EDITORIAL – A fishy deal

There is no such thing as a free lunch, especially when the one being treated is a public official. It is not enough for National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales to dismiss criticisms of a lobbying deal by saying that anonymous donors are footing the $75,000-a-month bill. Those donors cannot remain anonymous. For $75,000 a month there has to be a quid pro quo with the government, and the public has a right to know what it is.

With the nation bedeviled by too many security problems, Gonzales should explain first of all why the national security adviser is concerning himself with lobbying in the United States for constitutional amendments. The main proponent of Charter change, Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr., professes not to know anything about the lobbying contract Gonzales signed with a Baltimore-based law firm called Venable LLP.

Gonzales, who initially could not be reached for comment on the story, keeps revising his version of the deal. He initially cleared President Arroyo of involvement in the contract but later said she might know some of the donors. Yesterday he said the President merely gave him the go-signal to look for donors.

He also clarified that the lobbying in Washington was mainly for defense matters, although he said he asked Venable to look for possible sources of funds for Charter change and Manila’s campaign against corruption. Gonzales explained that the lobbying was needed because he had received reports that some American officials were pushing for a cut in US anti-terrorism aid package to the Philippines because of the pullout of the token Philippine humanitarian contingent from Iraq last year.

The bill for the lobbying service, Gonzales said, was small compared to standard amounts in the United States. But if Filipinos still find a problem with that, the contract could be scrapped, he said yesterday.

If Gonzales’ explanations were clearer and had not come so belatedly, he might have sold the deal to a skeptical public. Instead questions are being asked about the propriety of accepting donations for a lobbying deal. Given Gonzales’ conflicting statements, there is also ugly speculation about what Venable is supposed to lobby for in Washington. Something is amiss, and Gonzales’ explanations have merely added to the confusion.