PSoTD

Maybe Bank of America got some negative feedback on their prior aggressive lobbying. Maybe it was impacting them on other fronts. I can't quite figure why BofA would publicize an effort to reduce a lobbying focus, unless it was hurting them elsewhere. But they still want the 10 percent federal deposit cap repealed.

It's pretty clear that the scope of the problem hasn't been figured out if local governments are required to hire lobbyists in order to coordinate with state legislatures and the Federal Government.

From the Rockford Register Star:

Rockford Mayor Larry Morrissey has proposed forming a nonprofit group to hire someone to represent the city's interests at the state Capitol, and possibly, in Washington, D.C.

Certainly, we have lawmakers in both places, but their attention is split among a thousand priorities, and they sometimes work at cross-purposes in their own little groups. They are elected to represent constituents and regional interests, but their efforts are diverse and divided.

And there are times when they could use a heads up when something is of particular interest to local government. They should welcome the help.

So, call it a hired gun. Whatever. Other Illinois cities, most of them smaller than Rockford, have lobbyists. In the past, some local governmental entities, including the airport and the convention and visitors bureau, have had lobbyists looking out for their specific interests in Springfield. The idea is to have someone on site to identify proposed legislation that could affect the client and lobby for or against it. The lobbyist also is in place to identify opportunities, such as in grants or specific programs, that may benefit clients.

Had Rockford had a lobbyist last year, Rockford may not have missed out on the River Edge development program grants that renew tax credits or are targeted toward cleanup and redevelopment of contaminated "brownfield" sites in cities situated along Illinois' rivers.

Aurora and East St. Louis snagged the $2 million in grants before Rockford even knew about the project. There was some sniping back and forth between Morrissey and former Mayor Doug Scott, who heads up the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, which awarded the grants. Some local people thought Scott should have given the city a heads up that the money was available. In his state position, Scott argued, he can't play favorites. Rockford just missed the boat, he said.

He's not our lobbyist, after all.

Some members of the Rockford City Council say we don't need a paid lobbyist. They propose a six-person, bipartisan group of aldermen to do the job in Springfield. A few road trips and a little face time at the Capitol won't do it. This is a job for professionals, not amateur hour. The city needs someone on the scene, in the halls and back rooms where deals go down, on a regular basis.

Just more bullshit for the bullshit fire. The problem is structural. Does every city, every town, every village need to hire a lobbyist? Is that the most effective way we can figure out for governance? If there's a problem - and believe me, lots and lots and lots of cities and towns will be hiring lobbyists this year just because they perceive themselves to be on the wrong side of the money-giving equation at the state or federal level - then perhaps the process is the problem. Maybe local governments need to advocate a change in the process. Otherwise, the tax costs across this country for local government hired lobbyists are going to be causing increases in taxes, because there's a cost to this, whether the lobbyist fails or succeeds.

From Spinwatch:

Several states, responding to the federal scandals as well as their own statehouse imbroglios, have already adopted more sweeping gift and travel bans, broader measures to end the central role of lobbyists or government contractors in financing campaigns and new public campaign financing intended to reduce lawmakers’ dependence on big donors.

To enforce their rules, about half the states have also created independent ethics watchdogs, outside the control of the lawmakers they police — something federal lawmakers have so far resisted. House Democrats recently said they would create a panel to study the idea.

John Hurson, a former member of the Maryland General Assembly and president of the National Council of State Legislatures, remembers marveling at the goings-on just a few miles away in the United States Capitol. He was barred from letting a lobbyist buy him a cup of coffee under rules enforced by the Maryland Ethics Commission. Meanwhile, congressmen were flying across the country for golf trips with lobbyists and enlisting them as major fund-raisers for their re-election campaigns. "It was amusing in a sad kind of way,” said Mr. Hurson, who now works as a Washington lobbyist himself, for a cosmetics industry trade group. “At the state level in Maryland a lobbyist can’t even have his name on a campaign flier. And at the federal level some of these guys are basically running campaigns."

At some point, there has to be responsibility for personal ethics. The idea that Hurson can tut-tut the federal lobbying activities while he's a state legislator, and then turn around and become part of the process at the federal level, speaks volumes. If you really think a profession has gone awry, why would you then enter it? Is money the ONLY DRIVING FACTOR with these people?

I believe there's plenty of room for focused "ethics" legislation, but the fact that it takes government regulation to provide the standards of what is ethical for both legislators and lobbyists is a sad vignette on how gross our culture has become. How can we expect these folks to legislate right and wrong for our society when they need government to tell them what is ethical in determing that legislation?

I dunno, yesterday's bumbleheaded comment by Wolfson about Edwards' speech in Harlem still annoys the hell out of me. Why he or the Clinton campaign would attack the messenger for a message that should both be understood and accepted by Hillary Clinton is just horrible politics. Note - it's not governing. It's politics.

So who is Wolfson, anyway? He's a partner in the Glover Park Group. What do they do?

The Glover Park Group has bridged the divide -- offering comprehensive client service from the earliest strategic planning to the final execution of advocacy and image advertising campaigns.

Okay, then. He is part owner of a firm that claims to provide comprehensive message planning and execution. Were his comments of the other day really so comprehensive in either planning or execution? Seemed pretty reactionary and baiting, really.

More information about Glover Park Group here.

There's an odd little story going on about the company in the British Virgin Islands, but I'm not quite sure what it all means. Pieces of the story are here and here .

It's that time of year again: state legislatures are returning to their capitals, to the chorus of hosannahs towards ethics reform.

Maine: MAINE'S 123RD LEGISLATURE: New ethics rules should be task No. 1

Wisconsin: Governor Doyle says passing an ethics reform bill will reaffirm the faith of the people in Wisconsin.

Oregon : The first order of business for the 2007 Legislature convening in Salem next week should be to ban the gifts that lobbyists regularly bestow upon them.

New York: Spitzer says state lawmakers need to set aside partisan politics in order to accomplish the ethics and campaign reforms he has targeted for the legislature.

And yet, it will likely all be forgotten by March.

Congratulations, Pennsylvania, we had the 4th highest amount of lobbying spending reported in 2005 in the nation. And that's even with the Pennsylvania total presenting an incomplete picture of lobbying in General Assembly. Lobbyists reported to the Senate that they spent nearly $125 million, including salaries and fees, or almost 11 percent of the nationwide total.