A bipartisan trio of senators introduced legislation on Thursday that would ban congressmen from working as lobbyists after their time in Congress. Lobbying is a lucrative career that former congressmen often pursue; lobbying firms seek them out for their contacts and familiarity with the various levels of the federal government.

Sponsored by Senators Cory Gardner (R-CO), Michael Bennet (D-CO), and Al Franken (D-MN), the Close the Revolving Door Act of 2017 seeks to shutter the Capitol Hill to K Street pipeline.

“Washington has become all too comfortable with the spin of the revolving door,” Bennet said in a statement, referring to the common “revolving door” metaphor to describe the non-stop flow of congressmen to lobbying firms. “By banning members of Congress from lobbying when they leave Capitol Hill, we can begin to restore confidence in our national politics.”

The bill would institute a lifetime ban on current members of Congress from working as lobbyists after leaving Capitol Hill. Former congressional staffers would not be allowed to work as lobbyists until six years have passed since their time in Congress. Currently, that moratorium is one year.

Lobbying firms are common destinations for former U.S. senators and representatives. According to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, over half of the congressmen that either lost re-election or left Congress in 2014 now work as lobbyists. President Donald Trump pledged to combat the issue in January, when he issued an executive order to severely restrict the flow of former federal employees to lobbying firms.

Past presidents–including Bill Clinton and Barack Obama–also issued executive decrees aimed at reforming the lobbying practices of former congressmen. Current law dictates former members and staff of the House have a one-year “cooling off” period, in which they cannot accept a contract from a lobbying firm. For former senators and their staff, the “cooling off” period is two years.

In a statement, Franken said “our democracy can’t function the way it’s supposed to when well-connected special interests have more power than the American people.” Acting against moneyed special interests was a rallying cry for camps on both sides of the political spectrum during last fall’s campaign. Both Bernie Sanders and Trump railed against what they saw as a corrupt (or to Trump, a “swamp”) Washington crippled by vested interests.

This bipartisan effort “would put in place much-needed reforms-by not only banning members of Congress from becoming lobbyists, but also making the industry more accountable and transparent,” Franken said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trio of Senators Seek to Ban Former Members of Congress from Lobbying appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

Imagine you’re traveling to Washington D.C. for the weekend. You arrive at the airport and, instead of waiting in the extremely long cab line, order a Lyft. The Lyft takes you to your lodgings for the weekend–a room in a house that you found on Airbnb. When you get there, you’re hungry–after all it’s a long distance from your fictional location of origin. You order a sandwich from UberEats. While you eat, you miss your dog, but you remember that he’s in good hands with his Rover sitter. And you deserve this trip–you didn’t do all those extra tasks on TaskRabbit for nothing!

All of these companies–Lyft, Airbnb, Uber, Rover, TaskRabbit–are part of the sharing economy. Unthinkable just a decade ago, the sharing economy exploded seemingly overnight, creating new services for existing markets. And with those new services come new policy concerns, including regulation, competition with traditional services, and safety. Companies that are part of the sharing economy have plenty to lobby for and against. Read on to go behind-the-scenes with the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) and follow the money behind lobbying for the sharing economy at the federal level.

Uber and Airbnb Go to Washington

Let’s look at two of the largest and most well-known sharing economy players to see how they’ve ended up in Washington–Uber and Airbnb. Founded in 2009 and 2008 respectively, Uber’s ridesharing and Airbnb’s roomsharing platforms quickly grew. But as they grew, so did some of their problems. Uber and Airbnb have both been battling regulations and concerns at local and state levels since their inception; take Uber’s exodus from Austin, Texas, or New York’s cracking down on Airbnb advertising. Both companies spend plenty of money fighting laws and regulations that could hurt their business models at the local and state levels. But, increasingly, they’ve started to set their sights on Washington D.C., and have begun lobbying Congress and federal agencies as well. That move makes sense–federal policy can have a significantly greater impact on both companies than that of one city or state. And as these companies look toward innovating for the future, they may very well need federal support.

Their efforts to lobby at the federal level have ramped up quickly. According to CRP, in 2013 Uber spent just $50,000 on lobbying; by 2016 it boosted its lobbying investment 2,600 percent, spending over $1.3 million to try to influence Congress and other federal agencies. Major tech companies that were once fledglings themselves also expanded their lobbying efforts significantly. For example, Google started lobbying in 2003 with a mere $80,000; in 2016, it spent $15.4 million, making it the behemoth in the industry. Amazon spent $11.4 million last year, and Microsoft, $8.7 million.

Airbnb has had a less precipitous ramp-up in lobbying, but has still seen a steady increase over the last few years. In 2012, Airbnb spent $195,000 on federal lobbying efforts, in 2016 that number had climbed to just under $500,000. But Airbnb isn’t trailing some of the largest hotel chains in the U.S. by much. For example, Marriott International, by many accounts the largest hotel company in the world, spent $670,000 on federal lobbying in 2016.

These numbers only provide a snapshot into the lobbying activity of these companies. For a full look at the numbers, check out CRP’s info on Uber and Airbnb. But here’s the important takeaway: Uber and Airbnb, despite being relatively young companies, are making significant moves to influence members of Congress, as well as federal agencies.

Join the Pool: Uber’s Lobbying Efforts 

So where did that money go? As a relative newcomer to the lobbying arena in Washington D.C., Uber hasn’t made any huge moves yet, but has rather mainly focused on smaller scale, attainable goals. While Uber has long sparred with taxi groups, as well as dealt with regulations that have forced it out of some cities and states, those kinds of skirmishes have largely happened at the state and local level. Nationally, Uber has had other priorities, including initiatives to clarify and modernize transportation regulations. For example, one lobbying accomplishment for Uber was getting language into the National Defense Authorization Act that would allow the rideshare service to pick up and drop off passengers at military bases.

But Uber has also begun to spend some money on its future endeavors. Uber is already starting to lobby, for instance, on behalf of self-driving cars, which are largely viewed as the next level of innovation for the company. Uber joined a coalition, the Self-Driving Coalition for Safer Streets, that includes its competitor Lyft, as well as Ford, Volvo, and Google. Headed by David Strickland, a former administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the group aims to influence the Department of Transportation as it solidifies some guidelines for self-driving cars. To that end, it spent $30,000 on federal-level lobbying in 2016.

Knocking on Doors: Airbnb’s Lobbying Efforts

What about Airbnb’s lobbying efforts–where do those end up concentrated? Like Uber, Airbnb has largely focused on building a presence and relationships with lawmakers–not any big moves. Early in 2016, Airbnb hired former Republican Congressman Vin Weber, of Minnesota, to up its federal advocacy presence. Weber explained to The Hill: “The good news is, they are smart enough to get involved in this town before they really need anything. They’re trying to introduce themselves before there’s any problem to be dealt with on the federal level.” But Airbnb has been cagey, in its lobbying reports, about revealing its interests in Washington: it often fills in the space for “Specific lobbying issues” with vague phrases like “programs and policies affecting the sharing economy” or “regulatory issues.”

Some of Airbnb’s energy has been concentrated on fighting the hotel industry. For example, the American Hotel and Lodging Association has been lobbying for more intense regulations for short term rentals like Airbnb; Airbnb has pushed back, publicly claiming the organization is anti-union and against minimum wage increases.

Conclusion

Uber and Airbnb have become such ubiquitous parts of our lives, despite the fact that they only sprung up a few years ago. But their moves in Washington, while recent, have been growing and are important to track. Because Uber, Airbnb, and other mainstays of the sharing economy like Lyft, Rover, and TaskRabbit, serve to disrupt their markets and provide existing services in new ways, they are particularly concerned about the effects certain federal regulations could have on their companies.

These companies have also started to increasingly make their political engagement known, especially in the wake of Trump’s presidential win. Right after Trump’s controversial executive order regarding travel from seven Muslim-majority countries, both Uber and Lyft fell into the political conversation. Uber came under fire after continuing to offer rides to JFK Airport despite a traffic strike, and #DeleteUber began trending as a result. In response, Lyft pledged to donate $1 million to the ACLU over the next four years. While federal lobbying matters, Uber, Lyft, and other sharing economy companies have shown that they’re willing to up their political engagement in other ways too.

Clearly there are many reasons that both companies have begun spending more heavily on federal lobbying. As Uber and Airbnb become more visible on the lobbying circuit, it’s worth watching how they spend their influence investments.

Resources

Primary

OpenSecrets: Sharing is Caring: Uber, Airbnb, Lyft Invest in Washington

OpenSecrets: Uber Technologies

OpenSecrets: Uber Technologies: Issues

OpenSecrets: Airbnb Inc

Additional

Business Insider: Uber says it has over 80% of the ride-hailing market in the U.S.

The Hill: Uber tripled its lobbying efforts in 2016

Computer World: Uber, Amazon, and Tesla Ramped Up Their U.S. Lobbying in 2016

Fortune: Major Self-Driving Car Lobbyist Talks Safety, Risk, and Tesla Autopilot

Verge: Google, Ford, and Uber just created a giant lobbying group for self-driving cars

Law Street Media: Uber, Airbnb: Is the “Sharing Economy” Dangerous?

The Hill: Airbnb bolsters its DC lobbying force

Washington Post: Airbnb bulks up lobbying presence as lawmakers increase scrutiny of ‘sharing economy’

The Hill: Airbnb hits hotel lobby in message to Capitol Hill

Center for Responsive Politics

Nonpartisan, independent and nonprofit, the Center for Responsive Politics is the nation’s premier research group tracking money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy. Our vision is for Americans, empowered by access to clear and unbiased information about money’s role in politics and policy, to use that knowledge to strengthen our democracy. Our mission is to produce and disseminate peerless data and analysis on money in politics to inform and engage Americans, champion transparency, and expose disproportionate or undue influence on public policy. The Center for Responsive Politics is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

The post Follow the Money: The Sharing Economy Meets Washington appeared first on Law Street.

The lobbying firm run by Donald Trump’s campaign chairman Paul Manafort conducted business in support of Ukraine’s pro-Russia political party that governed the country from 2012 to 2014. According to emails the Associated Press obtained, Manafort’s firm aimed to sway American public opinion in favor of Viktor Yanukovych’s government, through positive coverage in U.S. media outlets such as The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. The firm also tried to undermine American sympathy for opposition politician and democracy advocate Yulia Tymoshenko who was imprisoned by Yanukovych’s government.

As Law Street Media reported earlier this week, Paul Manafort was mentioned in a list of names that received big cash payments from the Ukrainian government, with $12.7 million earmarked for him. Rick Gates, now his deputy, was at the time working for Manafort’s political consulting firm, DMP International LLC. He directed the work of two Washington-based lobbying firms, Mercury LLC and Podesta Group Inc., in trying to bring about a positive impression of the Ukrainian government.

The emails show that Gates personally scheduled appointments between the Ukrainian foreign minister and American politicians. The foreign minister, according to the emails, did not want to use his own embassy in the U.S. for any coordination of meetings. Gates was also assigned the task of undermining support for Yulia Tymoshenko, even as the U.S. pressured the Ukraine government to free her.

Trump said Tuesday night that if he becomes president he would make sure officials would not be allowed to accept speaking fees from “corporations with a registered lobbyist for five years after leaving office or from any entity tied to a foreign government,” a proposal that seemed to be directed at the Clintons. But now it is clear that two of Trump’s own campaign advisers failed to report their activities as foreign agents, as they are required to by federal law. Not only that, but they specifically denied ever having been involved in such work, a felony that is punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000.

Exactly what role Manafort played in the lobbying operations is not clear, other than being the boss of Gates at DMP International. Both he and Gates have previously said that they did not conduct any direct lobbying, and only introduced the two Washington-based firms to a European non-profit which then took over. But the content of the emails seem to contradict that.

Manafort and Gates have been in charge of Trump’s campaign since the spring of 2015, which makes their earlier lobbying activities especially noteworthy. This brings a lot of questions to the surface and coincides with criticism of Trump’s relationship to Russia.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Advisers Led Covert Lobbying Scheme for Ukraine’s Pro-Russian Government appeared first on Law Street.

Back in the day, entering into a profession could be very challenging for newcomers. This was particularly true in European countries during the Middle Ages when each profession developed its own organization for members to mutually assist each other and control entrance into the field. These organizations were called guilds and functioned as part union/part cartel. Those lucky enough to belong to a guild reaped benefits like a pension for his family and networking opportunities. This also regulated the quality of the services the profession had in a given locality, which benefitted consumers. For people who wanted to become part of a profession but were not born into a family that held a spot or were otherwise well-connected, guilds functioned as a barrier to entry. This kept competition tightly controlled and promoted the interests of existing members at the expense of customers and those seeking entry.

Today there are many professions that require licenses and testing in order to gain entry–most of us are familiar with the licensing requirements for doctors and lawyers. Take an example I’m intimately familiar with–there are many hurdles to jump through in order to become an attorney. First law school, which can carry a hefty price tag. You then need to take an ethics exam and the bar exam if you would like to practice. The fees for these exams, if you count a review course as part of the cost, can be thousands of dollars. After that, you have to pay for the license, which varies by state, and bar dues, which also vary. The license also doesn’t easily transfer from one state to another. So if you wanted to join the bar in a new state and you haven’t been practicing for a number of years, you would have to take the bar exam again and pay the fees to enter into that state’s bar. For many, the cost of getting licensed in multiple states is prohibitively expensive.

The rationale behind occupational licensing is to control the quality of the services for the customer. With the medical profession, this argument is particularly compelling because of the amount of knowledge required to practice medicine safely and the nature of the risks involved. Consumers can’t really comparison shop for a doctor the same way they can for other services so it is critically important that all doctors have a minimum level of competency. And since other doctors are the only ones who would know if a doctor is competent or not, the medical profession to a large extent controls entry and polices itself. The same is true of many other professions.

But the argument in favor of occupational licensing requirements and regulations, made in the name of consumer safety, makes less sense for some other professions. It may take years of training to become a good interior designer but it probably does not require multiple years of training, multiple exams, and licensing fees to become a safe one. And in an aesthetically based profession like interior design, customers are very well suited to comparison shop for what they want and bargain for less than ideal services at a better price if they choose to. For some of these professions, licensing laws may be functioning not to keep customers safe but to protect profits of the profession’s existing members.

Increasing Requirements

According to a White House paper, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of professions that now require some form of licensing. About one-quarter of all workers in the United States now need a license to practice their trade, which is a five-fold increase from the 1950s. But this increase isn’t because Americans are working in different professions than they used to–rather, more fields are now requiring licenses.

The video below should be taken with several grains of salt, as it is designed to advocate against occupational licensing requirements, but it provides a good framework for the kinds of professions that now need licenses.

Licensing requirements for many professions can have a significant impact on the people seeking to join them. If you want to be a security guard, for example, it matters a great deal which state you are looking for work in. If you live in Michigan, it will take you three years to obtain your license while in other states it will only take you 11 days. For people that move across state lines–take military families, for example–they need to meet the licensing requirements in their new state, which can cost them time and money. As this video from John Stossel suggests, licensing requirements may also price out minorities and the poor from entering professions that require a license and are not always tied to protecting consumer safety.

These regulations can also depress wages for the workers who are not part of the profession and increase the cost of services to consumers. The White House paper cited earlier estimates a 10 to 15 percent decrease in wages and a 3 to 16 percent increase in pricing. This increase in pricing does not necessarily correlate with an increase in safety or the quality of the services. The fact that many of these licensing requirements do not necessarily have a positive impact on services is one of the strongest arguments for eliminating or reevaluating certain licenses.

Why Do We Have Occupational Licensing?

If these licensing requirements are not promoting safety and controlling quality, why do we have so many of them? Take a look at this explanation:

In the case of the medical profession and other professions that really do present safety concerns, these licensing requirements can be beneficial for consumers. Most people do not have the expertise to evaluate whether an electrician is safely performing the work in their home or if it has been done well. The ability to research a company on the internet before you employ its services gives you access to its reputation, but it is still helpful for people looking to hire an electrician to know that the candidates have had some training. It allows a consumer to be confident in the electrician’s ability to safely provide the service.

But for a profession like hair braiding, the consumer’s ability to assess the quality of the services and its safety is very high. You can immediately determine if you are pleased with the quality and there is very minimal risk to your safety. Any risk is probably one that a consumer would be able to identify and avoid. And in an industry like this, the ability to find out a professional’s reputation for quality and safety on the internet or elsewhere beforehand can eliminate a lot of providers who give poor service.

Many of these licensing requirements are not related to consumer safety or the quality of services but to the advocacy power of the professions that require licenses. As Milton Friedman points out in his speech, the best way for the profession to keep the cost of their services high is by limiting the number of people providing those services. By creating laws that fine individuals operating without a license, the cost of providing that service may be too high for outside competitors. This lack of competition protects the existing companies. It is often the professional associations who lobby to have these licenses imposed and fight efforts to take them away, not consumers.

In some cases, members of a profession are the best-qualified people to determine if another practitioner is performing the work safely. Using the medical profession once again as an example, in cases that are highly technical (such as a surgical procedure) it would be difficult for someone without medical training to figure out if the procedure was done negligently or not. For this reason, doctors often work as expert witnesses when they review themselves or in court. A lay person just would not have the knowledge to make those determinations.

Because of this, members of the profession are given considerable leeway to determine the requirements to obtain a license. The professional associations in each state lobby for the regulations that they think are necessary and may even help legislators craft the language of licensing requirements, or take charge of them entirely. This gives the professions a tremendous amount of control over their industries. It is also one reason why licensing requirements vary widely across different states. It isn’t that the process of braiding hair is much more dangerous in states where licensing is required than it is in states where it is not; it is because the states that require licensing have a more concerted effort by existing hair-braiders to impose and maintain a licensing requirement.

Conclusion

Some occupational licenses make a lot of sense to have. Professions where safety is an important concern and where it is difficult for consumers to judge the competency of the people they are hiring are ones that should have a base requirement for those entering the profession. But many of the professions that require licenses are ones in which those licenses do not protect consumers. Instead, they protect the members of that profession from more competition at the expense of job seekers and at a cost to the public. Licenses that are not tied to consumer safety should be reevaluated in order to ensure that they are necessary and that their purpose is to promote safety and quality.

For example, a license for a cosmetologist that requires 2,000 hours of training has probably exceeded whatever legitimate safety concerns may exist in the field. The same goal of promoting consumer safety could perhaps be met with a much less onerous requirement–such as a shorter certification process that focuses just on hygiene and safety practices. Licensing fees that are paid to state professional associations but are not payments for the costs of classes and tests could also be eliminated without adversely affecting public safety.

Reevaluating these licenses and eliminating the ones that do not benefit consumers will create new opportunities for workers to enter professions and for entrepreneurs to start businesses. It would also decrease the prices consumers face for many services. If there are safety concerns in an industry that do require regulation they should be dealt with, but many of these licenses and requirements could likely be eliminated or reduced without reducing consumer safety.

Resources

The Institute for Justice: License to Work

WhiteHouse.gov: Occupational Licensing: A Framework for Policymakers

FiveThirtyEight: Licensing Laws Are Shutting Young People Out of the Job Market

U.S. News: Short Sighted Policy: Studying Opticians Shows Occupational Licensing Doesn’t Help Consumers

Bureau of Labor Statistics: The De-Licensing of Occupations In the United States

Foundation For Economic Education: Does Occupational Licensing Protect Consumers?

Politico: It Takes 890 Days to Become a Barber in Nevada 

Forbes: Citing Adam Smith and Milton Freedman, Obama’s Economic Advisors Back Occupational Licensing Reform

Mary Kate Leahy

Mary Kate Leahy (@marykate_leahy) has a J.D. from William and Mary and a Bachelor’s in Political Science from Manhattanville College. She is also a proud graduate of Woodlands Academy of the Sacred Heart. She enjoys spending her time with her kuvasz, Finn, and tackling a never-ending list of projects. Contact Mary Kate at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Have Occupational Licensing Laws Gotten Out Of Control? appeared first on Law Street.

There are two primary lens through which the American public views lobbying. On one side you have those who favor lobbying and believe that a lobbyist’s expertise might grant a policymaker a different outlook on an issue. However, there also exists a group who views lobbying as unethical, and believes the pressure exerted by interest groups on politicians is enough to gain votes in favor of their corporate interests. This could create an issue granted that the interest group may not be lined up with constituents’ viewpoints. Moreover, lobbyists are often accused of using bribery and monetary threats to guide government actions. However a larger issue is imminent–many Americans are unaware of the full scope of these back room practices.

The American Legislative Exchange Council, known as ALEC for short, is a non-profit organization founded in 1973 under close scrutiny not only by the IRS, but by the American public. ALEC identifies itself as a group of conservative state legislators and private sector representatives that draft and share model state-level legislation for distribution among state governments in the United States. As noted by the company’s mission statement, ALEC “works to advance limited government, free markets, and federalism at the state level through a nonpartisan public-private partnership of America’s state legislators, members of the private sector and the general public.” While non-profit organizations such as the ACLU generally use their revenue to further enhance their mission or purpose with the benefit of not being federally taxed, ALEC has been accused by the IRS of taking advantage and abusing its tax-exempt status.

In April of 2012, Common Cause accused ALEC of being a lobbying organization, while objecting to ALEC’s tax status as a nonprofit organization, alleging that lobbying accounted for more than 60 percent of its expenditures.

Although ALEC formally denied lobbying, previous ALEC chairwoman Dolores Mertz expressed in the Daily Beast that  she was “concerned about the lobbying that’s going on, especially with [ALEC’s] 501(c)3 status.” Former Republican state senator and current vice chairman of the New Jersey Ethics Commission William Schluter, has also criticized ALEC in the past for its lobbying practices, telling nj.com,

When you get right down to it, this is not different from lobbying. It is lobbying… Any kind of large organization that adds to public policy or has initiatives involving public policy should be disclosed—not only their name, but who is backing them.

In fact, 2012 was not the only year ALEC was accused of taking advantage of its non-profit status. Most recently the organization has been discovered collecting money from lobbyists and corporations, and using the capital to subsidize costs for legislators to attend private “educational” meetings. Media Matters produced a video exposé on ALEC’s back room dealings and its results were truly outstanding. Not only did they find that legislators are wined, dined, and taken on golf outings; they are also given substantial wads of cash for miscellaneous purposes. What’s even more shocking are the decisions being made in the closed rooms, which the general public is denied access to.

During its investigation, Media Matters interviewed Georgia Senator Nan Orrock, a former ALEC member, who called ALEC a “corporate bill mill which cranks out legislation.” Moreover she divulged alarming information on the proceedings of the meetings wherein corporations and legislators have equal say on a piece of legislation.

The investigation  also uncovered that there are bills which need only initials by legislators and have been entirely drafted by corporations. One example is the Asbestos Claim Priority Act, which prevents asbestos victims from suing corporations. Noteworthy is the fact that although the bill passed in Georgia’s capital, it was first approved in Las Vegas, according to the video. Media Matters uncovered records indicating that three Georgia senators who sponsored the bill received over $22,000 in the year before, during, and after the bill was passed in “scholarship money” to attend resort meetings by ALEC.

For more detailed information on ALEC conferences please refer to this video.

In this context, the question arises of whether ALEC is complying with legal standards or not. Certainly the notion of filtering money between corporations and legislators through ALEC is not ethical, however do they breach any sort of law? It is tough to say granted that each state differs in terms of ethical rules and laws. Some states such as Wisconsin require legislators to fund their own trips to events. Other states, however, permit organizations such as ALEC to sponsor or grant “scholarships,” to legislators for said trips.

Regardless of whether any actual laws are being violated or not is yet to be determined, however it is clear that the operating system of the supposed NPO is being further observed not only by the general public concerned with fair legislative practices, but also larger actors. Mega corporations who once played a prominent role in ALEC, such as Coca-Cola, are showing their concern with the way ALEC handles legislative practices, as seen by Coca-Cola’s recent disaffiliation from the organization. It is only a matter of time before the continued allegations turn into large disputes, potentially leading to a landmark legal case.

Symon Rowlands

Symon Rowlands is a member of the University of Miami Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Symon now blogs for Law Street, focusing mostly on politics. Contact Symon at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ALEC: The True Indicator of Legislative Decisions? appeared first on Law Street.

For some, the term “lobbying” evokes the thought of fat cat plutocrats piping money into Congress to keep their interests and deep pockets protected. But while voting is the most fundamental aspect of a democracy, lobbying–for better or worse–is one of the most direct ways to influence policy making. Read on to learn about the lobbying system in the United States, as well as the benefits and negative effects of this system.

What is lobbying?

Lobbying is a right protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and ultimately allows citizens to shape legislators’ decisions. U.S. citizens have the right to petition, free speech, and freedom of the press, so when citizens want to influence government policy, they are constitutionally protected.

Those who hire lobbyists are usually called special interest groups–groups of people who use advocacy to influence policy and public opinion.

Types of Lobbying

There are two core types of lobbying: inside and outside. Inside lobbying occurs when individuals contact their legislators directly, mostly through phone calls and letters. Outside lobbying is when citizens or interest groups form campaigns or organizations to influence public opinion or to pressure policymakers.

Types of Lobbyists 

While lobbying by businesses that see a particular benefit in swaying our lawmakers is very common, there are other motivations for lobbying as well. Unions, for example, also lobby for issues pertaining to taxes, workers’ rights, and the minimum wage, just to name a few.

Religious lobbying is another good example. The head of a church or religious organization might lobby Congress to denounce a bill that would not fit the view of the congregation. The number of religious lobbying organizations has increased from less than 40 in 1970 to more than 200 in 2012. Catholic organizations lead the way, making up 19 percent of all religious lobbying groups. So, lobbying isn’t just about the money, it can take the form of moral or personal interests as well.

Lobbying is not only popular on the federal level, but also at the state level. A 2006 survey by the Center for Public Integrity reported that there were 40,000 paid lobbyists working with state legislatures, with that number expected to rise. Other lobbying efforts are even more local. Trying to persuade a city council to halt something like a construction project to preserve wildlife is another common example of lobbying.

When is the best time for lobbying efforts?

Lobbying is most common weeks before a bill is set to be voted on, when proponents of the bill gather to discuss how they will go about presenting the initiative. Another common time to see lobbyists is during election season. This time is crucial as lobbyists can put more pressure on members of Congress to please their constituents and recognize the immediate effect of voting against their constituents’ opinions.

Show Me the Money: Lobbyists and Spending

The amount of money spent on lobbying since the late 1990s has increased dramatically, despite fluctuations in the number of lobbyists. According to the Center for Responsive Politics’ Open Secrets, in 1998 there were 10,405 individual lobbyists and lobbying spending totaled $1.45 billion. In 2010 there were 12,948 lobbyists, and spending totaled a high of $3.52 billion. This means that there was a 24 percent increase in lobbyists, and a staggering 143 percent increase in total spending. Fewer lobbyists are representing more wealthy interest groups.

While the fundamental practice of lobbying is notifying members of the legislative branch of the positive and/or negative consequences of their decisions, this simple practice is made complicated by companies and organizations that spend millions of dollars per year to convince members of Congress to vote for policies that positively benefit their businesses. The following list, also compiled by Open Secrets, shows the spending of the largest Congressional lobbyists in the U.S. in 2014.

• U.S. Chamber of Commerce: $124,080,000
• National Association of Realtors: $55,057,053
• Blue Cross/Blue Shield: $21,888,774
• American Hospital Association: $20,773,146
• American Medical Association:  $19,650,000
• National Association of Broadcasters: $18,440,000

According to Open Secrets, $3.24 billion dollars was spent on lobbying Congress and federal agencies in 2014. While that’s not quite as high as the peak in 2010, it doesn’t show signs of slowing down significantly anytime soon.

Regulating Lobbying

The U.S. has very tight restrictions on lobbying, with violations of these restrictions punishable by jail time or fines. These punishments can sometimes take very severe and costly forms. For example, the Sacramento Bee reported in 2014 that the California Correctional Peace Officers Association was hit with a $5,500 fine for failing to disclose $24,603.50 in gifts to state representatives. In another case, documented by the Los Angeles Times, a lobbyist was fined $133,500, the highest lobbying fine ever, for making illegal campaign donations to 40 California politicians.

The Lobbying and Disclosure Act of 1995 was a major piece of legislation that attempted to regulate and hold lobbyists accountable. While this law helped bring transparency to lobbyists, there were many loopholes, such as the fact that small grassroots lobbying groups whose “activities constitute less than 20 percent of the time engaged in services” were not regulated. Due to the many loopholes in the original law, parts of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 were amended into the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. The law gives very specific guidelines for Congressional lobbying, and prohibits activities such as bribery.

Lobbying Disclosure Act 

Here is a portion of Section 6 of the act:

Section 6 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA), 2 U.S.C. § 1605, provides that: The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall (1) provide guidance and assistance on the registration and reporting requirements of this Act and develop common standards, rules, and procedures for compliance with this Act; [and] (2) review, and, where necessary, verify and inquire to ensure the accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of registrations and reports.

Essentially, this portion works to guarantee the transparency and accountability of lobbyists and the officials they lobby.

Other provisions of the law include that lobbyists are required to register with the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate. In addition, Cabinet Secretaries and other senior executive personnel are prohibited from lobbying the department or agency in which they worked for two years after they leave their position.

Some of the law also regulates interactions between lobbyists and officials. Lobbyists are prohibited from providing gifts, including travel, to members of Congress with the intent of violating House or Senate rules. The law also requires that lobbyist disclosures be filed electronically in both the Senate and House, and mandated the creation of a publicly searchable Internet database of such disclosures. It also prohibits officials from attending parties held in their honor at national party conventions if they have been sponsored by lobbyists, unless the member is the party’s presidential or vice presidential nominee.

How do the American people feel about lobbyists?

While lobbying is an important democratic right, most Americans view lobbyists negatively. A Gallup Poll released in 2013 showed that only six percent of Americans believe lobbyists are honest or have high ethical standards. Further confirming America’s view of lobbyists, seven in ten Americans believe that lobbyists have too much influence in Washington.

Arguments for Lobbying 

Those who support lobbying efforts point out that lobbyists bring to the forefront of the conversation topics that are not in the expertise areas of a politician. For example, a congressman with a background in energy legislation may benefit from more information on foreign affairs topics. Lobbyists also have the opportunity to educate legislators of the opinions of minorities that they may otherwise not learn about. Finally, lobbyists can bring about change directly by influencing the votes of politicians.

Arguments Against Lobbying

Those who disagree with our current lobbying system point to the Citizen’s United Supreme Court case, which allowed unlimited donations to political campaigns. They worry that such a broad decision may give lobbyists more power in negotiating a legislator’s vote. In addition, the pressure of interest groups influences politicians to vote in favor of the interest group, which may not line up with their constituents’ viewpoints. Finally, there’s a consistent fear that lobbyists use bribery and monetary threats to guide government actions.

Conclusion

Lobbying is important to the democratic process as it allows citizens to express their interests and opinions and in turn influence policy making. Second to voting, it may be the most important democratic right. But concerns abound that this right has been used increasingly in recent decades as a way for large corporations and interest groups to pressure politicians into passing legislation that favors their interests. While lobbying remains an important right, popular dissent and distrust means that it often leaves a sour taste in the mouths of many.

Resources

OpenSecrets.org: Lobbying Again on the Downward Slide in 2012

Mother Jones: K Street is Holy Place

Aljazeera America: Lobbying Tapered off in 2014 Amid Congressional Gridlock

Office of the Clerk: Lobbying Disclosure Act Guide

Sacramento Bee: Prison Officers’ Union Accepts Fine for Lobbying Violations

Gallup: Honesty and Ethics Rating of Clergy Slides to New Low

Pew: Lobbying for the Faithful

Center for Public Integrity: State Lobbying Becomes Million-Dollar Business

—

Mike Stankiewicz

Mike Stankiewicz came to Washington to follow his dream of becoming a journalist. The native New Yorker studied Broadcast Journalism and Law and Society at American University. In his leisure time he enjoys baseball, hiking, and classic American literature. Contact Mike at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lobbying: Washington’s Dirty Little Secret? appeared first on Law Street.

Repeal of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has been an increasing popular debate topic over the last several years. Though buried under other hot topics, such as foreign policy, government surveillance, and celebrity gossip, this conversation has been simmering on a back burner since at least the early 90s. The general consensus for those who would repeal the act is that it would then be reformed, though there are some who want it gone altogether. Read on to see why people are concerned about the date of the Endangered Species Act.

The History and Purpose of the ESA

The Endangered Species Act as we know it was passed by Congress in 1973. It was preceded by the Endangered Species Preservation Act in 1966, which was amended three years later. Some of the main changes to the 1973 version included the creation of a set definitions for words such as “endangered” and “threatened,” widening the law to include plants, and restricting the federal government from any action that would endanger a listed species.

Another expansion the ESA provided was including protection guidelines from the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in Washington, DC, which was signed by 80 nations taking a stand against environmentally harmful trade practices. An example of this was in 1989 when ivory imports were banned because of elephant poachers in Africa.

There were amendments to the act in 1978, 1982, 1988, and 2004, most of which dealt with defining exact parameters of what the government could and could not do, as well as smoothing out the process of proposing candidates for inclusion.

The point of the ESA is to not only stop the decimation of endangered species but also to recover them and ultimately delist them when they are no longer in danger of extinction. This is to be achieved through recovery plans written by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) biologists in collaboration with experts. The goals of the FWS are further explained in this video that they released for the ESA’s fortieth anniversary last year.

When an animal or plant is listed, it becomes illegal to “take” it without a federal permit. Typically these permits are granted for reasons of conservation or scientific research. Under the definitions section of the act, “take” is explained as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” “Take” doesn’t apply to plants unless they are on federal land. Laws can differ slightly from state to state, however, as some may have extra restrictions. It’s always best to know the rules as they apply to you.

How does a species make the list?

When considering a candidate for listing, the Fish and Wildlife Service uses a five-factor list, any of which can make the candidate eligible.

(A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;

(B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;

(C) disease or predation;

(D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or

(E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

The species selected represent the most critical cases, but there is also a list of candidates that meet the qualifications but can’t be moved forward due to budget or time restrictions. According to the FWS, in these cases the agency “works with States, Tribes, private landowners, private partners, and other Federal agencies to carry out conservation actions for these species to prevent further decline and possibly eliminate the need for listing.”

By the Numbers

• Thirty-one listed species have been fully recovered and therefore delisted.
• Ten listed species have been delisted due to extinction.
• There are 1,371 listed animals and 886 listed plants.
• The total expenditures for the 2013 fiscal year for endangered and threatened species by federal and state governments was more than $1.7 billion.
• Sixty-eight percent of protected species whose conditions are known are improving or stable.
• Thirty-two percent of protected species whose conditions are known are declining.
• Ninety percent of listed species are on track for their recovery rate deadlines, as outlined in their recovery plans.
• A 2013 poll reported that 42 percent of Americans said that the ESA should be strengthened, 25 percent said to leave it alone, and 24 percent said it should be weakened.

For Repeal and Reform

One of the main arguments for reforming the Endangered Species Act is that there is little incentive for private landowners to comply. In fact, once an endangered species is found, the land becomes subject to restrictions without any financial compensation from the government, so there is arguably reason for such property owners to kill and dispose of the endangered animal before anyone else finds out about it. This use of government command instead of reward is a problem for free market fans and property rights activists alike.

Attorney Damien Schiff explains some of these property rights in the video below by the Pacific Legal Foundation.

Schiff also brings up the idea of prioritizing species worth saving, which has been reflected in arguments that the law is too inflexible in its efforts to save every endangered species.

Others believe the act puts nature before people, as jobs that would be created developing protected land are taken away and many government dollars are spent that could be put to use on humans or that could remain in taxpayers’ pockets. It has even been suggested that selling land currently under Federal protection could result in revenue for the government.

The question of cost is addressed in the NBC News story below about saving the panda.

On the more scandalous side of the controversy, there have been allegations that seeds of listed plants have been spread across mining sites in order to halt progress. Another case of abuse of the act was when an environmental group sued the FWS because four types of shrimp weren’t listed. The legal action was allegedly an attempt to block the development of 1.7 million acres of land.

Those who are more concerned with the science behind the act say that it is actually too targeted at individual species rather than biodiversity as a whole, which could be a more effective goal. Environmentalists are also concerned that the government, charged with enforcing the ESA, doesn’t take into account the long-term effects of projects that could impact an area’s ecosystem. While a short-term risk to a listed animal would warrant a stop on the plan, some feel the government ignores or doesn’t adequately research risks that could be problematic later.

Support For the Act

A key argument against the ESA is that extinction is a natural process, but many scientists believe that it is starting to happen at an alarming rate due to human predation, clearing of habitats, and use of food sources. This is being called the sixth wave of extinction, and by this logic, we as humans should strive to correct the damage we have done. This logic is also applied when supporters factor in climate change and pollution as sources of man-made extinction. Proponents of the ESA argue that it is our moral and ethical responsibility to care for the animals and plants we have affected through our rapid expansion into their territories.

Also, scientists have proven that the extinction of one animal often disrupts the food chain to cause a domino or ripple effect of extinctions. Our health as humans could be affected by such disruptions if not kept in check, creating clear ties to our well being and that of our environment. Supporters also note that measures taken to ensure the health of animals and plants, such as stopping deforestation and keeping our waters clean, are practices from which we all benefit.

There are also questions about the origins of arguments to repeal the act–do they come from genuine concern or lobbyists from lumber, mining, and oil drilling companies? In other words, are repealers really concerned with people or corporate profit?

Another rebutted argument against the act is that it has only a one percent success rate (with success being measured only in delistings), but less than one percent of species listed have gone extinct. This, plus the fact that the majority of measured populations are stable or increasing, makes it clear that this seemingly crippling statistic isn’t so impressive, after all. In addition, the above-listed statistic about 90 percent of species being on track for recovery is a strong argument for a different–and more optimistic–measurement of success. If the act is allowed to continue, successes will come in time, preserving our wildlife for future generations.

Perhaps the simplest reason for support is that the ESA makes people more conscious of the world around them. It informs the public of species that need to be protected, increases awareness of humans’ effect on other lifeforms, and it creates dialogue about the consequences if said species die out. After all, if there are unknown consequences to certain animals’ extinction, we may not discover them until it is too late.

Conclusion

It seems that many questions surrounding the Endangered Species Act have to do with the worth of funding such a large endeavor and how to accurately measure its success. If one takes a narrow approach in defining success as delisting, the ESA has very little to show. If one accounts for improvement and stability, though, there is a lot more weight behind the project. Is it the government’s place to support wildlife, or would we be better off focusing on ourselves? Does the 41-year-old act need a facelift in order to make it more efficient and beneficial to humans? This issue hasn’t moved into the political forefront yet, but as the volume of this conversation increases, Americans are going to need to decide what role they play in the natural world.

Resources

Primary 

FIsh and Wildlife Service: Endangered Species Act of 1973

Fish and Wildlife Service: ESA Basics

Fish and Wildlife Service: A History of the Endangered Species Act of 1973

Fish and Wildlife Service: ECOS Delisting Report

Fish and Wildlife Service: ECOS Listed Animals

Fish and Wildlife Service: ECOS Listed Plants

Fish and Wildlife Service: Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species Expenditures

Conservation Biology: Six Biological Reasons Why the Endangered Species Act Doesn’t Work–And What to Do About It

Additional

Citizen Review: Everybody Knows They’re Not Really Endangered: We Just Need Them to Stop Mining

Defenders of Wildlife: Conservation Leaders From Congress, Interior & Citizen Groups Decry Bill to ‘Repeal’ Endangered Species Act

National Wildlife Foundation: Endangered Species Act by the Numbers

LA Times: Foe of Endangered Species Act on Defensive Over Abramoff

BBC: Biodiversity: The Sixth Great Wave

Daily Mail: Scientists Use Wasps and Aphids to Prove ‘Domino Effect’ of Extinction

Politifact: Only One Percent of Endangered Species List Have Been Taken Off List

ESA Success: 110 Success Stories for Endangered Species Day 2012

Biological Diversity: Poll: Two-thirds of Americans Want Congress to Strengthen, Protect Endangered Species Act

WND: Repeal the Endangered Species Act

Biological Diversity: A Wild Success

Kelsey Kennedy

Kelsey Kennedy is a freelance editor with degrees in Magazine Journalism and Performance Theatre from the University of Missouri, Columbia (MIZ!). When she isn’t out exploring New York, she loves getting far too invested in characters on the page, stage, and screen. She ultimately wants to make a difference in the world and surround herself with creative people. Contact Kelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Endangered Species Act: Repeal and Reform or Leave it Alone? appeared first on Law Street.

American politicians and lobbyists have long had an uncomfortably entangled relationship. It makes sense–lobbyists usually have a lot of disposable income, and politicians know the importance of keeping friends around. In that vein, I’ve seen multiple news stories in recent days that indicate that lobbyists throwing lavish parties for the politicians they are trying to woo is increasingly the norm. As we approach election day in one of the most cash-heavy midterm elections ever, it’s easy to be concerned about the way that money and lobbyists can influence our elected leaders. A few recent incidents involving politicians and lobbyists–such as the high-profile case involving Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster has raised an important question–how cozy is too cozy?

The history of lobbying in the United States is a long one, and it’s intrinsic to our nations history. While the Founding Fathers probably didn’t foresee the high concentration of lobbying activities that we’ve all come to know and tolerate today, the idea that you can petition the government is viewed as a right all Americans have. It’s now a gigantic industry–OpenSecrets.org puts annual lobbying dollars spent in the billions, and estimates that unique lobbyists number roughly 12,000.

So what does this billion dollar industry do? Well according to recent analysis done by the New York times, a popular trend is essentially throwing massive parties for politicians who lobbyists are trying to pursue. In particular, there has been a recent push by lobbyists to woo Attorneys General, in order to attempt to influence investigations in particular states. For example, there were rumors that 5-Hour-Energy, the mini-energy drink, was going to be investigated by Attorneys General in multiple states. In return, Lobbyists attempted to stem the investigations by working with those Attorneys General who were seriously considering looking into 5-Hour-Energy’s advertising practices.

Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster has ended up being one of the principle players in the 5-Hour-Energy debate, as the New York Times alleges that Koster was basically wined and dined by lobbyists to stop looking into 5-Hour-Energy, as well as other transgressions. As the New York Time sums up interactions between Attorney General Koster and Lori Kalani, an attorney for Dickstein Shapiro who was working on behalf of 5-Hour-Energy:

Ms. Kalani’s firm, Dickstein Shapiro, had courted the attorney general at dinners and conferences and with thousands of dollars in campaign contributions. Mr. Koster told Ms. Kalani that he was unaware of the investigation, and he reached for his phone and called his office. By the end of the weekend, he had ordered his staff to pull out of the inquiry, a clear victory for 5-Hour Energy.

It’s not just Attorneys General that are accused of being susceptible to pretty intense wining and dining from lobbyists. CNN pointed out that some of our elected officials indulge in “weekend getaways” provided by lobbyists, where they get to stay at some of the nation’s most posh hotels. These vacations allow unique access for lobbyists. This isn’t really an issue divided by party lines, either, given that politicians from both sides of the aisle have been found to partake.

Most importantly, it’s not illegal. It’s barely even frowned-upon. As the influence of money in our elections grows, it’s likely that we’ll see dealings like those allegedly committed by Koster became even more common.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lobbyists and American Politicians: How Cozy is Too Cozy? appeared first on Law Street.

For those of us who follow labor law, sports law, or both, March 26, 2014 was a pretty exciting day. Peter Ohr, Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for Chicago, held that Northwestern football players are employees under federal law and would be permitted to hold an election in a bid for union representation. Ohr’s 24-page decision has evoked mixed feelings from labor experts, but most consider the decision to be damaging to opponents of unions in college sports.

While the players might have won the first battle, the war for unions in college football has only just begun. As I mentioned in my original post on this controversial topic, the football team is unlikely to actually have a collective bargaining agreement in place for a couple years. And well before that happens, Northwestern University and some other characters will try to ensure a union delegation never steps foot on Ryan Field in Evanston, Illinois. Here are three tactics that they may use to block unionization:

1. The NLRB Appeal Process: Shortly after Ohr released his decision, Northwestern indicated that they would file an appeal. Appealing a regional NLRB ruling first requires filing a request to review with the National Office of the NLRB in Washington. A request to review is essentially an appellate brief requesting the NLRB to revise the decision of the regional office, usually via remand or reversal (an example can be found here). In Northwestern’s case, the request to review must be filed with the NLRB by April 9, 2014. If the request is granted, the NLRB’s judiciary panel (Board) will conduct a hearing to decide whether Ohr’s ruling was made in error, or whether it will be upheld.

2. Contesting the Election Process: Even if the Board affirms Ohr’s decision, the football team isn’t completely in the clear. The team is to vote on union representation on April 25, 2014, at which point all scholarship athletes participating in team activities will be permitted to vote. If a majority is not reached, the players have to wait one year to be eligible to cast ballots again. If a majority is reached but the team has not formed a collective bargaining unit by the time their eldest voters graduate, Northwestern may file an objection to the election in the form of an unfair labor practice (ULP). The ULP would allege that the deciding votes in the election aren’t eligible for union representation, and therefore a new vote would be required.

3. Congressional Action: Last Wednesday, former Northwestern quarterback Kain Colter and company met with Congressional leaders to discuss their campaign to unionize. Many believe the Wildcats’ trip was intended to drum up support in case Congress votes to enact federal law blocking University students from forming unions. That type of Congressional action is just hypothetical at this point, but also quite plausible. Some politicians have already expressed their displeasure with Ohr’s decision, and most forecasters believe the number of union opponents in Washington will only grow after the midterm elections. Considering the stakes and opponents involved, I’m sure Kain Colter would like as many teammates as possible for the upcoming fight.

Andrew Blancato

The post How Will Northwestern Stop its Football Team From Unionizing Now? appeared first on Law Street.