Subscribe
The Daily Grind Video
CLOSE

In Intro to Journalism, first rule of thumb: “Follow the Money,” a line made famous by the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein during the Watergate investigation. 

Today, rarely – if ever – do you hear media outlets discuss campaign donations and their ties to policy. There is an unwritten rule in Washington’s Journalism circles: Never, EVER, mention the influence of money. Especially if you want a seat next to George Clooney or Eva Longoria at next year’s annual Correspondents Dinner.

David Sorita, in an article for Salon.com, says that “Though the lifeblood of Washington runs as green as a $100 bill, loyal Beltway reporters know that to ascend the career ladder…they must pretend it either doesn’t matter or doesn’t exist as a decisive factor in American politics.” 

Booz Allen Hamilton, the company that employed Edward Snowden, and its parent company The Carlyle Group, has spent millions on campaign contributions and lobbying. From Barack Obama to John McCain, Democrats and Republicans, many of the politicians who are publicly defending the surveillance state, and calling for the extradition of Snowden, have taken large sums of money from these two companies. Yet, the Washington Press Corp seems unwilling to mention that politicians’ attacks on surveillance critics has nothing to do with principle and everything to do with defending their campaign donors.

Booz Allen was the 14th largest federal contractor in 2012, with more than $4 billion worth of government contracts. Those contracts make up 99 percent of the company’s revenue, making it very dependent on the U.S. government (aka tax-payers) to stay in business. One could argue that it has a vested interest in making sure that the debate over national security tilts towards a surveillance state.

When a company like Booz Allen spends big money on campaign contributions, they are not just bidding for government contracts. They are essentially assuring that the surveillance-industrial complex, one that tramples on civil liberties, remains preserved and defended.

That assurance was evident when the director of the NSA was invited to Capital Hill last month to answer questions regarding the Snowden leak and the PRISM program. The title of The House Intelligence hearing was: “How Disclosed NSA Programs Protect Americans, and Why Disclosure Aids Our Adversaries.” It was not: “Why Did You and Your Agency Lie to Congress Repeatedly?”

When a Congress, bankrolled by firms like Booz Allen, implies a preconceived notion in the title of their hearing, are they really nonpartisan? The first part of the title “How Disclosed NSA Programs Protect Americans” suggests that the program they’ve been claiming to not be informed about, does in fact protect Americans. The second part of the title “Why Disclosure Aids Our Adversaries” contends that critics of the program hurt the country. 

James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, is a former executive from Booz Allen. Its current vice-chairman, John “Mike” McConnell, once held that same position until 2009 when President-elect Barack Obama decided against keeping Bush’s intelligence team…but apparently not against hiring former Booz Allen employees.

According to company filings, McConnell has received at least $8.8 million in compensation for his “work” at the firm. As the face of Booz Allen, and with strong ties to the intelligence agencies, McConnell has forced a reluctant bureaucracy to invest heavily in cybercapability, and expanding the company’s portfolio.

What Edward Snowden did was bad for business, not the country. His crime was disrupting Booz Allen’s bottom line, as well as of those who depend on it for campaign contributions. 

Danielle DeAbreu

Danielle DeAbreu is a former model and student at William Paterson University studying Broadcast Journalism with a minor in Political Science.

Follow me on Twitter @DaniDeAbreu13