Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

The Atlanta Journal Constitution (DOC)

VIEWS: 16 PAGES: 32

									                           The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

                               February 4, 2011 Friday
                                 First Replate Edition

January tab to gain access: $250,000; Reports filed with State Ethics
Commission.; Georgia House, Senate leaders top recipients of gifts, dinners,
tickets.

Forty-two Falcons tickets. Two seats at a Jeff Foxworthy concert. Four hundred and
thirty-five dinners and one mobile phone charger.

Those items are among the more than $250,000 lobbyists spent on members of the
General Assembly and other elected officials in January, according to reports filed
with the State Ethics Commission.

Under new ethics laws adopted last year, lobbyists must now disclose every two
weeks during the legislative session how they are spending money to influence public
policy. The reports from the first two filings in January show business interests ---
from check cashing to Coca-Cola --- accounted for 10 percent of all spending, but
that nearly a third came from government entities or local organizations such as the
Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, the Georgia Municipal
Association and chambers of commerce.

An analysis of those records by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution also shows that
the lawmakers receiving the most gifts, dinners and tickets are the leaders in the
House and Senate most responsible for shaping legislation. At the top of that list is
House Speaker David Ralston, R-Blue Ridge, who received $2,747 in gifts in January,
and Senate Majority Leader Chip Rogers, who accepted $2,230 in dinners, tickets
and other items. Public Service Commissioner Bubba McDonald was third, having
received more than $1,500 in lodging and food.

Lobbyists in January entertained lawmakers at restaurants such as BLT Steak in
Atlanta, where a 14-ounce ribeye costs $36, and French American Brasserie, where
the coq au vin costs $23. But they also bought legislators $4 sandwiches from
cafeterias around the Capitol, paid for copies of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
or delivered snacks to lawmakers' office staff.

For legislators, lobbyist largess comes with the territory. Some events, such as the
popular Savannah Chatham Seafood Feast, paid for by the Savannah Area Chamber
of Commerce, are open to all lawmakers and staff. The tab for that event alone was
more than $84,000.

But much of lobbyist spending comes in private dinners that offer opportunities to
get key lawmakers alone. Senate President Pro Tem Tommie Williams, R-Lyons, one
of the most powerful lawmakers at the Capitol, said he turns down more offers than
he accepts.

"I turn a lot of folks down," said Williams, who accepted more than $900 in gifts in
January. "But, I need to know about the issues. If it's something I need to learn
more about, I'm more likely to consider that."

For new lawmakers, the atmosphere at the Capitol can be daunting and confusing.
Rep. Tom Taylor, a freshman Republican from Dunwoody, has made it clear his
interest is in getting up to speed, not getting freebies.

There have been no hunting trips offered or taken. Taylor did drive himself down to
Forsyth --- "on my own nickel" --- to go on a tour of tree farms organized by the
Georgia Forestry Association. The tour included a stop at a farm owned by former
Atlanta Braves pitcher John Smoltz, a fried chicken lunch and a classroom session
with a PowerPoint presentation on the industry.

"I understand how it works," Taylor said, "but it's more education than recreation for
me."

Taylor said he waves off the toys and tchotchkes that land on his desk. The former
defense contractor did stop in on Aerospace Day to talk shop and grab a free bagel,
and he also attends the mass feedings organized by various chambers of commerce
and other groups.

"It's not like we're going out to Chops or Bones every night, at least not me," he said
of the buffet meals. "It's just a way to meet offline with business people and hear
what their interests are."

Lobbyists watch who is in power, who has gained power or who has lost it. Rep. Amy
Carter, R-Valdosta, recently switched parties and also was named one of Gov.
Nathan Deal's floor leaders in the House. In January, lobbyists spent more than $430
on her. While Carter said it does not seem like she is suddenly more popular with
lobbyists since she joined the majority party and gained a leadership role, the data
suggest otherwise. In January 2010, when she was still a Democrat, lobbyists spent
only $145 on Carter.

But, sometimes, lobbyists are simply maintaining relationships, no matter the rise
and fall of a particular lawmaker. Rep. Ben Harbin, R-Evans, was until last month
chairman of the powerful budget-writing Appropriations Committee. Harbin,
however, said his interaction with lobbyists has not changed now that he is no longer
in a leadership role.

"Most of them are friends anyway," Harbin said of the lobbyists he interacts with. In
January of this year, Harbin accepted more than $730 in gifts from lobbyists --- all
but $76 after he lost his chairmanship. In January 2010, lobbyists spent $520 on
Harbin.

Ethics watchdogs say that lobbyist spending has its place in a democracy, but that
there should be limits. Common Cause Georgia, one of several groups that have
banded together to call for a cap on lobbyist spending, said it is not concerned with
most of the dinners, lunches and meetings.

"We're not trying to eliminate business lunches or business dinners because we
recognize legislators' days are pretty full," said William Perry, executive director of
Common Cause Georgia. "A dinner paid for someone isn't our concern. It is the
bigger luxury item."

Common Cause, the Tea Party Patriots, Georgia Watch and ethics advocate Ray Boyd
--- who have formed the Georgia Alliance for Ethics Reform --- want a $100 limit on
any individual expenditure by a lobbyist. Current law has no cap, but lobbyists must
disclose how they spend their money.

If the $100 cap were in place, about 60 expenditures --- out of more than 1,000 in
January --- would have exceeded the limit.

"Those items over $100 are more the peddling of influence than an attempt to
conduct business," Perry said.

Staff writers April Hunt, Chris Joyner and James Salzer contributed to this article.

What they bought

In the month of January, lobbyists made the following purchases for legislators,
legislative staff and other state officials:

42

Falcons tickets

27

Thrashers tickets

4

Hawks tickets

435

Dinners worth $43,195.94

172

Lunches worth $19,950

1

$30 mobile phone charger

Source: Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission.
Note: All figures rounded to the nearest dollar.

Who got the most in January

Top 10 recipients of lobbyist spending last month. House Speaker David Ralston, R-
Blue Ridge $2,747

Senate Majority Leader Chip Rogers, R-Woodstock $2,230

Bubba McDonald, Public Service Commission $1,511

Rep. Mickey Channell, R-Greensboro
$1,358

House Majority Leader Larry O'Neal, R-Bonaire $1,294

Rep. Butch Parrish, R-Swainsboro $1,155

Sen. Don Balfour, R-Snellville $1,007

Rep. Edward Lindsey, R-Atlanta $953

Senate President Pro Tem Tommie Williams, R-Lyons $904

Rep. Katie Dempsey, R-Rome $820

Top spenders

Lobbyists for the following companies and groups spent the most during January:

Company or group Amount

Savannah Area Chamber of Commerce and CVB $84,576.73

Commonwealth Research Associates LLC $17,683.59

United Way of Metropolitan Atlanta $12,992.18

Friends of Agriculture Foundation Inc. $11,564.00

Coca-Cola Co. $10,288.31

Easter Seals North Georgia $5,793.36

SCANA $5,216.99

Mathews & Maxwell Inc. $5,081.62

AGL Resources $4,567.05

GeorgiaLink Public Affairs Group $3,718.76



                             Investment Dealers' Digest

                                 February 4, 2011

The Price of 'Pay to Play'; New rules governing the use of placement agents
by California pension plans could subject sponsors to public disclosure
obligations

Fueled by a surge in populist sentiment and a desire to address perceived improper
behavior by public pension plan board members and investment staff, California and
its two primary public pension and retirement systems, CalPERS and CalSTRS,
recently enacted a broad regime to regulate the use of placement agents by private
fund sponsors looking to raise money from California plans.

The new regime (Assembly Bill 1743, Section 559 of Title 2 of the California Code of
Regulations and Section 600H of the Teachers' Retirement Board Policy Manual) took
effect in January. It appears to reflect the view that California's long-standing and
stringent political gift and campaign contribution rules were not enough to stem the
influence third parties may have had on California plans' investment decision-making
processes.

The "pay to play" placement agent scandals that rocked New York state in 2009
largely precipitated the rules. Similar scandals materialized in California, as
evidenced by the state attorney general's civil lawsuit against Alfred Villalobos, a
former CalPERS board member, and his firm, Arvco. The suit, filed in May, charged
that Villalobos cultivated improper relationships with a CalPERS board member,
attempted to bribe a CalPERS senior investment officer and failed to appropriately
register as a broker-dealer.

Unfortunately, the California Legislature's bid to increase the public's confidence that
investment decisions made by California plans are bias-free has resulted in rules
prohibiting private-equity firms from paying contingency fees to placement agents,
and potentially causing fund sponsors to become subject to significant ongoing public
disclosure obligations regarding their uses of placement agents.

The rules also apply to private fund managers and certain of their employees who act
on behalf of such managers to secure an investment from a California plan,
regardless of whether such employees are compensated in connection with the plan's
investment. Investor relations, marketing and sales employees of investment firms
may be placement agents under the rules if they are involved with securing
commitments from California plans. One notable exception is available to employees
who devote more than a third of their time each year to managing the securities or
assets owned or controlled by a fund manager. However, there is no clarity on what
constitutes "managing securities or assets."

In addition to prohibiting private fund managers from paying contingency based fees,
Assembly Bill 1743 subjects placement agents to the same restrictions, prohibitions
and registration, reporting and record-keeping requirements as lobbyists under
California's Political Reform Act of 1974. To solicit investments from California plans,
placement agents must register as lobbyists with the California secretary of state
and comply with all state lobbying registration and reporting rules, including those
prohibiting certain gifts and campaign contributions to California candidates, officers
and officials. Once registered, lobbyists must attend an ethics class in California, and
lobbyists and their employers must comply with quarterly disclosure and reporting
requirements, which include disclosure by private fund managers of lobbyist-related
compensation paid to their employees.

The rules have teeth. As with other state statutes, penalties for breaching California's
Political Reform Act include administrative, civil and criminal. For example, the
California Fair Political Practices Commission may impose penalties up to $5,000 per
violation. Likewise, penalties for failing to comply with CalPERS' regulations include:

* A return of the greater of (i) CalPERS' share of management fees paid to the
private-equity firm during the preceding two years and (ii) amounts paid or promised
to placement agents in connection with the plan's investment.

* Cessation of obligations to contribute capital to the fund.

Termination of the investment contract and withdrawal without penalty.

* A five-year ban on future investments by CalPERS with the fund sponsor.

To adequately address CalPERS' concerns, private-equity funds' partnership
agreements should be drafted carefully at the outset to provide for certain of these
required remedies, including (i) a withdrawal right for CalPERS, but not for other
investors who are not similarly situated, and (ii) modification of the management fee
offset and capital contribution provisions to account for the prohibition on the use of
CalPERS' capital contributions to pay any fees or expenses associated with the use of
placement agents.

The expansive definition of placement agent, along with California's commitment to
overhaul private-equity firms' use of placement agents in connection with California
plans' investments, will materially affect how fund sponsors can conduct fundraising
operations in California. Furthermore, the movement appears to be gathering steam
as local California public retirement systems reportedly weigh similar requirements.

Only time will tell whether other states will adopt legislation similar in scope to the
rules or instead adhere to a model similar to the SEC's pay-to-play Rule 206(4)-5 to
shield their public pension plans' investment decisions from actual or perceived
improper influence. Although there are indications that California legislators plan to
introduce a bill to clarify certain aspects of Assembly Bill 1743 in the near future,
California clearly will require heightened regulation and disclosure.

Jordan C. Murray is a partner and Oladipo Ashiru an associate in the New York office
of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.


                           The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

                              February 3, 2011 Thursday
                                     Main Edition

Should Georgia adopt a $100 cap on gifts from lobbyists?

Yes.

Lawmakers should pay their own way, just like everybody else.

The new Georgia Alliance for Ethics Reform --- composed of Common Cause, Tea
Party Patriots, Georgia Watch and Ray Boyd --- has proposed a $100 cap on lobbyist
gifts to state and local elected officials, as well as their staffs and families,
specifically including travel.

We're not trying to eliminate ordinary business meetings to discuss legislation. We're
trying to end free product samplers, Super Bowl tickets, golf weekends, fishing and
hunting expeditions, and overseas "fact finding" trips that are all just junkets in
disguise.

We want to cut them off because they're corrupting. Perhaps not in the narrow sense
of bribery where in return for receipt of a thing of value, officials make decisions they
would not otherwise make.

Rather, they are corrupting in more subtle and important ways. While most officials
recognize and reject bribes, they can easily succumb to and tolerate other forms of
corruption without even thinking of it as such.

The first is special friendship, which is a much more powerful corrupter than money.
When you become an elected official or staff member, you find that many lobbyists
want to be your friend. Gifts and pleasant time spent together are ways of making
special friends. Lobbyists very likely don't even want anything specific at the time.
They just want to be your friend, so that when needed, they can call on that
friendship to help sway your decision. The average citizen doesn't have that
advantage.

The second is the "legislative lifestyle." Officials and staffs who live high on the hog
simply because they are in public life tend to get out of touch with life as average
citizens. Their way of looking at things becomes shaped by their own privileged
experiences, not by the real world.

That, too, is corrupting, because hanging onto that "lifestyle" by staying in office ---
whatever it takes --- becomes paramount. In a republic, they should live like the rest
of us, including paying for things with money they have earned.

Some officials say that disclosure alone is enough. We're for disclosure, and we
believe that it should be extended to officials' families and their staff, who are not
currently covered by the law.

But disclosure alone is not enough. If it were, even bribery itself should be legal, as
long as it is disclosed. Some things should just plain be illegal.

Moreover, disclosure delayed can effectively be disclosure denied. We just saw an
example of that, where the nearly $18,000 Thanksgiving trip for House Speaker
David Ralston, R-Blue Ridge, wasn't disclosed until after the election for the speaker.

Some officials also say that we should give the current laws a chance to work. But
nobody makes that argument about, say, education. When have you heard someone
say, "Last year we found some small ways to help education, and we should give
them a chance to work before we try to find any new ways to help." This is just a
feeble excuse not to do anything about ethics this year.

Other officials say a cap would cause lobbyist to go underground. We shouldn't make
a law because people might break it? We don't say that about laws limiting the speed
of cars, or even murder. Sure, people will still speed, a few will still murder, but we
don't say, "Let's not have a law because if we do, people will still break it."

This shouldn't be controversial. Other states, including Alabama, Florida, Mississippi,
North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee, severely limit lobbyist gifts. The
people of Georgia don't like lobbyist gifts, either, and it's time to stop them.
William Perry is executive director of Common Cause Georgia. Bob Irvin, a former
GOP minority leader in the Georgia House, is its board chairman.

No.

Gift bans don't address the issue: Why do groups need to lobby?

President Barack Obama's State of the Union included a challenge to Congress to
publicly disclose when lawmakers are meeting with lobbyists.

Transparency and lobbying, regulation and lobbying, and limits on lobbying aren't
unique to Congress and are in fact increasingly bantered about as a cure to all which
ails the issue of ethics and Georgia.

These formulaic fixes aren't thoughtful. Regardless of the current or future rules
imposed, the major "issues" of lobbying won't be resolved by new legislative rules on
elected officials or reporting requirements on those who wish to influence.

Georgia House Judiciary Chairman Wendell Willard has indicted his intent for more
regulation of lobbying in an attempt to curb bad lobbying influence in Georgia.

Other groups have argued that more transparency and gift limits are the way to go
by requiring increased lobbying disclosures.

These techniques will not curb the improper influence that many watchdog groups
feel is exerted on legislators by lobbyists.

Many states have famously issued gift limits on legislators. Former Illinois Gov.
George Ryan supported and signed into law sweeping ethics reform legislation during
his tenure, including a $100 gift limit.

How did that turn out? Ryan now sits in a federal prison. Lest you think the ethics
problems ended with that Republican governor we can look no further than the ethics
problems of his successor, Democratic Gov. Rob Blagojevich.

Disclosure reports are a good act of transparency but aren't perfect. The U.S.
Government Accountability Office discovered that lobbyists err in making disclosures
in different forms between 11 and 12 percent of the time.

Disclosures may serve as an "embarrassment factor," which allows the media to
highlight conflicts of interest, but it isn't 100 percent effective against lobbying
abuse.

What elected officials have to realize is that nothing will ever completely stop those
who want to influence elected officials.

Yes, the question has to be raised about what can stop those few bad apples who
wish to corrupt a system.

But those individuals will break the laws no matter what is imposed on the larger
lobbying community.

I'm not arguing that lobbying reforms aren't important. But the public and public
officials need to ask themselves: Why does lobbying increase every year? Why does
your constituency feel the need to employ so many lobbyists to see you?

"Lobbying becomes a booming business" was the headline of one Atlanta Journal-
Constitution article, which highlighted excessive Atlanta spending on federal
lobbying. That article cited how federal lobbying has increased by $1 billion since
2007 --- the year Congress put into law its lobbying reform legislation.

Lobbying is a booming business because municipalities, nonprofits and companies
believe they have to pay top dollar to influence their elected officials.

Instead of replicating semi-adequate lobbying rules, which have failed elsewhere, it
would be far better for the Georgia Legislature to get at the heart of why people pay
for influence.

Maury Litwack is a lobbyist and founder of the advocacy education and training firm
Capitol Plan in Washington, D.C.


                                  The Baltimore Sun

                             February 3, 2011 Thursday
                                  FINAL EDITION

SLOTS APPEAL LAWYER HAS JOCKEY CLUB TIES; BLUMENTHAL IS
REGISTERED LOBBYIST FOR LAUREL OWNER

The attorney representing opponents of a slots parlor at Arundel Mills mall in a new
legal challenge is a registered lobbyist for the Maryland Jockey Club - the project's
most vocal opponent - according to Anne Arundel County records.

Harry C. Blumenthal, an Annapolis attorney, is representing a homeowners
association and three residents of a nearby housing development in a complaint
alleging that Anne Arundel County officials improperly approved the Cordish Cos.'
plan to accommodate increased traffic around a planned slots parlor and
entertainment complex at Arundel Mills.

Blumenthal and the Jockey Club say the track owner is not involved with the current
appeal, although Blumenthal said he has done lobbying work for the Jockey Club
regarding slots zoning in the past.

Although Cordish has the proper zoning to construct the $1 billion casino,
entertainment complex and seven-story parking garage, the complaint filed last
week with the Anne Arundel County Board of Appeals has the potential to slow
construction because the process prevents the county from granting Cordish a
building permit.

The appeals board plans to hear the case sometime in March and has 60 days from
then to issue a ruling, which can be appealed to county Circuit Court.

Joseline Castanos is one of the residents named in the appeal.

"I don't know who's paying" Blumenthal, said Castanos, a program administrator at a
local university who has lived in the community of homes near the mall with her
husband and two daughters since 2000. "To me it's not relevant. The relevant thing
is that we need the traffic to be addressed. The residents who live around the mall
are the ones who are going to have to deal with it."

According to records filed with the county's Ethics Commission, Blumenthal is a
registered lobbyist in Anne Arundel County for several clients, including the Jockey
Club. It is not uncommon for attorneys to work as lobbyists for more than one
organization and on a project-by-project basis.

"I have not done any lobbying work for the Maryland Jockey Club for quite some
time, although I continue to be a registered lobbyist, as I again may become
involved with matters applicable to Laurel Park," Blumenthal said in an e-mail
Tuesday. "The Maryland Jockey Club informed me that it will not be paying me for
the appeal."

Blumenthal, who has been a lobbyist for the Jockey Club since at least 2006,
according to ethics records, said he has not recently been paid by the Jockey Club.

Since slots were first approved in Maryland, the Jockey Club, which owns Laurel Park
Race Course, has pushed hard for slots at the track, advocating it as a way to rescue
the state's beleaguered horse racing industry. After Cordish won zoning approval
from the Anne Arundel County Council early last year, residents who live near the
mall and oppose the casino, funded by the Jockey Club, secured a ballot referendum
on the zoning, despite a months-long court fight waged by Cordish. Altogether, both
sides spent about $12 million on the ballot referendum, which Cordish won.

In a brief e-mail, Tom Chuckas, president of the Jockey Club, said Blumenthal "does
not represent MJC on [the zoning appeal]. MJC is not a litigant."

According to ethics disclosure forms, Blumenthal has earned about $175,000 through
his work for the Jockey Club. The bulk of that money - $113,431 - was paid to him
from May 1 to Oct. 31, 2010, during the height of the slots legal fight, according to
the forms.

Including the Jockey Club, Blumenthal lobbies for 26 companies, including several
developers. He is one of two registered county lobbyists for the Jockey Club.

In a follow-up e-mail, Blumenthal said, "The money paid to me was for work and
lobbying associated with the complex and multiple zoning legislation applicable to
casinos in the county."

Joseph Weinberg, president of development at Cordish, calls the newest challenge
frivolous and another attempt at delay, saying his company plans various road
improvements to accommodate traffic beyond what is required by law.

Weinberg said in a brief interview that he believes the Jockey Club is involved with
the appeal.

"Mr. Blumenthal is a registered lobbyist for the Maryland Jockey Club," said
Weinberg. "Common sense is common sense."

He added that while "there's a certainly a potential" for the appeal to delay the
project, "We plan to keep plowing ahead."

Cordish, which plans to construct the parking garage containing a temporary casino
with about 2,000 slot machines by the end of this year, and the entire 4,750-slot
machine project by the end of 2012, has permission to begin site preparation during
the appeal. Cordish officials say that grading work should take about two months to
complete.


                         Charleston Daily Mail (West Virginia)

                             February 3, 2011, Thursday

Officials blur lines between election, jobs

With four of the state's top elected officials running for governor, the lines between
their official work for the state of West Virginia and their campaign work has begun
to blur.

In recent days:

-Acting Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin has made campaign phone calls from a lobbyist's
office.

-Secretary of State Natalie Tennant, who oversees the state's elections, may decide
whether hundreds of thousands of dollars raised by Tomblin and Treasurer John
Perdue for a campaign in 2012 can legally be used in 2011. Her decision could be
seen - rightly or not - as a political move on her part.

-A state worker employed by Perdue called a county Democratic Party chairwoman to
tell her about a breakfast the treasurer would attend, leaving it unclear to even the
chairwoman whether Perdue was coming as the treasurer or a candidate for
governor.

-After work, House Speaker Rick Thompson makes calls seeking campaign
contributions.

All are Democrats.

But not any of this is new. Lawmakers routinely ask for money from people with
issues before the Legislature; state workers take time off to help reelect their
bosses; and at least two secretaries of state - Jay Rockefeller and Joe Manchin - ran
for governor from that office.

One of the biggest land mines so far may be the Secretary of State's Office. Tennant,
who will launch her campaign today at a pizza joint in her native Marion County, is
being asked to decide whether or not money that potential candidates raised for an
election in 2012 can be used this year instead.

That could affect more than $200,000 raised by Tomblin for 2012. Tomblin, who is
acting as governor by virtue of being the president of the Senate, had argued there
didn't need to be an election to fill the vacancy left by Manchin until 2012, but the
Supreme Court said otherwise.
"What they've told the campaign is you can roll money forward but you can't roll
things back," said Rob Alsop, a spokesman for Tomblin.

Several hundred thousand raised by Perdue's campaign could also be affected, but
that was unclear Wednesday evening. His campaign spokesman Chuck Smith said he
would consult lawyers to look at the issue, but said of Tennant, "Sounds to me like
she's trying to make a decision that favors her."

Tennant's office declined to comment, but sources said her office might ask Attorney
General Darrell McGraw to settle the matter.

Mike Plante, Thompson's campaign director, said he had been advised that there
could be a problem before they set up their account.

"We were told not once but a couple of times you can only roll money forward, not
backward," Plante said.

But even if Tennant sticks by that interpretation, she could easily face accusations
that she is trying to disadvantage some of her opponents.

Perdue could face similar criticism. The treasurer's office employs a number of field
representatives known as local government specialists - a position that has been
criticized for harboring some patronage jobs.

Late last month, one of them, Pat Jack, called Donna Matthews, the chairwoman of
the Upshur County Democratic Executive Committee and the president of the
county's Democratic Women.

"He said, 'Would you please let your Democratic Executive Committee and your
Democratic Women know that they are welcome to come have breakfast with John
Perdue,' " she said.

The next morning, she sent an e-mail to about two dozen people advertising the
breakfast. "Per Pat Jack," she said in the e-mail, which was forwarded to a reporter
who then contacted her to confirm its authenticity.

Matthews said the call from Jack came on a Monday afternoon. Jack couldn't be
reached Wednesday evening to comment.

Both Smith and a spokesman for the treasurer's office said treasurer's office
employees shouldn't be campaigning on state time.

"Everybody has been given strict orders not to do anything on the campaign while
they are on state time," said the spokesman, Nelson Sorah.

The breakfast itself is scheduled for 9 a.m. next Friday in Buckhannon. Matthews
said she still isn't sure if Perdue's event is for the campaign or if he's coming to do
his state job.

"I don't know on what behalf he's coming," she said. "I don't know which one he's
coming as."
Other officials have straddled a similar line. Tennant, for instance, recently held an
official press conference, and then stepped outside her Capitol office into the hallway
to talk to a reporter about her campaign. Alsop, Tomblin's chief of staff, also recently
stepped outside the Capitol to confirm information about the campaign to a reporter.
The telephone interview he gave for this interview was given Wednesday after work.

To raise money and seek support, Tomblin one day used the office of pharmaceutical
and oil and natural gas lobbyist Phil Reale to make phone calls for his campaign.

Tomblin used the office because he doesn't have a campaign headquarters yet. His
campaign planned to pay for using Reale's space, Alsop said, and once they have a
headquarters, "that will eliminate any question anyone has."

Reale, who has also been advising Tomblin during his transition, led Gaston
Caperton's transition team in the late 1980s and was Caperton's chief of staff. That is
when he met Tomblin, then the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

"He has been the single most important force in managing our state's money," Reale
said.

Tomblin has also had a couple meetings with other friends. Attendees of at least one
of those meetings included lobbyists or former lobbyists Nelson Robinson, John
Cavacini and Richard Stevens. One non-lobbyist attendee was Martha Walker, the
director of the Governor's Office of Health Enhancement and Lifestyle Planning.

Alsop said those meetings couldn't be categorized as gubernatorial meetings or
campaign meetings, and said Tomblin's doors were open to anyone.

Thompson likewise has made calls after work, often from Plante's office. He would
benefit - as would Tomblin - from endorsements by interest groups with legislation
pending in the Legislature.

Josh Sword, the political director of the state chapter of the American Federation of
Teachers, said interest groups stand to benefit from the current political
environment.

"Politicians get elected to offices by the voters - let's face it - and I think we're at a
point where a number of people are trying to do things that will garner more votes in
the future," he said. "I think it's very fair to say we're viewing this as an
opportunity."

Acting Senate President Jeff Kessler, a potential candidate for governor himself, has
said he will not campaign for governor from the president's chair. He said some of
the conduct "creates the appearance that people are buying access."

"It creates a lack of confidence in their public officials," he said.

But even Kessler's newly hired administrative assistant - Steve McElroy, the former
head of the West Virginia Nurses Association - was a registered lobbyist last year,
something Kessler said Wednesday he did not know.


                        Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Little Rock)
                             February 2, 2011 Wednesday

Year wait on lobbying by legislators advances Bill clears Senate panel;
House step next

Legislation to bar state lawmakers from becoming lobbyists for a year after departing
office sailed through an Arkansas Senate committee Tuesday.

The bill is Senate Bill 194 by Sen. Paul Bookout, D-Jonesboro. Similar legislation,
House Bill 1284 by House Speaker Robert S. Moore Jr., D-Arkansas City, is pending
in the House Rules Committee, scheduled to meet at noon today.

Sen. Gilbert Baker, R-Conway, said he's thought for many years that there should be
a "cooling-off" period between when a legislator working on public policy leaves
office and when the former legislator begins lobbying lawmakers on legislation. This
measure reflects a compromise among legislative leaders, he said.

"We are on the cusp of doing something historic," he told the Senate State Agencies
and Governmental Affairs Committee. "It's a great step forward." Senate Democratic
leader Robert Thompson of Paragould said the bill, if enacted, will apply to anyone
elected to the General Assembly af- ter the effective day of the legislation. The
legislation would take effect 90 days after the Legislature adjourns.

"So that covers everyone in the 2012 election," said Sen. Johnny Key, R-Mountain
Home.

Gov. Mike Beebe, a senator for 20 years, has questioned whether a bill sets
strictenough ethical standards if it exempts current lawmakers, as this one does - it
would not apply to current legislators who do not seek re-election in 2012. Twenty-
four representatives and 11 senators are barred from seeking re-election under the
state's term-limits amendment. Others may opt not to seek re-election in 2012.

Thompson told the committee that legislative leaders didn't propose a bill applying
the one-year waiting period for all current lawmakers because "there were different
people with different thoughts" and certain lawmakers thought it was unfair to
change "the rules" after they were elected.

"At least, we know it will apply to 135 legislators at the same time [in the future],"
he said.

The committee amended the Senate version to increase the number of senators
sponsoring it from eight to 33. The two senators not sponsoring the bill - Randy
Laverty, D-Jasper, and Jerry Taylor, D-Pine Bluff - said they'll vote for it.

In recent years, Baker and Thompson have pushed unsuccessfully for lawmakers to
enact a cooling-off period.

Act 1453 of 2003 bars legislators from registering as lobbyists before their terms
end. That was enacted after then-Sens. Morril Harriman, D-Van Buren, and Tom
Kennedy, D-Russellville, resigned in 2000 to accept lobbying jobs and former Rep.
David Hausam, R-Bentonville, resigned in 2002 to take one.
Baker was a sponsor of that law, which he's said was designed to improve the
public's confidence in legislators.

Harriman is now Beebe's chief of staff.

Sen. Kim Hendren, R-Gravette, who's on the Senate committee, said, " It gives me a
little bit of heartburn to tell somebody, a citizen, that is otherwise constitutionally
qualified that if they serve in the Legislature, they can't take a job lobbying [for a
year after leaving office]." But he said he'd vote for the bill.

Thompson said more than half of the states and Congress have "a cooling-off period"
before lawmakers can be lobbyists.

SB194 and HB1284 also require that the reimbursement to lawmakers who travel to
out-of-state conferences be "the lesser rate of reasonable airfare or the established
rate of private car mileage based on map mileage when driven." The proposed
legislation mandates that travel authorized by a chairman of a legislative committee
shall also be subject to approval by the speaker of the House or the president pro
tempore of the Senate.

When the speaker or president pro tempore provides the written authorization for
travel, he or his designee "shall determine the amount of reimbursement in dollars
and cents." The travel provision comes after Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reports the
past several years about lawmakers traveling long distances to conferences and
collecting more than $1,000 in mileage.

"It was just something we noticed that we needed to tighten up to try to be more
responsible with the way in which we handled that issue and to do it in the most
costeffective way," Bookout said.


                            The Columbus Dispatch (Ohio)

                             February 2, 2011 Wednesday

Kasich: Ex-advisers won't get lobbying favors

Gov. John Kasich said yesterday that there will be no special favors for three of his
former inner-circle campaign advisers now lobbying for clients that could benefit
from his administration's actions.

Kasich, who during the campaign railed against special interests with their "snouts in
the trough," told The Dispatch that clients of Donald Thibaut, Robert F. Klaffky and
Douglas J. Preisse will get no preferred treatment.

"All of my friends understand," Kasich said. "I've told them, 'You're crazy if you don't
make it clear to (clients), you don't get any favors out of me.' There is no
favoritism."

Thibaut, Kasich's former congressional chief of staff and his acknowledged closest
friend, registered for the first time as a lobbyist in a firm he created, The Credo
Company. Among the six clients Thibaut reported signing up is Corrections
Corporation of America, a Nashville-based prison operator that could benefit if
Kasich seeks to privatize Ohio prisons. CCA currently operates a federal prison in
Youngstown.

Gary C. Mohr, whom Kasich appointed director of the Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation and Corrections, spent five years as a consultant to CCA, which
designs, builds and manages federal and state prisons.

Klaffky and Preisse, partners in the long-standing Capitol Square lobbying firm of
Van Meter, Ashbrook and Associates, represent The GEO Group Inc., a Florida-based
competitor of CCA.

Preisse and Klaffky played key policy and strategy roles in Kasich's campaign last
year. Preisse, chairman of the Franklin County GOP, also headed Kasich's inaugural
committee.

Klaffky helped conceive Kasich's JobsOhio initiative to privatize the job-growth
functions of the Ohio Department of Development. Last month, Kasich had Klaffky
explain the JobsOhio bill in private to the GOP House and Senate caucuses -- a role
usually consigned to an administration official and rarely to a lobbyist.

"Klaffky was involved in JobsOhio during the campaign," Kasich said. "I had the
vision; he helped me put it together. He has no business before the Department of
Development or whatever.

"We've instituted a policy in my office that nobody, and I mean nobody, comes to me
directly to talk to me about any of their client interests. Anything as it relates to me
goes through (Chief of Staff) Beth (Hansen). I made it clear in the cabinet meeting
that nobody gets a special deal -- nobody."

Preisse told The Dispatch recently that he and the others are bound by state lobbying
rules and laws, and they would never embarrass Kasich because of their loyalty to
him and support for his agenda.

Kasich said he has made it clear to everybody: "Friendships end at the governor's
door."

To search for Statehouse lobbyists and their clients, go to the Ohio Lobbying Activity
Center at: www2.jlec-olig.state.oh.us/olac/.


                                 Newsday (New York)

                             February 2, 2011 Wednesday
                                    ALL EDITIONS

Guv calls for ethics reform bill

ALBANY - Perhaps the most dramatic moment of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo's budget
address yesterday had nothing to do with the budget.

The governor, his tone turning cajoling, called for passage of an ethics reform bill,
saying it was his top priority besides the budget.
"Why?" Cuomo said. "To restore your credibility and restore your integrity and say to
the people of this state they can trust this body called the legislature once again."

Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos (R-Rockville Centre) bristled a bit at the
lecturing tone and signaled that legislators might buck the governor.

"I'm for transparency and I'm for more disclosure," Skelos said. "But I also believe
that the Legislature has to be part of the process. This not going to be a process
where everything is driven by the executive branch."

Republicans last year helped block the override of former Gov. David A. Paterson's
veto of an ethics reform measure. Speaker Sheldon Silver, who has allowed ethics
bills to pass the Democrat-controlled Assembly, said there was "no question" ethics
reform was needed. But he said the executive branch needs to rebuild trust, too.

"It's about the government. Period," Silver said. "People are frustrated ... and it's
beyond the Legislature."

Cuomo said last week that he is working with Silver, Skelos and Senate Democrats
to write an ethics reform bill. An official with knowledge of Cuomo and lawmakers'
talks said campaign finance and redistricting were not part of the discussions.

Instead, the leaders were focused on income and client disclosures, an ethics
investigatory commission and lobbying rules, the official said. Ethics investigators
would be named by an appointing commission with members selected by the
governor and legislative leaders, the official said.


                          Orange County Register (California)

                             February 2, 2011 Wednesday

County approves lobbyists' sign-up

Lobbyists hoping to influence how the county of Orange spends taxpayer dollars will
soon have to register in a public database, the county's first step toward
transparency in a 13-month struggle over whether lobbyists should be regulated.

Three previous attempts in less than a year to register lobbyists fell short, dismissed
by the Board of Supervisors as unnecessary and a "solution looking for a problem."

In an apparent change of heart, the board unanimously approved a fourth proposal
Tuesday that spelled out what lobbyists are and how they should be regulated when
it comes to seeking to influence county business.

The ordinance is intended to "increase transparency, accountability, and trust in the
Board's decision making process," according to the staff report.

But what the lobbyists are lobbying for and whom they talked to still won't have to
be disclosed.

The lobbyist registration ordinance will come back to the board next week with a few
clarifications before it is officially enacted. Lobbyists would need to begin registering
July 1.

"It's fantastic for taxpayers," said Jennifer Muir, spokeswoman for the Orange
County Employees Association. "Given what we've seen with the Orange County
fairgrounds and the city of Bell, the Board of Supervisors took the right step for the
taxpayers and the public."

With a budget of more than $5.4 billion, Orange County is the largest local
government in California that doesn't publicly register those trying to influence
lawmakers. The lack of any lobbyist registration requirements was criticized in a
recent Orange County grand jury report.

While lobbyist reform continued to languish in the county of Orange, state Sen. Lou
Correa introduced a bill in December that would require lobbyist registration at the
local government level.

After rebuffing the latest lobbyist registration proposal Nov. 23, the supervisors
handed the issue over to Chief Executive Tom Mauk and County Counsel Nicholas
Chrisos, giving them 60 days to come up with a simple definition of lobbyists - and a
way to regulate them.

The proposed ordinance defines a lobbyist as anyone who makes $500 or more a
month for lobbying on behalf of anyone other than an employer or is paid $500 or
more a month by an employer to engage in lobbying activities. County lobbyist
employers and county lobbying firms would also be required to register with the clerk
of the board.

Public employees and elected officials acting in their official capacity were exempted
along with special districts, county commissions staffed by county employees, and
trade organizations including chambers of commerce. Unions are not exempt.

Nonprofits were originally excluded from registering by the proposed ordinance, but
supervisors balked at the idea of allowing nonprofits seeking county contracts to slip
under the radar by claiming nonprofit status.

"If you're doing business with the county or trying to do business with the county,
you should not be excluded," said Supervisor John Moorlach, who was one of the
loudest voices questioning why a lobbyist registry was necessary. County counsel is
working to clarify the role of nonprofits.

Lobbyists would pay a one-time $75 registration fee and then a $50 annual fee.
Lobbyists would have to file annual reports including their name, address, telephone
number and e-mail address.

Supervisor Pat Bates questioned the fees, asking staff to come back next week and
explain what the money was actually paying for since the reporting will all be done
online.

Registering late or failing to register quarterly would mean a written warning or a
fine of up to $500. Knowingly breaking the rules could result in a fine of up to
$2,500.

Correa's legislation, SB31, is still in its infancy but would require any local
government looking for state grant funds to have a lobbyist registration program.
That bill also includes special districts.

Former state Sen. Joe Dunn - now executive director of the California State Bar -
proposed a county lobbyist registration system in January 2010, but the plan - which
required both lobbyists and public officials to disclose their conversations - was
rejected by supervisors and deemed unnecessary.

Board Chairman Bill Campbell, a former state assemblyman, had patterned his
lobbyist registration plan after the rules lobbyist have to play by in Sacramento. The
proposal, introduced in November, would have required lobbyists to register four
times a year. The proposal stopped short of forcing lobbyists to disclose their
discussions.

But it too was rejected. Campbell and Supervisor Janet Nguyen were the only
supporters.

Supervisors Pat Bates and Shawn Nelson, who voted against Campbell's proposal,
then submitted their own plan, calling for lobbyists to register once a year. Lobbyists
still would not have to identify who they were visiting. There also was no provision
preventing lobbyists from raising campaign funds for the supervisors they lobby.

But the plan was criticized as being overly broad - and supervisors sent Mauk and
Chrisos back to the drawing board.

Shirley Grindle, a longtime county watchdog, said she was surprised the all-
Republican Board of Supervisors approved any kind of lobbyist measure but criticized
the ordinance for stopping short of barring lobbyists from campaigning for or
fundraising for the elected officials they are lobbying.

"They haven't addressed the real issue," Grindle said.

"It's nice to know who's lobbying behind closed doors, but one of the greatest
impacts a lobbyist can have is the fundraising and campaign consulting they do for
the supervisors they are lobbying."


                                The Washington Times

                            February 2, 2011 Wednesday

Ethics rules let D.C. Council members shield outside income; Chairman got
$45,000 in '09

D.C. Council Chairman Kwame R. Brown last year reported earning $45,000 in
outside income on top of his six-figure government salary for 2009, but who paid
him and why is anybody's guess. City ethics rules don't require Mr. Brown to say.

Mr. Brown, a Democrat and at-large council member before his recent election as
chairman, is among a group of five council members who last year reported earning
tens of thousands of dollars in outside income in 2009.

As chairman, Mr. Brown is restricted in his ability to earn outside pay, but other
council members are free to earn money on the side. In some cases, lawmakers'
outside pay eclipses their government salaries of about $125,000 per year.

A review of council members' most recent financial statements on file with the D.C.
Office of Campaign Finance reflects varying levels of disclosure about outside
employment. Some statements list an employer, some don't. In the end, it's up to
the lawmakers to police themselves on potential conflicts of interest.

D.C. rules require lawmakers to make public their outside income sources only if an
employer or client did business with the city government or stood to gain from
pending legislation during the past calendar year.

By contrast, political appointees in the federal government sign ethics forms that
must include all clients or employers who have paid the appointee more than $5,000
during a one-year reporting period - regardless of whether the employer or client did
business with the government.

Mr. Brown, who has pledged to make government more transparent, noted on his
disclosure form that he earned $45,000 through "self-employment." His office did
not respond to questions about whether he has a registered business, what sort of
work he performed and who hired him.

Ethics analysts say that although D.C. lawmakers appear to comply with the letter of
the law, the city's rules don't go far enough.

"Personal financial disclosure requirements are designed to serve far greater
interests than simply show if a government contractor is trying to buy an
officeholder," said Craig Holman, an ethics specialist and legislative representative at
D.C.-based Public Citizen, a nonpartisan watchdog group.

"These reports are also designed to shed light on who, and which business interests,
may be seeking favorable treatment through legislation, licenses, tax policies or
regulation," he said.

Judy Nadler, senior fellow at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, said of the
disclosure policies, "The fact is, these are significant amounts well in excess of their
council salaries." Added Anne Bauer, researcher at the National Institute on Money in
State Politics, "There's a need to know more."

Wesley Williams, a spokesman for the D.C. Office of Campaign Finance, defended the
city's financial disclosure rules.

"The honorarium and financial disclosure statute is designed to capture the financial
interest of public officials in businesses that do business with the District of Columbia
government," he said, adding that the honorarium and disclosure policies act in
tandem.

"Thus, any existing or potential conflict of interest a member of the council may be
confronted with that may or may not have been disclosed in the council member's
[financial disclosure] would be covered under the conflict-of-interest statute," he
said.

"Accordingly, the existence of the conflict would require the council member to
recuse himself when matters involving that entity are before the council," Mr.
Williams said. "Therefore, we believe the current disclosure requirements are
sufficient for our enforcement responsibilities under both statutes."

Council members Jack Evans, Ward 2 Democrat, and Michael A. Brown, at-large
independent, both lawyers, took home more than $200,000 each in outside pay in
2009. Neither disclosed any clients they represented, though Mr. Evans did report
the name of the law firm that employs him, Patton Boggs LLP.

Two other council members with six-figure outside salaries disclosed information
about their employers. Council member David A. Catania, at-large independent,
disclosed earning $120,000 per year as general counsel of OpenBand of Virginia LLC,
a licensed telecommunications carrier and a wholly owned subsidiary of Northern
Virginia-based M.C. Dean. On disclosure forms, Mr. Catania said he recuses himself
from any matters involving M.C. Dean, which has held contracts with the D.C.
government.

Council member Mary M. Cheh, Ward 3 Democrat, has reported earning more than
$200,000 from her job as a law professor at George Washington University.

Neither Michael A. Brown nor Mr. Evans listed any information about the clients they
work for in their law practice. Michael Brown also did not identify the name of the
law firm where he works, disclosing only that he had earned $250,000.

A spokeswoman for Michael Brown said he earned the money from his position as a
lawyer at the Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge law firm. Asked whether he would
consider making public the clients for whom he works, the spokeswoman said Mr.
Brown is in full compliance with all city ethics rules and regulations.

Mr. Evans listed Patton Boggs as his employer because ethics rules require
lawmakers to identify employers doing business with the District. Patton Boggs has
earned hundreds of thousands of dollars in recent years lobbying Congress on behalf
of both the city's deputy mayor for planning and economic development and the
office of the chief financial officer, which is overseen by the council finance
committee that Mr. Evans heads.

According to U.S. Senate forms, the lobbying relationship terminated last year.

Mr. Evans, who reported earning $240,000 as a lawyer at Patton Boggs, has recused
himself from matters involving the firm's lobbying work for the District. Patton Boggs
has a long list of federal lobbying clients.

As a council member, Mr. Evans worked on a tax-abatement deal last year to help
lure defense giant Northrop Grumman to the District, though the plans never
materialized. Subsequently, Patton Boggs filed papers with the U.S. Senate
indicating that the firm was lobbying Congress on behalf of Northrop Grumman on
unrelated federal issues.

There's no indication that Mr. Evans has performed any work at Patton Boggs for
Northrop Grumman. He would be required to recuse himself if he did, but that's a
decision left to him.

In general, the lack of disclosure about outside legal work leaves the public in the
dark, with lawmakers in a position to decide what constitutes a potential conflict and
when to report it, Mr. Holman said.

"Outside income is an ideal opportunity for a business to curry favor with a legislator,
especially when that outside money may be substantial and when disclosure is
incomplete or even nonexistent," Mr. Holman said.

"The incomplete records of Mr. Evans, for example, fail to arrest citizen concerns of
undue influence peddling," he said.

Those same questions also concern D.C. resident John Hanrahan, a former
Washington Post reporter who first raised questions about Mr. Evans' work on the
Northrop Grumman tax deal last year on the website of the watchdog group D.C.
Watch. Mr. Hanrahan said there was an appearance of a conflict of interest.

Mr. Evans' office did not respond to e-mail questions about his work for Patton
Boggs. In 2003, the Office of Campaign Finance issued a formal opinion stating that
Mr. Evans' role as chairman of the council's finance committee would not pose a
conflict of interest with his employment with Patton Boggs as long as he continued to
refrain from any activity suggesting his roles on the council and law firm overlapped.

On Patton Boggs' website, the firm states that Mr. Evans' areas of practice include
business, municipal representation, public policy and lobbying and securities matters.


                       Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Little Rock)

                               February 1, 2011 Tuesday

Bills limit ex-legislators' lobbying; Twin measures seek year's wait, also
address travel expenses

Bills filed Monday by legislative leaders would prohibit lawmakers from becoming
lobbyists for one year after leaving office.

Identical bills - Senate Bill 194 by Sen. Paul Bookout, D-Jonesboro, and House Bill
1284 by Rep. Robert S. Moore Jr., D-Arkansas City - were filed with 20 sponsors
among the 133 legislators.

Moore said the measure would exempt from the oneyear waiting requirement
legislators who don't run for reelection in 2012. That would, therefore, exempt
current legislators who, after their current terms, are prohibited by the state's term-
limits amendment from seeking reelection.

The provision that would require legislators to wait until a year after their terms
expire before registering as lobbyists says it will apply to "all persons elected to the
General Assembly on or after" the date the measure takes effect, leading some
observers to ask whether it would therefore apply as well to the current legislators
who are about to be term-limited. Moore, a lawyer, said it would not apply to them.

Gov. Mike Beebe, a senator for 20 years, has questioned whether a bill sets
strictenough ethical standards if it exempts current lawmakers.
Rep. Eddie Cheatham, D-Crossett, called the plan a start. Public perception of
lawmakers' actions is important, he said.

"We need to do something. A little step is better than nothing," Cheatham said.

Cheatham filed legislation with a two-year waiting period but withdrew it in favor of a
bipartisan measure that emerged Monday.

If there is an exemption for legislators who don't run for re-election in 2012, for
practical purposes the moratorium would take effect in the 2015 legislative session.

Beebe spokesman Matt DeCample said the governor would have preferred a twoyear
moratorium. DeCample wasn't sure whether Beebe ever filed legislation restricting
legislators from becoming lobbyists while he was in the Senate.

Moore has said that the exemption was one of the ideas suggested by Democrats
and Republicans. He compared not exempting current lawmakers who may have
counted on a chance to lobby in the future to changing the rules during the game.

Twenty-eight of the 98 House members are in their third term and could benefit from
the exemption. Thirdterm legislators cannot seek another term in 2012 under the
term-limits amendment. Moore, serving his final House term, said he does not plan
to become a lobbyist.

More than 30 states have laws barring former lawmakers from lobbying their former
colleagues for certain periods, the National Conference of State Legislatures said.

The bills also state that legislators would be reimbursed for the cheapest mode of
travel to out-of-state conferences, either for mileage reimbursement or the cost of
airfare when traveling on the taxpayers' dime, unless some other arrangement is
worked out with the leaders of the legislative chambers.

The reimbursement provision is a response to actions by some legislators who drove
to faraway conferences and collected mileage payments exceeding $1,000 from the
state, instead of taking the cheaper option of airfare.

Legislators receive 51 cents per mile. State employees receive 42.

Similar legislation restricting travel payments was filed in the 2009 legislative session
by Rep. Ann Clemmer, R-Benton, without success. She is a co-sponsor on the bill
filed Monday. Clemmer's bill died in the committee, which was led by Moore at the
time.


                                  Des Moines Register

                              February 1, 2011 Tuesday

Ankeny lobbyist keeps tabs on Statehouse

Mona Bond's background makes her perfect for the job.

A former county supervisor with experience as chief executive officer of an
agribusiness association, she has a passion for policy.

Lobbying for her home city gives her an edge, Bond says.

"If there are things that are going to happen to the city of Ankeny, I have a vested
interest," she said.

Bond has been Ankeny's lobbyist for nearly a decade, spending several hours each
week trolling legislative bills.

"I monitor legislation that impacts the city," Bond said. "The primary job of any
lobbyist is to monitor that legislation and see what impacts their clients."

Bond is a registered lobbyist for the city of Ankeny, Petroleum Marketers and
Convenience Stores of Iowa, and Manatt's Inc.

Bond said she sends weekly reports to the city.

"We either take a position for, against or undecided," she said, noting the process is
transparent.

"I have to be registered on a bill to talk with a legislator," she added. "You can go
online and look at all the bills we're registered on."

Mayor Steve Van Oort said Bond is well-versed on the community.

"She lives here, she understands it and understands the issues of a growing
community," he said.

Bond is one of only a handful of lobbyists who represent cities in Iowa, including
West Des Moines, Coralville, Cedar Rapids and Des Moines.

The current session has been fairly quiet for cities, she said.

"So far, we haven't had a lot of bills that we're jumping on here from a city
perspective," she said. "Many things that are of interest to the cities will come a little
later in the session."

Bond said the big topics for this year will be budget-related, including limitations that
may be placed on cities.

Van Oort said Ankeny needs to be aware of legislation that could change how the city
does business.

"We realized eight or nine years ago that we needed to have representation at the
Capitol to be able to monitor what was happening and what was going on," he said.

The focus is not to be a watchdog of legislators, he added. Instead, the city wants to
be a resource - getting information to legislators as quickly as possible.

"When the governor says he wants to take a very hard look at property tax and
commercial property tax, we have to be aware of all the things that are happening
with that because property tax is what finances the city," Van Oort said. "If they're
going to be doing something that affects us and we don't find out until next week, it
may be too late."

It's the constant change in her job that keeps her going each day, she said.

"Nothing is ever the same," she said. "I love new challenges. It keeps everything
spiced up and exciting.

"I love to be around policymakers," she adds. "I find it so diverse. Everything I do is
different every single day."

Previously, she was chief executive officer of Agribusiness Association, after working
11 years for the Iowa Department of Agriculture. She also served as a county
supervisor in Poweshiek County in the 1980s.

Currently, she's vice president of public relations at PMCI and environmental
coordinator for Manatt's Inc.

When the Legislature isn't in session, she handles environmental permits for Manatt's
and membership and fundraising for PMCI.

One of Bond's proudest accomplishments is earning her college degree, something
she did the same year as one of her sons. She graduated in 1992 from Iowa State
University.

Bond was a farm kid from southeast Iowa, she says. After high school graduation,
she attended business school in Minnesota.

"It was OK and it was very acceptable in 1969," she said.

She married, had a family and went to work.

"When I went back, I went back with the purpose to get my degree in mass
communications and political science," she said. "I knew where I wanted to go."

Bond and her husband moved to Ankeny in 1992. She's married to retired county
conservation director Darwin Koenig. The couple have two sons and now have five
grandchildren.


                                  Idaho State Journal

                              February 1, 2011 Tuesday

Dems introduce three ethics bills; Pocatellans co-sponsor legislation

BOISE --Two state senators from Pocatello have co-sponsored three bills designed to
keep public officials honest and send a message to Idaho citizens that their
government is being run on the up and up.

"The bills are about keeping everybody honest and keeping ethical standards in
everything we do here in the statehouse," says Sen. Edgar Malepeai, D-Pocatello ,
who is a co-sponsor of the bills along with Sen. Diane Bilyeu, D-Pocatello , and the
Idaho Senate's five other Democrats.

Together, Malepeai says, the bills promote high ethical standards among government
officials and back them up by including penalties for violating them.

"This is just a way to ensure that whoever's involved in conducting the public's
business is involved with high ethics," he says. "We're trying to restore the
confidence people have in their government institutions."

The lawmakers have introduced a "campaign finance" bill that prohibits campaign
contributions to legislators, the governor or lieutenant governor while the legislature
is in session. The legislative session typically starts in early January and runs for two
to three months.

"Contributing money to legislators or the governor or lieutenant governor while we're
in session really should be illegal," Malepeai says of Senate Bill 1036. "There should
be no misperception by the general public that we're accepting money as we're
making decisions."

Senate Bill 1037 would require a "cooling-off period " of one year before a
government officer or employee can go to work for or receive benefits from a person
or business if that employee participated in the awarding of a large contract or lease
to that person or business in the two years before leaving public service.

"We want that one-year cooling off period so, again, there's no misperception that
there's some shady things going on," Malepeai says.

Senate Bill 1038 clarifies that current state executive officials and legislators cannot
register as a lobbyist or receive compensation to influence legislation, rule making,
contracts, bids, financial services agreements or bond issues.

The bill would also put in place a one-year cooling off period before executive
officials or legislators could register as a lobbyist after they leave public service.

"What we're saying is, 'kind of cool off for a little bit,'" Malepeai says. "At least be out
of office for a year before you can begin working for a lobbying firm."


                            The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

                                January 31, 2011 Monday
                                      Main Edition

Lobbyists' disclosures don't tell full story


About 180 times last year, state disclosures show, a lobbyist gave House Speaker
David Ralston something: a meal, a drink, a round of golf, a family trip to Europe.

We know these lobbyists spent about $35,000 on the speaker in 2010. What we
don't know is much more significant: What did they want from him?

Most lobbyists never answer that question, and Georgia doesn't really make them.
Under the state's disclosure law, lobbyists must say what bill or regulation they were
trying to influence when they pay for dinner or golf, but that can be interpreted so
narrowly that they can report anything --- or nothing --- as the purpose of their
expenditure.

Four times lobbyists filed a gift disclosure specifying the bill that they schmoozed
Ralston about. On four or five other reports they mentioned the topic of conversation
but no particulars. The rest of the time not even a topic was disclosed.

We're talking about this because lobbyist Chris Brady spent $17,000-plus last fall to
take Ralston, his chief of staff and their families on a trip. Brady's official disclosure
said nothing about the reason for the trip nor the destination; further investigation
showed they went to Germany and the Netherlands to check out high-speed rail.

What did Brady want in return? The common assumption is funding for a study of
magnetic levitation technology. Brady has been promoting maglev since the 1990s
as a U.S. Senate staffer, as a representative of a maglev vendor and as president of
his own consulting firm, Commonwealth Research Associates.

Commonwealth, working under a $7.8 million federal grant awarded to Georgia, is
listed as a subcontractor on an environmental study of a possible high-speed rail line
between Atlanta and Chattanooga.

Building that line would cost an estimated $6 billion to $9 billion to serve about
10,000 passengers a day.

As a lobbyist, Brady also represents the Chamber of Commerce in Dalton, a
community that has been asked to come up with money to match a second federal
maglev grant, and the Georgia Central Railway, which runs a short freight line from
Macon to Savannah. Long-range plans call for possibly extending the maglev line
south to Macon and Savannah.

Brady did not return several telephone and e-mail messages seeking clarification.

Commonwealth, in documents submitted to MARTA in 2009, described many past
lobbying successes.

The company said it had won U.S. Senate support for money to help Atlanta pay for
sewer repairs; congressional approval for $1 billion in maglev funding; and support
of Georgia legislative and transportation officials for maglev.

Brady and his associate Linda Hamrick "are the sole advocates in our field
responsible for these [pro-maglev] efforts," according to the lobbyists' pitch for
MARTA's business. "This project would not be where it is but for our efforts."

The pair accomplished most of this, though, with little or no lobbyist disclosure. A
search of state and federal lobbyist databases shows nothing connecting them to
maglev interests until this month and, in Washington, nothing linking them to
Atlanta's City Hall.

Perhaps their work didn't require that Hamrick or Brady register as lobbyists, but,
regardless, there were no clear disclosures of their clients or their spending.
Last year, the State Ethics Commission dropped a case against a prominent lobbyist
who had paid for a lot of dinners with the former House speaker without divulging
the issues they discussed. Ethics lawyers determined the law did not require that
information.

Top Georgia lawmakers insist the best way to address gift-giving by lobbyists is to
require swift disclosure rather than limiting or banning gifts. For that to work,
though, the law must require meaningful disclosure of lobbyists' clients and purpose
--- a step legislators have been unwilling to take.

Just tell us what they want: beer sales on Sunday, a law to keep microchips out of
our brains or a million bucks to study a maglev line to Chattanooga.

Why is that so difficult? What is it they don't want us to know?


                             Birmingham News (Alabama)

                               January 31, 2011 Monday

Fishing and football

THE ISSUE: Those are perfect subjects for lobbyists and lawmakers to discuss when
lobbyists are buying.

The definition of frightening, the Oxford Dictionary tells us, is ''making you feel
afraid.''

Which makes you feel more afraid? Lobbyists can spend unlimited money wining and
dining Alabama lawmakers and other public officials while they try to influence them
on legislation or other official action. Only when spending surpasses $250 a day do
the lobbyists have to report it to the state Ethics Commission.

Lobbyists can't try to persuade public officials to support legislation or take any other
official action while buying them a meal. The lobbyists are limited to spending $25 a
day (and $150 a year) per lawmaker or other public official, and the person or
company hiring the lobbyist has spending limits set at $50 a day and $250 a year
per official.

The latter is the result of a new law the Legislature passed in its December special
session, and replaces the former.

One lobbyist who attended a first-ever mandatory training session for lobbyists last
Monday called the new restriction ''frightening'' and said the Legislature should
change it.

''Literally, I can't give them a cup of coffee or a Coke,'' complained Birmingham
lawyer Bruce Ely, who lobbies on tax issues for a variety of business interests.

If only that were true. Ely, and every other registered lobbyist, can give them a cup
of coffee or a Coke or a nice meal of up to $25.

Really, the only other restriction besides the spending limit is that the lobbyists can't
talk during that time about a bill or other official action they are pushing or fighting,
according to the Ethics Commission. The commission's director, Jim Sumner, said
they are free to talk about fishing and football, but not a specific official issue. We're
guessing they could also talk about NASCAR, their families and maybe even the
weather, too.

And if lobbyists want to lobby - after all, that is what they do - every minute except
during the time lobbyists spend money on lawmakers is fair game. Lawmakers don't
need a cup of coffee, a Coke, a glass of bourbon or grilled pompano in order to hear
a lobbyist's pitch.

That hardly sounds frightening, but it does sound like a drastic improvement. In fact,
the Ethics Commission's interpretation of the new spending law is much stronger
than suggested by initial reports. Gone are all-expenses-paid hunting and deep-sea
fishing trips, visits to the beach, golf outings and such for purely social occasions,
according to Sumner. (Oh, the pain!) There are still problems with loopholes allowing
lobbyists to spend on transportation, meals, beverages, hospitality and lodging for
lawmakers and their spouses who attend ''an educational function'' sponsored by a
lobbyist or his employer.

But if, in fact, the Ethics Commission's view holds that spending on and influencing
of lawmakers or other public officials shouldn't happen at the same time, that's not
frightening. That's fantastic.


                      Providence Journal-Bulletin (Rhode Island)

                               January 31, 2011 Monday

Fox event attracts lobbyists and even GOP;

Nearly 500 people attended House Speaker Gordon D. Fox s first fundraiser of the
year, held at the Providence Marriott Tuesday, including statewide officeholders, a
bevy of union representatives and lobbyists, and even a strong showing of
Republicans.

All House members were given complimentary tickets to the $200-a-ticket event,
which featured a generous spread of eats and a pair of bars. During most of the two-
hour event, Fox, a Providence Democrat, greeted folks as they arrived and left.

Receipts are still being tallied and checks are still arriving, so there is no full
accounting of how much the event raised, according to House spokesman Larry
Berman.

Among those attending were Lt. Gov. Elizabeth Roberts, state General Treasurer
Gina Raimondo, Secretary of State A. Ralph Mollis, and Senate President M. Teresa
Paiva Weed. Governor Chafee did not attend but sent his top aides: chief of staff
Patrick Rogers and Director of Administration Richard Licht.

Providence, unsurprisingly, had a strong showing. Mayor Angel Taveras, who was in
D.C. attending President Obama s State of the Union, sent a few of his top aides --
John J.R. Pagliarini, Matthew Jerzyk and Jeffrey Padwa. (Padwa, as an aside, says he
ll retain his post as treasurer of the state Democratic Party even as he prepares to
take a post as incoming city solicitor).

New Providence City Council President Michael Solomon and lobbyist and city Board
of Licenses Chairman Andrew Annaldo also attended, as did union representatives
from the city Laborers and firefighters unions.

House Republicans were out in force. House Minority Leader Robert Watson said he
has attended the speaker s fundraisers for years as a courtesy and that the speaker
typically returns the favor.

But unlike many of the lobbyists and other guests, Watson said, Republicans did not
come with checks in hand. Put it this way: he s our speaker. And while I recognize
this is a fundraiser for Democrat politics, I also recognize that we are in a small state
and everybody knows everybody. I have no problems attending this event, which is
not to say that I don t go from here and tomorrow fight tooth and nail.

Finally, attendees noted that prominent State House lobbyist Robert D. Goldberg was
mingling in the crowd, balancing himself on a pair of crutches and receiving well
wishes. Goldberg was involved in a car accident in North Kingstown in October.

A former Republican minority leader, Goldberg represented South Kingstown as a
state senator from 1983 to 1990.

He has since emerged as an influential lobbyist, representing such diverse interests
as Twin River, CVS Caremark, Deepwater Wind and the Foxy Lady. He is also the
husband of state Supreme Court Justice Maureen McKenna Goldberg.

During Tuesday night s fundraiser, Goldberg reported that he s back to working full
days again and has even been roaming the State House halls recently. I started at
about 7 a.m. this morning, he said as he flipped through about a dozen or so of the
lobbyist registration identifications he carries when the legislature is in session.


                             The Times-Union (Albany, NY)

                               January 31, 2011 Monday
                                 Final Edition EDITION

WALKS, TALKS, LOBBIES?

Mount Sinai-Queens Hospital is one of several health care institutions paying one of
Gov. Andrew Cuomo's best friends, Jeffrey Sachs. He was an early selection by
Cuomo to the governor's Medicaid commission, which is supposed to find cuts to the
state's giant public health insurance program.

Last month, when Sachs was already seen as a big shot by state officials because of
his closeness to the incoming governor, his designation as an adviser for the state
health budget, and his inclusion on a panel that interviewed potential employees of
the Department of Health, Mount Sinai-Queens was the beneficiary of an
"emergency" regulatory change from DOH. The amendment will give the hospital
greater Medicaid reimbursements. The change -- temporary for 90 days pending
permanent status -- will cost the state an additional $2.6 million for the remainder of
this fiscal year and $7.9 million for a full year, according to the Dec. 22 New York
State Register.

Mount Sinai's spokesman said it had been seeking the rate change from the Health
Department since Gov. George Pataki's tenure. Why DOH decided it was an
emergency for the change to occur in the waning days of Gov. David Paterson's term
is unclear. The hospital said to ask DOH; the department won't say.

After officials in Cuomo's office, the DOH and Mount Sinai were asked whether Sachs
made it happen, the reporter who inquired was contacted by Sachs' ethics counsel,
Mark Glaser, once a senior lawyer for the Assembly, and public affairs
representative, Ken Sunshine, for a conference call. Sunshine emphasized that Sachs
does not speak with state officials on behalf of his many hospital clients, for whom
he serves as a consultant. At that point, Glaser asked that Sunshine discontinue the
call for a private talk. Minutes later, Sunshine corrected: "I'm not saying Jeffrey
Sachs does not have contact with state officials on behalf of clients." He and Glaser
said that Sachs scrupulously avoids crossing the line into lobbying. And they said he
had nothing to do with the regulation change and had not contacted state officials
about it, recommended or advocated for it.

Instead, Sunshine said, Sachs had a discussion with a state official regarding Mount
Sinai. "The discussion was that existing law and existing regulations permitted a
different reimbursement rate," Sunshine said.

The state defines lobbying to include working for the adoption or rejection of any rule
or regulation of a state agency, or for the outcome of any rate making proceeding by
a state agency. Whether Sachs' actions constitute lobbying may hinge on whether or
not Mount Sinai pays him at least $5,000, the threshold for registering as a lobbyist
when lobbying, said Blair Horner, legislative director for the New York State Public
Interest Research Group. He said it "sounds" as if Sachs lobbies, but he should
register just as a precaution. That could allow the public to know who his clients are
if he's talking about them with state officials. Horner said the hospital, which has a
full-time lobbyist, also should report.

Cuomo's office said the regulation change is under review and the federal
government must sign off for it to take effect. Sachs was deputy secretary for health
under Gov. Mario Cuomo and has donated to the younger Cuomo's campaigns with
$32,547 to his attorney general contest and $33,338 to his gubernatorial race.


                      The Santa Fe New Mexican (New Mexico)

                               January 28, 2011 Friday

LEADERS SOFTEN ON CAMPAIGN CASH BILL


A Santa Fe-based think tank will try once again to convince the New Mexico
Legislature to ban campaign contributions from lobbyists and state contractors.
However, the bill apparently will have to be introduced without the powerful sponsors
originally expected to carry it.

Before the session began, Think New Mexico announced that Senate President Pro-
tem Tim Jennings,
D-Roswell, and Republican Senate leader Stuart Ingle of Portales would co-sponsor
the bill.

But on Friday both Jennings and Ingle seemed less than enthusiastic about the
proposal.

Contributions from lobbyists and contractors make up only about 3 percent of his
total campaign contributions, Jennings said. "Why are we so concerned about that?"
he asked rhetorically.

Another part of the proposed bill -- requiring nonprofit groups that engage in political
activity during an election year to disclose their contributors -- is seen as a bone to
conservatives, who since the 2008 primary have railed against the Center for Civic
Policy and affiliated Albuquerque-based groups for sending out full-color mailers
spotlighting targeted legislators' voting records.

But Ingle said Friday that while he likes that part of the bill, he's afraid it could be
overturned in court. In a lawsuit filed against the Center for Civic Policy in 2008, a
federal judge upheld the nonprofit group's right not to disclose its contributors.

Asked about the possible loss of Jennings and Ingle, Think New Mexico's executive
director, Fred Nathan, said, "This is not unusual in the legislative process and I
remain optimistic that this bill will reach the Senate floor and will have the support of
Senators Ingle and Jennings, whether or not they choose to sign on as sponsors."

The policy group has been successful in past years pushing bills to repeal the gross-
receipts tax on food, establishing full-day kindergarten for every child in the state,
reforming title insurance and requiring the state lottery to pay less administrative
costs in order to pay for more scholarships at state colleges and universities.

Last year's version of the bill made it through the House, passing 46-24 on a near
party-line vote, with most Democrats supporting it and most Republicans against it.
But it passed too late in the Senate to be heard in any committee.

In late 2009, Think New Mexico unveiled the proposed legislation in a report that
said many of the scandals that have rocked state government in recent years have
centered around those seeking contracts with the state.

Among those controversies involving contractors and campaign contributions were
corruption cases that led to prison time for two state treasurers, and pay-to-play
allegations involving a California firm that made about $1.5 million for handling state
transportation bonds about the same time it donated $110,000 to then-Gov. Bill
Richardson's political action committees. The latter case led to Richardson
withdrawing his nomination for President Obama's Cabinet.

"Because of the high stakes, there is a temptation of individuals and businesses
seeking government contracts to make political contributions to the elected officials
who will decide whether to award them the contract," the report said. "Meanwhile,
for elected officials running increasingly expensive campaigns, there is a similar
temptation to accept those contributions."

								
To top