MOST HILL STAFFERS trust corporations, according to a new study by Lobbyists.info and The George Washington University. The study, “Congressional Attitudes Toward American Economic Institutions,” found that roughly two thirds of Hill staffers think corporations are trustworthy. Less than half say the same about organized labor, despite the fact that the sample leans slightly to the left.
According to POLITICO, this is enough to contradict the conventional perception that Washington is anti-business:
The poll comes amid rising complaints from the private sector that Capitol Hill doesn’t understand or appreciate business. In particular, corporations have been agitating loudly against the implementation of President Barack Obama’s health care law, saying it will raise prices and depress hiring.
Few of the 328 staffers polled could potentially be accused of an anti-business outlook, with only 3% opposing the idea that corporations are needed for economic growth, and less than 2% contradicting the statement that businesses have “a positive impact on communities.” On the other hand, over 13% think that corporations are not necessary for sustained economic growth, indicating a point at which staffers diverge on big business’s role in long term economic health.
THE WOMAN AT the vanguard of ongoing investigations into the IRS just so happens to be the author of The Lobbying Compliance Handbook, a Lobbyists.info publication. Cleta Mitchell has for years partnered with Lobbyists.info to generate first rate content and training for government relations professionals and their principals. Just two days ago, the Wall Street Journal ran a full page interview with Cleta at the head of their Opinion section.
The 2013 edition of The Lobbying Compliance Handbook is scheduled for release this summer. Look for Cleta’s semiannual LD-203 Boot Camp webinar late next month (the LD-203 is due July 30th).
EVERYONE WILL HAVE heard by now that Michigan Democrat John Dingell today became the longest serving member of Congress. (If not, one can easily catch up: see The Washington Post, National Journal, and Roll Call’s career in photos). Yet how many know who ranks behind him? Here are the top ten longest-serving members of Congress by length of service. The final column indicates their reason for leaving.
What unites these men? Firstly, they’re all just that: men. Secondly, they were all elected in the 20th century. And lastly, they’re all Democrats. Less strikingly, the two left serving are both from Michigan.
LOBBYING HAS ALWAYS been a difficult job. Yet more seems to be expected of lobbyists by the day. When it comes to fundraising, for example, “much of the pressure falls to K St.” This is resulting in the unenviable phenomenon of “no downtime.”
But the burden of fundraising is doing much more than corroding lobbyists’ leisure, which is always in short supply. It’s also affecting their finances. In order to meet the demands of a post-Citizens world, lobbyists are cutting more checks. An anonymous lobbyist in the above-linked article laments how “my kids are all going to community college since I’m giving all this money away.” Apparently time itself is no longer a sufficient sacrifice on K St.
On the one hand, nothing is new here. Campaign pledges and donations have long been used by lobbyists for leverage. Some have perfected the art of winning support through piecemeal contributions, effectively luring lawmakers to their cause, donation by donation, pledge by pledge.
On the other hand, everything is new. When a certain group of robed justices blows the top off years of campaign finance precedence (which they’re primed to do again), the debris will fall for years. The full effect of Citizens is thus yet to be felt by lobbyists. One thing is overwhelmingly evident: the depth of their wallets has a limit, whereas what’s expected of them does not. This forces a question upon all lobbyists struggling to stay relevant: how much is too much?
ACCORDING TO THE HILL’SKevin Bogardus, the latest lobbying battle is centered around cats. Big cats. Bogardus reports that
The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) and other groups are throwing their weight behind the Big Cats and Public Safety Protection Act, which would ban keeping the animals as pets or breeding them for sale.
Public disclosure records reveal that the IFAW hasn’t been throwing much weight behind anything since the mid-90′s, when in 1996 alone it raised half a million dollars and spent, if you’ll pardon the pun, the lion’s share. The Big Cats and Public Safety Protection Act may reverse that trend, bringing IFAW back to the vanguard of animal rights lobbying.
But despite the involvement of animal rights groups, advocates are emphasizing public safety as the measure’s central cause.* The implication is that this approach will enhance the visibility (and ultimately the palatability) of the proposed legislation. The name of the bill is itself a testament to this, in which the bulk of its syllabic frame is occupied by the public safety bit, with “Big Cats” being dispensed with up front and early. Also, there’s no allusion to animal welfare in this designation.
How else is the message being pushed? Metro ads. To LobbyBlog’s readers on K St.: look for images of caged lions and tigers the next time you board at Farragut.
*IFAW says that “in just the past two decades, dangerous incidents involving captive big cats in the U.S. have resulted in the deaths of 22 people (including 5 children); and over 200 additional humans have been mauled or injured.”
WHO IS THE most well-traveled member of Congress? That depends. If the term is used strictly in a congressional sense, in that only trips subsidized by the taxpayer count, and furthermore only trips that occurred in the last year, then Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.) earns the superlative. According to HT Politics’ new “Data Mine,” Dreier went on nine trips to 22 countries for a total of 58 travel days, beating out his Republican colleague and fellow Californian Devin Nunes, who went 6-20- and 33. In fact, Californians took gold, silver, and bronze for total travel days, the last going to Karen Bass (D), who racked up an impressive 29.
The most visited country was Afghanistan, followed closely by Spain and France. No surprises here: Afghanistan has our troops, and Spain and France are two of the most popular tourist destinations in the world. But it is curious how Kenya got more visits than Mexico, our immediate neighbor, and Saudi Arabia was graced with more than double the amount of travel days taken in the UK, with whom we share a “special” relationship.
Yet who’s to say that only national interests should be heeded when these trips are planned? Lawmakers need breaks too, and a stroll down the Champs-Élysées can be equally restorative for them as it is for the average tourist. Whether this should come at the taxpayer’s expense, however, is a contentious matter.
ALL LEGISLATORS BENEFIT, to some extent, from out-of-state campaign contributions. Some, however, practically rely on them. OpenSecrets lists 66 legislators as “anomalies” in this respect: they get more than half of their support from beyond their state’s (or “territory’s” in the case of Congressman Faleomavaega) borders. According to this metric, here are the ten most anomalistic* members of Congress:
“K STREET’S SPRING AWAKENING”is how The Washington Post described the recent blossom of new lobbyist registrations. A formidable batch of 686 registrations were filed in April, just enough to win the three-year record, and more than enough to augur well for those who predict a sprightly Q2. The Post sketches the chronology of lobbying activity as follows: a client hires a firm…a few weeks ensue…said firm registers after their first contact on the Hill…a few weeks ensue…said firm reports fees. Given that typical Q4 hiring seeped into the first months of 2013 (because of the fiscal cliff, as some have claimed), then a full rebound may come later than previous years, reaching its apogee this summer. There’s just one problem: August recess.
All together, too many factors are clouding the usually clear-eyed and credible metric of reported lobbying spending. A decrease in year-to-year spending from 2012-2013 may well result, continuing a trend that began in 2010 and prompting a slew of reporters to herald the demise of traditional lobbying. These tidings, should they come, are best taken with a skeptical eye.
WASHINGTON IS TEEMING with professional lobbyists who make their living by wooing and winning the eyes and ears of policy makers. Yet this week the outsiders are the ones turning heads. Three celebrities will have ambled through the halls of power by week’s end. Former Disney star Demi Lovato sat with HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius yesterday at the University of D.C. to honor National Children’s Mental Health Awareness Day. Friends icon Matthew Perry took to the White House and Congress to champion the efficacy of drug courts. Tonight, Breaking Bad‘s Bryan Cranston and his wife will be honored for their humanitarian work with missing and exploited children. Such events evoke memories of a seminal moment in “celebvocate” history:
OPENSECRETS BLOG recently sketched an unlikely comparison between the political influence of big tobacco and that of education. While the former’s command in Washington has largely waned since the 90′s, the opposite can be said of the education “industry.” Both have gradually become more partisan, tobacco leaning increasingly to the right, and education to the left.
So what actually happened to tobacco? Its demise is explained thusly:
In most election cycles between 1992 and 2002, the majority of the industry’s contributions came in the form of soft money. When the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 banned those contributions beginning with the 2004 cycle, tobacco dropped from 41st to 66th among industries in terms of overall donations, and to this day has not recovered.
Yet records of annual lobbying expenditures indicate a decline that originates well before 2004:
1998 was, after all, what might be considered a watershed year for tobacco. The massive settlement between “Big Tobacco” and 46 attorneys general demanding remuneration for tobacco-related health costs was a huge blow to the indsutry, and included provisions that limited its lobbying activity. For an alphabetical list of industry profiles, visit opensecrets.org/industries/alphalist.php
A DECLINE IN reported lobbying is not always synonymous with a decline in lobbying. Many would argue, as some have in recent weeks, that like a crooked weather vane, disclosure reports are a poor gauge of what they were designed to reveal. The most convincing reason for this is that people are avoiding the whole disclosure apparatus altogether by refraining from registration, and thereby joining the ranks of the underground lobbyists, or “unlobbyists.” This phenomenon distorts the size of the advocacy pool (making it appear smaller than it actually is) and, by extension, the extent of its activity. It’s conceivable that if this trend continues, the “unlobbyist” will no longer prove the exception to the rule.
But this isn’t the only reason why an apparent slump in lobbying spending may be illusory. Here are six more offered by Thomas Edsall of The New York Times:
1) The Obama campaign - Tech innovations from the Obama campaign have improved the efficacy of grassroots advocacy and are rendering the middle man obsolete:
[T]he success of the Obama campaign in advancing computer-driven techniques to reach key segments of the electorate has produced a blossoming industry of digital and specialized communications firms using data analysis, microtechnology and computerized list-building to create public support for or opposition to legislative and policy initiatives – virtually all of which goes effectively undisclosed.
2) The Obama Administration - The administration’s anti-lobbying executive orders have ironically discouraged registration:
Taken together, these regulations have encouraged those interested in public service to find jobs that do not require them to register as lobbyists. Or, put another way, those who are eager for government work are not going to formally register themselves as lobbyists and thus make themselves ineligible.
3) Public Relations - PR is replacing GR as another form of advocacy:
To address diminishing revenues, lobbying firms have created their own public relations operations, subsidiaries with the same goals as the lobbying arm, that charge similarly high fees, but which do not have to be publicly reported to either the House or the Senate.
4) Digital advertising – It’s becoming more political. Edsall quotes Jen Nedeau of Bully Pulpit Interactive:
By using data-driven ads to craft a narrative, we believe that social media does not only have the ability to sell soap, but as we’ve already proven, it can help to get out the vote.
5) SOPA – It’s crushing defeat changed the rules of the game:
The scope of the ongoing upheaval in lobbying was brought home with a vengeance in 2011 and 2012 by the failure of traditional lobbying strategies to win approval of the Stop Online Piracy Act. In early 2011, by all normal standards, the odds were with passage of SOPA….The emergence of a powerful public force outside traditional avenues of influence put fear of elective defeat into the hearts of members of Congress and forced the lobbying community to beef up its own non-traditional tactics….Now, in the lexicon of Washington insiders, the acronym SOPA has become a verb, as in the warning to overconfident legislators: “Don’t get SOPAed.”
6) Social media – A cliche but nonetheless true:
[S]ocial media means almost anyone “can shine a light on” Congressional negotiations, so that company or association pushing an issue can no longer depend on the effectiveness of an old-guard lobbyist with good connections on Capitol Hill.
IT’S DIFFICULT TO say whether last week’s lackluster first quarter numbers are indicative of a general demise in lobbying activity. Insiders are providing the press with abundant reasons to eschew the data, among these the assertion that Congress is nursing a hangover from the fiscal cliff, and that lobbying traditionally picks up in springtime.
Perhaps. These arguments, though seductive, will only be well-founded if Q2 numbers reveal a dramatic rebound. Some are certain this will happen. Rich Gold of Holland & Knight told The Hill that “the second quarter is when it’s going to hit.” He told The Washington Post that “a lot of hiring occurred in March, so you’re not collecting the dollars until the second quarter.” And The Post itself followed up with this argument: “The true test for firms may come in the second quarter, after companies and associations have a chance to review new legislation and take positions on which portions of it they want to oppose or support.”
Until then, however (Q2 ends in two months), the numbers remain strikingly low. Even compared to other first quarters (see graph), the last few months were a pitiful showing. Finally, the argument (articulated by one prominent lobbyist) that the opening of a new Congress is the most likely cause for this kind of slump simply doesn’t hold water. At the start of the 111th and 112th Congresses, the top ten lobbying firms spent over 1.5 times as much as they did this time around.
FIRST QUARTER LOBBYING disclosure was due Monday. Here are some of the highlights:
Facebook spent $2.4 million for lobbying in Q1 2013, $1 million more than it spent in Q1 2012, and over $1 million more than it spent in all of 2011.
The NRA spent about $800,000 in the first quarter, over $100,000 more than it did in Q1 2012. OpenSecrets blog calls this slight uptick in spending “surprisingly little” given the intensity of the lobby’s rhetoric after Sandy Hook.
The most targeted issue for lobbying spending was (surprise) pharmaceuticals, where over $22 million was spent. Merck & Co Inc bested the rest of the industry by spending $4 million, roughly what Phrma spent in Q4 2012. This time around, Phrma spent a relatively meager $1 million.
Here are the top ten spending firms in 2013 so far:
PATTON BOGGS LLP
$7,712,500
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
$5,382,500
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP*
$4,195,000
VAN SCOYOC ASSOC INC
$3,767,500
BGR HOLDING LLC
$3,422,500
CASSIDY & ASSOCIATES INC
$2,997,500
ERNST & YOUNG LLP (WASHINGTON COUNCIL ERNST & YOUNG)
$2,930,000
CORNERSTONE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS LLC
$2,787,500
BREAUX LOTT LEADERSHIP GROUP
$2,632,500
FIERCE ISAKOWITZ & BLALOCK
$2,542,500
*bold = firm jumped in rankings from previous quarter
LOBBYIST MARK HAYES, a hired gun for the health insurance company Humana and former aide to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), is at the center of an insider trading scandal and preliminary probe by the SEC. The Wall Street Journal broke the story Wednesday:
His [Hayes's] email to Washington investment-research firm Height Securities, alerting it to a government decision that will save the industry billions of dollars, was a final piece of confirmation Height received before blasting a news alert to its clients, according to emails and people familiar with the matter.
The government decision, made by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and not yet public at the time of Hayes’s email, reversed earlier plans to reduce Medicare Advantage payments, a big surprise to the industry. As The Hill explains, “the case has prompted criticism of political intelligence firms, which can easily trigger movement in the stock market using insider information but are not required to register or publicly disclose their lobbying work.”
Mike Mayhew, Chairman of Integrity Research Associates, contributed to this criticism: “I don’t believe that the political intelligence and policy research industry has done a very good job of policing itself. Part of that is that it’s a gray area, so they don’t know how to police themselves.”
[T]rade and activity of this sort falls under the heading of trading based on “political intelligence” emanating from Washington. The STOCK Act, heretofore known as The MOLDED SWISS CHEESE Act, does not directly address this stench….Financial reform? Yeah, right!!
Perhaps the most interesting twist to the story, as the reporters at POLITICO Pro pointed out, is that Sen. Grassley began his own investigation on the leak before realizing that his former aide was involved:
Pro’s Jason Millman has an amazing story about what happened when Chuck Grassley went looking for the source of a leak of sensitive details on Medicare Advantage payment rates — and seemed to be zeroing in on a former aide. In a letter, Grassley asked whether a lobbyist at Greenberg Traurig tipped off Height Securities, a political intelligence firm, about a soon-to-be-announced increase in Medicare Advantage rates. The Wall Street Journal identified the aide as Mark Hayes, a long-time senior aide to Grassley on health policy and Medicare.
