He has appeared in a 60 Minutes interview, saying whatever ethics reform measures may be set in place to control the buying of influence, lobbyists will find new ways to get around it.

Here is the CBS interview, “Lobbyists can skirt ethics reform, says Abramoff.”

The Hill covers the story in “Abramoff divulges K Street secrets” by Kevin Bogardus.

Persons lobbying within any of Palm Beach County’s 38 cities and towns may soon have to register as lobbyists as part of a proposed countywide lobbyist registry and standardized set of rules.

If approved, the new rules would apply to all persons lobbying municipal personnel. Some concerns have been raised as to the definition of lobbyists and the potential inclusion in that definition of unpaid lobbyists.

If approved, a $25 registration fee per principal represented would be instituted and expenditures exceeding $25 in specified categories would be required to be reported.

November 9, 2011 WASRG Summit, Washington, D.C.

November 16, 2011 American League of Lobbyists Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C.

November 19-22, 2011 SGAC Foundation Leaders’ Policy Conference, Miami, Florida

November 29-December 2, 2011 NCSL 2011 Fall Forum, Tampa, Florida

December 4-7, 2011 Council on Governmental Ethics Laws, Nashville, Tennessee

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA:  Mayor Michael Nutter has approved a bill which alters restrictions on lobbyists to correct problems with the lobbying law approved last year. The original law was viewed as overly broad by many, including the Philadelphia Bar Association, which had threatened to fight it in court. This version more narrowly defines lobbying activity.

The new bill also expands the number of agencies covered under the law to include the Philadelphia School District, the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority, and the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation.

On November 8, Detroit voters will consider a city charter proposed to reform the city government by bolstering ethics and reducing corruption. The proposed charter creates a board of ethics and the office of inspector general to investigate alleged ethical or criminal violations.

The charter seeks to improve transparency by requiring lobbyists and contractors to reveal financial connections with elected officials. Additionally, public servants are prohibited from accepting a gift, honoraria, or anything of value from individuals or companies seeking to do business with the city and a company can be barred from doing business with the city if found to be involved in contractual bribery or corruption.

Photo of the Detroit skyline by Shawn Wilson on Wikipedia.

Today’s Birmingham News offers an article by Kim Chandler, “New Alabama ethics law sweeps in culture shift for capital lobbyists,” which describes how lobbying techniques in the state have changed since the ethics law was passed. Chandler also considers the views of those whose businesses have suffered in the capitol as a result of those changes.

“Ten months after the Alabama Legislature approved the new ethics law capping lobbyists’ spending, the culture is different in Montgomery, said several legislators. There are no more free tickets, golf outings, social trips or nightly one-on-one dinners with lobbyists.”

Photo of the Alabama State Capitol building by Jim Bowen on Wikipedia.

Federal:

Ex-Abramoff Associate Ring Sentenced to 20 Months in One of Scandal’s Harshest Punishments

Influence Industry Officially in a Funk

Lobbyist Stint Led to Cain’s Political Forays

Lobbyists Claim Victory against Tax Rule

From the States and Municipalities:

Alabama

Ex-Alabama Rep. Terry Spicer Enters Agreement to Plead Guilty to Bribery

Alaska

Guilty Pleas Mark End of Alaska Corruption Investigation

Arizona

Judge Rejects Arizona Campaign Finance Measure

Illinois

Ex-Teachers Union Boss Gets $242,000 State Pension

Kentucky

David Williams’ In-Law is Restoring America Group’s Sole Donor

Montana

Montana Political Practices Office to Address Social Media Campaign Complaints

Nevada

Short-Staffed Ethics Commission Wading Through Flood of Cases

New York

Operative Convicted of Stealing from NYC Mayor

Ohio

Anti-Issue 2 Group Raises More Than Twice as Much Money as Supporters of New Collective Bargaining Law

Washington

With $22 Million Bet, Costco Shakes Up Washington Election

Wisconsin

Wisconsin Capitol to Allow Guns
 
State and Federal Communications produces a weekly summary of national news, offering more than 80 articles per week focused on ethics, lobbying, and campaign finance.

News You Can Use is a news service provided at no charge only to clients of our online Executive Source Guides, or ALERTS™ consulting clients.

Here is a brief survey of articles:

USA Today offers “Social media companies ‘friend’ politics” by Fredreka Schouten.

In the Washington Post’s Capitol Business we find “LightSquared adds lobbyists from four firms to roster” by Catherine Ho.

ReadWriteWeb.com posted “Who Are The Top Tech Lobbying Firms?” by David Strom. Last year, the top three were: Microsoft, HP, and Google. Strom claims Google employs 25 different lobbying firms.

AllFacebook.com posted “Facebook Spends Record Amounts On Lobbying, But Not As Much As Google Does”

Bloomberg’s Businessweek published “Google’s 3Q lobbying bill rises to $2.4 million” by the Associated Press.

Q: I am a registered lobbyist who would like to host a state legislator at a college football game.  Are there specific restrictions to this type of gift?

A: The most common gift restrictions are those relating to food and beverage.  Providing tickets or admission to a football game is a different type of gift, referred to as entertainment or hospitality.

Some jurisdictions do not restrict providing entertainment at all.  Pennsylvania does not restrict a lobbyist providing hospitality to an official.  However, Pennsylvania does require the lobbyist’s principal to report the gift of hospitality, even itemizing it if the aggregate of all gifts to the official is more than $650 in a calendar year.

Other jurisdictions allow a lobbyist to provide entertainment up to a certain amount.  In Texas, a lobbyist may provide expenditures for entertainment of $500 or less in a calendar year.  Ohio permits a lesser amount.  Lobbyists may provide Ohio officials gifts worth an aggregate annual value of $75 or less.  Like Pennsylvania, both Texas and Ohio require the gift to be reported.

Louisiana specifically prohibits providing tickets to sporting events except for a very narrow exception.  Other jurisdictions do not specifically mention entertainment or hospitality, but generally restrict these gifts to officials.  Though a big football state, Wisconsin generally prohibits all gifts to officials.

The question reinforces the idea that a lobbyist must understand all of a jurisdiction’s gift restrictions, not just those that pertain to food and beverage.  When considering any dollar value limitation on entertainment or hospitality, be sure to consider the proper method to value the gift in that jurisdiction.  For example, the cost of a football ticket for ethics purposes could be its face value or its fair market value.

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.

(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, and its predecessor State and Federal Associates, have been involved with lobbying compliance since 1976. You can imagine many others might try to duplicate our program but never have the resources or staff to implement the platinum type of service you currently receive from my highly trained in-house staff of 11 attorneys.

When I purchased my area of business from State and Federal Associates in 1993 and formed State and Federal Communications, Inc., we really were the only gig in town. As time goes on and as technology is easier, there are others—who have been clients or former employees—that feel a similar URL and a toll free number makes it easy to replicate. But don’t be fooled. There is only one true compliance company in Ohio and in this country and our reputation and our list of clients speak for themselves.

In government relations I have everyone down to two degrees of separation. In the case of competitors, it is only one because each has seen success and yearns for it. I don’t take it personally…it’s business. And, I assure you I take my business seriously and my relationship with my clients even more seriously. Your compliance needs have always been our absolute priority.

Thank you for the confidence you have in our services.  We look forward to many, many more years together.

Yesterday, techPresident published “New Obama for America Page is a Jungle Gym for Donation Data” by Nick Judd.

Everyone has been talking about the new role social media is playing in the 2012 presidential campaigns. But I think Judd brings up an often missed point: The importance of social media’s role is not so much to be found in the social networks themselves, but in the vast amount of information the campaigns have about each of us, and how they are using that information on social media. Judd writes about campaigns “micro-targeting” potential political campaign donors with personalized messages geared toward attracting the most money.

The article showcases the Obama 2012 campaign website, which boasts its one million donors. The site allows you to drill down into a great deal of information about the contributions. The aim of the site is that the visitor will come to the conclusion that the donors are broad-based and grassroots.

Have any of our readers seen any similar examples on other campaign websites? Please share it on Lobby Comply!

I saw a pattern on Eric Brown’s Political Activity Law Blog entry for today – articles talking about lobbying spending. Each one comes to us from The Hill and each one tells of dropping numbers. I thought they were significant, so here they are:

Staff article: “Lobbying Revenue – Third Quarter 2011”

“Influence industry officially in a funk” by Kevin Bogardus and Rachel Leven

“Chamber of Commerce and legal affiliate report spending $45.8M on lobbying” by Kevin Bogardus

Photo of the U. S. Capitol dome and flag by Florian Hirzinger on Wikipedia.

Lobbyists are prominently mentioned in this Wall Street Journal piece, “Washington Area Is Tops in Income” by Elizabeth Williamson.

NCSL published “Social media tools can pose ethical problems for lawmakers,” by Judy Nadler. The article explores the ethical considerations lawmakers face when using social media tools. The article raises the question about the types of relationships that are established on a network like Facebook by citing the example of someone running for office: “A ‘push’ was organized to add key lobbyists, government contractors and others as ‘friends.'” Nadler discusses government-using-social-media issues such as transparency, playing favorites, and the obligation officeholders have to choose the words they use online carefully.

The Fierce Government IT article, “‘Snapshots cannot accurately archive gov 2.0 content, says Navy official” by Molly Bernhart Walker, discusses the challenges posed by the need to keep a record of government presence in social media platforms.

From Federal Computer Week: A recent survey takes a look at mobile device trends in “Government workers using mobile to access social media, survey shows” by Alice Lipowicz.

Dave Levinthal just published the article “K Street suffers from Twitter jitters” in Politico, where he talks about how lobbyists face a world increasingly using social media.

Members of Congress and their staff are communicating more and more via Facebook and Twitter. So too, many of the companies and organizations that hire lobbyists are employing social media platforms in their communications strategies.

Levinthal’s article explains how lobbyists prefer face-to-face meetings over video conferences or Facebook updates as a way of getting their message across to lawmakers. He also stresses that lobbyists are eager to keep their clients’ information from being broadcast in all directions over social networks.

The article quotes Patton Boggs Chairperson Nick Allard in order to highlight the dilemma: “I’m sure when lawyers or lobbyists used the telegraph for the first time, they faced this kind of issue …  But you cannot be a Luddite and a lobbyist. Luddite lobbyists go out of business.”

What communications will lobbyists embrace in the face of social media? Don’t miss Politico’s analysis.

Photo of the K Street street sign by Ben Shumin on Wikipedia.