Distorting the DHL Deal

The revised amendment would have prohibited DHL (which, at the time, was the only non-U.S. air carrier with a major U.S. presence) from engaging in business with the federal government. McCain participated in the debate of the Stevens amendment but registered no objection to it at the time. The amendment passed via voice vote, so there is no record of McCain's position. The spending bill passed 93 to 0.

Obama for America Radio Ad
Narrator: July 9. 2008. Portsmouth, Ohio. Here's what John McCain said about DHL's plans to eliminate 8,200 Ohio jobs.

McCain: I gotta look you in the eye and give you straight talk. I don't know if I can stop it or not or if it will be stopped.

Narrator: But there's something John McCain's not telling you: It was McCain who used his influence in the Senate to help foreign-owned DHL buy a U.S. company and gain control over the jobs that are now on the chopping block in Ohio.

And that's not all: McCain's campaign manager was the top lobbyist for the DHL deal – helped push it through. His firm was paid $185,000 to lobby McCain and other senators.

Now 8,200 Ohioans are facing layoffs, and foreign-owned DHL doesn't care.

McCain: I gotta look you in the eye and give you straight talk.

Narrator: John McCain. Same old politics. Same failed policies.

Obama: I'm Barack Obama, candidate for president, and I approved this message. Paid for by Obama for America.

McCain did later voice opposition to even the watered-down version of the amendment; on April 11, 2003, Congressional Quarterly reported that McCain sent letters to members of the House and Senate finance committees urging them not to include Stevens' language in the conference version of the bill. (The House and Senate often pass different versions of spending bills; they must then reconcile the differences in a conference.) In a press release at the time, McCain stated:

McCain (April 17, 2003): If there are legitimate reasons to change the criteria for determining US-citizen control of air cargo carriers, these considerations should be clearly articulated and debated in the normal legislative process - not inserted into a non-amendable vehicle in the dead of night.

McCain's efforts were unsuccessful. The final version of the bill, which became Public Law 108-11, includes Stevens' language and goes on to specify conditions for an air carrier to demonstrate that it is controlled by U.S. citizens. A December 2003 Congressional Research Service report concluded that the law applied to only two U.S. air carriers: ABX Air and ASTAR Air Cargo. However, in May 2004 (after the merger had taken place) the Department of Transportation ruled that ASTAR qualified as U.S. citizen-controlled. And a spokesperson for ABX Air told FactCheck.org that ABX "has never been precluded from bidding on government contracts."

The ads would be correct to point out that McCain opposed the version of the Stevens amendment that would have effectively prohibited the DHL sale. They would even be correct to point out that he opposed the watered-down version, which merely made the merger less attractive. But it's a stretch to suggest that McCain alone could have prevented the deal. There was considerable opposition even to the watered-down version, and President Bush opposed altering military contracts in the midst of two ongoing wars in Asia. Stevens' amendment might have passed if McCain supported it, but there is no way to know that.

Moreover the ads go too far in attributing motives to McCain. The Arizona senator has long crusaded against the practice of inserting pet projects into spending bills, and his April 17 press release lists the Stevens amendment as just one of the spending bill's 51 earmarks and 16 policy changes that he opposed. We can't judge people's motives, but we've seen no evidence to suggest that McCain's activities were directed at helping DHL do anything at all. And certainly we've seen nothing to suggest that McCain "turned his back on" Wilmington's workers.

A Merger That Was Applauded
The ads also engage in some fishy causal reasoning. The mailer and the radio ad both argue that it's the 2003 merger that is the direct cause of the job losses. But that's far from obvious.