|
|
March 22nd, 2013 by Geoffrey Lyons
THIS MORNING, POLITICO’S Anna Palmer and Elizabeth Titus published an article entitled “Why Republicans still run K Street.” In about 1,400 words, they offer eleven possibilities:
- K St. bet red in 2012 – “Some companies bet that Republicans would take back the Senate and the White House in 2012, beginning the process of scooping up talent months ahead of the election.”
- K St. is plain bias – “’There seems to be a philosophical and political bias against Democrats,’ McCormick Group’s Ivan Adler said.”
- K St. bet red in 2012 AND K St. is plain bias – “The bias toward hiring Republicans was on display over the past two years when corporations and trade groups continued to bet on Romney and Republican chances of taking back the Senate when making hiring decisions and in choosing to retain their top GOP talent.”
- There’s a shortage of Dems – “There are also fewer Democrats coming off the Hill or out of the White House who want to pursue corporate lobbying.”
- Republicans = business (1 of 2) – “The business world tends to hire more Republicans, anyway, since their beliefs align more closely with those of corporate clients, and potential Republican hires tend to have more corporate experience or a proven record leading an association or in-house team.”
- Republicans = business (2 of 2) -”Former Rep. Billy Tauzin told POLITICO that Republicans may dominate downtown ‘because most associations are business groups, which have, generally speaking, a closer association with the Republican Party.’”
- Tom DeLay – “[AKA the] K Street Project, in which then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) helped lead an effort to install Republicans in many of the top trade associations.”
- K St. hires Dems, just not for No. 1 roles – “Many Democrats are hired instead to be the No. 2 lobbyist in the shop, giving associations and companies plenty of political cover on Capitol Hill.”
- K St. is dominated by Republican issues – “There are also many industries — such as oil, financial services and health care — that a significant number of Democrats are unwilling to represent.”
- Administration officials are loath to lobby – “Democrats leaving the Obama White House have also been more reluctant than previous administrations of either party to join the influence-peddling ranks.”
- Powerful friends happen to be Republican – “Veteran Republican Frank Fahrenkopf said personal relationships and the scope of each group’s work matter more than partisan affiliation.”
Tags: Anna Palmer, billy tauzin, Elizabeth Titus, Frank Fahrenkopf, Ivan Adler, k st., lobby, Lobbying, lobbyist, mccormick group, Mitt Romney, Obama, politico, Tom DeLay, U.S. Senate, White House
Posted in Lobbying News | Comments Off
March 20th, 2013 by Geoffrey Lyons
RESTORE OUR FUTURE, the largest Super PAC to date, is the fundraising behemoth that was behind the Romney campaign. Its millions buttressed the ad blitz that arrested Speaker Gingrich’s primary momentum. Its donors have included millionaires, billionaires, federal contractors, and a phantom company that mysteriously dissolved after giving a clean million. Its founders and current staff were Romnians from the start. Treasurer Charles Spies (pronounced SPEEZ), a powerful DC lawyer and Republican activist, was with Romney since ’08. (Ironically one of his earlier roles was legal and policy adviser at the FEC, an institution anathema to Super PACs). Ditto Carl Forti, described by Mother Jones as a “pioneer in the post-Citizens United world of super-PACs and dark money” and by POLITICO’s Kenneth Vogel and Ben Smith as “Karl Rove’s Karl Rove” (Forti is also Political Director of Rove’s Super PAC, American Crossroads). A no less cogent designation has been applied to RoF’s very own Larry McCarthy, “attack ads’ go-to guy.” McCarthy is none other than the man who created the paragon of attack ads, the 30-second Willie Horton broadcast that knocked the wind out of Michael Dukakis. Though the Horton bit remains matchless, McCarthy’s Iowa ads stirred just as much frustration in their target (Gingrich), and in the fact-checkers who bestowed them with four Pinocchios.
The Sunlight Foundation has a webpage called “Follow the Unlimited Money,” which reveals how RoF’s cash is spent. So far 90% of its expenditures have been piled on attack ads, $89 million of which opposed Democrats and $40 million of which opposed Republicans. The remaining 10% went to positive ads for Republicans. A Democrat has yet to receive a dime.
Tags: Ben Smith, Carl Forti, Charles Spies, Citizens United, Gingrich, Karl Rove, Kenneth Vogel, Larry Mccarthy, Michael Dukakis, Mother Jones, Restore Our Future, Romney, Super PAC, the sunlight foundation, Willie Horton
Posted in Lobbying News | Comments Off
March 14th, 2013 by Geoffrey Lyons
FORMER FIFTEEN-TERM Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.), who lost his 2012 primary bid to fellow Democrat Brad Sherman, is joining Covington & Burling LLP as a lobbyist. The news comes a mere week after the firm picked up former Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), which compels one to ask, “who’s next??”
“Often dubbed half of the “Waxman-Berman machine” that dominated California politics for decades, Berman and longtime ally Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Los Angeles) are credited with bringing “Hollywood issues” like digital piracy to Washington.” – The Washington Post
“Although Kyl and Berman served in different parties and chambers, both said they have established a good working relationship over the years….Berman and Kyl were hired months after the firm brought on Dan Bryant, former senior vice president of global public policy and government affairs at PepsiCo, to lead its public policy practice in Washington and Brussels.” – POLITICO
Tags: Covington & Burling, howard berman, jon kyl, lobby, Lobbying, lobbyist
Posted in Lobbying News | Comments Off
March 12th, 2013 by Geoffrey Lyons
DESPITE PROFUSE PLEAS from friends and family, your humble blogger hasn’t seen House of Cards. According to Roll Call, that amounts to repeated missed opportunities to catch a glimpse of Cassidy & Associates’ G St. facade. According to The Economist, it means passing up scenes of politicians:
…lying, leaking secrets to lobbyists, framing rivals, indulging in fistfights (one in front of wide-eyed children) and snorting cocaine, as well as sleeping with prostitutes, their own staff and a story-hungry reporter.
While the Cassidy building’s existence is undisputed, it’s dubious whether any lawmakers are snorting coke. So what’s the veracity of the show?
It’s pretty accurate…
“Honestly, the egos and the quest and thirst for power is very prevalent in Washington…just the drive, you know, the drive to the next position or the drive for the position of power” Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.)
“The accuracy of the props—from congressional doorplates to visitors’ badges—is much discussed, and praised.” - The Economist
“…after the first couple of shows, [Underwood’s] office starts looking like my office. I have this big map, right, sitting in there. I look over on the wall, he’s got that whip sitting up there….Then in the ninth episode, he’s trying to pass this bill, and he says, ‘I’m going to tell you one thing: You vote your district, you vote your conscience. Just don’t surprise me.’ [I said that.]” Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.)
“It’s like evil ‘West Wing.’ And some of the shadier parts are so realistic.” – GOP strategist Amy Thoma
It’s fantasy…
“In real life, says a Democratic campaign aide, members of Congress are too nannied by staff to stride about hatching plots, one-on-one. In the real Washington, says a Republican staffer, leadership coups take longer to ferment….Other errors fall under the heading of flattery: the clothes are too elegant for DC, and the ratio of sexual trysts to committee meetings is strikingly high.” – The Economist
“The notion of any of our leadership team having sex with a reporter makes me laugh out loud. And besides, everyone knows there is no decent barbecue in Washington.” – Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)
“[The characters] do mix fundraising and legislation far more than people would do…offering x dollars to anyone who would support this bill. That would never occur in real life.” – Thoma
“If I were to make one criticism of the show, it’s [that] a South Carolina congressman’s barbecue of choice appears to be fairly sticky ribs, when true South Carolina barbecue uses a mustard-based sauce and even when it’s not that, it’s a more North Carolina vinegar mop.” - Mike Bober, Meat Week founder and Capital Spice blogger
Tags: amy thoma, Cassidy & Associates, claire mccaskill, house of cards, jeff duncan, k st., kevin mccarthy, lobby, Lobbying, lobbyist, mike bober, the economist
Posted in Lobbying News | Comments Off
March 6th, 2013 by Geoffrey Lyons
KEYSTONE XL IS reemerging as a central environmental issue after the State Department released a Draft Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) last Friday. Environmentalists are “fuming” and green groups “reeling” at the Department’s findings. According to The Hill:
Opponents of Keystone are furious at State’s environmental assessment of the project, which brushed aside one of their central arguments against it: namely, that it would exacerbate clime change by expanding the use of oil sands.
It can easily be expected that Keystone advocates and opponents alike will shower more money on the issue as a direct result of the report, the former feeding their momentum and the latter doing all in their power to starve it. Here are last year’s numbers, from CRP:
|
Oil and Gas Lobbying in 2012
|
| Royal Dutch Shell |
$14,480,000 |
| Exxon Mobil |
$12,970,000 |
| Koch Industries |
$10,540,000 |
| Chevron Corp |
$9,550,000 |
| BP |
$8,590,000 |
Tags: Center for Responsive Politics, environment, keystone xl, Lobbying, oil and gas industry, state department
Posted in Lobbying News | Comments Off
March 4th, 2013 by Geoffrey Lyons
WHEN NOT DISCUSSING Bob Woodward, some in the beltway have entertained how a ruling for the plaintiffs in McCutcheon, et al. v. FEC (see last post) would affect campaign finance. Paradoxically, lobbyists have premonitions about such a scenario, hinting that it would erode rather than enhance their leverage. Here’s a flavor of some of the early chatter:
“I like the limit because it gives me an excuse not to give more. If there was no limit, I would give more. Not $100,000 more, but more like $40,000 or $50,000 more.” – Republican lobbyist (The Hill)
“The ceiling is helpful to fend off entreaties from candidates who need more money. If the limits were invalidated, it could create a real problem….I had a friend who would max out very early in the cycle — give away all his money in the first two months — so he could say, ‘you’re too late,’ to the candidates.” – Tony Podesta, Founder & Chairman of Podesta Group (The Hill)
“If the limit is eliminated, I think you will see a proliferation of joint fundraising committees. The members who are good fundraisers and politically savvy will offer their less successful colleagues a chance to tap the ‘star power’ and reach into the lead member’s donor base.” -Pat Raffaniello, a principal in Raffaniello & Associates (The Hill)
“And because lobbyists do tend to support parties, getting rid of the cap could give political parties more power to compete with super PACs, which can accept unlimited corporate contributions. Without an overall spending cap, in theory any donor could give the maximum permissible $32,400 to a number of parties or even max out to every congressional or presidential candidate.” - Janie Boschma (OpenSecrets blog)
“In a rational universe, candidates and political parties would be more central to our system. They are the most accountable and the most transparent. The candidate is the one going into office, not the super PAC.” – Jim Bopp Jr., conservative lawyer and plaintiff. (The Washington Post)
“[I]f the court changes the standard of review to a stricter review for contribution limits, it could have a ripple effect and ultimately threaten the constitutionality of other limits, like the $2,600 individual limit.” – Rick Hasen, Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political Science, the University of California, Irvine (Campaigns & Elections)
“Dismantling the federal limit also could cast into doubt on state laws around the country. In New York, for instance, an individual cannot contribute more than $150,000 to candidates and political committees in the Empire State.” Fredreka Schouten (USA TODAY)
Tags: et al. v. FEC; campaign finance; money in politics, McCutcheon
Posted in Lobbying News | Comments Off
February 27th, 2013 by Geoffrey Lyons
LAST TUESDAY, the Supreme Court agreed to consider a challenge to campaign contribution limits imposed by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The limits in question are the ceilings – adjusted for inflation – that donors cannot exceed in a two-year election cycle. SCOTUSblog explains:
The two-year ceiling … — and this is what the new appeal is challenging – is set at $117,000 overall. That is broken down into $46,200 to a candidate for federal office and $70,800 to non-candidate entities, including national political parties and state political parties, and non-party committees. That second amount was restricted in that no more than $46,200 could be given to a state party or a non-candidate committee.
The plaintiffs are Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama Republican who was itching to donate $8,200 more than the two-year maximum, and the Republican National Committee (RNC). The case is appropriately titled Shaun McCutcheon, et al. v. Federal Election Commission, and is expected to be decided during the Court’s next term.
To be sure, there’s no telling how the Court will rule. It will certainly make a decision on the two-year ceiling, but it may also abstract the issue and revisit contribution limits generally. This is because the rationale behind the constitutionality of these limits has been debilitated in the last 30 years, the most notable instance being the unprecedented 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC.
Below are the ’11-’12 election cycle contribution limits**, with the “biennial limit,” or two-year cap, in red.
For a compelling debate on the issue of money in politics, see here. For a summary and recorded oral arguments of Buckley v. Valeo, the ’76 decision upholding the constitutionality of contribution limits, see here. For the Citizens case, see here. For Knox v. SEIU, which decided on union money used for political contributions, see here.
|
Individual may give
|
To each candidate or candidate committee per election
|
To national party committee per calendar year
|
To state, district & local party committee per calendar year
|
To any other political committee per calendar year (1)
|
Special Limits
|
|
$2,500*
|
$30,800*
|
$10,000
(combined limit)
|
$5,000
|
$117,000* overall biennial limit:
- $46,200* to all candidates
- $70,800* to all PACs & parties (2)
|
|
National Party Committee may give
|
$5,000
|
No Limit
|
No Limit
|
$5,000
|
$43,100* to Senate Candidates per campaign (3)
|
|
State, District & Local Party Committee
may give
|
$5,000
(combined limit)
|
No Limit
|
No Limit
|
$5,000
(combined limit)
|
No Limit
|
|
PAC (multicandidate)(4) may give
|
$5,000
|
$15,000
|
$5,000
(combined limit)
|
$5,000
|
No Limit
|
|
PAC (not multicandidate) may give
|
$2,500*
|
$30,800*
|
$10,000
(combined limit)
|
$5,000
|
No Limit
|
|
Authorized Campaign Committee may give
|
$2,000 (5)
|
No Limit
|
No Limit
|
$5,000
|
No Limit
|
**Chart available at www.FEC.gov
Tags: campaign contribution limits, Citizens United, FEC, money in politics, rnc, supreme court
Posted in Lobbying News | Comments Off
February 21st, 2013 by Geoffrey Lyons
FIRST IT WAS mid-sized banks (see previous post), now it’s credit unions. The latter have been lobbying against Dodd Frank reforms, arguing that they’re too harsh. “Credit unions are well-managed, well-run institutions that did not engage in the practices that led to the financial crisis,” said Fred Becker, [The National Association of Federal Credit Unions (NAFCU)] president and CEO. “Yet, the regulatory burden on our nation’s credit unions has reached epic proportions and that must be addressed immediately.” – The Hill
Associations are increasingly using Relationships, Advocability, and Political capital (RAP) indices to gain leverage on the Hill: “Here’s how it works: a trade association or advocacy group sends the RAP Index survey to their members by email. The software confirms their address, and finds a list of their local, state or federal elected officials. The survey asks members in-depth questions about any relationships with those officials and whether they’d be willing to be media surrogates.” – POLITICO
Nike is lobbying on behalf of the Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty (TPP), which was designed in part to remove tariffs between the U.S. and other countries along the Pacific Rim. The $67 billion shoe company would benefit from the elimination of duties on shoes made abroad: “But others are fighting to keep the tariffs in place. New Balance, the Boston-based athletic shoe maker, wants to maintain tariffs on shoes from Vietnam in order to protect the jobs of 1,350 New Balance workers who make footwear in the United States. A quarter of the shoes the company sells in North America are made in its U.S. manufacturing facilities.” – The Washington Post
The Keystone pipeline is still very much an issue, with thousands upon thousands gathering on the Mall Sunday to rally against its construction: “The rally, which was organized by the Sierra Club, 350.org and the Hip Hop Caucus, was billed as the largest climate rally in American history. Organizers estimated that about 35,000 people participated in the rally. The U.S. Park Police does not give crowd estimates.” – POLITICO
Some lobbyists continue to deploy opposition (“oppo”) researchers to disarm and discredit their foes: “Oppo researchers — who often have backgrounds in politics, government and law enforcement that may include the FBI or even the intelligence community — will also scan court documents, public records, campaign finance and lobbying disclosures and reach out to their contacts on Capitol Hill, K Street and in local communities.” – Roll Call
Tags: credit unions, k st., lobby, Lobbying, lobbyist, nafcu, new balance, nike, politico, rap index, roll call, the washington post
Posted in Lobbying News | Comments Off
February 14th, 2013 by Geoffrey Lyons
Not really, says Geoff Lorenz of University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
LOBBYISTS ARE NOT unethical per se. True, most organizations that lobby have narrow policy agendas, which can induce legislators to pay disproportionate attention to issues that their constituents don’t care about. But ultimately, lobbyists trade on their reputations – if people think you’re unreliable, it’ll be harder for you to get your job done. In that sense, lobbyists are only able to be unethical to the extent that legislators and other policymakers don’t care about good ethics.
Posted in Lobbying News | Comments Off
February 13th, 2013 by Geoffrey Lyons
Are lobbyists unethical? Email 100 words or less to glyons@columbiabooks.com. The best response will be posted.
FOR MOST AMERICANS, the answer to the above question is too securely in the affirmative to merit a response. It can best be classified as a rhetorical substitute for “yes,” much like “is the sky blue?” E.g.: “Is Washington broken?” “Um, are lobbyists unethical?”
It may be the case that many lobbyists are unethical, but to no greater extent than many school teachers or doctors are. These last are part of noble professions that contain some ignoble people. If lobbyists were incorrigibly unethical, there would have to be something incorrigibly unethical about lobbying.
But if the object of the question is the business of lobbying, and not the lobbyists themselves (if it is best read “is lobbying unethical?”), then all logic errs on the side of the negative. The activity of lobbying is ethically neutral: it can go in the direction of big tobacco or bone cancer research. Assessed through the lens of the Constitution, lobbying attains a positive ethical charge. The common thread that unites all lobbyists is their exercise of the freedom of speech and to petition, both couched in the First Amendment.
The assumption (dare I say conviction) that lobbyists are unethical is also fueled by a very unhistorical sentiment: nostalgia (or as the late sociologist Robert Nisbet called it, “the rust of memory.”) In the words of Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig:
The ordinary lobbyist today is a Boy Scout compared with the criminal of the nineteenth century. The lobbyist today is ethical, and well educated. He or she works extremely hard to live within the letter of the law. More than ever before, most lobbyists are just well-paid policy wonks, expert in a field and able to advise and guide Congress well. Regulation is complex; regulators understand very little; the lobbyist is the essential link between what the regulator wants to do and how it can get done…. Most of it is decent, aboveboard, the sort of stuff we would hope happens inside the Beltway. (Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress—and a Plan to Stop It)
To Lessig, lobbyists are not only not unethical, they’re admirable. Paradoxically, they’re the model of what most people think they corrupt.
Tags: Ethics, lawrence lessig, lobby, Lobbying, lobbyist, robert nisbet
Posted in Lobbying News | Comments Off
February 8th, 2013 by Geoffrey Lyons
LOBBYISTS ARE CLAMORING for a mention in the President’s big speech next Wednesday. According to Bob Deans of the Natural Resources Defense Council:“A lot of people compete for space in the State of the Union, and it’s weeks, months in the works….Every single priority lobbies hard for inclusion. We understand space is tight, time is limited and time is valuable.” - Roll Call
James Pinkerton, co-chair of the RATE Coalition: “Everybody hangs on every word the president says in the State of the Union, looking for their word, their sentence, their phrase, with fingers crossed,” said James Pinkerton, who co-chairs the RATE Coalition, which lobbies for a lower corporate tax rate.
Year-end disclosure reports reveal that the energy drink business is beefing up its lobbying efforts: “Since November, Monster Energy has spent $100,000 to lobby on ‘legislation and oversight regarding energy drinks.’….[Since] Nov. 26, Red Bull has spent $20,000 on lobbying.” – The Washington Post
This comes in the wake of FDA investigations into “adverse events” linked to the drinks. According to a November press release published just weeks before Red Bull and Monster began their lobbying crusade:
So-called “energy” products are relatively new to the market, and manufacturers of these products have labeled some as dietary supplements and others as conventional foods….FDA cautions consumers that products marketed as “energy shots” or “energy drinks” are not alternatives to rest or sleep….If you are thinking about taking one of these products, please consult your health care provider…
(Imagine hearing “ask your doctor if Red Bull is right for you.”)
The Post article continues: “Between 2004 and October 2012, 17 people died and more than 100 had chest pains, cardiac arrest and other health problems after consuming 5-Hour Energy, Monster and Rockstar beverages, according to FDA data. The FDA noted that the reports do not mean the drinks necessarily caused those ailments.”
Jake Perry, aide to Harry Reid since ’98, has set up lobby firm Jake Perry + Partners: “Jake Perry + Partners is currently based in downtown Washington and is aiming to sign on a broad range of clients, including those in the financial services sector. Perry, who still has family in Nevada, says he plans to one day widen his company’s base of operation to his home state as well.” – POLITICO
The Medical Marijuana PAC slashed “Medical” from its name: “The move came in the aftermath of two members of Congress introducing a bill to legalize and regulate marijuana at the federal level. And it’s a sign that pot advocacy groups are moving away from the ‘medical’ argument – which was always seen as a first step towards full legalization – and embracing the argument for full-on recreational usage.” – POLITICO
Tags: Harry Reid, jake perry, lobby, Lobbying, lobbyists, medical marijuana PAC, monster energy, red bull, rockstar, state of the union
Posted in Lobbying News | Comments Off
January 30th, 2013 by Geoffrey Lyons
THE FILIBUSTER, long an emblem of the Senate and symbol of American political culture, is not dead. Though some in the majority wish it were. Last Thursday night, the Democratic leadership put forth with bipartisan support (i.e., with drastically reduced impact) their best efforts to vitiate the obstructive tactic, which over the course of two centuries has frustrated the prospects of countless bills. Sadly, objections to the filibuster stemming from sheer annoyance at its efficacy rather miss the point. (Jefferson said, “we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.”) And the supreme irony of last Thursday is that, despite all the noise and the final passage of new rules, the filibuster remains virtually unscathed.
So what was actually accomplished? The Atlantic puts it in plain English. Formally, the new rules:
- Shorten debate following a cloture vote on the motion to proceed from 30 hours to four.
- Leave the ability to filibuster that cloture vote essentially intact.
- Allow the minority to offer two amendments on every bill.
- Shorten confirmation time for judicial nominees once cloture is invoked.
Informally (meaning no changes to the Senate rules):
- Senators will have to actually be on the floor to threaten a filibuster.
- Time allocated for debate will have to actually be spent on debate.
The question bears repeating: what was actually accomplished? Very little, says Martin Gold, Senate expert par excellence and Senior Counsel at Covington & Burling LLP:
The changes are not as extensive as some internal Senate and private sector reform advocates wanted. And they are more intrusive on minority rights than dissenters could tolerate. The new procedures respond to core complaints on both sides of the aisle. Democrats were irritated about the frequent use of filibusters on motions to proceed. Republicans protested against the preclusion of amendments.
Peter Weber of The Week puts it simply: These changes do not “end the current de facto 60-vote requirement for any bill to pass. That means it doesn’t, in fact, change the filibuster.”
And according to Jon Bernstein of the Washington Post, even if the new rules were more extensive, and did change the filibuster, Senators would still wield enormous power to slow a bill’s passage:
[T]here’s also another kind of obstruction, too. Even when there are 60 votes — sometimes, even when there are 70 or 80 or even more — individual senators and small groups of senators have had many tools to stall and delay. And because Senate floor time is scarce, those delays have raised the cost of bringing even overwhelmingly popular items to the floor.
So the Senate remains little changed from what it was a week ago, which counts as a victory for those who think it works rather well, thank you. But one is guilty of political myopia if he believes these institutional battles are over, as Ezra Klein’s timeline suggests:
History of filibuster reform
1917: A 23-day filibuster against a proposal to arm merchant ships pushes President Woodrow Wilson over the edge. He calls a special session of the Senate and persuades the members to adopt a cloture rule that allows filibusters to be ended with the agreement of two-thirds of the Senate. Previously, there was no way to close debate. Now there is.
1949: The Senate decides that the cloture rule also applies to procedural motions, such as a motion to proceed. The point, again, was to ensure that there’s a way to end debate.
1959: The two-thirds threshold for invoking cloture is lowered from two-thirds of senators “duly chosen and sworn” to two-thirds of senators “present and voting.”
1974: The Congressional Budget Act fathered the budget reconciliation process, a vehicle through which a bill dealing exclusively with budgetary matters can be protected from a filibuster. Welfare reform, the George W. Bush tax cuts and the health-care law all were passed through this process.
1975: The post-Watergate Senate, disgusted by the way the filibuster was used to preserve segregation in the ’40s and ’50s and ’60s, again changes the threshold for cloture, taking it from two-thirds of senators present and voting to three-fifths of senators duly chosen and sworn.
Tags: filibuster, filibuster reform, martin gold, reform, Senate, the washington post
Posted in Lobbying News | Comments Off
January 23rd, 2013 by Geoffrey Lyons
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT regulations that would require retail food sellers to label the calorie content in their food are rousing lobbyists from every corner: “Some pizza companies have demanded more flexibility, grocery and convenience stores insist they should be left out of it altogether and movie theaters really don’t want to shout out how many calories are in those buckets of popcorn.” – POLITICO
Ex-Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) will become a lobbyist, the latest in a growing list of recently retired lawmakers migrating to K St.: “The former senator has been named CEO of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). He will be the group’s chief spokesman and primary advocate in Washington. NAIC is made up of state insurance regulators and helps coordinate their oversight across the country.” – The Hill
Ex-Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) will become a lobbyist…again: “Like Democratic moderate Evan Bayh before him, Nelson is taking two K Street jobs. In addition to the NAIC, Nelson will be a ‘senior partner’ at public affairs firm Agenda.” Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner adds: “Ben Nelson, as a Senator, provided crucial support for both [the Affordable Care Act and Dodd-Frank]….This is one reason moderates have the quickest track to K Street. Their economic vision is generally both pro-business and pro-government. Whatever effect this has on business and the economy, it makes lots of work for lobbyists.” – The Washington Examiner
Four years after his executive order banning lobbyist gifts to executive agency appointees and slowing the revolving door, the President’s “lobby posture” is attracting revivified scrutiny: “Most lobbyists have complained that Obama’s executive orders on the revolving door have kept out some of the savviest policy experts, who are registered lobbyists. Further, they say, by branding registered lobbyists, whose clients and fees are publicly disclosed, with what amounts to a scarlet letter “L,” Obama has increased the ranks of the unlobbyists, those who peddle influence but don’t register with Congress.” – Roll Call
Disclosure reports are in, revealing a lackluster year for lobby firms: “Few K Street firms were able to escape the downward pull, with even industry leaders Patton Boggs and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld reporting a drop in their lobbying revenue from 2011….Lobbyists across the board expressed high hopes for the year to come. A reelected and reinvigorated president and a Congress more willing to consider big legislative items should be the ticket to stronger growth, they said.” – The Hill
A $100 cap on lobbyist gifts in Georgia is stoking some interesting debate: “One argument supporting higher legislator pay ties into the gift issue: If lawmakers earned more, they “would be less likely to feel entitled to the free meals, booze, and tickets to concerts and football games” given by lobbyists.” – Smyrna-Vinings Patch
Tags: affordable care act, ben nelson, Executive Order on lobbying, gift ban, k st., lobby, Lobbying, lobbyist, politico, roll call, the hill
Posted in Lobbying News | Comments Off
January 18th, 2013 by Geoffrey Lyons
LOBBYBLOG REMINDS YOU that two disclosure deadlines are approaching:
January 20 – LD-2
The once semi-annual, now quarterly report of lobbying income/expenditures is due for the fourth quarter of the LD-2 reporting calendar (see below). “Each registrant must file a quarterly report on Form LD-2 no later than 20 days (or on the first business day after such 20th day if the 20th day is not a business day) after the end of the quarterly period beginning on the first day of January, April, July and October of each year in which a registrant is registered.” (House Office of the Clerk). January 20th is in fact a Sunday, and the following Monday is a holiday, so make sure to get your LD-2 forms ready by Tuesday the 22nd.
| Reporting Period |
Filing Date |
| Jan 1 – March 31 |
April 20 |
| April 1 – June 30 |
July 20 |
| July 1 – Sept 30 |
Oct 20 |
| Oct 1 – Dec 31 |
Jan 20 |
January 30 – LD-203
The semi-annual report is required of all lobbyists to certify ethics compliance and disclosure. “Form LD-203 is required to be filed semiannually by July 30th and January 30th (or next business day should either of those days fall on a weekend or holiday) covering the first and second calendar halves of the year. Registrants and active lobbyists (who are not terminated for all clients) must file separate reports which detail FECA contributions, honorary contributions, presidential library contributions, and payments for event costs.” January 30th is a Wednesday.
For quick guidance on disclosure, visit lobbyingdisclosure.house.gov. For a more substantive reference guide, consider The Lobbying Compliance Handbook.
Tags: compliance, Disclosure, filing, HLOGA, LD-2, LD-203, LDA, lobby, Lobbying, lobbyist, the lobbying compliance handbook
Posted in Lobbying News | Comments Off
January 15th, 2013 by Geoffrey Lyons
The State Lobbying Compliance Handbook is available fore pre-order here. The 113th Congressional Freshmen Report can be ordered as a full report or with select member profiles here.
THIS BLOG HAS no objection to self-promotion. But even if it did it would strain to suppress the announcement of Lobbyists.info’s two latest publications, The State Lobbying Compliance Handbook and The 113th Congressional Freshmen Report, both of which cast fresh light on areas hitherto very dim.
Take state lobbying. Until now, there have only been feeble attempts to conglomerate the disparate and contradictory elements of state lobby law. Yet the appetite for such a project has grown in recent years. Post-recession stimulus provoked a clamoring for clout in state legislatures and governors’ offices. Washington gridlock has driven many to look elsewhere. State and local government affairs operations have sprung up to compete with their federal counterparts. Natural as these actions were, they each brought headaches – nobody knew what they were doing. There was no authority to declare that principals must register in California whereas across the border in Oregon and Nevada no such requirement exists. There was no treasury of paperwork from which lobbyists and practitioners could access any form requisite to compliance. There simply was no escape from the cumbersome research required to get things moving.
The State Lobbying Compliance Handbook, published by Columbia Books in collaboration with Holtzman Vogel Josefiak PLLC, is a deliverance from these woes. Due in March (and available for pre-order here), the book offers as its main feature concise summaries of each state’s lobbying regulations with up-to-date forms ready for submission. In just a few hundred pages, it slashes the countless opportunity costs that would otherwise be squandered on research, and extinguishes the potential risk of noncompliance.
Though very different, The 113th Congressional Freshmen Report has a similar function. Like the state handbook, it brings understanding where understanding is both anxiously wanted and hopelessly lacking. The freshman class of the 113th Congress is, to a large extent, unknown. Its members have no congressional track record, and many haven’t uttered a breath on policy positions important to lobbyists. Most significantly, this unfamiliar cohort comprises over a sixth of Congress.
Dr. Gary Feld, founder of PowerBase Associates, assigned his research staff the task of discovering more about these newcomers. After combing through thousands of media sources, filtering the results, and fitting them into a readable guide, the report was born. Now being published by Columbia Books, its use will hopefully make the new Congress less of an enigma.
Tags: 113th congress, 113th congressional freshmen report, columbia books, gary feld, gridlock, holtzman vogel josefiak, k st., lobby, lobby law, Lobbying, lobbyist, powerbase associates, state lobbying compliance handbook
Posted in Lobbying News | Comments Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
