Chris Lehane's Long Record of Union Busting, Political Smears - and Failure

"I like dealing with CEOs. I like taking strategies and tactics we used in the White House and applying them to the corporate world."

– Chris Lehane quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle, May 19, 2002

The following study is broken up into two major sections: Lehane and Workers and Lehane and Political Failures. Two things stand out – his penchant for taking the corporate side against the public and the workers’ interest (in some cases when he was on the public payroll), and his unsuccessful record as a political campaign adviser. His work for the AMPTP should be seen as the culmination of both of these trends – taking the side of corporations against striking workers, for a cause he helps doom to failure.

Lehane and Workers

This section focuses on three specific issues in which Lehane dealt with working Californians – his double-dealing during the 2001 energy crisis, his work for the Screen Actors Guild in 2002, and his work for the Bay Bridge contractors against sick workers. All three show his pronounced tendency to work for corporations against a fair deal for working Californians.

Double-Dealing During the Energy Crisis, 2001

In 2000-2001, the “energy crisis” hit California. As we now know, the crisis was manufactured by energy companies such as Enron who manipulated the energy market to make enormous profits at the cost of widespread blackouts across California and the West. Enron’s actions and the foolish deregulation of California’s electricity market in 1996 combined to force PG&E into bankruptcy and Southern California Edison faced a similar crisis. By the spring of 2001 it was clear that Edison was facing financial collapse, unless it could get help from the state government.

As part of their lobbying agenda, Edison brought Fabiani and Lehane on board. In spring 2001, Gray Davis did the same, hiring Fabiani and Lehane to help advise the governor and to salvage his public image. While the State Legislature debated an Edison bailout bill, including a dispute between State Sen. John Burton and then-Speaker Bob Hertzberg over how much in losses Edison would have to eat, Lehane helped to turn Davis’ office into a wholly-owned subsidiary of SCE. Lehane went around telling the media “"The governor and Edison," he said, "have the same energy policy; there's no conflict in working for both."”

The obvious conflict of interest between working for the state and working for Edison became a major issue for Fabiani and Lehane. Initially the duo were being paid $30,000 a month by Davis’ office. But questions began to be asked about Lehane’s double-dealing. Lehane claimed there was no conflict, as noted above. Not everyone agreed. Thomas Hiltachk, of all people – he of the recent dirty tricks effort to steal CA’s electoral votes – sued in 2001 over Lehane’s conflict of interest. State Controller Kathleen Connell refused to cut checks to pay them. Davis began to distance himself from the duo, first firing Fabiani, telling Lehane he had to accept a 1/3 pay cut, and quit working for Edison. The suit continued and finally a the end of July 2001 it was settled out of court – Davis cut all remaining ties with Fabiani and Lehane and they agreed to not be paid anything at all for their work.

What did Davis get for all this trouble? Lehane’s efforts to shift the blame to Bush and Cheney did not succeed, as Davis’ public approval ratings collapsed. In 2002, when the state budget crisis hit, Davis’ political position was already weak, and he was unable to fend off a recall the next year. Chris Lehane had become a lightning rod for criticism at a time when Davis could not afford it – and Lehane’s work wasn’t very good to begin with.

Taking Sides in SAG 2002

When word of Lehane’s hiring by the AMPTP became public, many pointed to his work for the Screen Actors Guild in 2002 as an example of his hypocrisy – at one moment he helps Hollywood workers, the next he’s fighting them?

A closer look at Lehane’s work with SAG, however, suggests that the story is even worse. Fabiani and Lehane weren’t brought on board by SAG to help negotiate a great deal for the rank and file. Instead they were hired by a majority faction of the board to sell a bad deal to skeptical members.

The 2002 negotiations were over a 50-year old SAG rule that prevented talent agencies from being owned by companies that employ actors. The SAG board in early 2002 negotiated a deal, championed by President Melissa Gilbert, that would have allowed ad agencies and independent production companies, but not the major studios, to own up to 20% of the talent agencies. Many SAG members opposed this weakening of the old rule, concerned that it would hurt their interests to allow greater corporate ownership.

Fabiani and Lehane were hired by Gilbert and Robert Pisano, CEO of SAG, to sell the deal to a skeptical membership base. As with the double-dealing in the 2001 energy crisis, the hiring of Lehane itself aggravated the internal split within SAG. SAG Treasurer Kent McCord, a leader of the opposition to the talent agencies deal, refused to sign off on pay for the duo until the fees were disclosed and complained about not having been informed about the hiring of the pair. It was at this point that Lehane gave his self-serving quote about taking a reduced fee – 1/3 of the usual – in order to help workers:

"we believe strongly in the need to preserve the strength of the union and this agreement does that. We both come from liberal, progressive backgrounds, and this union represents working people." source

The quote was specifically designed to defuse the criticism over the pro-agreement SAG faction having hired the duo. Lehane continued to spin the agreement, trying to divide the SAG membership by pointing to the agreement’s provisions to create a “Actor Theft Protection Fund” and rules about pay for overseas work.

It didn’t work. Although Valerie Harper, another agreement opponent, failed to beat Gilbert in the race for SAG president in March 2002, the SAG rank and file rejected the agreement in an April 2002 vote. Once again, Lehane’s hiring became the issue, exacerbating an existing divide without actually bringing anything of value – in this case ratification of the agreement – to his employers.

Lehane and the Bay Bridge Welders

In 2004 welders working on the new span of the Bay Bridge filed a Cal/OSHA claim against KFM, the consortium contracted to build the span. 48 workers were sick with respiratory problems that they believed were caused by exposure to dangerous levels of manganese.

Extended exposure to high levels of manganese, an element common in welding rods, can cause vomiting, flu-like symptoms, paralysis and permanent damage to the part of the brain in control of motor function, according to the National Safety Council.

After a 2004 Cal/OSHA investigation found that KFM knew about manganese overexposure on the Bay Bridge but had done little to solve the problem, a group of sick welders sought out Rosemarie Bowler, a lecturer at San Francisco State University who researches the toxic effects of manganese on the brain.

Months later, when she had secured funding and approval for the project, Bowler and her colleagues examined the welders, finding a correlation between the manganese overexposure the welders were subject to on the Bay Bridge site and their illnesses.

"They had increased respiratory problems, and their working memory was impacted from the manganese," Bowler said.

The conditions of their work contributed to this sickness, a condition that is lifelong and potentially terminal:

"It's definitely a chronic disease," said Robert M. Park, a researcher at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health who collaborated with Bowler on her study of the welders. "Even in welders, the few studies done have found some permanent effects."

Manganism, the neurological disease associated with manganese overexposure, is irreversible at higher levels than the researchers recorded in the welders' blood, Park said. The exposures faced by manganese miners and smelters usually puts them at a much higher risk than welders. But Park said the Bay Bridge welders were in an unusual position, working in confined spaces with sometimes substandard respirators and ventilation.

The Bay Bridge crews worked in the tight spaces between the six 8- foot-wide steel cylinders at the core of each support pillar and the steel plates that separate them.

Those confined spaces may have factored into manganese levels measured above the legal limit at least five times between May 2003 and March 2004 by IHI Environmental, an industrial hygiene consulting firm with an office in Emeryville.

The workers also claimed that not only had the welds made them sick, but that they were faulty and threatened the structural integrity of a bridge designed to withstand a major earthquake. KFM denied any problem existed – and fired the sick workers who complained. KFM claimed an excellent safety record on the bridge project, but only accomplished it by punishing injured workers and rewarding those who did not report injuries. But to ensure that they could fight off the sick workers’ claims, who did they turn to? Chris Lehane. Lehane’s job was to defend KFM’s record in the media and prevent the sick workers from receiving the justice they were owed.

The media had been the key player in the matter all along. The sick workers had filed Cal/OSHA claims in early 2004, but chronic understaffing and underfunding caused the claims to be ignored, until the workers got the Oakland Tribune interested in the story. With the Tribune’s reporting Cal/OSHA finally got involved, and KFM realized that to keep the safety concerns quiet and to avoid paying the sick workers, they needed someone to keep the media away from the truth. Lehane was their man.

At the time that Lehane was hired, Confined Space, a workplace safety blog, “did a double take” at the news:

Yeah, I'd say it's tougher than Monica Lewinsky. On one hand you have a blow job, on the other hand you've got workers who have been knowingly exposed to welding fumes, including manganese, in violation of OSHA standards. On one hand you have a company covering up injuries and punishing workers who are hurt on the job, and on the other hand you have someone covering up....a blow job.

Now, I'm the first to admit that everyone's got to make a living, and from personal experience, I'll admit that it's not easy for former political operatives and appointees to find challenging jobs (that pay decently) in a Republican world. I'll also admit to being a bit judgmental on occasion, but after decades in the health and safety business, to me there is almost no creature lower than the pond scum corporate P.R. flacks who cover up the fact that their clients are hurting or killing workers, and then insisting over it all that the company is "committed to safety."

Democratic consultant Roger Salazar worked with Lehane in Gore's office and on the 2000 presidential campaign. He called Lehane and his partner, Mark Fabiani, also formerly of the White House, "the masters of crisis communications — they know how to manage an issue and look at it from every conceivable angle, find all of the strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities."

All well and fine. But it makes me sick to think that this talent is now being used to stomp abused and poisoned workers further into the ground for a company that is rapidly rising to the top of the corporate outlaws list.

What's next Chris, Bill Frist's communications director?

Lehane’s strategy was to play up FBI investigations that could not conclusively prove anything was wrong with the welds or the workers. When the FBI found that they could not get at the actual welds – by then encased in concrete – nor prove criminal intent, they had to drop the probe. Lehane celebrated this as proof that the welds were good, telling the San Francisco Chronicle that there was no reason for any further investigation and the NY Times that “KFM always puts the safety of its workers and the public first,” refusing to acknowledge the sick workers whose own bodies were proof that KFM was dangerous.

The sick workers’ case is now pending trial in Oakland, but there has been virtually no media coverage of their case since 2005. Lehane successfully helped cover up KFM’s responsibility for the sick workers and deflected media attention from one of the most egregious acts of corporate malfeasance in California this century. In fighting against justice for the Bay Bridge workers, Lehane proved that he has no principles whatsoever, no interest in helping workers even when they are literally sick.

Lehane and Political Failures

For Governor Davis and for SAG, Lehane’s hiring came at a high cost and brought little reward. They’re not the only political figures to have found that Lehane’s high cost is not worth the reward. His bombastic and confrontational style have alienated voters and may even have cost Democrats two presidential elections.

Lehane Smears Bill Bradley

In February 2000, Chris Lehane helped drive an unnecessary wedge between supporters of Bill Bradley and Al Gore with a smear of Bradley’s record in the Senate. As David Corn wrote at the time:

Lehane more than exemplifies spin-he lives it, he celebrates it, he worships it. At Gore events, Lehane relentlessly bends, manipulates, dodges or obliterates the truth [...]

The questions turned to campaign finance reform. For weeks, the Gore camp had been dumping on Bradley's call for extensive reform. In December, on Meet the Press, Gore had said, "I have fought for this for 20 years. Bill went 17 years in the U.S. Senate before he ever sponsored a campaign finance reform bill. Only after announcing his retirement and heading out to run for president did he sponsor a bill on this."

Two days before the New Hampshire election, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, a Bradley supporter, had read to reporters in Concord a statement written by Fred Wertheimer, a leading reform advocate in Washington. "Vice President Gore's statements about Bradley and his campaign finance reform record are not true," Wertheimer declared. He noted that Bradley had sponsored several different reform bills.

Wertheimer also observed that "Gore's own public track record over the years does not reveal him to be a 'fighter' for campaign finance reform."

So what about it, Chris? we asked Lehane. "Bill Bradley went over 6000 days [in the Senate] without authoring a piece of [reform] legislation," he replied, ignoring Gore's accusation that Bradley had not sponsored reform legislation. But, we answered, Wertheimer says you're wrong.

"Bill Bradley went over 6000 days without authoring a piece of legislation," he repeated. But, we shot back, Wertheimer says he sponsored a host of bills. "Bill Bradley went over 6000 days without authoring a piece of legislation," he said again. Wait a minute, I added, we all know that in Congress authoring legislation is not the only way of promoting an issue. Often a committee chairman authors the bill and other lawmakers work hard as cosponsors. "Bill Bradley went over 6000 days without authoring a piece of legislation," he countered.

How this unnecessary attack on Bradley helped Gore solidify his base in the 2000 election isn’t clear. As some comments on Daily Kos from 2003 suggest, it cost Gore voters and perhaps worsened the split between Gore and progressives in that pivotal election.

Lehane Alienates Reporters During the Gore Campaign

Lehane’s relationship with the press was critical to Gore’s 2000 campaign – and not always in a positive way. The hatchet job that the DC press corps did on Gore that year, helping produce the Bush administration, is notorious to all Democrats and progressive Americans. In a 2004 profile in the San Francisco Chronicle several unnamed journalists claimed that this unflattering coverage was in part the result of frustration with Lehane:

Several national reporters asked not to be identified, knowing they probably will have to deal with Lehane again in the small world of elite consultants and top reporters. Their complaints were similar:

Said one who worked with him since the Clinton Administration: "He burned a lot of bridges with the Washington press corps in the 2000 campaign. He is an operator more interested in his own image than his candidate's."

Some said Gore was too inaccessible for the last part of the campaign. Another said they would play reporters off each other. "He'd tell me that (one media outlet) was playing a story on page one, so why aren't you going with the story. But they were never playing it on page one."

Yet again, it seems, Lehane’s attack-dog style backfires badly on his employers. For what it’s worth, one of the Bush-Cheney campaign’s talking heads said Lehane’s style made her job on the cable shows easier that fateful fall (also from the same Chronicle article):

Mindy Tucker Fletcher, his counterpart for the 2000 Bush campaign, developed a strategy when appearing with Lehane on one of those split-screen TV debates.

"He's got that Northeastern way of talking really fast, so one of my strategies was just to let him rant, rant, rant," said Fletcher, who now works for a public relations agency. "I'd get more done just saying nothing and rolling my eyes.

Lehane Quits Kerry…and Runs the Clark Campaign Into the Ground

In September 2003, frustrated with Kerry’s unwillingness to smear Howard Dean, Chris Lehane quit the Kerry campaign. Daily Kos (in its pre-Scoop form) praised the move and Markos presciently said “the Kerry campaign is better off without him.” As it turned out this was the case – Kerry memorably won Iowa, New Hampshire, and catapulted himself toward the 2004 nomination.

Kerry’s path to the nomination was aided again by Lehane in the crucial weeks of January 2004. Lehane, now working for Wesley Clark, was the subject of a front-page NYT article that noted his “devious” manner and how his methods of shopping Kerry oppo were alienating other Democrats:

The documents those nasty tidbits that campaigns euphemistically call ''opposition research'' -- are flying in the scrappy final days of the Democratic contests here and in Iowa. At the center of the maelstrom, Democrats say, is a 36-year-old aide to Gen. Wesley K. Clark, a frenetic, colorful and, some contend, devious communications strategist named Chris Lehane.

Every campaign has people behind the scenes feeding unflattering facts about opponents to the press. But Mr. Lehane -- a veteran of Al Gore's 2000 campaign and the Clinton White House, where his specialty was blunting queries from investigative reporters -- is such a shrewd practitioner of what one admiring strategist called ''the political black arts'' that lately, when a negative story appears, rivals point to him.

Now, Mr. Lehane has become a target in a fight among Democrats about whether opposition research is going too far. With General Clark rising in the polls in New Hampshire and Howard Dean facing a spate of negative news reports, from stories about stock he sold as Vermont's governor to remarks maligning the Iowa caucuses, many Democrats are convinced they see the invisible hand of Chris Lehane…

Minutes later, Mr. Lehane produced two documents: a flattering remark Mr. Kerry made about General Clark, and a not-so-flattering synopsis of a 1996 Boston Globe article that said Mr. Kerry had stayed rent-free at the home of a lobbyist. All this transpired two hours before the Kerry camp said a single word.

Clark’s campaign never got off the ground and once again, Lehane became the story, hurting his candidate’s overall narrative and cause.

Lehane and the Kerry Intern Smear

One of the most notorious Kerry oppo pieces that floated around in the winter of 2004 was the claim that Kerry had an affair with an intern named Alexandra Polier. The claim, which obviously threatened not just Kerry’s entire campaign but also the chances of beating Bush in the general election were Kerry to become the nominee, turned out to be false. Polier herself mounted a vigorous defense, including an in-depth article she wrote for New York magazine, “The Education of Alexandra Polier.” In her article, it becomes clear that the most likely source of the smear was Chris Lehane.

As I continued to try to understand what had happened, I found that shortly after his first story, Drudge had posted a leaked private e-mail from Craig Crawford, a political columnist at The Congressional Quarterly, to some colleagues at MSNBC: “Drudge item on Kerry intern issue is something Chris Lehane has shopped around for a long time.” Drudge quickly dropped the posting, and Lehane complained to Crawford that it wasn’t true, but Lehane’s name was familiar to me. I knew he was feared by rival campaigns as a master of the black art of leaking political-opposition research. A former spokesman for the Kerry campaign, he had quit amid some acrimony and gone to work as a strategist for Clark.

He was a sufficiently controversial figure to have earned his own recent profile in the New York Times, in which he was described by some as a “devious communications strategist.” The piece quoted rival politicos complaining that it was one thing to attack Republicans but quite another to attack rival Democrats, “spilling blood in our house.” I wondered if Lehane had been the source, especially since he had switched horses mid-race. As Steve McMahon, a Dean media consultant, put it to me: “To work for someone and then walk across the street and work against them is beneath contempt. The one person who should hope John Kerry doesn’t become president is Chris Lehane.”

Joe Trippi, Howard Dean’s former campaign manager, told me he’d also heard Lehane had been shopping the rumor—presumably on Clark’s behalf.

Drudge claimed Clark himself had told reporters on his campaign bus that Kerry was going to “implode” over a scandal, but when I called Wesley Clark Jr., a screenwriter in L.A., who had helped out on his father’s campaign, he told me Drudge had ignored the context of his father’s quote. “He was reacting to the latest issue of The National Enquirer, which had just run a front-page story about Kerry and possible scandals, when he said that.”

Writing about Clinton recently in Vanity Fair, Robert Sam Anson added to my suspicion by suggesting that “Clinton types” in the Clark campaign had been vigorously pushing similar rumors.

I called Lehane himself, who, having backed the wrong team, is now running his own political PR firm in San Francisco. I asked him where he’d first heard the rumors about Kerry and me. He blamed political reporters. I asked him if he had used the rumors to try to help Clark. He denied it. “There are just so many media outlets out there now, Alex, that these kind of baseless rumors can easily get turned into stories,” he said smoothly, and then the phone went dead.

I called him right back, but he didn’t answer. I called again less than an hour later, and this time his outgoing message had been changed to, “Hi, you’ve reached Chris. I’m traveling and won’t be able to retrieve my voice mail.” I wondered how he was able to run a PR company without retrieving voice mail.

This reckless smear not only failed to help Clark beat Kerry, but could well have been used by Karl Rove later in 2004 to defeat Kerry. Only Polier’s exceptional defense (putting Lehane to shame, really) prevented the story from doing major damage.