How is Clark/Acxiom different from Cheney/Halliburton?

[worldgonekrazy]

We all know by now that, after retiring from the military, Wesley Clark worked as a consultant and lobbyist for a number of companies. Among that list was Acxiom, a database company that focuses on consumer databases. Sounds innocent so far, but Clark served on the Board of Directors specifically because he could help that company offer its services to the government in the wake of 9/11. Acxiom sought to take its expertise on consumer databases and translate that into what are essentially databases to monitor and spy on the American public. An example of such a project is a database that screens airline passengers (the infamous "no fly list"), for which Acxiom has already won government contracts.

Now so far we have some activity that some might find questionable in terms of ethics, but there isn't anything illegal. That was until Acxiom chose to violate its own privacy agreement by turning over information from its databases to Torch, Inc. What did Torch, Inc. want this information for? The answer may shock you: to update a version of its Computer-Assisted Passenger Pre-Screening Program (CAPS-II). Some here might recognize CAPS-II as a part of the downright scary Total Information Awareness program.

Some will point out that this program's goal is to stop terrorists from boarding planes and as such serves a good purpose. I will ignore, for the moment, the question of whether such a violation of privacy is warranted for this. Instead, I would point out that there have been SEVERAL instances of people essentially being "blacklisted" because of their involvement in events such as non-violent protests. These people are not terrorists yet were identified as such by the program for the sole purpose of harassment.

Wesley Clark was likely not involved in much of this, but as a member of the Board of Directors he was the key lobbyist to procur these contracts from the federal government. It is interesting that Clark speeks so highly of civil liberties in his speech yet in his business career he directly enabled severe violations of civilian's privacy in the name of profits.

Here is an excerpt from an article that provides a bit of background info on Clark and Acxiom:

Since retiring from the military in 2000, Clark has held a variety of industrial positions, including jobs with a Washington, DC-based technology firm, an investment company, and director or advisor positions with six other organizations. In most cases he was brought on board to assist with military or government contracts.

One such company is Acxiom Corp., the Little Rock, AR-based data firm. Clark joined Acxiom in December 2001, and played a part in the company’s efforts to market its services to federal organizations involved in homeland security, according to Acxiom spokesman Dale Ingram.

Ingram did not comment on whether Clark’s actions resulted in any new business for Acxiom.

While Clark is maintaining his position on Acxiom’s board of directors, he did terminate his consulting agreement with the company upon announcing his candidacy. That contract was valued at $150,000 per year, said Ingram.

The full article is here: http://www.directmag.com/ar/marketing_wesley_clark_keeps/


To be fair, Acxiom did announce on the 9th of October that Clark was resigning from its board of directors, after Clark had been sharply criticized by other candidates for his involvement with the company. One such attack, coming from Joe Lieberman, was summed up as follows in a December article int he International Herald Tribune:

The director of Senator Joseph Lieberman's presidential campaign says General Wesley Clark is misleading voters by not giving full details about Clark's work as a lobbyist in Washington after he retired from the military in 2000.

Reacting to the release of Clark's federal financial disclosure form late Friday, Craig Smith, the campaign director, and Brian Hardwick, his deputy, said in a conference call on Saturday that the general was "profiting from the revolving door" between the Pentagon and private business and likened his situation to that of Vice President Dick Cheney and his former employer, Halliburton.

Source: http://www.iht.com/articles/121463.htm


So how is Clark's relationship with Acxiom different from Cheney's with Halliburton? One sought to profit on the climate of fear following 9/11 while the other sought to profit on war before and after 9/11. Doesn't seem much different to me.

On edit: changed subject line to reflect proper spelling of Acxiom

[Jack_Dawson]

1. LOL - you guys are really scraping the bottom of the barrel

Why all the desperation? Don't worry Dr. Dean is still in the lead...

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[worldgonekrazy]

8. I don't think it is "scraping the bottom of the barrel"

I am seriously concerned about this. Here is a guy who, as a member of the board of directors of Acxiom, directly profited from invading the privacy of Americans. Does that not concern you? How do you reconcile that with Clark's supposed support of civil liberties?

These are honest questions that need to be answered.

Edited for grammar

[BobbyJay]

2. Jerry Rice is awesome

www.clark04.com

[HFishbine]

3. Does anybody know

if Clark still owns Acxiom stock and/or options?

[SahaleArm]

6. He resigned from the board which means...

his options terminate within a 90-day window from the date of resignation, that's assuming he had vested options. No idea about what his portfolio contains; then again I don't know what the other candidates hold.

[worldgonekrazy]

9. From the WSJ

Acxiom has given him 4,210 shares of its stock, valued
at about $67,000 at yesterday's close. The company has
also paid his consulting firm an annual retainer of
$150,000, about the same as his base salary as supreme
commander of North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces.
(A company spokesman said Gen. Clark's candidacy
automatically terminates the consulting contract, but
he will remain on the board.)

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/portside/message/4792

This is from Septemeber, so it is obviously out of date (for example, Clark resigned from the Board of Directors).

The company says that his candidacy ends his retainer for lobbying, but I don't know how the shares were effected by his resignation from the Board of Directors. Even if he does still hold them, $90,000 isn't a lot of money.

[Democrats unite]

13. I hope he does...

He's not President Yet.

[KoKo]

14. Fishbine, Here's the info about Clark and what he owns of Acxiom.......

This doesn't come through well on DU so use the link. It will give you what he's done with it. All Public Info. On Edit: He's been acquiring shares in the company but he's witholding what they are in some purchases and sales. It seems he's still actively involved with the company as a purchaser. You have to go to the site...


http://biz.yahoo.com/t/00/4559.html

CLARK, WESLEY K.: Declared Holdings
Company/Relationship Reported Shares Ownership
Acxiom Corp
Director
NasdaqNM:ACXM
(historical quotes, profile, SEC, other insiders) 2003-07-30 4,305 Direct
Entrust Technologies Inc
Former Director
NasdaqNM:ENTU
(historical quotes, profile, SEC, other insiders) 2003-10-06 4,800 Direct
Insider & restricted shareholder transactions reported over the last two years
Date Shares Stock Transaction
ADVERTISEMENT
2003-10-06 3,300 ENTU Acquisition (Non Open Market)
2003-08-01 1,500 ENTU Acquisition (Non Open Market) at $3.20 per share.
(Value of $4,800)
2003-07-30 95 ACXM Acquisition (Non Open Market) at $15.79 per share.
(Value of $1,500)
2003-05-21 104 ACXM Acquisition (Non Open Market) at $0 per share.
2003-02-05 2,106 ACXM Acquisition (Non Open Market)
2002-02-21 2,000 ACXM Acquisition (Non Open Market) at $0 per share.

[HFishbine]

22. Still buying!

Thanks KoKo.

The thing that jumps out at me is that he bought 3,300 shares after he declared his canidacy. Look, I understand that a guy has to have a place to invest his money, but this doesn't strike me as very smart.

[robforclark]

31. Actually, it shows...

...he stopped buying Acxiom in July, and only bought Entrust after he announced. No real conflict there, I believe. Entrust is actually a company that prevents against identity theft.

Let's finda another straw man to knock down! Yeah!

[HFishbine]

39. You're right

You are correct. I didn't notice the different symbol. I stand corrected. He has not purchased Acxiom stock since declaring his presidency. He clearly hasn't sold out either, holding at least 4,300 shares.

FWIW, here's a definition of straw man you might find helpful:

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Straw%20man

[worldgonekrazy]

44. So he stopped buying stock after declaring presidency

Because he knew that to do so would be in extremely poor taste and would be immediately identified by rival candidates and the press.

That doesn't show an ideological shift. Just smart politics.

Once again: doesn't it concern you that this man used his expertise and connections to profit from the invasion of American citizens' privacy?

[Hoppin_Mad]

63. Thanks for your research - any more links ? -eom-

[Tinoire]

66. Entrust is just as bad as Acxiom. What's Wes's fixation w/ Homeland Sec?

Entrust Inc. (Internet-security company / CEO is co-chair of the Corporate Governance Task Force and works with Homeland Security)


Entrust Enables Homeland Security
The critical mission of the government agencies in charge of homeland security is to protect and defend the country against threats. In order to accomplish this mission, government agencies must leverage the Internet for real-time data access, communication and collaboration, which can only be enabled by strong Internet security. Entrust has helped numerous government agencies to secure their systems and securely share critical homeland security data.
http://www.entrust.com/homeland_security/

05 Mar 2003


Entrust Applauds House Homeland Security Committee’s Establishment of Cyber Security Panel


Congressional Leaders Recognize That Without Cyber Security, There is Not Physical Security

WASHINGTON, DC - Entrust, Inc. (Nasdaq: ENTU), a leading global provider of Internet security solutions and services, today applauded the House Homeland Security Committee's establishment of a subcommittee charged with overseeing Federal cyber security policies and agency initiatives to secure government and private network infrastructures.
The Committee, headed by Chairman Christopher Cox (R-CA), voted yesterday to create four additional subcommittees devoted to border security, emergency preparedness, counterterrorism, and internal oversight.

http://www.entrust.com/news/files/03_05_03.htm

Press Release Source: Entrust, Inc.


U.S. Department of Homeland Security to Engage Public-Private Partnerships At Upcoming Cyber Security Summit
Tuesday November 11, 10:00 am ET
Entrust CEO Bill Conner Appointed as Co-Chair of Corporate Governance Task Force


DALLAS, Nov. 11 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Entrust, Inc. (Nasdaq: ENTU - News), a global leader in securing digital identities and information, today announced that CEO Bill Conner has been appointed as co-chair of the Corporate Governance Task Force that will convene at the upcoming National Cyber Security Summit, a public-private initiative jointly sponsored by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and members of the high-tech industry. The Summit, featuring DHS Secretary Tom Ridge, Assistant Secretary of Infrastructure Protection Bob Liscouski and National Cyber Security Division Director Amit Yoran, will be held December 2-3, 2003 in Silicon Valley, California.
The Summit will initiate both planning and action, bringing together representatives from across the critical infrastructures, government and academia, to collaboratively craft tangible solutions for major security challenges identified in the White House National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace released earlier this year.


http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031111/datu015_1.html

[KoKo]

26. And here's a link to what Clark owns in his other Co. Entrust.

Entrust Technologies Inc:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ir?s=ENTU

and:http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=ENTU

[HFishbine]

30. What does Entrust do?

Any business with the government?

[KoKo]

62. Well, do a quick Google, and see what you find. I'm not a Clark trasher

I only responded to another question.

[Clark Can WIN]

70. nevermind

[Tinoire]

67. See post 66 - Here's a little - Clark & Entrust

Entrust Resources
America Must Be Prepared to Fight on a New Battlefield: The Cyber Front

By: General Wesley Clark and Bill Conner Entrust Chairman, President and CEO

We are battling terrorism on all the traditional fronts – land, air and sea. Yet we have begun to realize that, as in every war of the past century, advances in technology present us with new and vastly different fronts.

The next battle in the war on terrorism may be on the “cyber front.” It offers relatively easy opportunities for our enemies given that our nation now vitally depends upon computer and network infrastructures that control everything from our electric power grids to financial institutions. We have created vast, efficient systems that make our nation the envy of the world. But the very networked nature of those systems means that a single, stealth attack launched from thousands of miles away could cause wholesale damage and destruction of government and civilian infrastructures.

In fact, extensive economic damage could result from a successful cyber attack and the attackers don’t need visas, airline tickets or large amounts of money to inflict considerable harm. One person skilled in manipulating modest amounts of data could potentially circumvent controls of a major dam, shut down electric power to a large portion of the nation, cripple emergency response communications in a major city or disable aviation safety.

Yet our nation remains exceedingly exposed to cyber attack. America has moved neither fast enough nor far enough to secure these systems. In fact, a survey recently published by the Business Software Alliance ( BSA ) points to this serious gap in preparedness. It shows that nearly three of four IT professionals, those closest to the cyber front, believe the federal government is not sufficiently prepared to deal with a major cyber attack.

Are the terrorists capable of a cyber attack? It is abundantly clear from recent news stories that our enemies, including Al Qaeda, know how to use information technology to conduct covert communications ( such as hiding messages in otherwise innocent pictures ). News accounts also have shown that they have indeed targeted our critical infrastructures for attack.

We need to quickly devise and implement a national cyber security plan - a plan that is a partnership between the private and public sectors as mandated by President Bush. It must include federal, state and local officials, law enforcement agencies, the high-tech industry, researchers and the private companies who operate the infrastructures.

In partnership, this group must immediately identify vulnerabilities, large and small, that could be exploited in cyber attacks. This clearly must be the most immediate task undertaken when the Department of Homeland Security is officially established. There then must be a concerted effort to devise and deploy technology solutions with the appropriate policies and procedures to targeted vulnerabilities.

At the same time, Congress and the federal government must allocate the funds required for these solutions, and they must be implemented as quickly as possible. And this must be done in an orderly way, through President Bush’s proposed cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security, so that our security solutions and policies work effectively across all our vulnerable systems, instead of a patchwork system that creates its own vulnerabilities along the way.

The good news is that we don’t need to undertake the information age equivalent of the Manhattan Project to do this vital work. Much of the technological innovation necessary – the hardware, software and the knowledge to implement them – already exist. But now we must decide to act to defend the nation on the cyber front.

From google cache: http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:4q5fC2M95FcJ:www.entrust.com/resources/article3.htm+Entrust+%22Homeland+Security%22+%22Wesley+Clark%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
or
http://search.entrust.com/entrust/vv_docread.asp?k2dockey=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eentrust%2Ecom%2Fresources%2Fnewsletter%2Fdec02%2Farticle3%2Ehtm%40ent%2Dall&querytext=wesley%3CAND%3Eclark&serverSpec=search.entrust.com:9900&treeMode=&dtype=2


He resigned, true to form, after beginning his Presidential quest:
09 Oct 2003


Wesley Clark Resigns From Entrust Board of Directors


DALLAS - Entrust, Inc. , a world leader in securing digital identities and information, today announced that retired U.S. Army General Wesley K. Clark resigned from the Entrust Board of Directors on October 8, 2003.
"On behalf of Entrust and its Board, we are appreciative of General Clark's contribution as a valued Board member," said Bill Conner, Entrust chairman, president and chief executive officer. "We respect his decision to resign given his growing time constraints and wish him well in his personal endeavors."

General Clark had been a member of the Entrust Board since January 2002.
http://www.entrust.com/news/files/5557.htm

[worldgonekrazy]

75. My goodness, it looks like something Ashcroft would write

A defender of civil liberties indeed.

[TorchTheWitch]

4. THIS again?

:eyes:

[HFishbine]

7. Honestly, I don't get it

Clark supporters are so dismissive of this issue. Do they really think Clark is going to sail on without this issue eventually coming up? I think they are in for a shock.

[jmaier]

10. Clark

was basically a paid marketing consultant for these folks. That's a far cry from being CEO of Halliburton. I've been a paid consultant to literally dozens of major companies. I can't recall them ever putting me into general decision-making positions or asking my opinion on who they should fund politically.

These are in point of fact not comparable situations. You can make some hay with the whole 'lobbying' issue coming on the heels of 9/11 but it isn't a Cheney/Halliburton like connection.

on edit:
BTW: it's not being swept under the rug, it's been raised quite often in the media, featured heavily in a big NYT feature article, etc. It won't be fresh news in 2004. Of course, it comes up numerous times a day around here but this isn't the electorate at large.


Wes Clark. He will make an extraordinary American President.

[worldgonekrazy]

11. The issue is Clark profiting from the post 9/11 climate of fear

by helping Acxiom to invade the privacy of American citizens. I believe I said in the post Clark was probably not involved in many decisions (such as selling database info to CAPS-II), but he was involved in getting Acxiom government contract to spy on citizens. Doesn't that bother you?

[SahaleArm]

18. What bothers me is that the government lets this happen...

Everything else is conjecture.

[worldgonekrazy]

24. Your candidate's involvement in it is not conjecture

And if it bothers you that the gov't lets it happen, do you think that a guy that has worked to profit from it in the past is the one to change it?

[SahaleArm]

28. He was involved with the company - that much you know.

You don't know what he did while he was there, that's where conjecture comes into play.

[KoKo]

33. He's still involved with two of his companies. That's okay by me....but

do the research on the companies and see what you think. There's nothing wrong with this.....but check the links I listed above. Does his Military Career have any influence on these companies? Why was he a Director? The Press will ask it eventually. So, it's good to know.

[worldgonekrazy]

40. Not true: from Acxiom and Clark

Clark retired in 2000 after a highly distinguished and decorated 34-year military career, culminating with a successful tenure as Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, and Commander in Chief of the U.S. European Command.

...

"In the 21st Century, information — the ability to assemble it, integrate it and understand it — will be one of the most important drivers of the global economy and its security," Clark said. "I look forward to this great opportunity to support Acxiom in building an information infrastructure required by our nation and our world."

Straight from the horses mouth. Clark joined the board of directors because he could use his military experience and connections to get them government contracts to build databases on its citizens. That is a direct link to CAPS II

[SahaleArm]

59. Powers of clairvoyance - impressive n/t

[jmaier]

19. Reasonable question.

Yes, Clark's working in support of CAPS-II is a negative for me. I don't think it's as evil as Patriot I & II but it isn't something I support.

Hopefully, you may have seen enough of my posts to suggest that I'm not a rabid Clark supporter. I rarely, if ever, post any thing negative about any of the candidates and never launch a anti-X thread. I came to my support Clark decision after quite a long period of tallying up the positional, electoral and intangible pros and cons on several of the candidates who interested me: Gephardt, Dean, Kerry and Clark. I'm not infatuated in any one of them but do think they all would make good Presidents.

Wes Clark had several cons in my book at first:

1 Acxiom marketing for CAPS-II
2 no track record competing in a campaign
3 late start

He's put my concerns #2 & #3 to rest but I'm still not happy about #1. It isn't enough to change my mind but it is an accomodation. In a similar vein, I have cons for the other 3 candidates and they simply outweighed those for Clark. Not enough to hinder my actively supporting them if they become the nominee.

I object to your thread because it's another one of these histrionic, false analogy attacks. I would have been more forthcoming. Something along the lines of "Clark lobbied for CAPS-II and profited from a post 9/11 hysteria. Doesn't this concern you?" The Cheney/Halliburton linkage was stretching to try and simply raise people's temperature imo.

peace.

[worldgonekrazy]

27. Perhaps you are right re: title

I was trying to point out that people on this board love to attack Cheney (and rightly so) for his tendency to profit from war, yet many are willing to turn a blind eye to Clark's profiting from the Climate of Fear. I see them as equally bad, although it is true that Clark has profited much less and has not abused an elected office to do so.

Thanks for your well reasoned post. I now see where you are coming from.

[HFishbine]

37. I see your point

About the title of the thread, but it has some legitimacy when it comes to Clark being "neutralized" on certain issues. It will be hard for Clark to condemn Cheney's Haliburton ties, for example, if he himself is profiting from government contracts.

[KittyWampus]

20. Spy On Citizens?

This is where the paranoid bullshit comes from.

And Security would be an area Clark might be informed about.

Are you saying that companies should NOT hire people who have areas of expertise that mesh with their product?

Are you trying to say that after 9/11 the holes in our Security Systems weren't exposed?

Have you ever heard of the Hart/Rudman report?

Do you really believe that Airling Passengers shouldn't be screened?

Do you think the current inefficient and unreliable method of using Name Recognition is enough?

[worldgonekrazy]

36. My concerns

First, speaking from personal experience, people are put on these "terrorist lists" who do not belong there. During the march up to the war an anti-war student group at my college campus was put on the local terrorist alert list because they were planning civil disobedience. Should these people not be allowed to fly on airplanes because they thought a good way to get out their message was to block traffic for a half hour? I don't think so.

Secondly, there are many legitimate privacy concerns. Here is an excerpt from an article from the United Press International, outlining some of these concerns:

The TSA said the new system will be a significant improvement, but CAPPS II is the subject of a firestorm of protest from privacy and citizens' rights advocates on the both the left and — more worrisome for the administration — the right. Critics claim it would violate travelers' privacy and Fourth Amendment rights.

    "It's becoming increasingly apparent," said David Keene of the American Conservative Union, "that Ridge and his colleagues are behaving like any other bureaucrats," trying to expand their responsibilities and their power over citizens as far as they can.

    Conservative activist Grover Norquist concurred, calling CAPPS II "a bad idea which will collapse into bigger, worse ideas." Former Rep. Bob Barr, Georgia Republican, said the plan will do "irreversible damage" to the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches.

    Critics also charge that the system will not make the airways safer — terrorists can get around it by simple identity theft — and may encourage a dangerous complacency by letting security staff believe they know who the potentially risky travelers are.

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/010903capps.html


But to be honest, if the prospect of Total Information Awareness and CAPS II doesn't scare you on its face, I guess there isn't much I can do to change your mind. Call me paranoid all you like, but I am worried about this trend towards a police state.

[HFishbine]

47. Let's be clear

CAPPS II IS NOT is a terrorist watch list. It's intended to scrutinize the medical, housing, purchasing, travel, earning, tax paying and subscription activity of EVERY American in an attempt to spot similarities to the behavior of terrorists, however those may be defined. It's profiling and domestic spying at its worst.

If people are okay with the government monitoring it's citizens to such a degree, then the terrorists have scored a major victory.

[worldgonekrazy]

51. Amen HFISHBINE, Amen.

The thing is, I'm worried that people ARE okay with it. It seems that some on THIS board, which I consider to consist of some of the most politically informed people in the general public, are okay with it. Scary.

Do we really want a candidate who was involved in it? To say he was involved in CAPS II is a leap (but perhaps true), but he was at least involved with the monster that helped create CAPS II.

[HFishbine]

56. Another point to consider

A lot of republicans and conservative independents are furious at Bush for his administration's violations of civil liberties. Clark will not be able to take the high ground on this issue. Conservatives who don't like the idea of being monitored are not going to find relief in Clark.

[OKNancy]

38. Not only was he not involved

but there have been several articles which have stated that one of his concerns was protecting civil liberties. Yes, he was involved in getting the contract, but he had no idea that they would sell it to Jet Blue and he had no involvement in that.

It doesn't concern me because this is such a stretch. Clark has repeatedly said that there are parts of the Patriot Act he would suspend ( search and seizure) and the rest should be gone over closely.

After 9-11 the mood of the country was such that protecting citizens to make sure nothing like that happened again. There are STILL a lot of frightened people out there. This will not become a campaign issue with 99% of the public.

[worldgonekrazy]

45. What he says and what he has done are two VERY different things

And therein lies the problem for me.

He DID use his expertise and connections to get Acxiom that contract. He knew that Acxiom planned to use it to set up a database to identify problem fliers. If he did not foresee the potential (and consequently realized) abuses of this, then he is a fool. If he did foresee it and got the contract anyways, then he is lying about his commitment to civil liberties. Neither option looks good.

[OKNancy]

54. Well, if you think he is a liar, then don't vote for him

I happen to think Clark is one of the most honest, brilliant, straight-arrow, and caring people to ever run for President.

Some people are just so damn cynical.

[worldgonekrazy]

55. I WON'T vote for a liar and profiteer of fear

I've decided that long ago. Now I am trying to convince YOU not to make that mistake.

[OKNancy]

60. Oh, hello again, I was away at the Clark blog

for a while. No chance because I don't believe that is the case. You see, I hate Bush and I want to win. Clark isn't a liar and is not a profiteer.

Now, I don't want to get a yellow card from the mods, so I'll quit now.

[HFishbine]

29. I appreciate your take

But you gloss over a couple of important facts:

1) Clark was not a "marketing consultant." He was a paid lobbyist (even had to register as such) for Acxiom and served on it's board of directors.

2) Acxiom is not Amway. It's a company that is in cahoots with the government to establish a system that some reasonable people consider a violation of Constitutional protections.

3) The government continues to do business with Acxiom and Clark keeps buying their stock, even after declaring his candidacy. In that regard it is very, very much like Cheney and Haliburton.

[KittyWampus]

17. Shock? Axciom Is A Legitimate Company

who was contracted by the US Government.

Everything certain posters try to assert about Clark/Axciom is "guilt by association" paranoid bullshit. And easily labelled as such. It's already be addressed.

But just out of curiousity... What do the posters who insist on bringing Axciom up think about Screening Airline Passengers?

Right now they've only used Name Recognition. Do you think Name Recognition is sufficient despite its proven inefficiency and inaccuracy?

[worldgonekrazy]

46. Please see my post #36

And just because you keep saying that it isn't a valid issue doesn't make it so.

[KoKo]

65. "Acxiom has heard of you. If you are like 95% of Americans..."

(Here's a clip from archives that one of our DU'ers Tinoire posted awhile back from her research. It's interesting for a re-visit, if anyone's interested)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do Wesley Clark and nearly 50 million Americans part ways?
By Michael Paranzino, October 4, 2003

By Michael Paranzino, October 4, 2003

Let’s see here. Until moments ago, Wesley Clark was a registered lobbyist. Not exactly what primary-voting Democrats profess to like. He was praising one President named Ronald Reagan and two named George Bush, and was raising money for the GOP. Strike two. And he is a soldier. Oops. That’s the ultimate crime on the Left.

Clark seems to think that being a dove now forgives him for wearing the uniform all those years. But why would Democrats vote for a newly-converted dove when Howard Dean offers them the real thing?

But Wesley Clark has a fourth problem, and given the headlines of the last two weeks, this could actually dwarf the other three.

<snip>

While all this was going on, Wesley Clark was just getting around to ending his federal lobbying contract for a company called Acxiom. (He’s still on the Board of Directors, along with, among others, the former Postmaster General of the U.S. Postal Service and Clinton/Kissinger-pal Thomas F. “Mack” McLarty III.)

You may not have heard of Acxiom, but Acxiom has heard of you. If you are like 95% of Americans, Acxiom knows your name, Social Security number, income level, martial status, number of children, vehicles owned, and probably that furious bout you had with hemorrhoids a few years back (next time, pay in cash and don’t use your supermarket Bonus Card when you buy that Preparation H!). And they don’t just know it, they share it with anyone who will pay.

<snip>

http://www.rightpolicy.com/clark.htm

(#####UPDATE 10/10/03: On October 9, five days after this essay appeared and after more than 500 people had accessed this page ( including dozens who came from discussion boards on DemocraticUnderground.com and Salon.com), Wesley Clark bolted from the Board of Directors of Acxiom Corp. "The Company said Clark originally had hoped to fulfill his duties as a Company Director but that the growing demands of seeking the U.S. presidency had made that impractical." Score one for RightPolicy.com.)


http://www.rightpolicy.com/clark.htm

[oasis]

48. Let's say he's the nominee, who's going to bring this up? Ralph Nader?

[worldgonekrazy]

52. That is of secondary concern to me

My first concern is that this is not the kind of man that I want as my President. It is unconsciounable in my book to profit off of the increased invasion of privacy of American citizens in the climate of fear following 9/11. ESPECIALLY when one claims to staunchly support civil liberties.

[oasis]

61. The primary concern to me is getting Bush out of the White House.

We can talk about "the lesser of two evils is still evil" until the cows come home, but my bottom line is beating Bush.

You have to go with your best shot.

[Hoppin_Mad]

5. These VITAL questions need to be addressed by Clark - and SOON !

Thanks for 'digging up the dirt' on what seems to be a 'stinking corpse' in Clark's highly questionable past - and very RECENT past.

[Killarney]

12. I think there is a difference

The problem I have with Cheney and Halliburton is that Cheney is the Vice-President of the U.S. and gave no-bid contracts to Halliburton, a company in which he still has 433,333 shares of stock in (approx $10 million right now). Halliburton then overcharged the American people. And being a Halliburton shareholder, Cheney profits from this. It is a conflict of interest and that is why the SEC is investigating.

Clark has done nothing of the sort.

Now, in three years if Clark awards no-bid contracts to Acxiom and Acxiom overcharges the American people and Clark profits from Acxiom getting these contracts as in money/stock... then we'll talk. :)

As of right now, Clark has done nothing wrong.

Hope that helps. :toast:

[worldgonekrazy]

15. In a literal sense you are right

Cheney abused his office to profit from war.

Clark only used his lobbying position to profit from the climate of fear following 9/11.

I suppose Clark is the lesser of two evils. Thanks for pointing that out.

[SahaleArm]

16. Yeah ACXM is a real profit machine...

:shrug:

[worldgonekrazy]

23. They're working on it

1/6/04: Acxiom Completes the Acquisition of Claritas Europe:
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/040106/65443_1.html

Acxiom® Corporation (Nasdaq: ACXM - News) today announced that the transaction to acquire the Claritas Europe group of companies from VNU N.V. of Haarlem, The Netherlands, has been completed and is effective January 1, 2004.

"I am very excited about our new opportunities in Europe," said Acxiom Company Leader Charles D. Morgan. "We have an excellent leadership team in place and we have already begun making progress toward integrating the Claritas Europe operations into Acxiom."


12/17/03: Accenture and Acxiom Join Forces to Help Companies Better Leverage Customer Information to Improve Business Results
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/031217/175307_1.html

The relationship enables Acxiom and Accenture to leverage each other's capabilities to develop solutions that can simplify and enhance the way customer information is collected, cleansed, analyzed and used across the enterprise. Effective access to accurate and complete customer information enables companies not only to improve marketing results, but also to increase the profitability and effectiveness of customer relationship management functions and operations.

The two companies are working together to standardize and scale Acxiom's customer information infrastructure to provide integrated services to joint clients. Additionally, as Accenture's preferred provider of customer information services globally, Acxiom will host Accenture's customer analytic factory infrastructure. The customer analytic factory offers services designed to accelerate and enhance the data processing required to power more-effective customer analytics, marketing and interaction results.


11/12/03: Acxiom Wins Direct Response Gold Award In the United Kingdom for Second Year in a Row
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/031112/125626_1.html

Direct Response, a British business magazine, has awarded Acxiom® Corporation (Nasdaq: ACXM - News) with its Gold SMART Award for "Best Marketing Database Software" for Acxiom's Customer Data Integration (CDI) solutions. The panel of 15 independent judges, all experienced marketing professionals, described Acxiom's CDI solutions as "having the best incremental benefits" based on several case studies.

This is the second consecutive year Acxiom has received a Gold Award, having won last year's "Best CRM Software" award for InfoBase® Real-Time Enhancement.


More here: http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=ACXM&d=t

[SahaleArm]

25. That they are performing their fudiciary duty to the shareholders...

by growing the company? I'm shocked!

[cosmicdot]

35. I don't think Acxiom making a profit, 'per se', is the issue

and, although, on the one hand, I've posted Acxiom concerns since 2002, and business association with Jackson Stephens ...

... on the other, before Joe Lieberman asks for explanations, he should offer one for why he sits proudly on the Nixon Center's Board of Directors along with Kissinger and other radical right-wing Republicans ...

[worldgonekrazy]

42. Exactly

I was merely trying to refute the assertion that Acxiom is an insignificant company. Whether they are or not though is really beside the point. It scares me that a Democratic Presidential candidate has a history of using his expertise and connections to invade the privacy of American citizens. Can anyone refute that statement or offer an explanation as to why it should not scare me?

BTW, I agree with you on Lieberman, but just because the messenger sucks doesn't mean the message is invalid.

[HFishbine]

50. Kissenger?

You mean of Kissneger McLarty* Associates?

* What data-mining, government-contracting company's board does McLarty sit on? http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/rarey/rarey5.html)

[HFishbine]

49. It's profitable if you acquire your shares at $0

http://biz.yahoo.com/t/00/4559.html

[SahaleArm]

64. Part of the salary package...

And pretty small for a board member.

[democratreformed]

32. This is exactly what I was thinking

but wasn't sure how to articulate it.

Not that the people who started this post will listen.

[KaraokeKarlton]

21. Isn't that the technology that allows security people to see your genitals

and basically look at you naked under your clothes? I saw a special on one of the news shows like Primetime or something. I decided then and there that if this is implemented I will never fly again. I don't like the idea of someone being able to see me or my children naked in the name of finding terrorists. I'll drive, take the train or go by boat, thanks.

[corporatewhore]

34. is it any different from Gore/Occidental oil

[returnable]

41. Shhhh!

Don't complicate the issue. They hate when you do that :)

[worldgonekrazy]

43. No, and thats why I am for Dean

Show me Dean wrapped up in some of these highly questionable business deals. He's not. The best anybody can offer is that he was "corporate friendly" as governor, which is simply not true. Did he try to lure businesses to his state to create jobs for his citizens? Sure. But that is a far more legitimate goal than personal profit from invasion of privacy.

[wyldwolf]

58. You're either kidding or in denial

Dean and IBM

[worldgonekrazy]

68. IBM is Vermont's largest employer

So yeah, Dean was friendly with them. I see this as a seperate issue though, because in this case Dean was not personally profiting from invading people's privacy, but rather was working to ensure that the people of his state would keep their jobs. Seems like a much more legitimate concern to me.

[HFishbine]

53. Occidental Oil was spying on US citizens?

Yes, it's a little different.

[KoKo]

57. Kick!

:kick:

[lovedems]

69. It's nice to see so many democrats doing the dirty work of the republicans

I don't have my candidate yet but this is the kind of crap I expect to hear from republicans, not a fellow democrat.

[HFishbine]

72. Call it crap if you want

but we are vetting a candidate and expressing concerns about his efforts on a project that violates civil liberties to the extreme. Don't know why there are objections to that.

[lovedems]

73. You are doing more than vetting a candidate when you compare him

to the idiot in the WH. I know candidate bashing when I see it.

Edited for: It is insulting to compare any of our nine to the crooks who are currently in WH.

[LoneStarLiberal]

71. Why Should I Care What Lieberman Staffers Think?

Come on, now. Bolding and underlining what two of Lieberman's campaign staffers said about Wes Clark? Who cares what they think, unless of course you are either a Lieberman supporter or just flat-out don't like Wes Clark?

Emphasizing what one campaign thinks of another one is an exercise in pointless tail-chasing. I wouldn't expect any of the other campaigns to have anything nice to say about any of the other candidates...after all, they are all competing in a zero-sum environment for the same goal: The nomination. It doesn't break down into nine pieces.

The Acxiom issue is just another one of those things like Dean's Vermont energy meetings that you either accept or reject based on your support of a candidate. Do I think Acxiom, a company based in Little Rock, Arkansas with a world-wide staff of 5,000 profited as much from a climate of fear and insecurity as Halliburton, a company based in Houston, Texas with a world-wide staff of 83,000?

No. And I'd argue that if you don't see the difference then you're in a world of hurt.

This whole question is just so fundamentally irrelevant on so many different levels I don't really know where to start. As any good aggregation, let's start on the individual level and work up:

Individual: Wes Clark was a retired general who lobbied for a home-town IT database company in a competitive process of contract assignment. Dick Cheney is Vice-President of the United States and Halliburton was awarded gigantic contracts in a no-bid process.

Institutional: Acxiom is a small IT company with a technological solution that could play a role in aiding the administration in a time of a national security crisis. Emphasis on "could." Halliburton is a company with a substantial lead over all competitors in the sector of oil field services.

If I'm wrong about the above information, please let me know. That picture looks very different to me: Clark was not a nationally-elected official of the United States government. Acxiom was not a polygot conglomerate that ruled its particular sector's rivals. Therein lies the very substantial difference: One company had a lobbyist who lobbied the Federal government on behalf of their IT solution through a competitive bidding process at a time of insecurity; the other company had a former CEO as sitting Vice President and was rewarded windfall billions without a competitive bidding process.

Acxiom is only an issue for those who hate Wes Clark, those who fear Wes Clark, or those who can't think for themselves. EVERY candidate has baggage that is either acceptable if you support him or her or is despicable if you do not.

Moving on...

[HFishbine]

74. What you omit

I suppose one can reasonably debate the degree of similarity between Clark and Cheney, or Acxiom and Haliburton, but you are wrong about the issue being of concern only to those who "hate" or "fear" Clark or who can't think for themselves.

In fact, it seems to be the thoughtless who ignore, as your post did, that Clarks actions were to advance a scheme that is an intrusion on civil liberties. Haliburton, for all its ills, is not in the business of monitoring US citizens on the governments behalf. It is the unprecedented scrutiny and monitoring of citizens that is the most egregious aspect of Clark's efforts on behalf of Acxiom.

[LoneStarLiberal]

76. Fair Play To You On That Point

<http://www.arktimes.com/brummett/100303brummett.htm>

"I'm told that Charles Morgan, the Acxiom chairman, was tooling around Europe in 1999 with American business executives. He kept hearing flattering things about a fellow from Arkansas, a Gen. Wesley Clark, who was living in Brussels and serving as supreme commander of NATO troops.

Then when Morgan learned on or about May 2001 that Clark was retired and back in Little Rock, he invited Clark to join Acxiom's board. Clark initially declined, uncertain of his post-military career path.

Then came Sept. 11, 2001, at which point Acxiom believed it had information in its exhaustive database that might help the government screen airline passengers. Clark, working for Stephens, went to Washington and made pro bono inquiries in Acxiom's behalf at the Treasury, Justice and Transportation departments.

Jerry Jones, general counsel for Acxiom, told me Clark acted from a sense of patriotism. "He very much regretted that he was out of uniform at a time of great peril for the country, and he wanted to do something to help," Jones said.

That December, Acxiom arranged a $300,000 contract through Stephens for Clark's services, and Clark joined the Acxiom board. This year, with Clark on his own, Acxiom entered into a $150,000 contract with him directly. The contract was canceled upon Clark's announcement of his presidential candidacy, though he remains on the firm's board.

Acxiom has several government contracts to help develop a data-based airline screening system, but development has been hampered by concerns about funding and privacy."

I think does a nice job of discussing one state-level take on Wes Clark and Acxiom.

I deserved the jab about being thoughtless as I ended my original post with an unflattering blanket characterization of people arrayed against Wes Clark on this issue. Fair play to you on that.

It is the unprecedented scrutiny and monitoring of citizens that is the most egregious aspect of Clark's efforts on behalf of Acxiom.

In what way is Acxiom's passenger screening system, as it is this very day, responsible for unprecedented scrutiny of citizens? Does it monitor airline passengers? Well, monitor isn't really the right word for it; it's a huge database and a data mining platform.

As for the Acxiom's co-operation with JetBlue on the sale of 80,000 passengers' data to Torch Concepts that came under fire for questionable disclosure practices, that's not something I would want a company to do with my data, so it's not something I condone.

But this brings us back to what I see as the point at hand here: All candidates have baggage. Does Clark's lobbying on Acxiom's behalf prior to this taking place make him solely responsible for all of Acxiom's actions? Do you hold your candidate solely responsible for every consequence of every action he's ever taken, both good and bad? I'd venture probably not.