Former Congressman Bart Stupak, stupaks again.

Remember the verb “to stupak”?

This is in from Catholic Vote:

His tears have turned to smiles with bigger paydays.

Formerly principled former Congressman Bart Stupak, being a “former” congressman, has decided to cash in.

Now he’s a partner with a lobbyist law firm that has as one of its clients Planned Parenthood of Maryland.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Emanations from Penumbras and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Ellen says:

    It’s all about money, power and influence. Supporting pro-life causes will get you uninvited to all the nice parties don’t you know.

  2. Liz says:

    Was he ever pro-life? Or did he truly change? I wondered that then and I wonder it now.

  3. benedetta says:

    Wow. White shoe lobbying firm. That’s a lot of executions…oops I forgot to use the going euphemism…I meant those are a lot of procedures to afford those fees. I guess PP of MD leadership figure they are worth it. The tears of a clown…

  4. The Astronomer says:

    Thirty Pieces of Silver come in all shapes and sizes.

  5. tapatio says:

    But for Maryland, Bart?

  6. irishgirl says:

    To quote Our Lord: ‘What does it profit a man that he should gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul?’
    Politicians…they are corrupt, the whole lot of them…
    St. Thomas More, pray for us!

  7. wanda says:

    Bart, Bart, what happened to you? I really didn’t need to see Maryland on here. Very sad.

  8. markomalley says:

    This is surprising, why, exactly?

  9. Well, not so fast. I yield to no man in my welcoming Stupak’s loss of political office, but, a lawyer’s merely working for a law firm that has among its clients, an evil one like PP, is not necessarily for that lawyer to cooperate in that evil. I’d want more evidence of degree and kind of cooperation.

  10. benedetta says:

    It could be legal work and it could include lobbying.

  11. The original Catholic Vote post has been pulled, wisely so, imho.

  12. Gail F says:

    Dr. Peters is correct, I think. There is not enough information to go on, if it’s even true.

  13. benedetta says:

    Stupak obviously can and do what he wants. Much more interesting is the fact that PP seems to be able to afford the fees that a large DC lobbying firm can typically garner. Perhaps PP receives a discount. There is no reason to seek out a law firm which specializes in lobbying if it is only garden variety legal work that is sought so it is likely for lobbying services. PP must have a need for high powered lobbying.

  14. Katherine says:

    Is this another example of right wing hypocracy or can we know say that we will hold a consistent standard for Democrats and Republicans that they are accountable for all clients of a firm they are employed by?

  15. L. says:

    He’s hanging around prostitutes and tax collectors? He must be up to no good with them!

  16. benedetta says:

    L., You mean to say that Bart Stupak is The Lord?

    OK. It just sounds like business as usual for politicians of all stripes. Maybe this firm doesn’t ask their usual fees for lobbying in the case of PP and just, lobbies other politicians for their needs, out of the goodness…

  17. MichaelJ says:

    Hypocracy? You really think so? If I criticize one individual for a particular act, but do not criticize another for that same act, is that hypocracy? Favoritism, perhaps, inconsistency, more likely, but hypocracy?
    I’d say that in order to make the charge of hypocracy “stick”, you’d have to identify a former Republican Congressman who is partnered with a lobbying firm that promotes abortion and whose employment by that firm is defended by those who now criticize Bart Stupak

  18. zgietl says:

    I have to agree with Dr. Peters on this one. Take a look at their list of clients, they have a lot of them including the Diocese of Brooklyn. Do we know he will be working with them? This would be like condemning a doctor who works at a hospital that offers RU486. The doctor may be in no way connected to this, and in fact do a lot of good through his or her work just like Mr. Stupak may as well with this firm.

  19. benedetta says:

    If Mr. Stupak ends up lobbying as a partner in this high powered firm for the Diocese of Brooklyn then it would not be in the role of Jesus Himself as L. would have us believe. I would say though that a lot of faithful give money to the Diocese of Brooklyn which operates a great many schools and apostolates which care for people from all faiths in need. Whereas what is it that PP does as a public service, exactly which winds up compensating their lobbying fees?

  20. Perhaps the Diocese of Brooklyn should not be using a law firm that also has Planned Parenthood as one of its clients. I know if I were a bishop and I found out about something like this, I’d start looking for another law firm. I also know that if I were a lawyer and I found out that my employer represented Planned Parenthood, I’d quit on the spot.

  21. PostCatholic says:

    It looks like the site has unpublished this article. Just as well; judging a lawyer negatively because other lawyers in his firm have unsavory clients is an analogue to judging a priest because other priests in his religion hold unsavory liturgies.

  22. benedetta says:

    Perhaps this time next year PP MD will no longer be enabled to splurge on the white shoe lobbying fee budgetary item — people may be opting more and more for the “parenthood” and less for the “procedures”. Wonder what their lobbying “goals” consist of…

  23. PostCatholic says:

    It’s more likely that Venable, being a sizable law firm with the capacities for the considerable legal needs a controversial organization like Planned Parenthood has, provides legal counsel for Planned Parenthood and not is engaged in lobbying activities on its behalf.

    I once had Venable as a client. I was retained for marketing-related services on behalf of a pool of clients who were small-business defence contractors suing the US Government for what they thought were discriminatory practices in contract awards. I wonder if I’m as guilty as Stupak.

  24. benedetta says:

    If you need help in legal matters then you don’t also need the lobbying which comes at a premium and that’s just as likely as any speculation really, nothing makes yours “more than likely”. When you say, “controversial” are you referring to the pretense of the women’s health services PP doesn’t provide, or the willingness to enable patrons to exploit underage women for sexual gratification, the abortion or the idea, starting from the name of the entity that they are supportive of long-term women’s health or families. Or are you referring to the tenets that hold that no matter PP’s eugenics informed practices that their position in society ought to be held as sacrosanct.

  25. PostCatholic says:

    I was being objective, not defending Planned Parenthood’s activities. What’s more controversial than abortion? Planned Parenthood does lots of stuff that is either controversial enough to land it in trouble with the law or dangerous enough to land it in civil suits. Any organization undertaking those risks is going to need a lot of lawyers. Venable is primarily law firm. Like every law firm of its massive size, it has the ability to offer services that bridge the space between advocacy within public policy (legal defense) and advocacy to change public policy (legislation, activist litigation).

  26. It is truly amazing how his so called Principles are, isn’t it! At least we know how many pieces of silver it costs!

  27. benedetta says:

    Not all massive or large law firms offer lobbying services. A law firm may add those services, which need not be provided by a lawyer, in recognition of a certain synergy, possibly. It’s not all about one or another client but about the profit as all in the legal world will tell you these days it is a business and profit set the pace.

    I’m sorry but your brand of “being objective” like all the various euphemisms “deployed” do justify, defend, or ordain the core “mission” of PP. Why not just call it “planned abortion”.

  28. robtbrown says:

    Katherine says:

    Is this another example of right wing hypocracy or can we know say that we will hold a consistent standard for Democrats and Republicans that they are accountable for all clients of a firm they are employed by?

    Re Bart Stupak: He has had the disadvantage of being a member of a political party whose official position is abortion on demand. Further, if memory serves, there was talk of a his vote for Obamacare (which would doom his re-election chances) being bought by the promise of a lucrative job with a big time lobbying firm.

  29. What if Stupak defended a client in a murder case, where the evidence showed he was guilty? Would that be wrong? I mean, he would have been defending a murderer! Wait, that’s right! Everyone in the United States has a right to a lawyer, and that’s a good thing. Even the evil people at Planned Parenthood. If it is just legal matters, he could even in good conscience defend Planned Parenthood in a court of law. Lobbying for them would of course be a different matter.

  30. benedetta says:

    Not everyone has a right to a lawyer…the accused in a criminal case has a right to representation. I don’t doubt that PP has its legal needs and apparently its lobbying needs and like I said, to meet the fees of such a fancy schmancy firm, well, that’s a lot of procedures…

  31. robtbrown says:

    Bart Stupak was hired as a Lobbyist, not a litigator.

  32. PostCatholic says:

    Well, Benedetta, you seem to me to have taken me for a supporter of Planned Parenthood and I assure you, if that is what you think, then you’re wrong about me. I only called the organization by its name because, well, that’s what its name is.

  33. benedetta says:

    PostCatholic, You are free to support whatever you want to support and I assure you I haven’t decided anything personal about you and your feelings about PP at all. I’m sorry that’s what you have concluded as a result of my taking issue with your assertion that PPMD goes to a place like Venable primarily for legal services. Surely you don’t think one should assign beliefs which are not present just for discussing what is presented. Are we never permitted to question what PP is engaged in, especially when the organization seeks to be funded by taxpayers?

Comments are closed.