|
|
Posts Tagged ‘lobbyists’
Wednesday, January 8th, 2014 by Geoffrey Lyons
“Q3 LOBBYING EXPENDITURES DOWN,” “Lobbing Spending to Rebound in 2014,” “K St. Outlays Dip in December,” – such headlines splash across the pages of Washington-based newspapers. It has become so routine to discuss the business of lobbying exclusively in these terms that one feels the itch to challenge convention and to pose the following question: can expenditures stand alone as a reliable measure of advocacy’s vitality?
The answer is obviously no, which most people with a critical eye on Washington lobbying recognize . The shrewd reporter will temper his headline with subtler analysis, explaining, for instance, how the de-registration phenomenon (so frequently discussed in this blog) distorts the data, and supplying opinions of industry leaders apt to tell a story that contradicts the numbers.
Yet the appeal to quarterly spending has become so common, has sunk so deeply into the collective consciousness, that it may be corroding our understanding of how lobbying really functions. Firstly, much as money matters on K St., success is often rooted in the intangibles. Making new contacts, for example, and cultivating existing ones. These things often precede spending both in time and in importance, and they’re difficult, if impossible, to measure.
Secondly, even if spending were as important as it’s typically portrayed, it doesn’t follow that it’s best divided into neat three-month and one-year increments, as it is now by virtue of disclosure requirements. Some issues take years to appear on the legislative calendar–it’d be ludicrous to claim that everything is on the same timetable. In fact, the only thing that’s more ludicrous is to assume this is the case, which is precisely the current problem.
Finally, a lobbyists’ success in Washington is strictly bounded by the political environment in which he works. To get something through committee may be a small victory one year and a large one the next. By definition, a “do-nothing Congress” is the sort of setup that renders doing anything a grand success. So, to impose an overworked phrase on the reader, “it’s all relative”–especially in Washington.
Much of this is common knowledge within the beltway. Yet even reminding oneself of what one already knows can be a useful defense against lazy thinking, especially that which tends to overemphasizes the importance of something. And if anything at all tends to be overemphasized by the coterie of reporters covering Washington lobbying (great as they are), it’s the importance of lobbying expenditures. They just don’t matter that much.
Tags: k st., lobby, Lobbying, lobbyists
Posted in Lobbying News | Comments Off on Do Expenditures Matter?
Friday, 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 on Lobbying at a Glance
Tuesday, November 20th, 2012 by Geoffrey Lyons
David Rehr is author of The Congressional Communications Report and has been listed as one of the nation’s top lobbyists. He is an adjunct professor at the Graduate School of Political Management (GSPM) at The George Washington University. David can be contacted at davidrehr@guw.edu.
LAST WEDNESDAY, I was honored to participate in the Country Promotion Strategies Conference: a gathering of over 200 ambassadors and embassy personnel for a day of presentations on how to best maneuver Washington’s corridors of power.
While there, I shared with the crowd seven tips that foreign diplomats should consider when interacting with Congress.
The research below comes from The Congressional Communications Report (hereafter CCR), a landmark study on communication methods used by lobbyists in their dealings with congressional staff.
1. Provide credible information:
According to CCR, the most successful way to gain influence and access with congressmen and their staff is to provide credible information. At least this is what 46% of survey respondents thought, which is more than double the support given to the next most popular answers:
2. Have an existing relationship with members/staff (28%)
3. Have a reputation of seeking meetings (12%).
Neither brand nor money is at the top of the list. This indicates a playing field far more level than conventional wisdom would have it.
2. Use email:
This is the preferred method of contact with congressional staff. In fact, 67% of staff prefer email, while:
18% prefer the phone,
10% prefer meeting in person,
4% prefer mailed letters, and a paltry
0.1% prefer social media.
3. …and when you do use email, make it short and to the point:
Not just because this is easier for the recipient, but also because it’s easier for the phone. Mobile devices used on Capitol Hill are probably different from those used by your embassies. CCR shows that only 9% of Hill staff use iPhones, 2% use the Android, and a whopping 85% use Blackberry. The implication is that you need to minimize graphics, superfluous information, and anything that impedes the ability to click on your message. If it takes more than a couple of seconds to load, it will be deleted or skipped.
4. Stay in touch with the Congressional Research Service:
CCR shows that the Congressional Research Service (CRS) is the most valuable source of information for congressional staff. This is followed by:
2) Academic/issue experts
3) The Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
4) Other Capitol Hill Staffers
Embassies should therefore consistently review how their country is being portrayed by these sources. They should also consider how and where to make a positive impact.
5. Improve your position on Google:
While staff rated the CRS and issue experts the most valuable sources, their preferred sources were slightly different:
1) Internet Searches
2) CRS
3) Other Capitol Hill Staffers
4) Relevant Federal Agencies
This means embassies should be Googling their country’s name to see what comes up. Whatever is there will be the foundation of many a staffer’s judgments.
6. Understand what actually influences decisions:
CCR measured 16 different lobbying tools. Here are several to keep in mind:
1) Reliable and concise information
2) Constituent support
3) Hiring of former members of Congress
It is important to note that there are substantial differences between Republican and Democratic staff on which tools are most effective.
7. Be cognizant of a Hill staffer’s daily routine:
Everyone knows that Hill staffers are busy, and CCR certainly confirms that. The average staffer receives 134 emails daily, with only 18% reading all of them. Some other stats:
20% of Hill staff visit more than twenty websites daily
25% conduct more than 20 web searches daily
77% meet with two or less lobbyists daily
72% meet with two or less other Hill staffers daily
Click here for a full version of The Congressional Communications Report.
Tags: congressional communications, Congressional Communications Report, Congressional Communications Survey, Country promotion strategies conference, David Rehr, embassy, george washington university, gw, gwu, hill staff, hill staffers, k st., Lobbying, lobbyist, lobbyists, rehr
Posted in Lobbying News | Comments Off on David Rehr: 7 tips for Embassy Relations with Capitol Hill
Thursday, November 15th, 2012 by Geoffrey Lyons
THE PENTAGON HAS been the source of much worry in Washington lately. An impending sequester that would strip billions from its budget is fueling premonitions of a fiscal cliff from which the whole nation would plunge. And while lobbyists from all corners are scrambling to prevent across-the-board cuts, it’s the folks in defense who are most active in the frenzy.
As if this weren’t enough, another alarm is being sounded. Susan Warshaw Ebner of Asmar, Schor, and McKenna claims that the impact of an emerging issue, and pending regulations to address it, will rattle the entire defense industry. The issue: counterfeit parts; the stakeholders: virtually everyone.
“Sequester or no sequester, this is going to be a huge issue with huge costs,” said Ebner. “It’s a virtual certainty that lobbyists and trade associations will have a role to play.”
Essentially, the Pentagon is overdue to roll out regulations that aim to purge the threat of counterfeit electronic parts entering defense equipment (a threat which is elaborated in a Senate report released in May). Compliance from the industry will implicate all sectors of the defense supply chain to “prevent, detect, remediate, and investigate counterfeiting….” What this specifically entails hinges largely upon how “counterfeit electronic part” is defined – something DoD was supposed to make clear in its guidance and regulations.
The costs of assuring compliance and ferreting out suspect counterfeits could be crippling. Ebner evokes a scenario in which a defense contractor learns that a certain make and model of electronic chip, already integrated in systems being shipped abroad, was counterfeited.
“You are likely to face significant costs to figure out if you or any of your lower tier subcontractors and suppliers bought the counterfeit, who from, and if they were used,” said Ebner. “The question of how to best Online Pokies define and implement requirements is squarely before the DoD right now.”
But while attempting to influence the regulatory language will be an important task for lobbyists, “the first thing lobbyists and trade associations need to do is educate their companies about the problem, the statute, and the risks. Nobody can afford to be ignorant of what’s at stake.”
This last point is bolstered by the title of an advisory Ebner and her firm released in August: “Counterfeit Parts – An Emerging Issue You Need To Know About!” It’s also bolstered by facts. An October white paper released by the American Bar Association’s Task Force on Counterfeit Parts (which Ebner chairs), states that “remedial action” by the Pentagon will include “but [is] not limited to suspension and debarment…in the case of a supplier that repeatedly fails to detect or avoid counterfeit parts or fairs to exercise due diligence.”
For lobbyists closing their eyes and ears to anything but sequestration, some of this may be hard to swallow.
Timeline
12/31/11 – Congress passes Section 818, “Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit Electronic Parts,” of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.
3/16/12 – Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Frank Kendall, issues a memo broadly defining “counterfeit material.”
3/26/12 – The Government Accountability Office releases a report detailing the availability of counterfeit military parts in China. Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) says the report poses a “clear and present danger” and a “threat to our troops.”
5/21/12 – The Senate Armed Services Committee releases a report on its two-year study of counterfeit parts in the defense supply chain.
9/26/12 – Regulations outlined in 818 are due to be issued, but aren’t.
10/8/12 – House Intelligence Committee releases report on national security threats posed by Chinese telecommunications companies.
Tags: budget, Capitol Hill, contractors, counterfeit, counterfeit electronic parts, counterfeits, cuts, defense, defense contractors, department of defense, dod, ebner, frank kendall, hill, house intelligence committee, kelly ayotte, lobby, Lobbying, lobbyist, lobbyists, pentagon, regulations, section 818, senate armed services committee, sequester, sequestration, susan ebner, Susan Warshaw Ebner, the hill
Posted in Lobbying News | Comments Off on For Defense Contractors, Lobbyists, More Than Just Sequester
Monday, November 5th, 2012 by Geoffrey Lyons
More mid-size and regional banks are increasing their lobbying activity in the wake of Dodd-Frank.
The colossal law contains a number of provisions these âmiddle childrenâ feel should be limited to their bigger brothers. Chief among these provisions are the Volcker Rule and a âliving-willâ requirement that commands big banks to detail âresolution plansâ in the event of collapse.
The banks’ mission won’t be to wheedle their way out of Dodd-Frank, but rather to encourage regulators to tailor the rules with them in mind. In other words, theyâd like to be treated as a separate species from Wall Street.
To give an idea of how seriously theyâre taking this, SunTrust has so far upped its lobbying expenditures fifteen-fold for 2012. PNC has gone from spending $570,000 in 2010, to $1.53 million in 2011.
More on this as it unfolds.
Tags: dodd-frank, Lobbying, lobbying activities, lobbying expenditures, lobbyists, pnc, suntrust, volcker rule, wall street, wall street reform
Posted in Lobbying News | Comments Off on “We are not Wall Street banks, but we face the same regulatory regime
Wednesday, March 7th, 2012 by Vbhotla
During the recent budget and upcoming Appropriations Committee hearing, a question has been floating around the Hill: has the budget process become irrelevant? There is certainly an argument to be made for it. This year’s Presidential budget was received by many as a political document that was never to be taken as a serious proposal that could ever have the chance of going somewhere. As for the Congressional Budget, aside from the fact that there hasn’t been one for some time, it is pretty much accepted that it as well would be dead on arrival. So without budget resolutions, what’s still important to know about the budget process?
To put it simply: a lot, though not necessarily for the reasons that are traditionally associated with the budget process. To illustrate, 2007 was the first time Congress passed a year-long quasi-continuing resolution (aka the ‘Cromibus’) since the 1980s. Because of the way it was written, the Executive Departments decided to exercise some funding latitude on programs based on the proposed Presidential budget. The Department of Indian Affairs, for example, temporarily withheld funding for some programs that had been zeroed out of the President’s budget, claiming Congress had not given orders to the contrary in their budget. Though eventually the funds were paid out, the damage had been done to some programs.
With the constant possibility (especially in an election year) of a Continuing Resolution, this year’s Presidential budget free electronic cigarettes deserves inspection, especially if your programs are part of the more than 200 that have been eliminated or cut. Here are few highlights to be aware of moving forward in the process:
– Health spending was cut across the board, but most notably the Center for Disease Control took a $664m cut, the largest of any discretionary health spending.
– Low Income Home Energy Assistance with HHS was cut by more than $450m.
– Department of Transportation Grants-in-Aid programs received a $926m cut.
– Of the almost $8 billion in total savings, $4 billion is expected to come from cuts to the Defense Department.
– Department of Treasury is expected to have a more than $240m cut, particularly its vehicle procurement.
With the upcoming funding sequestration, important funding decisions are going to be made in the next year and some programs are going to be left without chairs when the music stops. Even if your program saw a positive number in the budget, the programs that didn’t are going to try to get their money from somewhere. Lobbyists.info can get you prepared for the rest of this year and into the next Congress by showing you who is being hired by whom and let you know what you and your clients need to be watching out for. Additionally, register now to learn more about the budget process and practical tips and tricks you can use in the upcoming lobbyist.info audioconference.
Tags: audioconference, budget, budget cuts, Congress, congressional budget, learning Congress, legislative strategy, Lobbying, lobbying information, lobbyists, president's budget
Posted in Advocacy, Executive Branch, Legislative Strategy, Lobbying News, Lobbying Research, Lobbying tips | Comments Off on Presidential and Congressional Budget in the real world
Monday, February 28th, 2011 by Vbhotla
Tom DeLay, the former House Majority Leader convicted on conspiracy to launder money in state elections, and who has often been listen in connection with the Jack Abramoff trials, has established a new legal defense fund to appeal a January conviction.
According to the, in fact, he can now “accept contributions of any type or amount.”
In addition to catching heat for receiving contributions to his defense fund by lobbyists, several Congressmen, including fellow Texan Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tx.) were also noted as having contributed to DeLay’s first legal defense fund, in what some considered a breach of House Ethics rules.
Craig Richardson, a key fundraiser for DeLay while he was still in public office, has been listed one of two trustees of the fund. DeLay was sentenced to three years in prison, which he evaded by posting $10,000 bond, and ten years of community service in lieu of an additional five years on a related charge.
Tags: Contributions, Delay Defense fund, Jack Abramoff, Lamar Smith, legal defense, lobbyists, Rep. Lamar Smith, Tom DeLay
Posted in Government Relations Alert | Comments Off on DeLay establishes legal defense fund
Monday, November 22nd, 2010 by Vbhotla
Verizon, known as having one of the more active lobbying staffs in the technology industry, is again embroiled in a battle with the FCC, this time over broadband access to mobile devices. The FCC is contemplating regulations that would require large mobile carriers, including Verizon and its top competitor AT&T, to open their data networks to smaller mobile carriers.
With an incoming Congress that will favor less regulation, Verizon could find itself increasing Hill activity even more. The proposed change, part of a larger broadband reclassification effort by the FCC, is slated for a vote at the commission’s December meeting. The reclassification is favored by net neutrality proponents, but opposed by carriers. Verizon has battled against the FCC on the overall issue of net neutrality, spending over $14.7million through the first three quarters on lobbying against the issue.
Broadband reclassification and net neutrality are not the only topics with which Verizon takes issue. The company, which has by far the top presence on Internet laws on the Hill, also lobbies Congressmen on issues around taxation, the patent reform, healthcare and international trade regulation, in addition to other efforts.
Verizon’s lobbying efforts don’t stop there. The communications giant is also notoriously involved in state and local lobbying in New York, and a large contributor to campaigns it deems worthwhile. It has also been linked to the fiscally conservative Tea Party in Cincinnati. With the issues of net neutrality and taxes center stage in the new Congress, expect Verizon’s presence on Capitol Hill to increase, not decline, in the coming months.
Tags: broadband reclassification, corporate lobbying, lobbyists, net neutrality, verizon
Posted in Government Relations Alert | Comments Off on Verizon faces up-Hill battle on communication
Friday, October 22nd, 2010 by Brittany
K Street Compliance for 2011
Disclosure compliance, filing, gift and ethics rules, and campaign finance
November 16, 2010 · 2:00 p.m.-3:30 p.m. EST
After the midterm elections are over, Congress will take fresh aim at ethics. Lobbyists are fair game and “I didn’t know” won’t keep you out of the headlines – or exempt you from the stiff penalties associated with HLOGA, LDA and FARA.
If you aren’t sure what those acronyms stand for, you’re a sitting duck for ethics investigations and compliance violations. Even if you do know the basics of lobbying laws, you’re still at risk unless you’re absolutely certain you’re meeting deadlines, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements.
Why risk fines, penalties and negative PR? Here’s your “primer” on the basics you must know to follow the rules in the complex world of government relations.
Register now for Lobbying: The Basics of K Street Compliance for 2011.
Tags: FARA, HLOGA, jill holtzman vogel, K Street, LDA, Lobbying, lobbying law, lobbyists
Posted in Training & Events | Comments Off on New Audioconference: Need to know lobbying laws for 2011
Monday, October 18th, 2010 by Vbhotla
Q: What is the difference between a gift and an award, as given to a member of Congress?
A: Under one of the statuatory exceptions to the gift rule, you are allowed to give as a gift a “commemorative” item that has minimal artistic or intrinsic value. So, for instance, you could give a plaque that says “Association X thanks Congressman Y for his 20 years of Service.”
You could not, however, give a valuable sculpture with the same inscription. The difference is that the first item – the plaque – has no artistic or intrinsic value on its own, but that the second item – the sculpture – has value on its own merit. In addition, if you give a gift that exceeds $305 in value, it has to go on the member’s financial disclosure form.
Commemorative Items
- Presented to Member/staffer in person
- Substantially commemorative in nature: plaque or trophy, engraved with Member’s/staffer’s name
- No significant utilitarian or artistic value (framed photo, print, figurine, clock, etc.)
- Senate: Disclosed on personal financial disclosure report if valued at more than $250
The House Committee on Standards and Official Conduct also has a short booklet with a summarization of rules on their website.
Remember, the overall rule is: you may not offer anything of value to a member of Congress or staffer, unless it fits under one of the exceptions.
Today’s post is summarized from the Lobbying Compliance Handbook, now with a brand-new chapter on Campaign Finance for the Lobbyist!
Questions for Compliance Q&A? Send them to web@columbiabooks.com.
Tags: awards to members of Congress, compliance, Gifts to members, gifts to members of Congress, lobbyists
Posted in Compliance Q&A | Comments Off on Compliance Q and A: Gifts to Members of Congress
Wednesday, October 13th, 2010 by Brittany
LD-1 lobbying registrations for new clients of lobbying firms must disclose the prior government service of each individual lobbyist for 20 years preceding the filing of the registration. (This is known as the “20-year look-back” provision). New individual lobbyists employed by an existing registrant will also need to disclose this look-back information on the entity’s next quarterly LD-2 report. Employees of the organization registered as lobbyists prior to January 1, 2008 are governed by a two-year look-back provision only.
New employee lobbyists must report their prior government service for the twenty years preceding the reporting period in which they are newly registered as lobbyists.
Prior government service is defined serving as a “covered executive or legislative branch official.” For purposes of disclosing prior government employment, all registrants and filers must use the LDA definition of “covered executive or legislative branch official.”
Covered executive branch officials under the LDA are:
- The President
- The Vice President
- Officers and employees of the Executive Office of the President
- Any official serving in an Executive Level I-V position
- Any member of the uniformed services serving at grade 0-7 or above
- “Schedule C” Employees
Covered legislative branch officials are:
- A Member of Congress
- An elected officer of either the House or the Senate
- An employee, or any other individual functioning in the capacity of an employee who works for a Member, committee, leadership staff of either the Senate or House, a joint committee of Congress, a working group or caucus organized to provide services to Members, and
- Any other legislative branch employee who, for at least 60 days, occupies a position for which the rate of basic pay is equal to or greater than 120 percent of the minimum rate of basic pay payable for GS-15 of the General Schedule
For more compliance information visit the Lobbying Compliance Center on Lobbyists.info.
Tags: LD-1, LD-2, Lobbying, lobbyists
Posted in Ethics Tip | Comments Off on Ghosts of Lobbyists Past
Tuesday, September 28th, 2010 by Brittany
Congressional Investigations and Testimony:
Practical Strategies for Proactive Prevention, Damage Control and Success
October 14, 2010 2:00-3:30 pm EST
Congress wants answers. Financial services providers, “Big Oil,” and the insurance industry are already in the cross-hairs. With ethics, the budget and the stimulus creating a high-pressure, high-visibility environment, the possibility for many more individuals and organizations to face Congressional questioning is increasing daily.
What if you’re called upon to provide testimony or to advise a client who has to go before Congress? What if you’re asked to present documents? Will you be prepared to deal with PR issues – and prevent possible leaks? Will you know how to negotiate terms of a hearing? Act now to arm yourself with a practical strategy for handling – and ideally avoiding – congressional investigations.
Register now for Congressional Investigations and Testimony: Practical Strategies for Proactive Prevention, Damage Control and Success.
The 90 minutes you invest in this audioconference could literally make the difference between promoting your agenda successfully and losing everything. Top GR attorneys map out steps to take now that will empower you to prepare executives to testify successfully and avoid becoming the focus of a congressional investigation.
Click here to register.
Tags: alan pemberton, congressional investigations, congressional testimony, covington and burling, Lobbying, lobbyists, robert kelner
Posted in Training & Events | Comments Off on New Audioconference on Congressional Investigations and Testimony
Tuesday, September 21st, 2010 by Vbhotla
Since there are always some lobbyists that seem to be confused over whether, or when, to take themselves off the roster of lobbyists on LD-2 forms, here’s a refresher on de-registering as a lobbyists.
Lobbyists must be removed from the form LD-2 (the quarterly form stating income or expenditures on lobbying), on Line 23 of a current LD-2 form in order to be considered inactive. This “inactive” status frees them from the obligation of filing an LD-203 (the semi-annual filing of lobbyist campaign contributions).
As for de-registration triggers, lobbyists must de-register when have a reasonable expectation or knowledge that they will no longer be working on behalf of a particular client or issue.
Until a lobbyist is formally de-registered (using Line 23), he or she is obligated to file Form LD-203.
Tags: de-registration, LD-2, LD-203, lobbyists
Posted in Ethics Tip | Comments Off on Tuesday Ethics Tip: Deregistering as a Lobbyist
Tuesday, August 31st, 2010 by Vbhotla
 Cigars: Unethical? Reports about the “Congressional Cigar Association,” an organization that reportedly includes both Congressional staffers and former staffers who are now lobbyists, with cigars donated to the group by lobbying entities, draws questions about whether or not the group should be accepting, or allowed to accept, such gifts under the House gift rules.
The Huffington Post reported on a meeting of the CCA recently and called the group a “front” for lobbyists.
Is the CCA, its membership, or groups sponsoring the events stepping over the line? Let’s look first at gift rules, and second at social engagements.
1. Gift rules: No lobbyist or lobbying entity may provide any thing of value (including small items, such as cigars), without a specific exemption. If the groups sponsoring the events are registered to lobby, they may not provide anything of value to Congressional staffers unless such gifts fall under an exemption. According to the CCA, they have cleared their events with the ethics committee. See here for definition of “lobbyist.”
2. Social engagements. If lobbying entities are sponsoring these events, under the exemption of a “widely-attended event,” they must fall under a category of a widely-attended event. At such an event, Congressional staffers or members may accept entertainment, offered to all guests, presumably including the entertainment of smoking a cigar. However, premium “entertainment” is not necessarily covered.)
A widely-attended event is defined as: “One of the exceptions to the Gift Rules of the House and Senate. Organizations employing lobbyists may sponsor a widely attended event which must contain a diverse audience of more than 25 people and must be related to a Member’s or staffer’s official duties in order for a Member or staffer to attend for free.”
It is impossible to make a judgment on the appropriateness or legality of the CCA’s events and sponsorship without knowing more information on the fees and dues provided by members to the organization, the structure of their events, and the sponsoring entities.
That being said, it doesn’t look extremely good to hold such closed-door events as the one “crashed” by the Huffington Post. It creates an appearance (even if that wasn’t the intent) of access to staffers being bought by cigars. A better method of advocacy for the groups sponsoring such events might be to bring in citizen advocates to lobby their members of Congress on behalf of district-based efforts.
(And since we suggested that, here’s a plug for our upcoming audioconference: “Lobby Days & Fly-Ins: Time and Money-Saving Tactics for Managing the Unmanagable,” with the outstanding Stephanie Vance.)
Tags: Cigars, congressional staffers, Ethics, lobbyists, widely-attended events
Posted in Ethics Tip | Comments Off on Tuesday Ethics Tip: Cigar Aficionado Edition
Wednesday, August 11th, 2010 by Drew
Thomas Spulak, writing in The Hill on Monday, made some fantastic points about problems facing the lobbying industry right now. Lobbyists are de-registering in droves, he says–a result of stricter HLOGA rules and the rush of anti-lobbyist sentiment stemming from Obama’s ongoing campaign against the industry.
Singling out lobbyists is, in fact, a source of the sense of corruption the administration is seeking to end. Spulak writes:
The singling out of lobbyists and the attendant attachment of the Scarlet L has caused individuals to seek loopholes and exceptions to avoid registration. When someone, no less than the president of the United States, says lobbyists are bad, who would want to be one? It is ironic that those who want to go beyond the letter of the law and adhere to its spirit by registering are thrown into a class subject to suspicion and disdain by the leaders of our government.
The problem, Spulak says, is that demonizing an entire profession does us all harm because there will always be lobbyists; the right to lobby is, after all, protected by the Constitution. Further, not all lobbyists are advocating for “evil corporate interests”–there are lobbyists for Boy Scouts! And whales! And poor people! And puppies! Spulak says it best:
There will always be lobbyists; they are mere advocates for interests. Certainly, not all interests are as popular as others, but shouldn’t unpopular causes have a chance to be heard? Government officials can always ignore what they hear or even refuse to meet with certain industries or interests. That has always been the case anyway. Continuing to rail against lobbyists may be good political fodder in the short term, but in the long run it creates a false sense of corruption in Washington that makes all government officials guilty by association with the bogeyman that they created.
A blog post on OMB Watch (“Greater Disclosure Reduces Sense of Corruption”) makes an excellent point to complete this discussion: instead of demonizing an industry which may have some bad actors but overall offers a necessary democratic service, let’s move towards improving the disclosure system to obviate the impulse for corruption in the first place. “The registration process is cumbersome and unevenly recorded by the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate,” OMB writes. “And don’t try getting information out of those systems … the demand should be focused on better systems of disclosure.”
Amen.
Tags: Disclosure, HLOGA, Lobbying, lobbyists
Posted in From the Eyes of the Editors | Comments Off on The real problem isn’t lobbyists, it’s lobbying rules
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
