit organization and that the
financial arrangements for it were proper. He contends that he
had no way of knowing that any lobbyist financially supported the
trip, either directly or through reimbursements to the nonprofit
organization.

    Non-profit organizations, foundations, multiple corporate
entities seem like the products of a firm like Preston, Gates &
Ellis. Someone will want to look into those issues. For example,
on June 7, 2005, Bill Gates profile on CampaignMoney.com shows
that he's contributed $59,100 since 1999 to all political
candidates. Of course, that's personal money. Given the tens of
millions of dollars attributed to Microsoft in campaign
contributions, it might look like some kind of front
organizations have made contributions beneficially for the
welfare of the richest man in the world.

    And the connection between Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff: DeLay
helped defeat a bill that would tax Preston Gates clients -
American Indian casinos. You have to also wonder if those casinos
used Microsoft Office.

What we did not discuss in our earlier article, however, was the
possibility that the committee could remain deadlocked for other
reasons. Such reasons could involve additional payments which
Preston Gates may have some difficulty explaining. Should the
ethics committee meet, some democrats could face similar problems
for Tom DeLay. According to the the Washington Post, other names
are beginning to surface, including both House and Senate members
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/02/AR2005060202158.html).
Names discussed in the article include Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.)
and Harry M. Reid (Nev.), Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), Sen. Conrad
Burns (R-Mont.), Patrick J. Kennedy (D-R.I.), Sen. Patty Murray
(Wash.) and Byron L. Dorgan (N.D.).

While you might find the Washington Post's work admirable, there
are some subtle changes in their reporting that grabbed my
attention. For example, a switch has occurred in naming Jack
Abramoff's employer. In our previous discussion, we referenced a
washington Post story that said that Abramoff worked for Preston
Gates. Even the Seattle Times wrote an article focused on Preston
Gates' potential problems
(http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002260986_preston03m.html).
For example, in a discussion of one of the firm's clients the
article states:

    ...a California lawmaker recently urged a separate
investigation into how the firm billed the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands after the auditor there reported the
commonwealth "may have paid too much for services of Preston
Gates. ... " Abramoff was the lead lobbyist. 

Since the April article, the Washington Post has stopped
inquiring into Preston Gates activities with regard to improper
finances. Back on April 24th, the Washington Post mentioned
Preston Gates eight separate times while relating to Mr. DeLay's
potential ethics violations. The Post never mentioned Greenberg
Traurig in that article. In the June 3rd article, Greenberg
Traurig gets six mentions and Preston Gates receives no mention
at all.

Previously, Abramoff charged expenses to a credit card billed to
Preston Gates, and the Post stated that. Now, Abramoff's
connections while at Greenberg Traurig have become the focus of
the Post's attention. Yet, the questionable ethics violations
supposedly happened while Abramoff worked for Preston Gates and
it was their problem.

Surprise

Does it surprise you that Melinda French Gates holds a seat on
the Board of the Washington Post Co.? You can see a listing of
the Board here
(http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=62487&p=irol-govHistDirectors).
You might also notice one bridge partner sitting on that board.

Some people believe the seat of power in Washington, D.C. resides
at the headquarters of the Washington Post. Certainly, membership
on the Post's board would require a position of prominence in the
world. Perhaps some people might wonder what Melinda Gates has
accomplished to put her in such a seat of power.

We can forget Melinda Gates position for a little while. We just
want to establish the fact that she's there in a position of some
power. We also want to mention the possibility that some
relationship exists between Preston Gates and Microsoft's largest
shareholders.

Here's another piece that might fit something in the puzzle.
Charles Cooper wrote a short article in his C/Net News.com blog
about the DeLay Abramoff and possible Microsoft connection
(http://news.com.com/2061-10787_3-5683973.html?tag=ubind.bld). He
wrote:

    ... what piqued my interest was the tidbit that the (Tom
DeLay) flight invoice listed Preston Gates & Ellis, the firm that
then employed Abramoff as a lobbyist. Computer history buffs will
recall that Preston Gates & Ellis was co-founded by William H.
Gates, Sr., the father of Microsoft founder Bill Gates.

    I point that out because only last week the New York Times
reported that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation had
contributed a substantial sums to the DeLay Foundation for Kids
since 2001. 

For more information on the Gates contribution, see this
hyperlink
(http://citizensforethics.org/press/pressclip.php?view=148).

Where the Money Goes

Let's begin to make some sense of Microsoft's puzzling maze of
influence. We'll only travel a short distance before seeing
multiple paths on which we can travel. Regardless of the path we
take, Microsoft has paved it with money.

First, let's get a little glimpse of the firm of Preston Gates &
Ellis from the Seattle Times article mentioned above:

    Preston Gates traces its roots to Harold Preston, who arrived
in Seattle from Iowa in 1883 and started a solo law practice.
Civic activist Jim Ellis joined in 1949. The firm of William H.
Gates Sr., father of Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, merged with
Preston in 1990.

    In 1973, the firm opened its Washington, D.C., office,
including on its nameplate former Democratic Congressman Lloyd
Meeds, who represented northwest Washington from 1965 to 1979,
and Emanuel Rouvelas, former counsel to the Senate Commerce
Committee. 

As I mentioned Monday, getting William Gates Sr. together with
Preston, Microsoft suddenly had an organization that looked like
a law firm and not the legal department of Microsoft. The office
in Washington, D.C. offered Microsoft and the Business Software
Alliance a new way to reach out and affect government policy.

In Figure 1, you can see an excerpt from a lobbyist filing form
showing Preston Gates & Ellis et al registered as lobbyists for
the Business Software Alliance. Many such forms exist in the
database at http://sopr.senate.gov. We can now ask some questions
we would hope our legislators might ask. Who paid Preston Gates
to lobby on behalf of the BSA? From where did the funds come?
What did Preston Gates do? Doesn't the BSA have a staff of its
own lobbyists? What do the BSA lobbyists do?

> http://lxer.com/lxer/tom/38971/fig1.png
Figure 1 - Excerpt of Lobbyist Registration for Showing BSA as
Preston Gates client

In Figure 2, you we can see another excerpt of a registration
document showing that Preston Gates & Ellis also lobbies for
Microsoft. In Figure 2 we can also see some of the issues that
the lobbyists handled for Microsoft, who also has their own
in-house lobbyists.

> http://lxer.com/lxer/tom/38971/fig2.png
Figure 2 - Excerpt of Lobbyist Registration for Showing Microsoft
as Preston Gates client

In Figure 3, you can see the results of a query in the US
Senate's lobbyist registration database. Preston Gates & Ellis
has worked with the BSA for several years. Each link takes you to
pages of information, names of lobbyists, expenses, issues on
which the lobbyists work and updates when personnel rotate to
other projects.

> http://lxer.com/lxer/tom/38971/fig3.png
Figure 3 - An Example Query from which You Can Find Raw Lobbying
Information

In Figure 4 you can see another excerpt of one of the
registration forms found in the Senate lobbyist database. This
excerpt appears to tell us that Jack Abramoff did work as a
lobbyist for the BSA while at Preston Gates. While the Washington
Post has started steering away from Preston Gates & Ellis, the
information on this registration form should lead someone to look
into or inquire about Abramoff's activities connected with the
BSA.

> http://lxer.com/lxer/tom/38971/fig4.png
Figure 4 - Excerpt from Registration Statement Showing Abramoff
as a Lobbyist Working with the BSA

As one begins to examine the relationship among the BSA,
Microsoft and Preston Gates & Ellis, perhaps a pattern emerges.
One would want to take care before calling them interlocking
companies or alter-egos. Still, consider the fact that the BSA
enforces licensing for Microsoft. Some allegations exist that say
the BSA waives penalties for non-compliant companies if those
companies buy upgrades from Microsoft. We do not know if the BSA
has that power. One would want to find out.

Additionally, profiles of firm members at Preston Gates & Ellis
provide information saying that many members of the firm work for
the BSA. Does that mean the BSA outsources personnel from Preston
Gates & Ellis? To answer that, someone would have to inquire and
examine the evidence and arrive at a factual determination.
Understanding the relationships among the firms seems important
in light of many unexplained situations.

The next two Figures will provide some insight into reasons one
might believe that the three companies need examination. While
circumstantial, the close relationships and inner workings could
make one believe that not everything fits.

In Figure 5, one can see that the Chairman of the Senator
Judiciary Committee received funds for re-election from
Microsoft. This is the same Microsoft that the same the committee
questioned with regard to the last Federal anti-trust settlement.

> http://lxer.com/lxer/tom/38971/fig5.png
Figure 5 - Listing of Top Contributors to Patrick Leahy's
campaign for the Senate in Vermont

In Figure 6, we excerpted two contributions and moved them into
view of the camera. These contributions came from an earlier
Senate race. Notice that both the BSA and Preston Gates & Ellis
contributed to the Leahy campaign.

> http://lxer.com/lxer/tom/38971/fig6.png
Figure 6 - Listing of Contributors to Patrick Leahy's campaign
for the Senate in Vermont

Difficulties exist in following Microsoft's money trail because
of the many sources of data. Additionally, the registration forms
of many candidates, lobbyists, assistant, staff, etc. do not
exist in digital formats. One cannot mine the data easily. One
might consider this an ideal scenario for a monopolist whose
compliance audits related to its settlement with the Department
of Justice exist in secrecy.
Wag the Dog

In a statement written by Senator Leahy on December 12, 2001
entitled, "The Microsoft Settlement: A Look to the Future", he
states:

    Our courts have developed a test for determining the
effectiveness of a remedy in a Sherman Act case: The remedy must
end the anticompetitive practices, it must deprive the wrongdoer
of the fruits of the wrongdoing, and it must ensure that the
illegality does not recur. The Tunney Act also requires that any
settlement of such a case serve the public interest. These are
all high standards, but they are reasonable ones. In this case,
the D.C. Circuit, sitting en banc and writing unanimously, found
that Microsoft had engaged in serious exclusionary practices, to
the detriment of their competitors and, thus, to all consumers.
Today, we must satisfy ourselves that these matters have been
addressed and redressed, or find out why not. 

Considering the question Senator Leahy posed on December 12,
2001, we should look again to the statement of the well-known
consumer advocate we quoted at the start of this article. He had
a different slant when he wrote:

    It is astonishing that the agreement fails to provide any
penalty for Microsoft's past misdeeds, creating both the sense
that Microsoft is escaping punishment because of its
extraordinary political and economic power, and undermining the
value of antitrust penalties as a deterrent. Second, the
agreement does not adequately address the concerns about
Microsoft's failure to abide by the spirit or the letter of
previous agreements, offering a weak oversight regime that
suffers in several specific areas. Indeed, the proposed
alternative dispute resolution for compliance with the agreement
embraces many of the worst features of such systems, operating in
secrecy, lacking independence, and open to undue influence from
Microsoft. 

In addition to the hundreds of candidates receiving money from
Microsoft, the combination of Microsoft, the BSA and Preston
Gates & Ellis have access and use the services of former powerful
people from Federal government. Here's a list of the lobbyists,
their firms and former positons for whom Microsoft has access:

Bill Archer, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, U.S. House of
Representatives, Member, House of Representatives (R-Texas)
Richard Armey, DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary LLP, U.S. House of
Representatives, Member, House of Representatives (R-Texas)
Lloyd Bentsen, DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary LLP, U.S. House of
Representatives, Member, House of Representatives (D-Texas)
James Blanchard, DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary LLP, U.S. House of
Representatives, Member, House of Representatives (D-Mich.)
Bill Brewster, Capitol Hill Consulting Group, U.S. House of
Representatives, Member, House of Representatives (D-Okla.)
John Buchanan, PodestaMattoon, U.S. House of Representatives,
Member, U.S. House of Representatives (R-Ala.)
Rod Chandler, Downey McGrath Group Inc., U.S. House of
Representatives, Member, U.S. House of Representatives (R-Wash.)
Daniel Coats, DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary LLP, U.S. Senate,
Member, Senate (R-Ind.)
James Courter, DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary LLP, U.S. House of
Representatives, Member, House of Representatives (R-N.J.)
John Culver, Arent Fox PLLC, U.S. Senate, Member, Senate (D-Iowa)
Robert Davis, Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP, U.S.
House of Representatives, Member, House of Representatives
(R-Mich.)
Robert Dawson, Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc., Army Corps
of Engineers, Assistant Secretary; Deputy Assistant Secretary of
the Army for Civil Works
Thomas Downey, Downey McGrath Group Inc., U.S. House of
Representatives, Member, House of Representatives (D-N.Y.)
John Doyle, Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc., U.S. Department
of Army, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)
Vic Fazio, Clark & Weinstock Inc., U.S. House of Representatives,
Member, House of Representatives (D-Calif.)
David Funderburk, Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP, U.S.
House of Representatives, Member, House of Representatives
(R-N.C.)
Slade Gorton, Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP, U.S.
Senate, Member, Senate (R-Wash.)
Willis Gradison, Patton Boggs, U.S. House of Representatives,
Member, House of Representatives (R-Ohio)
Jim Hall, Federalist Group, National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB), Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board
Ed Jenkins, Palmetto Group, U.S. House of Representatives,
Member, U.S. House of Representatives (D-Ga.)
Ray Kogovsek, WPP Group plc, U.S. House of Representatives,
Member, U.S. House of Representatives (D-Colo.)
Gregory Laughlin, Patton Boggs, U.S. House of Representatives,
Member, House of Representatives (R-Texas).
Ray McGrath, Downey McGrath Group Inc., U.S. House of
Representatives, Member, House of Representatives (R-N.Y.)
Lloyd Meeds, Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP, U.S. House
of Representatives, Member, House of Representatives (D-Wash.)
Leon Panetta, Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc., U.S. House of
Representatives, Member, House of Representatives (D-Calif.)
John Podesta, PodestaMattoon, White House Office, Chief of Staff
to President William Clinton
Fred Rooney, Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc., U.S. House of
Representatives, Member, House of Representatives (D-Pa.)
William Schachte, Blank & Rome LLP, U.S. Department of Defense
(DOD), Acting Judge Advocate General of the Navy
Rodney Slater, Patton Boggs, U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT), Secretary of Transportation
Bob Walker, WPP Group plc, U.S. House of Representatives, Member,
House of Representatives (R-Pa.)
Vin Weber, Clark & Weinstock Inc., U.S. House of Representatives,
Member, House of Representatives (R-Minn.)
Charles Wilson, Palmetto Group, U.S. House of Representatives,
Member, House of Representatives (D-Texas)


Some Other Friends in High Places

Microsoft has unparalleled influence throughout the Federal
government. On the cover of a recent edition of VarBusiness
Magazine dated June 26, 2005 the editors presented a large
headline which read:

    It's A Microsoft World. Five years after running afoul of the
Feds, Microsoft is as powerful than ever. Pushing a platform
instead of products could make it stronger still. Why nothing
seems to stop it.

Few people who have researched the company believe that Microsoft
ran afoul of the Feds. How could a company that owns the Feds run
afoul of them? Microsoft wields more power than the Federal
government. Reading the following, you will notice just a single
handful of people who have vested interests in making sure the
Federal government stays out of Microsoft's business.

Phil Bond: Undersecretary of Commerce for Technology. Bond is the
highest-ranking appointed official who deals with technology. He
is the former top aide to U.S. Rep. Jennifer Dunn (R-Wash.),
whose district includes Microsoft's hometown of Redmond. Bond's
top policy aide at Commerce was Connie Correll Partoyan, the
former executive vice president of TechNet (a Microsoft-funded
trade association), who recently took a lobbying job for the law
firm Preston, Gates, Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds.

William Kolasky: Appointed deputy assistant attorney general for
international enforcement for the Justice Department's antitrust
division in October 2001. Kolasky was a lawyer for the
Association for Competitive Technology, a group whose largest
contributor is Microsoft, and wrote a friend of the court brief
supporting Microsoft in its antitrust lawsuit.

Ed Gillespie : Until recently, he headed the Republican National
Committee. Gillespie helped build the Republican party and
identified candidates for state and federal elections. He has
returned to Quinn Gillespie & Associates. Prior to becoming the
head of the RNC he was a Microsoft lobbyist. Microsoft paid his
lobbying firm, Quinn Gillespie & Associates, $1.2 million between
2001 and 2003, according to the Center for Public Integrity.

Richard Wallis: Microsoft's associate general counsel chairs the
American Bar Association's antitrust section. This group
influences how much oversight federal judges have over antitrust
settlements. In late June, a U.S. appeals court rejected claims
that Microsoft's 2001 deal with the government was too lenient.
Stay Tuned

Many difficulties associated with examining Microsoft's business
practices exist. Many people have attempted to catalog and
chronicle the various tactics used. The amount of material seems
overwhelming.

When one looks at such data, the human perception mechanism
begins to shut down. To defend itself, people become confused and
go into states of denial or apathy. While we can discuss much
more evidence, I consider it a good approach to simply digest the
material in smaller chunks.

Hopefully we raised questions that people should examine. In the
mean time, I will leave you with this quote I have seen
frequently.

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate
the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger
than their democratic State itself. That in it's [sic] essence,
is Fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group
or by any controlling private power."

-- Franklin D. Roosevelt, Message proposing the "Standard Oil"
Monopoly Investigation, 1938

Respectfully submitted

Notes:

(1)Letter from Ralph Nader to Renata B. Hesse January 28, 2002
http://www.cptech.org/ms/nader-doj01282002.html