Weekly Lobbying ArticlesApril 14, 2017

The Post and CourierApril 7, 2017

South Carolina Statehouse corruption probe investigating whether Richard Quinn & Associates' campaign work 'bled into' lobbying

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/south-carolina-statehouse-corruption-probe-investigating-whether-richard-quinn-associates/article_ca087ec8-1add-11e7-a367-4ffc76bad89a.html

State investigators leading an ongoing corruption probe have started to ask questions about whether Richard Quinn & Associates' campaign consulting work and public relations efforts ever overlapped and turned into lobbying in the South Carolina Statehouse.

A handful of former state lawmakers, who were also paid by the influential firm for political campaign work during their time in office, were called before the state grand jury last month to answer questions about their interactions with the now-scrutinized consulting company.

Former Richland County representative James Harrison confirmed he had appeared before special prosecutor David Pascoe last month, and Tracy Edge, a former Horry County lawmaker, and his attorney told The Post and Courier he had done the same.

Edge was not willing to comment on his interactions with the grand jury because the investigation is ongoing, but both he and Harrison said they were given assurances they were not targets of the probe.

The probe already has led to the guilty plea of former House Speaker Bobby Harrell and the indictments of Rep. Jim Merrill and Sen. John Courson. All are Republicans.

Harrison, who previously served as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, was more forthcoming about his dealings with investigators.

The more than 20-year Statehouse veteran said he was asked to come before the state grand jury as a witness to discuss his relationship with the powerful consulting company, which is owned by Richard Quinn of Columbia.

“They wanted to know how RQA operated, who the employees were, who had the records, and of course, what my involvement was with RQA,” Harrison said.

Quinn, who has been an influential force in South Carolina politics for nearly four decades, has emerged as a key figure in Pascoe's investigation. He has not been charged with a crime, but investigators have reportedly seized records from his firm. RQA also was named in an indictment accusing Courson, a Columbia Republican, of improperly funneling campaign money through the consultant for personal gain.

During his time in elected office, Harrison said he was paid a biweekly salary to help run the firm's statewide political campaigns — something that is allowed under state law.

That work included campaigns for former presidential candidate John McCain, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham and South Carolina's newly-situated governor, Henry McMaster.

Harrison was solely involved in campaign work, he said. But investigators wanted to know if his work and compensation with the company ever started "bleeding over into lobbying."

“It was more overall broad questions about how Richard Quinn & Associates operates the campaign side of the business and the public relations side of the business," said Harrison, who was confirmed this week as a new board member of The Citadel.

At no point during his time working with Quinn, Harrison said, did he ever see those varying facets of the business cross.

Wisconsin State JournalApril 8, 2017

Longtime lobbyist Alice O’Connor: 'Roll your sleeves up'

http://host.madison.com/wsj/business/executive-qa/longtime-lobbyist-alice-o-connor-roll-your-sleeves-up/article_af1c05a5-28c4-5b02-b77d-abecb1970440.html

Alice O’Connor warns about snowflakes — but not the winter kind.

Instead, the longtime Wisconsin contract lobbyist, means protected people averse to hard work.

“We are raising too many people to be special snowflakes, as I call them. Just roll your sleeves up, get a callus or two, and do what you need to do,” O’Connor said.

Raised in a large Irish Catholic family of seven children, she seems to have little patience for indolence.

“Stop waiting, whining or procrastinating that someone else will do for you what you should do for yourself,” O’Connor said. “We are all imperfect, but give me someone who is at least, hands down, trying over someone who is talking about trying or wishing they could try.”

O’Connor, who founded Wisconsin Women in Government in the late 1980s, switched from a job as government relations director at DeWitt Ross & Stevens law firm back to her own lobbying shop, Constituency Services Inc., in 2013.

Q. You’ve been in the communications business for more than 30 years, as I count it. What are the two or three of your favorite causes or clients you’ve advocated for?

A. I am passionate about Special Olympics Wisconsin and all the good they do for so many, leveraging thousands of volunteers each year for 10,000 athletes and more than 530 events statewide. It took three sessions to pass an income tax check-off for Special Olympics. Those dollars are a lot of bake sales they don’t have to have. Our intellectually and physically disabled population is well over 100,000, and, all — age 8 to, I think their oldest athlete is 82 — experience joy and the powerful value of sports.

I have also represented the Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association for many years and seen the dedication of men and women in uniform and their leaders.

This is a challenging time for law enforcement, and they are not always treated with respect. Sometimes the policies that are enacted create even more burdens for law enforcement without corresponding resources.

Q. You’re a registered lobbyist. Just what does a lobbyist for hire do these days?

A. A good lobbyist is talking to people in both parties, talking to agency staff, talking to staff in legislative offices.

A good lobbyist does their homework, does a ton of writing and talking to help clients boil complicated information into one page. Lengthy reports don’t get read. You have to respect a lawmaker’s time. They have many demands upon them. They need credible, succinct, pertinent information. It is also always important to let a lawmaker know if there is opposition, who and why.

Never lie.

As a lobbyist our jobs are to persuade. We are judged by the votes we count and the successes we achieve.

Talk radio is the unregistered lobbyist that sometimes has too much influence on lawmakers who would love to change a law but lack the courage because their political career depends on being on the good side of someone with a microphone. Some talk radio people are tabloid sensationalistic at best. There is no interest in facts or balanced reporting. That is bothersome to me. Equally as bothersome is how easy it is to assassinate character. Anyone can vomit on the Internet.

Q. Tell me how the lobbyist business has changed since you started working as one.

A. I still remember getting my first fax machine and wondering if women felt that way about the invention of the washer and dryer. It sped things up from snail mail or overnight or delivery services. Then the first cellphone, the size of a small piece of luggage, made talking to clients in “real time” while you were still at the Capitol possible. Before cellphones, there was a bank of phones in the Capitol ground floor rotunda that lobbyists and reporters would fight to use. I think there were four of them.

There was a lot more congeniality. That has been talked about much. I saw politicians of different persuasions fight like heck on the floor, but you would see them having beer at the Inn on the Park later that day. There were also very few lobbyists. It was a good ol’ boys club for sure. When I started lobbying in the late ‘80s, it was a really big deal that there were four women lobbyists. Now, there are over a thousand people registered at the state Ethics Commission, and there are many female lobbyists.

Q. You’ve switched from being an independent lobbyist to being attached to a law firm, then back to independence again. Why?

A. Law firms are for lawyers. I am not a lawyer, even though I read statutes and people sometimes think I am a lawyer. You don’t have to be a lawyer to lobby. It made no sense to attach myself to overhead that did not financially benefit me. I have a wonderful collaborative relationship with another lobbying firm that I can tap to add value to the needs of my clients when we need extra shoe leather. Law firms have a different function. But I sure met a lot of really great people. In my own firm, my outside speaking and coaching business is also a lot easier to promote, too. That was a bit more difficult inside a law firm structure.

Q. State government and politics have certainly changed since you started working. What’s the good part of those changes? The bad part?

A. The good part of changes is that the Internet has flattened the world and made policies even more available to public scrutiny, quicker. Transparency is a buzz word everyone likes to use. Not everything is transparent yet, but there are so many special interest groups on any particular issue, they can easily point out when something is not quite adding up. Real numbers always add up. Fake numbers do not. It takes people willing to question and be persistent in this noisy climate to get to the bottom of things.

The bad part is the speed that things happen means you don’t always have the necessary time to vet what is said or numbers that are used. Or to see how a proposed change in the law might actually impact one of your clients.

Q. What do you do for fun?

A. When I am not working, it is fun to talk about anything but politics. As a family, we’ve always had an active lifestyle, so a great way to burn frustration or a worn-out brain is some downhill or cross-country skiing, paddleboarding, kayaking. Anything on water. Or in nature. Anywhere. Cooking a meal from scratch, which requires focus so I don’t burn it. Mix that with good friends, good wine and good music and lots of great ingredients. A mean game of ping pong always makes for a good laugh.

The Kansas City StarApril 10, 2017

Limit on lobbyist gifts clears Missouri Senate committee

http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article143826334.html

A Missouri Senate committee approved legislation Monday capping the amount of gifts elected officials can accept from lobbyists.

But with only five weeks left before the legislative session adjourns for the year, the bill’s chances appear shaky at best.

The bill approved unanimously Monday would cap how much a lobbyist could spend on a gift to a lawmaker at $10 a day. That cap also would apply to the lawmaker’s staff, spouse or children. Gifts could still be given to groups, such as the entire Senate, as long as every member of the General Assembly is invited at least 72 hours beforehand.

But Senate Majority Leader Mike Kehoe, a Jefferson City Republican, said the bill probably would look much different by the time it comes up for debate in the full Senate. He plans to include portions of a bill passed by the Missouri House in January that also would allow group gifts but would completely ban individual gifts to elected officials.

“I anticipate these two bills getting combined,” Kehoe said, later adding: “The best chance of it getting out of the Senate is for the Senate bill to be the vehicle.”

Lawmakers and their staffs collectively accept hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in lobbyist-provided gifts, ranging from meals to trips to event tickets.

Gov. Eric Greitens, a Republican, has been the most outspoken proponent of banning lobbyist gifts. He campaigned on the issue and featured it prominently in his State of the State address in January. He also signed an order shortly after taking office prohibiting executive branch employees from accepting gifts from lobbyists.

But Greitens’ actions since taking office have damaged the chances of passing a gift ban.

The governor’s inaugural festivities were paid for by various corporations and lobbyists. Because Greitens used a nonprofit to raise that money, he doesn’t have to disclose how much was raised, how much was spent or how much each donor chipped in.

In early February, Greitens’ campaign treasurer filed paperwork with the secretary of state’s office to establish A New Missouri Inc., a nonprofit organization that can accept unlimited contributions and won’t be required to disclose who is giving it money. The nonprofit’s mission is to advocate for the governor and his agenda.

His reliance on so-called dark money — the use of nonprofits to hide the source of campaign cash — has contributed to the slow progress of bills that seek to rein in lobbyist gifts. Some argue the governor’s actions prove that a gift ban doesn’t go far enough, while other say it is evidence that more focus is needed on transparency and disclosure.

Kehoe said that while he personally has no problem with these sorts of political nonprofits, he expects the topic will get lots of discussion when the Senate takes up the lobbyist gift bill.

“There will be a lot of conversation about it when it hits the floor,” he said.

If the bill approved Monday ends up passing the Senate, it would still need to wind its way through the legislative process in the House before it would go to the governor.

The Nevada IndependentApril 10, 2017

Pharmaceutical companies stock up on lobbyists as Democrats push bills targeting industry

https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/pharmaceutical-companies-stock-lobbyists-democrats-push-bills-targeting-industry

Pharmaceutical companies, usually not major legislative players, have dramatically increased their presence in Carson City this year, with many new lobbyists registering since a major bill targeted by the industry was introduced in mid-March.

Lobbyists, some of whom have multiple clients, have submitted 67 registrations on behalf of pharmaceutical companies during the 2017 session, more than double the number of pharmaceutical lobbyist registrations over the course of the 2015 legislative session, an analysis of lobbyist reports by The Nevada Independent shows. In all, at least 42 lobbyists have registered to represent 26 companies this legislative session.

At least 11 of those registrations were submitted after Democratic Sen. Yvanna Cancela introduced a major pharmaceutical bill, SB265, on March 14, according to an analysis of lobbyist registrations provided by the Legislative Counsel Bureau to The Nevada Independent. The legislation, which drew ire from the industry during a hearing late last month, would put price controls on certain diabetes drugs, require pharmaceutical sales representatives to be licensed and annually report their activities and mandate disclosure of any pharmaceutical-related contributions by nonprofits in the healthcare sector.

Many of the 47 lobbyists represent multiple clients. Carrara Nevada president Rocky Finseth and vice president Jenny Reese represent seven pharmaceutical clients: AbbVie, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Greenwich Biosciences, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, Takeda Pharmaceuticals and PhrMA, the trade association representing pharmaceutical companies in the United States. PhRMA itself has a total of eight lobbyists representing them this session — including its director of state advocacy Saiza Elayda and its vice president of state advocacy Kipp Snider — compared to the three last session.

Four lobbyists with the McMullen Strategic Group — Sam McMullen, Connor Cain, George Ross and Sara Cholhagian — represent three clients, Amgen, Astellas Pharma and the Biotechnology Innovation Organization. Strategies 360’s John Oceguera and Marcus Conklin, two former legislators, represent Eli Lilly and Company along with PhRMA.

The top three insulin manufacturers, who are being sued for allegedly unfairly raising prices and monopolizing the insulin market, all have representation at the Legislature. Eli Lilly has five registered lobbyists, while Novo Nordisk and Sanofi each have one. Eli Lilly only had one lobbyist during the 2015

session, Novo Nordisk had none and Sanofi only had one representative lobbying on behalf of its vaccination arm, Sanofi Pasteur.

Three companies — Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson and Sanofi — didn’t have any representation before mid-March, with AbbVie, Takeda, Eli Lilly and Novartis Services adding additional lobbyists over the last couple of weeks.

Here’s a list of all the pharmaceutical companies and their lobbyists who have registered for the 2017.

AbbVie:

Floreine Kahn

Jenny Reese

Rocky Finseth

Alkermes:

April Grant

Allergan:

Jennifer Stoll

Amgen:

Brad Jordan

Connor Cain

Jennifer Fitzgerald

Rylan Hanks

Samuel McMullen

Sara Cholhagian

George Ross

Astellas Pharma:

Barbara Morrow

Connor Cain

George Ross

Samuel McMullen

Sara Cholhagian

Bayer:

Craig Swaim

Jenny Reese

Rocky Finseth

Biogen:

Katie Tinney

Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO):

Brian Warren

Connor Cain

George Ross

Samuel McMullen

Sara Cholhagian

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals:

Bryan Gresh

Cheyanne Cook

Sarah Collins

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company:

Sarah Ehrlich Swan

Celgene:

Sedrick Spencer

Eli Lilly and Company:

Bianca Marquez

Daniel Howle

John Oceguera

Marcus Conklin

Marla Williams

Genentech:

Barbara Lussenhop

Generic Pharmaceutical Association:

Jay Parmer

GlaxoSmithKline:

Jenny Reese

Rocky Finseth

Greenwich Biosciences:

Jenny Reese

Kurt Stembridge

Rocky Finseth

Johnson & Johnson:

Jeff Buel

Patrick McNaught

Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals:

Derek Naten

Jenny Reese

Rocky Finseth

Mylan:

Jay Parmer

Novartis Services:

David Goldwater

Kirby Consier

Nikki Bailey-Lundahl

Novo Nordisk:

Tom Boyer

PhRMA:

Bianca Marquez

Jenny Reese

John Oceguera

Kipp Snider

Marcus Conklin

Marla Williams

Rocky Finseth

Saiza Elayda

Purdue Pharma:

Robert McElderry

Sanofi:

Deanne Calvert

Sunovion Pharmaceuticals:

Coleen Lawrence

Philip Walsh

Takeda Pharmaceuticals:

Jenny Reese

Rocky Finseth

Atlanta Journal ConstitutionApril 11, 2017

Lobbyists spend $21,000 to keep Georgia lawmakers fed on final day

http://www.myajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/lobbyists-spend-000-keep-georgia-lawmakers-fed-final-day/huK3cS2YldGN6lPI1dJWZK/

Lawmakers worked about 15 hours - with a few breaks - on the final day of the 2017 session last month.

Lobbyists worked their wallets almost as hard to keep them fed.

From mid-morning on March 30 to almost 1 a.m. the next day, lawmakers voted about 145 times, while also holding backroom meetings, welcoming family members and guests to the House and Senate floor, getting their ears bent by lobbyists and tearing up paper to throw when the final gavel of the session fell.

An Atlanta Journal-Constitution review of filings shows lobbyists spent about $21,000, mostly on meals, and occasionally beverages, on the final day - and night - of the session.

That’s about typical. It usually costs in the neighborhood of $20,000 to feed lawmakers on the final day, even more if lobbyists pay big for a post-session party.

A lobbyist for the firm headed by longtime GOP lobbyist Jay Morgan reported spending $449 on a breakfast for senators. Two lobbyists representing the state trial lawyers spent $1,145 providing lunch to the House Democratic Caucus, while Michael Shelnutt, with McGuire Woods Consulting, which was still working hard on the final day to pass bills, reported spending $1,160 for a Senate Republican Caucus dinner.

Among many other issues it was working on, McGuire Woods represented the company pushing for legislation to provide a tax sales break to big yacht owners if they get their boats fixed at the firm’s boat yard in Savannah. The bill passed the Senate around 11 p.m. that night.

Lobbyists typically pay for an after-session party as well. A lobbyist for PruittHealth, the state’s largest nursing home company, reported spending $240 on March 31 for a “Sine Die Party.” A couple of other lobbyists reporting spending the same amount but listed it as a “dinner.”

Lincoln Journal StarApril 12, 2017

Editorial, 4/12: Lobbying money keeps growing

http://journalstar.com/news/opinion/editorial/editorial-lobbying-money-keeps-growing/article_b5a3e926-0fa9-506f-8428-3b7709081515.html

There’s a growth industry over at the state Capitol that took in a million dollars more in 2016 than it had the previous year.

It’s lobbying, and the annual survey from Common Cause Nebraska shows a dramatic increase in the amount of money spent to lobby state senators from 2015 to 2016.

Last year, 543 groups or entities paid 364 lobbyists $16.7 million to lobby the 49 state senators. In 2015, lobbying activity amounted to $15.6 million. That’s a 7 percent increase.

“Lobbying must pay off since the investment grows each year,” Common Cause stated in releasing the report. Indeed it must -- which is why so many groups work to influence the way the Legislature votes on the dozens of issues it confronts each year.

The biggest spender on lobbying in 2016 was the Nebraska Chamber of Commerce, at $218,000. Over a five-year period, the League of Nebraska Municipalities topped the spending totals at $951,000.

School districts spent a combined $462,000 on lobbying last year, topped by Omaha. Lincoln Public Schools’ lobbying spending was fourth among school districts.

The school districts’ need to lobby is obvious. The Legislature acts on everything from the state aid each school will receive to attempts at changing what and how subjects are taught in public school, like Sen. Bob Krist’s LB14 that would require civics testing in all Nebraska school districts.

That bill is now largely supported by school districts. But only because Krist made major changes in the proposal, likely the result of successful lobbying efforts.

There’s nothing at all wrong with lobbying. It is almost required for those who could be impacted by legislation. Full disclosure here: the Journal Star is part of Media of Nebraska, an industry group that lobbies on transparency issues like open records, press restrictions and government access.

But with groups spending thousands for professional lobbyists (three firms made more than $1 million last year) who develop relationships with senators, it raises the question of what, if any, impact an individual or even groups that don’t pay a lobbyist can have on senators and on legislation.

The most staggering figure to be derived from the Common Cause report comes from some simple math, dividing the $16.7 million by 49 senators. That means that lobbyists, on average, were paid $340,816 to influence each senator. And each senator is paid only $12,000 per year to serve. The money keeps growing, so someone must be getting what they’re paying for.

Atlanta Journal ConstitutionApril 13, 2017

Georgia lobbyists, lawmakers dine out on weak ethics law

http://www.myajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/georgia-lobbyists-lawmakers-dine-out-weak-ethics-law/DRvWGTA1a7UGeOjtAsrSqJ/

Asking lawmakers at the State Capitol to give up the freebies they receive from lobbyists is like asking an alcoholic to stop drinking. They first have to admit they have a problem.

In 2013, the General Assembly passed a significant lobbying reform bill, answering the loud complaints of voters across the political spectrum. With four years of perspective, I think we can admit that parts of it don’t work.

The centerpiece of the reform was the first-ever cap on what a lobbyist could give a public official, limiting such goodies to a value of $75 per gift. But there were other changes as well, particularly to group events.

Those changes are important because, while lobbyists don’t consider group dinners to be as effective as dining one-on-one with a lawmaker, they are an efficient way to show an entire gaggle of politicians you

love them. That’s why you often seen catering trucks parked on the Capitol grounds during the legislative session.

Every day, lobbyists spend big bucks filling conference rooms with catered spreads. Larger events unfold at the renovated train depot across the street. And in the evening, lobbyists host entire committees in restaurants around the city.

In between, cookies, cakes, sandwiches and sodas are delivered to delegations, suites of offices or other knots of hungry politicians.

It adds up. In all, lobbyists spent about $4 on group events for every $1 spent on an individual gift. This year’s session lasted three months, adjourning March 31. During that brief time, lobbyists reported more than 1,000 group expenditures totaling $408,000.

Groups are defined, gifts limited

The 2013 reforms tried to cut into all that spending by defining what constitutes a legitimate group and then setting limits on the number of these events.

The law says lobbyists can hold an events for the entire General Assembly. There are a bunch of those, starting with the annual Wild Hog Supper, but including a lot of smaller drop-in events.

Also allowed are events targeting the entire House or Senate, the Republican and Democratic caucuses of either chamber, and the standing committees of either chamber.

Lobbyists are limited by law to hosting one dinner per committee. Committees, on the other hand, can eat as much food as they can get lobbyists to purchase for them, but they can’t hit up the same lobbyist twice.

The only other “groups” allowed to be on the receiving end of lobbyists’ generosity are smaller caucuses specifically approved by the House and Senate ethics committees. There aren’t many.

The Senate Ethics Committee failed to recognize any caucuses. The House Ethics Committee approved four: the Women’s Caucus, the Legislative Black Caucus, the Rural Caucus and the Sportsman’s Caucus.

But the House Ethics Committee didn’t approve those caucuses until Feb. 22, more than six weeks after the start of the session. Rep. Randy Nix, R-LaGrange, who took over as committee chair this session, said he was unaware that the committee had that responsibility.

“When I was made aware, we began the process of identifying and getting required information to approve the caucuses,” he said. “When I had the appropriate information, we met and discussed the applications and approved four caucus committees.”

Unfamiliar or unconcerned?

Nix need not have hurried. No one was waiting on him. Prior to the ethics committee meeting, lobbyists hosted at least 54 events for groups that needed to have the ethics committee’s blessing. Many of those groups never applied for approval anyway.

For instance, a lobbyist for the multinational law firm Dentons paid for catered meals for the DeKalb County House delegation twice and the DeKalb Senate delegation three times, spending $1,283 along the way. These events raise a couple of questions.

First, it’s the same lobbyist hosting multiple events for a single group of lawmakers. Isn’t this exactly the type of favor that is supposedly limited by the 2013 reforms?

“They are evidently unfamiliar with the rules,” said Stefan Ritter, executive director of the state ethics commission, which is charged with enforcing them.

Second, the DeKalb delegations are not approved groups for such events, so should this event have happened in the first place?

“That’s also problematic,” Ritter said.

Ben Keane, a member of Dentons’ political law group, pointed to a part of state ethics law allows lobbyists to list expenditures for “an identifiable group of public officers” when listing them separately “would be impractical.” The individual spending on these meals was way below $75 a head, so Keane said there was no violation of the gift cap.

“It is merely an example of choosing to report group meals using group identifiers rather than itemized attendee listings,” he said. “State law allows lobbyists to do that.”

Ritter, after examining the Dentons records, said the amount of money involved may mean Keane is right.

Such group disclosure is common. Fifty-one times during the session, lobbyists engaged in group disclosure simply by listing office numbers (“Suite 226,” for example) rather than naming the lawmakers inside.

Keane is smart. He co-authors the “Pay to Play Law Blog” where I often go to get educated on lobbying and campaign finance rules. It’s not his job to make the law make sense, but one wonders why the Legislature would restrict group events in one part of the law only to allow them to be disclosed as group events in another.

In fact, Keane said “there’s no limit on group meal events” under the law as long as the $75-per-official cap is observed. Ritter added that the disclosure law Keane referred to “could swallow the rule” that suggests there are limits.

But the group expenditure law also is a convenient way to exceed the $75 cap in a below-the-radar fashion. On March 1, a herd of lobbyists combined forces to host the Senate Regulated Industries Committee at Wisteria, an Inman Park restaurant with a private event space.

The dinner was sponsored by the Georgia Cable Association, Georgia Power, Georgia EMC, the Georgia Chamber of Commerce, the liquor and beer industries, the auto dealers, the optometrists, the mining interests, telecommunications — you get the point. Regulated industries sponsored a meal for the committee doing the regulating.

The combined cost was $5,315 for the 14-member committee, or about $380 per public official. You can slice that down by adding spouses, but it’s hard to get it to the $75 cap. But under the law, the cap doesn’t apply to groups, so it’s not a violation.

Dozens of questionable entries

The weaknesses and contradiction in the law explain why the state ethics commission doesn’t do this kind of enforcement.

In a few days, I discovered dozens of questionable entries in this year’s disclosures. If the ethics commission were to start chasing them all, it would consume all of the small agency’s time and budget.

“The reality is if we got a complaint we’d look at it and take it seriously,” Ritter said.

But, he said, “We couldn’t possibly follow up on all these.”

That’s a shame for those of us who want clean, responsive government.

Some states bar lobbyists from plying politicians with food, drinks, travel and other gifts. Georgia does not. Instead, the General Assembly has defended the practice as both traditional and appropriate, so long as there is “transparency” to the public.

That transparency is supposed to allow you to track your elected officials and see with whom they associate. Right now, you can’t.

In the end, Georgia either needs a better law or a better General Assembly.

Santa Monica Daily PressApril 13, 2017

Revisions planned for local lobbying rules

http://smdp.com/revisions-planned-for-local-lobbying-rules/160549

Santa Monica’s lobbying rules will be up for discussion at Council’s April 18 meeting.

The meeting will include the introduction and first reading of an ordinance to update the regulations to include revised definitions, clarification of some items and a revision to account for lobbying by membership organizations.

A unanimous City Council passed the first draft of the rules in last year.

Registration began in September of 2016 and all lobbyists have to register with the city within 10 days of qualifying under the ordinance. So far, 49 firms have registered under the rules.

Lobbyists are required to provide their name, business and mailing address, email address, phone number, names of owners of the business, description of the business, client name/address/phone number, nature of client’s business, description of governmental decision sought by the lobbyist on the client’s behalf, name of persons employed or retained by the lobbyist to engage in lobbying activities and the date, amount, description of any payment made to, or on behalf of any City official or member of an official’s family.

City Hall defines a lobbyist as an individual who receives economic consideration as the employee, representative or contractor of a person or entity other than the City of Santa Monica for communicating with any official or employee of the City for the purpose of influencing a legislative or administrative action. For purposes of the lobbying registration program, a lobbyist does not include City contractors and those seeking City contracts through bids and proposals.

The fees are $40 for initial registration and $25 for amendments and annual renewal.

Staff are returning to Council next week with revisions to the rules based on their enforcement so far.

The changes include a minor revision so the definition of lobbying, clarification of the definition of a city official, clarification of the registration/reporting requirements and an addition to the rules specifying registration rules for organizations like the Chamber of Commerce or neighborhood groups that engage in continual, generic lobbying on behalf of their members.

No changes are proposed to the fee structure at this time but staff have asked to clarify the difference between an amendment and an addendum.

“Since increased transparency is a goal of the lobbyist regulations, staff distinguished between an amendment and an addendum. An amendment would be required to be filed when a new client is

represented by the lobbyist. An addendum allows the lobbyist to update its existing registration such as to indicate new contacts with City officials on behalf of existing clients,” said the report.

To encourage timely filing, addendums can be filed without a fee.

Lobbying fees will be part of a citywide Cost of Service study to be updated for Fiscal Year 2-17-18.

Atlanta Journal ConstitutionApril 14, 2017

Lobbyists give Georgia lawmakers a $400,000 buffet

http://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/lobbyists-give-georgia-lawmakers-400-000-buffet/maFQvtrhatEbuCWeyXcTPK/

Lobbyists spent more than $400,000 on group events over three months during the 2017 legislative session which ended in March.

Those group expenditures ranged from large, open-invitation buffets at the Georgia Railroad Freight Depot across from the Capitol to dinners hosted at some of Atlanta’s best restaurants, where entire committees were feted by special interests.

While individual gifts from lobbyists to lawmakers are capped at $75 per gift, many such group events have no cost ceiling. That loophole was written in the 2013 ethics reform bill lawmakers passed after years of voters’ clamoring for change.

This year, a group of lobbyists to host a private dining experience for the Senate Regulated Industries Committee at Wisteria, an Inman Park restaurant. The cost for the 14-member committee was reported as $5,315.

While lobbyists consider a private meal with an individual lawmaker the most effective, group meals are efficient. As a result, lobbyists spent $4 on group events for every $1 they spent on an individual lawmaker.

The 2013 reforms made an effort to rein in spending on groups, but it’s not clear that is happening. For instance, the law requires the House and Senate ethics committees to approve a list of caucuses eligible to partake in lobbyist-sponsored dinners and limit lobbyists to hosting a single dinner per committee. This year, the Senate failed to approve any and the House committee did not issue its list until six weeks after the session began.

Nonetheless, lobbyists filed expenses for at least 54 such group events without the House committee’s blessing. An Atlanta expert on political law says that unless the per capita cost exceeds $75 per person, such events need no further permission and lobbyists aren’t required to report individually the lawmakers who attended.

KSMUApril 14, 2017

Ethics 101: What Defines a Lobbyist in Missouri?

http://ksmu.org/post/ethics-101-what-defines-lobbyist-misssouri#stream/0

As it stands, Missouri law permits lawmakers to accept gifts like trips, meals and tickets to ball games from lobbyists. And there’s no limit on how much a lobbyist can spend on an elected official. Governor Eric Greitens has said he’d like to ban lobbyist gifts, but with only a month left in this year’s legislative session, that’s unlikely to happen this year. While that debate continues, we thought it would be helpful to offer a refresher on Missouri law regarding what defines a lobbyist.

Executive lobbyists

James Klahr, executive director of the MEC, says the public tends to focus on legislative lobbyists. But there are lobbyists in the executive and judicial branches, too.

“An executive lobbyist is someone who actually lobbies the executive branch of state government, which would be the governor’s office and all the various state agencies that are under the executive branch. So if someone is lobbying an official about an executive action that might be taken by the governor or by some other agency, that would be the kind of person that would register with the Missouri Ethics Commission as an executive lobbyist,” Klahr said.

Judicial lobbyists

And just as it sounds, a judicial lobbyist is someone who lobbies the judicial branch of state government.

“But not in what the public might think about. It's not lobbying to get a certain result on a court case. It's actually lobbying the judiciary on budget matters.

For example, if the judiciary is considering using new technology, like electronic court filing software, a lobbyist can go to the judiciary and recommend on behalf of a vendor to use a particular product or service.

“So someone who's lobbying on behalf of that vendor, to say, ‘I think you should go with our product because it’s gonna make your life easier as a judge, or as a court,’ those individuals would have to register as lobbyists if they’re engaged in that kind of activity,” Klahr said.

Legislative lobbyists

And of course, people who lobby lawmakers are considered legislative lobbyists. They’re typically lobbying for or against pieces of legislation that are before the General Assembly. Sometimes, they’re asking for specific action on those bills, like whether to vote it out of committee or to take a particular action on the House or Senate floor.

And Klahr said under that category of legislative lobbyists, there are a few different subsets of people.

“There those that are considered what I would refer to as ‘contract lobbyists.’ So, you’ve got individuals that may work for 10 or 15 different either companies or other business interests or other interests. And they lobby on each one of those interests’ behalf, depending on what the issue is the day at the Capitol,” Klahr said.

Then you’ve got people who are actually employed full-time by a single organization.

“For example, some of the utilities in our state, I think, actually employ full-time people who lobby the legislature, for example. So it kind of breaks down, really depending on what the lobbyist principal wants. They may want to go with a contract type person or they may want to have an in-house employee type person. And then you’ve got a bunch of people that work for not-for-profits other interests. They may be paid, they may not be paid—but because they’re still on a regular basis asking

the legislature to take decisions that would either benefit their client or make some change in law, they still have to register, even if they’re not necessarily being paid anything,” Klahr said.

Reporting gifts

All lobbyists on the state level have one thing in common: they’re bound by Missouri law to report gifts. The idea is transparency: the public should always know who is influencing their elected officials.

“So where the law stands is: if a lobbyist wants to make an expenditure—which is the word that’s used in the statute, but the public would think of it as a gift—and that could be a meal, that could be tickets to a sporting event, you know, that could be any number of things, the only real requirement right now is that the lobbyist has to report monthly to the Missouri Ethics Commission what that amount is and who it’s been expended upon,” Klahr said.

And that expenditure can be made on a public official or the official’s family. So, you’ll see if you go to the MEC’s website and follow the links to reporting expenditures, you’ll notice that even if the spouse or children receive a gift, it’s supposed to be reported.

This is all at the state level. There are lobbyists at the municipal level, too—and they are required to follow many of the same reporting rules.