MPAA head lobbyist Chris Dodd threatened Congress and the President last week, suggesting that lawmakers should remember that they've been bought, and that if they want to continue to enjoy their piece of the entertainment industry's largesse, they should mind their leash:

"Candidly, those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake," Dodd told Fox News. "Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake."

The corruption here is blatant -- Chris Dodd thinks that his industry's contributions should be able to purchase congressional results. This isn't just money in politics buying access, or systemic corruption, or some theoretical statistical link -- Chris Dodd is threatening the Congress with his industry money.

That money buys votes and affects public policy is nothing new. Boehner wasn't handing out tobacco industry checks on the House Floor in 1995 as party favors, after all. But donors' influence over specific public policy decisions are usually left unspoken, or at least not publicly aired. Chris Dodd's sense of influence entitlement has strayed outside the bounds of normal Washington discourse, and perhaps thankfully so. Dodd is doing a fantastic time of demonstrating everything that's wrong with the system.

On top of the sweetheart mortgage treatment Dodd enjoyed as Senator, he parlayed his position as former Senator to become head of the MPAA, where his connections won him a high salary and influential position. His public pledge to forswear lobbying and related revolving door restrictions weren't even a speed bump on Dodd's path through the revolving door, since directing a team of lobbyists and managing political contributions don't count as lobbying under the law. (Common sense, of course, dictates otherwise -- he's a lobbyist.) Cashing in on connections is often par for the course, as is avoiding lobbying disclosure -- both are de rigueur for former Members of Congress looking for lucrative careers.

But as MPAA head Dodd's signature legislative effort (SOPA and PIPA) ran off the rails, Dodd decided to flex his campaign finance muscles, and threatened his former colleagues to get in line.

And that's where things get weird.

Because Senate Democrats have repeatedly told us that they are interested in protecting the integrity of our elections, and that public service and representation should be protected from the undue influence of money in politics. In fact, here's Senator Chris Dodd, talking about the Citizens United decision:

 "If corporations -- foreign as well as domestic -- are allowed even greater and more direct influence over our elections, our democracy as we know it will cease to exist. I won't stand for that. I urge my colleagues, and the American people, to join me in defense of democracy by supporting this amendment and other interim steps to mitigate the damage done by this decision."

Senator Dodd was concerned about corporations having greater direct influence over our elections, but as MPAA head, Dodd feels empowered to dictate public policy to elected representatives, and strongarm them into passing it.

But this shouldn't be awkward just for Dodd.

In his remarks, he's both threatening and imploring his former colleagues to stay on his side, and to understand that it's his job on the line. In other words, we paid you off, and if you want more industry money, you better toe the line. And by the way, we're friends.

This should be extraordinarily awkward for the rest of the Senate, and especially Dodd's colleagues.  Remember, Dodd was first elected to the Senate in 1980, and had various leadership and committee positions throughout his career. This isn't a one off backbench house Member. If a Senator with three decades of tenure behind him can do an about face and use campaign cash to dictate public policy, what about the rest of the Senate?

It's shocking to see Senators who usually rail against money in politics ignore the public threats from their former colleague. I haven't seen any public response at all from sitting Senators, while the public perception of the institution is taking yet another hit. While a public White House petition is calling for an investigation of Dodd, the rest of the Senate (and House) have just quietly ignored his threats, at least in public.

That shouldn't be enough. If the former colleague of all these Democratic Senators is going to accuse them of being bought, and threaten to withhold support, the least they can do is deny the influence of the MPAA's money on their actions. If it's not okay to publicly bully Congress with industry money, then somebody should say so.

And if we don't act, this is only going to get worse. All these outside influencers now have tools at their disposal to credibly threaten to spend tens or hundreds of millions of dollars supporting or opposing candidates, while covering their tracks, if they so choose. If a Senator who has publicly committed to protecting the integrity of representation is willing to bully Members with his industry cash, we can expect this is just a small piece of the action.

We should pass lobbying reform, get real disclosure for super PACs, strengthen ethics enforcement bodies, and follow the money as best we can. And maybe we should be glad when the influential have such hubris that they tell us what they're really up to.

 

Here’s a riddle: What do you call it when someone earns millions of dollars from corporate clients, uses his relationships with the most influential officials in government to pursue those clients’ interests, and even has offices on K Street?

Answer: If you are Newt Gingrich, not a lobbyist.

The Washington Post reports that corporate clients paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to the current leader in the Republican primary in exchange for him providing “access to top transformational leadership across industry and government” through his for-profit “think tank.” Apparently they got what they paid for. According to the Post, “Gingrich also bragged about his success in pushing conservative policies and legislation in Washington during his political exile.”

We’ve written many times before about stealth lobbyists, often former Members of Congress who crawl around Capitol Hill and the White House advocating on behalf of fat cat clients, but who skirt disclosure under the lobby laws by claiming they only provide “strategic advice” or spend less than 20% of their time lobbying.

And we’ve advocated—dare I say lobbied—to change all of that.

The specter of Newt Gingrich, former non-lobbyist lobbyist, occupying the White House should galvanize calls for lobbying reform. It’s problematic enough when a former Member of Congress provides his clients with access to his friends and colleagues in the House or the Senate. But if Washington’s revolving door should swing that person into the White House, corporate interests who once paid handsomely for strategic advice will have a direct line to the leader of the country.

The Gingrich example is at the top of the list of why we need a new approach to lobbying disclosure. The most influential people in Washington can easily skirt the rules currently in place. Everyone who is not in that top tier of influence peddlers—including all of the registered lobbyists who follow the rules—should recognize the failure of the current system and work to change it by ensuring that if someone is paid to lobby, they register and report as a lobbyist.

The congressional debt committee, commonly referred to as the super committee, has been a popular topic in the news since it was created by the Budget Control Act of 2011. We have been tracking lobbyist ties and campaign contributions to members of the committee since August. The Washington Post did an interesting report in early September that many of the super committee members had ties to lobbyists.

The Washington Post article uses GE as a case study to discuss the almost 100 registered lobbyists who are former employees of super committee members and are now "representing defense companies, health-care conglomerates, Wall Street banks and others with a vested interest in the outcome of the panel's work."

While this article involved some heavy duty investigative journalism, many of its major claims can be substantiated by publicly available data.

The article states that Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) "has employed more than a dozen currently registered lobbyists." The Center for Responsive Politics' "Revolving Door" tool allows investigators to search for individuals by former employee or by former employer. A search for "Murray, Patty" as "employment" returns 18 people who have formerly worked for the senator. Clicking on an individual record shows the individual's former position as well as their new employer and title. Digging into the 18 people returned by the initial search gives us 16 former Murray staffers who may currently be working as lobbyists. (See the end of this post for a full breakdown of the 16.)

1. Douglas Clapp, a former Aide to Murray, now works as the director of Washington state's Washington, DC office.
2. Rick Desimone, Murray's former Chief of Staff and former Vice Chair and Chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, is now an Executive Vice President at McBee Strategic Consulting.
3. Carrie Desmond, a former Legislative Assistant to Murray, now works at Lockheed Martin's Washington Operations organization.
4. Christy Gullion, a former Northwestern Regional Director for Murray, now works as chief federal lobbyist for the University of Washington.
5. Shay Michael Hancock, a former Legislative Assistant to Murray, is now a Senior Vice President at the lobbying firm Denny Miller Associates.
6. James Jones, Murray's former Speechwriter (as well as Sen. John Kerry's former Communications Director), now works as a Manager of Integrated Communications at Exxon Mobil.
7. Joy Langley, a former Legislative Assistant to Murray, now works as the Assistant Director of Government Affairs at J Street.
8. Dale Learn, a former Senior Legislative Assistant to Murray, is now the President of Gordon Thomas Honeywell's Governmental Affairs.
9. Justin LeBlanc, former Senior Staffer to Murray, is now the President of LeBlanc Government Relations.
10. Eric Masten, former Legislative Assistant to Murray, now works as a Public Policy Associate at the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network.
11. Ben Lee McMakin, former Legislative Director to Murray, is now the Managing Director of Government Issues at Van Ness Feldman.
12. Heather Meade, former Deputy Scheduler/Assistant to the Chief of Staff for Murray, is now the Senior Manager at Washington Council Ernst & Young.
13. Nate Potter, former LA to Murray, is now a Federal Affairs Consultant for Gordon Thomas Honeywell.
14. Casey Sixkiller, former Policy Advisor to Murray, is now a Senior Advisor at SNR Denton's Indian Law and Tribal Representation practice.
15. Karen Waters, Murray's former Deputy State Director, is now a Senior Vice President at Strategies 360.
16. Todd Webster, Murray's former Communications Director, launched his own strategic communications firm, Webster Strategies.

Yesterday's Legistorm report on congressional staffers-turned-lobbyists provides more support for the theory that Congress is turning over its work to special interests. It adds to a mountain of evidence that includes an expanding pay gap between House staff and their private sector equivalents, fewer policy staff in Congress, and significant new cuts in staff positions and pay.

Looking at a decade's worth of data, Legistorm found that "5,400 people have been both lobbyists and received paychecks as staff from the legislative branch in the past decade." The report adds that it's likely that at least 2,900 former staffers are currently lobbying, with 605 current congressional staff having served as lobbyists in the past decade. These numbers are likely low, both because the number of federally registered lobbyists does not include many people who lobby and data available for the study was incomplete (missing "perhaps hundreds of potential staffer-lobbyist matches.")

Having inside connections is a big help to the bottom line for staffers-turned-lobbyists, according to two research papers. Lobbyists who are connected to members of Congress get paid more than those who are only experts. In addition, lobbyists who worked for a US Senator "suffer a 24% drop in revenue -- around $177,000 -- when their ex-employers leave office." In Washington, who you know is more important than what you know.

That influence is only magnified when Congress cannot effectively evaluate claims made by lobbyists. Unfortunately, Congress has been shrinking its pool of experienced staff for over two decades. According to my review of data going back to 1979, "there are fewer House staff and fewer legislative support agency personnel now that at any time in the recent past." House personal office, committee, and leadership staff are at 87% of their 1979 levels. Committee staff alone are at 62% of their 1979 levels, having eliminated 755 positions. Major legislative support agencies have suffered tremendous losses, and are at 65% of their 1979 staffing levels. GAO, the investigative arm of Congress that looks at the public purse, is at 60% of its 1979 staffing level; CRS is at 80%. While government has grown more complex, there are fewer congressional staff to provide oversight, and they cannot help but rely upon the army of lobbyists whose influence has expanded to fill the vacuum. It's no wonder that $3.51 billion was spent on lobbying in 2010.

The reduced congressional capacity to handle influence has an effect on decision-making. For example, a recent look at lobbying during the financial crisis found that mortgage-lending companies that lobbied prior to the financial crisis engaged in riskier lending practices and were more likely to be bailed out.

With these institutional factors at play, it's no surprise that staff are leaving to go to the private sector. A review of two decades of staff salary surveys shows that the leading factors that drive out staff are unpredictable work hours and low pay. The high turnover rate and youthful median staff age puts Congress at a disadvantage when dealing with the Executive branch or the private sector.

This trend is only going to accelerate. The House Appropriations Committee has adopted what it called "the largest ever two-year reduction for the legislative branch." For upcoming fiscal year 2012, which starts on October 1, the House Appropriations Committee has endorsed a 6.46% cut to the House of Representatives, which on top of the FY 2011 cuts decreases the House's budget by 10.4% over two years. By way of example, the amount of money available to each personal office for a Member of Congress will be reduced by around $90,000. Since most office costs are fixed and staff pay is already effectively frozen, this likely will translate into staff reductions and pay cuts. Put another way, if you add up all spending for the legislative branch, including expenditures for security, all the support agencies, the visitor center, and so on, the proposed 2012 budget is $4.38 billion. By contrast, the total federal budget is $3.82 trillion. That's a small amount of money when compared to its responsibility to set the direction for the entire government.

Tomorrow, the Senate Appropriations Committee will markup its Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, determining how much pain to mete out to Senate personal, committee, and leadership offices. At the same time, it will determine whether to agree to the House's huge cuts to the Government Printing Office (16%), the Library of Congress (8%), Government Accountability Office (6.4%), and other important legislative support agencies. The future of many staff now includes earlier retirement, furloughs, and a bare minimum of resources.

All of these problems are compounded by Congress's lack of introspection about the work that it does and our inability to track these exertion of influence by special interests. It's true that there are important ongoing legislative efforts to close these lobbying disclosure loopholes, most notably the Lobbyist Disclosure Enhancement Act, and a broad consensus about what to do about lobbying. And there are some efforts to make more congressional information publicly available, so that the public can figure out what's going on. Unfortunately, we are far from where we need to be if we want an effective Congress that capably balances its dual roles as policymaker and agent of the people.

In the most recent, and possibly most repugnant, turn of the revolving door, FCC commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker will join Comcast just months after approving the Comcast/NBC Universal merger. The move spurred the New York Times to call for expanding the definition of lobbying. We agree. While Baker’s hiring may be a done deal, the lobby laws need to be changed so that we know who she is lobbying, about what, and when.

Rules put in place by the Obama administration mean that Baker will not be allowed to lobby anyone at the FCC for two years. That’s a sliver of an exclusion that leaves her plenty of opportunities to spread the Comcast/NBC message inside the beltway. The day after she starts, this well-connected, high-ranking administration official can start lobbying Congress on any issue, including the Comcast/NBC merger.

The current laws do next to nothing to inform the public about the ways Baker will wield her power on Capitol Hill. Sunlight is calling for changes in the current Lobbying Disclosure Act that would require her and others like her to report the names of the offices she lobbies—whether in person, on the phone, in writing or email—and link the names with the specific issues on which she sought government action. We would require that reporting to happen in real time and online.

We may not be able to close the revolving door, but we can find out what happens whenever people pass through it.

Merchants, retailers, and their trade associations have arrayed a team of former government officials turned lobbyists in one of 2011's biggest lobbying battles as banks and credit unions seek to overturn part of the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill. According to data compiled from the Senate Office of Public Records and the Center for Responsive Politics, merchants and retailers lobbying in support of debit interchange fees rules employed 124 lobbyists with previous government experience.

The Federal Reserve has proposed rules to set limits on the amount that banks can charge retailers every time a customer uses a debit card for a purchase, known as debit interchange fees. These fees, set by electronic networks, including VISA and MasterCard, provide big profits to banks and diminish returns for retailers, often leading to rising prices for consumers.

Retailers lobbied hard to get a limit on interchange fees included in the Dodd-Frank bill and succeeded when retail ally Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., offered an amendment, which was adopted, to the bill requiring the Federal Reserve to write rules governing the fees. The Fed released their rule earlier this year. Much to the dismay of banks and electronic network operators the Fed rules capped interchange fees at 12 cents per swipe, or a more than 70 percent reduction in fees.

Banks and their allies--payment networks and credit unions--have swamped Capitol Hill with lobbyists and the retailers and merchants, including Wal-Mart, have done the same.

Major members of the Electronic Payments Coalition, the chief organizing vehicle for the banks opposed to the fee rules, have hired 118 former government officials to lobby and made at least $500,000 in political action committee (PAC) contributions to members of Congress.

Retailers and merchants have largely organized through the Merchant's Payments Coalition. Organizations listed as members of the Merchant's Payments Coalition, all of whom are trade associations, accounted for half of the 124 revolving door lobbyists hired by retailers and merchants. The other half come from supporting companies including Wal-Mart, Home Depot, 7-11, and Best Buy.

Below you'll find a table listing all the revolving door lobbyists affiliated with the retailers and merchants. These are all lobbyists who were specifically listed as lobbying on debit interchange fee rules on their lobbying disclosure forms for 2010 or 2011. Revolving door lobbyists affiliated with the Electronic Payments Coalition can be found here.

The Justice Department just indicted Doug Hampton, a former aide to Sen. John Ensign, for lobbying Ensign's office prior to the conclusion of the one year cooling off period after leaving his congressional position.

This guy is a modern day Job: His boss sleeps with his wife, then helps him circumvent lobbying laws to get clients because Ensign felt bad about cuckolding him, and then Ensign is let off the hook and he gets indicted.

Why the Justice Department won't charge Ensign is beyond me. Ensign helped Hampton violate the lobbying statute with full knowledge that Hampton was not supposed to be in contact with Ensign's office.

--Former Rep. Steve Buyer registered his first client with his own eponymous lobbying practice. Last week his firm, Steve Buyer Group, registered to lobby for McKesson Corp., one of the nation's biggest healthcare companies. The registration states that Buyer will provide "general consulting for the Pharmaceutical Prime Vendor Contract," which is a contract with the Veteran's Administration. Buyer will be able to use both his knowledge of the VA and his contacts there from his time as chairman of the House Committee on Veteran's Affairs.

--Former Rep. Ron Klein signed up with Holland & Knight's Public Policy & Regulation Group. Klein won't be eligible to lobby his former colleagues in the House for another year.

--Former Sen. Larry Craig's lobbying shop New West Strategies registered to lobby on behalf of Murray Energy. The registration shows that New West will lobby on greenhouse gas legislation, which would likely focus on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) decision to implement regulations limited emissions.

On Friday the chief of staff to the chairman of the House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure left his post to lead the transportation lobbying practice at BGR Group. This is not only a perfect of example of why the revolving door is such a target of public disgust, but also an example of Congress' lax rules on post-employment negotiations.

House Rules covering employment negotiations for current congressmen and staff have no public element. While lawmakers and staff are required to report on employment negotiations to the Ethics Committee (we'll get to this in a minute), there is no requirement that the public be informed at all.

This is of little use to a public that sees the revolving door as a corrosive force on the legislative process.

While the rules do provide for disclosure to the Ethics Committee, they provide ludicrous options on when an individual has to report. Here are the rules as written:

1. A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner shall not directly negotiate or have any agreement of future employment or compensation unless such Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, within 3 business days after the commencement of such negotiation or agreement of future employment or compensation, files with the Committee on Ethics a statement, which must be signed by the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, regarding such negotiations or agreement, including the name of the private entity or entities involved in such negotiations or agreement, and the date such negotiations or agreement commenced.

2. An officer or an employee of the House earning in excess of 75 percent of the salary paid to a Member shall notify the Committee on Ethics that such individual is negotiating or has any agreement of future employment or compensation.

3. The disclosure and notification under this rule shall be made within 3 business days after the commencement of such negotiation or agreement of future employment or compensation.

4. A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, and an officer or employee to whom this rule applies, shall recuse himself or herself from any matter in which there is a conflict of interest or an appearance of a conflict for that Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee under this rule and shall notify the Committee on Ethics of such recusal. A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner making such recusal shall, upon such recusal, submit to the Clerk for public disclosure the statement of disclosure under clause 1 with respect to which the recusal was made.

As you can see by the portions that I've bolded the individual engaged in employment negotiations has three choices of when to inform the Ethics Committee: upon the commencement of negotiations, upon accepting the new job, or upon receiving compensation from the new job. This an unbelievably wide-open array of options. Under these rules a lawmaker or covered staffer may elect to disclose their employment negotiations after they have already negotiated, left Congress, and received a paycheck! Why even have these rules to begin with?

Further, section 4 of the above quoted rules requires public disclosure of recusals by lawmakers--staffers are excluded from disclosure under this section--from official business where a conflict of interest, or appearance thereof, from employment negotiations may occur. This also comes with the wide-open options for the timeliness of disclosure as stated above. Compounding the disclosure problems here, recusals are supposed to be made publicly available, but the Clerk of the House does not post them to their website.

Facing a battle with the Peruvian government over a smelting operation that has caused severe environmental damage to a town in the Andean mountains, the Renco Group and its owner, billionaire Ira Rennert, assembled a formidable lobbying team in a matter of months that includes eight former government officials from five different Washington firms, and has succeeded in getting members of Congress from both parties and the Obama administration to aid it in its cause.

Renco Group’s hiring spree, uncovered using Sunlight’s Lobbying Registration Tracker, shows how private interests strategically employ lobbyists with insider connections to current officials to influence public policy. However, because lobbyists are not required to disclose which members of Congress they’ve contacted, and because none of Renco Group’s lobbyists would comment for this story, we can only note the connections between the lobbyists and the members of Congress who acted on the company’s behalf.

Among its hires, the Renco Group retained the services of a pair of lobbyists with ties to Rep. Donald Payne, D-N.J., and House Financial Services Committee chairman Spencer Bachus, R-Ala. In January, both lawmakers wrote letters to the Treasury Department about Doe Run Peru (DRP), Renco’s subsidiary, and its dispute with the Peruvian government, Treasury letters responding to the congressmen show.

In February, eleven days after his former chief of staff, Kerry McKenney, registered to lobby on Renco’s behalf, Payne had a letter entered into the Congressional Record addressed to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in which he expressed a “serious concern” about Lima’s treatment of Doe Run Peru and the Renco Group.

"Secretary Geithner has indicated that they have approached the Peruvian government about the issue," Laverne Alexander, Payne's current chief of staff, said.

At issue is a complicated financial and environmental dispute involving a metal smelter that began operations in 1922 in the town of La Oroya, Peru. The Blacksmith Institute, an organization that focuses on industrial pollution in the developing world, called La Oroya one of the ten most polluted places on earth in 2006—a 2005 study found that nearly all of the children in the town of 35,000 under six suffered from lead poisoning. When it purchased the facility in 1997, Renco promised to remediate some of the contamination, but has received numerous extensions from the Peruvian government, and has yet to complete the work.

The company claims that Lima has failed to uphold its own obligations under the environmental cleanup agreement that was part of the terms under which the smelter was sold to Renco.

The Renco Group is no stranger to environmental controversy—in 1998, the Environmental Protection Agency rated its MagCorp subsidiary, based in Utah, as one of the biggest polluters in the country, and in 2010, its Doe Run subsidiary, based in St. Louis, agreed to spend $65 million to bring the operations of its Missouri facilities into compliance with environmental regulations, and agreed to a $7 million civil penalty for breaking a series of environmental laws.

In the dispute with Peru, members of Congress sided with the company, and pressured the Treasury Department to do the same. In response to the letters from Bachus and Payne, Marisa Lago, the Assistant Treasury Secretary for International Markets and Development, wrote on February 15 that, “Our embassy has been in touch with the Government of Peru on a number of different occasions with respect to this case, emphasizing that we expect it to make a good faith effort to work with DRP to resolve the pending financial and environmental issues.”

Those issues are daunting. Operations at DRP’s smelter in La Oroya, Peru, have been shut down for two years as the company has unsuccessfully sought to borrow money to resume work there. Meanwhile, the Renco Group still faces a lawsuit filed on behalf of bondholders who allege the company misrepresented the environmental liabilities of its MagCorp subsidiary.

Lima’s bankruptcy agency is now considering whether to restructure the idle company or liquidate its assets; Doe Run Peru has filed its intent to commence arbitration through the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. That trade deal allows for a neutral resolution of disputes though an international arbitration court, a fact mentioned by Lago in her letters to Payne and Bachus.

In its lobbying effort, Renco Group hired Palmer C. Hamilton, a former Treasury official and banking lobbyist who hosted a fundraiser with and contributed $18,000 to the campaigns of fellow Alabaman Spencer Bachus. The company also hired former Ways and Means Chairman Jim McCrery, R-N.J., who, as ranking member in the 109th Congress, was instrumental in securing passage of the U.S.-Peru free trade agreement, and Timothy Keeler, the former chief of staff of the United States Trade Representative office, whose responsibilities included overseeing the implementation of free trade agreements. Over a span of 82 days beginning in November 2010, Renco Group hired eight former government officials working at five different Washington firms. So far, those firms have reported receiving $245,000 to lobby.

Renco Group’s headquarters are in New York, as is Fair Field, the largest mansion in the United States and the home of the company’s owner, billionaire Ira Rennert, ranked by Forbes in 2010 as the 144th wealthiest man in the world, with a fortune estimated at $5.3 billion.

For more on this story, read the complete report and background information at the Reporting Group site.