August 27, 2010 •
Highlighted Site of the Week – The Willard Hotel, birthplace of the term lobbyist?
The lobby of this Beaux-Arts hotel was the scene where Ulysses S. Grant smoked cigars and drank brandy. Did the people who flocked around him in the lobby start the use of the term lobbyist as we know it?
The National Park Service’s National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is a great place to find out more about the history of Washington D.C. One of its fascinating offerings is the Willard Hotel.
Since 1847, the Willard Hotel has been an important political hub and has hosted most of the U.S. Presidents since Zachary Taylor. Starting out as a row of small homes, the beautiful Beaux-Arts hotel you see today was built in 1904.
According to the NRHP site, the hotel has had quite a guest list:
“Presidents Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, Lincoln, Grant, Taft, Wilson, Coolidge and Harding stayed at the Willard. Other notable guests have included Charles Dickens, Buffalo Bill, David Lloyd George, P.T. Barnum, Lord and Lady Napper, and countless others. Walt Whitman included the Willard in his verses and Mark Twain wrote two books there in the early 1900s.”
Part of the legend of the Willard Hotel is that it is the place where the term “lobbyist” became associated with people who try to influence government. According to the legend, people seeking to gain favor from President Ulysses S. Grant would find him smoking cigars and drinking brandy in the lobby of the Willard Hotel.
Here is a 2006 NPR recording of Liane Hansen on “Weekend Edition Sunday” talking to Barbara Bahny about the hotel’s reopening and its history of lobbying.
Apparently many people called NPR to point out that the term “lobbying” had existed long before the Willard Hotel, so Hansen did a follow-up piece called “A Lobbyist by Any Other Name?” on the history of the term.
In case you would like to visit, here is the Web site for the Willard InterContinental Hotel today. I wonder if they still allow cigar smoking in the lobby?
On that note, I’ll end with this quote from the NRHP Web site:
“It was Vice President Thomas R. Marshall, irritated at the Willard’s high prices, who there coined the phrase ‘What this country needs is a good 5-cent cigar.’”
The photo at the top is by AgnosticPreachersKid on Wikipedia.
August 26, 2010 •
Lifting the Ban: National Legislative Conferences
Lobbyists are familiar with the gift restrictions, limits, and bans in those jurisdictions where they are registered. There are many states across the country, such as North Carolina and Tennessee, that completely prohibit lobbyists from providing any type of gift or meal to a legislator. However, many of these states have exceptions to their rules when legislators are attending national conferences, such as the National Conference of State Legislatures’ Annual Legislative Summit.
North Carolina, which has a notoriously strict gift ban, permits lobbyists to provide meals and beverages at events held in conjunction with legislative conferences, provided certain conditions are met. In order for the gift exception to apply, either all members of the senate, house, recognized legislative caucus, or the entire general assembly must be invited, and at least 10 individuals associated with the lobbyist or the lobbyist’s organization must attend.
Kentucky does not have a strict ban against lobbyists providing meals to legislators, but there is a $100 annual limit. However, if there is an event where all members of the house or senate, or approved caucus are invited, the amount spent on food and beverages is not counted against the $100 limit.
Not only do many states have exceptions to their gift laws in relative to national legislative conferences, but some also have different reporting requirements. States like Missouri and Georgia allow for group reporting, rather than naming each legislator that attended. In South Dakota, lobbyists are not required to report their expenditures at national conferences at all, provided that the legislature is not in session at the time.
August 26, 2010 •
Ballot Measure 1 Fails Decisively
A ballot initiative in Alaska to put limits on lobbying and campaign donations was overwhelmingly defeated during the state’s Tuesday primary.
Ballot Measure 1 was touted as a way to increase transparency in lobbying and end “pay to play” politics. The measure was strongly and publicly opposed by unions, local governments, and business groups who were concerned the measure would have quieted the voice of many Alaskans in the political arena.
For further reading:
“Ballot Measure 1 soundly rejected,” by Lisa Demer in the Anchorage Daily News.
“Ballot Measure 1 rejected by wide margin,” by Ted Land on KTUU.com.
August 25, 2010 •
The DISCLOSE ACT: An Overview
The DISCLOSE Act, or the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act, has been the source of controversy and argument this past summer.
The Act was introduced as a response to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. It passed the House, but failed in the Senate before the August recess. It is headed back to the floor for a vote next month when the Senate returns.
The Act would amend the Federal Election Campaign Act as follows:
- Prohibit foreign-controlled domestic corporations from making contributions and expenditures;
- Require that prior to making any contribution or expenditure, the highest ranking official of a corporation must file a certification with the FEC that they are not prohibited from making the contribution or expenditure;
- Declare that a domestic corporation is permitted to create and solicit contributions for a separate segregated fund, as long as a foreign national does not contribute to or have any power or control over the fund;
- Require that any person or corporation that makes an independent expenditures of more than $10,000:
- File a disclosure report within 24 hours of the expenditure; and
- File a new report each time they make or contract to make another expenditures of $10,000 or more;
- Require that certain radio or television ads include a statement identifying the name of the committee responsible for it; and
- Require corporations, labor organization, non-profits, and political organizations to report additional information on their independent expenditure reports, including certain transfers of money.
Photo by Diliff on Wikipedia.
August 25, 2010 •
Pennsylvania Lawmakers Receive Gifts from Lobbyists
State lawmakers received at least $67,000 worth of gifts last year, according to statements of financial interest filed with the Pennsylvania Ethics Commission.
State officials must report tangible gifts of more than $250 per year from any source and transportation, lodging, and hospitality worth more than $650. Lobbyists were the most generous with legislators who have power to direct and control funding. For instance, Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Jake Corman received a $4,000 Super Bowl trip from a Pittsburgh law firm whose lobbyists represent a variety of clients, including utility companies, hospitals, wine and beer distributors, and banks.
Those who provide the gifts and travel are not necessarily trying to buy support for particular legislation, but they are buying lawmakers’ time according to one Harrisburg lobbyist, who asked not to be named. He said he frequently takes lawmakers to dinner but does not give tangible gifts. He said most often, gifts come from lobbyists whose interests already are in sync with the lawmaker’s policy positions.
August 24, 2010 •
Will New Ethics Law Overwhelm the Georgia Ethics Commission?
The State Ethics Commission has noted worries over whether it will be able to effectively implement the requirements of the new ethics law passed by the state legislature in 2010.
Executive Secretary Stacey Kalberman has pointed to a lack of resources available to the commission to provide the required oversight. Budget cuts have delayed technology upgrades despite an anticipated 1,000% increase in filings when the law takes effect in January, 2011. Further, the commission employed three investigators and three auditors a few years ago, but currently employs just one auditor and no investigators.
Kalberman has stated that the commission presently relies primarily on the press and outside sources to bring ethics violations to their attention.
For further reading here is an article in the Florida Times-Union: “Georgia Ethics Commission Aces Overload,” by Walter C. Jones.
And an article from GPB News: “Agency Doesn’t Have Funds to Enforce Ethics Law,” by Melissa Stiers.
Here is the State Ethics Commission Web site and the summary of upcoming 2011 changes to ethics law.
August 24, 2010 •
Pension Board Candidates to Disclose Campaign Finance Activity
California campaign finance bill passes the Assembly and now goes to the Senate.
Anyone running for election to the boards of California’s two pension funds will have to disclose their campaign contributions, according to a bill that just passed the California Assembly.
The bill now heads to the senate.
According to the Associated Press:
“Under the bill, candidates would have to disclose any contribution of $5,000 or more within 10 days of receiving it and any contribution of $1,000 or more within 24 hours during the period immediately before an election.”
Here is the Associated Press source article by Cathy Bussewitz: “Disclosure considered for California pension boards”
Photo of the CalPERS headquarters by Coolcaesar on Wikipedia.
August 23, 2010 •
Grassroots Reporting Requirements – Taking Root
It is well known that direct lobbying efforts are regulated in some manner in all fifty states. A growing trend among the states is to not only require registration and reporting for direct lobbying, but also more indirect efforts.
These types of indirect efforts, also known as “grassroots lobbying,” encompass a wide variety of activities. Sanctions, penalties, and fines arise when organizations fail to realize that their efforts to persuade the general population on various issues may possibly be considered lobbying.
The good news is that many states are explicit as to whether they consider grassroots efforts lobbying. States like Arizona and Ohio define lobbying as direct communication with legislators, thereby excluding grassroots. States that do regulate grassroots activity, for example, Mississippi and New Hampshire, use language such as soliciting others and indirect communication with legislators to indicate that grassroots efforts require registration.
Reporting grassroots activity is often more complicated than reporting direct lobbying expenditures. In most states, reporting direct lobbying expenses is straightforward. It is not difficult to determine what is an expenditure spent on an official. Reporting grassroots costs becomes confusing because grassroots lobbying often consists of mass media campaigns, along with websites and e-mails. It is difficult to tell exactly which costs are included in the registration and reporting thresholds. For example, in the case of a website, do you include the salary of the person creating the website, the cost of web access, or the cost of any outsourced work? (more…)
August 20, 2010 •
Federal District Court Issues Ruling in Maine Campaign Finance Lawsuit
Federal District Judge D. Brock Hornby issued his ruling Thursday in a lawsuit challenging Maine’s campaign finance laws.
The suit filed by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) alleged Maine’s laws governing political action committee definitions, independent campaign expenditures, and attribution and disclaimer requirements were unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The plaintiffs also raised a First Amendment challenge alleging Maine’s regulations imposed excessive burdens which would only serve to chill its political speech.
Judge Hornby did agree with some of the plaintiff’s allegations and proceeded to strike down Maine’s rules requiring 24-hour disclosure of independent expenditures over $250 as “impermissibly burdensome”. As well, state law’s use of the words “influence” and “influence in any way” were struck down as being unconstitutionally vague.
Judge Hornby went on to uphold the bulk of Maine’s campaign finance laws concluding:
“Otherwise, Maine’s laws governing PACs, independent campaign expenditures, and attribution and disclaimer requirements are constitutional, and survive NOM’s challenges they are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad and they impose excessive burdens that chill NOM’s speech preceding this fall’s elections and thereafter.”
The plaintiffs are expected to pursue an expedited appeal to the U.S. First Circuit located in Boston.
August 20, 2010 •
Highlighted Site of the Week – The Lobbying and Policy Advocacy Project
A ten year project assessing the real effect of lobbying on government and policy-making.
This week we highlight The Lobbying and Policy Advocacy Project, a site hosted by Penn State University. The project asks the question: What has been the true effect of lobbying on policy making in American government?
After ten years of work, the authors propose that the answer is – it has not had much effect at all. Running counter to what many people think, the project’s resulting book: Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses and Why is saying lobbyists – most of the time – are not getting their way with Congress.
Are lobbyists wasting their time?
For a good analysis of the project, here is an article published in Miller-McCune called “K Street and the Status Quo,” by Melinda Burns.
Unlike many previous studies that looked at cases of lobbying and legislation connected with scandal, The Lobbying and Policy Advocacy Project used nearly one hundred cases that were randomly selected. A great feature of their Web site is a page with links to each of those random sampling case studies. This is a resource for further research on lobbying:
“Researchers and students interested in lobbying should be able to conduct a wealth of research simply by comparing the cases we have documented here,” states the Lobbying and Policy Advocacy Project.
The site also has a page listing all of the publications related to the study. The principle investigators on the project are Frank Baumgartner from The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Jeffrey Berry from Tufts, Marie Hojnacki from Penn State, David Kimball from Missouri – St. Louis, and Beth Leach from Rutgers.
As Burns’ article points out, there are those who disagree with the findings of the study. One of the enduring questions after reading Lobbying and Policy Change would have to be – if the millions spent on lobbying were not paying off in the long term, why does it go on?
Are lobbyists wasting their time? Check out this this site and see how a new conversation has started!
A special thanks to Jim Sedor for pointing me in the direction of this study.
August 19, 2010 •
New Proposed Gift Restrictions in New York
News from the New York Commission on Public Integrity, input is sought.
The New York Commission on Public Integrity has published Notices of Proposed Rulemaking in the New York State Register to add Title 19 NYCRR Parts 933 and 934. Part 933 governs gift restrictions for state officers and employees, while part 934 governs lobbyists and their clients.
A period for comment is available until September 25, 2010. Those wishing to submit comments may e-mail them to kburgess@nyintegrity.org. Further, those wishing to view the proposed rules can find them at www.nyintegrity.org/law/regulations.html.
August 18, 2010 •
Oklahoma Lobbyists Contribute to State Campaigns
Registered lobbyists in Oklahoma have given more than $360,000 to campaigns for the fall elections, with statewide candidates picking up the biggest share of the contributions.
According to public filings, more than 130 registered lobbyists gave contributions toward 2010 campaigns. Republicans, who control the House and Senate, received about $190,000, while Democrats got almost $155,000. Another $13,000 went to nonpartisan judicial candidates.
Five statewide candidates each have received more than $20,000 in contributions from registered lobbyists, with Lt. Gov. Jari Askins leading the way at more than $36,000. Askins won a narrow victory over Attorney General Drew Edmonds in the Democratic primary for governor. Edmondson received more than $28,000 from registered lobbyists. The contributions from lobbyists, however, are a small share of overall fundraising for those candidates; the Askins and Edmondson campaigns have each raised more than $2 million.
August 18, 2010 •
Important Update on the Power Outage
The date for the planned power outage has changed to August 27.
The date of our utility company’s planned power outage has changed from Friday, August 20, to Friday, August 27, and I want to let you know immediately.
I sent you an e-mail late on Monday about our office closing this Friday, August 20, due to a planned power outage in our section of the City of Akron. Just today, however, our local electric utility company told us the forced outage will be one week later than originally planned.
Please note: the outage will begin Friday, August 27 at 1 p.m. and last until Sunday. We must shut off all electric-powered devices in our building during this time.
Those of you who use our online compliance information services through our website will not be able to access those services from 1 p.m. on August 27 until Sunday, August 29.
Additionally, this planned blackout will affect our telephone system. If you have routine business to conduct with us over the phone, I ask you call us either before 1 p.m. on Friday, August 27, or beginning at 8 a.m. on Monday, August 30.
If you have an emergency and need to talk to us during this time, please call our main telephone number at 330-761-9960. I will have our main number forwarded to my cell phone and will take your call.
Any e-mails you send to us during the power blackout will go to an outside computer server and will be saved on this server. We will review your e-mails on August 30, and respond to any of your needs.
Once again, I apologize for this inconvenience—and also for having to tell you about it twice. This situation, including the utility’s scheduling of the planned outage, remains beyond our control. If you have questions or concerns, please call us.
Thank you.
Elizabeth Z. Bartz, President and CEO
State and Federal Communications, Inc.
August 17, 2010 •
Ask the Experts – Do I need to report spending on legislators’ spouses?
Here is your chance to “Ask the Experts” at State and Federal Communications, Inc.
You can directly submit questions for this feature, and we will select those most appropriate and answer them here. Send your questions to: marketing@stateandfed.com.
Q. I attended the annual meeting of the National Conference of State Legislatures. While there, I took a group of legislators from various states to dinner and picked up the tab. Most of the legislators were accompanied by spouses. In those jurisdictions requiring disclosure of this dinner expenditure, must I also disclose the amount spent on the spouse?
A. Almost all states requiring disclosure of food and beverage expenditures incurred on behalf of reportable officials also require disclosure of the amount spent on the official’s spouse or immediate family member. However, there are exceptions.
- In Idaho, the lobbying law does not require disclosure of expenditures for spouses and family members of legislators. However, it is common practice for lobbyists to report such expenditures anyway.
- In Michigan, food and beverage expenditures on behalf of spouses or family members are not reportable. However, travel expenditures greater than $725 on behalf of spouses or family members are reportable.
- In Montana, a principal is not required to report expenditures made on behalf of a spouse or immediate family member of a legislator, public officer, or employee.
- In Rhode Island, expenditures made on behalf of family members are not reportable as lobbyist expenditures, but are reported by elected officials.
- In Vermont, expenditures on behalf of a spouse or immediate family member are not reportable.
(We are always available to answer questions from clients that are specific to your needs, and we encourage you to continue to call or e-mail us with questions about your particular company or organization. As always, we will confidentially and directly provide answers or information you need.) Our replies to your questions are not legal advice. Instead, these replies represent our analysis of laws, rules, and regulations.
State and Federal Communications, Inc. provides research and consulting services for government relations professionals on lobbying laws, procurement lobbying laws, political contribution laws in the United States and Canada. Learn more by visiting stateandfed.com.