Knoxville News-Sentinel (Tennessee)
August 15, 2013 Thursday
Ex-Democratic chair files ethics complaints against Haslam
NASHVILLE - Former state Democratic Party Chairman Chip Forrester filed complaints with
two state agencies Thursday alleging that Gov. Bill Haslam has violated state law by
refusing to disclose the personal payments he made to Tom Ingram for political consulting.
"Gov. Bill Haslam is hiding the truth from Tennesseans just like he's hiding his tax returns,"
said Forrester at a news conference announcing the complaints - one filed with the
Tennessee Ethics Commission, which enforces lobbyist-related laws; the other with the
Registry of Election Finance, which enforces campaign finance laws.
Both cite Haslam's acknowledgment that he paid Ingram, a veteran political operative and
lobbyist, out of his own pocket for consulting during 2011 and until July 1 of this year. At
that time, the governor's office says Ingram began receiving payments of $5,000 per month
from Haslam's 2014 re-election campaign in lieu of the undisclosed private payments.
Haslam spokesman David Smith said "the governor is aware of the filing" but otherwise had
no immediate comment.
Haslam told reporters in late June that Ingram's consulting was mostly on "organizational
issues inside state government" but acknowledged some political advice was involved. He
said he does not believe the law requires disclosure and has repeatedly refused to say how
much he personally paid Ingram.
Forrester's complaints contend that personal payments to Ingram for political advice are the
equivalent of a candidate making a contribution to his own campaign. State law permits
self-contributions in unlimited amounts, but requires that they be publicly disclosed.
Haslam said it would be "hard" to divide up what was paid for political consulting and what
was paid for "organizational issues."
"How do you dissect everything and say?" the governor said.
Email messages obtained by WTVF-TV and reported in July - cited by Forrester in his
complaints - show Ingram attended a "planning retreat" for those involved in Haslam's reelection campaign and suggested to Mark Cate, the governor's chief of staff, that they
needed to discuss a "super PAC."
Drew Rawlins, executive director of the Bureau of Ethics and Campaign Finance, said
Forrester's campaign finance complaint comes too late to be heard at the Registry of
Election Finance meeting scheduled for next week, but an ethics complaint could be
considered at a Sept. 7 meeting of the Tennessee Ethics Commission.
Under state law, complaints filed with the Registry are open to the public, but complaints
filed with the Ethics Commission are sealed and considered confidential unless and until the
commission decides at a closed-door hearing that the complaint has enough merit to
warrant a public hearing.
Rawlins said he cannot even confirm the filing of an ethics complaint, though state law
leaves the person filing the complaint free to discuss the matter.
State law also prohibits a political party official from filing complaints. Forrester, who
stepped down as state party chairman in January, said he was filing as a private citizen who
believes Haslam should "come clean on his relationship with a high-powered special interest
lobbyist."
He said Haslam has shown a "pattern of secrecy" unprecedented for a governor or
gubernatorial candidate in Tennessee. Haslam refused to make public his federal income tax
returns, as previous governors have done, and issued an executive order repealing an order
by his predecessor, former Gov. Phil Bredesen, requiring greater disclosure of financial
interests by gubernatorial cabinet members than general state law requires, Forrester said.
"He thinks he should be playing by a different set of rules," said Forrester.
Ingram is not accused of any violation in Forrester's complaint, but is facing a possible civil
penalty in a separate case pending before the Ethics Commission for failure to register as a
lobbyist for a company seeking to mine coal on state-owned property at Catoosa Wildlife
Management Area. Ingram says the failure to register for two years was "an inadvertent
mistake" that was promptly corrected with appropriate filings as soon as the mistake was
discovered.
The commission discussed the lobbying case at its last meeting with three members voting
to dismiss it - one short of the four votes needed for a decision. The case will be back before
the commission again at its Sept. 7 public meeting. Any discussion of Forrester's complaint,
however, will be behind closed doors.
Ingram and the firm he founded, The Ingram Group, received more than $630,000 from
Haslam's first campaign over a period of about two years, according to campaign disclosure
filings. The last campaign payment reported came in January, 2011, after Haslam took
office. The governor's private payments to Ingram apparently began at that time and
continued until July 1 of this year.
Smith said the campaign will be paying Ingram $5,000 per month, but refused to say
whether that was the same amount Haslam had been personally paying the veteran lobbyist
and political consultant. Ingram also serves as political consultant to U.S. Sens. Lamar
Alexander and Bob Corker, among others.
Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, Florida)
August 14, 2013 Wednesday
Palm Beach Edition
Funding averts layoffs; $687,000 gap in government watchdog's budget filled by
Palm Beach County Commission
Palm Beach County's government corruption watchdog on Tuesday avoided layoffs
threatened by a lingering legal fight between the county and 14 cities.
The cities, including West Palm Beach, Boca Raton and Delray Beach, dispute that the
county has the right to charge them to help pay for Inspector General Sheryl Steckler's $3.7
million budget.
During the two-year dispute, Steckler has been cut off from getting the money anticipated
from local cities, leaving a $1.5 million hole in her budget that limits her investigative
duties.
On Tuesday, the County Commission agreed to cover the latest $687,000 gap in Steckler's
budget to avoid layoffs at the agency that was the cornerstone of voter-approve ethics
reforms, prompted by a string of Palm Beach County corruption scandals.
This was the third time since 2011 that the County Commission committed to paying a
portion of the cities' share to avoid cutbacks at the Inspector General's Office.
"Obviously this is not working. We are still not solving the problem," County Commissioner
Priscilla Taylor said.
Steckler contends that the ongoing budget crunch already has hamstrung her oversight
efforts, leaving her with 23 investigators, auditors and other employees instead of the 40
once envisioned.
Without the latest help from the county, Steckler would have had to lay off nine of her 23
employees before the end of the year.
Steckler told commissioners that she needs "stable" funding to operate as intended.
"We are in a critical situation," Steckler said. "It has been a sacrifice for my office. ... We
will continue to perform our duties."
Palm Beach County between 2006 and 2010 was rocked by public corruption scandals that
resulted in four county commissioners pleading guilty to criminal charges related to misuse
of office.
The Palm Beach County Inspector General's Office was formed in 2009 to hunt for
government fraud, waste and abuse.
In 2010, more than 70 percent of voters countywide approved expanding the inspector
general's investigative reach to all 38 cities. Despite voters' endorsement, 14 cities dispute
that Florida law allows the county to bill them for a share of the inspector general's budget.
Civic groups that pushed for ethics reform and the hiring of an inspector general have called
on county commissioners to cover Steckler's budget gaps during the legal fight.
The county already covers about $1.8 million of Steckler's costs and had been paying about
$300,000 more each year to subsidize a portion of the cities' share. That potential cost
more than doubled when the Health Care District canceled its oversight agreement with the
inspector general's office for the upcoming year along with the $298,000 it would normally
pay.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
August 12, 2013 Monday
Main Edition
Lobbyists hit Atlanta gathering
Thousands of state lawmakers from around the country will descend on Atlanta beginning
today, and you know what that means --- a whole bunch of lobbyists will come, too.
The National Conference of State Legislatures' annual summit, which visits Atlanta this
week, is a policy wonk's dream. With an agenda heavy on the issues facing states, the week
will feature esoteric panels like "State Premium and Retaliatory Taxes with Regard to the
Business of Insurance," and sessions on more conventional topics like health care reform
and the impact of recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings.
But it's also a boon for lobbyists and other special interests advocates who buy dinners,
sponsor receptions, take lawmakers to ball games and museums.
And, since most of the lawmakers are from elsewhere, the free food and entertainment are
largely outside the prying eyes of voters back home.
Georgia legislators have enjoyed thousands of dollars in lobbyist gifts at NCSL conventions
in Chicago last year and San Antonio in 2011, according to lobbyist disclosure reports filed
with the state ethics commission.
Most of the more than $10,000 in Georgia lobbyist spending in Chicago was for meals,
including dinner for several legislators at the swanky Signature Room atop the famed John
Hancock tower. Two lawmakers, Sen. Bill Cowsert, R-Athens, and House Majority Leader
Larry O'Neal, R-Bonaire, got to see the Chicago Cubs beat the Cincinnati Reds 5-3 at
Wrigley Field. Cowsert's ticket came compliments of AT&T, and O'Neal's courtesy the
Georgia Hospital Association.
In 2011, lobbyists spent more than $13,500 on Georgia lawmakers in Texas on lodging,
riverboat tours, airfare and meals, according to the disclosures.
William T. Pound, NCSL's executive director, told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution the
nonpartisan group knows there is great interest in having a large group of lawmakers in one
place.
"All meetings are open, so anyone who registers can come in," Pound said. "There are
obviously people who are interested. I'm sure they take people out and pay for lunch or
dinner or breakfast. The situation is we assume that they are cognizant of what the law is in
the state the legislator (is from)."
In other words, Pound said, the onus is on the lobbyist --- and, to a degree, the lawmaker -- to make sure they follow the rules of their state.
State Rep. Ben Harbin, R-Evans, said NCSL conferences are invaluable for lawmakers, and
not just for the meals. "They are as good as you want them to be," said Harbin, who sits on
NCSL's Labor and Economic Development Committee. "You can learn what other states are
doing. They allow you to meet other legislators. So many times we're not re-inventing the
wheel; a lot of times something has been done in other states."
It's "natural" that lobbyists would flock to the conferences, he said. "If they've got
relationships in other states, they can work their issues," he said. "It doesn't surprise me.
That's part of their job."
One Georgia lobbyist who has traveled to NCSL conferences in the past said much the
same. The lobbyist, who asked for anonymity due to company policy, said NCSL allows
lobbyists from across the country to work on common issues and learn about best practices.
The fact that NCSL is in Atlanta this week means even more Georgia lobbyists will likely
attend.
"From the last numbers I saw, there are a ton of Georgia legislators who are going to be
there," the lobbyist said. " 'If you build it, they will come.' Where the legislators are, the
lobbyists are there."
In addition to official conference social events --- a visit to the Georgia Aquarium and a
Braves game --- outside groups will host a number of outings.
One national lobbyist organization, the State Government Affairs Council, will sponsor a
late-night event at The Tabernacle music hall on Tuesday. Its website bills the event as a
"great networking opportunity to meet other SGAC members, legislators from around the
country and attendees of the NCSL meeting."
Lobbyists and other special interest groups, including trade groups and major corporations,
also sponsor hospitality suites at the downtown convention hotels. Among those sponsoring
booths in the exhibit hall at the Georgia World Congress Center are AT&T, the American
Trucking Association, the Coca-Cola Co., the National Rifle Association and a whole host of
heath care advocacy groups.
NCSL's foundation is an affiliated nonprofit "dedicated to improving public outreach and
education and supporting ethics training," according to its website. It is governed by a
board that includes corporate and union executives, lawmakers, legislative aides and
lobbyists. Georgia Sen. Don Balfour, R-Snellville, a former NCSL president, is on the
foundation board.
Among the sponsors, some of whom paid up to $25,000, are AT&T, Comcast, the National
Education Association and Wal-Mart. Sponsorship of the foundation buys access to NCSL
meetings and to lawmakers throughout the year at other NCSL events.
Voters should be concerned about who is vying to influence their lawmakers at these types
of national meetings, said Kirk O. Hanson, executive director of the Markkula Center for
Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University in California.
Hanson, who has spoken to an NCSL conference in the past, said national meetings of
lawmakers provide a "feeding frenzy of contacts between lobbyists and legislators."
For lawmakers who are out of town at conventions, the "scrutiny of their behavior may be
less than it otherwise would be," Hanson said. But, "the same concerns apply that apply at
home --- how much money do lobbyists spend entertaining legislators?" Hanson said.
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
August 12, 2013 Monday
SOONER EDITION
LOBBYISTS FIGHT STATE FEE INCREASE
HARRISBURG -- A proposed state fee increase for lobbyists -- from $200 to $700 -- has
Harrisburg lobbyists in an uproar, with numerous nonprofit groups saying the increase will
hurt their ability to discuss policy with lawmakers and open government advocates
concerned it could lead to less lobbying transparency.
A proposal by the Department of State would increase the biennial fee paid by registered
lobbyists from $200 to $700. State officials say the increase is needed to maintain an online
database of lobbyists and defray other costs of administering the lobbyist disclosure act.
The department's goal is "to relieve as much of the burden on taxpayers as possible," said
Ron Ruman, an agency spokesman.
For the 2013-14 registration period, the department projects it will spend about $1.7 million
to administer the act, while generating approximately $650,000 from the registration fees,
according to figures submitted to the state's Independent Regulatory Review Commission.
The commission reviews state regulations to ensure they are in the public interest.
The commission has urged the Department of State to meet with those who would be
impacted by the increase if it moves forward with the proposal.
The fee and registration requirement applies to lobbyists who spend $2,500 per quarter or
more. The fee has previously been increased once, for the 2011-12 registration period from
$100 to $200; the lobbyist disclosure act was passed in 2006.
The Pennsylvania Association for Government Relations -- the professional association for
lobbyists in Pennsylvania -- opposes the increase, and said in a letter it would make the
state's registration fee among the most expensive in the nation, if enacted.
The increase also is vigorously opposed by many nonprofits that lobby in the Capitol.
"A 250 percent fee increase is burdensome and cost-prohibitive for small organizations such
as ours," wrote Joan Benso, president and CEO of PA Partnerships for Children, which
advocates for children's health and early education issues.
The Disability Rights Network of Pennsylvania, in a letter opposing the increase, said at any
given time it has eight to 10 employees registered as lobbyists.
"DNR, like most if not all advocacy groups, does not have paying clients to whom it can pass
on this increased cost, and thus this large fee increase will have to be absorbed, which will
leave fewer dollars to provide vital services for people with disabilities."
Forty states have a lobbyist registration fee. However, the fees vary greatly, running from a
$10 one-time charge for lobbyists in Missouri to $1,000 per year "for executive and
legislative agents" and $100 per year for employers in Massachusetts. Several states, such
as Indiana and Texas, charge a lower fee for nonprofits.
Department of State estimates for the 2013-14 registration period show 1,377 lobbyists,
132 lobbying firms and 1,649 principals (the clients who hire lobbyists) will register with the
department.
The proposed increase was blasted by Drew Crompton, who was intimately involved in
crafting the 2006 disclosure law, and who serves as chief of staff for Senate President Pro
Tem Joe Scarnati, R-Jefferson.
Mr. Crompton criticized the $1.7 million the Department of State said it spends to
administer the disclosures as "in part due to the department's incompetency over the
years."
"The department has selected vendors to build the electronic system for the registering and
reporting which have led to overruns in cost and significant delays. In fact, the version
currently being utilized is still flooded with errors and confusing data ... six years later," he
said.
"I cannot emphasize enough the inept workmanship that has occurred over the years in the
development of the electronic interface."
Watchdog group Common Cause Pennsylvania, which pushed for the lobbyist registration
act, is also "vehemently opposed" to the increase, said Barry Kauffman, the group's
executive director.
Mr. Kauffman believes the increase could force some small groups not to lobby and would
empower bigger "super lobbyists." Furthermore, it could cause some lobbyists to simply not
register, he said.
"The public needs to understand who is backing various issues and how much they're
spending to do it," Mr. Kauffman said.
San Antonio Express-News
August 11, 2013 Sunday
STATE EDITION
Campbell adviser may be lobbying force of future
Influence peddling.
It's defined as the illegal act of using your governmental position or connections to obtain
favors for someone, usually in return for payment.
Consider the role of political consultants who also do lobbying work: They use their
connections to elected officials - who depend on them for political success - to get
legislation passed on behalf of clients who pay them big bucks for their lobbying efforts.
Sounds a bit like influence peddling, doesn't it? Except it's perfectly legal in this state.
The consultant/lobbyist hybrid, which the Texas Tribune's Ross Ramsey has compared to
dining from both sides of the plate, could become a bigger cause for concern at the state
Capitol because of the work of Allen Blakemore.
Blakemore, an ultraconservative, attack-dog Houston consultant, is the political adviser for
freshman state Sen. Donna Campbell, R-New Braunfels, whose district includes San
Antonio.
He's also handling state Sen. Dan Patrick's campaign for lieutenant governor and Railroad
Commissioner Barry Smitherman's run for attorney general. If all of Blakemore's candidates
come through next year, he could enter 2015 in a uniquely powerful position to leverage his
political relationships on behalf of his lobbying clients.
Blakemore did not respond to an interview request for this column.
To be sure, the most vociferous critics of the consultant/lobbyist hybrid tend to be
competing lobbyists, who resent political operatives horning in on policy matters, and
consultants, who think these hybrid folks are giving the biz a bad name.
"You provide consulting services to an elected official. Meanwhile, you're signing on lobbying
clients who are hiring you because you did this campaign and are expecting you to lobby
the very client you just served," said a Texas consultant who spoke on the condition of
anonymity.
The same consultant said he once saw a prominent Texas consultant/lobbyist approach a
lawmaker - who he had helped to elect - on a particular bill by saying, "I need you to do this
for me."
During this year's legislative session, Blakemore lobbied for Conservative Republicans of
Texas and Braidwood Management Inc. The two Houston-area clients combined to pay him
between $150,000 and $250,000, according to a lobbyist report Blakemore filed with the
Texas Ethics Commission.
During the same period, the Friends of Donna Campbell paid Blakemore $15,412 for
consulting services.
Blakemore is widely seen as having a major influence on Campbell, an emergency room
physician who before this year had never held elective office. Blakemore is also closely
aligned with Steve Hotze, a Houston alternative-practice doctor who founded the
Conservative Republicans of Texas.
Sources say Blakemore persuaded Campbell to file a bill - on Hotze's behalf - that would
have eliminated confidential complaints to the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners.
Jon Oliver, communications director for Campbell, declined to comment on whether
Blakemore directly lobbied the senator during this year's legislative session, but said, "We
rarely see him at all."
State Rep. Terry Canales, D-Edinburg, co-authored legislation this year that requires
registered lobbyists (or their agents) to disclose any payments they receive from political
campaign funds. Gov. Rick Perry signed the bill into law on May 24.
Canales described the bill as a first step that could illuminate the breadth of the problem,
and possibly open the door for tighter regulations in the future.
"It's becoming more common for lobbyists to perform political consulting, and there are
people close to the governor who move between those two roles," Canales said. "We're
trying to increase the level of transparency around this."
Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice, said the presence of
consultant/lobbyists creates a "problematic relationship," with inherent conflict-of-interest
landmines.
"It should probably be prohibited," he said. "But I don't see that coming."
The San Francisco Chronicle (California)
August 11, 2013 Sunday
FINAL Edition
Lobbying questioned as official steps down
San Francisco voters in 2003 made it illegal for city officials to get paid to try to influence
the decisions of their fellow city officers.
The idea was to guard against conflicts of interest and root out favoritism or undue
influence.
It looks like not everyone got the memo.
Claudine Cheng, a long-serving commissioner on the city's oversight board for Treasure
Island development, has quietly resigned and is now the subject of a complaint for violating
just that city rule.
Cheng, a member of the Treasure Island Development Authority board of directors almost
continuously since then-Mayor Willie Brown appointed her in 2001, appears to have tried to
influence city decisions in at least two areas while serving on that board, city records show.
One was approval for a bitterly contested Pet Food Express store on Lombard Street, the
other a zoning change to allow a popular North Beach breakfast and lunch spot to expand
into a building zoned mainly for a neighborhood grocery store.
Cheng has a lengthy record of volunteering for community programs helping children, the
homeless and others. She sent an e-mail saying she is out of town taking care of her ailing
mother. She did not address the allegations and said instead her "sole focus" is on her
mom. In her resignation letter to Mayor Ed Lee, Cheng wrote that "new roles" in her
consulting business legally prevented her from serving as a city official.
"Unfortunately, as I have taken on new roles in my law practice and professional
responsibilities, I am precluded by ethics rules from serving in the capacity of an appointed
officer in the city," Cheng wrote in the Aug. 1 letter.
Records, however, appear to indicate the questionable activity predated her resignation.
Cheng, an attorney who runs her own consulting business and started her legal career at
Brown's law firm when the now-Chronicle columnist was Assembly speaker, has been emailing Board of Supervisors President David Chiu for months seeking a legislative
amendment to make a zoning change to allow for North Beach favorite Mama's to expand
into a second location, e-mails obtained through a public records request show.
The site on the corner of Vallejo Street and Columbus Avenue used to house the Piazza
Market.
Cheng wrote to Chiu in a March 22 e-mail: "We look forward to moving onto the next steps,
which based upon my understanding would involve your discussion with the city attorney's
and planning staff for purpose of drafting the appropriate language for the legislative
amendment."
She e-mailed him as recently as July 9, writing, "The period between now and September is
the perfect window of time to iron out the language of the amendment," records show.
Cheng at the time was not a registered lobbyist, city records show, even though the city
defines a lobbyist as someone who receives or is promised at least $3,000 within three
consecutive months "for the purpose of influencing local legislative or administrative action."
There is an exception for someone "performing a duty or service that can be performed only
by an attorney, an architect, or a professional engineer," but the correspondence did not
involve litigation or similar legal matters, the records provided show. The day Chiu's office
turned over those public records about Cheng's efforts - July 24 - she registered as a
lobbyist, city Ethics Commission records show. About a week later, she resigned.
Chiu said he didn't know if Cheng was being paid to push for the legislation.
"Claudine has worked with my office on many community causes as a volunteer," Chiu said.
"In this instance, I have no idea if she was being paid."
Cheng's financial disclosure forms filed in May, though, indicate she earned between
$10,000 and $100,000 for her consulting business in 2012, with the only client providing
more than $10,000 listed as 627 Vallejo LLC. Property records show that's the owner of the
former Piazza Market site that Mama's would like to move into. Mike Sanchez, one of the
owners of Mama's, also said Cheng was working for the property owner.
In addition, Cheng is currently a paid consultant for Pet Food Express, and was on June 10,
said Michael Levy, the company's founder and co-owner.
That's when records show Cheng e-mailed talking points to Rebecca Katz, the head of the
city's Animal Care and Control division, to promote Pet Food Express at a Small Business
Commission meeting that night about the impact on smaller pet-related stores from a
proposed new Pet Food Express chain store on Lombard Street in the Marina in a building
that used to house a Blockbuster Video.
Katz testified in favor of Pet Food Express at the meeting, as did Cheng.
"There's a reason this is illegal. It's basically insider trading," said former Board of
Supervisors President Aaron Peskin, who opposes the expansion of Pet Food Express there
and filed complaints against Cheng with the Ethics Commission and the Fair Political
Practices Commission. "She is resigning under a cloud because she has lobbied without a
license and has violated San Francisco's ethics law repeatedly. A lawyer should know
better."
Ethics Commission head John St. Croix said he was prohibited by law from commenting on
any active investigation.
The State Journal- Register (Springfield, IL)
August 11, 2013
Protecting municipal interests; Governments split on hiring lobbyists
In 2011, the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform issued a study that looked at local
government units that hired their own lobbyists.
At the time, about 140 local governments were paying more than $7 million to hire
lobbyists. Four local government units from the Springfield area were on the list compiled
by ICPR, including the city itself.
ICPR is in the process of updating its report, so more recent numbers are not available.
When it does, though, there will be some changes on the local level.
Two local governments previously listed by the ICPR say they no longer employ lobbyists.
Two others still do and say they plan to continue.
The report issued by ICPR in 2011 was the fourth tracking local governments that hired
lobbyists to look out for their interests in the General Assembly. ICPR acting director David
Morrison said the organization will begin later this month updating the information to cover
the two years ending on June 30.
If previous history is any indication, the amount local governments are spending on
lobbyists will top the $7.4 million reported in 2011. The ICPR 's first report found about $5
million was being spent on lobbyists by local governments, and that has increased in every
update issued since. In the last report, ICPR said most of the increase in spending that it
found was the result of more units of government that hired contract lobbyists.
Dollar demands
ICPR found that municipalities accounted for over half the units of local government that
had hired lobbyists. That included the city of Springfield which, the study found, engaged
Governmental Consulting Solutions.
City budget director Bill McCarty said the city's last payment to the company was made in
2010. He said the city no longer employs an outside lobbyist.
Springfield Mayor Mike Houston said he recalled that during the tenure of the late Mayor
Tim Davlin, the city toyed with the idea of hiring lobbyists.
"Nothing was ever done with that," Houston said. "As the city of Springfield, what we really
do at the state level is rely on the Illinois Municipal League and our own people to become
involved in issues that impact us. We have a lot of demands in terms of dollars, and we
have chosen not to spend our dollars (on a lobbyist)."
Houston also gets involved. He said he recently sent letters to each member of a legislative
oversight committee expressing opposition to a proposal that sprinkler systems be installed
in all new residential housing.
At the time of the last ICPR study, Governmental Consulting Solutions also was doing work
for City Water, Light and Power. CWLP general manager Eric Hobbie said the firm was
retained to seek out grant opportunities to help pay for environmental upgrades at the
power plant. He said the firm helped land a $5 million grant.
Houston said the city might retain the firm again in the future.
"That was a very appropriate use of taking that approach," Houston said. "We are looking to
do a similar type of thing in the near future. We believe there are state funds available. It
would be prudent for us to engage that same firm."
Individual attention
While Springfield no longer uses an outside lobbyist, the village of Chatham still does.
Chatham pays lobbyist Tim McAnarney $24,000 a year for his services.
"He did work on some issues regarding high-speed rail for us and with regard to the water
plant," said Village President Tom Gray. "Mainly we have him because he's got a lot of
clients who are big-box stores, like Wal-Mart. We're really using him more for economic
development than lobbying issues."
Gray said he hopes the economic development effort will pay off.
"We've met with reps, so at least we are on the radar screen," he said.
Some critics of local governments hiring lobbyists question using tax dollars when each
entity has at least two lawmakers in the General Assembly, a representative and a senator.
Gray, though, said sometimes the local lawmakers can be stretched thin because of their
responsibilities.
"The state reps have multiple municipalities and government entities they represent," Gray
said. "I'm on the Municipal League. They lobby for major, across-the-board legislation that
affects everybody equally. They can't lobby for you individually."
For the Springfield Metro Sanitary District, it could be a case of too much representation.
District engineer Gregg Humphrey said the sprawling district could have as many as four
senators and as many representatives.
"We have multiple people, but sometimes Springfield is on the fringe of a district," he said.
"The actual district may be centered elsewhere. We feel it's better to have representation,
someone on your side if you have a particular issue."
The district pays $24,000 a year to Dorgan-McPike to lobby on its behalf. Humphrey said
the firm tracks legislation that could directly affect the district as well as issues pertaining to
the Pollution Control Board and the Illinois Municipal Retirement System.
"The reason for the lobbyist is anything that comes up that could cost additional money to
the district to operate, we want to be aware of it and to try to stop it or get it reduced,"
Humphrey said.
Keeping tabs on bills
The Prairie Capital Convention Center was part of a group of convention centers across the
state that banded together to hire a lobbyist. Convention center general manager Brian
Oaks said the group disbanded last year and no longer employs a lobbyist.
"The coalition still talks together, we're just not using a lobbyist anymore," Oaks said.
Still, he said having a lobbyist paid results.
"One of the benefits for us was (the lobbyist) kept a really close tab on any new bills that
were being proposed that could affect convention centers, either positively or negatively,"
Oaks said. "A local lawmaker's district is so broad and has so many entities in it, I think it
would be hard for them to keep tabs on every piece of legislation and how it would affect
everyone in their district."
Rep. Raymond Poe, R-Springfield, said he isn't bothered that some local governments in his
area have opted for lobbyists.
"I think sometimes they just get a little nervous and insecure, so they lobby a little bit of
everybody, not just their own legislators," Poe said. "We're willing to talk to anybody."
Former Sen. Larry Bomke, R-Springfield, said there may be a point to hiring a lobbyist if
local lawmakers are in the minority party and an entity needs support from the majority.
Other than that, he's skeptical.
"I really don't know how effective hiring a lobbyist is," Bomke said. "I'm inclined to think it's
more effective if they hire an association. When they do it collectively, I think it has a little
more impact than if you are doing it just to protect your local interests."
The Tennessean (Nashville, Tennessee)
August 11, 2013 Sunday
Correction Appended
1 Edition
Being the news unsettles Ingram
What would Tom Ingram advise the governor to do about Tom Ingram?
The question seems to make Ingram a bit uneasy. It highlights his unusual position in
Tennessee politics - adviser to the governor, powerful lobbyist, spokesman for a company
under federal investigation, subject of an ethics hearing of his own.
"I'm agonizing about that," Ingram said. "I'm not sure what I should tell him."
Ingram long has been seen as one of Tennessee's most powerful figures. His and his firms'
client lists have included Gov. Bill Haslam, Sen. Lamar Alexander, Pilot Flying J, Ryman
Hospitality, HCA and Eastman Chemical.
Lanky and plain-spoken, Ingram sits at the top of the state's political mountain, having
played an instrumental role in electing both of the state's U.S. senators as well as its
governor. But recent questions about his influence have placed him in a difficult position,
one where his well-honed political skill has thrust him into the spotlight.
"I've become a story where I shouldn't be a story. I've become a distraction where I don't
want to be a distraction," he said. "If I thought there was something I could do that would
eliminate that distraction, I'd do it in a minute."
Many political advisers would have been cut loose at the first hint of a misstep, but not
Ingram. His place in Tennessee politics seems secure. From his unique niche, carved out
systematically over four decades, Ingram's reach extends to the core of the state's power
structure.
Recently, Ingram has helped Pilot CEO Jimmy Haslam, the governor's brother, devise a
communications strategy as the company deals with a federal investigation into its sales
practices. He has served as a personal consultant to the governor, advising him on top-level
appointments even as he presses lower-level staffers on behalf of his clients. And he has
remained a force in politics, signing on last month as a consultant to Bill Haslam's reelection campaign.
"He's a pretty decent guy, responsible and trying to do an honest job," said Dick Williams,
chairman of Common Cause Tennessee, a nonprofit citizens' government watchdog group.
"But he's involved in so many things, it raises questions about some of his ties and what
they relate to."
Ingram has been tripped up recently by a couple of nondisclosures involving his role as a
lobbyist, political adviser and government relations consultant. Earlier this month, the
Tennessee Ethics Commission deferred a final decision on the most concrete complaint that he did not register work for a mining company - but a majority of commissioners
indicated they were inclined to dismiss the case without any punishment.
Still, Ingram's multiple roles make him an obvious link between Gov. Haslam and Pilot at a
time when the governor might be expected to place distance between himself and his
family's privately owned chain of truck stops. Ingram's many hats also have forced the
governor to draw fine distinctions between the advice he receives from Ingram and the
lobbying Ingram and his company do of the governor's staff.
"It's a fairly simple issue that happens ... to other lobbyists and other clients, and the
difference is it's not usually noticed," Ingram said. "I don't think it's just about me.
"For whatever reason, there's curiosity about it."
Ingram said he accepts the scrutiny, but he believes the depiction of him as a super-lobbyist
is unfair. In his slow, rheumy, bullfrog of a voice, he draws a distinction between lobbying
and the work he does.
"It'd be inaccurate to say that I'm not a lobbyist," he said. "But it'd be inaccurate to say
that's all I am."
Social work to politics
Few careers in public life have taken as many twists and turns as that of Tom Ingram.
The son of a minister, Ingram was born in Ozark, Ala. Ingram moved to Nashville in the
early 1960s. He originally intended to become a social worker, but a part-time job with The
Tennessean that began while he was still an undergraduate at Lipscomb College grew into a
staff position writing about politics and human relations.
"I was editor of my high school newspaper," Ingram recalled, "and when Kennedy was shot,
we put out a special edition. (Tennessean editor) John Seigenthaler saw that, and my
freshman year, I got hired."
It was while covering Howard Baker's 1966 senatorial campaign that he met Alexander.
After a short stint as a magazine editor, Ingram was hired to be the spokesman for
Alexander's first gubernatorial campaign, in 1974.
Ingram returned to newspapers after Alexander's defeat, covering business and then politics
for the conservative Nashville Banner.
In 1978, Ingram left newspapers for good, to work as the campaign manager for
Alexander's second, successful run for governor, helping to devise the red plaid shirt and
walk-across-Tennessee strategy that would make Alexander famous nationwide. Two
months later, the incoming governor would borrow a belt and a necktie from Ingram during
the rushed swearing-in ceremony that capped the succession crisis when Gov. Ray Blanton
was rushed out of office to keep him from selling pardons to convicts.
Ingram served as Alexander's deputy and chief of staff until 1983, when he left to found The
Ingram Group, his consulting firm. The two grew close, with Alexander acting as the best
man at Ingram's wedding in 1980 and Ingram acting as godfather to Alexander's son.
Ingram left his firm to his partners in 1990 for a series of jobs, including leadership
positions with a media company, a venture capital firm and the Knoxville Area Chamber
Partnership. That led to a second stint with Alexander, this time in Washington on his
Senate staff.
Meanwhile, Ingram continued to work as a political adviser, playing prominent roles in the
Senate campaigns of Fred Thompson, Bob Corker and Alexander.
Even today, Corker says Ingram's hiring in the fall of 2006 saved his campaign from defeat
amid a hard charge from Democrat Harold Ford Jr. in the race's final weeks.
"I don't know that I'd be in the Senate today had Tom not come in," he said.
Ingram's return
In 2009, Ingram rejoined the firm he founded. Mementos from his four decades in politics
line the walls of his office in downtown Nashville, cater-corner to Legislative Plaza. Three
television sets, tuned to the major cable news channels, flicker where they can be seen
effortlessly from his cluttered desk. But the dominant feature is the room's ample seating,
evidence that even there he expects to receive visitors.
One of Ingram's first clients upon his return was Haslam. Ingram's position was described
as a consultant, but his role was far larger - it was he who had to "make sure the trains ran
on time" while others, including campaign manager Mark Cate, ran day-to-day operations.
Campaign disclosures show Ingram and his firm were paid a total of $633,000 by the
Haslam campaign in 2009 and 2010. Haslam's filings also show more than $25,000 in
spending from April 2009 to November 2010 at Jimmy Kelly's, the Nashville steakhouse
where Ingram has met friends and would-be friends for years.
Ingram has been associated so closely with the restaurant that even he describes it as his
"dining room" when he's in Nashville. But Ingram says that tab covers countless working
dinners, often involving staff, in groups as large as 20 people over the course of nearly two
years.
"It needs to be put into perspective," he said. "That represents a lot of dinners. That doesn't
represent me high-rolling."
Ingram noted that similar tabs could be found on the disclosures from past campaigns he
has led. Corker said Ingram's meals at Jimmy Kelly's were worthwhile.
"He was talking to people involved on both sides of the aisle, just getting a sense of what
people were feeling about the effort," he said. "He had a sense of where things were really
going."
After the election, Ingram led Haslam's transition team. The relationship appeared to have
ended there, though this spring it emerged that Haslam had kept Ingram on retainer,
paying him for political advice out of his own pocket.
Haslam has refused to disclose how much he paid Ingram and is not required to do so by
law. Ingram said he would have preferred that the governor had done so.
The governor has been accused of trying to keep the relationship secret. But Ingram said
the suggestion is foolish.
"If it's a secret, somebody's deaf, blind and dumb," he said.
The arm's-length relationship has allowed Ingram to take on lobbying clients while
simultaneously advising the governor. Haslam and Ingram say they do not discuss his
clients, but recently released emails show Ingram often has asked his staff to take actions
on their behalf.
Many of the exchanges involve Cate, whom he effectively supervised during the
gubernatorial campaign and who now serves as the governor's chief of staff. Ingram shrugs
off the suggestion that the dynamic gives him an unfair advantage over other lobbyists.
"I've been a deputy to the governor and chief of staff. All you do all day long is take calls,"
he said. "Now do they have the history, do they have the friendship, do they have the same
experiences with those people that I do? Probably not.
"I value those relationships much more for those friendships than I do any other thing," he
added. "I don't feel like any of those people did anything about anything I was involved in
because I was involved in it."
Ingram also helped set up a Washington lobbying firm called The First Group as an affiliate
to the firm that bears his name. Since The First Group's inception in 2010, that office has
brought more than $7.8 million representing clients such as HCA and Toyota.
Scrutiny rises
As his political and business network expanded over the decades, so did scrutiny of Ingram
and the firms he founded. In 1992, a state audit criticized a contract awarded to The
Ingram Group by the University of Tennessee while Alexander was its president. Ingram
wasn't with the firm at the time.
Ingram himself managed to avoid missteps until this May, when, he conceded, his firm
failed to disclose lobbying work on behalf of Hillsborough Resources, a company seeking to
mine for coal on public land on the Upper Cumberland Plateau. Ingram said it was the only
mistake he or his firm has made in 30 years of government relations work.
Few would criticize Ingram directly, such is his stature in Tennessee. Even Williams, the
state head of Common Cause, credited Ingram for acting within the law.
"Lobbying is a perfectly legitimate function if somebody does it with integrity," Williams
said. "But I think it is good that the public is more aware and watching this."
Bill Phillips, a fellow state lobbyist and Republican political adviser, said Ingram has earned
the benefit of the doubt.
"Tom is a superb strategist and advocate," he said. "I think it has been an oversight."
But the story emerged at an inopportune time. Just a few weeks before, news broke of a
rebate scandal at Pilot Flying J. Ingram was brought in to help the company devise its
response.
That was followed by questions about his firm's work on behalf of athletes seeking a repeal
of the state's jock tax and television producers trying to land incentives to shoot the series
"Nashville" locally. Ingram says the firm followed the law in both instances.
With each subsequent round, Ingram has seen his image move farther from the public
servant that he describes to the behind-the-scenes power broker that his foes depict. He
insists that perception is false, pinning much of the blame on the press.
"It's a lot more wishful thinking ... that I had any special access," he said. "I've got great
relationships and friends over there, but I'm very careful about mixing business and
pleasure with them."
But the scrutiny is unlikely to dissipate as long as Pilot's legal troubles continue.
Ingram has sat beside the governor's brother, Jimmy Haslam, helping him deal with the
press as seven ex-Pilot employees have agreed to plead guilty to rebate fraud. Jimmy
Haslam has acknowledged some Pilot customers were shortchanged but denies any
knowledge of fraud.
Gov. Haslam no longer has any formal role in the family company, and he never worked in
the sales division where the rebate practices that lie at the heart of the federal investigation
took place. But Ingram concedes his dual roles - as an adviser to both brothers - makes him
a link between the two. That causes him professional agony for perhaps the first time in his
long political career.
"I have to monitor that," he said. "Certainly if there's a problem for Jimmy or for Bill, we'll
have to look at that. But that's a bridge we'll cross when we come to it.
"If," he added, "we come to it."
TOM INGRAM TIMELINE
1965 - Hired to cover politics and human relations by The Tennessean while still a
sophomore at David Lipscomb College.
1972 - Left The Tennessean to become the first editor of Nashville! magazine.
1974 - Recruited by Lamar Alexander to work as press secretary to his first campaign for
governor. Alexander was defeated by Ray Blanton.
1975 - Hired to cover business by the Nashville Banner.
1977 - Joined the public relations firm of Holder-Kennedy.
1978 - Worked for Alexander's second, successful gubernatorial campaign as press
secretary and campaign manager.
1979-83 - Served as deputy to the governor and chief of staff in the Alexander
administration. Managed Alexander's re-election bid in 1982.
1983 - Founded The Ingram Group, a business and government relations consulting firm.
Advised Victor Ashe on his failed run for the U.S. Senate.
1990 - Left the Ingram Group for Whittle Communications in Knoxville. Directed lobbying for
its Channel One venture.
1994 - Formed a venture capital group. Engineered Fred Thompson's winning run for the
U.S. Senate, including Thompson's red truck tour.
1996 - Helped organize Alexander's first run for the Republican Party's nomination for
president.
1998-2002 - Served as president and chief executive of the Knoxville Area Chamber
Partnership. Volunteered on Alexander's second presidential bid.
2002 - Consulted on Alexander's run for the U.S. Senate.
2003-09 - Served as Alexander's chief of staff and staff director of the Senate Republican
Caucus.
2006 - Brought in by the Bob Corker campaign to stop a late surge by Harold Ford Jr. in the
race for U.S. Senate after the "Call Me" ad.
2009 - Returned to Ingram Group. Joined Bill Haslam's successful campaign for governor as
a consultant and strategist.
2010 - Founded The First Group, a Washington-based consulting firm.
2013 - Advising Pilot Flying J as it responds to the unfolding rebate scandal and Haslam's
re-election campaign.
The Miami Herald
August 10, 2013 Saturday
Miami lobbyist in FBI mayor’s sting goes from political insider to defendant;
Newly divorced and struggling financially, lobbyist Richard Candia
mark for an FBI informant.
fit the profile of an easy
“Candia, ” an FBI criminal complaint said, “was believed to have contacts with public
officials willing to accept bribery and kickbacks.”
It was a spot-on assessment.
From 2011 until this summer, Candia played a crucial role in recruiting Miami Lakes Mayor
Michael Pizzi and Sweetwater Mayor Manny Maroño into a kickback sting involving purported
federal grants that was orchestrated by the FBI.
Along with Maroño’s right-hand man, Jorge Luis Forte, the men were charged Tuesday and
Wednesday in one of Miami-Dade’s biggest corruption busts in years.
For many seasoned politicos and insiders, the corruption wasn’t a shock.
But Candia ’s involvement was.
From Tallahassee to Miami-Dade, Candia had a sterling reputation among public officials
and fellow lobbyists in a business that’s all about reputations and personal relationships.
With a mop of dark hair that belied his 48 years, the hard-working Candia
everywhere in the halls of state and local government.
was seemingly
Candia was known as an honorable, good-natured and humble man. He was well-liked and
trusted.
But one fellow lobbyist, Michael Kesti, knew another side of Candia.
Kesti, the Miami Herald reported Friday, was the confidential informant who in May 2011
tipped the FBI off to Candia as someone who was potentially corruptible.
The FBI criminal complaints against the four defendants read like a true-crime script in
parts, excerpting secret recordings of the men as they allegedly schemed with Kesti and
undercover FBI agents masquerading as sleazy businessmen from Chicago. Candia,
busted before the end of the scheme, “flipped’’ for the feds and wore a wire to ensnare
Pizzi.
[In a statement released Saturday exclusively to the Miami Herald/El Nuevo Herald, Pizzi
said he was innocent of any wrongdoing, saying he “accepted no money inappropriately or
illegally from anyone, ever.” Story, 1B]
Before that point, the transcripts show, Candia had a shrewd understanding of the two
politicians and Forte, who is accused of acting as Maroño’s bagman taking illicit payoffs on
behalf of the mayor.
Forte was Maroño’s “front, where he needs a front his filter where he needs a filter,” Candia
said at one point.
Candia
identified Maroño as ripe for the conspiracy from the very beginning.
“[Maroño]’s not gonna be shy, shy to ask for sh-t,” Candia
Sept. 23, 2011. “I mean, there will be no end.”
told the agents in a meeting on
Days before, the undercover FBI agents met with Candia to make clear that what they
were doing was illegal and that they were motivated by greed.
Under the scheme, the fake company would apply for a federal grant on behalf of the city.
The conspirators — not the municipality — would then divvy up the proceeds.
“The play here is for the money,” one agent told Candia, “for us to get the money and be
able to use the money, you know, and just make money,”
Candia didn’t get much in the end: $5,500. Pizzi’s alleged take: $6,750. Maroño and
Forte: $60,000, the FBI says.
Months after Candia ’s initial meetings with the agents, on Dec. 30, 2011, Bank of America
initiated foreclosure proceedings against Candia ’s West Kendall home.
Candia was deeded the home after his wife divorced him the year before. Divorce records
show the townhouse carried two mortgages that, in combination with taxes and other home
expenses, totaled $3,650 monthly.
The couple’s joint bank account had just $2,500, and their credit-card bills were in the
double-digits. More than a year later, court records show, American Express sued Candia
to collect a $9,300 debt, of which he agreed to pay $4,000.
As part of the divorce, Candia also agreed to pay for his son’s schooling at Belen Jesuit
Preparatory School, which can cost upward of $15,000 a year. He and his ex-wife also have
a younger daughter.
As his marriage was falling apart, Candia
was having a tough time earning money.
About three years before his divorce, Candia had left lobbying to work at an architecture
and planning firm run by former Miami-Dade School Board member Agustin “Gus” Barrera,
who said Candia was hired to attract clients because “he knew a lot of people and had
good relationships with them.”
But there was one problem: “The economy tanked. No one made any money.”
Like others who know Candia, Barrera used one word — “shocked” — to describe his
reaction to Candia ’s alleged role in the scandal.
“He was the most honest, decent guy,” longtime lobbyist Ron Book said. “Yes, I was
shocked. He was the last person I would have expected to get caught up in something like
this.”
Some lobbyists said they had betting pools about which of their colleagues would get
busted. No one picked Candia.
Records show Candia started to reenter the lobbying world in 2011. But he didn’t return to
his longtime client, the University of Miami, which he had represented in Tallahassee as its
sole lobbyist.
Instead, Candia hooked up with Jose K. Fuentes, a former South Florida Water
Management District lobbyist who had good connections with local governments from Miami
Lakes to Sweetwater to Homestead. Their firm earned a minimum of about $500,000
lobbying the Legislature, records show.
Candia also lobbied locally, in Miami-Dade and Homestead, where Kesti represented other
clients as well.
How the two came to know each other is unclear. Neither will talk.
But the FBI records indicate that, after the end of Candia ’s first legislative session with
Fuentes in 2011, Kesti brought Candia to the FBI’s attention.
In all, the FBI sting involved three cities: Sweetwater, controlled by Maroño; and Miami
Lakes and Medley, where Pizzi is the mayor and town attorney, respectively.
The alleged schemes involving Pizzi and Maroño appear separate. But in both cases, Candia
introduced the mayors to the undercover FBI agents.
Candia and Kesti had larger roles with Pizzi than with Maroño, whose affairs were
negotiated almost exclusively by his buffer, Forte. Maroño, head of the Florida League of
Cities, also allegedly tried to recruit other mayors into the scheme.
Candia appeared to play a key part in keeping the Miami Lakes mayor involved in the
scheme when the mayor became spooked, the FBI criminal complaint shows.
After months of apparent silence, Candia
the alleged scam.
“We are in,” Candia
told Kesti that Pizzi was ready to proceed with
said.
But Candia learned he was in too deep on June 25 when the FBI approached him, revealed
the sting and got him to wear a wire.
Candia, who wanted Pizzi to sign a document that allegedly furthered the scam, soon met
him in a Medley Town Hall office with $3,000 in cash for campaign contributions.
Pizzi pulled Candia
device.
into a closet, unaware that the lobbyist was wearing a recording
FBI agent Paul J. Wright said in the criminal complaint that the recording indicates the
sound of a door opening. The rest reads like pulp fiction:
Pizzi: “Here, here What you got?”
At that point, the complaint said, Candia
gave Pizzi the envelope with $3,000 in cash.
Candia : “That’s three.”
Pizzi: “OK. You did good.”
Post & Courier (Charleston, SC)
August 10, 2013 Saturday
Unfair access at events?
In the 66 days of this year s regular legislative session, corporations and special interest
groups catered almost 100 meals and receptions for legislators and state officials.
Some of the groups, including the S.C. Academy of Physician Assistants, were hosting an
event for only the first or second time, hoping to familiarize General Assembly members
with what their group does and advocate for specific legislation. The Physician Assistants
May breakfast fell two days after Gov. Nikki Haley signed S. 448, an update of the Physician
Assistant Practice Act, into law.
It was really more of a thank you, Janet Jordan, the Physician Assistants executive director,
said of the breakfast, which cost her group $2,204.
During the 2013 legislative session, special interests hosted 95 breakfasts, luncheons,
dinners or receptions for legislators and others.
The total tab for those events is not known.
State ethics law requires only groups that also employ a lobbyist to disclose what they
spend wining and dining legislators. Of the 95 groups that held special events, 24 also
employed a lobbyist. Those 24 groups spent more than $140,000 on meals and receptions
for legislators.
The legislative thank-you meals and receptions regularly cost nearly $6,000 apiece. At least
two held during the last legislative session cost far more one almost $17,000 and another
$20,000.
While those hosting the events say they are merely an opportunity for their members to
meet face-to-face with lawmakers, others take a dimmer view of the gatherings. Critics say
the events demonstrate that groups must pay to ensure that their issues will play before the
Legislature. That pay-to-play culture excludes groups that do not have the financial
resources to pay for legislative access.
The lobbying influence is too strong in South Carolina. The only way to get anything done is
to pay a lobbyist, and those who can t pay can t get anything accomplished, said House
Minority Leader Todd Rutherford, D-Richland. The events are a very small part of it, but the
money as it relates to government is a damaging influence, and we have to figure out how
to take it out.
The breakfast put on by the Physician Assistants was that group s second legislative event.
Last year, when it hosted its first, the group said it wasn t tracking any legislation. Instead,
it hoped to make legislators aware of our existence, and familiarize them with the
profession because not a lot of people know what we do, Jordan said.
The introduction paid off, Jordan said.
The updated Physician Assistant Practice Act that was passed into law during the 2013
session makes it easier for physician assistants to practice in South Carolina.
There were significant changes to the law that needed to be made, Jordan said. There was
lots of red tape, and with the impending implementation of Obamacare, there are going to
be so many more people needing medical services. The medical infrastructure in South
Carolina is just not there to provide that kind of coverage without physician assistants.
A collaborative effort
The Physicians Assistants are not alone in breaking bread with and toasting legislators and
other state officials.
Other groups, including the S.C. Bar Association, hold annual events for the General
Assembly, the price tags of which regularly top $10,000. While the bar s legislative
reception is relatively new, it held joint events for legislators and state judges in previous
years, according to State Ethics Commission filings.
During a legislative session, the Bar Association and Home Builders Association of South
Carolina, two of the top three spenders on legislative events, can be tracking track dozens
of bills, if not more.
The Bar noted 116 bills of interest to its members during this year s session. But very few
became law, said assistant executive director Leah Johnson.
The amount of legislation that would be advantageous to a lawyer blows the roof off every
year, Johnson said. We may actively advocate for five or six, and usually two or three get
passed.
Some, including a revision of South Carolina s probate laws, take multiple sessions to
complete.
The probate code revision was 700 pages long at the end of the 2012 legislative session but
had not yet passed. The Bar s reception fell at the beginning of this year s legislative
session, and the probate revision passed in late May, toward the session s end.
Bar lobbyists helped the legislation reach that final stage, Johnson said, adding that
sometimes, the necessary connections for lobbying begin at receptions. Legislative outreach
helps us access all interested parties and make a collaborative effort.
Getting face time
Even when they say they don t have issues to push, some groups still go all out for
legislative events.
The Home Builders Association of South Carolina shelled out nearly $17,000 for its annual
Bird Supper, which benefitted disabled veterans.
We didn t go over any legislation whatsoever, said Mark Nix, the association s executive
director. It was more of an opportunity for members to meet with elected officials and talk
about issues.
One of the most commonly touted benefits of the wining-and-dining events is the
opportunity for members of statewide groups or industries to get face time with their
representatives and talk one-on-one about choice issues.
For Hospitality Day at the State House, 80 members of the S.C. Restaurant and Lodging
Association and the tourism industry were bused in from Charleston alone.
There s no question that having Hospitality Day at the State House offers a very positive
opportunity for substantive dialogue between stakeholders in the tourism industry and
lawmakers, said John Durst, president and chief executive of the Restaurant and Lodging
Association. It provides a unique and very productive opportunity for people in the tourism
industry across the state to meet with and talk with lawmakers about issues of interest.
Others want that access too.
The city of Columbia held its first reception this year, teaming up with Richland County and
the Columbia Chamber of Commerce for an evening event at 701 Whaley, a popular
multiuse building and event venue in downtown.
The event cost around $20,000 none of it taxpayer money that the three groups raised, a
city official said. The city s ethics filing shows a $6,800 expenditure on the event.
The event was an effective way to connect city and county officials to state lawmakers,
according to Ray Borders Gray, a spokeswoman for the city s department of government
affairs.
We wanted them to be able to be in a room and stand together and to be able to talk, Gray
said. This wasn t an opportunity to talk about one particular issue. But it s an opportunity
for them to really get to know one another.
While one piece of legislation on the city s radar, the Abandoned Buildings Revitalization
Act, passed during the session, other city issues didn t make it to the finish line, making
next year s lobbying effort even more important, Gray said.
In addition to county and city officials, next year s reception for legislators will include
members of Richland County s two school boards to stir more communication between
different levels of government, she added.
Layer of access
Members of the Bar say its meetings with lawmakers benefit both legislators and lawyers.
Many who serve in the General Assembly are not lawyers. They re educators or insurance
agents or members of the clergy, said the Bar Association s Johnson. It helps to get
members statewide in a place to meet their legislator and start relationships that will help
down the road.
Non-lawyer legislators will reach out to us for help on legislation, and we have the ability to
hit the ground running and assist.
Members of groups including the Home Builders and the Restaurant and Lodging
associations also say they benefit from opportunities to meet with representatives in a
casual meal-time setting.
But constituents who aren t a part of a trade organization or a special-interest group may
lose out because they do not have the money to host special events to get access to
legislators, critics say.
Some legislators spend a lot of time being legislators, for example, retirees who have the
time to focus on being a legislator and don t have outside work, said John Crangle, a
whistleblower on state ethics violations in the 90s who now heads the S.C. chapter of the
Common Cause watchdog group. Then, there are some legislators who don t even show up
for the session. They miss time after time or they arrive late or leave early. They re very
difficult to get to for constituents.
Today s wining and dining is much different from events held before the Ethics Reform Act
of 1991, Crangle said. Before that reform, legislators sometimes were whisked away to
Hilton Head or Charleston for lavish receptions, including stays in upscale hotel rooms and
even rounds of golf.
While restrictions are much tighter now, Ashley Landess, president of the S.C. Policy
Council, a libertarian advocacy group, said the events still give members of certain groups a
leg up on the typical constituent.
I doubt very seriously that at these parties you ll find the average constituent, Landess said.
It s not that throwing a party for legislators and having some beer and good food is going to
buy a vote, but it s another layer of access.
Piece of the puzzle
Not all legislators attend the events.
Senate President Pro Tempore John Courson, R-Richland, said he never goes to breakfasts
or lunches. He said he uses that time to prioritize the work that comes with his
chairmanship of the Senate Education Committee and doesn t want to waste a group s
money by committing to an event if he may have to cancel at the last minute.
Courson added he also rarely attends evening receptions. He lives in Columbia and said he
prefers to have dinner with his family. But Courson does attend events given by
organizations that he is a member of, including the S.C. Chamber of Commerce.
Richmond Times Dispatch (Virginia)
August 10, 2013 Saturday
State Edition
Jackson again misses disclosure deadline; Failure to report $9,000 donation is
called oversight
E.W. Jackson's failure to disclose a $9,000 in-kind donation by a car title lending company
was an oversight, his campaign says.
"When this was brought to our attention yesterday, we searched all our communications to
see who, if anyone, had even notified us that this donation needed to be accounted for,"
Jackson spokesman Chip Tarbutton said Friday. "We found an email that had been missed
giving us the amount to report."
It was the third time since his nomination as the Republican candidate for lieutenant
governor three months ago that the Chesapeake pastor failed to properly disclose donations
to his campaign by the deadline set by state law.
The $9,000 campaign contribution paid for Jackson's share of a three-day trip that took the
Republican ticket across Virginia by plane shortly after the GOP Convention in May.
A recent listing of campaign funding disclosures by the Virginia Public Access Project shows
gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli and attorney general nominee Mark D. Obenshain
reported their in-kind contribution of the same amount from Select Management Resources
LLC, which operates as Loan Max outlets in Virginia.
But VPAP had no record that Jackson listed the trip as a donation.
Tarbutton said Jackson's campaign disclosure record was corrected early Friday morning to
reflect the $9,000 donation.
Just three weeks ago, Jackson amended his midyear campaign finance disclosure to list 23
donors whose names were not included in his original report filed July 15.
The amended report listed total donations between May 30 and June 30 of $141,823, up
from $118,608 in his July 15 filing.
Topping Jackson's original list of donations was a contribution of $48,155 attributed to E.W.
Jackson for Lieutenant Governor,hispolitical-action committee, showing that his campaign
had made its largest one-time contribution to itself.
In June, the Virginia State Board of Elections fined Jackson $100 for waiting too late to
disclose a $25,000 loan to his campaign.
At the time he reported raising more than $120,000 from April 1 through May 29, including
the $25,000 loan. The remaining $95,000 in donations also was not itemized.
"Virginians deserve transparency in their government. Jackson's failure to disclose is not
only a violation but further evidence that ethical reform is absolutely necessary," said state
Sen. A. Donald McEachin, D-Henrico, who chairs the campaign for Sen. Ralph S. Northam,
D-Norfolk, Jackson's opponent.
"Yet, Jackson continues to oppose even minimal ethics reform. His conduct just
demonstrates that he is unwilling to meet even the minimal laws to give Virginians the
transparency they deserve in their government," McEachin said Friday.
Last week, Jackson said in an interview that he opposes strengthening Virginia's ethics laws,
but he called for higher ethics standards among politicians.
"I think that we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard, rather than always simply
looking for ways to change the law to make people do what they already know is right,"
Jackson said in the interview.
The Miami Herald
August 9, 2013 Friday
Lobbyists settle case with Miami-Dade ethics commission;
A pair of lobbyists in Cutler Bay agreed to a settlement with the Miami-Dade ethics
commission on Thursday.
Juan Mayol and Jose Luis Castillo, lobbyists representing Paradise Group Ventures LLC, were
applying to develop a new Publix shopping center on Old Cutler Road.
Before the town’s November and January council meetings, Castillo met with Councilwoman
Peggy Bell. In January, Mayol had a phone call with Mayor Ed MacDougall and contact with
Bell. None of these conversations were disclosed on the town’s lobbyist registration forms.
The settlement stems from an ethics complaint that MacDougall filed against Castillo for not
disclosing his contact with Bell and for a different reason.
In 2011, Castillo’s company worked for the election campaign of Councilwoman Sue Ellen
Loyzelle. But the commission concluded this relationship didn’t have to be disclosed because
it was in the past.
But the commission agreed that Castillo should have disclosed the contact with Bell. On its
own initiative, the commission also found a problem with the actions of Mayol.
The shopping center matter was “quasi-judicial,” meaning that council members were
supposed to act like court judges and base their decision solely on the evidence presented
at the hearing. Information they gather from private meetings with lobbyists or constituents
is not supposed to be considered.
While many Miami-Dade municipalities require elected officials to disclose contacts with
lobbyists on land-use matters, Cutler Bay also requires the lobbyists to disclose these
contacts.
Mayol said he was not aware of this ordinance.
Both Bell and MacDougall did disclose the conversations.
“I thought it would be sufficient to satisfy the requirement,” said Mayol, a land use attorney
with the Brickell Avenue law firm of Holland & Knight. Castillo is with Greenpoint Group of
Palmetto Bay.
A spokeswoman for the ethics commission said municipalities can set stricter rules than the
county, as Cutler Bay has done.
Mayol and Castillo agreed to plead no contest, accept a Letter of Instruction, and pay a
$250 fine each.
The town’s lobbyist registration forms have since been updated to remind lobbyists about
proper disclosers. According to public emails shared by Mayol from the town clerk, no
lobbyist has disclosed contact information since September 2012.