PSoTD

Rarely kept track of publicly...

There are concerns in Nebraska's capital city about the amount of money spent on the lobbying of lawmakers.

It has more than quadrupled in the past decade, statistics show, and that is raising questions of whether a privileged few are buying influence. There are 339 registered lobbyists in Nebraska. Each January, they gather inside the Capitol to sway 49 senators.

"I don't know that the senators even realize how much money is being spent on them," said unpaid lobbyist Jack Gould, of Common Cause, a citizen watchdog group.

Gould said he checked the lobbying figures recently. According the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission, state lobbyists made more than $13 million in 2007. Gould said that's about $10 million more than they made a decade ago.

And Nebraska - with their bicameral Legislature and short legislative sessions and comparatively small state budget - is a relatively smaller example of lobbyist inflation.

Apparently they are some of the most sensitive wimps in any State Capitol. The public hurt their feelings!

Seriously, does the lobbying community want such crybabies working for them?

Really, if voters aren't going to require a "cooling off" period for elected and appointed officials to take before entering the lobbying profession, then they're going to get this kind of stuff. Large corporations can pay more for a government insider than government can, and they will, if they think the return is higher than the cost.

Gov. Butch Otter's top aide is going to work as a lobbyist for the company that owns Idaho Power Co., becoming the latest member of state government to skip directly to a private-sector lobbying post where he could be asking his former boss and colleagues for help.

Jeff Malmen, Otter's chief of staff and one of the state's most influential Republicans, will be senior manager of government affairs for IdaCorp, the holding company for the utility. Malmen, a chief of staff for former Gov. Phil Batt and former finance director under former Gov. Dirk Kempthorne, had earned $120,000 annually under Otter — $15,000 more than the governor, the state's top elected official.

Idaho has no revolving-door laws that limit officials like Malmen from immediately going to work at private-sector jobs in which they could be asking for concessions from state government.

Malmen, who will likely start his new job in December, told The Associated Press that after IdaCorp approached him about taking the new position, he was careful to avoid conflicts while he's still a state employee. He said he's taking the job in part to have more time to spend with his family.

...

In the last 18 months, at least eight ex-lawmakers or staffers for Otter and former Govs. Dirk Kempthorne and Jim Risch became lobbyists. They include former House Majority Caucus Chairwoman Julie Ellsworth, R-Boise, who won a lobbying job on the recommendation of House Speaker Lawerence Denney, R-Midvale; former House Speaker Bruce Newcomb, R-Burley; and Lance Giles, Kempthorne's top adviser on his billion-dollar "Connecting Idaho" roads project. Giles went to work for the company that won the contract to oversee that highway work, Washington Group International.

Some in New York state want to lead the way for the new era of positive lobbyist public relations:

These are hard times for lobbyists, at least when it comes to public perception. The City Council is moving to limit their campaign contributions. Some top aides to Gov. Eliot Spitzer are letting it be known that hiring a lobbyist might not help one’s case in Albany. Even the movies portray them as soulless influence peddlers.

So these days, when some of the most powerful lobbyists in New York City get together in private, they talk about the insults they are hearing and attacks they are feeling from all sides. Some have suggested banding together to change their image, to spread the word that they are not bad people. Perhaps even ... hire a lobbyist.

"I think the problem is the public image," said Sid Davidoff, one of the elders among the lobbying elite. "If you don’t address it, then you’ll never change it."

Note to these lobbyists: paid advertising won't succeed against the constant stream of negative REAL news about lobbyists. If lobbyists want the public to have a higher view of them, the first thing they need to do is actively pursue a cleaning of their own profession and promote much greater public visibility of activities by their profession.

I don't know, I have some sort of visceral distaste for this particular advertising revenue stream for bloggers.

Maybe Bank of America got some negative feedback on their prior aggressive lobbying. Maybe it was impacting them on other fronts. I can't quite figure why BofA would publicize an effort to reduce a lobbying focus, unless it was hurting them elsewhere. But they still want the 10 percent federal deposit cap repealed.

It's pretty clear that the scope of the problem hasn't been figured out if local governments are required to hire lobbyists in order to coordinate with state legislatures and the Federal Government.

From the Rockford Register Star:

Rockford Mayor Larry Morrissey has proposed forming a nonprofit group to hire someone to represent the city's interests at the state Capitol, and possibly, in Washington, D.C.

Certainly, we have lawmakers in both places, but their attention is split among a thousand priorities, and they sometimes work at cross-purposes in their own little groups. They are elected to represent constituents and regional interests, but their efforts are diverse and divided.

And there are times when they could use a heads up when something is of particular interest to local government. They should welcome the help.

So, call it a hired gun. Whatever. Other Illinois cities, most of them smaller than Rockford, have lobbyists. In the past, some local governmental entities, including the airport and the convention and visitors bureau, have had lobbyists looking out for their specific interests in Springfield. The idea is to have someone on site to identify proposed legislation that could affect the client and lobby for or against it. The lobbyist also is in place to identify opportunities, such as in grants or specific programs, that may benefit clients.

Had Rockford had a lobbyist last year, Rockford may not have missed out on the River Edge development program grants that renew tax credits or are targeted toward cleanup and redevelopment of contaminated "brownfield" sites in cities situated along Illinois' rivers.

Aurora and East St. Louis snagged the $2 million in grants before Rockford even knew about the project. There was some sniping back and forth between Morrissey and former Mayor Doug Scott, who heads up the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, which awarded the grants. Some local people thought Scott should have given the city a heads up that the money was available. In his state position, Scott argued, he can't play favorites. Rockford just missed the boat, he said.

He's not our lobbyist, after all.

Some members of the Rockford City Council say we don't need a paid lobbyist. They propose a six-person, bipartisan group of aldermen to do the job in Springfield. A few road trips and a little face time at the Capitol won't do it. This is a job for professionals, not amateur hour. The city needs someone on the scene, in the halls and back rooms where deals go down, on a regular basis.

Just more bullshit for the bullshit fire. The problem is structural. Does every city, every town, every village need to hire a lobbyist? Is that the most effective way we can figure out for governance? If there's a problem - and believe me, lots and lots and lots of cities and towns will be hiring lobbyists this year just because they perceive themselves to be on the wrong side of the money-giving equation at the state or federal level - then perhaps the process is the problem. Maybe local governments need to advocate a change in the process. Otherwise, the tax costs across this country for local government hired lobbyists are going to be causing increases in taxes, because there's a cost to this, whether the lobbyist fails or succeeds.

From Spinwatch:

Several states, responding to the federal scandals as well as their own statehouse imbroglios, have already adopted more sweeping gift and travel bans, broader measures to end the central role of lobbyists or government contractors in financing campaigns and new public campaign financing intended to reduce lawmakers’ dependence on big donors.

To enforce their rules, about half the states have also created independent ethics watchdogs, outside the control of the lawmakers they police — something federal lawmakers have so far resisted. House Democrats recently said they would create a panel to study the idea.

John Hurson, a former member of the Maryland General Assembly and president of the National Council of State Legislatures, remembers marveling at the goings-on just a few miles away in the United States Capitol. He was barred from letting a lobbyist buy him a cup of coffee under rules enforced by the Maryland Ethics Commission. Meanwhile, congressmen were flying across the country for golf trips with lobbyists and enlisting them as major fund-raisers for their re-election campaigns. "It was amusing in a sad kind of way,” said Mr. Hurson, who now works as a Washington lobbyist himself, for a cosmetics industry trade group. “At the state level in Maryland a lobbyist can’t even have his name on a campaign flier. And at the federal level some of these guys are basically running campaigns."

At some point, there has to be responsibility for personal ethics. The idea that Hurson can tut-tut the federal lobbying activities while he's a state legislator, and then turn around and become part of the process at the federal level, speaks volumes. If you really think a profession has gone awry, why would you then enter it? Is money the ONLY DRIVING FACTOR with these people?

I believe there's plenty of room for focused "ethics" legislation, but the fact that it takes government regulation to provide the standards of what is ethical for both legislators and lobbyists is a sad vignette on how gross our culture has become. How can we expect these folks to legislate right and wrong for our society when they need government to tell them what is ethical in determing that legislation?

I dunno, yesterday's bumbleheaded comment by Wolfson about Edwards' speech in Harlem still annoys the hell out of me. Why he or the Clinton campaign would attack the messenger for a message that should both be understood and accepted by Hillary Clinton is just horrible politics. Note - it's not governing. It's politics.

So who is Wolfson, anyway? He's a partner in the Glover Park Group. What do they do?

The Glover Park Group has bridged the divide -- offering comprehensive client service from the earliest strategic planning to the final execution of advocacy and image advertising campaigns.

Okay, then. He is part owner of a firm that claims to provide comprehensive message planning and execution. Were his comments of the other day really so comprehensive in either planning or execution? Seemed pretty reactionary and baiting, really.

More information about Glover Park Group here.

There's an odd little story going on about the company in the British Virgin Islands, but I'm not quite sure what it all means. Pieces of the story are here and here .

It's that time of year again: state legislatures are returning to their capitals, to the chorus of hosannahs towards ethics reform.

Maine: MAINE'S 123RD LEGISLATURE: New ethics rules should be task No. 1

Wisconsin: Governor Doyle says passing an ethics reform bill will reaffirm the faith of the people in Wisconsin.

Oregon : The first order of business for the 2007 Legislature convening in Salem next week should be to ban the gifts that lobbyists regularly bestow upon them.

New York: Spitzer says state lawmakers need to set aside partisan politics in order to accomplish the ethics and campaign reforms he has targeted for the legislature.

And yet, it will likely all be forgotten by March.

Congratulations, Pennsylvania, we had the 4th highest amount of lobbying spending reported in 2005 in the nation. And that's even with the Pennsylvania total presenting an incomplete picture of lobbying in General Assembly. Lobbyists reported to the Senate that they spent nearly $125 million, including salaries and fees, or almost 11 percent of the nationwide total.

It looks like lobbying firms are starting to try Google AdWords advertising. Check out the results (sorry, no links, they didn't pay me!) for these searches:

"Government Relations"

advertisers include

Carmen Group Lobbying
Cicero Consulting
Cassidy & Associates
Rome Smith & Associates
The Talon Group, LLC

"Lobbying Firm" includes:

Public Policy Advocates
The Public Advocacy Group
Wheat Gov't Relations
The Talon Group, LLC
Rome Smith & Associates
Jim Arnold & Associates
Burland & Associates
Carmen Group Lobbying
Cassidy & Associates

"Lobbyist Firm" came up with

Cassidy & Associates
Rome Smith & Associates
Advantage Associates Inc.
Burland & Associates

There's a possible trend here. 20 years ago, lobbying firms were trying to get away from that moniker, strongly preferring "government relations firm", for public image purposes. And for purposes of promotion that might work. But it appears that most advertising firms still believe that their marketplace thinks of them as "lobbying firms", which explains why there are more advertisers under that term than under "government relations". In a way, Google AdWords makes business define themselves as their market defines them - because they are dependent on the search terms that market comes up with in order to find their advertisements.

Whenever there's a transition of political power from one party to another, there's a whole new line of hungry mouths in the lobbying community waiting to feed at the public trough. If Americans are going to get control of federal spending - real control, and real discussion of expectations - it is at a time like this, during a transition and before the damage begins in earnest.

This seems to me to be a natural time for bloggers to come to the fore and report on lobbying efforts in an effort to control spending. Since Democrats are likely to control the Congress, and a Republican controls the White House, it also seems like something that conservative and liberal bloggers could agree to do in a reporting format. This isn't about reporting what is actually shows up in legislation, since that's usually too late - the deal has been made. It's about a blogging consideration of lobbyists, in general and in specific, at the federal level. If there were a process where bloggers could volunteer to cover lobbying firms - like what we do when we choose to cover a specific electoral race - perhaps bloggers could do a part in controlling lobbying. When you take a look at the dollars reported in lobbying, you realize that shedding any light on the process can make a difference. It's a staggering amount.

Unfortunately, we're in for a bit of an internal fight once the Democratic Congress rolls in. Lobbyists - and lobbying firms - whose main strengths have been that they have access and ability to lobby Democrats have been waiting for this day for years. They feel they have been getting crumbs, at best, while their Republican lobbyist cousins feasted at the federal trough. There is now a growing sense of "our turn" in the Democratic lobbyist ranks.

The Democrats cannot afford their own version of "the bridge to nowhere." And knowing Bush, if something like that shows up in a budget or spending bill for the Democrats, he'll let it go to give Republicans something to campaign on in 2008. Democrats have to practice fiscal responsibility, and they have to keep the lobbyists disappointed but hopeful. Anything less will be disastrous, political and financially.

Ugh.

One prominent lobbyist who hires Capitol Hill aides said that, in general, Republicans can expect to slash about $50,000 from what they might have commanded before the election returns came in. Yet, another lobbyist who runs his large firm said there are senior-level Democratic aides for whom he would offer as much as $600,000 in total compensation to lure them to his bipartisan shop because of simple supply and demand.

Veteran lobbyists and headhunters said some of the soon-to-be-unemployed aides and Members will find new jobs in the Bush administration, where a flurry of turnover is expected.

Some aides will look to fill other posts on the Hill, while others will catch on with trade associations, lobbying firms and corporate offices — though perhaps for a smaller salary than other Republicans commanded as little as six months ago.

Other Congressional and downtown sources said some staffers are preparing to send their résumés to the likely campaigns of GOP presidential hopefuls such as outgoing Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Sen. John McCain (Ariz.).

$600K for a brand new lobbyist? No wonder the cost of government keeps going up.

Will they end up in Harrisburg as lobbyists now that they've lost?

Melissa Hart
Mike Veon
Mike Diven
Eugene McGill
Tom Gannon
and, of course, Dave Brightbill and Bob Jubelirer

Did you enjoy the post?

Is whether he's still going to have a gig after his miserable Connecticut "lobbying" performance. That's a reputation stainer in the industry - not necessarily his position, just the performance and strategy...

I mean, what will his clients think?

AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC.
AIR PRODUCTS HEALTHCARE
AMERICAN HOMECARE SUPPLY
LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC

A lobbying job seems to be the goal of a high percentage of Congress, too. I have not done the actual count, but I would be surprised if there were not more former members of both houses of Congress employed as lobbyists than there are current members of Congress. The salaries are incredible: Jim Greenwood of the Biotechnology Industry Organization makes $650,000 a year salary, and salaries and income in the range of $300,000 to $500,000 are increasingly common. When serving in Congress is increasingly seen as an important credential on a resume rather than as an opportunity to serve the public, our country is deep trouble.

From Pennsylvania State House Rep. Mark B. Cohen.

Looks like lobbyists are going to be on the Pennsylvania fairways a lot this summer... From PAFundraisers:

14-Jul-06 Friends of Dave Reed PO Box 1440, Indiana, PA 15701 250 - Golf Tom's Run Golf Course, Blairsville 8:30AM

24-Jul-06 The Thomas Petrone Comm. PO Box 8541, Pitts, PA 15220 250 - Golf Highland Country Club, Pittsburgh 10AM

24-Jul-06 Friends of Vince Biancucci 226 Pleasant Dr., Aliquippa, PA 15001 250 - Golf Beaver Lakes Country Club, Aliquippa 11AM

28-Jul-06 Friends of Todd Eachus PO Box 2174 Hazleton, PA 18201 85 - Golf Sugarloaf Golf Course, Sugarloaf, PA NOON

28-Jul-06 Friends of Jim Rhoades Comm. PO Box 35, Mahanoy City, PA 17948 100 - Golf Mountain Valley Golf Course, Barnesville 1PM

25-Aug-06 Comm. To ReElect Bev Mackereth 307 Forge Court, Spring Grove, PA 17362 65 - Golf Briarwood Golf Course, NOON

06-Sep-06 Friends of Bob Mellow PO Box B, Peckville, PA 18452 - Golf Elmhurst Country Club, Moscow Noon

11-Sep-06 Friends of Senator Robert Jubelirer PO Box 2051, Altoona, PA 16603 - Golf Scotch Valley Country Club, Hollidaysburg TBA

20-Sep-06 Friends of Bob Mellow PO Box B, Peckville, PA 18452 - Golf Glen Oak Country Club, Clarks Summit Noon

Jubelirer? Didn't he lose his primary?

Doesn't this sound like an effective grassroots idea to help the general public?

The Lobby School was founded to enable its participants to improve their chances of changing their states' legal environments.

Oh, wait a minute...

A state legislature can either enrich you or impoverish you; it can prevent or permit your actions and those of others. Which are you going to let happen? We can help you get an appropriation or legislation to advance your group’s interests or disadvantage a key competitor. You do not have to accept the status quo.

Who attends their seminars?

Bank of America
All State Insurance Company
California State Automobile Assoc
Costco Wholesalers
GlaxoSmithKline

That went south fast. But why couldn't this be done at the grassroots level, for ordinary citizens, at ordinary citizen cost? This thing costs $525 - a corporate price structure, obviously. Why couldn't somebody put something together for $50, and run it out of the "adult education" programs that communities around the country provide?

Robert Jubelirer
David Brightbill
Teresa Forcier
Frank Pistella
Kenneth Ruffing
Tom Stevenson
Stephen Maitland
Roy Baldwin
Gib Armstrong
Peter Zug
Fred Belardi
Dennis Leh
Sue Cornell
Paul Semmel

They are all incumbents that lost their statehouse primary races yesterday. There will likely be at least a few more as the election results become final.

The campaign for Lee Heffner, candidate for Pennsylvania 37th House District, was good enough to respond to my request for an email interview on lobbyist registration. Below are the responses.

Question 1: What should be the goals of any lobbying laws or reform in Pennsylvania?

Lee Heffner: To facilitate elections that are about the market place of ideas and elected officials who are true public servants.

Question 2: What entity or entities should be responsible for administering these laws?

Lee Heffner: I'm open to all policies that would improve the election process in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Question 3: Are there any other states that could or should serve as a model for lobbying regulation?

Lee Heffner: Rhode Island has made significant strides in this area. GovTracker has provided their citizens with information about lobbyists and their Secretary of State, Matt Brown, has instituted some aggressive reforms.

Question 4: What kind of public reporting requirements should be required for lobbying? How much information should a citizen be able to find publicly about the activities of a lobbyist, and how should that information be made available?

Lee Heffner: Lobbyists should report their expenditures and the information should be available on the internet in addition to hard copy.

Question 5: Should lobbyists be required to pay, through registration fees, for all costs involved in providing such registration/regulation/public reporting?

Lee Heffner: I would have to investigate all the possible circumstances but for certainly for career lobbyists.

Question 6: How important is lobbyist regulation/registration to you as an issue? Is this something you would see as a top priority for the General Assembly in your first session?

Lee Heffner: My campaign is about new leadership you can trust in Harrisburg and so I take this issue very seriously. Pennsylvanians share values of honesty and trust. Unfortunately, we've lost trust in our legislators' honesty. Transparency of lobbyist activities is an important component to restoring trust and weeding out the culture of corruption in Harrisburg.

Mark Purcell, candidate for State Representative in Pennsylvania House District 20, was kind enough to respond to my questions about lobbyist registration policy in Pennsylvania. Below are his responses:

Question 1: What should be the goals of any lobbying laws or reform in Pennsylvania?

Mark Purcell: Total disclosure of all gifts and money spent on, or given to lawmakers in Pennsylvania.

Question 2: What entity or entities should be responsible for administering these laws?

Mark Purcell: State Department.

Question 3: Are there any other states that could or should serve as a model for lobbying regulation?

Mark Purcell: California.

Question 4: What kind of public reporting requirements should be required for lobbying? How much information should a citizen be able to find publicly about the activities of a lobbyist, and how should that information be made available?

Mark Purcell: Reporting requirements should give full disclosures like, name of entity, person, or firm working for, or representing entity. All information should be available for citizens to view. I can't think of any legitimate reason not to disclose all info. The information might be disclosed in a form submitted by the lobbyist.

Question 5: Should lobbyists be required to pay, through registration fees, for all costs involved in providing such registration/regulation/public reporting?

Mark Purcell: Yes.

Question 6: How important is lobbyist regulation/registration to you as an issue? Is this something you would see as a top priority for the General Assembly in your first session?

Mark Purcell: It is one of my top priorities along with other reforms like, term limits, and reducing the size of the General Assembly.

Bonnie Dodge is running for the Pennsylvania State Senate District 18, currently held by Lisa Boscola. She graciously agreed to answer some questions about possible lobbying reform in the state of Pennsylvania:

Question 1: What should be the goals of any lobbying laws or reform in Pennsylvania?

Bonnie Dodge: Lobbying reform should identify and control spending by lobbyists, especially elected officials. By doing this, we could expose the activities of lobbyists and the correlation of lobbyist contributions and votes by legislators favoring those lobbyists demands.I have refused to accept any lobbyist, PAC, or special interest money in my campaign and will NOT even make appointments to see lobbyists in my offices when elected. If you look at the incumbent in my race, Lisa Boscola, you will see that the gambling interests, builders and related contracts, unions and other specific interests which put money into her campaigns are also granted appropriate votes. She never votes for medical tort reform unless the bills is destined to fail. She cannot possible vote for open space because she is part of the cabal which is building, building, building on every available parcel of land.

If you download the list of lobbyists currently registered with the PA State Ethics Comission, you will find the list to be 295 pages, and many of the lobbyists represent ten or more companies. Our state is the ONLY one which does not have a law of this type.

Question 2: What entity or entities should be responsible for administering these laws?

Bonnie Dodge: There should be an independent body, but not another bureaucratic level to government. That would be self-defeating!

Question 3: Are there any other states that could or should serve as a model for lobbying regulation?

Bonnie Dodge: I'm in contact with several other legislators in other states researching this at this time.

Question 4: What kind of public reporting requirements should be required for lobbying? How much information should a citizen be able to find publicly about the activities of a lobbyist, and how should that information be made available?

Bonnie Dodge: Lobbyists should have to report any and all donations within 48 hours. The information should fall under the right-to-know laws. It should be available upon request without cost to the taxpayer. What is now available can be retreived on the internet and I'm for that because it's easy to get.

Question 5: Should lobbyists be required to pay, through registration fees, for all costs involved in providing such registration/regulation/public reporting?

Bonnie Dodge: YES. The money they bake is exorbitant! It's essentially pure profit for the lobbyists, so why should the taxpayer pay anything?

Joseph P. Schiaffino is one of the Republican Candidates for State Senate in the 10th District to replace Joe Conti, who is retiring. Mr. Schiaffino kindly agreed to respond to our lobbying regulation questions. Those responses are below:

Question 1: What should be the goals of any lobbying laws or reform in Pennsylvania?

Schiaffino: The goal of any lobbying reform laws should be strict limits on what if anything may be given to legislators, and complete reporting of all contributions to a legislator and/or his campaign.

Question 2: What entity or entities should be responsible for administering these laws?

Schiaffino: The attorney general is the highest law enforcement officer in the state. Enforcement should be the responsibility of his office.

Question 3: Are there any other states that could or should serve as a model for lobbying regulation?

Schiaffino: I know other states have much better lobbying regulations on the books, and I would certainly look to them for ideas on toughening Pennsylvania's laws. We don't have to reinvent the wheel here.

Question 4: What kind of public reporting requirements should be required for lobbying? How much information should a citizen be able to find publicly about the activities of a lobbyist, and how should that information be made available?

Schiaffino: Sunshine laws should be made to apply to all contacts between lobbyists and legislators. They are trying to influence the legislator to do something favorable to them and the public needs to know what is going on, and if it is in the best interests of the citizens and the state.

Question 5: Should lobbyists be required to pay, through registration fees, for all costs involved in providing such registration/regulation/public reporting?

Schiaffino: I would consider an annual or one time registration fee to cover recording and reporting of lobbying activities.

Senate Approves Lobbying Limits by Wide Margin

Reminds me of this...

Baby steps.

Interesting article today in the Washington Post about lobbying in the nation's capitol. This stood out as a truth, blunt and obvious:

Lobbyists muscled their way into the process as pork-barrel earmarking was exploding, promising to make sure their clients' requests rose to the top of the pile. The Congressional Research Service counted 3,023 earmarks worth $19.5 billion in 1996 spending bills. By this year, the number had climbed to 12,852, valued at $64 billion. The number of clients registered with Congress on budget and appropriations matters has more than doubled since 1998, from 1,665 to 3,759 in 2004, according to the Center for Public Integrity.

Lobbyists play such a central role in the appropriations process that many constituents believe they have no choice but to retain one if they hope to obtain funding for their project or organization.

Here's a question about that $64 billion in earmarks - how much of that goes to the lobbying firms? How much is America actually paying in appropriations so that the lobbying process is used? That's the number this article needs.

Shawn Diggory is a Democrat running for the 160th District in Pennsylvania's State House. He kindly agreed to respond to our questions about lobbying reform:

Question 1: What should be the goals of any lobbying laws or reform in Pennsylvania?

Shawn Diggory: All lobbying laws should have one underlying goal: To increase the transparency with which our Legislature operates. All Pennsylvanians have a right to know who is seeking to persuade their elected officials and on what issues.

Question 2: What entity or entities should be responsible for administering these laws?

Shawn Diggory: The ideal would be to have a truly independent agency to enforce the law, outside of the Executive branch. This agency would also have authority over all lobbyists, not just the non-lawyer lobbyists. Absent this new entity, the State Ethics Commission should have this responsibility, and lawyers who feel that the Commission has over-reached its authority could appeal to the Judiciary.

Question 3: Are there any other states that could or should serve as a model for lobbying regulation?

Shawn Diggory: The State of Washington has very good disclosure laws, according to the Center for Public Integrity. Kentucky and South Carolina also ban or severely limit or ban gift-giving by lobbyists, which Pennsylvania should model. (I would prefer an outright ban, which would do away with a need for the bureaucracy to report gifts.)

Question 4: What kind of public reporting requirements should be required for lobbying? How much information should a citizen be able to find publicly about the activities of a lobbyist, and how should that information be made available?

Shawn Diggory: All lobbyists should be registered with the Commonwealth, and that information should be publicly available at an easy-to-navigate website. Additionally, quarterly expense reports detailing which public officials were lobbied and how much was spent should be posted at the same website.

Question 5: Should lobbyists be required to pay, through registration fees, for all costs involved in providing such registration/regulation/public reporting?

Shawn Diggory: The Commonwealth should absorb the costs associated with regulation and reporting. Registration fees are common, but should not be so high as to be a burden to lobbying groups that may not be well-funded, such as social issue lobbying groups.

Just like here, Taiwan's lobbying bill is bogged down in the committee stage. Interesting to see another country's take on the reform issue.

Mr. Roncaglione is the Democratic Candidate for the 164th District, Pennsylvania House Of Representatives. He graciously answered our lobbyist regulation questions below.

Question 1: What should be the goals of any lobbying laws or reform in Pennsylvania?

Roncaglione: Make access to Legislators an open and fair process, eliminate price tags to gain entry. Full disclosure and monthly reporting of all meetings. No gifts, meals, trips or remunerations of any kind. Ban any lobbyist or group for one year if any of these proposals are violated.

Question 2: What entity or entities should be responsible for administering these laws?

Roncaglione: A special section in the Attorney General's office should be created to monitor Lobbyist activities. This section should also have prosecutorial powers over any wrongdoing.

Question 3: Are there any other states that could or should serve as a model for lobbying regulation?

Roncaglione: Vermont

Question 4: What kind of public reporting requirements should be required for lobbying? How much information should a citizen be able to find publicly about the activities of a lobbyist, and how should that information be made available?

Roncaglione: All Lobbyist actions should be posted on a newly created website with reporting responsibility by both Legislators and Lobbyists.

Question 5: Should lobbyists be required to pay, through registration fees, for all costs involved in providing such registration/regulation/public reporting?

Roncaglione: Costs for these proposals should be paid by those who lobby our Legislature on a sliding scale based on their individual expenditures.

Interesting post from last July from Under the Influence:

Not to... ...pick on Joe Biden, but the Statement of Organization that his leadership Pac, Unite Our States, filed with the Federal Election Commission lists two officers (on page three of the five page form that you can either download as a .pdf or click through page by page), William C. Oldaker and Jeffery J. Connaughton, and gives as an address for the pair 818 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC. That's the same address as Oldaker, Biden & Belair, a firm that lobbies the federal government. The Biden in the name of the firm is R. Hunter Biden, Joe Biden's son...

Here's a DC lobbying firm: Oldaker, Biden & Belair. Web site is here.

Why hire them? Their web site says:

Negotiating the Washington labyrinth can be time consuming and intimidating for both insiders and outsiders. However with all mazes there are shortcuts, and Washington is no exception. Oldaker, Biden & Belair's network of contacts throughout the private sector, the Executive Branch and Congress enables the firm to react speedily to a client's needs, answer a client's questions and ultimately solve a client's problems. This network allows us to monitor effectively a client's issues from legislation to implementation.

So who's the Biden member of the firm?

R. Hunter Biden

A founding partner of Oldaker, Biden & Belair, Mr. Biden currently focuses on the Financial Services Industry, International Business Development, International Trade Policy and Information Technology Policy as it relates to intellectual property rights, consumer privacy and telecommunications. He has served as a Senior Vice President at a major financial services firm and most recently was a Presidential appointee at the U.S. Department of Commerce, where he served as the Executive Director for e-Commerce Policy Coordination under Secretaries Daley and Mineta. While with the Administration he also participated in a number of international business development and policy missions to Europe, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East. Mr. Biden has a B.A. from Georgetown University and a J.D. from Yale Law School.

Hmm. He's done a lot of things, but apparently being the son of one Senator Joe Biden doesn't deserve mention in the bio.

Steve Karas is running for Pennsylvania State Representative as a Democrat in District 34. This is currently another Democrat's seat, Paul Costa, who apparently is also running.

Mr. Karas was good enough to answer questions about lobbyist reform. Here are his responses:

Question 1: What should be the goals of any lobbying laws or reform in Pennsylvania?

Karas: The goals of lobbying laws should be full disclosure: lobbyists should register (for a period of longer than one year, or every year), monitor and report their meetings, and eliminate any gift giving. PA should lead the country with these reforms, we have been followers too long. It has been reported that PA is last in diclosure laws. We should be first. Legislative members should : 1) not be allowed to vote if there is a conflict of interest with themselves or any relative, 2) should not be allowed to work for lobbying firms at any time after serving in elected or appointed positions (this should include immediate family), and 3) minutes of all lobbyists meetings should be kept by both parties and be available in public record. We should establish a maximum amount any lobbying group can spend. It is no coincidence that gambling lobbying costs have increased to four times what they have been in the past. Now PA legislatures are linked to Jack Abramoff contributors. This is Democracy for sale and the people of PA are worse off because of it. Those without healthcare and working at minimum wage jobs do not hire lobbyists.

Question 2: What entity or entities should be responsible for administering these laws?

Karas: If all records are public, groups such as citizens against government waste, project vote smart, and the league of women voters will more that likely monitor these records. These groups provide an invaluable service to active voters. Ethics committees have their place, remember that Tom Delay was "charged" by a bi-partisan ethics committee. Unfortunately, shorter afterward, the house speaker, Hassert (R), removed the chairman, Hefley (R), from his position as ethics chair. To avoid this, the ethics chair and co-chairs should be appointed and monitored by the leadership of both parties. In addition, a combination of outside observers and/or members of the judicial and executive branches should also be involved.

Question 3: Are there any other states that could or should serve as a model for lobbying regulation?

Karas: I would refer to the coalition of the following groups: public citizen, common cause, Democracy 21, Public Campaign, Campaign Legal Center, Us PIRG, and The League of Women Voters, who have "started the work" for us. The framework is there, but we need new legislaures who have the conviction to allow this change to happen and not just : "go along to get along" with the leaders who refuse to address this issue.

The coalition has a six point plan for reforms which include:

1. capping lobbying contributions
2. prohibit financing of trips
3. ban all gifts to legislature and staff
4. oversee and enforce ethics rules
5. prohibit legisaltues for two years form working with lobbying companies (I would make this a lifetime ban)
6. strengthen financial disclosure laws

Question 4: What kind of public reporting requirements should be required for lobbying? How much information should a citizen be able to find publicly about the activities of a lobbyist, and how should that information be made available?

Karas: 100% full disclosure of political contributions, meeting minutes, and costs. All of this information should be public and available within a given time (less than two weeks) and posted as a PDF file on the state capitol website and provided to the oversite board.

Question 5: Should lobbyists be required to pay, through registration fees, for all costs involved in providing such registration/regulation/public reporting?

Karas: Yes if the fee is a nominal filing fee, such as the fee candidates must pay. Increasing the fee will do nothing but limit access of groups that may be well-meaning , but not well funded.

Thank you for taking the time to discuss these issues. Candidates who do not have the strength of conviction to bring this information to the public lack the leadership skills to promote true change in the PA government.

Recently I asked some questions of William Sargent, who is a Democrat running for the Pennsylvania House 42nd District this year. His campaign site is here.

Dave from Fester's Place had suggested that Sargent had some interesting views on the lobbying laws in Pennsylvania, which is sort of a general political interest for this blog. I asked Mr. Sargent if he'd answer some questions, and below are the questions and his responses. I'm hoping to follow up in the next week with a few other questions. This seems to me to be a worthwhile project this year - to ask Pennsylvania General Assembly candidates - not incumbents - on their views concerning lobbying law in the Commonwealth during the campaign, and see if there are some details - and perhaps some consensus - reported. If you have any suggested questions for me to ask Mr. Sargent for next week, feel free to drop them in comments or in email.

Question 1: What should be the goals of any lobbying laws or reform in Pennsylvania?

William Sargent: The goals of meaningfully lobbying reform and the purpose of reforming the laws in Pennsylvania are to minimize corruption at all levels of government, ensure equal access for every citizen, corporation and interest group by setting uniform standards of reporting monies or gifts given to public officials and providing for oversight and accountability.

Pennsylvania is the only state without a lobbyist disclosure law to control influence peddling by special interests. The article in the PG today was only made possible by a Senate Rule not a Pennsylvania Law.

Question 2: What entity or entities should be responsible for administering these laws?

William Sargent: Previously the courts have struck down a lobbyist disclosure law because the courts felt that it was within the purview of the judicial branch to provide the sole ability to oversee officers of the court (attorneys) and because lobbyists are sometime attorneys then the PA House and Senate cannot regulate them.

I disagree. According to that logic, then only the courts can have oversight into the House and Senate because the vast majority of its members are attorneys.

The PA House and Senate should provide its own oversight in a bi partisan fashion over its members.

Question 3: Are there any other states that could or should serve as a model for lobbying regulation?

William Sargent: In light of the activities of certain members of the congress and lobbyists working within the beltway there way been several bills proposed by both senators and congressmen about lobbying reform.

John McCain has introduced a good bill and Russ Feingold has introduced a piece of legislation that is even more restrictive. (Interesting on how these two gentlemen could come to terms on campaign finance but have different bills for this topic but yet I digress.)

To answer your questions I am inclined to say that the more restrictive, the better off you are.

(1) If you leave government service, there must be a period of time to elapse before you may return as a private citizen lobbying your former employer/ colleagues.

(2) No gifts/trips/rides.

(3) You must disclose how your money is spent if you spend more than $2,500 a quarter.