ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “004: Lobbying”

Climate Progress

Keystone XL Pipeline Backers Dwarfed Opponents In Lobbying Efforts

By Josh Israel on Jan 20, 2012 at 10:50 am

Keystone XL Map

Proposed Keystone XL pipeline map

On Wednesday, President Barack Obama announced his administration was denying an application by the TransCanada Corporation to build a tar sands pipeline between Alberta, Canada, and Nederland, Texas.

This decision, a major victory for grassroots activists, comes after lobbying by TransCanada and its big oil allies significantly dwarfed that of environmental groups. TransCanada alone nearly matched the combined lobbying expenditures of all Keystone XL opponents on all issues, over the periods in which they lobbied for and against the pipeline in 2011, a ThinkProgress Green analysis shows.

An analysis of lobbying disclosure records for the first, second, and third quarters of 2011 suggests that the lobbying expenses of the 20 or more business and labor interests who backed the project were much greater than those for the seven organizations that actively opposed the measure:

– Thirty-eight different companies or organizations reported lobbying the federal government on the Keystone XL pipeline in general or on H.R.1938 (the North American-Made Energy Security Act, a bill which aimed to speed up the Obama administration’s consideration of the application). Thirty-one groups supported the pipeline, and seven groups opposed it.

– TransCanada’s lobbying efforts alone over the first three quarters of 2011 totaled at least $920,000.

– The seven groups in opposition to Keystone XL spent just over $1 million on all lobbying efforts. Corporate Ethics International, Defenders of Wildlife, EarthJustice Legal Defense Fund, the League of Conservation Voters, the National Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club, and the Western Organization of Resource Councils reported spending just over $1 million on lobbying efforts for the periods when they were lobbying on Keystone XL — little more than TransCanada’s spending. Lobbying disclosure forms do not specify how much is spent on individual issues.

– The 31 groups supporting Keystone XL spent $59.8 million on all lobbying. Combined with the massive lobbying prowess of supporters like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, ConocoPhillips, Shell Oil, Exxon Mobil Corporation, the American Petroleum Institute, and the National Association of Manufacturers, as well as less expected players like the National Taxpayers Union and Deere & Company, supporters of the pipeline had lobbying operations over the periods in which they lobbied on application totaling at least $59.8 million.

– Oil and energy companies alone spent more than $37 million on total lobbying.

TransCanada has vowed to reapply. If these numbers are any indication, they will likely do so with some well-funded allies.

See the organizations who reported lobbying on the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline in the first three quarters of 2011:
Read more

Alyssa

Watch These Movies While You’re Waiting For The Iowa Caucus Results

By Alyssa Rosenberg on Jan 3, 2012 at 2:52 pm

Thanks to the vast expansion of our cable news industry, you could spend hours tonight watching talking heads speculate about the potential results of the Iowa Caucuses tonight. But fortunately, you don’t have to! You can keep hitting refresh on Twitter or the news site of your choice while watching any one of these movies, which actually get the mechanics of politics right in a way that most others don’t, and that most snap-judgment analysts won’t.

1. Primary Colors (1998): Unlike most political movies, which set up a dichotomy between often-unnamed but clearly defined members of opposite parties, the vast majority of Primary Colors takes place during the Democratic primary. That means you get tough debates, hilariously incompetent campaign volunteers who get whipped into a professional fighting force, the entrance of a late-breaking messiah candidate who turns out to be not-so-messianic, and best of all, a deeply cranky conversation about a meeting with the Lubavitcher Rebbe. This is politics as informed and presented by people who have actually been there.

2. Definitely, Maybe (2008): This movie may be disguised as a romantic comedy, but it’s a savvy look at the disappointment of the Clinton years that draws its small dramas from an actual understanding of political pressure points. Fundraising gets you places. Both candidates and journalists have a dangerous desire to be liked. Not putting union bugs on Democratic paper goods during a campaign is disastrous. The president probably will not remember his early volunteers years down the road.

3. The American President (1995) and Thank You For Smoking (2005): It’s sort of amazing how naive Aaron Sorkin is about lobbying in The American President, a movie that makes the profession look so sexy and principled it’s sort of shocking it wasn’t a product of the influence industry itself. Thank You For Smoking is a loopy tonic to that misconception. Watch this double-header as we gear up for a Super PAC-filled election year, and vow not to get fooled again.

4. Contagion (2011): In the hysteria of an election year, it can be easy to forget that there’s life beyond politics and elected officials. But a lot of what’s important about presidential candidates is the people they’d appoint to serve under them, and any administration is limited in the changes it can make by layers of existing bureaucracy, regulations, and the time it takes to turn a ship much bigger than the Titanic around. Contagion‘s a critically important reminder that in crisis, it’s not always a matter of whose finger is on the button.

5. All the President’s Men (1976) and Dick (1999): These two very different retellings of the same essential story make two different but critically important points. First, journalism is hard, and it’s difficult to do it even when you have all the right breaks and time in which to do it: so how hard must it be to nail down true stories on the campaign trail, where everyone is sleep-deprived and exhausted, and events are moving extraordinarily rapidly. Second, politicians are people, often eccentric, obnoxious people. They want power, but they want other things too, including pot brownies and to kick their dogs.

NEWS FLASH

US Chamber Gloats About Keystone XL Poison-Pill Lobbying Spree | The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is leading the charge to attach poison-pill Keystone XL tar sands legislation to the payroll tax cut extension bill, with a massive lobbying effort on behalf of the nation’s dirty oil businesses. “The Chamber created a coalition of pro-Keystone XL Pipeline partners across the United States,” the Hill reported. That story about corporate corruption of our nation’s politics and health was posted on the US Chamber website and Twitter feed, a promotion of the pay-for-play services they provide as the world’s largest right-wing lobbying shop. The Chamber is one the of the key lobbying groups behind the other payroll poison pill, legislation to block Boiler MACT rules that would reduce mercury, carbon monoxide, and other hazardous air pollutants.

By Brad Johnson on Dec 12, 2011 at 4:47 pm

Security

INTERVIEW: Lanny Davis Rejects Business Partner Josh Block’s Smears Against CAP, Defends His Lobbying Work

By Eli Clifton on Dec 9, 2011 at 7:20 pm

Lanny Davis, a leading lobbyist and former special counsel to President Bill Clinton, responded to the recent controversy surrounding Josh Block, a former American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) spokesperson and current Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) fellow who compiled thousands of words of opposition research on ThinkProgress and Media Matters bloggers and smeared the Center for American Progress as writing “borderline anti-Semitic stuff.” Davis, a business partner of Block’s, told ThinkProgress:

He’s done this all independently without any input from me. I respect Josh Block but I 100 percent disagree with much of his language. People can disagree about Israel’s policies without being anti-Semites. In fact I think it’s a terrible mistake to blur the two. We should be able to debate Israel’s policies. I am very pro-Israel. I believe the onus for negotiations is on the Palestinians but both Israelis and Palestinians share responsibility. However, that’s all fair debate. Israelis debate the subject. We debate the subject. Impugning motives of people at the Center [for American Progress] and impugning [that] those motives are driven by anti-Semitism is, in my opinion, wrong. I respect John Podesta and the Center greatly.

In our post yesterday on Block, we explained that Davis “represented business interests backing the 2009 coup in Honduras.” In an interview today, Davis responded, “I am on the record as having opposed the illegal and indefensible deportation of Mr. Zelaya. Suggestions that I supported a military coup are simply false.”

Davis also defended his lobbying work for the Ivory Coast, telling ThinkProgress, “The Ivory Coast Embassy in DC retained me, not Mr. Gbagbo. My mission, among other things, working behind the scenes for ten days before I quit, was to facilitate a phone call from the President of the United States to Mr. Gbagbo to bring about a face saving effort to avoid bloodshed.”

Economy

Between 2008 And 2010, 30 Big Corporations Spent More Lobbying Washington Than They Paid In Income Taxes

By Zaid Jilani on Dec 7, 2011 at 10:35 am

General Electric spent more lobbying the government than it did in federal income taxes between 2008 and 2010.

Today, thousands of 99 Percenters will march on K Street in Washington, D.C. as a part of an action called “Take Back The Capitol,” taking aim at the lobbying firms that corporate interests use to influence the federal government.

A report released this month by Public Campaign demonstrates just how important it is for Americans to battle corporate special interests and reclaim our democracy. The group’s research finds that thirty big corporations actually spent more money lobbying the federal government between 2008 and 2010 than they spent in taxes. For example, General Electric — one of the top 10 most profitable companies in the world — got a net tax rebate of $4.7 billion during this period. Meanwhile, it spent $84 million lobbying the federal government.

Here’s the full list of the 30 corporations identified and what they paid in federal taxes as opposed to lobbying:

To follow today’s actions, check out Take Back The Capitol’s website, and find instant updates about the protest through the hashtag #99indc. ThinkProgress will be covering today’s events at our 99 Percent Movement special topics page.

Update

For more, see Public Campaign’s full report.

Related Posts

Politics

Did Newt Gingrich Break Georgia’s Lobbying Law In 2004?

By Travis Waldron on Dec 6, 2011 at 1:15 pm

Between his time as Speaker of the House and Republican presidential frontrunner, Newt Gingrich worked as an advocate for various causes and organizations, a past that has raised questions about whether the duties he was paid to do constituted lobbying. Gingrich, for instance, was reportedly paid $1.6 million by mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from 1999 to 2007 and worked with pro-ethanol groups in 2009. None of these activities seem to have required him to register as a lobbyist under federal law, though many critics have dismissed this as a technicality.

But Gingrich also worked with state lawmakers, particularly on behalf of his Center for Health Transformation (CHT). The New York Times last week highlighted meetings conducted with Georgia lawmakers in 2004, wherein Gingrich promoted the activities of VitalSprings — a paying member of CHT. According to Politico’s Emily Schultheis, those meetings likely constituted lobbying under state law. If so, Gingrich’s failure to register as a lobbyist may amount to a violation of a Georgia law that was in place at the time:

The state’s lobbying laws have recently changed, adding a 10 percent threshold for amount of time spent on lobbying activities — but in 2004, the two main requirements for lobbyist registration were compensation for promoting products or companies to lawmakers, or spending over $250 on those promotion activities.

William Perry, executive director of Common Cause Georgia, says Gingrich should have been a registered lobbyist in the state.

“If he was receiving compensation — and it doesn’t have to be compensation for lobbying [specifically] — and you have a meeting with legislators to try to get either something passed or you’re representing a vendor, you’d have to register,” he said.

As ThinkProgress has reported, Gingrich has a lengthy history of peddling the interests of companies that pay him, even if he has never met the threshold to register as a federal lobbyist. Now, however, it appears that Gingrich may not only have acted as a lobbyist on the state level, but that he may have also broken Georgia law in trying to avoid disclosure.

Security

Senior Gingrich Foreign Policy Adviser Lobbied For Foreign Companies And Governments

By Eli Clifton on Nov 22, 2011 at 5:30 pm

The Newt Gingrich campaign’s choice of foreign policy advisers follows the trend of GOP candidates borrowing heavily from the neoconservative policymakers who helped form the hawkish foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration. But Gingrich, who denied his own history of influence peddling for corporate clients, made an interesting choice in adding Stephen Yates, a Washington lobbyist specializing in foreign companies and governments, to his national security team.

Yates, whose biography on the Newt Gingrich campaign website only lists him as president of DC International Advisors, “a consultancy,” since 2006, had an extremely active lobbying career in the two years following his job as Deputy Assistant to Vice President Dick Cheney for National Security Affairs from 2001 to 2005. The Gingrich campaign’s decision to leave Yates’ career as vice president of the “global affairs practice” at Barbour Griffith & Rogers off his official bio, might have something to do with the two years of active lobbying he conducted on behalf of foreign clients.

In 2005 and 2006, while he was based at Barbour Griffith & Rogers, Yates was listed on lobbying disclosures as having represented the interests of:

  • Taiwan
  • The Indonesian National Shipowners’ Association
  • Moneygram International
  • Lebanon’s National Dialogue Party
  • The Republic of India
  • British Nuclear Fuels, Plc. (via a contract with Sutherland Asbill & Brennan)

    • Yates also serves as a director at the U.S.-Taiwan Business Council.

    The campaign’s decision to present Yates’ biography without any reference to his career at Barbour Griffith & Rogers or his representation of Taiwanese, Indonesian, Lebanese, Indian and British interests in Washington, raises questions. Indeed, Yates’ two-year career as a lobbyist focusing almost exclusively on foreign clients seeking influence in Washington is an interesting omission from a biography that portrays Gingrich’s national security adviser as a career civil servant.

    Yates’ background in public service would indicate that he has a strong interest in U.S. foreign policy and national security. But his two years as a professional lobbyist might also suggest that annual contracts of $740,000 with the Indonesian National Shipowners Association, $720,000 with the Republic of India, and $1.5 million with the Republic of China (Taiwan), held a certain appeal in more recent years.

    NEWS FLASH

    Bank Lobbying On Track To Reach Record High This Year | As the Occupy Wall Street protests have highlighted the outsize influence financial institutions wield in politics, banks’ spending on lobbying is on track to reach an all-time high this year. Lobbying expenditures by the five biggest spenders among commercial banks are up 12 percent so far this year compared to 2010, according to an analysis by the Charlotte Observer. Wells Fargo has been particularly profligate in its lobbying, with expenditures up 80 percent in the first three quarters of the year compared to last year. “Should this year’s pace continue, 2011 will be the sixth straight year that commercial bank lobbying has set a record,” according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks federal lobbying. Much of the lobbying has focused curbing the impact of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law, which passed last year, and the Federal Reserve’s dealing with debit card swipe fees.

    By Alex Seitz-Wald on Nov 21, 2011 at 12:40 pm

    Special Topic

    Sarah Palin Calls For Major Lobbying Reforms — Will Conservatives Join Her?

    By Zaid Jilani on Nov 18, 2011 at 12:00 pm

    Palin has given the thumbs-up to major lobbying reforms. Will conservatives join her?

    The top 1 percent have captured the nation’s political system through the use of big-money lobbying and other influence-peddling. A 60 Minutes investigation based on the research from conservative investigator Peter Schweitzer that aired on Sunday showed how members of Congress are profiting off their own version of insider trading, a particularly pernicious form of congressional privilege.

    Today, former GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin blasts this insider trading and other practices related to the link between Big Money and Congress in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. Complaining that Congress has “occupied Wall Street” and is profiting off of its inside connections, Palin calls for a series of lobbying reforms:

    What are the solutions? We need reform that provides real transparency. Congress should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act like everyone else. We need more detailed financial disclosure reports, and members should submit reports much more often than once a year. All stock transactions above $5,000 should be disclosed within five days.

    We need equality under the law. From now on, laws that apply to the private sector must apply to Congress, including whistleblower, conflict-of-interest and insider-trading laws. Trading on nonpublic government information should be illegal both for those who pass on the information and those who trade on it. (This should close the loophole of the blind trusts that aren’t really blind because they’re managed by family members or friends.)

    No more sweetheart land deals with campaign contributors. No gifts of IPO shares. No trading of stocks related to committee assignments. No earmarks where the congressman receives a direct benefit. No accepting campaign contributions while Congress is in session. No lobbyists as family members, and no transitioning into a lobbying career after leaving office. No more revolving door, ever.

    Whether Palin is truly sincere about calling for these reforms or is simply riding a wave of political anger is unclear. But she concludes her piece by saying that the “The grass-roots movements of the right and the left should embrace” these reforms. Yet the institutional right-wing in American politics has always resisted reforms to the lobbying system. The bill before the House of Representatives to ban the form of insider trading 60 Minutes highlighted had only five co-sponsors before the report aired — all Democrats. Afterward, it has 40 Democratic Party co-sponsors and a paltry six Republican co-sponsors. If Palin is really serious about pushing for these reforms, she should publicly call on these fellow conservatives in Congress by name to join her in enacting them.

    Economy

    GOP Rep. Joe Walsh Melts Down, Screams At Constituents: ‘Dont Blame Banks!…I Am Tired Of Hearing That Crap!’

    By Lee Fang on Nov 8, 2011 at 5:30 pm

    Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) erupts at a constituent who asked about the bank lobby

    Freshman Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) is known for his anti-Obama rhetoric on cable television and his inability to pay his child support payments. But during a recent meeting with constituents in his Chicago-area suburban district, Walsh lost his cool when several attendees asked about why banks have so much power in government. At one point, Walsh even threatened to eject a man who asked Walsh about the revolving door of bank lobbyists infiltrating Congress and financial regulatory agencies.

    Walsh at one point screamed, “don’t blame the banks … this pisses me off!” After several constituents accurately pointed out that bank lobbyists occupy key positions within Congress, the SEC, and other oversight bodies that are supposed to supervise bank practices, Walsh began sticking his finger close to his constituent’s faces, yelling, “quiet for a minute or I’ll have to ask you to leave.” The constituent, who had calmly asked his question before being cut-off midway through his sentence, obliged:

    WALSH: Thats not the problem! The problem is you’ve got to be consistent. And I dont want government meddling in the marketplace. Yeah, they move from Goldman Sachs to the White House, I understand all of that. But you gotta’ be consistent. And it’s not the private marketplace that created this mess. What created mess was your government, which has demanded for years that everybody be in a home. And we’ve made it easy as possible for people to be in homes. [...] Don’t blame banks, and don’t blame the marketplace for the mess we’re in right now! I am tired of hearing that crap! This pisses me off! Too many people don’t listen. [...]

    WALSH: Quiet for a minute! Quiet for a minute!

    CONSTITUENT: Joe, what did I say–

    WALSH: Quiet for a minute or I’m going to ask you to leave. You need to listen, or I’m going to ask you to leave.

    Watch it:

    The conversation moved from talking about influence of the bank lobby to larger structural problems in government. Walsh absurdly claimed that worker unions have more power and money than corporations in America. But he was quickly rebutted by his constituent, who said that in any case, unions serve worker interests while corporate lobbies push for private, selfish interests. The video of the exchange, which occurred during Walsh’s “Cup of Joe with Joe Walsh” event on Sunday in the town of Gurnee, Illinois, was posted on YouTube last night by Gene Taylor’s District116.org blog.

    Update

    You can watch the full version here. The relevant exchange begins at 8:20.

    Older

    Newer

    Switch to Mobile
    ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

    Sign Up