Another Revolving Door
By Kira Self -- Intern
Posted on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:30:40 PM EST
Once again we see a government official leaving a powerful post in the government in order to enter into a lucrative lobbying job using his high profile connections. Robert S. Nichols, a former spokesman for the Department of Treasury has signed on to two major lobbying groups. The first being the Financial Services Forum President , a powerful lobbying group comprising 20 of the nations key financial services groups including Citigroup and Morgan Stanley. The second being a group called Engage China which is trying to open China's massive market to financial products like auto insurance. From these new posts, Nichols continues to promote the Treasury agenda leaving many to wonder, "is Nichols still working for the Treasury Department?"
Recent comments by a Treasury Spokeswoman seem to indicate Nichols'continued interest in Treasury affairs and his success in getting treasury officials to pressure China into lifting the moratorium on foreign investment in Chinese Security Firms. This, of course, benefits Nichols tremendously by helping the forum. To be sure, we will probably see more of these cases in the future.
Bundling reform measure passes House
By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Thu May 24, 2007 at 03:49:22 PM EST
This is good:
Under strong urging by Democratic leaders, the House on Thursday approved mandatory disclosure by lobbyists who round up campaign donations from others and "bundle" them together for lawmakers. The most contentious issue involved requiring lobbyists to disclose so-called bundling practices, in which they solicit and collect campaign donations from several sources and deliver them to a favored lawmaker in one package. The long-employed practice is popular with many lawmakers, who find it easier than raising money check-by-check. It also is favored by lobbyists who find it helps them ingratiate themselves to lawmakers without having to divulge the role they play. Bundling has become a regular practice and a way for individuals to wield substantial power with lawmakers for whom they "bundle" checks totalling $10K, $50K, $200K or more. Disclosure of who they are and how much they've raised is important to openness in our democracy.
And frankly, it will highlight big money's role in politics and make it harder for those profiting under that system to avoid the limelight. Hopefully that makes it more enticing for lawmakers to pass much-needed public financing reform and eliminate the need for constant big-money-driven campaign fundraising altogether.
"The Hollow Promise Reform Act"
By Kirstin Ellison
Posted on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:04:54 PM EST
Man, the editorial boards are hitting Democrats hard on the lobby reform issue - as they should be. Common Cause has been on the case, as well as the rest of our partners in the reform community. This is too important an issue to sit idly by while lawmakers act to protect their own interests over those of their constituents.
Today it's the New York Times on the offensive. Why can't the House Democrat rank-and-file understand what's apparent to everyone else?
The House’s new Democratic majority is flirting with disaster as it guts key provisions of the strict lobbying reform it promised voters last November. Rebellious lawmakers, worried about their own career path, fought their leaders to defeat tighter restrictions on the sleazy, revolving-door culture by which members of Congress move on from an apprenticeship of merely serving the people to real Washington money as insider lobbyists.
“What you are telling me is I cut off my profession,” one Democrat, Representative Michael Capuano of Massachusetts, complained in baldly defending the vox pop-to-riches scheme.
Excuse me, Congressman, but your profession at the moment is Representative of the people of the 8th District of Massachusetts, not lobbyist-in-training. Opposing views on the lobby reform bill
By Kirstin Ellison
Posted on Tue May 22, 2007 at 03:43:23 PM EST
USA Today's opinion section today ran an editorial blasting House Demcorats for the weak lobby reform legislation pending, and also a countering op-ed by Rep. Marty Meehan (D-MA) defending the reforms they're presenting.
USA Today rightly says:
Cashing in on public service is one of the Capitol's most insidious problems. The more easily lawmakers slip from representing the public to representing private interests, the more likely they'll blur that distinction while still in office.
They present a staggering figure from research done by Public Citizen - 43% of lawmakers since 1998 became lobbyists upon leaving office! A few decades ago, lobbying after Congressional service was seen as "somewhat disreputable" - but no more; now, Congressional service is largely seen as a "stepping stone" to a more lucrative paycheck. And what about Democrats' promise to break the link between lobbyists and legislators?
If Democrats -- who wrested control of Congress from Republicans last November -- were as serious about cleaning up Capitol Hill as they claimed during last fall's campaign, they'd slow the quick transition from the Capitol to K Street. Instead, the House Democratic leadership caved in to opponents of new restrictions.
The Senate passed a stronger reform package in January - but the House is balking at following suit.
Not everyone would agree, however. For example, Rep. Marty Meehan, as mentioned above, holds just the opposite - House Democrats are keeping their promise to the American public, he says. Follow me after the jump for his argument.
It's time to see if they meant it or not
By Kirstin Ellison
Posted on Tue May 22, 2007 at 10:33:25 AM EST
Think back - waaaaaaaaay back - to September, October, November of last year. In the months leading up to the midterm elections, Democrats promised to end the "culture of corruption" that seemed to plague the Republicans in Congress. They hammered this point - and they won on it. Now it's time to see if they really meant it.
From a Washington Post editorial today:
THIS WEEK will tell whether House Democrats recognize the voter disgust with Washington that helped them win the majority -- and whether they are willing to change their behavior in response....A good, if imperfect, package of reforms to do that is set to come to the House floor this week. But passage is far from assured.
Democratic leaders, notably Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), caucus chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), head of the Democrats' campaign committee, are behind the bill. But many rank-and-file members refuse to accept that voters want, and that they need to deliver, a significant change from Washington business as usual. These legislators need to know that they will be held accountable for their votes -- not just on the reform package itself but on the procedural rule to allow it to be brought up for debate. A vote against the rule is a vote against lobbying reform.
Leadership - whose faces are attached to everything the Democratic-controlled Congress does - and freshmen - most of whom were elected on this platform - understand the importance of these reforms. Many strong reforms have already been removed from the bill - the revolving door extension, the bundling and astroturf disclosure...but there is still a provision to require lobbyists to disclose the amounts they fundraise for lawmakers over and beyond their individual contribution. It's this provision that is still causing dissention among the rank and file, who are looking increasingly out of touch with the electorate they're going to have to answer to in 2008.
So this is their chance to prove the naysayers wrong and show us that they really did mean it last fall.
Congress must not remain for sale
By Kirstin Ellison
Posted on Wed May 16, 2007 at 01:04:41 PM EST
In an editorial today, the New York Times hits hard on the subject of the lobby reform bill pending in the House (emphasis mine):
It's crunch time for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to deliver on the Democrats' vow to rein in power lobbyists who sully Congress by purchasing privileged access with outsized campaign donations. There are worthy remedies, but members are balking. If the House resorts to mere cosmetic changes, the Democrats will risk the same voters' ire that cost the Republicans control last year.
The reforms we need are plain and simple: stop secret "bundling" of donations, shine some sunlight on astroturf operations, and slow the revolving door to the lobbying firms on K Street. And if Democratic lawmakers fail to enact meaningful reforms? Well...
Make no mistake. If the leadership fails to bring the lobbying industry to heel, voters will know that Congress remains as much for sale under the Democrats as it was under the Republicans.
Big Tobacco not sitting idly
By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Tue May 01, 2007 at 04:13:23 PM EST
You don't hear much about Big Tobacco these days--it seems that everyone's favorite corporate bogeyman lost its luster after numerous setbacks on the legal front, in public relations, and elsewhere. Everyone seemed to 'get' the idea that the tobacco industry distorted facts, put profits before people, and should be punished severly. But don't be deceived. Big Tobacco is still a heavyweight in the world of campaign contributions and lobbying. What they're still doing to protect their profits--at the continued expense of public health--highlights how our much power a wealthy special interest group can wield in our campaign system. Even Big Tobacco. Despite its split over the FDA measure and declining fortunes in the United States, the tobacco lobby still has significant clout and gives sizably to lawmakers. In the 2006 election cycle, the industry gave more than $19 million in campaign contributions, the lion's share coming from Altria ($12.8 million), according to data compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
Altria also knows its friends. According to disclosure forms filed with the Federal Elections Commission, the company forked over $12,000 during the 2005-2006 cycle to Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., who is the chief Republican co-sponsor of the FDA legislation in the House.
What is this "FDA legislation" the tobacco industry is so worried about? Follow me inside to find out.... Lobbying on liquor law lines Lonestar legislators' pockets
By Kirstin Ellison
Posted on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 03:08:07 PM EST
Alliteration aside, there's a turf war brewing in Texas, and industry PAC contributions have placed lawmakers smack in the middle of it.
Liquor wholesalers dumped nearly $1.7 million on Texas lawmakers in the weeks leading up to the 2007 Legislature while pushing for changes that would allow them to sell booze directly to restaurants and bars.
The law now allows only package liquor stores - not wholesalers - to supply establishments where patrons drink on the premises. Wholesalers say that's not fair; package stores say giant wholesalers would undercut their prices to monopolize the market, potentially costing thousands of people their jobs.
That's the gist of the situation - now here's the interesting part. That $1.7 million in the last ten weeks is five times more than what was spent in the entire previous year. And the recipients were of that money should come as no shock - just about everyone in a position of influence.
"It shows that in Texas, we have a pay-to-play system," said Suzy Woodford of Common Cause Texas, which tracks ethics in government. "We have no limits on the amount of money that these individuals, their PACs and their officers can contribute. So it clearly demonstrates to the average Joe that if you don't have the big bucks ... the item you care about is not even going to be considered."
It's an interesting article that breaks down the issue and the law in question. A list of the top campaign contribution recipients from the wholesalers follows after the jump.
|
Common Blog
