Some oddness from the Corrigans

Occasionally, something from left field drops in to our inbox. This falls in to that category...

"There's no one as Irish as Dave Cameron"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJc1JJBKtBM

"On December 5th 2005 Debrett’s Peerage released the research that confirmed that current Conservative leader David Cameron is William IV’s great, great, great, great, great grandson. He is related to the 19th-century monarch through Elizabeth FitzClarence, the King’s illegitimate daughter, one of at least ten children he had out of wedlock with Dorothy Jordan, an Irish actress from County Waterford, his long-term mistress, who is in fact Mr Cameron's IV’s great, great, great, great, great grandmonther. The family tree by Debrett’s Peerage, the genealogists, shows that the link between Mr Cameron, 39, and William IV makes him the fifth cousin twice-removed of the Queen.

So Dave Cameron is Irish, Univeral Music and Decca Artists, Ireland's Corrigan Brothers who had an international hit with "There's no one as Irish as Barack Obama" return with "There's no one as Irish as Dave Cameron."

Bankers gear up for major lobbying campaign

Published by the Guardian

23 January 2010

"Banks are mobilising a smooth-running lobbying machine in Washington to ­battle Barack Obama's plans to limit the size and scope of Wall Street institutions, as financial services firms gear up to stop a shake-up that could slice away large chunks of their operations.

Their influence on Capitol Hill is broad – the top eight US banks spent $26m (£16m) on lobbying efforts last year, an increase of 6% on 2008 despite their financial woes, according to Congressional records. And in the first 10 months of 2009, the financial industry donated $78.2m to federal candidates and party committees – more than any other business sector – according to political research institute the Centre for Responsive Politics.

"The power of the financial services sector in this city has not dissipated at all … they've just done things in a quieter way," said Ethan Siegel, an analyst at financial consultancy The Washington Exchange, who monitors Congress for big investors. "They haven't pulled back on their lobbying just because they've become piñata [punchbags] in the press."

Wall Street lobbyists argue that scaling back the size of banks misdiagnoses the cause of the financial crisis, jeopardises jobs, damages America's competitiveness and could inhibit growth.

The Financial Services Forum, which represents 18 top banks including Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Citigroup, says the problem of institutions becoming "too big to fail" ought to be tackled through more effective supervision, and by creating an authority able to wind down failing firms, rather than by forcing them to shrink. Spokeswoman Erica Hurtt said: "This was not a trading crisis and these proposals miss the mark. They won't get to the causes of the crisis."

Banks' persuasiveness has already had significant impact on the Obama administration. Plans for the creation of a consumer financial protection agency are meeting staunch Senate opposition and may be watered down to get the 60-40 support needed to override objections.

One widely used strategy by the financial industry has been to deploy representatives of smaller high-street banks to make the case to lawmakers. Organisations such as the Independent Community Bankers of America tend to get a sympathetic hearing because they can point to members in towns and cities in almost every Congressional district, rather than purely in lower Manhattan.

Douglas Elliott, a non-partisan expert in financial services at the Brookings Institution, said JP Morgan and a few other firms were likely to be particularly alarmed at the prospect of a tightening of the existing cap preventing a bank from holding more than 10% of America's insured deposits: "They may already be over any limit under consideration. If they are, they'll probably be allowed to stay unchanged but it will mean they have to eschew acquisitions."

He added that banks will not succeed in defeating restrictions entirely: "Everybody hates banks now and my intuition is that bank lobbyists overplayed their hand last year. It would have been better for them to work out some compromises rather than trying to destroy reform bills entirely."

Full article published here http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jan/24/wall-street-lobbyists-banks-obama

US Lobbying going Underground?

Published by the New York Times
18 January 2010

"Ellen Miller, co-founder of the Sunlight Foundation, has spent years arguing for rules to force more disclosure of how lobbyists and private interests shape public policy. Until recently, she herself registered as a lobbyist, too, publicly reporting her role in the group’s advocacy of even more reporting. Not anymore.

In light of strict new regulations imposed by Congress over the last two years, Ms. Miller joined a wave of policy advocates who are choosing not to declare themselves as lobbyists.

“I have never spent much time on Capitol Hill,” Ms. Miller said, explaining that she only supervises those who press lawmakers directly. “I am not lobbying, so why fill out the forms?”

Her frankness makes Ms. Miller a standout among hundreds of others who are making the same decision. Though Washington’s influence business is by all accounts booming, a growing number of its practitioners are taking a similar course to avoid the spotlight of public disclosure.

“All the increasing restrictions on lobbyists are a disincentive to be a lobbyist, and those who think they can deregister are eagerly doing so,” said Jan Baran, a veteran political lawyer who has been fielding questions from clients hoping to escape registration. “It is creating some apparent contradictions.”

Before the new rules, the number of advocates who registered as lobbyists appeared to have grown steadily, peaking in late 2007. A tally by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics (another group founded by Ms. Miller) put the count at about 13,200. The number fell by nearly 2,000 by the fall of last year.

The falloff began shortly after Congress passed a sweeping ethics and lobbying law that imposed on registered lobbyists both heavier reporting requirements and potential criminal penalties. The law required lobbyists to report four times a year instead of two, and to detail any campaign contributions and certain meetings with public officials. The law also made it a crime for registered lobbyists to provide gifts or meals to lawmakers or their aides.

But for all its penalties, the law left the definition of a lobbyist fairly elastic. The criteria included getting paid to lobby, contacting public officials about a client’s interests at least twice in a quarter and working at least 20 percent of the time on lobbying-related activities for the client.

Enforcement is also light. Lobbyists suspected of failing to file receive at least one official letter offering a chance to rectify their status before any legal action is taken.

After the rules changed, private companies and nonprofit groups immediately began to rethink their registration.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, which advocates on arms control, energy policy and environmental issues, had previously registered almost anyone who went to Capitol Hill on its behalf, said Stephen Young, a senior analyst for the group. That changed after the new law.

“We thought: ‘Hmm, this is now not such an easy thing. Let’s see if we are required to do it. We are not? Let’s take them off,’ ” he said. The group terminated the registrations of “virtually all” its former lobbyists, he said.

Lobbyists were further motivated to adopt new tactics after President Obama limited their access to meetings and to government officials. He barred administration officials from talking to registered lobbyists about any projects involving federal stimulus money. He blocked lobbyists from working on his transition or taking jobs in his administration.

Some Democrats said the president’s prohibitions had motivated them to terminate their registrations and keep lobbying below the registration threshold; all insisted on anonymity to discuss the reasons for their decision.

“Lobbying isn’t a crime,” said one recently deregistered lobbyist who is looking for a job. “It is a profession, and in my view it is an honorable one. But this administration has made a decision about who can serve and who can’t.”"

The full article can be read here.
Distributued by www.publicaffairslinks.co.uk

Lobbyists Press EPA on Carbon Regs

Published by The New York Times
12 January 2010

By Anne C. Mulkern

"Skeptical about the prospects of climate legislation in the Senate, energy companies and environmental groups have shifted their lobbying efforts toward U.S. EPA.

Energy businesses want to stop EPA from proceeding with its plan to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, a move expected to come in March. If the agency does decide to impose restrictions, industry wants them delayed until 2012 or later. Meanwhile, environmentalists are urging the agency to move as quickly as possible to regulate major emission sources.

Both sides hope they can have an impact, but lobbying EPA is different from lobbying Congress.
Companies that make campaign contributions to lawmakers cannot do the same with EPA employees. Some key arguments made to lawmakers, such as how legislation would affect certain states, workers or consumer groups, are far less likely to influence EPA. And the agency is limited in how much it can factor in cost as it decides on regulations.

"It's a different ball game entirely," said David Bookbinder, Sierra Club's chief climate counsel. "When you're dealing with Congress, it's a political institution where political considerations loom large in any decision."

"EPA is clear, it is setting its own policy objectives," Bookbinder said. "We have no influence on that."

EPA in March is expected to roll out the first-ever federal standards affecting greenhouse gas emissions from automobile tailpipes. This follows the agency's move in December declaring greenhouse gases a danger to public health. The tailpipe standards would automatically trigger requirements that stationary sources -- such as power plants -- install "best available control technology," or BACT, according to EPA. The agency has proposed a separate rule to shield smaller facilities from those requirements, the "tailoring rule," which is also expected to be in place by March.

A large segment of the energy business, in conversations with EPA workers and in comments filed on EPA's notice of its proposed tailoring rule, is arguing that regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act will create havoc.

Federal regulations will conflict with state rules, industry advocates said, with many states forced to target carbon emissions from smaller sources that would be affected by the federal rule. As well, there is concern that EPA might try to govern what kinds of power plants can be built, favoring cleaner fuel sources like natural gas over coal.

Companies have realized that EPA is serious about regulation, and not merely making what many thought six months ago was a political threat to push Congress to act on climate, analysts said.

"There was a widespread expectation going into 2009 that this would be the year of domestic climate legislation," said Sam Thernstrom, who worked at President George W. Bush's White House Council on Environmental Quality and is now a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. "2009 didn't turn out that way."

"EPA is going to move forward," Thernstrom said. "Industry has woken up to that fact. Potentially regulated industries that stand to lose a lot of money here need to pay attention to the regulatory process right now."

Many of those industries are lobbying lawmakers and asking them to rein in EPA. They are expressing support for a proposed amendment from Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) aimed at blocking U.S. EPA's efforts to regulate greenhouse gases.

"It's merely a prudent way to say, 'Let's look before we leap,'" said Luke Popovich, spokesman for the National Mining Association, an industry trade group. "It strikes us as a reasonable approach to take."

Behind the scenes, energy companies and trade groups are talking to lawmakers about how EPA's plan could adversely affect utilities, coal companies, and the oil and gas industry.
"They're lobbying EPA, they're lobbying Congress, and they're hoping either Congress will act or EPA will act," said Jeff Holmstead, former EPA air chief during the Bush administration and now an industry lawyer. "If you get every member of Congress to lobby EPA, they may be forced to deal with it even if they might not otherwise be persuaded to deal with it on their own."

Holmstead, who has lobbied for Duke Energy Corp., Edison Electric Institute, Southern Co. and Arch Coal Inc., worked with Murkowski's staff on the wording of an EPA amendment she offered last fall, the Washington Post reported this week.

Environmental groups, meanwhile, are waging a counter-push. A coalition of 37 environmental, public health and liberal advocacy groups in a letter sent to senators last week urged opposition to Murkowski's amendment."

Full article published here.

Tobacco corporations lobbying EU hard on health

Published by The Guardian
12 January 2010

Written by Sarah Boseley, Health editor

"Major corporations, led by British American Tobacco, waged a successful lobbying campaign to hamper the passing of public health legislation and weaken its impact, a group of academics claim today.

Proposals to restrict smoking in public were in BAT's sights in the 1990s but the changes the lobbying brought about to EU policymaking have been fundamental and enduring, say the academics.

They are now being used to undermine legislation designed to protect the public against toxic chemicals, they say.

The strategy is revealed in internal documents that BAT was forced to disclose during litigation on tobacco harm in the US.

Disguised behind respectable consultancies and thinktanks, the companies succeeded in getting a form of impact assessment made mandatory for every EU policy which – critics say – emphasised the financial costs to business and underestimated the impact on public health.

The manoeuvering behind the scenes is revealed in a paper published by researchers from the school of health at Bath University, the Centre for International Public Policy at Edinburgh University and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

Their paper, published today by PLoS (Public Library of Science) Medicine, says that "BAT and its corporate allies have fundamentally altered the way in which all EU policy is made".

They say it "increases the likelihood that the EU will produce policies that advance the interests of major corporations, including those that produce products damaging to health, rather than in the interests of its citizens".

The internal documents show that Bat began lobbying for what it called "structured risk assessment" in the mid 1990s.

"Our analysis reveals that BAT saw RA [risk assessment] as a means of precluding the introduction of public smoking restrictions, which it saw as a growing threat in Europe," says the paper.

"The UK consultancy firm Charles Barker appears to have then been asked to outline the advantages for BAT of embedding RA within UK and European policymaking processes and advised that BAT would need to tread carefully, lobbying through a 'front' organisation and enlisting 'big industry names in support'."

Full article published here.

More funding top charity demand

Published by Third Sector
11 January 2010

In their recent 'State of the Sector' survey, Third Sector has found that at the top of charity policy change lists is an increase in state funding.

"There were noticeable variations in what respondents from charities of different sizes wanted from government. The most popular change - more lottery or government funding for small charities - was backed by 20 per cent of respondents from organisations with annual incomes of less than £1m, 15 per cent of those with £5m a year and 2 per cent of those with more than £6m.

On reducing or removing VAT, demand was highest among respondents from medium-sized charities, at 11 per cent, compared with 7 per cent from small charities and 9 per cent from large ones. But the level of demand for Gift Aid reform was fairly consistent across respondents from all charities."

Full article published here.

Lobbying a waste of time?

Published by Money Marketing
07 January 2010

"It certainly promises to be an interesting year, with the final elements of the seemingly endless discussions over the retail distribution review finally slotting into place over the coming months.

Judging by the many comments I have read in Money Marketing and on websites that feature financial advisers’ comments, the overwhelming body of IFA opinion seems to be set against the RDR, at least publicly.

Shortly before Christmas, while on a visit to London, I took the opportunity of meeting a few IFAs whom I respect, even if I do not necessarily share their views. One, whom I had always thought of as opinionated but not remotely an activist, had gone so far as to lobby his MP about key aspects of the review, which he regards as highly dangerous to the future of independent financial advice.

His hope is that Conservative MPs will halt or seriously amend the RDR process if and when they win the general election.

Unfortunately, he told me, his own MP - a Tory - appeared to be highly ignorant about the RDR and what it entailed. Moreover, this particular MP told his constituent that when push came to shove, his “instinct” was to back the FSA because advisers were “renowned” for misselling financial products to clients.

The IFA then told his MP he was a disgrace to his party and he would never get his vote. Not a successful lobbying exercise, methinks.
Perhaps this helps explain why Aifa was pushed into warning IFAs last year that ill-conceived lobbying of MPs could have a negative effect in terms of achieving what they wanted.

The sad fact is that Aifa - and IFAs it has tried to arm with lobbying arguments - are unlikely to succeed. Parliament is highly febrile and it will be almost impossible, as we draw closer and closer to the election, to persuade anyone to listen to any point of view, sensible or otherwise.
Moreover, while many Tories may hate the FSA for all sorts of reasons, they almost certainly do not do so in this particular context. Tighter regulation of the financial services industry is a vote-winner, no matter what political party you belong to.
I have some sympathy with IFAs. Lobbying can be a useless exercise.

One of the problems, it seems to me, is not about the basic notion of lobbying as such but what it is that you tell your MP. Here, it strikes me that IFAs could be on a hiding to nothing in some areas.

For example, if you go to your Parliamentary representative and tell them that the proposed QCF level four qualifications you are required to obtain by 2012 are too onerous, do not expect much sympathy.

Similarly, trying to compare yourself favourably against banks in order to press the point that regulation of your activities need not be quite so onerous is not a tactic that is likely to work well.

Not that I can lay serious claim to being a successful lobbyist. Once upon a time, back in the days when I used to work as a nurse, our trade union asked its members to lobby their MPs as part of a campaign against low pay in the NHS.

Responding to our union’s request, about 20 of us toddled off to see an MP at his surgery meeting one Saturday morning, waving our pay slips.

The “lobby” degenerated somewhat and our little group started booing and shouting at our Parliamentary representative. Needless to say, the MP never really did sign up to our campaign against low pay.

My guess is that attempts to persuade MPs to get rid of some of the RDR’s worst aspects will meet with a similar fate."

Full writing credit to Nic Cicutti - article here.

Distributed by www.publicaffairslinks.co.uk