As winter has turned to a democratic spring in the Arab world, the Kingdom of Bahrain has found itself swept up in the region wide protests. Protesters in the country, largely composed of the nation's Shiite majority, took to the streets in February to call on King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, a member of country's Sunni minority, to institute a constitutional monarchy. The peaceful protests were met with an initial crackdown  as protesters were swept out from their encampment in the capital's Pearl Square by an armed police force.

After attempts at discussions, and a brief détente, between the protesters and the government, the King decided to reach out to the Saudi monarchy, a Sunni ruling class in a country with a sizeable Shiite minority, to send their military into Bahrain to end the protests. The King framed the ensuing crackdown in sectarian terms, blaming Shiite Iranian agents for fomenting rebellion in the island kingdom. What has followed has been a brutal crackdown largely captured on YouTube for the world to see.

While the world may watch the murder of unarmed protesters on YouTube, Bahrain is hiring a U.S. PR team to spin events to their benefit. Last Tuesday, day after Saudi troops entered Bahrain to repress protests calling for a constitutional monarchy, a new foreign agent registered for the government of Bahrain. (Update: The contract between Potomac Square Group and Bahrain was signed on February 17, not March 15. This pre-dates the Saudi incursion into Bahrain.) Potomac Square Group, run by former journalist Chris Cooper, registered to do PR work for the Bahraini government at the most controversial moment in the country's recent history.

Cooper is a former Wall Street Journal national and foreign correspondent. The Potomac Square Group is a new firm formed in February of this year and incorporated in Delaware. A LinkedIn profile lists Cooper's work history as well as a description of his work at the Potomac Square Group, which currently does not have a web presence, "Founding parter of a public affairs boutique. Clients include a foreign government seeking help in dealing with an internal crisis."

The Potomac Square Group's work for Bahrain is set by a monthly contract worth $20,000 that client can choose to renew after the first month.

While the Potomac Square Group is the most recent registrant for Bahrain, they are not the country's only PR firm in the United States. Qorvis Communications, one of Washington's biggest PR firms, inked a deal with the island kingdom last year. The firm offered the kingdom's most recent spin on the protest crackdown in a press release highlighting statements made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, while omitting her statement that the government was "on the wrong track."

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton today emphasized the commitment of the United States toward Bahrain and her hope for the success of the National Dialogue in the island kingdom. She also affirmed the "sovereign right" of Bahrain to invite security forces from allied countries, and stated that the U.S. shared the goals of the GCC regarding Bahrain.

Since the uprising in Bahrain began, Bahrain's Crown Prince has called on all parties to engage in a dialogue to reconcile differences. Secretary Clinton said the goal of the United States is "a credible political process that can address the legitimate aspirations of all the people of Bahrain."

Ambassador Houda Nonoo appreciated the Secretary's comments that dialogue should unfold in a peaceful, positive atmosphere that ensures that students can go to school, businesses can operate and people can undertake their normal daily activities. Said Ambassador Nonoo, "The government of Bahrain has consistently maintained that differences should be resolved peacefully around the negotiating table, but unfortunately, the opposition has not responded to this offer and instead has chosen to continue along the path of violence and disruption of normal life in Bahrain. It is my government's belief that wisdom will prevail among the opposition and they will come to the negotiating table to resolve all differences peacefully."

Qorvis' work with Bahrain began a month before an election in the country, which featured the arrest of prominent Shiite clerics and a very favorable outcome for the ruling family.

The United States has long had good relations with Bahrain. The Navy's Fifth Fleet is currently stationed in Bahrain and the two countries have formed close economic ties.

Qorvis is not only contracted with Bahrain, but with the Saudi government as well. The company's representation of the Saudi monarchy was controversial when they signed the contract in 2002. After the 9/11 attacks and revelations that Saudi money flowed to Al Qaeda, the global terror network that executed the attacks, the contract to spin U.S. media and policy makers for the Saudi monarchy was not met well. Three of Qorvis' partners quit in protest.

Recently, Qorvis' work for Saudi Arabia has involved providing advice, preparing press releases, and helping the nation connect to social media. The company's foreign agent statement from last fall states that Qorvis worked to assist "with developing content for the YouTube and Twitter pages."

The question of whether a Boston-based consulting group hired by Libya's Moammar Gaddafi should have registered as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agent Registration Act is gaining more traction.

Last week I examined the internal documents between Monitor and the Libyan government to explain ways in which the firm may have been required to have filed as a foreign agent. On NPR today, Peter Overby reported that Monitor is now look into whether they should have registered:

The Foreign Agent Registration Act, or FARA, says Americans need to know when foreign governments try to influence them.

William Luneburg, who teaches lobbying law at the University of Pittsburgh, said FARA was enacted to fight Nazi propaganda in the 1930s.

"Whether it's burnishing Hitler's reputation or Gadhafi's reputation, so that ultimately the United States foreign policy would be consistent with their interests, that seems to squarely sit within what FARA is about," Luneburg said.

After being shown the provisions of the Foreign Agent Registration Act, a spokesman said Monitor Group is examining that question in more detail.

The Monitor Group/Libya controversy continues today with an article in the Boston Globe. The article quotes Libya scholar Dick Vandewalle explaining the real-world consequences of Monitor's work, "The really nefarious aspect of this is that it reinforced in Khadafy’s mind that he truly was an international intellectual world figure, and that his ideas of democracy were to be taken seriously ... It reinforced his reluctance to come to terms with the reality around him, which was that Libya is in many ways an inconsequential country and his ideas are half-baked."

Monitor was actively engaged in deluding a delusional dictator for profit by promising to influence policy and public opinion, something for which they probably should have registered to do with the Department of Justice. One of those things, pointed out on this blog and covered more closely at Mother Jones, was the invitation of prominent scholars and writers to Libya to give lectures and then write articles for publication putting a positive take on the "new" Libya.

I've collected links to the articles that I was able to find so far. You can see them all below. Let me know if there are more I should add to this list:

Anthony Giddens, "My chat with the colonel," The Guardian, March 9, 2007.

Joseph Nye, "Tripoli Diarist," The New Republic, December 10, 2007.

Benjamin Barber, "Gaddafi's Libya: An Ally for America?," Washington Post, August 15, 2007.

"U.S. Should Enlist Libya's Help," NPR, December 11, 2006. (Interview with Benjamin Barber.)

Andrew Moravcsik, "A Rogue Reforms," Newsweek, July 16, 2007.

Andrew Moravcsik, "Soft Power's Libya Triumph," Financial Times, July 29, 2007.

Stephen Walt, "The shores of Tripoli...," Foreign Policy, January 19, 2010.

“Monitor is not a lobbying group."

That was the assertion in one of a series of memos between The Monitor Group and the Government of Libya that were leaked by the Libyan opposition to Muammar Gaddafi’s now-tenuous rule of Libya. The memos, leaked in 2009, detail an extensive plan to promote the Libyan view to government officials and the American public that may leave many wondering why the firm never registered as a foreign lobbying group under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).

Beginning in 2006, Monitor began work as a consultant for Libya to “Enhance the Profile of Libya and Muammar Qadhafi” and to help the country establish an economic strategy. Monitor stated that it charged the Government of Libya $250,000 a month along with an open expense account that would not total more than $2.5 million.

In a memo dated July 3, 2006, The Monitor Group spelled out their plan of action for the Gaddafi government. This included mapping “critical figures … among policy makers, government, media, think tanks, academics, journalists, private sector companies and lobby groups,” providing support for “publication of positive articles on Libya,” and coordinating with Libya’s “existing lobbyists to ensure an integrated program.”

The central focus of the program was the invitation of prominent individuals to visit Libya and talk to regime leaders including Gaddafi and his sons. The July 3 memo lists two qualifications for the selection of visitors, “the appeal of their ideas” and “the strength of their influence in guiding US foreign policy.”

According to The Lobbying Manual published by the American Bar Association, there are a few key definitions that an organization has to meet to be required to register as a foreign agent under FARA. In most cases, whether a firm’s action fall under the definition of the term “political activities” determines their registration status.

The precise definition of “political activities” under FARA is

“…any activity that the person engaging in believes will, or that the person intends to, in any way influence any agency or official of the Government of the United States or any section of the public within the United States with reference to formulating, adopting, or changing the domestic or foreign policies of the United States or with reference to the political or public interests, policies, or relations of a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party.”

The Monitor Group memos outline a strategy that is based on the need to influence both government officials in relation to U.S. policy and public opinion in regards to the Government of Libya and its leaders.

In a 2007 memo The Monitor Group states that their strategy is to “introduc[e] to Libya important international figures that will influence other nations’ policies towards the country.” This memo also states, “Many of the visitors brought to Libya have individually briefed all levels of the United States government including specifically the President, Vice President, Heads of National Security and Intelligence as well as the Secretary of State.”

One visitor to Libya was Nicholas Negroponte, the director of the MIT Media Lab and the founder of One Laptop Per Child. Negroponte’s brother is John Negroponte, at the time the Deputy Secretary of State. The memo indicates that Nicholas Negroponte “briefed his brother and other senior officials in the White House upon his return from Libya.”

Many other visitors are touted for their connections to policy makers in the United States. Author Bernard Lewis is said to have briefed then-Ambassador to Israel Richard Jones and “the entire political and economic staff at the U.S. Embassy in Israel on his visit to Libya.” Professor Benjamin Barber is stated to consult “regularly with … Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, former Senator Bill Bradley.” Anne-Marie Slaughter is listed as an advisor to Barack Obama and a “potential cabinet member.”

Monitor does not only explain their strategy to influence U.S. policy through the visitors program. They also explicitly state their own work in lobbying the U.S. government: “At a critical time when the United States was debating its recognition of Libya, Monitor met with senior officials in the United States government to share its perspective on Libya.” While Monitor may claim it was only sharing “its perspective” it was under contract with the Government of Libya to promote the country and improve its image at the time.

The memos also show Monitor’s work to influence opinion through the publication of articles by participants in the visitors program. Registration under FARA is not limited to the direct publication or dissemination of materials to influence public policy or public opinion. Indirect publication or dissemination is also included under registration requirements.

Monitor cites articles that Princeton professor Andrew Moravcsik wrote after his visit to Libya in Newsweek and the Financial Times and an appearance by Barber on NPR as positive examples of the kind of press that their work for Libya has produced.

Monitor also promotes itself as a voice to the media for discussions about Libya, “Monitor continues to speak directly to the media about Libya, and is willing to be quoted in the international press.”

On February 24 Monitor released a statement explaining “we do not discuss specifics of our work with any client … we are deeply distressed and saddened to witness the current tragic events in Libya. … Our work was focused on helping the Libyan people work towards an improved economy and more open governmental institutions. This is within a context of a period that was widely perceived as holding meaningful potential for reform within, and new opportunity for, Libya. We sought, consistently, to enable such progressive developments.”

(More Sunlight coverage of lobbying by governments facing protests and revolts in the Middle East.)

On February 2, 2011, in the midst of the revolution in Egypt, the PLM Group, filed a disclosure report with the Department of Justice noting their continued lobbying contract with the government of Egypt. The report notes that, while PLM holds the lobbying contract for Egypt, the three lobbying firms that make up PLM handle the filing independently. Those firms are The Podesta Group, The Livingston Group, and The Moffett Group. (The report also lists a firm called Vanguard Government Services, which is not registered as a foreign agent, but is run by two lobbyists from The Livingston Group.)

So far, Podesta and Livingston have filed new disclosure reports detailing their lobbying work up through the end of last year. This includes efforts to influence the Senate's work on a resolution supporting human rights in Egypt.

We'll have more on these new reports tomorrow.

Newly minted Rep. Chip Cravaack has hired former Sen. Rod Grams as his chief of staff. Grams served the state of Minnesota as senator from 1995 to 2001. In an interview with The Daily Caller Grams discusses his post-Senate career as a businessman owning three radio stations, but omits a key period. From 2002 to 2006 Grams was a registered lobbyist at the Washington, DC-based lobbying firm of Hecht, Spencer & Associates.

After losing to Mark Dayton in the 2000 Senate race, Grams signed up as a senior advisor at the lobbying firm, although he was allowed wide latitude to spend time in Minnesota to pursue a future run for office. At the time Grams stated that the lobbying job "will let [him] work with clients and issues such as the economy, jobs, trade relations and taxation." Grams' clients included Financial Services Roundtable, 3M Co., and J.C. Penney.

Hecht, Spencer & Associates was also registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act as a foreign agent for the Government of Japan. Grams was registered as a foreign agent for the firm and made contacts with government officials, including the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a number of his former Senate colleagues, on behalf of the Japanese government.

The world's focus has been rightly been focused on the ongoing revolt in Egypt. That has brought some attention to the Egyptian government's lobbying operation here in Washington. Yesterday I put up a database of contacts made by Egypt's Washington lobbyists. But how does that compare to the rest of the Arab world's lobbying?

The Egyptian government's lobbyists made the third most reported lobbying contacts of all Arab nations during the previous reported period in 2010. Surpassing Egypt's 366 lobbying contacts were the United Arab Emirates (407 contacts) and Morocco (653 contacts).

Only three other governments of Arab nations or territories reported any lobbying contacts over the same period in 2010. These include Algeria (50 contacts), Saudi Arabia (20 contacts), and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank (19 contacts).

It may come as a surprise to see Morocco lobbying in Washington at such a heavy pace. There is, however, the pressing issue in Morocco's back yard related to the sovereignty of the Western Sahara. Reporters with both the Sunlight Foundation and ProPublica wrote about the controversy regarding the Western Sahara in 2009:

The Western Sahara [15] is an inhospitable patch of desert about the size of Colorado on Africa’s Atlantic coast, with a population of about 400,000, a GDP of only $900 million, and an economy based on nomadic herding, fishing and phosphorous mining. It is also one of the last colonies in the world — Morocco [16] annexed it a few years after Spain granted it independence in 1975 — and the subject of 34 U.N. Security Council resolutions on the territory since 1999.In late 2007 and 2008, the desert region was a top priority for Morocco’s hired lobbyists. At issue was Western Sahara’s autonomy, but the story also shows how, in a foreign lobbying arms race, the side with the biggest arsenal can come out on top. The government of Morocco sought the support of Congress in this lengthy territorial dispute. The region has long demanded independence. An indigenous insurgent group, the Polisario Front [17], waged a guerrilla war against the Moroccan military until the United Nations brokered a cease-fire in 1991. Part of the terms of that deal included holding a referendum to determine the territory’s final status, but no vote has been held. In 2007, Morocco issued a proposal to grant Western Sahara autonomy within sovereign Morocco. The U.S. initially welcomed the proposal, and direct talks began between Morocco and the Polisario with the involvement of Algeria, which supports self-determination for the Sahrawi tribes from the area.

This controversy has raged on as Morocco and their lobbyists have claimed that the Polisario Front is aligned with Al Qaeda and that the Western Sahara is becoming a training  ground for terrorists. The conflict continues to rage in both the desert of the Sahara and on the streets of Washington.

Morocco's lobbyists include former congressman Toby Moffett, also a lobbyist for Egypt, and the Morocco-American Center for Policy, a Washington-based operation supporting Moroccan policies. In total, Morocco retained seven lobbying firms that made contacts with government officials in 2010.

The United Arab Emirates should come as no surprise as a big lobbying force in Washington as they have been in the top ten in spending on lobbyists for years. Sunlight's Anupama Narayanswamy reported on their 2009 activity recently:

From state-owned businesses to political deal making, the seven sovereign nations that form the United Arab Emirates in all spent a total of $5.3 million in 2009 lobbying the U.S. government. The UAE hired D.C.-based lobbyists DLA Piper to work on the “123 agreement” that would give them access to nuclear technology from the U.S. starting in January 2009; a deal was signed in May 2009. In addition to atomic power for its energy sector, the Emirates pushed for this deal in response to Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. Recent documents released by the whistleblower site Wikileaks, show that the oil-rich country considered this a vital step in strengthening their ties Washington: “According to AbZ, [Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the Foreign Minister of UAE] the 123 is a powerful example for the region and provides a transparent alternative to Iran's nuclear model.  The UAE views Iran as a huge problem that goes far beyond nuclear capabilities.”

UAE's lobbying for nuclear technology continued in 2010, but much of the Emirates' lobbying in Washington involved contacting the Justice Department over an ongoing investigation into price fixing in the air cargo industry. The investigation has netted numerous guilty pleas from airlines across the world including British Airways, Qantas, El Al, Korea Air Lines, Société Air France, Northwest Airlines, China Airlines, Polar Air, Singapore Air Cargo, and Cargolux. UAE's lobbying was on behalf of Dubai Civil Aviation Authority, which has so far not been charged in the American investigation. Dubai Civil Aviation Authority has, however, been charged in Australia in a similar price fixing investigation.

UAE retained lobbying powerhouses Akin, Gump and DLA Piper, along with The Harbour Group.

While only six Arab nations reporting lobbying contacts in 2010 other Arab nations still retained lobbyists, for consulting purposes, and are also allowed to directly contact U.S. government officials through diplomatic means without reporting contacts.

As events continue to unfold in the streets of Egypt, here in Washington the government of Egypt has a team of high-powered lobbyists ready to deal with the unfolding United States response. Numerous reports emerged on Friday about the three lobbying firms, The Livingston Group, The Podesta Group, and The Moffett Group, that operate as the PLM Group, the registered umbrella group lobbying on behalf of Egypt.

These three firms are all headed by powerful political players former House Republican Majority Leader Bob Livingston, longtime Democratic campaign advisor Tony Podesta, and former Democratic congressman Toby Moffett.

The most recent reports were filed in July of 2010. Being registered foreign agents, Egypt's lobbyists are required to file as foreign agents, which means that they must disclose their contacts with government and NGO officials.

Below I have compiled a Socrata database for all contacts reported by the three firms from January to July of 2010:

The three lobbying firms reported 366 contacts with government officials, lawmakers, congressional staff, military officials, and non-governmental organizations. The vast majority of those contacts were made with lawmakers and their staff. Lobbyists made sixty-nine contacts with sixty-one members of Congress and 179 contacts with 141 different congressional staffers.

The Livingston Group carried the heaviest lobbying load for the government of Egypt, including leading an Egyptian military delegation to over 100 meetings on Capitol Hill. Lobbyists for The Livingston Group, including the former congressman himself, brought the military delegation to 147 meetings with members of Congress and their staff meet. In those April, 2010 meetings, the delegation received meetings with forty-five members of Congress and 102 congressional staffers.

The military delegation included officials close to the Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, who is rumored to have discussed with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak plans for Mubarak to leave the presidency. The delegation was headed by Major General Mohamed Said Elassar, Assistant to the Minister of Defense, and also included Major General Ahmed El Moataz Bellah Mahmoud Hedyat, Chief, Egyptian-American Relations Branch; Major General Mohamed  A. Elkeshky, Defense, Military, Naval and Air Attaché at the Embassy of the Arab Republic of Egypt in Washington, D.C.; and Major General Wael Rabiaa, Information Officer for the Ministry of Defense.

The majority of the contacts made by Podesta and Moffett lobbyists were concerned with inviting members of Congress to an official dinner at the Egyptian Embassy.

Prior to the Egyptian military delegation's trip to Washington, Rep. Frank Wolf and seventeen other lawmakers sent a letter to Ambassador-at-Large Luis CdeBaca, who leads efforts to combat human trafficking, to take action to protect Egypt's Coptic Christian population, particularly women, who reports claim were being kidnapped and forced into marriage resulting in rape and violence. In May, 2010, Livingston brought the Egyptian Ambassador to meet with Wolf privately.

Many of the meetings with lawmakers were with lawmakers with seats on powerful committees including the panel in charge of foreign aid spending. Lobbyists contacted six of the fourteen members of the Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations Appropriations including both the then-chair, Rep. Nita Lowey, and ranking member, Rep. Kay Granger.

In today's edition, The New York Times reports on legislation that's meant to close a loophole lobbyists use to cloak their work for foreign clients. U.S. Sens. Charles Schumer and Claire McCaskill introduced changes to the Foreign Agents Registration Act earlier today, according to The Hill.

The Foreign Agents Registration Act, enacted in the 1930s, governs foreign lobbying.The law is outdated and needs to be updated to meet the needs of the current global nature of lobbying, according to The Times. The legislation would require lobbyists who represent foreign businesses, politicians and other entities to disclose more information about their relationships.

For instance, current law does not require lobbyists to register with the Justice Department if their meetings with American officials on behalf of foreign clients take place outside the United States. The Schumer-McCaskill bill would close the foreign soil loophole. As both The Times and The Hill report, the issue of foreign lobbyists has become an early skirmish in the general election battle.

While these are certainly welcome fixes, they might want to address the woefully inadequate public disclosure system as well. The FARA database is one of the most user-unfriendly sites ever devised by government, and that's say something. Why not require digital submissions of FARA disclosure forms (bringing it into line with the Lobbyist Disclosure Act) and provide some money for a better Web site, complete with downloadable data. Closing loopholes in disclosure is useful, but if the public can't get to the data, it doesn't do much good.