In the Right

Fifteen years ago, when I was a staffer at ACU, the staff affectionately referred to Keene as "Papa Doc," after Haiti's infamous "President for Life."

The American Conservative Union Board of Directors is hand-picked by Keene, and ACU is run as a benevolent dictatorship.

In other words, Keene's not going anywhere he doesn't want to go.

Nor, frankly, should he.

Contrary to the criticism offered by bloggers who weren't even alive when Keene was manning the parapets in defense of conservatism, he has done no damage to ACU's core functions.

ACU is known for two things in Washington: Its annual ratings of the Congress, and, hosting the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), the largest annual gathering of conservatives in the nation's capital.

Neither the integrity of the ratings nor attendance at CPAC is likely to be diminished by the Allen piece and the attendant conservative bloggerwauling.

The Allen piece alleges, essentially, that ACU tried to wheedle millions of dollars out of FedEx, and, when that failed, then switched sides in a major legislative battle, publicly throwing its support instead to FedEx's chief business rival, United Parcel Service.

As evidence, Allen offers two letters.

The first is signed by ACU Executive Vice President Dennis Whitfield, and was sent to FedEx Vice President Rick Rodgers and CC: ed to former ACU Board member Charlie Black, ACU Development Director Heather Madden, and ACU Government Relations Director Larry Hart. Dated June 30, it details what ACU could do to help FedEx in exchange for $3.4 million in contributions. Keene's name does not appear on this letter as either a signer, or as a recipient of a copy circulated.

The second letter was circulated by former Sen. Malcolm Wallop and George Landrith of Frontiers of Freedom, and was signed by Keene and seven other leaders of conservative organizations -- Wallop and Landrith, Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, Chuck Muth of Citizen Outreach, Jim Martin of 60+, Karen Kerrigan of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, and Duane Parde of the National Taxpayers Union.

Dated July 15, the letter was sent to FedEx chairman Fred Smith. It demands that FedEx stop using the word "bailout" in its public relations campaign against UPS.

This looks like a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy -- like the farmer who mistakenly believes that because the rooster crows and then the sun rises, the rooster's crow caused the sun to rise.

The allegation is that because FedEx failed to respond favorably to ACU's request for funds, and then ACU supported FedEx's rival, it was FedEx's refusal to pony up that caused Keene to sign the letter bashing FedEx for using the term "bailout."

That charge is premised on the belief that Keene knew about the Whitfield letter to FedEx, and that Keene knew the Whitfield proposal to FedEx had been rejected -- absent knowledge of the rejection of the solicitation, vengeance would have been impossible. This only makes sense if you think Keene would publicly act out of spite, and acted out his spite by deliberately signing on to a letter siding with FedEx's rival.

I spent six years -- most of the Clinton presidency -- working for David Keene at the ACU, and I can attest to the fact that it is at least possible that Keene did not even know about the Whitfield letter to Rodgers, let alone know that the solicitation had been rejected.

How can this be? Because, simply put, Keene is a part-time chairman, and typically does not concern himself with the fundraising side of ACU business.

Keep in mind, Keene draws no salary as chairman of the ACU Board. Nor does he draw large expense reimbursements.

He volunteers his time for ACU.

That's not to say Keene gets no benefit -- of course he does. Being the chairman of the American Conservative Union is a relatively high profile position in Washington's political firmament, and that benefits his ability to ply his trade as a lobbyist.

Nevertheless, Keene does not concern himself with fundraising for ACU -- and, besides, ACU raises the huge majority of its funds through direct mail, rather than through high-dollar individual, corporate, and foundation fundraising.

Why? Because it's organized under the Internal Revenue Code as a 501(C)(4) social welfare and lobbying organization, for which contributions are not tax-deductible ... and because, I believe, fund-raising via direct mail means that the extent of Keene's involvement in the fund-raising process is limited to approving the mail pieces created for ACU by ACU's vendors.

One ACU board member told me on background that, in fact, Keene did not know about the Whitfield letter before he agreed to sign the Wallop letter.

I tried to confirm that with a call to Brent Littlefield, who is listed as the contact on a press statement released by ACU on Friday afternoon, several hours after conservative outlets had already begun beating the drums.

Littlefield had the courteous young man who answered the phone refer me back to the Friday statement, in which Whitfield denies Allen's charges.

If Littlefield had been willing to brave my call, and had been able to confirm on the record that Keene didn't know of the Whitfield letter when he agreed to sign on to Wallop's letter, we could have put the matter to rest here and now.

At least, that is, the matter of the alleged vengeful "flip flop" -- because there's still the matter of the Keene signature on the Wallop letter, and the disturbingly detailed "pay to play" proposal outlined in the Whitfield letter to Rodgers.

First, to the Wallop letter.

Many conservative bloggers on Friday were outraged that Keene and his co-signers would sign on to any letter siding with UPS against FedEx on the issue at hand.

They linked to George Will's Thursday column by way of explanation.

Without going into too much detail, here's my quickest explanation of the policy fight: UPS is trying to "level the playing field" in its package-delivery competition with FedEx by using government to raise the costs to its competitor. FedEx is fighting back by accusing UPS of seeking a government "bailout" -- despite the fact that no taxpayer funds would be given to UPS, the generally accepted definition of the term.

Queried about his signature on the Wallop letter, Norquist explained simply, "The letter specifically refuses to take sides in the FedEx/UPS fight. It just criticizes the misuse of the term 'bailout.' 'Bailout,' like 'tax hikes,' can only remain toxic if we police misuse of the word."

Muth went even farther: "Will is wrong," he wrote me. "I've been on this issue ever since Limbaugh read on-air the original op-ed the Washington Times inked weeks ago. By the time the letter from George Landrith got to me, I had already set up a dedicated blog on this issue: www.FedExcess.info. I may be the only one on that letter who thinks the FedEx campaign is disingenuous and that FedEx is wrong on this issue."

Fair enough.

But that still leaves the disturbingly detailed Whitfield proposal to Rodgers -- a solicitation letter that reads more like a detailed proposal for services from one of Washington's high-end grassroots lobbying firms than it reads like a fundraising appeal.

Whitfield's letter specifically included this potential benefit, should FedEx fork over the dough: "Producing op-eds and articles written by ACU's Chairman David Keene and/or other members of ACU's Board of Directors. (Note that Mr. Keene writes a weekly column that appears in The Hill.)"

No, it doesn't specifically promise an article in any particular publication, but the questioning and speculation must have Keene grinding his teeth.

But, gnashing his teeth or not, David Keene has committed no cardinal sin, and his chairmanship of ACU appears to be safe. For now.

DISCLAIMER: When I write about the politicians in my past, CQ Politics says I have to turn the cards face up. I worked for David Keene at the American Conservative Union from 1993-99. To further confuse matters, Keene and I had a falling out several years later over an unrelated business matter, and I can count on one hand the number of sentences we've spoken to each other in the last five years. Draw your own conclusions about my bias or lack thereof.

Follow me on Twitter!