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.