Fair Use Notice

FAIR USE NOTICE

FAIR USE NOTICE


A BEAR MARKET ECONOMICS BLOG


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates
FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates

All Blogs licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0

Friday, December 27, 2013

Noam Chomsky: We’re no longer a functioning democracy, we’re really a plutocracy



Noam Chomsky: We’re no longer a functioning democracy, we’re really a plutocracy

By Travis Gettys

Friday, December 27, 2013 13:59 EST
Noam Chomsky on liberation theology

The world faces two potentially existential threats, according to the linguist and political philosopher Noam Chomsky.



“There are two major dark shadows that hover over everything, and they’re getting more and more serious,” Chomsky said. “The one is the continuing threat of nuclear war that has not ended. It’s very serious, and another is the crisis of ecological, environmental catastrophe, which is getting more and more serious.”

Chomsky appeared Friday on the last episode of NPR’s “Smiley and West” program to discuss his education, his views on current affairs and how he manages to spread his message without much help from the mainstream media.

He told the hosts that the world was racing toward an environmental disaster with potentially lethal consequence, which the world’s most developed nations were doing nothing to prevent – and in fact were speeding up the process.

“If there ever is future historians, they’re going to look back at this period of history with some astonishment,” Chomsky said. “The danger, the threat, is evident to anyone who has eyes open and pays attention at all to the scientific literature, and there are attempts to retard it, there are also at the other end attempts to accelerate the disaster, and if you look who’s involved it’s pretty shocking.”

Chomsky noted efforts to halt environmental damage by indigenous people in countries all over the world – from Canada’s First Nations to tribal people in Latin America and India to aboriginal people in Australia—but the nation’s richest, most advanced and most powerful countries, such as the United States, were doing nothing to forestall disaster.

“When people here talk enthusiastically about a hundred years of energy independence, what they’re saying is, ‘Let’s try to get every drop of fossil fuel out of the ground so as to accelerate the disaster that we’re racing towards,’” Chomsky said. “These are problems that overlie all of the domestic problems of oppression, of poverty, of attacks on the education system (and) massive inequality, huge unemployment.”

He blamed the “financialization” of the U.S. economy for income inequality and unemployment, saying that banks that were “too big to fail” skimmed enormous wealth from the market.

“In fact, there was a recent (International Monetary Fund) study that estimated that virtually all the profits of the big banks can be traced back to this government insurance policy, and in general they’re quite harmful, I think, quite harmful to the economy,” Chomsky said.

Those harmful effects can be easily observed by looking at unemployment numbers and stock market gains, he said.

“There are tens of millions of people unemployed, looking for work, wanting to work (and) there are huge resources available,” Chomsky said. “Corporate profits are going through the roof, there’s endless amounts of work to be done – just drive through a city and see all sorts of things that have to be done – infrastructure is collapsing, the schools have to be revived. We have a situation in which huge numbers of people want to work, there are plenty, huge resources available, an enormous amount to be done, and the system is so rotten they can’t put them together.”

The reason for this is simple, Chomsky said.

“There is plenty of profit being made by those who pretty much dominate and control the system,” he said. “We’ve moved from the days where there was some kind of functioning democracy. It’s by now really a plutocracy.”

Chomsky strongly disagreed with Smiley and West that he had been marginalized for his views, saying that he regretfully turned down dozens of invitations to speak on a daily basis because he was otherwise engaged.

He also disagreed that a platform in the mainstream media was necessary to influence the debate.

“If you take a look at the progressive changes that have taken place in the country, say, just in the last 50 years – the civil rights movement, the antiwar movement, opposition to aggression, the women’s movement, the environmental movement and so on – they’re not led by any debate in the media,” Chomsky said. “No, they were led by popular organizations, by activists on the ground.”

He recalled the earliest days of the antiwar movement, in the early 1960s, when he spoke in living rooms and church basements to just a handful of other activists and they were harassed – even in liberal Boston – by the authorities and media.

But that movement eventually grew and helped hasten the end of the Vietnam War, and Chomsky said it’s grown and become so mainstream that antiwar activists can limit wars before they even begin.

He said President Ronald Reagan was unable to launch a full-scale war in Central America during the 1980s because of the antiwar movement, and he bitterly disputed the idea that antiwar activists had no impact on the Iraq War.

“I don’t agree; it had a big effect,” Chomsky said. “It sharply limited the means that were available to the government to try to carry out the invasion and subdue the population. In fact, it’s one reason why the U.S. ended up really defeated in Iraq, seriously had to give up all of its war aims. The major victor in Iraq turns out to be Iran.”

Despite these limitations, he said the Iraq War had been one of the new millennium’s worst atrocities and had provoked a violent schism between Sunni and Shiite Muslims that had sparked regional conflicts throughout the Middle East.

“The United States is now involved in a global terror campaign largely against the tribal people of the world, mostly Muslim tribes, and it’s all over. The intention is to go on and on,” Chomsky said. “These are all terrible consequences, but nevertheless they’re not as bad as they would be if there weren’t public opposition.”

Friday, November 15, 2013

Dick Cheney Is An Even Bigger Monster Than You Thought



  News & Politics  


Cheney has no interest in knowing the identity of his taxpayer-funded heart donor: "It’s my new heart, not someone else’s old heart.”

 
 
Photo Credit: Spirit of America/Shutterstock.com
 
 
You’ve probably heard that Dick Cheney agrees with Bill Clinton about letting people who are losing private insurance keep their old plans, as President Obama repeatedly seemed to promise they could. That’s not surprising: Cheney is a troll who maligns the president whenever he can, and piling on with Clinton is a special kind of fun. Yes, it’s outrageous that a man who has enjoyed many millions of dollars of taxpayer-funded medical care doesn’t give a damn about the uninsured in our society, but that’s Dick Cheney.

Still, I was a little startled to hear the former vice president express total indifference to questions about his heart donor in a revealing interview on Politicking with Larry King (it airs Thursday night; here’s a clip). It’s a window into his utter entitlement and self-absorption, and he comes off as an even bigger monster than I’d thought. Most people would at least feign interest in the donor; Cheney can’t manage it.

When King asks if he knows the identity of the person whose heart keeps him alive, Cheney, who is promoting a book about his transplant experience, says no, and adds, “it hadn’t been a priority for me.” Then he goes on:

When I came out from under the anesthetic after the transplant, I was euphoric.  I’d had–I’d been given the gift of additional lives, additional years of life.  For the family of the donor, they’d just been [through] some terrible tragedy, they’d lost a family member.  Can’t tell why, obviously, when you don’t know the details, but the way I think of it from a psychological standpoint is that it’s my new heart, not someone else’s old heart. And I always thank the donor, generically thank donors for the gift that I’ve been given, but I don’t spend time wondering who had it, what they’d done, what kind of person.

“It’s my new heart, not someone else’s old heart.”

Consider the complete self-centeredness of that statement, and the utter lack of empathy. I shouldn’t be surprised at that — war criminals and torture-promoters aren’t known for their empathy — but I was. Cheney’s so absorbed in his great good luck that he can’t help sharing: “My cardiologist told me at one point, ‘You know, Dick, the transplant is a spiritual experience, not just for the patient, but also for the team.’” What a generous guy, sharing that “spiritual experience” with his cardiology team! So: Cheney is happy to have a new heart, but doesn’t bother to “spend time wondering who had it, what they’d done, what kind of person.”

And his statement that it wasn’t a “priority” to learn about his heart donor revealingly echoes his explanation for getting five deferments from the Vietnam War: The notorious war hawk famously told the Washington Post: “I had other priorities in the ’60s than military service.” Now he has other priorities than learning about his heart donor.

It’s certainly not compulsory to find out about the person who died so that you could live – who gave what Cheney called “the gift of life itself.” There may be valid psychological reasons not to. I don’t judge that decision. But I can’t get over the coldness required to express complete indifference to knowing about that person, and their family’s suffering.

Or could it be compassion? For a lot of people, the tragedy of a family member dying would be compounded, not lessened, by learning that their heart went to Cheney. Nah, there’s neither compassion nor self-awareness in the way Cheney talks about receiving “the gift of life,” from American taxpayers or from his mystery heart donor

Joan Walsh is Salon's editor at large. Read more of her work at Salon.

Monday, October 7, 2013

Why the Rich and Powerful Have Less Empathy




 

A psychologist reveals that the richer and more powerful a person is, the less empathy he or she is likely to have for people who are lower in status.

 

 

 
 

Psychologist Daniel Goleman has written a fascinating piece for today’s New York Times about social status and empathy. It seems that the richer and more powerful a person is, the less empathy he or she is likely to have for people who are lower in status:
A growing body of recent research shows that people with the most social power pay scant attention to those with little such power. This tuning out has been observed, for instance, with strangers in a mere five-minute get-acquainted session, where the more powerful person shows fewer signals of paying attention, like nodding or laughing. Higher-status people are also more likely to express disregard, through facial expressions, and are more likely to take over the conversation and interrupt or look past the other speaker.

[Snip]
In 2008, social psychologists from the University of Amsterdam and the University of California, Berkeley, studied pairs of strangers telling one another about difficulties they had been through, like a divorce or death of a loved one. The researchers found that the differential expressed itself in the playing down of suffering. The more powerful were less compassionate toward the hardships described by the less powerful.

It’s not that rich people are natural-born sociopaths — although some of them certainly give that impression. Rather, says Goleman, while rich people can buy all the help they need, people of modest means “are more likely to value their social assets”:

The financial difference ends up creating a behavioral difference. Poor people are better attuned to interpersonal relations — with those of the same strata, and the more powerful — than the rich are, because they have to be.

I see this in my own life all the time. I live in Hyde Park in Chicago, a neighborhood with a great deal of racial and economic diversity. It includes undergraduates wealthy enough to attend the University of Chicago, professors who live in homes built by Frank Lloyd Wright … and also a large population of working class African-Americans. I don’t own a car, and sometimes I carry heavy shopping bags home from the grocery store.

Every time I’ve schlepped along with heavy packages, someone has offered to help, a fact which never fails to move me. In every single instance, the people who offered to help have been African-American men and women. To my more affluent neighbors, in those moments, I became invisible — just as I, in turn, have no doubt failed to “see” other people in distress, as I make the neighborhood rounds. Because they’ve been in my shoes in that particular situation — carrying heavy packages, with no one to help — my African-American neighbors have empathy for me. But because they haven’t had that experience, my white neighbors don’t.

Goleman says that growing inequality and the social distance it creates may be responsible for a “empathy gap” that has led to the Republican party’s Scrooge-like politics: cutting food stamps, denying health care, etc. I don’t doubt there’s something to that, but political ideology is far more complicated than that. I have relatives whose politics are awful but whose personal behavior could hardly be more generous and empathetic. And I’ve also known people with great politics who behave like cold-hearted bastards, particularly towards their social inferiors.

But I do agree that in societies where there is more equality and less social distance, there does tend to be more empathy. That was one of the points I was making in this post. As I wrote, “[d]eeply unequal societies like ours are … breeding grounds for a host of simmering resentments, petty tyrannies and everyday sadism.” That’s because, on the one hand, you have so many heartless power plays and unthinking acts of cruelty on the part of the powerful. And on the other hand, the experience of constantly being dehumanized and robbed of one’s dignity doesn’t exactly improve one’s character. What it’s likely to do, instead, is to cause you, in turn, to dehumanize others. It is not an edifying spectacle. But it is inevitable when you create an economic system that allows people to use human beings like objects.

Social democracy, which creates more social and economic equality, can help minimize social pathologies, and maximize empathy. Another recent New York Times article suggests another route to increasing empathy: reading literary fiction. A study found that after reading literary fiction, “people performed better on tests measuring empathy, social perception and emotional intelligence.”

I am always somewhat wary of these arguments about the morally improving qualities of literature. I’m wary because literature is far more than its moral content, or lack thereof. Literature is to be cherished for its aesthetic value as well — art for art’s sake, etc. If you don’t see that, you’re missing something important.

Not to mention the fact that reading the classics clearly has not done a bloody thing to improve the character of any number of people I can think of.
And yet, as I say, I am only “somewhat wary” of those moral arguments for literature, because I think those arguments basically are kind of true. One of the most basic reasons we read literature is to get a better understanding of human nature and human experience, and often but not always, more understanding results in more empathy. Educated people who don’t read literature probably are less empathetic and more socially clueless than their better-read counterparts, all other things equal. The fact that Larry Summers reportedly never heard of One Years of Solitude tells you quite a lot about the man, don’t you think?

The Times article specifically mentions Alice Munro and Chekhov as two writers who will improve your empathy. I can’t vouch for that claim, but I couldn’t agree more that everybody should read Alice Munro and Chekhov. Especially Chekhov, who I am sometimes think is my all-time favorite writer. These days, people seem to be far more familiar with his plays than his short stories, but as much as I love his plays, the short stories are his most important achievement, in my view. He wrote many volumes of them, and they are amazing.

One of the Chekhov stories I love most, “Misery,” beautifully illustrates Goleman’s point about empathy and social distance. It concerns the driver of a horse and cab, whose little boy has died. He has been driven almost mad with grief. As he drives his passengers, he keeps trying to find someone who will listen to his pain. IIRC, all of the passengers are his clear social superiors — college students, army officers, and so on. None of them pay him the least bit of attention as he desperately tries to tell his tragic story. Finally, having found no human being willing to lend a sympathetic ear, he pours out his grief to his horse.

The story is very short, and absolutely devastating. It could be updated today with few changes. Chekhov was descended from serfs and became a doctor. As a doctor working in Russia just before the revolution, he saw the whole of Russian society, from the aristocrats to the poorest peasants. He wasn’t a political writer, per se, but he showed great empathy for the suffering of the poor, and was unflinching in his depiction of the cruelties and hypocrisies of the powerful. He’s a writer for all time, but he also speaks to our time in very interesting and specific ways. Many of his stories can be found here, if you’re looking for a place to start.

New list of dark money shell game groups connected to Koch brothers




New list of dark money shell game groups connected to Koch brothers


 Photo by Gus Ruelas/Greenpeace


As much as we think we know about the infamous Koch brothers, there is a lot we don't know. But thanks to the Center for Media and Democracy's PR Watch, we are now more informed about how they've been spending their billions.

For example, money went to the NRA, NFIB, the Chamber of Commerce, Koch cut-outs, Generation Opportunity (youth propaganda machine), the tea party, the Heritage Foundation, and the California (and probably more) ballot initiative subverter, CPPR, along with old stand-bys like 60+.


surprise
Via PR Watch:








 

Breaking: New List of the Dark Money Shell Game Groups Connected to the Kochs






        
 Koch Dark Money Kochtopus











Today, the Koch-funded "Freedom Partners," which secretly distributed $250 million during the 2012 election season, posted its first federal tax report which uncloaked several Koch-related entities that were previously unknown. [...]
The new-ish organization, formally known as "Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce," lists five entities which it owned 100% of:
  • The "American Entrepreneur Fund LLC," which had assets of $885,316 and whose activities are listed as simply as "projects"
  • The "American Enterprise Group LLC," which had assets of $424,975 and whose activities are listed as "management"
  • The "American Strategies Group LLC," which had assets of $97,714 and whose activities are listed as "public outreach"
  • The "MIC LLC," with assets of $25,000 and whose job was "research"
  • And, "American Strategic Innovations LLC," with assets of $4,976, whose job was also research
Here are a few revelations, with more details at the link:
  • The Koch-fueled "Center to Protect Patient Rights" (CPPR) got more than $100 million last year.
  • The not-so-independent National Federation of Independent Businesses claims to represent small business owners. It is the antithesis of being funded by the family fortune of one of biggest billionaire corporations in the world, Koch Industries.
  • The Kochs have claimed no role on gun policy; the NRA got millions. As controversy has grown over the role of the Koch-funded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in pushing so-called "Stand Your Ground" legislation, Koch Industries has repeatedly issued denouncements that it has any role in gun policies.
In addition to these, the Freedom Fund Chamber of Commerce spent another $50 million on other groups, cumulatively, some of which are well known and some of which have flown below the public's radar.
Again, among those groups are  the "Tea Party Patriots" operating out of Woodstock, Georgia; "The Republican Jewish Coalition"; the "Heritage Action for America, Inc.," connected to the Heritage Foundation, which has deep Koch connections; and "The National Right to Work Committee," who received $1,000,000 for pushing anti-worker, union-busting measures.
Money talks. We need to talk back, only louder.

All of these entities, whose assets totaled more than $1.4 million as of October 2012, share the same street address: 2200 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 102-391, Arlington, Virginia 22201. All of these corporations are registered in Delaware. The activities of these groups is not known and their current assets are also unknown. (These corporations are listed on the form as "disregarded" in IRS lingo not because they no longer exist but because of a technical tax definition for certain companies that are similar to sole proprietorships or controlled by just a few people.)

The Koch-Fueled CPPR Got More than $100 Million Last Year

The Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce's tax filing also lists the names and amounts of all of the entities it funded between late 2011 and the eve of the 2012 elections. Here is the list of the top five groups to which the Kochs' Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce funneled millions:
  • "Corner Table LLC," known as the "Center to Protect Patient Rights" (CPPR): three infusions of cash totalling $114,678,000. CPPR is at the center of a probe by the California Elections Board on "dark money" spent through shell groups to influence two ballot initiatives, among other concerns that have been raised about it.
  • "PR Dist LLC," described as "Americans for Prosperity," which is directed by David Koch: two infusions totaling $31,600,000
  • "The 60 Plus Association Inc.," $15,660,000
  • "American Future Fund," $13,600,000
  • "Concerned Women for American Legislative Action Committee," $8,150,000

 

Kochs Have Claimed No Role on Gun Policy; the NRA Got Millions


In the past 18 months as controversy has grown over the role of the Koch-funded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in pushing so-called "Stand Your Ground" legislation, Koch Industries has repeatedly issued denouncements that it has any role in gun policies. The Center for Media and Democracy, however, has documented how extreme gun policies of the National Rifle Association (NRA) have flourished while Koch Industries has had a seat on and led ALEC's Private Enterprise Board (which was recently rebranded as the Private Enterprise Advisory Council).

While it is not known if Koch Industries has donated any funds to the Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, what is known -- as CMD has documented -- is that this organization is filled with Koch operatives, was launched in the same building as the Charles Koch Foundation, and has very close ties to David and Charles Koch, who are two of the richest men in the world.

Now, with this tax filing it is clear that this Koch-related operation is directly funding the NRA. The NRA received more than the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, receiving $3,465,000. The NRA describes itself as a membership organization, where people can pay $35 to be a member and get a subscription to one of the NRA magazines. However, the NRA has not disclosed how much of its funding comes from gun manufacturers or non-profit groups such as the Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce.

The Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce also gave millions to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business, and the National Association of Manufacturers.

More Mysteries of the Koch Network Exposed


In addition to these, the Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce spent
another $50 million on other groups, cumulatively, some of which are well known and some of which have flown below the public's radar:
  • "American Commitment," $6,260,000
  • "Partnership for Ohio's Future," $500,000
  • "West Michigan Policy Forum," $1,000,000
  • "American Energy Alliance," $1,460,000 (has previously been connected to the Kochs)
  • "American Values Action," $230,000 (spent $14 million on "independent expenditures" including phone calls against Obama during the 2012 election; donors unknown/not registered as a PAC)
  • "Common Sense Issues, Inc.," $50,000
  • "Heritage Action for America, Inc.," $500,000 (connected to the Heritage Foundation, which has deep Koch connections)
  • "ORRA LLC (EVANGCH4 Trust)," $5,055,000
  • "POFN LLC (Public Notice)," $5,466,250
  • "Republican Jewish Coalition," $700,000
  • "RION LLC (Center for Shared Service Trust)," $2,738,000 (closely connected to the Charles Koch Foundation)
  • "SLAH LLC (Public Engagement Trust)," $1,500,000 (Arlington)
  • "State Tea Party Express," $600,000 (operates out of Willows, California)
  • "STN LLC (Themis Trust)," $5,781,000
  • "TONA LLC (Libre Initiative Trust)," $3,112,000
  • "Tea Party Patriots," $200,000 (operating out of Woodstock, Georgia)
  • "TRGN LLC (Generation Opportunity)," $5,040,000 (a group aimed at Gen X that tries to pin the economic crash that began under President George W. Bush on Democrats)
  • "The National Right to Work Committee," $1,000,000 (which pushes anti-worker, union-busting measures)

Some of these groups have been directly connected to the Koch fortune by prior research, such as the Heritage Foundation's arms (which are long-time recipients of Koch money), the Center for Shared Service (which helps recruit right-wingers for jobs in the Koch network and which shares an office building with the Charles Koch Foundation) Themis and Libre (which advance Koch corporate agenda of Ayn Rand-style economic policies), and the Tea Party groups (which the Kochs initially claimed to the New Yorker's Jane Mayer that they had little to do with, despite evidence to the contrary).

Other groups were not yet tied to Koch money, like Generation Opportunity (which is aimed at college graduates struggling to find work in this economy and which attempts to blame progressive policies for the economic crisis that was actually spurred by Koch-style deregulation peddled by David Koch's Citizens for a Sounds Economy, which pressed for the repeal of Glass-Steagall protections, the predecessor group of Koch's Americans for Prosperity).

Others, such as the array of LLCs in the list in addition to the gigantic sum given to CPPR, raise additional questions about the Koch agenda and how it was spent during the last election cycle when hundreds of millions in dark money was poured into so-called issue ads and other "public education" activities that coincided with election themes.

The Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce describes itself as devoted to advancing its members "common business interests." It is a trade group organized under section 501(c)(6) of the tax group, with corporate members (which may be able to write-off part of their investment as a business expense). The question a growing number of people are asking is how the pursuit of these common business interests is actually undermining the prosperity of ordinary Americans, while advancing the interests of some of the richest few in the country.


(This article has been updated, including new links.)

Attachment
fpcoc_990_for_2011_2012_.pdf

Monday, September 23, 2013

Scandal at Clinton Inc. How Doug Band drove a wedge through a political dynasty

 

Scandal at Clinton Inc.

How Doug Band drove a wedge through a political dynasty

by Alec MacGillis | September 22, 2013

 
 



One Thursday evening last September, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Tony Blair met in New York to conduct what was supposed to be a high-minded discourse on terrorism, geopolitics, and the global economy. The setting was elegant—the beaux arts ballroom of the Essex House, an iconic tower on Central Park South. The 78-person VIP guest list included Harvey Weinstein, Eli Broad, Blackstone co-founders Steve Schwarzman and Pete Peterson, Silicon Valley impresario Sean Parker, Billie Jean King, George Pataki, and New York City police chief Ray Kelly, along with CEOs and top executives from companies like Dow Chemical, Coca-Cola, BP, and Bank of America. Somehow, these onetime world leaders, corporate titans, and other notable personages converged in the center of New York without the event ever being noticed by the press.

The guests had been wrangled, persuaded, flattered, and otherwise enticed to attend by Doug Band, a tall man with genial, unmemorable features and a deferential demeanor. In fact, the gathering was taking place in his own building, underneath his expansive eighth-floor apartment, and it represented a major triumph for him.

Twelve years earlier, at the age of 27, Band had entered Clinton’s orbit as that lowliest of Washington archetypes: the body man. He was the all-purpose aide who carried the bags, provided the pen, watched the clock, kept the cigars close, and ensured the Diet Cokes were always chilled. And after the inglorious end of Clinton’s presidency, Band had stayed on. It was he who had engineered Clinton’s transformation into a philanthropist-king, and over the years, the pair had formed a bond that was more like father and son than boss and factotum. “The most important thing about Doug is that he sort of took control of President Clinton’s career at a moment when he was dropping from about sixty percent [favorability] to thirty-nine percent,” says Paul Begala, the former Clinton adviser. “You look up today and Bill is in a league inhabited only by himself and Nelson Mandela and the Pope. He’s one of the most beloved people on the planet and an American political colossus as well. That’s just astonishing—and Doug’s been central to that.”

Now, at long last, Band was striking out alone. In 2011, he and Irish businessman Declan Kelly had launched Teneo, a corporate advisory firm that was hosting the Essex House event. As the guests of honor arrived—Bush looking trim in a royal-blue suit and lemon-yellow tie, Clinton in conservative dark gray—they were whisked upstairs for an unscheduled photo shoot with Band’s friends and family, including his wife, Lily Rafii, a stylish investment banker–turned–handbag designer, and their two young children, Max and Sophie. The detour made Clinton, Bush, and Blair late for their pre-dinner obligation—a photo line with no fewer than 60 attendees.



Courtesy of William J. Clinton Presidential Library

 
 
As a body man, Doug Band’s job was to completely inhabit Clinton’s needs and whims and moods.

 
The main event was set for 7 p.m. sharp, and protocol decreed that the three principals must not be made to wait. They were brought backstage for their entrance, and Declan Kelly took the stage. But instead of introducing his distinguished guests, he launched into a long-winded sales pitch. Teneo was the next big thing in executive consulting, he informed the audience. He played a promotional video about the firm. He introduced the heads of Teneo’s divisions, describing their résumés and asking each to stand in turn. Meanwhile, the onetime guardians of the special relationship were left loitering awkwardly in the wings. “It was unnecessarily inappropriate,” says one guest. “It was flagrant.” Bush had evidently gotten more than he had bargained for in accepting the (paid) invitation: At one point during the evening, a guest saw him shoot a glance at his aide that plainly said, What the fuck is going on?

The entire episode was pure Doug Band. He is rarely written about, almost never quoted, and many Clinton associates are loath to discuss him on the record. “Doug is taboo—no one touches the guy,” says one person who has had extensive dealings with him. On the handful of occasions he has spoken openly to the media, he has struck an impeccably humble tone. “The thing I most enjoy in my job is helping people,” he once told his college alumni magazine. “I have been able to remain behind the scenes, making a difference and changing people’s lives.” But as Band attempts to build a business of his own, the methods he once employed discreetly in the service of his boss have started to attract unwelcome attention.

Band himself did not respond to an extensive list of questions for this article, but over the course of nine months, I spoke with more than three dozen people who have worked with him over the arc of his career. Inside the realm known as Clintonland, he is the subject of considerable angst. There are those who worry about the overlap between his work for the Clinton Global Initiative— which he conceived and helped run for six years—and his energetic efforts to expand Teneo’s client base. And there are those who worry about how some of the messier aspects of the charity’s operations could create trouble for Hillary Clinton, who has made the family foundation her base as she contemplates a presidential run. But the real cause for these anxieties runs deeper. At its heart, the unease with Band reflects an unease with the phenomenon of post-presidential Clintonism itself.



Stephen Jaffe/AFP/Getty Images
 
Bill Clinton now leads a sprawling philanthropic empire like no other. The good it achieves is undeniable. It has formed partnerships with multinationals and wealthy individuals to distribute billions of dollars all over the globe. Its many innovative projects include efforts to lower the costs of medicines in developing nations and reduce greenhouse-gas emissions in major cities. And yet it’s hard to shake the sense that it’s not all about saving the world. There’s an undertow of transactionalism in the glittering annual dinners, the fixation on celebrity, and a certain contingent of donors whose charitable contributions and business interests occupy an uncomfortable proximity. More than anyone else except Clinton himself, Band is responsible for creating this culture. And not only did he create it; he has thrived in it.

There are people who are driven to Washington by ideological passion or who come to advance a particular cause. Doug Band was not one of those people. He grew up in sunny comfort in Sarasota, Florida, the youngest of four sons, and by all accounts, it was always important to him to be wherever the power players were. After rushing Sigma Phi Epsilon at the University of Florida, he was elected president of the interfraternity council for the entire campus. College administrators recall a precocious student politician who entered every meeting with a defined agenda. At the time, his close friend, David Sobelman, was puzzled by Band’s palpable ambition: “I didn’t understand what that motivation meant at that point, but obviously Doug did.”

Band would later trace his interest in politics to a campus visit by Bill Clinton and Al Gore in 1992. But when he came to Washington, it was to intern for a Republican congressman, Dan Miller. In itself, this wasn’t so strange: Sarasota belonged to a staunchly Republican county in Miller’s district, and Band’s father, a real estate developer, had supported Miller’s campaign. Still, Miller told me he was “a little surprised” when Band returned to Washington in 1995 at the age of 22 to intern in the Clinton White House.

It wasn’t long before Band knew everyone and everyone knew Band. He remembered the janitors’ first names; he joked with the women in the White House counsel’s office, where he was assigned. His ecumenical sociability extended to Monica Lewinsky. Several White House staffers were already trying to steer Clinton clear of the flirtatious intern, and Band later told Starr Report investigators that he found it “a little strange” when she showed him a tie she planned to give the president. But that December, shortly after Lewinsky and Clinton began their affair, Band accepted her invitation to escort her to the White House Congressional Ball. “He’s a nice guy,” says a former colleague from the counsel’s office. “Also, she had the tickets, and he wanted to go.”

After his internship, Band was hired by the counsel’s office as a staffer vetting judicial nominees, while earning a master’s in liberal arts and a law degree from Georgetown. It was the perfect preparation for a comfortable life in the capital’s legal circles—and so his colleagues were perplexed when Band took a job on the president’s advance team, typically a role for someone several years younger. “People felt happy for him, but one question in my mind was, as a lawyer, why would he want to do it?” recalls a former supervisor at the counsel’s office.

For Band, however, being in the thick of the action was more important than shaping it. The legal job was in the Old Executive Office Building; the advance job was in the White House. “He just wanted to be closer to the president, to really be inside the West Wing and see in a closer level of visibility how things worked,” says the former supervisor. By 2000, Band had moved up from the advance team to become Clinton’s body man.

Band’s pursuit of this path reflected a shrewd insight into the Clinton White House. Among presidential aides, the body man is referred to dismissively as the “butt boy.” But being the butt boy for Bill Clinton held more potential than it would for almost any other politician. Since Clinton was pathologically incapable of showing up on time, he needed constant management. This required, for one thing, a mastery of the politics and the issues of the moment, and Band immersed himself in the president’s briefing book accordingly. “You have to think about little tiny miniscule details and have to understand the broad strategic picture,” explains one former staff member. “If you’re trying to figure out in the moment if it’s OK to be late to that next meeting, it helps if you understand that this legislative issue takes precedence over, say, meeting the governors.”

Then there was the delicate matter of the president’s social appetite. “[Clinton] just loves being around people,” says the former staff member. “That would cause challenges, but it also feeds him as a human being, having those interactions.” Multiple times a day, Band would have to judge whether it was more constructive for Clinton to adhere strictly to the schedule or to linger on the rope line, clasping hands and telling stories. Band would later tell a Florida paper that his role with Clinton was “being him for him”—to completely inhabit his boss’s needs and whims and moods.

So adept was Band at these tasks that, when Dulé Hill was cast on “The West Wing” as Charlie Young—the character who introduced the body man into popular culture—he sought Band’s advice. Band briefed him on the surreal existence of being, simultaneously, the least important guy in the room and the person who spends more time with the president than anyone else. “You kind of forget that you’re right next to the most powerful man in the world,” Hill recalls Band explaining. “Heads of states and corporations throughout the world know you by your first name, because wherever the president is, that’s where you are.”

As his second term wound down, Clinton fell into a gloomy state. He was leaving the White House in disgrace over his last-minute pardons and owed millions of dollars in legal bills. Once again, Band surprised his colleagues by declining a job at Goldman Sachs and opting to remain as Clinton’s assistant. “It wasn’t the most glamorous time to do that job,” says the former staff member. “It was a loyalty play.” Michael Feldman, a former adviser to Vice President Gore, detected the instincts of an entrepreneur: “The connections you cultivate if you do that job—the potential is unlimited.”

In July 2001, Clinton opened an office in Harlem, on a strip of nail salons and sportswear shops. In the early months, “the phones were not ringing as much,” says Doug Sosnik, a senior adviser to Clinton in his second term. A lot of the time, it was just Band and Bill, shuttling between Harlem and Clinton’s home in Chappaqua. The former president had established the William J. Clinton Foundation, but lacked any real plan for how he would spend the years ahead. It was a tough adjustment for Clinton, but “a pretty heady time for Doug,” says his former colleague from the counsel’s office.

The young aide—now titled “counselor”—was still the bearer of the BlackBerry, which often ran out of juice before noon. But, if you were a petitioner for access to Clinton, you knew that Band had assumed the role of gatekeeper and that Clinton increasingly trusted him to know which invitations he would want to accept. “He was one of those guys who stayed till two o’clock in the morning, worked very hard, and was impeccably loyal. Both Clintons value those qualities—the loyalty, being willing to do anything, walk through the coals for you,” says a former Clinton administration official.

This was the moment of Band’s elevation from trusted aide to essential companion. In the White House, the power had lain in the office itself. But as Clinton entered his post-presidential life, “the base camp for Bill Clinton is where Bill Clinton is,” says Sosnik. “If you want to be driving the overall Clinton project, if you’re not with him, you’re not where the action is.” And Band was with him almost constantly. By his tally, he has accompanied the former president to nearly 125 countries and 2,000 cities. He was at Clinton’s bedside when he had heart bypass surgery in 2004. On the rare occasions when they weren’t together, they were known to speak on the phone dozens of times a day.


John Shinkle/Politico
 
 
Sosnik told me that there is something almost uxorial about spending so much time in Clinton’s presence. “If you’re with someone eighteen or nineteen hours a day, there can be long stretches when you’re laughing or playing cards and long stretches when you’re not talking at all. You get a sense of certain things. Like, the president’s not a morning person. There were certain things you wait to deal with, certain conversations you have at certain times of the day.” A friend of Clinton’s who has traveled with the two men recalled a Middle Eastern trip where Band canceled a meeting with some petro-royalty because he sensed Clinton needed a break. “The president said, ‘No, no.’ [Doug] said, ‘No sir, you need to rest.’ ... The guy who had the meeting wasn’t thrilled.”

Clinton, in turn, lived vicariously through Band, goading him for tales of the bachelor’s life. This was not, however, a relationship of equals. During marathon card games, Clinton would sometimes muse, “I used to be the leader of the free world,” says the Clinton friend—“in jest, but . . . kind of serious, too.”

Through his boss, Band received his entrée into the billionaire boys club that was Clinton’s post-presidential social circle. The pair often traveled on the Boeing 757 of supermarket mogul Ron Burkle, who had taken Clinton on as a partner in his private-equity firm, Yucaipa, and who has estimated that he spent about 500 hours a year with Clinton in this period. Another close buddy was Democratic donor and Hollywood producer Steve Bing. Vanity Fair would later run a suggestive piece about Clinton’s wilding period in these years, noting Burkle and Bing’s playboy reputations and identifying Band as enabler of the hijinks on what Burkle staffers referred to as “Air Fuck One.” Sosnik, however, says Band was never “part of the rat pack on the road,” adding, “In my time, Doug was always on the side of taking care of business.”

Band and Clinton were so inseparable that Band sometimes framed requests to colleagues using the royal “us” or “we.” Naturally, people assumed he was referring to his boss. “In some part of his mind, he melded them into being one person,” says a longtime Clinton associate. “You thought that, if he said something, it was coming from the top. ... If he called and said, ‘We need tulips for the apartment,’ you assumed it was the president who needed tulips for his apartment.” However, the associate believes that, at least in some cases, Band was presenting his own preferences as those of Clinton. For instance, he says that it was Band, not Clinton, who insisted on frequenting luxury hotels and restaurants on the road. “[Clinton] could stay in the Motel 6—he doesn’t care, he’s from Arkansas!” the associate says. But for Band, “it has to be the Bellagio. The perception was that it was what the president wants. But the president doesn’t care about that stuff.” The associate adds: “The question is, when did [Band] believe, ‘Hey, I’m an equal, and I should share the fruits of this?’ ”

Not everyone in Clintonland was thrilled at Band’s ascent. “He can come across as pretty harshly judgmental,” says a former senior aide to Hillary Clinton. “You could fill Shea Stadium with people who haven’t heard from Doug, or heard something they didn’t want to hear, or heard something that alienates them.” John Podesta, the former Clinton White House chief of staff, explains: “The president gets like a zillion requests to do stuff, and Doug’s the guy who’s had to say no to nine hundred ninety-nine—what’s one less than a zillion? That rubbed some people the wrong way.” Sometimes, people would try to bypass Band and appeal to Clinton directly, but this was tricky—Clinton didn’t use e-mail, and Band was nearly always there. Even if you did manage to reach Clinton, Band could bring him around to his view when they were alone again.

Maggie Williams, the foundation’s chief of staff (and Hillary’s former White House chief of staff), balked at Band’s habit of circumventing her authority. In 2004, according to the Clinton associate, Williams, backed by Hillary, informed Band that he needed to leave. But Band, backed by Bill, refused to go. In the end, it was Williams who left. “That’s when I realized, this guy has got it figured out—he’s never going to go away,” says the Clinton associate. (Williams now downplays the conflict, telling me: “We were in a start-up. We had a lot to do, too few hours in the day to do it, not enough people to help, and sometimes we had different ideas about how to get the work done, and it made us extremely cranky.”)

It was on one of their many trips together that Band hit upon the way to lift Clinton out of the murk of the early post-presidency. As Begala tells it, the idea came to Band at that font of grand ideas, Davos. Given that Clinton’s political stock was still languishing, Band was “astonished with the billionaires and CEOs standing in line to talk to him,” Begala says. “He was rigorously assessing the president’s strengths and attributes and maximizing them. I remember him saying, ‘The president has a convening power, the power to bring people together.’ ” Why not create an annual event that harnessed the desire of wealthy celebrities to get close to Clinton to advance the aims of his foundation? Thus, in 2005, the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) was born.


Getty Images
 
 
As [Band]  grew in the job and the job became bigger, he still did the crap work ,” says a former colleague.

 
CGI is not a traditional charity—unlike Clinton’s foundation, it does not dispense money of its own. Instead, it is a series of collaborations with corporations or individuals to solve global problems, anchored by an annual conference that costs $20,000 to attend. In the past eight years, CGI has secured pledges worth $74 billion. (By comparison, the Gates Foundation has given away $28 billion since its inception in 1994.) As conceived by Band, CGI was the perfect vehicle for Clinton. It allowed him to train his intellect on wonky dilemmas—improving China’s power grid, bolstering Mali’s market for locally produced rice. And it placed him at the center of a matrix of the ultra-wealthy and the ultra-powerful, the kinds of people Clinton has always taken a special pleasure in surrounding himself with.

CGI operates like an economy in which celebrity is the main currency. For Clinton, there is the appeal of tackling existential challenges by striking a deal, one on one, with the right influential person. He could help expand access to health care for millions, thanks to the whim of a billionaire like Saudi Arabia’s Sheik Mohammed Al Amoudi; or get $30 million in loan guarantees to finance clean water utilities in India, via Dow Chemical; or $100 million for small-business development in Africa, courtesy of Shell. Clinton “has this abiding faith that, if you get the right people in the room together, magical things will happen,” says Priscilla Phelps, who was the housing expert for the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission, which Clinton co-chaired. In some cases, such as securing agreements for carbon-emissions reductions, the solving-by-convening model has produced impressive results. In others, such as the Haiti commission, which held only seven meetings to little effect, it has not. (Phelps told me that “the practicalities of what happens after those smart people leave the conference room and cocktail hour is not [Clinton’s] specialty at all.”)

For corporations, attaching Clinton’s brand to their social investments offered a major p.r. boost. As further incentive, they could hope for a kind word from Clinton the next time they landed in a sticky spot. “Coca-Cola or Dow or whoever would come to the president,” explains a former White House colleague of Band’s, “and say, ‘We need your help on this.’ ” Negotiating these relationships, and the trade-offs they required, could involve some gray areas. But for that, Clinton had Band.

As for Band, he was right where he’d always wanted to be. He solicited pledges from wealthy donors and doled out access to Clinton. He determined who got to be on stage with him and for how long, who got into the photo line, who rode on the plane. “If you look at CGI, it was an idea, and now it’s a huge business,” says the Clinton friend. “[Band] started realizing he had all this talent on the business side.” More than that, Band came to see entrepreneurial opportunities embedded within CGI itself. “When they were raising money for the foundation, Doug was the one who kept the tabs and the lists and cut the deals,” says the former White House colleague. “And Doug is very transactional.”

From outward appearances, Band had transcended his body-man beginnings at startling speed. In 2003, he had purchased a $2.1 million condo in the sought-after Metropolitan Tower on West 57th Street. His salary from the Clinton Foundation remained relatively modest—$110,000 by the time he left in 2011, plus an additional payment from Clinton’s personal office. Yet his official salary didn’t account for the ways in which he benefited financially from his singular relationship with Clinton. According to The Wall Street Journal, Burkle’s Yucaipa had been supplementing Band’s income for some time, paying him via a Florida company Band created in 2001 named SGRD, for the four Band brothers’ first initials. (Band later established several more such partnerships.)

At first, Clinton had no problem with this sort of thing. The income from Burkle had been arranged with his knowledge, to keep Band from pursuing more lucrative employment. “The president trusted [Band’s] judgment and trusted him personally,” Sosnik told me. (Clinton declined to comment for this article.) Plus, Clinton was notoriously blasé about financial matters. “He doesn’t care about money,” the Clinton friend told me. “He doesn’t even have a credit card. When he wants to get something he says, ‘Wow, I love that,’ and whoever he’s with says, ‘Here it is!’ ” Band’s former White House colleague agrees that Clinton “has never worried a heck of a lot about that stuff. It’s more about, ‘Who’s loyal, who’s helping me, who’s delivering value?’ and not, ‘Are they doing really well for themselves on the side?’ ”

But there were signs that Band also sought out such opportunities independently. The longtime Clinton associate was approached by a company interested in having the former president speak at a conference and asked Band for guidance. (Between 2001 and 2013, Clinton received $106 million in speaking fees.) Band explained that the company should pay a certain sum to Clinton’s speaker’s agency and ideally contribute a certain sum to CGI or the foundation. Of course, he told the associate, the company should “also pay you for having made that happen”—as if that were simply the way things were done. “Doug has always been reasonably commercial, let’s just say,” says his former White House colleague. “He was a gatekeeper who charged tolls.”

And questions were surfacing about some of the people getting through the gate. There was London businessman Victor Dahdaleh, who touted Clinton as a close friend and gave the foundation around $5 million in 2010. The next year, British authorities charged him with bribing a Bahraini company, for as much as $9.5 million. (The trial has been delayed until November.) There was Canadian businessman Frank Giustra, who often made his luxury jet available to Clinton and Band. In 2005, Giustra and Clinton overlapped on a visit to Kazakhstan, and at a dinner, Clinton praised the country’s autocratic ruler, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Days later, according to The New York Times, Giustra secured a huge uranium-mining deal in the country. In early 2006, Giustra donated $31.3 million to the foundation, followed by another $100 million pledge. (He also “co-produced” Clinton’s sixtieth birthday party in Toronto, which raised another $21 million.)

The most embarrassing association of all was Raffaello Follieri. The saga of the Italian striver who duped the Clintons has been unspooled by the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, The Wall Street Journal, and Vanity Fair. But if anything, Band’s role in the affair has been understated, and it offers an illuminating study in the art of relationship leverage. Follieri descended on New York in 2003, 25 years old and exuding Continental glamour. Soon, he started dating Anne Hathaway. He claimed that, through a Vatican connection, he had been delegated to develop some of the Catholic Church’s choicest North American properties, to help the church pay off bills associated with its sex-abuse scandals.

In early 2005, Follieri expressed interest in writing a generous check to Clinton’s foundation. A meeting with Band was arranged, but somehow the conversation turned from a potential contribution by Follieri to a potential investment by Yucaipa in Follieri’s venture. Burkle eventually agreed to put in as much as $105 million.
Follieri courted Band by playing on his taste for the high life. In Band’s early days in New York, a night out meant pizza and beer with old White House pals. Now, he was a regular at Cipriani and frequented A-list nightclubs like Bungalow 8. He wasn’t much of a drinker—he just liked being on the scene. For a while, he had dated supermodel Naomi Campbell. (“He’s never had any difficulty being able to attract quite good-looking women,” says his former colleague from the White House counsel’s office. “He just charmed her.”) He had been eager to obtain American Express’s invitation-only black card for high-rollers, says one person who’s been out on the town with him, and when he finally got one, he would slap it down on the table at group outings. He had been known to carry cash in rolls of $100 bills. He also had a canny method of landing a table at the most exclusive spots, says the former White House colleague. He would make a reservation for “President Clinton” and then arrive with his own entourage—and no Bill. The owner of one downtown restaurant eventually barred Band from its “love list” for pulling this stunt one too many times. “[The owner] comes and says, ‘Fuck, Doug keeps making reservations under Clinton’s name, and half the time Doug shows up with his friends,’ ” says the former White House colleague. “They were like, life’s too short, and wouldn’t take his reservation anymore.”

By the time Follieri arrived in town, Band was seeing Lily Rafii, who was then in mergers and acquisitions at Morgan Stanley. Follieri invited the couple to dine with him and Hathaway at Cipriani, Nobu Fifty-Seven, and Koi, and introduced them to his Euro jet set. “Band was exposed to another universe,” says Melanie Bonvicino, a publicist who befriended Follieri and worked for him at times. “The cosmetics of it worked for everybody.”

With Band’s help, Follieri got meetings with, among others, Clinton himself, Burkle, and Carlos Slim, the richest man in the world, aboard Slim’s yacht in the Sea of Cortez. Slim declined to invest, but another introduction paid off: Through another Clinton contact, Keith Stein, Band hooked Follieri up with Michael Cooper, the head of Toronto-based Dundee Realty Corporation, who kicked in $6 million.

After Cooper invested, Follieri wired $400,000 to one of Band’s SGRD partnerships. Band has said that the money was a finder’s fee that he split with Stein for helping make the introduction and that he only accepted it at Follieri’s insistence. (Stein and Cooper declined to comment.) But March 2006 e-mails show Band seeking the payment from Follieri in business-like fashion. The typo-filled messages also indicate that Follieri viewed it as compensation for Band’s assistance in netting an investment from Slim. On March 11, Follieri wrote Band: “Tonight I have a boring dinner with the foundation of the queen of Sweden.” Band replied: “Ouch. Going to budakan at 9.
Come when your done. In meatpacking district.” On March 22, Band sent a “bill for consulting services for the amount of $400,000.00” to Follieri’s Channel Islands–based subsidiary. The next day, Follieri replied: “The transfer it is done, do you think I call Carlos son in law?” On March 28, Band wrote: “My bank never received the wire.” Follieri’s reply: “I going to call our bank now, end I let you know.”

At the 2006 CGI summit, Clinton announced that Follieri would fund an effort to provide Hepatitis A vaccines to 10,000 Honduran children and a “$50 million commitment to provide free prescription-drug cards to needy Americans.” Neither donation was fulfilled before Follieri’s charade unraveled. In early 2007, Yucaipa sued him for misappropriating $1.3 million of its investment for his personal use. The money had been spent on, among other things, a $37,000-per-month apartment and a $107,000 chartered jet to join the Clintons at Oscar de la Renta’s Dominican Republic estate. “Everyone kept saying, ‘How did he get through to Clinton?’ ” says Don Onyschuk, the vice-chancellor of the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of Toronto, which was drawn into the Dundee deal. “It was through Doug Band and the pledge made to the foundation.”

Band has said that the Church vouched for Follieri, which its officials have denied. Band has also said he returned the payment from Follieri to Cooper. But he only did so around June 2007, several months after Yucaipa filed its lawsuit and about the same time that Il Sole 2 Ore started calling. In the end, Follieri settled with Yucaipa, but in 2008, federal prosecutors charged him with fraud, conspiracy, and money laundering. He pled guilty a few months later, forfeited $2.44 million, and was sentenced to federal prison in Pennsylvania. (Follieri, who was released in May, did not respond to a request to comment.)

Band emerged from the episode seemingly unscathed. As the Follieri story was emerging, he and Rafii married in France at the seventeenth-century Chateau of Vaux le Vicomte. Clinton, Bing, and Burkle flew into Paris for a dazzling ceremony capped with a fireworks display. Band bashfully told The Gainesville Sun that he had begged his boss not to come, but “not only did he come, he made this incredible speech.” And in February 2008, Clinton praised Band to The Washington Post. “I’m amazed he still works for me because he could make a lot more money somewhere else,” he said. For his part, Band offered self-effacing reasons for his years at Clinton’s side. “You break into this kind of work by believing in the inherent value and good of public service,” he explained to a reporter at around this time. “You get out of it what you put into it.”
But as Clinton hit the campaign trail to stump for Hillary in the Democratic primary, people were once again questioning Band’s judgment. More than once, he failed to prevent Clinton’s dyspeptic outbursts against the Obama campaign. When Clinton lashed out at a reporter in Nevada, Band stood at his shoulder, his face diffident, making no attempt to move him along.

If anything, his total mind meld with Clinton was part of the problem. Both men were convinced Hillary was flailing because she wasn’t attacking Obama more aggressively. “What the president needs is someone to say, ‘I heard you, you’re right, but you should not be the one delivering that message, let’s figure out who should be doing that,’ ” says the former White House colleague. “With Doug, it was more about getting the president more fired up than he needed to be.” Or, as the Clinton friend puts it, “At the end of the day, Doug is massively loyal to the president, and doing what’s best for the president is sometimes not what’s best for Hillary.” (Sosnik defends Band, arguing that Bill’s behavior was his own doing: “He was a little rusty.”)

Band had a key ally on Hillary’s team: Huma Abedin. Bill’s body man and Hillary’s body woman had bonded over their loyalty to their bosses. They were known to show up at parties together, which some saw as an endearing big brother–little sister dynamic, and which others interpreted as evidence that Abedin had a crush on Band. They also had an ingenious method of collecting intelligence on each other’s behalf. Abedin would sidle up to someone in Bill’s camp and, in a confiding tone, make a disparaging remark about Band. If it was reciprocated, she would relay the criticisms to Band and he would do the same for her, says someone who fell for this technique. “They had each other’s back a lot,” says the former White House colleague.

Still, the alliance did not prevent Hillary’s campaign team from demanding that Clinton be accompanied on the trail by a more seasoned minder. Band objected, says the former Clinton administration official. “His vocal reason was, ‘He doesn’t need a handler, he’s the best political mind, dadadadada.’ But the reality was he did need someone.”

After the election, Band’s relationship with Clinton entered a hybrid phase. He still traveled with Bill when he was needed: In August 2009, he accompanied Clinton to North Korea to retrieve two American women who had been imprisoned there. In one of the more surreal official photos of all time, Clinton and Kim Jong-il sit stiffly in front of a kitschy tsunami backdrop. Standing directly behind the diminutive North Korean dictator is Band. In another picture, he is walking between the two women across the tarmac to a waiting jet (on loan from Steve Bing), hoisting their largest duffel. The two images captured Band’s role perfectly. He was in the innermost circle, and he was still carrying people’s bags. Sosnik told me: “As he grew in the job and the job became bigger, he still did the crap work. There was no discussion of it.”

And yet the signs were suggesting that it was time for Band to emerge from Clinton’s shadow. He was starting a family, and his financial arrangement with Burkle was in doubt, since Clinton had moved to end his business ties with the California billionaire in 2007. By this point, Band had been professionally submerging his identity within Clinton’s for a decade. A senior Democrat in Washington observed: “What I’ve always said to Doug is that it’s vital to become your own person. It’s not really healthy to be a body person, a staffer, your whole life.”

So Band branched out, in more ways than one. During the campaign, he had sold his apartment in the Metropolitan Tower and purchased the Essex House condominium, for $7.1 million. In 2009, he added an adjoining eighth-floor unit, purchased for $1.7 million. The expanded apartment was painted in the vibrant colors that Rafii loves, and a huge ego wall was installed, covered in letters and signed pictures. Around this time, he also decided to establish a business of his own.

Band had already shown that he could be quite brazen in invoking his Clinton ties in a personal capacity. One stark example came in 2009, when the U.S. Postal Service exercised a purchase option on the Sarasota post office building, which was owned by Band’s father and another family. The owners refused to sell, arguing that the price should be higher than the $825,000 the Post Office had offered. Then, Band placed a phone call to Alan Kessler, a longtime Clinton ally and a member of the Postal Service Board of Governors. According to the Postal Service inspector general and documents I obtained under a Freedom of Information request, Kessler urged top Postal Service officials to pay more for the building. Postal Service General Counsel Mary Anne Gibbons recalled to investigators that Kessler told her Band had White House connections and “could run up to Capitol Hill and thwart the Postal Service.” A colleague of Band’s in Clinton’s post-presidential office whose name was redacted from documents also contacted Gibbons, clearly signaling where the overture was coming from: “I work for President Clinton. His Counselor, Doug Band, asked that I set up a call with you ... ” After the inspector general found that Kessler had failed to uphold his duty to the Postal Service, Kessler resigned in July 2011. Nevertheless, in order to curb its legal costs, the Postal Service settled the sale with the two families for $1.06 million.

When Band launched Teneo, he deployed his Clinton connections on a grander scale. In 2010, he, Declan Kelly, and a third partner registered the first of several entities in Delaware that would become Teneo. Band and Kelly had met during the 2008 campaign when Kelly was fund-raising for Hillary. Kelly had previously owned a p.r. firm, and the plan was for Band to offer the kind of strategic savvy he’d provided to Clinton. “He’s particularly useful to the CEOs,” says Podesta.

Teneo has its headquarters on the forty-fifth floor of the former Citigroup Center tower in Midtown and employs more than 200 people in 13 cities, including Dubai, Hong Kong, and São Paolo. It describes its raison d’être as “integrated counsel for a borderless world,” offering investment banking, restructuring advice, and “business intelligence” on dealing with “global disruptors.” According to its website, Teneo has “advised on more than $525 billion of M&A transactions, served presidents and political leaders all over the globe, and counseled the leaders of many of the largest and most complex corporations in the world.”

From the beginning, Teneo resembled an outpost of Clintonland more than an independent entity. Clinton and Blair came on as paid advisers. One of the firm’s managing directors is the former CEO of the horse-racing and gambling empire belonging to the family of Belinda Stronach, a Canadian former politician whose friendship with Clinton has been the subject of considerable speculation. Nancy Hernreich Bowen, director of Oval Office operations under Clinton, works in the Hong Kong office. Last year, Abedin signed on with the firm, providing, in her own words, “strategic advice and consulting services to the firm’s management team” as well as helping to “organize a major annual firm event.” (The Senate Judiciary Committee is investigating whether her work conflicted with her position as a paid State Department consultant.)

A number of key Teneo clients were also closely involved with Clinton’s charitable work. One month before the Rockefeller Foundation presented Clinton with an award for philanthropy, it gave Teneo a $3.4 million contract to propose “tangible solutions to global problems.” Another early client was Coca-Cola, which helped build the distribution system for medicine in Tanzania, Mozambique, and Ghana, for a CGI project. Band has served on Coca-Cola’s international advisory board, and a former Coke CEO, Donald Keough, chairs the boutique investment bank Allen & Co., which holds a financial interest in Teneo. Other Teneo clients include the big hospital chain Tenet (which is a lead partner in the new Clinton Health Matters Initiative) and UBS Americas (which launched a Small Business Advisory Program with the foundation). “What Doug has ended up doing, if you sort of step back and look at it, is that he has met some of the most influential people in the world through President Clinton and has ended up building a business dealing with and helping those people,” says the Clinton friend.

Of course, it was only natural that Band would tap his existing network. What is striking is the extent to which Teneo’s business model depends on his relationship with Clinton. Band’s former White House colleague says Teneo is essentially a p.r. firm that is able to charge above-market rates because it persuades executives that Band and the ties he brings are an essential service. “If they were paying $25,000 or $40,000 a month for p.r., then $100,000 a month, from the eyes of the CEO, ... it’s not going to crush him,” says the former colleague. (According to The New York Times, Teneo’s monthly fees can be as high as $250,000.) The longtime Clinton associate says that Band’s pitch to clients was that he was “able to fly around [with Clinton] and decide who flies around with him. ... The whole thing is resting on his access.”

A few months into Teneo’s existence, it began to present difficulties for the Clintons. In late 2011, it emerged that the company had been paid $125,000 per month in consulting fees by MF Global, the brokerage firm that lost $600 million of its investors’ money. There were reports that Hillary Clinton was upset about potential conflicts between Teneo’s overseas clients and her work as secretary of state. In February 2012, Bill Clinton’s office announced that he would no longer take payment from the firm. The page listing an “advisory board” headed by Clinton and Blair vanished from its website.

Bill Clinton was having deeper misgivings, say several people close to the situation. It was becoming difficult to ignore how aggressively Band was working his Clinton connections on Teneo’s behalf. Some of its biggest clients, such as Dow Chemical, were the same companies whose CEOs Band had done special favors for at CGI: getting them on stage with Clinton, relaxing the background checks for credentials, or providing slots in the photo line. In Teneo’s first year, anyone on the payroll or client list got full access to CGI, plus coveted backstage passes, according to someone closely involved in CGI. To obtain extra credentials, Band would make a call and the tickets would be FedEx-ed overnight. At CGI’s September 2011 summit in New York, two suites were reserved upstairs from the conference at the New York Sheraton for meetings with top donors and heads of state. But when the Chinese ambassador was brought upstairs for a meeting, CGI officials found both suites occupied—one by Band, one by Kelly, who were pitching potential clients. After that, Teneo lost its special access.

A month later, Clinton got a firsthand taste of Teneo’s promotional style. He had been invited to the Global Irish Economic Forum in Dublin by Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny. Declan Kelly was also on the speaking schedule, and, according to one person with close knowledge of the event, Kelly’s remarks suggested that it was Teneo that had brought Clinton to Ireland. Clinton went ashen, according to this person, and later exploded in anger, railing that Kelly had embarrassed him in front of the prime minister. (Kelly did not respond to a request to comment.)

At around the same time, Clinton was receiving reports of just how boldly Band had been offering his consulting services to major donors to CGI or the foundation, according to two people close to the foundation. According to these people, Band’s pitch left the donors with the distinct impression that Clinton had encouraged the donors to avail themselves of Band’s services. Among the people who Band may have approached, Clinton was told, was media mogul Haim Saban, who has donated more than $10 million to the foundation. Through a spokesman, Saban denied that Band had made such a pitch. However, one person close to the foundation says that Band’s consulting for donors came to the fore in a 2011 audit of the foundation’s finances by a New York law firm. The second person close to the foundation says that one major donor complained directly to Clinton that he had been writing large checks to Band and was upset that his access to Clinton had decreased. “The president was furious.”
As Band’s relationship with Clinton deteriorated, he sought public ways to demonstrate that nothing had changed. In September 2011, the White House made overtures to secure Clinton’s participation in Obama’s reelection campaign. The first step, it was deemed, would be a round of golf. The initial thinking in the White House was to include Joe Biden, an old Clinton chum.

Band was involved in the planning, and he sensed an opportunity to raise his profile. According to people aware of the discussions, he started talking up a different arrangement: a game with the two presidents, Bill Daley (Obama’s then–chief of staff and a former Clinton Cabinet member) and himself. The proposal had a certain symmetry—the current president, the former president, and their top aides. Daley expressed interest, and the plan acquired its own momentum. The White House wasn’t happy, but it knew that Band still controlled access to Clinton. The upshot was that the vice president was bounced and Band got into the frame. (Daley told me he was unaware of any plotting to exclude Biden.) “Once he got Daley on board, it was just a matter of time before he could get to pushing out the vice president,” says one person close to the negotiations. “Doug was on a separate track.” The round was held, to much media fanfare, on a muggy Saturday on the links at Andrews Air Force Base.

Clinton was thrilled to find that the Obama team wanted to deploy him to full advantage. Throughout the campaign, however, Band was unwilling to let bygones be bygones. He demanded that the Obama team help pay off Hillary’s 2008 campaign debt as a condition of Bill’s assistance. Though he had no campaign experience, he objected to the locations that the Obama campaign wanted Clinton to visit. He insisted that Clinton spend more time in Florida (Band’s home state), rather than being dispatched to, say, Minnesota. He tussled with Obama’s people about who would speak first or second in joint appearances. Band’s relations with Obama strategist David Plouffe were “disastrous,” says one high-ranking Democratic source. “Doug made everything harder than it needed to be,” says the source. “Dealing with the Clinton world always had something to do with what Doug wanted. You had to go through a big process and suck up to Doug, and he had to tell you for a long time how stupid you were.”

Eventually, the source says, a couple of senior campaign officials told Clinton about the problem. “Most people in that role ... usually reflect [their] boss. Doug did not reflect his boss. Clinton is easy to work with and likes to get stuff done,” says the source. “I would be surprised if Clinton had a full assessment of how difficult Doug was.” For a while, Band was “still trying to be part of things,” the source adds.
Eventually, though, his gatekeeper role was passed to other Clinton aides. Meanwhile, Band’s reputation inside the Obama campaign became outright toxic after The New Yorker reported that he planned to vote for Mitt Romney, which Band denied.

By the election’s end, Band’s standing in Clintonland had visibly declined. In January, he went off the payroll of Clinton’s personal office, though not without negotiations about whether he would be allowed to keep his valuable presidentclinton.com e-mail address. His role within CGI was also the subject of dispute. The foundation stopped paying him in 2011, but he remained on CGI’s advisory board. Tensions simmered between Band and Chelsea Clinton, who has assumed a more active role in what is now officially the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. Chelsea, who once felt only fondness for Band as a trusted member of her family’s circle, came to worry that the overlap between the foundation and Band’s business interests could backfire on the Clintons. Podesta, who came in to put the foundation’s house in order in 2011, says, of the grumbling about Band: “There was a kind of capacity issue. You can’t do everything.”

Meanwhile, Hillary’s adoption of the foundation as a temporary perch this year has left even less space for Band. “Hillary and Chelsea’s view was, Look, if you’re going to work for the foundation you should work for the foundation and nothing else,” says the Clinton friend. “But for Doug, it was hard, because he’s been involved in it from the beginning. It was, Yeah, come on man, I can do both.” He added, “I don’t think [Chelsea] was wrong. In the past, no one would care what he was doing, dealing with all those people. Today, the last thing anyone wants is noise.”

Bill Clinton tried to smooth things over in a March 2012 statement, writing, “I couldn’t have accomplished half of what I have in my post presidency without Doug Band.”1 (The New York Times reported that Band helped edit the statement.)2 Likewise, Hillary’s camp has struck a conciliatory tone. “While she recognizes that after years of putting her family first, Doug’s family must be his priority, she appreciates the support he continues to provide to the president and the Foundation,” one long-term Hillary adviser wrote in an e-mail.

These days, Clinton and Band now speak only every couple of months when they run into each other at events, such as a fund-raiser Band co-hosted for Terry McAuliffe in February. “It’s gone from being a surrogate son relationship to an awkward thickness when they’re in the room together,” says one person with close knowledge of the relationship who has witnessed this dynamic firsthand. “It’s like when your wife cheats on you, and after the divorce, you have to see them at the friend’s wedding or at the supermarket. There’s a strangeness to it.”

This person says the two men have had “tense conversations” and that Clinton is deeply pained by his aide’s efforts to capitalize on their relationship. Others close to Clinton have also observed a distinct chill between them. As always, however, Clinton detests confrontation. “It’s hard for him,” says the person with close knowledge of the relationship. “At some points in his career, he spent more time with Doug than he did with his own wife. They knew everything about each other, he loved seeing Doug’s family, loved the stories and the antics. And then, to have it turn into ‘your adoptive son has run away.’ ... It burns him internally, and his way to deal with it is not to talk about it.”

Of course, it is very much in Band’s interest to downplay any animosity. “Doug’s currency is as a Clinton guy,” says Band’s former White House colleague. “Doug has developed a network that stands on his own—the number of people who know him around town and around Washington and around the world is pretty big. But what they think of him is as a person who knows President Clinton and is close to President Clinton.” Band and Teneo now have a large payroll riding on that image.

Band’s friends say he has entered a new chapter of his life—less concerned with politics and more focused on Max and Sophie, whom he speaks about in near-reverential terms. In late June, he added more room for his growing family (he and Lily are expecting their third child), purchasing another eighth-floor unit in the Essex House for $1.5 million. “There’s good in the world that he has done, and now his family and his friends are his real focus,” says Sobelman. “When we talk, it’s more:

How’s work? It’s going well. Now, let’s talk football.” Band is also teaching an occasional class at New York University where he is billed as “the Honorable Doug Band”; the syllabus kicks off with a Politico piece describing him as “by far [Clinton’s] most powerful aide.”

The ultimate measure of Band’s place in Clintonland will come if Hillary runs for president. Some in Clinton circles predict that Band would, for once, remain outside the action, doing no more than fund-raising. “There are a lot of people jockeying for position and Doug is a little bit on the sidelines,” says the former White House colleague. “It’s good to have someone around Clinton who is a little less ‘us against them,’ a little more ‘we’re all in this together.’ ” But others believe Band would be right back at Clinton’s side if given the chance, despite all that has come between them. “You never really leave ... because you don’t want to,” says Begala. “I’m sure if the bell rings again, Doug will come running.”

Alec MacGillis is a senior editor at The New Republic.
 
Source URL: http://www.newrepublic.com//article/114790/how-doug-band-drove-wedge-through-clinton-dynasty