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.

Not Lobbying - is it the New Lobbying?

Published by Huffington Post
6 January 2010

Brien Bonneville and Larry Mitchell have officially deserted the lobbying profession. Lobbyists have become too despised and stigmatized, are banned from certain government jobs and subject to all sorts of onerous disclosure requirements. Bonneville and Mitchell needed out.

So they rented space in their former K-Street lobbyshop, KSCW, and founded a new "non-lobbying entity" called K Street Research.

It's the newest trend in lobbying: "not lobbying."

Mitchell and Bonneville are so eager to ditch the "Scarlet L," in fact, that they'd rather be called, of all things, journalists. "Part of it is old-fashioned journalism, shoe leather," said Mitchell, describing how the firm will gather information about government doings for its clients.

"We're almost like a small newspaper," said Bonneville.

A very, very small newspaper, maybe, that only circulates to a few corporate clients -- each of whom gets a different edition.

And it's a secret newspaper at that. Mitchell said they've already got several clients, but he declined to identify them. That's his prerogative as a non-lobbyist, unencumbered by disclosure requirements. "We actually have some privacy," he said. "We don't have to tell you."

Bonneville describes himself as an admirer of Gerald Cassidy, the pioneering superlobbyist who made a fortune after inventing the first modern "earmarked appropriation." Bonneville said that after reading Robert Kaiser's Cassidy book "So Damn Much Money: The Triumph of Lobbying and the Corrosion of American Government," he knew he wanted to leave his mark.

Full article can be read here.
Distributed by www.publicaffairslinks.co.uk

Lobbying by US banks linked to risky lending

Published by The Guardian
5 January 2010


Powerful American banks spending lavishly on lobbying are more likely to engage in high-risk lending and their shares have performed less well than others, a groundbreaking study by the International Monetary Fund has found.

The in-depth research will prompt calls for a wholesale clean-up of Capitol Hill by the Obama administration. Lobbying by the finance, insurance and real estate (Fire) sector outstrips any other in the US economy.

The study, entitled A Fistful of Dollars: Lobbying and the Financial Crisis, published by the IMF, reveals a stark correlation between lobbying by lenders and high loan-to-income loans.

The paper, written by a trio of high-profile IMF economists, established that firms who spend more on buying access to politicians are more likely to engage in risky securitisation of their loan books, have faster-growing mortgage loan portfolios as well as poorer share performance and larger loan defaults.

The landmark paper will increase pressure on US politicians to regulate the mortgage industry, which Washington insiders say has so far been immune from meaningful financial reform in the aftermath of the bank crisis.

Highlighting 33 pieces of federal legislation that would have tamed predatory lending or introduced more responsible banking but were the target of intense lobbying, the IMF found that the efforts by banks to resist the legislation overwhelmingly succeeded.

"Our analysis suggests that the political influence of the financial industry can be a source of systemic risk," Deniz Igan, Prachi Mishra and Thierry Tressel wrote in their conclusion. "Therefore, it provides some support to the view that the prevention of future crises might require weakening political influence of the financial industry or closer monitoring of lobbying activities to understand better the incentives behind it."

The study also established that US business spends $4.2bn (£2.6bn) over the four-year election cycle on "targeted political activity", with Fire firms accounting for 15% of that total – equivalent to $479,500 a firm in 2006. The "lobbying intensity" of the Fire sector also "increased at a much faster pace relative to the average lobbying intensity over 1999-2006".

The IMF claims such a study is the first of its kind. It uses complicated algebraic equations to assess the effect of lobbying on policy makers, loan defaults and the overall financial performance of banks.

Jack Blum, one of the world's most respected investigators who uncovered the BCCI scandal and has 40 years experience tracking down mortgage fraud, said: "In my entire career investigating financial fraud, fraud was always explained away as perpetrated by a few bad apples. This is plainly untrue. There has been a systematic refusal to look hard at how this has happened. I'm delighted the IMF are using mathematical formula to look at something that has been obvious to so many for so long. There's nothing new and surprisinmg about this. The question is where was the IMF when this happened?"

Raymond Baker, director at the Washington DC-based thinktank, Global Financial Integrity, said: "The financial community has no hesitation when it comes to fighting against anything that they deemed would limit their freedom to carry out business in any way they saw fit. We have seen this vividly when it came to the prospect of anti-money laundering legislation and we have seen this with Capitol Hill moves to limit predatory lending and introduce responsible banking measures."

Many of the responsible banking bills targeted by Wall Street would have required them to evaluate consumers' ability to repay loans before cash is forwarded, stipulated that creditors must report consumers' payment histories to credit rating agencies and that loans should not exceed more than 50% of an individual's income.

An unfettered, liberalised mortgage market provided the backdrop for sub-prime mortgage market failure. The IMF will now be under pressure to formulate policy in response to its research. The IMF has not commented on the study.

Distributed by www.publicaffairslinks.co.uk

GM replaces retiring chief lobbyist

GM replaces retiring chief lobbyist
December 30 2009

General Motors has hired two former AT&T executives to replace chief lobbyist Ken Cole, who is retiring after eight years at the automaker following a tumultuous year of Capitol Hill battles, bankruptcy and a government-funded rescue, the automaker said today.

The move is the latest in a series of executive shakeups over the past few months at GM as chairman and chief executive Ed Whitacre puts his stamp on the company’s executive suite.

John Montford, formerly a senior vice president of state legislative affairs for AT&T, was named a special adviser to Whitacre, overseeing government affairs. Bob Ferguson, who also oversaw state regulatory affairs for AT&T before working at a public affairs consulting firm, was named GM's vice president of government relations.

Cole, GM’s vice president for government relations, oversaw GM’s relations with governments around the world. Before joining GM in 2001, Cole worked in similar roles at Honeywell, AlliedSignal and Amoco.

Cole’s departure follows the resignation of Chrysler’s chief lobbyist John Bozzella, who took a job with Cerberus Capital Management, the private equity firm that shed its stake in Chrysler as part of its bankruptcy.

Both men were at the center of battles on Capitol Hill over fuel economy and aid to the auto industry. GM and other Detroit automakers eventually agreed to a compromise increase in fuel economy standards in 2008, along with an even higher boost to 35.5 m.p.g. by 2016 last year in a pact with the Obama administration.

GM, Ford and Chrysler were able to win $25 billion in loans from Congress last fall, but had to return for more aid as the economy worsened. The automakers and their lobbyists were sharply criticized for the November hearing.

The U.S. government has pumped some $50 billion into GM, including $30.1 billion from the Obama administration to fund GM's bankruptcy in return for a 61% stake in GM. Whitacre has committed GM to paying back a $6.7-billion government loan using a government-funded escrow account by June.

Reported by Detroit Free Press
Distributed by www.publicaffairslinks.co.uk

Lobbyist or not, it's disclosure that matters

Editorial: San Jose Mercury News

"Everybody believes in open government, or at least says so.

But nobody wants to be labeled a lobbyist. As one lawyer says, it's the Scarlet L.

The semantics of sunshine have become an issue in San Jose, with Mayor Chuck Reed's proposal to require nonprofits affiliated with advocacy organizations like the South Bay Labor Council or the Chamber of Commerce to register as lobbyists.

Like it or not, the lobbyist ordinance is San Jose's mechanism for requiring special interests to report contacts with city officials, so that it's clear to the public who is influencing whom. The new advisory group that's been asked to analyze Reed's proposal next year will be pretty much stuck with that reality — and its goal must be full disclosure, regardless of how people feel about the labels.

The immediate candidate to be labeled a lobbyist under Reed's proposal would be Working Partnerships, the labor council affiliate. Its policy director, Bob Brownstein, not only testifies at public meetings but also works behind the scenes with some City Council members to help them write proposals and memos. Brownstein and Cindy Chavez, who heads both Working Partnerships and the labor council, say they don't object to disclosure, just to the Scarlet L for their nonprofit. But unless the city wants to come up with some new labels, we don't see an alternative.

And if the Chamber of Commerce, labor's most frequent opponent on city issues, had a nonprofit policy arm whose head was helping council members write policy proposals behind the scenes, we'll bet labor would want that to be disclosed. As it should.

The semantic problem is rooted in the origin of the city lobbying ordinance. It originally was aimed at lobbyists for hire, who gained significant power during former Mayor Ron Gonzales' administration. Several had worked in the mayor's office before hanging out their shingles to sell influence; the mayor's staff and some council members in turn would encourage developers and others to hire lobbyists.

But as the lobbying law was crafted, it became clear that these were not the only people whose influence should be disclosed. Others included groups like the labor council and the chamber as well as business owners, such as developers.

These people generally hate registering as lobbyists. They say they're doing what they believe in, not hiring out to anyone who pays them. Lawyers say that when they visit council members, they're representing clients in a legal capacity, not as lobbyists. Professional engineers and planners say they're consultants, not lobbyists, because clients hire them for their technical expertise. But they have to register anyway.

So, Working Partnerships — welcome to the club.

The advisory group that will be reviewing this and other Reed proposals might want to look at the lobbying rules more broadly — although the better group to do this work would be the city's elections commission, which enforces the rules.

Regardless, the result needs to be greater public disclosure of behind-the-scenes influence. No matter what you call it."

Published by San Jose Mercury News
Distributed by www.publicaffairslinks.co.uk

Congressional Research Awards

GRANTS: CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH AWARDS DEADLINE: All proposals must be received no later than February 1, 2009.

The Dirksen Congressional Center invites applications for grants to fund research on congressional leadership and the U.S. Congress. A total of up to $30,000 will be available in 2009. Awards range from a few hundred dollars to $3,500. The competition is open to individuals with a serious interest in studying Congress. Political scientists, historians, biographers, scholars of public administration or American studies, and journalists are among those eligible. The Center encourages graduate students who have successfully defended their dissertation prospectus to apply and awards a significant portion of the funds for dissertation research. Applicants must be U.S. citizens who reside in the United States.

The awards program does not fund undergraduate or pre-Ph.D. study. Organizations are not eligible. Research teams of two or more individuals are eligible. No institutional overhead or indirect costs may be claimed against a Congressional Research Award.

There is no standard application form. Applicants are responsible for showing the relationship between their work and the awards program guidelines. Applications are accepted at any time. Applications which exceed the page limit and incomplete applications will NOT be forwarded to the screening committee for consideration.

All application materials must be received on or before February 1, 2009. Awards will be announced in March 2009.

Complete information about eligibility and application procedures may be found at The Center's Web site: http://www.dirksencenter.org/print_grants_CRAs.htm. PLEASE READ THOROUGHLY. Frank Mackaman is the program officer -- fmackaman@dirksencenter.org.

The Center, named for the late Senate Minority Leader Everett M. Dirksen, is a private, nonpartisan, nonprofit research and educational organization devoted to the study of Congress and its leaders. Since 1978, the Congressional Research Awards (formerly the Congressional Research Grants) program has paid out $747,465 to support 369 projects.

Published by the Dirksen Center

Distributed by www.publicaffairslinks.co.uk

FEC Finalizes Bundling Rules

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has approved final rules regarding the disclosure of bundling by lobbyists and organizations registered to lobby on reports filed to the FEC by federal candidate committees and leadership PACs.

The rule stated that applicable PACs would be required to file a form, the FEC Form 3L if they received two or more bundled contributions which aggregate to more than $15,000 during a reporting period. The FEC defined the reporting periods for political action committees depending on how often they file reports.

The FEC also defined a bundled contribution as one that is forwarded by a lobbyist, a registered organization, or a PAC controlled by a registered lobbyist or organization or as one that is received and credited, where the PAC credits a lobbyist who raises a certain amount of money. The types of items and records that the FEC defined as crediting include titles, tracking identifiers, access and mementos.

The disclosure of bundled contributions was mandated by the passage of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (HLOGA) in 2007.

To read the rule, please visit http://www.fec.gov/agenda/2008/mtgdoc08-48.pdf.

Published by Lobbyists.info
Distributed by www.publicaffairslinks.co.uk

Twelve Days of US Lobbying

"A Partridge in a Pear Tree: The Washington Tree Fruit Research Commission may not be able to provide you with a partridge, but its members help in promoting research of pear trees. In fact, the commission will hold its Northwest Pear Review Research in February. The commission has hired an outside lobbyist for work on agriculture issues.

Two Turtle Doves: Doves represent the National Peace Foundation, an organization that promotes conflict resolution.

Three French Hens: French hens do lay eggs, and the United States Poultry and Egg Association has retained lobbyists to represent its interests in front of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Four Calling Birds: The American Bird Conservancy's mission is to ensure that native birds and their habitats are protected, including calling birds. The organization has lobbied on its own behalf on several pieces of bird-related legislation, including the Bird Treaty Act and the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act.

Five Golden Rings: The Fashion Jewelry Trade Association has hired lobbyists to ensure that its members can afford to produce golden rings. Legislation proposed in some states would ban the sale of lead-based jewelry; the FJTA supports national lead standards.

Six Geese A-laying: The United Egg Producers surely have geese-a-laying eggs for its members. The association is represented by several firms on issues ranging from the Farm Bill to commodity futures legislation.

Seven Swans A-swimming: Black Swan LLP might not be a swan-a-swimming, but the firm does represent two groups wishing to benefit from this holiday season: Target and the Retail Industry Leaders Association. The firm has represented both organizations on trade issues.

Eight Maids A-milking: The National Milk Producers Federation are comprised of many maids (and men) a-milking. The association's in-house lobbyists have represented the organization on a number of issues, including carbon cap-and-trade programs, labeling of cloned animals and immigration issues.

Nine Ladies Dancing: Dance/USA lobbies on its own behalf to ensure that funds are available to keep ladies dancing. In its most recent lobbying disclosure report, the organization stated that it lobbied on funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, as well as for arts education funding in the Labor, HHS and Education appropriations bill.

Ten Lords A-leaping: LORD Corporation is just one of several lords-a-leaping. The company, which manufactures adhesives, coating and other technologies for the aerospace and defense industries, has retained outside counsel to lobby on the House and Senate defense appropriations bills.

Eleven Pipers Piping: DLA Piper is one of the biggest pipers piping when it comes to K Street revenue. One of its many clients is Amazon.com, a place many people go to shop for discounted holiday gifts. DLA Piper has lobbied on behalf of the online store on intellectual property issues.

Twelve Drummers Drumming: The Recording Industry Association of America represents many musicians, especially the drummers drumming, keeping the beat on songs like "Rockin' Around the Christmas Tree." While kids lobby Santa for a drum set, lobbyists representing those drummers have legislation regarding internet radio, intellectual property and net neutrality on their wish lists."

Courtesy of Lobbyists.info
Distributed by http://www.publicaffairslinks.co.uk/

Back from the break

We're sorry. We know this blog hasn't been updated for a embarrassingly long time. But then you'll also know from looking at the site that we've not spent all our summer idly sunning ourselves - the new EU and US portals are up, with loads of new information contained within and our exciting new vacancy bulletins are coming to an inbox near you.

It's an exciting tiome politically too. In the UK, party conference season is edging ever closer, as is a potentially cataclysmic Scottish by-election. Across the Channel, lobbyists are watching the progress of the new transparency register warily. And in the US, there's the small matter of a presidential race.

Should be a busy autumn...