Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 55

Thread: Lobbying for Legislative Leverage

  1. #1

    Default Lobbying for Legislative Leverage

    A bit long, this is the last part:

    Few executives faced a tougher test than those in the health care, energy, and financial services sectors. "This year marked a put-up or shut-up time" for three giant financial service trade group leaders, said Kurt Pfotenhauer ($584,835), CEO of the American Land Title Association. "They earned their pay by effectively pushing back hard against a regulatory regime that in some instances would have subjected their members to a smothering amount of new federal regulation."

    The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, the Financial Services Roundtable, and the American Bankers Association were able to mount effective lobbying campaigns even though several of their big members were the targets of public anger and of heated rhetoric from the White House and Congress.

    "It has been an extremely difficult public-relations and political environment," acknowledged Edward Yingling, the president and CEO of the bankers association, who made $2.29 million in 2008. "We're used to major storms, but this is a level 4 hurricane." The group has managed to fend off some financial services reforms that it dislikes. "I think we've had some success in modifying" congressional reform efforts, he said, "and some success in keeping out some of the wilder ideas."

    Yingling attributes the group's success to the grassroots clout of its big and diverse membership, which represents 95 percent of the assets in American banks. The ABA's "community bankers generated more than 300,000 grassroots letters on regulatory reform" that went to Capitol Hill last year, he said.

    But even gold-plated bankers couldn't ignore the recession. The ABA imposed hiring and salary freezes, cut back on travel, and canceled its annual summer bash usually held at such posh resorts as West Virginia's Greenbrier. The economic climate also tabled further bonuses for the group's executives.

    At the Financial Services Roundtable, president and CEO Steve Bartlett felt the public backlash as well. "I believe I enjoy a great reputation and have credibility," said the former Republican lawmaker from Texas, who made $1.63 million in 2008. "But it's a tough time. It's harder to communicate our message if a congressman hears complaints about us at a town hall meeting." So Bartlett set a goal for the 100-member organization to "rebuild trust in everything we do." He recently assessed membership fees as high as $75,000 to retain a public-relations firm to work on messaging.

    Timothy Ryan, CEO of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, who made $2.02 million in 2008, agreed that the times are challenging: "We're [being] held responsible for some of the devastation of the last few years." Ryan took SIFMA's helm in April 2008 after spending 15 years at JPMorgan Chase, where he was a vice chairman just before the market's collapse. Since then, the trade association's budget shrank from about $100 million in 2008 to just over $80 million this year as some of its member firms merged or went under during the financial crisis. SIFMA had to let 57 people go in 2008 and 2009, he said. Given the financial pressures that many members were facing from the recession, the group cut dues "across the board," Ryan added. "We took in excess of 20 percent out of the organization."

    Frank Fahrenkopf, CEO of the American Gaming Association, dealt with the economic collapse by eliminating member dues in 2009. Dues this year are half the 2008 assessment. Fahrenkopf, who took home $2.08 million in 2008, said his organization was fortunate in that it had built up hefty reserves to weather a storm such as the one that hit last year. "We've always been very careful of our costs," he said.

    The energy sector, in addition to facing tough financial times, had to adjust to a president who had campaigned on reducing the influence of "Big Oil" in Washington. Jack Gerard, who took over as CEO at the American Petroleum Institute on September 1, 2008, after longtime chief Red Cavaney retired (with $2.69 million), has already undertaken a major shake-up, following his pattern as head of the National Mining Association and the American Chemistry Council.

    Last fall, Gerard, who received compensation of $1.64 million for his four months at the institute (most of it in the form of deferred compensation), laid off 14 percent of the staff, some 40 people. The personnel cuts had nothing to do with the group's finances and everything to do with his leadership philosophy, Gerard said. "I believe [that trade associations] should be run like a business. Bring great clarity to the mission statement, get consensus on what members expect, and then organize personnel and activities around that." He added, "We go in and say, how do we deliver value in the public policy arena?"

    That is no small challenge. Democrats have built political momentum for overhauling energy policies to dramatically reduce greenhouse gases and lessen dependence on foreign oil. How and when those policy changes come about will have enormous implications for the industry.

    In response to the political winds, Gerard, a Republican, hired Democratic lobbyist Martin Durbin, the nephew of Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin, D-Ill., away from the American Chemistry Council. He also hedged his bets by launching an aggressive lobbying strategy. In February, Gerard lured grassroots organizer Deryck Spooner -- whom the CEO calls the "best in class" -- away from the Nature Conservancy to do similar work at the API. "The greatest [strategic] value to the oil and natural-gas industry is that we employ 9.2 million people and account for 7.5 percent of U.S. gross domestic product," Gerard said. "It's all about the voters, jobs, and constituents."

    The health care reform debate was the Super Bowl moment for the industry's trade associations, and many of their top-paid executives had strategically positioned themselves with White House and Senate leaders who negotiated the issues over the past year. The key CEOs included PhRMA's Billy Tauzin; the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association's Scott Serota; Chip Kahn, president of the Federation of American Hospitals ($2.33 million); Richard Umbdenstock, president of the American Hospital Association ($2.06 million); and Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans ($2.08 million).

    Hospitals were among the winners in the legislation that was finally enacted in late March; it is expected to reduce the number of uninsured people turning up in emergency rooms in the coming years. "We have been engaged in health reform from the beginning and joined with other hospital associations to come to an agreement with the White House and the Senate, so I think health reform is probably a good metric to assess my job by," Kahn said. As chief lobbyist at the Health Insurance Association of America 15 years ago, he masterminded the iconic "Harry and Louise" ads that helped to kill President Clinton's health care reform effort.

    Legislative success doesn't always guarantee a CEO longevity at the top, however. In early February, PhRMA's board of directors announced that Tauzin, who positioned the organization as an ally to Obama on health care, would leave the helm in June. The group spent more than $100 million on pro-reform advertising and agreed to reduce senior citizens' prescription drug costs by about $80 billion. In return, PhRMA received concessions that included a promise the reform bill would not permit the reimportation of drugs from Canada.

    Although the deal stuck, the strategy caused strife within the association. When it appeared that health care reform was dead at the end of January following the surprise Senate win by Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts, some say that the board pushed Tauzin out for having bet wrong and allying PhRMA so closely with the Democrats. PhRMA denied that he was forced out.

    "These are high-risk, difficult jobs," Leslie Hortum, head of executive search firm Spencer Stuart's D.C. office, said. "These CEOs have to influence the legislative process in a challenging, partisan environment while also balancing their own members' competing interests and agendas."

    Interesting chart. Yeah, "politics is all about money" and lobbying is "Free Speech". Is it any wonder that Big is Beautiful or Too Big to Fail? Is everyone okay with this or is the game rigged?

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmag...id=site_search

  2. #2

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I don't see what the problem is with this.
    Really? You usually post beefs about Union power to influence votes or get special deals. Not equally bothered by corporate influence over policy and laws, basically buying their way into the process?

  4. #4
    I don't have any problem with lobbying itself. It's the policies that matter. And union policies these days are pretty much all directed towards maintaining their benefits packages that are bankrupting the states.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I don't have any problem with lobbying itself. It's the policies that matter. And union policies these days are pretty much all directed towards maintaining their benefits packages that are bankrupting the states.
    What's bankrupting the states is revenue shortfalls. What do you think caused these shortfalls? Union policies don't have much to do with that.
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I don't have any problem with lobbying itself. It's the policies that matter. And union policies these days are pretty much all directed towards maintaining their benefits packages that are bankrupting the states.
    Quote Originally Posted by Being View Post
    What's bankrupting the states is revenue shortfalls. What do you think caused these shortfalls? Union policies don't have much to do with that.
    It's both. Employment is down, tax revenue is down, service need is up, legacy costs are up, medical costs are up.

    The lobbying means policy goes to the highest bidder, treating groups more important than individual voters. Isn't it the Right that claims to honor individual "rights"?

    The benefits packages for union workers (or state workers) would be moot, if we didn't have this employer-based reliance on benefits. Or skewed costs for those who can bargain best for their particular group.

    We need to start seeing ourselves as one big group, as a nation, and not just a bunch of little states. Unless we let CA fall off into the ocean and start over?

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Being View Post
    What's bankrupting the states is revenue shortfalls. What do you think caused these shortfalls? Union policies don't have much to do with that.
    Actually, it's mostly unrealistic salaries and pension costs. Tax revenues fluctuate. You can plan for those fluctuations, but they will fluctuate. However, states can control salaries and pension obligations.

    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    It's both. Employment is down, tax revenue is down, service need is up, legacy costs are up, medical costs are up.

    The lobbying means policy goes to the highest bidder, treating groups more important than individual voters. Isn't it the Right that claims to honor individual "rights"?

    The benefits packages for union workers (or state workers) would be moot, if we didn't have this employer-based reliance on benefits. Or skewed costs for those who can bargain best for their particular group.
    Two things:

    1) I've said this before, but lobbying is not some kind of auction. Candidates can't take cash payouts, and saying that policies go to the "top bidder" is naive. If you can people to protest in front of your congressman's office, you'll get policy influence too.

    2) Regarding union packages, that's actually not true. Health benefits are only part of the equation. The other parts are lifetime pensions and the inability to actually contract state workforces.

    Check out this dandy chart of California state workers: http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/BudgetSummary/BS_SCH6.pdf

    Note that, since 1950, the population of California has grown from 10 million to 38 million (3.8x). The California government worker population has gone from 61,000 to 345,000 (5.6x). The per capita number of state workers has increased faster than population growth! I wish I could get that table as a CSV or XLS, I would love to plot those numbers on a chart.

  8. #8
    I disagree. It IS an auction. Our lawmakers think of their re-election first, big money second, media coverage third, and populist concerns last (unless they have money or mouth or media). Solitary constituent votes get wrapped up in those things---money and media as voice.

    I say it's naive to think legislators don't cave to Big Money. They may not take strict cash payments for their votes on policy, but they DO cater to lobbyists. That's why they exist and keep getting larger salaries---they are effective in influence. The new health bill is proof of that. Big Pharma and Big Insurance got a sweet deal.

    While I like public education and public health, I don't think all the people employed in those sectors need to be considered state or federal employees. There's a place for collective bargaining and fairness, but it shouldn't be a false choice between trade unions or government employment. We won't have much of a future if our only hope is to get a government or union job.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Actually, it's mostly unrealistic salaries and pension costs. Tax revenues fluctuate. You can plan for those fluctuations, but they will fluctuate. However, states can control salaries and pension obligations.

    ...

    2) Regarding union packages, that's actually not true. Health benefits are only part of the equation. The other parts are lifetime pensions and the inability to actually contract state workforces.
    If unions can't manage to secure retirement for their members, what does that say about chances of individuals to secure their own?

    About the numbers you want to chart, plot them against the top tax rates from 1980 to now and see if it reveals anything significant.
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Being View Post
    If unions can't manage to secure retirement for their members, what does that say about chances of individuals to secure their own?

    About the numbers you want to chart, plot them against the top tax rates from 1980 to now and see if it reveals anything significant.
    Unions did it all wrong though. They cared more about retirees than actual workers or products/services. It's the Greek way of doing business, and we see where that went.

  11. #11
    Again, you really should stop assuming that money is the only thing politicians need to get reelected.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Again, you really should stop assuming that money is the only thing politicians need to get reelected.
    Fine then, name me some current day politicians that got elected without a lot of money interest behind them, let alone RE-elected.

  13. #13
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,239
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Again, you really should stop assuming that money is the only thing politicians need to get reelected.
    So, how much did the presidential campaign cost again for all the people who participated? I remember that several candidates had to get out or at least serious problems because they didn't have huge financial backing...

    I'm talking about stuff like this:
    http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...701153,00.html
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Fine then, name me some current day politicians that got elected without a lot of money interest behind them, let alone RE-elected.
    Arnold.
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  15. #15
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,239
    Quote Originally Posted by Being View Post
    Arnold.
    He's got the Kennedy family behind him, though... besides, the guy is wealthy enough on his own.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    He's got the Kennedy family behind him, though... besides, the guy is wealthy enough on his own.
    True, but I think she is talking about industry or union money interests.
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  17. #17
    Yeah, Arnie doesn't count. Would Jesse Ventura count?

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Fine then, name me some current day politicians that got elected without a lot of money interest behind them, let alone RE-elected.
    Name me a recent president that was elected without the other factors I mentioned before.

    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    He's got the Kennedy family behind him, though... besides, the guy is wealthy enough on his own.
    No he doesn't. They opposed his candidacy.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Name me a recent president that was elected without the other factors I mentioned before.
    Indulge me, what did you mention before, besides money? The other factors at play are media and information, which is also about money.

    My library may seem "free" in access, but journalism is definitely not. In fact, even my library is not "free" because it takes government funds plus rich donors to make it work. Good journalists don't blog for free, they need an income and pay for their hard work.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    No he doesn't. They opposed his candidacy.
    What gives you that idea?
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Being View Post
    What gives you that idea?
    The fact that even his wife said she wasn't voting for him.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    The fact that even his wife said she wasn't voting for him.
    That just meant he didn't have the Kennedy legacy behind him, not that he didn't have his own money or plenty of backers with money.

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    That just meant he didn't have the Kennedy legacy behind him, not that he didn't have his own money or plenty of backers with money.
    So the Kennedys made it clear they don't support him, the people know that the Kennedys don't support him, he wins on a platform of getting things done (his celebrity didn't hurt), and yet it's the Kennedy's that got him elected. As for his money, he earned them himself.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    The fact that even his wife said she wasn't voting for him.
    Good luck finding a source that supports your claim. She supported his campaign 100%.
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    So the Kennedys made it clear they don't support him, the people know that the Kennedys don't support him, he wins on a platform of getting things done (his celebrity didn't hurt), and yet it's the Kennedy's that got him elected. As for his money, he earned them himself.
    He ran opposing Democrats. Sometimes just being the opposition wins elections. Media ran with that, a Kennedy married to the Opposition, wow he must really be principled and strong! You know that, Loki.

  26. #26
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3177274.stm

    My mistake, it was the other Kennedys that opposed him.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    I disagree. It IS an auction. Our lawmakers think of their re-election first, big money second, media coverage third, and populist concerns last (unless they have money or mouth or media). Solitary constituent votes get wrapped up in those things---money and media as voice.

    I say it's naive to think legislators don't cave to Big Money. They may not take strict cash payments for their votes on policy, but they DO cater to lobbyists. That's why they exist and keep getting larger salaries---they are effective in influence. The new health bill is proof of that. Big Pharma and Big Insurance got a sweet deal.

    While I like public education and public health, I don't think all the people employed in those sectors need to be considered state or federal employees. There's a place for collective bargaining and fairness, but it shouldn't be a false choice between trade unions or government employment. We won't have much of a future if our only hope is to get a government or union job.
    You're mixing up the order. Legislators do care about election as a priority, but that means that fundraising, coverage and popularity fit into that folder. As my polisci professor once broke down the list:

    1) Re-election

    2) Having a local legacy (IE pork)

    3) Crafting good policy.

    But most established politicians are plenty funded enough to not need campaign contributions. Once again, you totally don't understand how lobbying works. It's the contribution of advice from concerned people, collecting constituents with similar views on the matter to apply pressure and helping politicians push an agenda with support from interested parties.

    Quote Originally Posted by Being View Post
    If unions can't manage to secure retirement for their members, what does that say about chances of individuals to secure their own?

    About the numbers you want to chart, plot them against the top tax rates from 1980 to now and see if it reveals anything significant.
    That's a totally nonsensical answer. Are you actually saying we should let unionized state workers increase faster then population growth just to prove that we can build a massive cushy retirement system? Even if it bankrupts the state?

    Seriously, the tax rates have nothing to do with it. If the ranks of unionized state workers with lifetime pensions increases faster than population growth, the state will go bankrupt. Do I have to draw a chart on Graphjam?

  28. #28
    How nice to know that Dread can tell us how stupid we are, and we don't know how things work. Too bad we can't also rely on Dread to make things work.

  29. #29
    Or maybe you can just get informed instead of spouting nonsense...
    Hope is the denial of reality

  30. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    You're mixing up the order. Legislators do care about election as a priority, but that means that fundraising, coverage and popularity fit into that folder. As my polisci professor once broke down the list:

    1) Re-election

    2) Having a local legacy (IE pork)

    3) Crafting good policy.

    But most established politicians are plenty funded enough to not need campaign contributions. Once again, you totally don't understand how lobbying works. It's the contribution of advice from concerned people, collecting constituents with similar views on the matter to apply pressure and helping politicians push an agenda with support from interested parties.



    That's a totally nonsensical answer. Are you actually saying we should let unionized state workers increase faster then population growth just to prove that we can build a massive cushy retirement system? Even if it bankrupts the state?

    Seriously, the tax rates have nothing to do with it. If the ranks of unionized state workers with lifetime pensions increases faster than population growth, the state will go bankrupt. Do I have to draw a chart on Graphjam?
    Retirees are taxpayers just as are union members. Have you given much thought to where state revenues come from?
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •