State lawmakers target lawmaking to ... - lrrs.multistate.comlrrs.multistate.com/upload/wysiwyg/Weekly Lobbying Arti… · Web viewThe last and most important one is your word

Weekly Lobbying ArticlesMarch 31, 2017

State & CapitolMarch 24, 2017

Former Bangor state rep accused of illegal lobbying

http://stateandcapitol.bangordailynews.com/2017/03/24/ethics-panel-to-probe-charge-that-former-bangor-state-rep-broke-lobbying-law/

Good morning from Augusta, where a Republican representative has called for a Maine Ethics Commission investigation of a former Democratic colleague for allegedly breaking rules that apply to State House lobbyists.

Rep. Sheldon Hanington, R-Lincoln, made the request for an investigation into former Rep. Adam Goode, D-Bangor, in a letter Thursday afternoon to the Maine Ethics Commission. Hanington alleges that Goode, who was term-limited out of office in December 2016, is a lobbyist for the Maine AFL-CIO.

That would violate a law enacted unanimously and signed by Gov. Paul LePage in 2013 that bars lawmakers from becoming paid lobbyists in Maine until at least one year after leaving office.

Hanington alleges that Goode has testified before numerous legislative committees this year and identifies himself as the AFL-CIO’s legislative and political director on his written testimony.

“When questioned by committee members, Mr. Goode has acknowledged being a paid lobbyist working for the Maine AFL-CIO,” Hanington wrote.

Jonathan Wayne, executive director of the Maine Ethics Commission, said Thursday that Hanington’s complaint was the first against a former lawmaker since the law took effect. Goode said this morning that he is in compliance with the law and has been in repeated contact with ethics commission staff.

Under the 2013 law, former lawmakers are limited to eight hours a month of paid lobbying, which includes virtually any communication with lawmakers, employees of the Legislature, Cabinet members and staff or constitutional officers. Any attempt to influence the outcome of pending legislation counts toward that limit.

“We totally understand and support this law. I’m well under eight hours a month,” said Goode by phone Friday. “I’ve documented all my time.”

Goode said he suspects Hanington’s complaint was lodged because he is advocating in favor of policies that offend “rich and powerful” Republicans, such as raising the minimum wage and advocating against tax cuts for upper earners.

“It really seems like these personal attacks are a reaction by powerful people who don’t want to focus on issues that Mainers care about,” he said.



Wayne said the maximum penalty for this violation is $1,000. The case has not yet been assigned a hearing date but the next steps will be for Goode to provide a written response and for the commission to vote on whether ethics commission staff should continue an investigation.

Channel3000.comMarch 24, 2017

State lawmakers target lawmaking to lobbying path

http://www.channel3000.com/news/politics/state-lawmakers-target-lawmaking-to-lobbying-path/413969122

A bipartisan group of 40 state lawmakers have introduced a bill that would prohibit former lawmakers from becoming lobbyists for at least a year after they leave office.

Under the bill, violators would be subject to a fine of up to $5,000 and, in some cases, up to a year in prison.

At least two Republican lawmakers have quickly transitioned to lobbying in recent years. In 2014, then-Sen. Joe Leibham resigned from his seat and registered as a lobbyist for several private companies less than weeks later. In 2013, former state Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald registered as a lobbyist within a week of leaving office.

Republican Sen. Duey Stroebel and Democrat Rep. Dana Wachs introduced the bill. Government watchdog organizations have long pushed for such a measure.

The Los Angeles TimesMarch 27, 2017

Former California legislator Henry Perea will lobby for the oil industry in Sacramento

http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-henry-perea-former-assemblyman-will-1490639341-htmlstory.html

As lawmakers debate the future of California's climate policies, the oil industry is boosting its lobbying firepower with a former Democratic assemblyman from Fresno who has bedeviled environmentalists in the past.

Henry Perea resigned his Assembly seat to work for a pharmaceutical group. Now he's jumping to the Western States Petroleum Assn. as a senior vice president, a role he's scheduled to start on May 1.

“Henry brings us unique expertise," said a statement from Catherine Reheis-Boyd, the association's president. "He understands our state, our industry and how smart public policy can ensure California’s continued leadership in environmental protections while maintaining a diverse, vibrant economy.”

While serving in the Assembly, Perea led the so-called moderate caucus of business-friendly Democrats. He played a key role in stalling 2015 legislation that would have created tough new targets for reducing oil consumption.

Environmentalists have made progress since then, successfully pushing through legislation to lower greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. Now these issues are being debated again as lawmakers consider whether to extend the state's cap-and-trade program, which is intended to provide a financial incentive to reduce emissions.

The oil industry supports extending the program, but it's working to ensure favorable terms and to loosen the state's other regulatory plans.





The Daily ProgressMarch 27, 2017

Missouri House votes to crack down on local lobbyist gifts

http://www.dailyprogress.com/missouri-house-votes-to-crack-down-on-local-lobbyist-gifts/article_e829756c-42cd-54a8-af54-4290fc9fc95f.html

Missouri House members are trying to ban local lobbyists from giving gifts to elected officials, including school superintendents.

House members voted 149-5 Monday to send a bill banning the practice to the Senate, where members have previously been reluctant to end lobbyist gift-giving to legislators.

The legislation comes amid a push for stronger ethics laws by Republicans House Speaker Todd Richardson and Gov. Eric Greitens.

House members in January passed a bill to ban lobbyist gifts to themselves, other lawmakers and statewide elected officials. It's been languishing in the Senate since.

Some House members expressed concern about potentially raising ethics standards for local elected officials and not themselves.

Under the proposed local ban, gifts and catered meals would still be allowed at events if all lawmakers are invited.

NBC 7 San DiegoMarch 28, 2017

PG&E to Pay $86.5 Million for Backdoor Lobbying of Regulators

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/california/PGE-to-Pay-865-Million-for-Backdoor-Lobbying-of-Regulators--417383523.html

Pacific Gas and Electric Co. has agreed to pay $86.5 million over 164 allegedly improper backdoor communications it had with state regulators over a five year period that critics seized on as proof of an overly cozy relationship.

Under the deal, PG&E ratepayers get $73.5 million in bill credits and other offsets between now and 2019.

The settlement – which has to be approved by the commission -- is the final chapter in the email scandal that broke back in 2014.

That was when San Bruno won the right to obtain emails between Public Utilities Commission officials and PG&E related to the 2010 gas pipeline disaster that left eight dead. Some of the 7,000 pages of emails revealed questionable communications. Under pressure, PG&E soon agreed to release 65,000 emails sent between 2010 and 2014.

In them, commission critics found proof of an overly cozy relationship between PG&E top officials and regulators both before and after the gas explosion.

“‘This is the final chapter for San Bruno – we’re pleased that PG&E has accepted responsibility for its past misconduct and backdoor dealings” with the commission, said Britt Strottman, attorney for the city of San Bruno. “This hopefully means that this won’t happen again.”





The city of San Bruno was joined in the case by city of San Carlos, whose officials were angered at PG&E’s secret lobbying to maintain the pressure on a problem gas pipeline in 2013. Both cities will get $6 million in the settlement.

The deal does not cover a key revelation of the scandal: the backdoor effort waged by a now ousted top PG&E executive to secure the utility’s regulator judge of choice to rule on a key rate case arising out of the San Bruno disaster. PG&E has already paid more than $1 million in fines in that case.

The scandal led to a management shakeup at PG&E. While a few commission staffers were given warning letters, only one left in the fallout of the scandal.

State and local officials pressed the state attorney general’s office to intervene. In early 2015, agents searched the home of former Commission President Michael Peevey, who had already left the commission amid the scandal.

Investigators uncovered notes of a secret deal that Peevey allegedly reached in Warsaw, Poland with Southern California Edison over the closure of the San Onofre nuclear power plant in Southern California. The investigation into that matter has yet to result in charges.

As part of the deal reached with PG&E, the utility admitted that a dozen emails clearly violated commission rules. It also agreed that some – but not all – of another 152 other mails were improper. All involve communications between utility officials and members of the commission and their staff, many involving regulatory cases where parties were forbidden from contacting state officials.

Under the settlement, PG&E will face stringent reporting of its communications with regulators along with the “substantial financial remedy” divided among the various parties.

PG&E spokesman Greg Snapper provided the following statement Tuesday:

"PG&E is committed to interacting with our regulators in a completely transparent and ethical manner. For more than a year we’ve been working cooperatively and constructively with the other parties in this proceeding and we’re pleased to say we’ve come to a settlement agreement that was filed today. We have implemented enhanced procedures and protocols that will continue to foster compliance with the requirements of this agreement and the new ex parte communications regulations as they are implemented by the CPUC."

City and StateMarch 28, 2017

NEW YORK CITY’S TOP 10 LOBBYISTS

http://cityandstateny.com/articles/politics/new-york-city/new-york-city-top-10-lobbyists.html#.WNvAnFXyuCg

For lobbyists, no news is usually good news.

Lobbyists operate behind the scenes, meeting with elected and appointed officials to advocate for and against legislation or regulations on behalf of a variety of nonprofit and for-profit parties. In their profession, success is measured by achieving the best possible outcome for a client.

But each spring when the New York City clerk issues the annual lobbying report, the firms who land at the top of the city’s lobbying list are happy to be in the headlines. In 2016, the top 10 city lobbying firms included a lot of familiar faces, with Capalino+Company, Kasirer and Pitta Bishop Del Giorno & Giblin still



rounding out the top three. One thing that has changed is the total money spent on lobbying, which rose to $95.4 million from $86.2 million the year before.

Along with the countdown of New York City’s top lobbyists, we checked in with all 10 firms to learn how they deliver for their clients, the ways that the industry is changing and where they expect to land on the list a year from now.

1 0 . G E T O & D E M I L L Y I N C .

Compensation: $2,532,002.00

Last Year's Rank: No. 9

Principal, Michele de Milly

What does it take to be a successful lobbyist in New York City?

It’s a love of public policy issues. It’s a network of people in those arenas that you have developed over the years. I worked for state government, we’re talking 35 years ago. My partner came out of city government and held posts at all levels of government. I learned a great deal from my years in the government regarding economic development, public policy, transportation issues, environmental issues. We’re a very substantive firm. We are knowledgeable about all these issues and they became the center of the practice.

Who are your top clients? Or, what areas do you specialize in?

It falls into a few categories. We represent a lot of property owners that are health care institutions and educational institutions. So its very nonprofit-oriented in that way. And we also represent private developers who are seeking to build in all five boroughs. And we help our not-for-profit clients achieve their funding through the budgetary process. We have some corporate clients as well.

It’s a real mix, which is very much a measure of our interests and personalities. Both Ethan Geto and myself come out of government and we’re policy wonks. We’re very committed to public policy issues.

How does lobbying in the de Blasio era compare to the Bloomberg years?

They’re more alike than they are different, but there’s a difference in priorities. The priority of de Blasio has been some of the largest affordable housing development we’ve seen. For Bloomberg, I think it was about managing the city, getting a grip on the city and getting a way of managing it more efficiently. The corporate and private sector experience he brought to the table was how he sought to manage the city.

The big distinction was Bloomberg wasn’t involved in politics and fundraising in the same way.

9 . M A N A T T



Managing Director, Katie Schwab


A successful lobbyist has a combination of skills. You need to be a quick study. You need to be enthusiastic. You need to be genuinely interested in collaborating and finding solutions that work both for the public and for the institution of the city and, of course, for the clients you represent. That’s the challenge, and that’s what makes it interesting and fun. And I feel very proud of our team here. This practice is about the collective strength of the people here.

I started out in city government. I worked in the Dinkins administration and in the Giuliani administration, and then I meandered through the nonprofit world. Having served in government allows me to understand the perspective of the decision-makers on the other side. The perspective of someone in an agency is different than the perspective of someone in an elected office.

Where do you think you'll rank on the top 10 list next year?

Our objective for next year is to continue to provide first-rate service in a very competitive and closely watched field. I think our services are more important and relevant than ever.

I think there are tremendous changes in Washington that will have a domino effect at the state and city level. It will be more important than ever to be aware of what those changes are and to address them. What’s interesting is the breadth of concern. The Community Development Block Grant cuts have such diverse implications and a really diverse array of clients called in asking what could they do to resist that. It’s very rare that we’ll feel the impact for the federal legislative proposal so acutely and so immediately. I think we’ll be seeing a lot of that unfortunately.

8 . G R E E N B E R G T R A U R I G



Chairman, New York Government Law & Policy Practice, John Mascialino


You have to understand what your clients' needs and goals are ... you have to understand the city and the regulatory system, and how to accomplish those goals, and how to make everybody come out a winner in the end. All of us at one time had spent time in elected or appointed office in city or state government, and all of our experience has come in handy.


The firm has always had real estate as one of its core practices, and a lot of our work is in the developer community. The largest portfolio of clients that we have are real estate, affordable housing and development.


Any change in administration, there’s always a change in priorities. Even each year in a mayoral administration, things could change depending on the economic climate and the other areas of the government. To be a good lobbyist you have to go with the flow, figure out what the priorities are.


We’ll see how the new year brings changes in what our clients' needs are. But the lobbying numbers have been going up, and I don’t feel like that’s going down. A lot of businesses are starting to realize that dealing with the government is not the same as dealing business to business. I think as governments look to do more private-public partnership and invest in private industry, more firms need firms like Greenberg Traurig to navigate all these things they’ve never had to deal with before.

7 . K R A M E R L E V I N N A F T A L I S & F R A N K E L L L P


Last Year's Rank: New to list

Counsel, Jeffrey Braun


Our clients see us primarily as lawyers, not lobbyists. They come to us because we have tremendous expertise in city laws and city processes in city zoning, historic preservation, land use. We have a reputation in the real estate industry for excellence and integrity. That’s the main reason our clients come to us.

What’s unique about New York City in terms of lobbying?

To me, there are two very unusual things about New York. One thing is its very complex and sophisticated laws that govern real estate. So it’s a field that really calls for substantive knowledge and expertise in that area.

And the second thing is that city agencies have extensive permanent professional staff, and those staff have extensive knowledge and experience themselves. The city really has a cadre of professionals, but suburban and rural communities don’t have that kind of infrastructure.


The work that we do in lobbying is exclusively legal work in the land use area. We have an extensive client list. We represent large developers and small developers, lenders and financial institutions that are getting involved in real estate, individuals that own a residence and not-for profits like museums and hospitals.


The thing is that our work really fluctuates from year to year. It depends on the market, it depends on what our particular clients’ needs are. And in terms of what constitutes lobbying, it depends on where a project is, whether it has advanced to the point where you’re doing things that are classified as lobbying. Lately, the real estate industry has been very active, so we’re certainly hoping to have a busy year.

6 . D A V I D O F F H U T C H E R & C I T R O N L L P

Compensation: 3,108,056.75


Senior Partner, Sid Davidoff


Almost everything. You’re dealing with a City Council that’s very progressive. You’ve got local advocates on almost every issue. Everybody has an opinion and they state it. You’ve got to deal with a massive bureaucracy of 300,000 people. For other cities, being in the city government is a part-time job. It’s different when you’re dealing with a full-time Legislature than dealing with another city that is very much part-time.


We run the gamut. We consider ourselves a mid-size New York firm that deals with basically New York businesses that have concerns with things like licensing and land use, particularly in the boroughs. We have a lot of people who do business with the city who are architects and contractors and engineers, or have issues with their private projects. We do a lot of liquor licensing, which involves the state, but also involves going before community boards. I’m renegotiating the lease for the Hunts Point produce and fish markets. That involves everything from food issues, health issues, overland transportation issues, railroad issues.

We also have a lot of not-for-profits, which is always a concern at budget time because of the allocations that come out of the City Council and state Legislature. We go back and forth in the not-for-profit world and the for-profit business.


We’re growing. You have a much more active City Council than you’ve had in past years. As you have people going through this massive bureaucracy and dealing with the City Council, the need for us is growing.

5 . C O N S T A N T I N O P L E & V A L L O N E C O N S U L T I N G L L C



Principals, Perry Vallone and Anthony Constantinople


PV: A reputation for honesty. Our fathers founded the firm, so a reputation for honesty precedes us.

AC: And that reputation attracts the clients that want to do the right thing for New York.

PV: My father’s approach was to do the right thing for the city. The elected officials know when we bring someone to the table, we’re bringing someone that’s trying to do something good for the city.


PV: Not necessarily unique to New York City, but new to New York City is that term limits are now in place in the City Council. Part of our job is to navigate that changing landscape. In 2021, we’re going to see a changing over in the City Council of 40-plus seats. So we’re staying in touch with community leaders and current council members about who’s looking to take their place and who they’re supporting, and figuring out who the speaker candidates will be, figuring out who’s putting together the coalitions and who’s got the support of the county. And we pass that along to our clients. Depending on who the new members are and the new leadership, it may change the way the initiatives and the policy are implemented in the city and if we can give or clients a leg up, the better off they’ll be.

I think a lot of folks who will be running for council come from two places: the community boards, and we are seeing more folks run for council who are already elected officials, like Bill Perkins.

This year, we even have a candidate coming out of our firm, Keith Powers, running for Council member Daniel Garodnick’s seat because Council member Garodnick is term limited.

4 . B O L T O N - S T . J O H N S



Partner, Emily Giske


The No. 1 thing is to know how to move and shake in New York City. You have to have a New Yorker mindset. The great thing about New York City is you can be a New Yorker if you came here a month ago, a year ago, or if you lived here your whole life like me. You really have to have an organic love for the city, and you can never lose your empathy for New Yorkers, for other people.


New York City has its own industries and its own rhythms. Washington, D.C., for instance, is really a one-company town. In Albany it’s really based on the Capitol. But in New York, government is just one piece of a big mosaic. So you have to get that it’s not all about politics, it’s about people in life every day.


We don’t specialize in one thing. We have some entertainment, we have some health care and some not-for-profits. We represent the New York Immigration Coalition, which has had some really tough issues recently. And we represent a lot of tech, which I think will be up there with real estate in a few years.


Well, of course, we want to be climbing like a bullet. One of the things we’re very proud of is that we have a lot of young up-and-comers. We have a lot of people who made the 40 under 40 list. We feel like our bench is really good, and we’re really looking forward to seeing it grow.

3 . P I T T A B I S H O P D E L G I O R N O & G I B L I N



Partner, Jon Del Giorno


There are a couple factors. One is the ability to be a good listener, to hear out your client, to hear what their needs are, and not imposing yourself on them. Obviously, having a Rolodex, knowing people not just at the top level, but knowing career public officials, and knowing the advocacy world because they become partners. I was in government for 21 years. I started out as an intern when was in high school with the City Council. I’d gotten to know many people over the years in the political world, in the not-for-profit world and the labor world. The last and most important one is your word. You might have a lot of clients, but you’ll lose them if your word doesn’t mean anything.


Term limits are a major factor down here in the city. It’s been much more stable up in Albany. People who’ve been in the Senate and the Assembly for a long time. There are a lot more people at the table in New York City. In Albany, you’re dealing with more or less four bodies: Jeff Klein, John Flanagan, the governor and Carl Heastie. Down here, you’ve got a whole bunch of people you have to deal with.


Just looking at these numbers, more and more industries and businesses are turning toward consulting and lobbying firms to assist them. Things are being piloted or demonstrated in New York, and being picked up and replicated in other places. And I see for my firm more and more growth in that area. New York is taking the lead on being a sanctuary city, indigent services for immigrants and municipal ID, and these are being replicated across the country.

2 . K A S I R E R



President, Suri Kasirer


I would say the most important thing in being a successful lobbyist is understanding New York City. You really have to understand politics and how people work. In New York City, you’re dealing with term limits, so you can’t rely on a relationship. People think of lobbying as a relationship business, but you can’t be in this business if all you do is know people. It’s not the old-school approach where you just know somebody and ask for a favor.

We have a much more strategic approach: why is this thing good, and how do we get influencers and lots of people supporting an effort. And once we have a strategic plan, we try to be nimble: evaluate current politics, current news, how that will support or affect the plan that we’ve put together.


New Yorkers are very informed. They’re very savvy. They’re not afraid to take a position. People are very involved in civic life and the media is very active here weighing in on issues at every level. Everybody has an opinion, so you really have to engage in a very deep way to advocate for a change.


We have a not-for-profit group, corporate clients and a significant portion of the business is real estate. We’ve represented some of our clients for 10, 15, 20 years. When you know a client for a long time, you have a sense of their values and how they operate and you can really be their eyes and ears in political circles.

We’ve had a couple of big achievements over the last year. One is the Trans World Airlines terminal project. We represent the company that won the bid in 2015, and this year went through 22 government agencies to get this process off the ground. We also took two major corporate mergers through city approval: Charter that bought Time Warner, and Altice that bought Cablevision.

1 . C A P A L I N O + C O M P A N Y



CEO, James Capalino


I’ve always had a very strong bias with respect to the composition of our team, toward people who have had experience in city government. I’ve found people who have had experience balancing all those competing interests, and the interest of the mayor, are usually in a position to be effective advocates. It’s not exactly the fog of war, but sometimes, it’s pretty intense.


If there’s a difference, it probably has something to do with the challenges that were being faced. Mike Bloomberg spent the first term of the administration guiding the city’s recovery from 9/11. For almost four years, almost everything revolved around recovery for the city. And then in the second term, then the Bloomberg administration was able to get back to arm-wrestling with the Council and having fights with the comptroller.

The current administration has a very clear platform of social and economic objectives that the mayor has been very dogged in trying to achieve. But with the new federal administration, this city is in for a rough few years. The budget is going to have catastrophic implications for the city. We’ve been telling all our human service clients that this is a nine-alarm fire. And the mayor’s leadership is very important, which is one reason he’s spent a lot of time focusing on what the Trump administration wants to do.


I think we will continue to strategically grow. We added some new members to our team in the last six weeks. We believe that there’s a continuing crisis over federal policy and the denial of climate change that will produce important opportunities for us. What we’re really focused on, more so than where we rank in terms of revenue, is maintaining the longevity of client relationships. And I am very proud that in the roster of 250-plus clients, there are more than a few that I’ve represented for over 20 years.

‘

ArizonaWatchdog.orgMarch 28, 2017

Lawmakers look to codify Ducey’s ban on agencies hiring lobbyists

http://watchdog.org/291923/arizona-moves-ban-state-government-hiring-lobbyists/

Last summer, Arizona Republican Gov. Doug Ducey fired all professional lobbyists being paid for by state agencies. Now the legislature is considering giving that ban the force of law.

A measure by Tucson-area Republican Sen. Gail Griffin would bar any state agency, office, board or commission from contracting with outside individuals or groups for lobbying services.

The bill provides an exception for state boards headed by elected officials, and state employees could continue to engage in lobbying on behalf of their employers.

Ducey’s executive order called the practice of state entities hiring lobbyists “unnecessary and unjustified,” and instructed the Arizona Department of Administration to immediately terminate any such contracts.

The governor’s office said it knew of about $1 million was being spent by agencies lobbying other entities in state government, although that is likely a bare minimum figure. State agencies did not keep comprehensive records on how much they spent on lobbying, and of the 200 or so boards that the governor had surveyed about their lobbying expenses, 80 did not reply.

Ducey’s action terminated roughly a dozen contracts, mostly entered into by the state’s health regulatory boards. Eight such panels, including the Arizona Medical Board and the Board of Dental Examiners, had retained Phoenix-based public affairs firm Goodman Schwartz.

The State Board of Nursing had hired Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, a major law firm in the state.

Stuart Goodman — principal with Goodman Schwartz — told Watchdog that regulatory boards like the ones his firm represented serve an independent function, and as such lacked the level of direct relationship with the legislature and the governor that a cabinet-level agency might enjoy.

Contract lobbyists, he says, played the same role for these boards that they would with any client, proactively advancing legislation in their interests, while reactively working to mitigate the effects of legislation they object to.

Nevertheless, Good man said, “every governor gets to organize the executive branch in the way that best works for them.”

For Ducey, he noted in his executive order that regulatory entities were using taxpayer-funded lobbyists to “expand the regulatory authority of government and impose additional transaction costs for those in the regulated community.”

Ducey press secretary Patrick Ptak told Watchdog that “in the past, state entities often hired outside lobbyists to expand their authority – at the public’s expense,” and the governor’s focus remains on “empowering the people of Arizona, not government agencies.”

Ducey had spent much of 2016 working to lower the regulatory burden imposed by Arizona’s health boards — which are responsible for licensing and regulating medical professionals — and increase the transparency of their operations.

The lobbying expenditures were, in effect, the boards fighting back.

http://watchdog.org/291923/arizona-moves-ban-state-government-hiring-lobbyists/

The Arizona Republic reported that the boards’ stiff resistance forced the withdrawal of one bill that would have merged many of their functions within the Department of Health, and the watering down of another aimed at increased transparency to the point that Ducey vetoed it.

In his veto statement, Ducey called on the legislature to continue working to “aggressively address needed reforms of our boards and commissions, including increasing transparency, providing appropriate accountability, and protecting the state from liability.” He also vowed to explore other options to “shine a light on this dark corner of state government.”

The bill has made slow but steady progress through the state legislature.

The Senate passed it on a party line vote. The same thing happened in the House committee, where four Republicans supported the measure in the Government Committee and three Democrats opposed it.

Sen. Juan Mendez, a Tempe-area Democrat, had expressed concern during committee debate that an outright prohibition could adversely affect the operations of Arizona’s Clean Elections Board, one of the agencies that had retained a lobbyist prior to Ducey’s executive order.

Arizona would become the 11th state to prohibit state agencies from hiring lobbyists. Ten other states currently have outright bans on the practice, while another four have more limited restrictions.

Watchdog Mississippi reported on a similar bill being advanced in that state, which died in the House earlier this month.

BloombergMarch 28, 2017

LOBBYING FOR UNIFORM STATE TAXATION OF MOBILE WORKERS

https://www.bna.com/lobbying-uniform-state-b57982085845/

For the patchwork of state income tax requirements to be resolved for traveling workers from other states, employers and payroll professionals should write their representatives in Congress, two proponents of a reintroduced bill to standardize thresholds for state tax liabilities said March 27.

The legislation (H.R. 1393, S. 540) reintroduced earlier this month has more co-sponsors in Congress than in previous sessions, so there is greater optimism for passage, said Elizabeth Malm, associate director of the Mobile Workforce Coalition, a group of organizations seeking more uniform tax requirements across states that have income tax laws.

Variations of the Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act have been introduced in five other sessions of Congress without ever getting a full Senate review, although the proposal was approved twice in the House.

The latest version generally mirrors that of its predecessors: States would be prohibited from taxing most workers from other states for stays of up to 30 days a year, with exceptions. If a nonresident worker stays a 31st day, the work state would be able to retroactively apply taxes to those earnings, Malm said March 27 at the American Payroll Association’s 2017 Capital Summit in Washington.

The issue affects employers and employees the most, said Aziza Farooki, director of policy at the Council on State Taxation.

Nearly 500 million domestic business trips were taken in 2015, Farooki told summit participants as she referenced a study by the Global Business Travel Association and Ernst & Young.

A state looking for new or increased revenue streams views workers from other places as low-hanging fruit for collecting income taxes on earnings for work within the state. By increasing these collections, a

https://www.bna.com/lobbying-uniform-state-b57982085845/

state may avoid increasing some broad-based taxes on its own residents who have a say on such matters in the voting booth, Farooki said.

As Malm put it, “It’s easier to tax someone who doesn’t vote for me than those who do.”

Employers and employees are having to register and file in some nonresident states for little liability, Malm said, noting that those states need to process forms that often result in no tax liability because earnings thresholds were not met.

And states are getting better at identifying those traveling workers who fail to file and would be liable for taxation through technology-assisted audit techniques, Farooki said.

The legislation as proposed has been resisted by representatives from states that have high volumes of travelers, and thus more revenue to lose if a standardized solution is instituted. These include New York, Connecticut, California and Ohio, Farooki said.

This year already there are signs the resistance to such standardization is starting to break, based on the engagement by members of Congress, Malm said.

While other alternatives have been raised, without success, there needs to be a federal, national solution to this issue, Malm said as she promoted the Mobile Workforce Coalition’s website. There soon would be template letters and resources for lobbying Congress on the issue, she said.

ChronMarch 29, 2017

Questions swirl around bill to bar lobbyists from running for office

http://www.chron.com/news/politics/texas/article/Questions-swirl-around-bill-to-bar-lobbyists-from-11036414.php

There are two groups of people who can't run for public office in Texas - felons and the mentally incapacitated. Some legislators want to add a third category - lobbyists.

As lawmakers weigh bills to overhaul ethics laws, some lobbyists are pushing back against provisions they say unfairly target their profession and could lead to less government transparency, not more.

"I believe that registering as a lobbyist is not the same thing as putting a scarlet L on your forehead," said Jack Gullahorn, a lobbyist who founded the Austin-based trade group for lobbyists.

The Senate passed a comprehensive ethics bill in early February, one week after Gov. Greg Abbott made it one of his priority items. Anticipating attempts to kill the legislation, lawmakers also filed separate "single-shot bills" with the same provisions, which are getting hearings in the House.

One bill would prohibit anyone who is required to register as a state government lobbyist from running for, being appointed to or holding public office. State law and advisory opinions from the state Ethics Commission bar legislators from lobbying state government, but they can work as lobbyists focusing on the federal and local governments. Someone who lobbies the state government can't serve on the state Board of Education if he or she works on behalf of a profession, business or group "related to the operation of the board."

The bill's lead sponsor, state Rep. Giovanni Capriglione, R-Southlake, said it's important to distinguish between lobbying and other occupations when it comes to those who hold public office. He said local elected officials whose profession is lobbying the state government present the "perception of conflict of interest" or actual conflicts, such as when the person being lobbied doesn't know whether the lobbyist is speaking in his government capacity or as a lobbyist.



"I think it passes a common-sense test, which is if you go to your constituents and say, `Should someone who lobbies also be someone who runs your city?' I think most people would say, 'No,'" Capriglione said.

The Ethics Commission does not keep a list of state lobbyists who also are local elected officials. But they include Jesse Ancira, a lobbyist who is the mayor of Taylor in Williamson County and a former high-ranking aide to House Speaker Joe Straus, R-San Antonio. The bill would not affect Ancira because the population of Taylor is less than 50,000, he's not paid as mayor, and he's not running for re-election this year. Capriglione said the bill was not written to exempt Ancira or anyone else.

Bill Miller, a veteran lobbyist and public relations specialist, said that if the bill becomes law, local governments will lose potential candidates who have knowledge of government and politics.

"People who are engaged and care and (are) interested are exactly the kind of people who should run for public office," he said. "All the things that would contribute to a good public official generally are honed in the lobby. You have got to pay attention, you have got to read bills, and you have got to be political."

Capriglione said his bill was not written with anyone in mind. But political observers said previous versions filed by state Sen. Van Taylor, R-Plano, and Capriglione would have affected lobbyist Thomas Ratliff when he was a member of the state Board of Education. Conservative groups regularly attacked Ratliff, who in 2010 unseated a board member who had led a bloc to limit coverage of evolution in science textbooks. Ratliff did not run for re-election in 2016.

Ratliff and other lobbyists said an unintended consequence of the bill may be fewer people registering with the state Ethics Commission. If so, that would leave the public even more in the dark about attempts to influence state government decisions. Registered lobbyists must disclose information such as who hired them. This enables the public to track, for example, the various interests trying to pass or kill a bill or get a state contract.

"We already have enough people who will twist and turn themselves sideways or upside down or inside out to not register as a lobbyist," Ratliff said. "By creating a negative for a civic-minded person who wants to serve on the local school board, it might encourage them to say, `Well, I am just going to dial back my activities as a lobbyist so I'm under the threshold to register.' Then we have less transparency and not more."

There are two thresholds that require people to register to lobby the legislature and executive branch.

One is if a person spends more than $500 over three months on lobbying. The second is if a person is paid - or expects to get paid - more than $1,000 over three months; spends more than 40 hours over three months lobbying or preparing to do so, and communicates directly with a legislator, staff member, or state official.

So a lobbyist of the state government who falls a dollar or an hour short of the registration requirement still could run for a local public office - and continue lobbying. Lobbyists who focus solely on the legislature could run after the session if they are no longer required to register with the state. But those who lobby the executive branch could not run if they were required to maintain their registration. A local officeholder could start or resume lobbying the state immediately after leaving office.

The number of lobbyists registered at the state level has increased slightly since 2009, from 1,861 to 1,927 in 2015. So far this year, 1,799 lobbyists have registered.

State Rep. Lyle Larson, R-San Antonio, filed a bill that would require a campaign contributor to register as a lobbyist and disclose the topics he or she discusses with a candidate, if the contributor gives more than $10,000 in the aggregate to that candidate.

"If someone is giving a candidate more than $10,000, then they probably have an interest in something in state government, but we don't know what that interest is," Larson said.

Several lobbyists said Larson's bill has no chance of passage, but they enjoy seeing him poke at those elected officials who proclaim they don't accept free meals or drinks from lobbyists, but then accept piles of campaign dollars that lobbyists help raise.

Larson's bill has not been referred to a committee. Capriglione's bill is in the House General Investigating & Ethics Committee and has received a hearing. Chairwoman Sarah Davis, R-West University Place, said she hasn't decided yet whether to move the bill to the House floor. A new version is expected soon, she said.

"I get the whole 'drain the swamp, we don't want lobbyists to be running the government,'" she said. "But what if you lobby the legislature and you want to run for city council? That bill would prohibit that."

MissourianMarch 29, 2017

After promise of banning lobbyist gifts, legislation has stalled

http://www.columbiamissourian.com/news/state_news/after-promise-of-banning-lobbyist-gifts-legislation-has-stalled/article_e56e84e8-1324-11e7-a193-03f19ad1c45c.html

At the legislative session's start in January, lawmakers proclaimed they were prioritizing banning lobbyists' gifts. The Missouri House passed legislation in less than two weeks and sent it to the Senate.

Since then? Nothing.

Legislators have about six weeks left to pass a bill that, in its current form, would, with a few exceptions, ban lobbyist spending, which usually comes in the form of meals or gifts, such as ties and coffee mugs. The legislation hasn't been taken up since Jan. 31.

"This should be something that we should champion," said Rep. Justin Alferman, R-Hermann($0), who introduced the bill, HB 60. "It's not hard, yet the Senate seems like they have issues with it. It should not be surprising that those who take the most free stuff want to continue their right to take free stuff. It's beyond ridiculous."

Since at least 2007, the average senator has reported accepting more in lobbying money than the average representative, according to figures from the Missouri Ethics Commission. Through the end of February this year, senators, on average, have reported accepting three times as much as representatives.

Sen. Mike Kehoe, R-Jefferson City($325.87), who heads the committee the bill is in and is the majority floor leader in the Senate, said distinguishing between "pay-for-play" gifts and small-ticket items, such as accepting a sandwich at a luncheon for the local Rotary Club, is responsible for the hold-up.

"Trying to get clarification on what is a gift and what's not a gift sometimes bogs us down a little bit," he said. "The problem is the public perception seems to be: If the Senate isn't moving on the gift ban, they want to take gifts. In my experience, that's not the issue."

Alferman introduced a similar bill last session. Like this year, it passed the House, and after it was sent to the Senate, lawmakers didn't touch it for about two months. They took it up with about three weeks left in the 2016 session, but it didn't end up passing.

During his Jan. 17 State of the State address, Gov. Eric Greitens asked the General Assembly to pass the lobbyist gift ban.



"I signed an executive order banning gifts from lobbyists to state employees of the executive branch," he said. "I think all elected officials should do the same."

Alferman and Kehoe, who introduced a similar bill in the Senate, expressed support for the gift ban in January.

"Lobbyist gifts are going to continue to be an issue," Kehoe told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. "The governor's made it crystal clear, and so has the (House) speaker. So it's in our best interest to make a bill with good, tight limits, not try and trick people and get something to the governor's desk."

Despite those public proclamations and the fast work of the House, the legislation has languished in the Senate's rules committee. It must get voted out of committee before being debated on the Senate floor.

"I have been pretty complimentary of Senate leadership and their willingness to get this done," Alferman said, "but we got that bill over to the Senate historically fast, and it has not made its way out of committee. ... Whenever you have the House that can send it over in four days; you have the governor who's said, 'Get this to my desk, I want to sign this;' and you have the Senate going, 'I just don't know how we can get this done;' it's so frustrating."

Parker Briden, the governor's spokesman, said Greitens wants to see the bill passed.

"This is a priority for the governor," he said. "We're going to make sure it gets done."

Sen. Caleb Rowden, R-Columbia ($3,824.78), is the House bill's handler in the Senate. He said other bills have taken priority, but he thinks there's still a chance the gift ban could pass.

"We're not out of the window of getting something done," he said. "The Senate has taken up a wealth of really big, contentious issues" this session.

Rowden said some senators were opposed to the gift ban on principle: As long as they disclose how much money was spent on them, the current set-up is fine. Rowden said he doesn't agree with that position.

Many lawmakers — on both sides of the aisle — have reported taking thousands in lobbyists' money, but Alferman and Kehoe have not, according to a review of their disclosure forms.

Lobbyists have provided gifts and paid for Alferman's meals since he was elected in 2014, but, unlike many of his colleagues, he's always reported reimbursing them.

For instance, in 2016, a lobbyist brought him a coffee mug worth $11.42 during an annual Lobby Day, but he returned it, according to his disclosure form. The year before, he reported repaying a lobbyist for a $70 meal.

Kehoe has acted similarly. Lobbyists have paid for gifts and meals, but the senator has mostly reimbursed them, according to his disclosure forms. In one instance in 2015, Kehoe "did attend (a meal) but did not eat," he reported.

Since being elected to the Senate in 2010, he's reported taking about $100 in lobbying money. His staff has reported taking about $200 during the same time.

As a representative from 2012 to 2015, Rowden and his staff accepted about $4,000 in lobbyists gifts, according to his disclosure forms. Since he was elected a senator in 2016, he's reported one $10 lunch with a lobbyist, but he reimbursed her.

Rep. Deb Lavender, D-Kirkwood($0), introduced a bill similar to Alferman's this session, but, in the Republican-controlled General Assembly, it wasn't taken up. Lavender, who's reported receiving meals

from lobbyists but has always reimbursed them, is worried Alferman's bill is destined for the same fate as last year's.

"I think it places limitations on legislators who have gotten used to some of the perks of being elected," she said about the gift ban. "It's nice when people want to buy you meals or give you gifts or take you on trips, so I think there's a little part of that that's hard to turn down."

Bangor Daily NewsMarch 30, 2017

Lawmakers blast Maine casino bid after lobbyist admits offshore backing

http://bangordailynews.com/2017/03/29/news/state/lawmakers-blast-maine-casino-bid-after-backers-admit-offshore-backing/

A lobbyist hastily hired by an offshore firm run by controversial developer Shawn Scott told a confrontational panel of Maine legislators Wednesday that the firm is behind the 2017 ballot question to add a casino in York County.

He also said that if Maine voters pass the question, the firm plans to sell the rights, with the hearing causing a top lawmaker to blast the plan’s backers for “major corruption.”

The hearing before the Legislature’s Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee saw the first admission of Bridge Capital’s involvement in the effort, which prompted questions about the company’s past in emerging markets in Asia, where one of its casinos was seized by the authoritarian Laotian government in 2015 and sold over alleged corruption and tax evasion.

The testimony from Portland lobbyist Dan Riley also confirmed what was obvious to many observers: Backers of the proposal plan to sell the rights to the facility if voters approve it, just as Scott did with the Bangor Raceway after a 2003 campaign that led to him selling the rights in 2004 to what became Hollywood Casino.

“I think we have major corruption issues in front of us here,” Senate Majority Leader Garrett Mason, R-Lisbon Falls, the committee’s co-chairman, said after the hearing. “I would just say that if the government of Laos thinks you’re corrupt, we have a major problem.”

The question qualified for Maine’s ballot in January, and it’s written in a way that would make Scott, who lives in the U.S. Virgin Islands, and his associates at Northern Mariana Islands-based Bridge Capital the only people who would be able win the license for the new casino.

Bridge Capital is run by Scott and CEO John Baldwin, each of whose net worth exceeds $100 million, a federal judge wrote in 2014. The campaign has been backed by $4.2 million through January from Scott’s sister, Lisa Scott, who has kept a low profile, but promised 800 construction jobs and 1,000 permanent jobs if a casino is built.

On Wednesday, Riley became the first person to testify in public on behalf of the casino backers, saying he was hired directly by a Bridge Capital lawyer in an email he received at 12:45 a.m. and saw less than four hours before the 9 a.m. hearing before the Legislature’s Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee on Wednesday.

Citing that tight timeframe, Riley said he wasn’t prepared to answer many questions the panel had, including whether or not Bridge Capital provided the money Lisa Scott has used to back the bid. He said he has never had contact with Horseracing Jobs Fairness, the ballot question committee funded by Lisa Scott.



However, Riley said the company’s “game plan” is to sell the license if approved. He also said Bridge Capital was in talks to buy Scarborough Downs before the racetrack was provisionally sold to another investment group in a transaction announced last week, and backers have talked to several municipalities about the possibility of a casino.

Scott has become famous for pumping value into facilities bought relatively cheaply by persuading voters to allow slots there, such as he did in Bangor and Louisiana, where he sold a facility in 2001 for more than $130 million after buying it for $10 million without cooperating with a suitability investigation for a license.

Scott’s Maine activities have also followed him, especially because of a 2003 state Harness Racing Commission report alleging “sloppy, if not irresponsible” financial management at his companies, flagging his involvement in 37 lawsuits in four states between 1992 and 2000 and documenting a top employee’s history of convictions for assault, theft and other offenses. He sold casino rights in Bangor without getting a license.

Concerns on the panel swirled around Scott and Bridge Capital’s past, particularly in Laos, where the company has denied the authoritarian government’s allegations. However, Maine has no statewide gaming system, which has left the establishment of casinos up to individual referendums that established the existing facilities in Bangor and Oxford.

The committee’s co-chairmen, Mason and Rep. Louis Luchini, D-Ellsworth, oppose the proposal. The hearing they called is uncommon, since the Maine Legislature usually sends questions initiated by voters to the ballot without much fanfare. Lawmakers can’t stop citizen initiatives from going on the ballot, but they can put competing measures on the same subjects alongside them.

At one point, Sen. Ronald Collins, R-Wells, walked out of the hearing room after saying the “slick operators” backing the casino would try to sway voters near Election Day with “slick advertising” without regard for Maine’s gaming system.

“It’s not a company that we want operating in Maine,” Luchini said after the hearing.

Daily ProgressMarch 30, 2017

Report: Spending on Nebraska lobbying tops $16.7 million

http://www.dailyprogress.com/report-spending-on-nebraska-lobbying-tops-million/article_3fa173c2-4e18-5ec2-89ef-15b6beff6ff1.html

Special interests spent a record-high $16.7 million last year on lobbyists, gifts, travel and other efforts to influence Nebraska state officials, according to a report released Thursday.

The report by the group Common Cause Nebraska says the number of paid, registered lobbyists has increased as well, from 351 in 2015 to 364 last year. Lobbyist-related spending has risen consistently over each of the last five years, from $13.1 million in 2012.

The biggest spenders over the last five years are the League of Nebraska Municipalities, representing Nebraska cities; Altria Client Services, the corporate parent of tobacco company Philip Morris; and the group Renewable Fuels Nebraska.

Critics say the lobbyists give special interests an advantage over average citizens because they encounter state senators and other officials on a daily basis and can spend large amounts of money on meals, sporting event tickets and other perks



"There should be a level playing field," said Jack Gould, Common Cause Nebraska's issues chairman. "If you're a citizen and you make an appointment with your senator, you shouldn't feel that you have to bring them gifts or buy them lunch."

Gould said he was particularly troubled by school districts' continued use of tax dollars to hire lobbyists. Nebraska schools and Omaha's Learning Community spent more than $462,000 on lobbyists last year, according to the report. Over the last five years, they've spent a combined $2.3 million.

Most of the districts are based in larger cities, and many receive millions each year from the state's school-aid formula. Nebraska law prevents them from using state aid to hire lobbyists, but districts can still do so with local property tax revenue.

Sen. John Kuehn of Heartwell introduced bills this year that would have prevented local governments from using tax dollars to hire lobbyists and required elected officials to wait two years before becoming a lobbyist. The bills are unlikely to advance this year.

The AdvertiserMarch 30, 2017

Long-time Louisiana lobbyist joins The Picard Group

http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/news/2017/03/30/long-time-louisiana-lobbyist-joins-picard-group/99828266/

Lobbyist Larry Murray is joining the Picard Group (TPG) as senior director of state legislative and regulatory affairs. Murray, who will be based in Baton Rouge, brings 35 years of experience in and around the State Capitol. He will join the Picard Group's state legislative and regulatory practice group.

Murray, a native of Central began his career at the State Capitol when he was 17 as a page in the Louisiana House of Representatives. Murray earned an undergraduate degree in management from Tulane and was a 1983 graduate of Tulane Law School. He remains active in Tulane activities and previously served on Tulane University’s Alumni Board of Directors, the Provost’s Council, was president of the Tulane Associates Board of Directors and the school’s Annual Fund campaign.

Murray served as director of government relations for the Louisiana Bankers Association from 1986-1991. He was appointed as Louisiana’s Commissioner of Financial Institutions by Gov. Charles E. “Buddy” Roemer, where he continued to serve in that role under Gov. Edwin Edwards and Gov. Murphy J. “Mike” Foster.

After leaving his position as Commissioner of Financial Institutions, he formed The Capitol Group and furthered his reputation as a problem solver on local, state and federal issues.

His wife is Denise Murray is an attorney at Whitney Bank. His children, Logan and Lara, are also both Tulane graduates and are involved in health care in Louisiana.



Documents

State lawmakers target lawmaking to ... - lrrs.multistate.comlrrs.multistate.com/upload/wysiwyg/Weekly Lobbying Arti… · Web viewThe last and most important one is your word