According to Rich Lesser, head of the Boston Consulting Group, his organization is “caught between two sovereigns,” with Saudi officials being “explicit” that complying with subpoena requests is “a violation of Saudi law.” McKinsey partner Bob Sternfels said much the same, claiming that complying with congressional subpoenas “could result in civil or criminal penalties” in Saudi Arabia. Teneo CEO Paul Keary—who claimed that Teneo is a “proud American company”—also pointed to Saudi threats as the reason his organization couldn’t fully reveal its work for the Saudi regime.
It was the first time that legislators had actually held consultants’ feet to the fire for their work on behalf of the world’s dictators. But the entire hearing itself was, in some ways, a dull affair, with senators rephrasing their demands for documents and the consultants sputtering over and again that they couldn’t comply. Still, for those who sat through the hearing itself, the implications were clear: Not only had American consulting groups injected themselves directly into some of the world’s reprehensible regimes but, as Saudi Arabia illustrated, dictatorships could now prevent those American consulting companies from revealing what exactly they’re doing, even after congressional demands. “You say you are [caught] between a rock and a hard place, but you have chosen sides,” Blumenthal at one point said. “You have chosen the Saudi side, not the American side.”
Pulling back, the implications of the companies’ claims were shocking. For the first time, American organizations claimed they couldn’t reveal the scope of their pro-dictatorial efforts because of threats from those same dictatorships. It was an unprecedented defense for stymying efforts at foreign lobbying transparency—and one that could set a debilitating precedent moving forward.