Fishy Smelling Ports

Fire of Liberty

While I'm somewhat concerned about a company like Dubai Ports World from the UAE taking commercial control of 6 US ports from the UK's P&O company, I do know that there's a lot about the matter of security being raised by various politicians is unfounded. When you wade through the bluster you discover that the clearing on the sale went through extensive research and security checks by the various executive branch facilities, the US Coast Guard and Customs folks will provide the security, and the same workers will still be there to receive imports and ship out our goods. What's even more interesting is that while politicians like Clinton and Schumer are playing up the populist rhetoric about the pressing need for our ports to be 100% secure (Will they ever be 100%?) and free from the control of foreign entities they seem to be tripped up when you take a closer look at what's motivating this rhetoric. Thankfully, the good folks over at the New York Sun have done some good reporting to show that the folks making such a fuss about the whole port deal are motivated by much more than the security interests of our nation. Check out what's causing such bluster:

So what, one wonders, accounts for the sudden turnabout and interest of all these politicians in the UAE as a potential terrorist threat? The answer got a lot clearer yesterday afternoon when the International Longshoremen's Association, the AFL-CIO-affiliated union that represents workers at the six ports that would be affected by the Dubai deal, issued a statement praising the politicians complaining about the deal. The union's statement expressed "great concern" about the transaction. From there, it's easy to just follow the money - documented by The New York Sun's examination of Federal Election Commission records - from the political action committee of the International Longshoremen's Association into the pockets of the protesting politicians.

Mr. Schumer, the first to raise the alarm about the deal? He's collected $4,500 in campaign contributions from the trough of the Longshoremen. Rep. Peter King, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, who was one of the first big-name Republicans to break ranks with the administration over the deal? The Longshoremen's political committee donated $5,500 to the King campaign. It turns out that nearly every politician who has been at the forefront of the opposition to the Dubai deal is on the receiving end of some Longshoreman largesse.

Senator Clinton's campaign took $4,500. Senator Dodd, $2,500. Congressman Fossella, $9,500. Senator Boxer, $6,000. Senator Lautenberg, $9,000. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat from New York who is another outspoken critic of the Dubai deal, has accepted $22,500 from the Longshoremen since March of 2000. Senator Menendez, a leader of the opposition to the Dubai deal, has taken in fully $39,500 in campaign contributions from the Longshoremen's political action committee. It puts a different spin on the statement yesterday from the president of the International Longshoremen's Association, John Bowers, who said, "We echo United States Senator Robert Menendez who correctly notes that our ports are the front lines of the war on terrorism." It raises the question, for example, of whether the Longshoremen are echoing Mr. Menendez, or whether Mr. Menendez is echoing Mr. Bowers, who has been so generous to his campaign.

I'm betting the President wins this argument even if he gets banged around a bit.