George Kerevan: Money and US politics conspire in bid to link BP with Megrahi

WHY has the mighty US Senate Foreign Relations Committee decided to open investigations into BP and the compassionate release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi? Why did it demand the appearance of Kenny MacAskill, BP chief executive Tony Hayward, Jack Straw and even David Cameron for questioning?

Actually, the mighty US Senate Foreign Relations Committee is not particularly interested in this subject. What happened is that a couple of Democratic members of the committee, Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, asked the chairman, ex-presidential candidate John Kerry, if they could hold a single day's hearings as a publicity stunt. The patrician Kerry agreed as a favour.

It should be no surprise that Senate Democrats are giving BP a public kicking and trying to stage television-friendly Senate hearings on the emotive subject of Megrahi. For November sees crucial midterm elections in which the Democrats are predicted to do badly. The latest polls suggest they will lose seven Senate seats, 30 House seats and ten governorships.

Four Democratic senators are pushing the implausible allegation that BP and the former Labour government influenced Kenny MacAskill to let Megrahi go. As well as Menendez and Gillibrand, the quartet includes Charles Schumer, from New York, and Frank Lautenberg, from New Jersey.

Only a third of the Senate is up for re-election but, crucially, that includes both New York seats, which explains why Schumer and Gillibrand are being so outspoken. Also, the New York State upper house is under threat from the Republicans. Ditto in New Jersey, where the Republicans won the governorship last year.

Who are these four senators and what is their personal agenda? They are led by Schumer. His thirst for publicity is legendary, even in US politics. According to the New York Times, fellow senators quip that "the most dangerous place in Washington is between Charles Schumer and a television camera".

The Times also notes that Schumer "plays an unrivalled role in Washington as beneficiary, advocate and overseer" of the Wall Street financial community. He has been christened "the senator from Wall Street".

In 2008, Schumer received a $53,750 donation from Lehman Brothers, shortly before the investment company went bankrupt, triggering the global credit crunch. Schumer did not hand back the money to Lehman's creditors. So much for his public stance over BP's lobbying.

This year he has accepted $28,400 from Goldman Sachs, $28,350 from JPMorgan Chase, and $19,400 from Citigroup. Could it be that a politician so close to discredited US banks might feel the need to direct attention elsewhere, perhaps to a "foreign" oil company?

Recently, Schumer sponsored a bill to stop "foreign" companies donating to US politicians. I'm not sure how this squares with the fact he has also accepted $63,000 from Credit Suisse for his election campaign.

Here is a real surprise: Senator Schumer has been in receipt of money from BP itself, albeit in modest amounts. This year he received $250, though I admit this is so tiny he might not have noticed (my figures come from the US Federal Election Commission - you can find them on the website of the non-partisan Centre for Responsive Politics).

Next is Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey. He is of Cuban descent and fiercely anti-Castro. Menendez has had to fight repeated accusations of corruption, including questions regarding his relationship with a former aide, Kay LiCausi, and (allegedly) his efforts to put lobbying work her way.

Menendez is little known in Europe but a power in Democratic circles where he chairs the Congressional Campaign Committee. He is also on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which decides how much royalties companies pay for exploiting federal resources.

In 2005-2010, one of the biggest campaign contributors to Menendez was Langan Engineering & Environmental Services, a New Jersey firm. It gave him $66,775. Langan has started operations to support the extraction of unconventional shale gas in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New York State. The US Environmental Protection Agency has "serious reservations" about allowing shale gas drilling in New York for fear of contaminating water supplies.

Curiously, under Tony Hayward, BP also moved aggressively into exploiting US shale gas. In 2008, Hayward spent $1.9 billion to buy a 25 per cent interest in the shale assets of rival Chesapeake Energy.

Next is the ultra-ambitious but inexperienced Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a former corporate lawyer with eyes on the presidency. Gillibrand only arrived in the Senate last year when she was appointed by New York governor David Paterson to the seat vacated by Hillary Clinton.

Now Gillibrand has to get elected in her own right. A vacillating centrist, she is disliked by right-wing Republicans for being too liberal, and by left-wing Democrats for receiving a 100 per cent approval rating from the notorious National Rifle Association.

Gillibrand's sudden concern over BP's secret lobbying in Libya stands in marked contrast to her earlier career. Before entering politics, she represented Philip Morris, the world's largest cigarette company.

According to a New York Times investigation, Gillibrand was "closely involved in key tobacco-related litigation, including aiding Philip Morris's controversial efforts to suppress information on the health effects of cigarette smoking collected by its German lab, the Institut fr Biologische Forschung".

She has also accepted campaign donations from tobacco companies despite the fact that other Democrats refuse tobacco money. Did I hear someone say blood money?

The final member of the quartet is 86-year-old Frank Lautenberg, actually the most liberal member of the Senate. Lautenberg is under Republican fire because of his age and his left-wing politics. He covers himself by taking a tough stance on terrorism. Interestingly, he has just recovered from a bout of cancer.

I commiserate with those families who lost loved ones in the Lockerbie massacre. Rather than playing political games for election purposes, I think there should be a genuine inquiry into who really did the bombing. Perhaps the US and British governments would like to open their secret files and tell us what they know.