Weekly Lobbying Articles
August 7, 2015
San Francisco Chronicle
August 3, 2015
Measure seeks to reveal names, funding behind indirect lobbying
Every day, people go to City Hall to try to sway local leaders to their point of view. They’re not lobbyists,
but they’ve emerged as the latest front in the fight over regulating campaign finance.
The San Francisco Ethics Commission has placed a measure on the November ballot that would impose
sweeping new requirements on nonprofits, corporations and labor unions to disclose how much money
they spend indirectly lobbying City Hall. Friday was the deadline to put initiatives on the November
ballot.
The measure — the first put on the ballot by the Ethics Commission in 14 years — is aimed at the
explosion of nontraditional lobbying, such as online petitions and advertising that encourage people to
contact their local politicians. While traditional lobbyists who have direct contact with elected officials
must register with the city and disclose who paid them, indirect lobbying is largely an unregulated
playground.
“The public needs to know who is pulling the strings behind public policy measures and legislation in San
Francisco,” said Peter Keane, a member of the Ethics Commission. “The definition of lobbyist ... is as
narrow as a mouse hole, and we’ve got to open it up so people can see into this big cage of characters
who are actually doing it.”
Disclosure requirement
The Ethics Commission’s measure would require any person or entity who spends more than $2,500 or
more in a calendar month to influence city officials to register as an “expenditure” lobbyist and disclose
how much they have spent. There is no such disclosure requirement at the federal level, but the state
requires disclosure, as do other cities such as Los Angeles and San Diego.
The measure arises amid a transformation in lobbying, as startup companies have adopted grassroots
advocacy traditionally associated with nonprofits.
“There is a whole new world of consultants that provide grassroots mobilizing services to paying
clients,” said Edward Walker, a professor of sociology at UCLA and author of “Grassroots for Hire: Public
Affairs Consultants in American Democracy.”
Uber is the leader in such lobbying, Walker said, but other companies such as Airbnb have used it to
great effectiveness. At City Hall, for example, contentious policy debates about how to regulate shortterm rentals are usually accompanied by rallies from a contingent of advocates both for and against it.
But distinguishing between different kinds of advocates is very difficult, said Lee Drutman, a senior
fellow on political reform at the New America Foundation.
“It’s not a clear call how to approach this problem,” Drutman said. “Where does legitimate public
participation end and corporate, ginned-up participation begin? And how do we put clear markers on
what is genuine, heartfelt participation and participation in which people are only there because they
are being coerced or forced into it?”
Nicole Derse, a San Francisco political consultant whose clients include Airbnb, said that even when
companies pay organizers to get people to show up at City Hall, those individuals’ sentiments are still
legitimate.
“It doesn’t change the fact that what they are talking about is real and honest. There are very few
people who come to City Hall on their own,” she said.
Nonprofits, unions included
The Ethics Commission’s measure applies not just to corporations, but unions, nonprofits and any
person or entity that spends $2,500 in a calendar month to influence city officials. That means
nonprofits that spend that much money to produce a report they use to influence City Hall officials
would have to register as expenditure lobbyists, as well as labor unions that spend money to organize
and mobilize members to show up en masse at City Hall.
Many advocacy groups have yet to weigh in, although privately they view the measure with a skeptical
eye.
The Sierra Club said it is still considering its position on the measure, as did the San Francisco Human
Services Network, an association of roughly 80 nonprofits. The Chamber of Commerce is going to
consider the measure this week and decide whether to weigh in.
Rebecca Hamburg Cappy, West Coast director of the Alliance for Justice, which advises nonprofits doing
advocacy work, said the measure goes too far.
“Adding the burden of requiring more registration and reporting for nonprofits, even when it’s well
intended, may have the effect of driving nonprofits out of public policy debates,” Hamburg Cappy said.
“Because the more complex the law, the more nonprofits will decide it’s not worth it. Not worth the
compliance. Not worth the cost of failing to comply.”
Expansion of nonprofits
But Keane said nonprofits are often the biggest actors.
“Karl Rove’s outfit is a nonprofit. The Koch brothers operate through nonprofits,” Keane said. “It used to
be, a generation ago, nonprofits were tiny little good advocacy groups. But now they are much more
expansive than that.”
Walker said that even if the measure passes, he is dubious the Ethics Commission could enforce it.
“This is a well-intended piece of legislation, but I’m skeptical about how well they would be able to get
compliance.”
Sacramento Business Journal
August 3, 2015
KP Public Affairs leads lobbying firms in second quarter
KP Public Affairs continued its reign as Sacramento’s top-billing lobbying firm, reporting $1.9 million in
revenue in the second quarter, according to filings with the Secretary of state.
KP, which represents clients in health care, manufacturing and other fields, was also the top lobbying
firm for the entire year of 2014.
Last Friday marked the deadline for lobbying disclosure statements filed to the California Secretary of
State. The top 10 lobbying firms in California reported a 12 percent increase in revenue compared to the
first quarter. Revenue increased 2.6 percent from the same quarter in 2014.
Spending grew a whopping 60 percent compared to the same period last year, in large part due to a
campaign by health care groups to boost Medi-Cal rates.
The year-over increase in lobbying revenue is remarkable given that 2015 marked the beginning of a
two-year legislation session, and lobbying revenue typically grows during the second year of the session.
Money flowing to lobbyists from outside groups grew by 68 percent from the first quarter of the year,
and by 60 percent from the same quarter last year.
Here are the top 10 lobbying firms by revenue for the second quarter of 2015 (April 1 to June 30):










KP Public Affairs — $1.9 million
Capitol Advocacy — $1.4 million
Lang Hansen O’Malley and Miller
Government Relations — $1.3 million
Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni — $1.3 million
Platinum Advisors — $1.2 million
Aaron Read & Associates — $1.2 million
Gonzalez, Quintana & Hunter — $1.1 million
California Strategies & Advocacy — $1 million
Shaw Yoder Antwih — $987,000
Townsend Public Affairs — $895,000
The top 10 lobbyist employers for the second quarter of 2015 (April 1 to June 30):










California Hospital Association/California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems — $6
million
California State Council of Service Employees — $1.4 million
Western States Petroleum Association — $1.4 million
California Chamber of Commerce — $1.2 million
Chevron Corp. and its subsidies — $743,000
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association — $706,000
NextGen Climate Action — $699,000
California School Boards Association — $668,000
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan — $638,000
California Teachers Association — $592,000
SaintPetersBlog
August 4, 2015
Floridian Partners takes in some $1.28 million in Q2 lobbying fees
Floridian Partners continued to rack up clients and compensation in an unusual second quarter that saw
the Legislature in session past its usual witching hour in May.
FP’s 64 legislative clients and 47 executive clients accounted for at least $1.28 million in fees, with some
$400,000 of that stemming from work on the plaza level of the Capitol, where executive offices are
based, and the remainder from work informing and influencing state lawmakers.
Of these totals, the biggest fees came from telecommunications firm Crown Castle USA, contributing an
estimated maximum of $80,000 for legislative and executive representation.
The Florida Insurance Council pitched in as much as $70,000 for Floridian’s services, while Las Vegas
Sands and the Florida Family Insurance Company both contributed a combined total of up to $60,000.
Florida Cable Telecommunications Association was another of the largest clients for the firm this
quarter, employing them to the tune of up to $50,000.
Other major clients included Avenir, who Floridian reported paid between $20,000 – $30,000 for
legislative representation, Florida Gulf Coast University, and real estate giant the St. Joe Company who
each paid fees of at least $20,000.
Owner Charlie Dudley and his dozen-strong team of government relations professionals – including Scott
Ross, Cory Guzzo and Gary Guzzo, Jorge Chamizo and Ana Cruz , daughter of the Democratic leader
designate Rep. Janet Cruz – continued their winning ways on Adams Street during this year’s second
reporting quarter.
Although by law lobbying firms must file quarterly compensation reports, reports show only firms’ total
compensation in general ranges, making it difficult to get exact totals spent on lobbying the state
executive and legislative branches.
For example, ranges reported by firms start between $1 and $9,999, $10,000 and $19,999 and so on,
increasing in increments. Exact numbers for individual clients are listed only when they pay $50,000 or
more.
The Fiorentino Group pulls in $670K in lobbying fees during Q2
The Jacksonville-based governmental affairs firm The Fiorentino Group took home some $670,000 in
compensation for its efforts in the second quarter of 2015, according to recently filed state records.
At the top of the Jacksonville-based firm’s client list during Q2 was an eclectic group of entities only
Fiorentino could tie together: CSX, UF Health Jacksonville, Public Defenders for the 4th Judicial Circuit
and the ride-hailing company Uber Technologies combined to account for as much as $170,000 in
compensation to the firm.
Surgical Care Affiliates also tied UF Health for the largest single invoice, paying between $20,000$29,999 for representation before the Legislature last quarter.
Just four lobbyists — Marty Fiorentino, Joseph Mobley, Mark Pinto and Thomas Griffin –– handle the
contract influence work for the firm’s roster of 59 executive branch and 54 executive branch clients,
giving the group a rigorous and profitable pound-for-pound workload.
HDR Engineering and Jacksonville University each employed Fiorentino’s Adams Street know-how to the
tune of between $20,000-$39,999 during the quarter.
BHK Capital, a Jacksonville Beach real estate firm, paid the firm as much as $29,999 for its services
between April and June.
Studding Fiorentino’s list of clients are prestigious local entities like the NFL’s Jacksonville
Jaguars and Jacksonville Zoo & Gardens, always a feather in the cap of a lobbying corps
professional. Teach for America, also something of a household name, paid an estimated $30,000
between executive and legislative branch work from the firm during Q2.
The firm boasts an impressive list of municipal clients to boot — the City of Green Cove Springs, Alachua
County, St. Johns County, St. Johns Sheriff’s Department and City of Pensacola all employed the
expertise of the Fiorentino Group during the most recent lobbying reporting period.
Although by law lobbying firms must file quarterly compensation reports, reports show only firms’
total compensation in general ranges, making it difficult to get exact totals spent on lobbying the state
executive and legislative branches.
For example, ranges reported by firms start between $1 and $9,999, $10,000 and $19,999 and so on,
increasing in increments. Exact numbers for individual clients are only reported when they pay $50,000
or more.
Rich Heffley’s lobbying shop earns $435K in Q2 fees
With just a two-person shop — prominent Republican strategist Rich Heffley and Kelly Horton, the firm’s
VP of governmental affairs — Heffley & Associates is making the most of the “keep it small, keep it all”
approach to the influence business.
Reported legislative earnings in the second quarter of 2015 reached an estimated total of $320,000 in
legislative lobbying fees and $115,000 for executive work — a total of approximately $435,000, though
the actual amount may be higher — making them one of Florida’s successful lobbying houses.
Heffley & Associates’ highest-paying client in Q2, Florida Medical Association, contributed up to $39,999
for legislative and $19,999 in executive lobbying services. Other top clients were Volkswagen — which
accounted for up to $40,000 in overall fees — as well as Merck, Sharpe & Dohm, HCA Management
Services, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the U.S. Chamber Institute for
Legal Reform, which each gave the lobbying house up to $29,999 for legislative representation.
ALM Media, telecoms giant AT&T, and the Florida Beer Wholesalers Association all compensated the
firm to the tune at least $10,000 last quarter, as did Heffley’s longtime clients at McGraw Hill, University
of West Florida, the ASPCA, Porsche Cars North American, and TECO, the Tampa-based investor-owned
utility company.
Heffley & Associates also boasts a local government lobbying gig representing the Walton County Board
of County Commissioners. Quite a coup for a just a single pair of lobbyists.
Among other leading legislative principals in Q2 were Hayes e-Government Resources, U.S. Sugar
Corp., Florida Association of Realtors and the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority.
Although by law lobbying firms must file quarterly compensation reports, reports show only firms’
total compensation in general ranges, making it difficult to get exact totals spent on lobbying the state
executive and legislative branches.
For example, ranges reported by firms start between $1 and $9,999, $10,000 and $19,999 and so on,
increasing in increments. Exact numbers for individual clients are listed only when they pay $50,000 or
more.
Time
August 6, 2015
Alcohol Distributors Ply Statehouses to Keep Profits Flowing
Rhinegeist Brewery invested $250,000 in trucks and employees to bring its beers into Kentucky, just a
few miles from its fledgling brewery in downtown Cincinnati.
Sales boomed in the “thirsty” Kentucky market, said brewery co-founder Bryant Goulding.
But in March, just three months after the deliveries began, the legislature there voted to make
Rhinegeist’s distribution business illegal.
“We were crestfallen, heartbroken, disappointed, really frustrated by the political process,” Goulding
said. “We felt like we really didn’t have genuine access or really didn’t get genuine consideration from a
lot of the politicians.”
Rhinegeist had run into a little-known but powerful political force at play in nearly every state: alcohol
distributors. They don’t brew the beer, and they don’t serve it. But as wholesalers who function as the
legally mandated middlemen between alcohol makers and retailers, they have a wide-ranging influence
on the booze Americans drink, marking up prices and controlling the growth of craft brewers and small
wineries.
Alcohol distribution is a $135 billion industry in the U.S. that has made many rich, including Cindy
McCain, head of her family’s beer distributing company and wife of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. To protect
the post-Prohibition regulations that guarantee their business, wholesalers bankroll scores of lobbyists
and give millions of dollars in contributions in election seasons. And because wholesalers are often local,
family-run, American-owned businesses, they are popular with politicians.
“The beer wholesalers are a lot like the teachers unions,” said John Conlin, a Colorado management
consultant who works with beverage companies. “The teachers unions have incredible clout, too, and
the reason is there are teachers in every congressional district out there… And historically that was the
same with beer wholesalers.”
But recently two economic forces have encroached on wholesalers’ power and territory, putting them
on defense: big multinational brewer Anheuser-Busch InBev, which boasts $47 billion in annual revenue;
and the burgeoning craft beer industry that wants more freedom to distribute its own beer, offer
tastings in new places or sell to-go containers called growlers.
At least 22 states had bills in 2015 seeking to allow alcohol makers to circumvent distributors and sell
their products directly to customers, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
They faced firm opposition this year because state alcohol wholesaler alliances had at least 315
registered lobbyists spread across every state and the District of Columbia, except Wyoming, according
to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of state records.
And alcohol distributors are by far the most involved in state politics out of those in the booze business.
They gave roughly $14.6 million to state candidates, parties and ballot issue groups in the 2014
elections, while alcohol manufacturers gave about $5.3 million and retailers gave roughly $2 million,
according to data from the National Institute on Money in State Politics.
They are politically active on the federal level, too, but because alcohol is largely regulated at the state
and local level, wholesalers aim most of their political firepower at statehouses. Their giving in 2014
state races was more than double the approximately $5.9 million that they gave for congressional
contests.
“As local businesses representing Main Street America, beer distributors take pride in participating in
the political process and support a wide range of candidates,” the National Beer Wholesalers
Association’s spokeswoman Kathleen Joyce said in an email.
Using that political firepower, wholesalers defended their economic turf this year in several states,
including Kentucky, Georgia and North Carolina, by advocating for the exclusive right to distribute
alcohol. And now wholesalers are also trying to expand their turf by going after the legal recreational
marijuana market proposed in Nevada.
This winter, 38 lobbyists roamed the halls of the Kentucky State Capitol, employed by one side or the
other of the beer debate. The alcohol bill they were discussing, lawmakers joked, was the Lobbyist Full
Employment Act of 2015.
“You couldn’t walk the halls without a lobbyist from one side or the other wanting to be in your ear,”
said Sen. Jimmy Higdon, a Republican from Lebanon in central Kentucky.
Wholesalers were pushing a bill that prevented brewers from owning a license to distribute beer — a
move to close a long-overlooked gap in Kentucky’s regulatory system and effectively force AnheuserBusch InBev to auction off its two distributorships in Kentucky.
Rhinegeist, with its newly opened distribution business, was also hit.
“We were just kind of a gnat caught between these two Mack trucks colliding,” Goulding said.
Anheuser-Busch InBev owned a distributorship in Louisville for decades. In 2014, it bought another one
in Owensboro, a move that set off alarm bells among wholesalers who worried the beer giant would
corner the market as part of a reported campaign to buy more distributorships.
Wineries, breweries and distilleries are generally required by state laws to hire separate distributors to
get their drinks to customers, with exceptions that vary by state. States made these rules after
Prohibition: some acting to avoid returning to the days of saloons controlled by major alcohol producers
that pushed drunkenness; some to decentralize the industry and its political power; and others
motivated by former bootleggers with political ties who wanted to stay in business as state-mandated
wholesalers.
Today, distributors are in a power position. They can stifle the growth of craft breweries or small
wineries by refusing to distribute their products. Or they can foster them by helping them reach
customers they couldn’t efficiently reach on their own. Having separate distributors can also push up
the price of alcohol.
Some public health advocates credit the layers of regulation that come from this middleman-style
system for helping prevent cheap or dangerous libations from creeping into the market in a country
where alcohol is already the third leading lifestyle-related cause of death.
Yet Daniel Okrent, author of “Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition,” called the public health
arguments sanctimonious and said there’s no evidence that wholesalers protect public health. “They are
essentially protecting what is in effect a quasi-monopoly business,” he said. “They are very powerful
political lobbies with a great deal of money.”
In Kentucky, wholesalers turned to the legislature to bar Anheuser-Busch InBev from having a piece of
their market, just as wholesalers have successfully done in eight other states since 2010, according to
the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Two Kentucky distributorships in particular, Chas. Seligman Distributing Company and Kentucky Eagle
Inc., led the charge against Anheuser-Busch. Their executives and employees have given at least
$213,000 to state and local elections since 2000, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of
state records. Kentucky Eagle’s owner Ann Bakhaus gave more than $124,000 of that, including $13,300
last year. She said she had her business in mind when she did so.
“Our business is highly regulated,” she said. “There’s a whole lot of parts and pieces to it, and so I’m
always trying to watch out for our business and for our state, too.”
During the 2014 elections alone, the Kentucky Beer Wholesalers Association gave more than $14,000 to
Kentucky lawmakers. Comparatively, Anheuser-Busch has given little — just one $500 donation in 2008,
according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics. Neither alcohol group responded to
multiple requests for comment.
Both sides lobbied hard. And both sides took to the airwaves. Wholesalers spent $151,000 on Facebook,
newspaper, TV and radio ads, state records show. Anheuser-Busch, while outspent in political
contributions, tried to make up for it with nearly $330,000 in advertising.
“Greedy special interests are trying to run Anheuser-Busch out of the state, seeking for them to close a
business they’ve owned for nearly 40 years,” said a TV ad from the beer company.
In the end, though, it wasn’t even close. The wholesalers’ bill passed the Senate 23-13 and the
House 67-31. The world’s largest brewer and Rhinegeist lost. Anheuser-Busch InBev said Tuesday it
plans to shed its Kentucky distributorships. Rhinegeist has already dismantled its distribution business
there.
Rep. Adam Koenig, a Republican from Erlanger, fears the law will have a broader chilling effect.
“After seeing Rhinegeist basically have the rug pulled out from under them, and a company that’s been
operating legally with no complaints for 30 years be forced to divest, it makes you think twice about
opening a business in Kentucky,” he said.
Limiting the craft brewers
This spring, North Carolina state Rep. Chuck McGrady, a Republican from Hendersonville, sent his
colleagues a draft of a bill he planned to introduce. The bill would have helped local craft breweries by
allowing them to distribute more of their own beer. Not long after, two of the co-sponsors called and
asked him to remove their names.
“Those legislators told me the beer and wine wholesalers in their area had already called and they were
big contributors to the campaign,” McGrady said. “They still supported the bill, but they didn’t want to
be on it. It was really rather striking.”
Craft brewing had taken off in North Carolina, as it has in the rest of the country. The number of craft
breweries in the U.S. more than doubled from 2008 to 2014, reaching 3,418, according to the Brewers
Association, a national craft brewers group based in Boulder, Colo. And they’re getting more organized
— the U.S. now has local craft brewers associations in every state.
In North Carolina this year, craft brewers saw an opportunity to improve state laws to allow them to
grow. Currently, brewers in North Carolina can distribute 25,000 barrels of their own beer. If they want
to grow larger, they must hire a distributor for all of their beer, a move some breweries are loath to
make.
McGrady’s bill would have given brewers slightly more wiggle room by not counting beer sold at taverns
(usually only a few thousand barrels) toward the 25,000-barrel limit.
But North Carolina Beer & Wine Wholesalers Association Executive Director Tim Kent said his members
didn’t want to cede any ground and opposed McGrady’s bill and a similar one.
“North Carolina already has by far the most progressive beer laws of any state from Virginia to Texas,”
he said. “You’ve got a small group of brewers who are trying to deregulate the industry…at the expense
of public health.”
Alcohol wholesalers in North Carolina have given more than $740,000 to state lawmakers since 1996,
according to data from the National Institute on Money in State Politics. They had seven registered
lobbyists working this spring. On the other side, the craft brewers together had four registered lobbyists
but had given comparatively little to political candidates.
“We’re putting a lot of money into growing our business and making sure we’re getting new equipment
and hiring people and stuff like that,” said Erik Lars Myers, the president of North Carolina Craft Brewers
Guild and the founder of Mystery Brewing Company in Hillsborough. “That means that we don’t have a
lot of extra money to spend on lobbying. They have a significant financial advantage over us.”
Both bills stalled when a committee co-chairman, Rep. James Boles, wouldn’t let them be heard,
brewers said.
Boles, a Republican from Moore County, received more than $17,000 from alcohol wholesalers for his
unopposed 2014 re-election, including $5,000 from the North Carolina Beer & Wine Wholesalers
Association PAC. Aside from the money he gave his own campaign, the association is Boles’ second most
generous donor over the course of his six-year career in the statehouse, according to the National
Institute on Money in State Politics. He did not respond to requests for comment.
The bills’ failures mean that at least four craft breweries in the state won’t expand, hire more people or
make more of their specialized local beer, Myers said.
“There’s going to be a lot of people who want beer who won’t be able to get it,” he said.
Settling for compromise
A similar story played out in Georgia this spring, when brewers put forward a bill that would have
allowed breweries to sell a limited amount of beer directly to customers who visited. What they wound
up with instead was the ability to offer free beer to patrons who pay for a tour.
“We don’t sell you beer, but we take your money and you leave with beer,” said Nick Purdy, president
of Wild Heaven Craft Beers just outside of Atlanta. “It’s a bit of a theater of the absurd.”
Georgia Craft Brewers Guild Executive Director Nancy Palmer said it was the guild’s first time going up
against the longstanding relationships the wholesalers have built, in some cases over generations.
“The wholesalers are astute politicians,” she said. “If I were in their position, I would be doing exactly
what they do. The depth and breadth of their influence is certainly formidable.”
Alcohol distributors in Georgia have given nearly $1.2 million in contributions to state lawmakers since
1992, according to data from the National Institute on Money in State Politics. They also invite
lawmakers to an annual, paid conference at a seaside resort. The state distributor association did not
return requests for comment.
The man credited with reworking the bill to allow only paid tours and free beer, Sen. Rick Jeffares, has
received $6,900 from wholesalers since 2010, including $4,750 out of the $81,000 he raised for his
unopposed re-election bid in 2014. The Republican from McDonough, south of Atlanta, did not respond
to requests for comment.
Still, for the brewers it wasn’t a total loss. Palmer said they were pleased to get at least the compromise
that allows them to sell tours.
Finding new territory
Wholesalers are now flexing political muscle not just to protect their current businesses, but to enter a
new market: marijuana distribution.
Alcohol salesmen often see pot as a competitor vying for consumers’ dollars. And liquor industry
advocates have bristled at pot activists’ assertions that marijuana is safer than alcohol.
But wholesalers in Nevada gave a combined $87,500 to a 2016 ballot measure campaign to legalize
recreational marijuana there — about 13 percent of the amount raised through December, according to
the most recent report available. The ballot initiative, if passed, would mandate that for the first 18
months of legal weed, only licensed alcohol distributors could distribute the drug, giving the alcohol
wholesalers a head start in the pot distribution business.
Backers of the initiative consulted with alcohol distributors when they wrote the measure to avoid a
fight. The 18-month window allows experienced distributors to help get the industry off the ground,
according to campaign spokesman Joe Brezny.
“Experience matters,” he said.
For those without political connections, access to new markets is proving more difficult. Back in
Cincinnati, Rhinegeist Brewery gave up finding new turf on its own. Instead, it’s re-entering Kentucky
through a wholesaler. It’s a move co-founder Goulding thinks will work out well for sales, but he’s still
disappointed.
“It seems really strange that government can come and, something that was legal a few months ago,
just take it away,” he said.
GolocalProv
August 6, 2015
Ethics Leaders Call for PawSox to be Fined for Failing to Register as Lobbyists
State ethics leaders are claiming that the new Pawtucket Red Sow ownership group should have
registered already as lobbyists in the City of Providence, following a GoLocal investigation that showed
the new ownership group and its representatives have repeatedly reached out to city officials, but have
not yet registered in the city.
"Can any serious person doubt that the late Jim Skeffington and now Larry Lucchino were seeking "to
influence a municipal decision" with this proposal?" quipped former Common Cause Rhode
Island Executive Director Phil West of the letter of the language of the Providence lobbying ordinance.
The ownership group has registered its lobbyists with the State of Rhode Island -- despite no legislative
proposal currently put forth -- but have not done so in Providence, the proposed location of the new
stadium for the Pawtucket Red Sox.
"The Providence lobbying ordinance makes clear that if you are being paid to influence a municipal
decision; you should be registering and reporting to the City. The PawSox ownership group, which has
hired one of the highest earning lobbyists in the state in Bob Goldberg, clearly has the resources to fill
out the forms, and they should," said John Marion, the current Executive Director of Common Cause, a
"nonpartisan, statewide organization working towards open, ethical, accountable, and effective
government processes." "The residents of Providence deserve to know how much is being spent to sway
their City Council and Mayor."
"Even though the initial proposal was not well received, it made a concrete ask of the City for a tax
treaty," continued Marion of the PawSox owner’s proposal presented in April that was
immediately dismissed by Governor Gina Raimondo. "The PawSox should have registered when that
proposal was made, if only out an abundance of caution."
PBC Associates, the organization representing the new PawSox ownership group, registered three
lobbyists -- Larry Lucchino, the late James Skeffington, and lawyer Bob Goldberg -- with the state
effective January 1, 2015. Lobbying reports show that Goldberg was paid $40,000 for the General
Assembly session, despite no legislative proposal put forth.
"We have made no request of the City. When/if we do, we will register," said Baseball RI spokeswoman
Patti Doyle of why the group has not registered in Providence.
"There's no question in my mind that the owners should have registered as lobbyists with the City Clerk.
I'm kicking myself for not checking when they first announced. No one should take for granted that
lawyers and businesspeople will pay attention to the law. In fact, the City Clerk should move to impose
the $250 per day fine specified in the ordinance," said West, who recently penned a historical look at
scandal and graft in Rhode Island entitled "Secrets and Scandals: Reforming Rhode Island, 1986-2006."
West noted the language of the statute that provides for enforcement of the statute when registration
has not occurred -- and the penalties that can be levied.
Sec. 2-270. - Duties and powers of the city clerk.
The city clerk shall have the authority to perform any duties that are necessary to implement the
provisions of this article. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the city clerk shall:
(1) Designate forms for the making of the required lobby reports.
(2) Develop a register for all lobbyists
(3) Adopt rules and regulations to carry out the purposes of this article.
(4) Post lobbyist registration instructions, and rules and regulations pertaining to this article on the city
website, and have the same available in printed form in the city clerk's office.
(5) Notify city officials and, through the city website, members of the public, of the online access to the
lobbyists' register and reporting forms.
(6) Where information has been received through observation by or written complaint to the city clerk to
indicate that any person, corporation, association, or lobbyist has failed to register or file reports or has
filed an incomplete or inaccurate report, the city clerk may, for good cause shown, extend the dates upon
which reports are required to be filed or require the person, corporation, association, or lobbyist to
correct any incomplete or inaccurate report, as the case may be. Upon a failure of the lobbyist to show
good cause, the city clerk, with such assistance as he or she may request from the city solicitor,
investigate said complaints and act in accordance with section 2-271 hereof.
Sec. 2-271. - Administrative penalty for violations
Any person, corporation, association, or lobbyist who is found to have violated any provision of this
article may be subject to administrative penalties imposed by the municipal integrity officer as the
circumstances may merit upon notice and opportunity to be heard before the municipal integrity officer.
Said penalties include the imposition of a fine not to exceed two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) per
violation and each day of violation shall constitute a new violation of this article. Any violator who has
been issued a fine may appeal said fine within twenty (20) days to the Providence Municipal Court.
West further addressed the letter of the language.
"Technically, the ordinance says: 'Lobbying means seeking to influence a municipal decision as an
appointed and compensated representative of another.' The definition of 'lobbyist' also includes the
same detail: 'Lobbyist means any person who seeks to influence a municipal decision as an appointed
and compensated representative of another,' said West. "The PawSox owners may argue that since
they were not paying someone else to lobby for them, they did not need to register."
"I would answer that once the owners named one of their number to lead the charge, they were
'appointing' under the ordinance. Nor can there can be any question that all of them expected to make
money from the deal, so their chosen spokesperson would clearly be 'compensated' under law," said
West. "And if those lobbying dynamics were not clear enough, I noticed that one of the travelers to
Durham today is Bob Goldberg, one of the highest paid lobbyists in Rhode Island. Maybe he has not
lobbied any city officials."
"Something good could come of this," said West. "I hope everyone in Providence City Hall will think of
others who may have tried to influence municipal decisions without registering as lobbyists. The true
test will be whether today's brouhaha over the PawSox owners will increase compliance with this vitally
important ordinance."
SaintPertersBlog
August 6, 2015
Capital City Consulting pulls in $1.7 million in Q2 lobbying fees
Capital City Consulting typically ranks among the upper echelon of Tallahassee lobbying corps shops, and
it showed no sign of stopping in the second quarter of 2015. According to recently filed state records,
the firm brought in an estimated $1.7 million.
During 2015 Q2 — which ran from April 1 through June 30 — CCC represented 86 legislative clients and
88 executive clients among the firm’s seven influence professionals. The highest paying? That would
be Las Vegas Sands Corp., which plunked down at least $86,000 in hopes the Legislature will hear it out
when they consider expanding gaming. The Paradise, a Nevada-based casino and resort company, also
contributed up to $9,999 in executive branch fees for an estimated total of about $91,000 in all.
The gaming giant was far from the only big entity that sought the firm’s counsel. Healthcare
company Aetna employed Capital City’s services to the tune of up to $59,999, and Hillsborough County
Public Transportation Commission, Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office and U.S. Chamber Institute for
Legal Reform rounded out the firm’s top five clients, accounting for more than $100,000 in
compensation all told.
Those eye-popping figures are just the tip of the iceberg. Fully 18 businesses and organizations paid
Capital City between $20,000 and $29,999 in the second quarter, combining for at least $360,000.
Among them were interests related to health care (Memorial Healthcare Systems, CIGNA), financial
services (VISA, American Bankers Insurance Group) and, as always in the world of lobbying,
miscellaneous concerns (Anglo-Dutch publishing company Reed Elsevier, Swisher International, and the
Everglades Trust).
Higher education interests also made up a substantial part of the firm’s portfolio: New College
Foundation, which raises money for the tiny Sarasota liberal arts school, University of Florida Student
Government Association, and Florida International University Foundation all counted themselves among
the clients represented by Capital City.
The Q2 roster of the firm’s registered lobbyists was familiar to Adams Street watchers: Firm
owner Gerald Wester, Nick Iarossi, Kenneth Granger, Ashley Kalifeh, Ronald LaFace and Christopher
Schoonover made themselves a ton of money this spring and early summer.