01-15-09 MoJo-Why Eric Holder Represents What's Wrong With Washington by David Corn

Page 1 of 2
Published on Thursday, January 15, 2009 by Mother Jones
Why Eric Holder Represents What's Wrong with Washington

by David Corn
Eric Holder Jr., by all accounts, is a decent, smart, caring, competent fellow. President-elect Barack Obama's pick to be attorney
general had a brilliant career in public service: he graduated from Columbia University law school, worked at the NAACP Legal
Defense Fund, was a trial attorney at the Justice Department, a Superior Court judge in Washington, DC, a US attorney, and,
then deputy attorney general. He has served on various nonprofit boards: George Washington University, the American
Constitution Society, Morehouse School of Medicine, Save the Children Foundation, the District of Columbia's Police
Foundation, and the Innocence Project. He's been a member of Concerned Black Men for over 25 years. He also, in a way,
represents what's wrong with Washington.
That's not because of Holder's infamous role in the Marc Rich pardon. That episode--which Holder will certainly be asked about
during confirmation hearings, which are scheduled to begin Thursday--was a case of Washington pay-to-play. There's little
doubt that Rich, a fugitive financier indicted for tax evasion, racketeering, and trading with the enemy (Iran), was able to win
that last-minute pardon from President Clinton (with Holder, as deputy attorney general, leaning slightly in its favor) because he
had hired a former Clinton White House counsel to argue his case and because Rich's ex-wife had pledged money to Clinton
causes.
Holder's role in the Rich pardon may not have been instrumental, but it was a mistake--a terrible way to cap off decades of
public service. But he is a poster child for something perhaps more pernicious and extensive in the nation's capital: selling out.
Months after the Clinton administration ended, Holder went to work for the influential law firm and lobbying shop of Covington
and Burling. (He also joined the boards of Eastman Kodak and MCI.)
Holder was doing what so many routinely do in Washington: cashing in. He took years of experience he had gathered as a public
servant and rented it to corporations accused of serious wrongdoing. He smoothly went from doing good to doing well. In 2008,
according to his confirmation questionnaire, he made $2.1 million at Covington and Burling. And he expects in 2009 to bring in
over $2.5 million, including his separation payment.
Holder's private legal work for the Chiquita banana company, which faced the possibility of federal charges for having paid
protection money to Colombian terrorists, has earned media attention. Holder also helped Merck settle a massive Medicaid
overbilling case that culminated in a $671 million civil settlement. The pharmaceutical company had been accused by the
Justice Department of cheating the government regarding Vioxx, its arthritis drug, and Zocor, its cholesterol drug.
But it may be a lesser-known piece of lawyering that best symbolizes how Holder went from prosecuting bad guys to protecting
them.
In 2001, Darrell McGraw Jr., the longtime Democratic attorney general of the state of West Virginia, filed a civil case against
Purdue Pharma in 2001, the manufacturer of OxyContin, a highly addictive painkiller approved for serious pain treatment. He
alleged that the company had engaged in "coercive and deceptive" marketing of OxyContin. McGraw charged that Purdue had
disseminated misleading advertisements and had promoted the inappropriate use of OxyContin for minor pain. His lawsuit
contended that Purdue had offered doctors free trips to "pain management" seminars where the firm pitched the drug as safe
and effective for treating minor pain--without mentioning the drug was supposed to be used only for severe pain and easily
abused. McGraw also alleged that Purdue had told "pharmacists that they can get in trouble if they do not fill prescriptions,
even if they believe someone may be an abuser of the drug." He maintained that the firm's underhanded practices had caused
users in West Virginia to become addicted to the drug. And he noted that while Purdue's annual sales revenue from OxyContin
had surpassed $1 billion, the state of West Virginia was saddled with the cost of treating people who had become addicted due
to misuse of the drug encouraged by Purdue.
This suit was a serious threat to the drugmaker, and it eventually called in Holder. And in November 2004, the morning that the
case was about to go to trial, Holder helped negotiate a settlement. Working in the judge's chambers in West Virginia, he forged
an agreement under which the firm would have to pay $10 million over four years into drug abuse and education programs in
West Virginia. Purdue would not have to admit any wrongdoing. (Days earlier, the firm had offered the state about $2 million to
settle; McGraw had turned down Purdue and had not bothered to produce a counter-offer.)
Page 2 of 2
The settlement was a big win for the company. Ten million dollars was a piddling amount compared to what Purdue was
reaping from OxyContin sales. More important, this settlement helped keep the lid on the firm's criminal activities. There would
be no trial--and no public release of documents or testimony about the company's actions, which were already being
investigated by federal prosecutors. In late 2002, the feds had begun an investigation of Purdue, with the first of what would be
nearly 600 subpoenas for corporate records related to the manufacturing, marketing, and distribution of OxyContin.
In May 2007, the company and its three top executives pleaded guilty to federal charges of fraudulently marketing OxyContin
by claiming it was less addictive, less subject to abuse, and less likely to cause withdrawal symptoms. Purdue and the three
execs agreed to pay a fine of $634,515. At the time, US attorney John Brownlee summed up the case:
Even in the face of warnings from health care professionals, the media, and members of its own sales force that OxyContin was
being widely abused and causing harm to our citizens, Purdue, under the leadership of its top executives, continued to push a
fraudulent marketing campaign that promoted OxyContin as less addictive, less subject to abuse, and less likely to cause
withdrawal. In the process, scores died as a result of OxyContin abuse and an even greater number of people became addicted
to OxyContin; a drug that Purdue led many to believe was safer, less abusable, and less addictive than other pain medications
on the market.
That is, Darrell McGraw, the West Virginia attorney general, had been correct.
Yet Holder had helped the company slip past McGraw's charges. And that permitted the drugmaker to continue its fraudulent
ways until the Justice Department finally stopped them. "We didn't know why they settled with us," says Frances Hughes,
McGraw's chief deputy attorney general. "Our suspicion is that they did not want anything to come out at the trial." Is it
possible that because of Holder's efforts (whether he realized it or not), patients suffered--and perhaps died? But Holder did
nothing wrong--in the legal or ethical sense. He was merely working for a client.
Corporate miscreants do have the right to legal representation. Yet Holder, who as a government official in earlier years had
targeted wrongdoers, had no obligation to become a hired gun after leaving the Justice Department. He could have become a
university president, a law school dean, a nonprofit chairman, a public interest lawyer. True, he would have had to get by on
perhaps $250,000 or so a year instead of ten times that amount. But he would have continued a life of service.
Holder did what so many Washingtonians--Democrat and Republican--do upon leaving government: he left the public interest
behind. The money was more important. (In his confirmation questionnaire, Holder did note he has "done more than fifty hours
of pro bono work in every year except one" at Covington & Burling.) Many of the people who follow this sort of path like to
continue to define themselves by their public deeds. When they serve on boards or write op-eds, they tend to ID themselves as
a former government official--not as a current shill for this or that in-trouble corporation. They assume they can easily move
back and forth between public service and private service--and they are right. In Washington, public officials are not snubbed or
denigrated when they become private profiteers. When it's time for them to return to public life, it's usually no big deal. The
capital's revolving door spins people into and out of government.
Holder may get a slap or two from the Republicans on the Senate judiciary committee for the Rich pardon or something else.
But he's likely to be confirmed. He may well become a good attorney general. Someday, down the road, he might be feted at a
fancy testimonial dinner, and all his rather impressive accomplishments will be repeatedly noted. And with the encomiums
flowing, there won't be any mention of the Purdue Pharma victims and the highly-paid work Holder did to protect the people
and company who caused their suffering.
David Corn is Mother Jones' Washington, D.C. bureau chief

01-15-09 MoJo-Why Eric Holder Represents What's Wrong With Washington by David Corn

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

01-15-09 MoJo-Why Eric Holder Represents What's Wrong With Washington by David Corn

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

01-15-09 MoJo-Why Eric Holder Represents What's Wrong With Washington by David Corn

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1 of 2

Published on Thursday, January 15, 2009 by Mother Jones

Why Eric Holder Represents What's Wrong with Washington

David Corn is Mother Jones' Washington, D.C. bureau chief

You might also like