Washington – Sen. Claire McCaskill wants to know how many federal agencies have used tax dollars to hire public relations consultants to “spin” their images — and why.
What piqued the Missouri Democrat’s interest was a $234,000 contract the General Services Administration gave to a Kansas City firm for work early this year.
The GSA’s Kansas City office enlisted Jane Mobley Associates to help manage the negative publicity over a longstanding pollution problem at its Bannister Federal Complex and the potential medical fallout.
Mobley responded that it was “a little surprising” that her firm’s work might be controversial.
“It is a staple of the service that government provides to the public,” she said. “The public deserves good, clear communication.
“We think our job is to work well with government staff, to help with the things they can’t do and not get in the way of any of the things they can do. We don’t add an extra layer. We stay out of the limelight.”
Mobley added that her firm was an experienced government contractor.
The GSA oversees the government’s buying and selling of real estate. It owns nearly half of the 310-acre Bannister complex. The rest is owned by the National Nuclear Security Administration, which makes non-nuclear components for atomic weapons.
Both sections of the complex have shown signs of contamination, present largely in the groundwater.
Workers at the complex, which includes a day-care center, have complained about health problems for years but said they were never taken seriously. A number of them have reportedly developed health problems, including cancer, and feared their workplace could be the reason.
McCaskill, chairwoman of a Senate oversight panel on government contracting, said, “I’m not against government advertising for military recruitment or important health information.
“I’m talking about hiring someone to help them spin. This is ridiculous. What did they do for this money?”
According to contract documents, Jane Mobley Associates developed a communications plan to help the GSA explain to a lay audience the technical and scientific nature of the environmental conditions at the complex.
Angela Brees, a spokeswoman for the Kansas City GSA regional office, said it needed additional help because the agency’s media office was small and geared more toward internal communications.
She said the GSA required “a team of experts to come in quickly,” and the Environmental Protection Agency was unable to help.
“This is a unique situation for GSA,” Brees said. “We’re in the business of building buildings and providing customer solutions. We just didn’t have the necessary resources.”
She said that the GSA chose Jane Mobley Associates from an approved list of federal contractors and that its $124 hourly fee was the lowest.
Earlier this month, a GSA inspector general’s report found that the agency had been negligent about monitoring for pollution and had misled the public about the potential problem. The report made no mention of the Mobley firm or its contract, which ran from February to mid-May.
It did note that the GSA was “currently taking substantial steps to protect the occupants of the Complex” but that “prior to 2010, (GSA) did not have a strong environmental management program for the Complex.”
“Concerns would be brought up,” said Barbara Rice, who has worked at the complex on and off since the 1970s. “But we would be told, ‘Oh, it’s not a problem. We’re going to fix this is old building. There’s nothing wrong. You’re OK.'”
The government agreed this past summer to begin a cleanup. Meanwhile, it has begun construction of a new weapons plant several miles to the south.
In letters to both the GSA and the Office of Management and Budget, McCaskill asked for detailed explanations of the government’s use of outside “publicity experts.”
The federal Government Accountability Office has said agencies are outlawed from using “publicity or propaganda” that involves “self-aggrandizement” or “puffery,” as well as “covert propaganda” that does not explain whether federal money is behind an enterprise.
McCaskill said her focus on the GSA contract could serve as a “springboard” for a wider investigation.
“The federal government should not be spending money on contracts to manage the press,” she said. “They should answer questions openly. If this happens so easily at one federal agency, it may be going on in others.”
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.