Naturally, lobbyists would like to control as much of the legislative process as possible for their clients.
They want to be a part of every meeting. They want to speak with every legislator they can, as many times as they can. And they try to ensure that the wording of every bill, press release and news report will be exactly to their clients’ liking.
But when it comes to balancing family life with professional life, lobbyists have all the same difficulties managing time home with their children with their hours at work. Right?
Well, mostly. As hard-working as lobbyists are, they certainly have trouble scheduling teacher meetings and trips to the park around committee meetings and public hearings.
Working from home is hardly an option when one needs to look a committee chair in the eye and explain why a bill desperately needs to be rewritten.
But the political process is a seasonal one, with the bulk of the work in late spring and early summer. So it should be no surprise that top female lobbyists do their best to plan their pregnancies around their work.
Pregnant Pauses
One of the best pregnancy planners may be Kate Robinson, lobbyist for Betty Gallo & Co., a firm largely serving nonprofits.
Robinson has impeccable timing. Her first child, 5, was born just two days before the end of the 2002 session. Her second, 2, was born a month after the 2005 session closed.
“As much as people can’t control for their pregnancies, they try to,” Robinson said.
Otherwise, she points out, months of work could be put at risk. Even the two days she missed in 2002 caused her to miss the vote on a package of same-sex rights legislation that she had spent the year working on. Now, when there are public hearings to be signed up for on early mornings (before Robinson’s daycare opens) her 5-year-old happily comes along to tour the Capitol.
“I think there is some purposeful planning that goes on. But sometimes life is inconvenient, and you make do,” she said.
Another excellent planner would be Irene A. Rodrigues, of the law firm Robinson and Cole, who has twice been one of the pregnant ladies working up at the State Capitol, once as a staffer and once as a lobbyist, as her 6-year-old was born in September and her 2-year-old came in August.
“You’ll see, if go into the cafeteria in the legislative office building later in the session, that there are a lot of pregnant women,” Rodrigues explained.
Not only were her children both born shortly after sessions ended, but both came in campaign years, which helped get Rodrigues out of campaigning when she worked for the Senate Democrats.
“It got me a buyout,” she says happily.
Summer Babies
There has been more timely success this year – though it can be difficult getting in touch with the mothers. Try calling lobbyists Louise DiCocco-Beauton of the Greater New Haven Chamber of Commerce, or Christine Cappiello of Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, and it’s voicemail only. They are on maternity leave. Perfect timing.
But ultimately, Mother Nature makes these decisions, even for über-planned lobbyist moms, and not everyone can be so lucky.
“We just got what we got. They came when they came,” says Janemarie W. Murphy of Murtha Cullina.
Murphy refers to her 18-month-old twins, born in the winter of 2005, causing her to miss the entire legislative session that year.
Murphy said her firm was tremendously supportive and that after explaining the situation to each of her clients, they understood completely. It wasn’t ideal, maybe, but not everything can be planned. But that doesn’t mean anyone is about to stop trying.
“I don’t know a lot of colleagues who try to have a baby during the middle of the session,” Murphy said.
“It’s not often you see a baby born in March.”
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
They Came Out Swinging, But Unions Struck Out
They went in with such high hopes. And maybe they were too hopeful, but no one thought it would end up like this.
Labor unions looked at the 2007 legislative session as a grand opportunity. Democrats, historically the favored party of unions, had won a large enough majority to override any veto by the governor.
Health insurance had just been mandated for all citizens in neighboring Massachusetts – leading to fresh aspirations that a new government plan could happen here also.
And a bevy of ideas for expanding workers compensation poured quickly into the Labor and Public Employees Committee and flew out the other end with flying colors.
Back then, things were looking good for the organized labor. But now that the legislature’s work is all but done for the summer, we know better: It was a trying session for the unions.
The Democrats, all 45 in the House and 24 in the Senate, opted not to override any vetoes of the popular governor. But on labor’s most important issues, it didn’t even come to that. The idea to provide affordable health care to every citizen in the state fell below education and energy prices as a priority, and of close to 20 ideas for improving workers compensation benefits, almost none passed.
Moving Targets
Does this add up to an erosion of respect for the unions at the State Capitol?
Lori J. Pelletier, who handles much of the lobbying for Connecticut AFL-CIO’s, doesn’t think so. She thinks most legislators want to do something to improve the stakes for workers, but aren’t sure of the best way to go about it.
“Many legislators have gotten significantly more informed, which is an accomplishment,” she said.
That isn’t to say Pelletier is pleased with how the session played out. She said perception of a single-payer healthcare system was tainted by the insurance industry, which howled about possible job losses, and the media, which was happy to explain the price tag of such a plan, but – in her view – failed to point out the savings that could be had.
“As much as I thought we moved the ball down the field, I think the goal posts were moved beforehand,” she said.
Others took similar views.
“I think you can look at health care as a mixed bag,” said Jennifer Berigan, who lobbies on behalf Municipal Employees Union Independent.
“I think the issue was addressed. It was placed on the agenda, and that’s a positive. Did everyone get what they wanted? No. But it’s a complex issue.”
There was little success on workers compensation proposals either, which were defeated so soundly that Connecticut Business & Industry Association lobbyist Joseph Brennan applauded the way “the Speaker reached out to our manufacturing and small business groups, and listened to their concerns,” in his write-up of the session.
An effort to secure compensation to treat scars that aren’t visible when one is clothed, for instance, failed despite stories like that of a waitress whose body was badly burned when a pot of hot coffee was dumped down her uniform, and a corrections officer who was bit on the arm by an inmate.
“We did not go as far as we thought we were going to on disfigurement,” Pelletier acknowledged.
Last Gasp
There is a glimmer of hope for something to be salvaged. One of the only pieces of legislation that the General Assembly may still address is contracting reform, which has been a serious point of contention between the governor and Democrats in the past, but on which a compromise may have been struck this year.
Getting that passed has been a priority for Berigan’s municipal workers, and she’s still holding out hope.
“It’s our understanding that there is still a chance,” she said last week.
Either way, it will be a long wait for workers until next session. You can only watch Michael Moore’s “Sicko” so many times.
Labor unions looked at the 2007 legislative session as a grand opportunity. Democrats, historically the favored party of unions, had won a large enough majority to override any veto by the governor.
Health insurance had just been mandated for all citizens in neighboring Massachusetts – leading to fresh aspirations that a new government plan could happen here also.
And a bevy of ideas for expanding workers compensation poured quickly into the Labor and Public Employees Committee and flew out the other end with flying colors.
Back then, things were looking good for the organized labor. But now that the legislature’s work is all but done for the summer, we know better: It was a trying session for the unions.
The Democrats, all 45 in the House and 24 in the Senate, opted not to override any vetoes of the popular governor. But on labor’s most important issues, it didn’t even come to that. The idea to provide affordable health care to every citizen in the state fell below education and energy prices as a priority, and of close to 20 ideas for improving workers compensation benefits, almost none passed.
Moving Targets
Does this add up to an erosion of respect for the unions at the State Capitol?
Lori J. Pelletier, who handles much of the lobbying for Connecticut AFL-CIO’s, doesn’t think so. She thinks most legislators want to do something to improve the stakes for workers, but aren’t sure of the best way to go about it.
“Many legislators have gotten significantly more informed, which is an accomplishment,” she said.
That isn’t to say Pelletier is pleased with how the session played out. She said perception of a single-payer healthcare system was tainted by the insurance industry, which howled about possible job losses, and the media, which was happy to explain the price tag of such a plan, but – in her view – failed to point out the savings that could be had.
“As much as I thought we moved the ball down the field, I think the goal posts were moved beforehand,” she said.
Others took similar views.
“I think you can look at health care as a mixed bag,” said Jennifer Berigan, who lobbies on behalf Municipal Employees Union Independent.
“I think the issue was addressed. It was placed on the agenda, and that’s a positive. Did everyone get what they wanted? No. But it’s a complex issue.”
There was little success on workers compensation proposals either, which were defeated so soundly that Connecticut Business & Industry Association lobbyist Joseph Brennan applauded the way “the Speaker reached out to our manufacturing and small business groups, and listened to their concerns,” in his write-up of the session.
An effort to secure compensation to treat scars that aren’t visible when one is clothed, for instance, failed despite stories like that of a waitress whose body was badly burned when a pot of hot coffee was dumped down her uniform, and a corrections officer who was bit on the arm by an inmate.
“We did not go as far as we thought we were going to on disfigurement,” Pelletier acknowledged.
Last Gasp
There is a glimmer of hope for something to be salvaged. One of the only pieces of legislation that the General Assembly may still address is contracting reform, which has been a serious point of contention between the governor and Democrats in the past, but on which a compromise may have been struck this year.
Getting that passed has been a priority for Berigan’s municipal workers, and she’s still holding out hope.
“It’s our understanding that there is still a chance,” she said last week.
Either way, it will be a long wait for workers until next session. You can only watch Michael Moore’s “Sicko” so many times.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Most PAC Funds Dry Up, But Law Firm Looks To Cities
As the plotters of campaign finance reform hoped, music from all the fundraising parties that used to ring around town in the weeks following each legislative session has been quieted.
Lobbyists and association directors this time of year are used to getting pretty envelopes in the mail asking if they would like to attend one dinner party or another, pay a fee of a few hundred dollars and also buy an advertisement in the event pamphlet.
But now that lobbyists may not participate in fundraising for candidates of state offices, the parties have stopped.
“I haven’t had any invitations or solicitations because of the new requirements. That’s all dried up,” said Robert A. Kehmna, president of the Insurance Association of Connecticut.
Normally at this time of year, he recalls, “there would have been fundraising invitations for candidates, caucuses and committees.” Two years ago at this time, for instance, the IAC’s political action committee had $17,590 on hand and was fresh off giving contributions to the House Democrats, the Senate Republicans and a number of individual candidates.
Without the parties, Kehmna said the committee would remain closed, barring a change to the new rules by the courts or the state.
“We figured, given the various unknowns, we’ll just shut it down,” he said.
The trucking lobby closed its committee two months ago. Michael J. Riley, president of the Motor Transport Association of Connecticut, said the group also cut its advertising budget from $30,000 for this year to $3,000 for 2008, given the paucity of event pamphlets in which to advertise.
“We’re out of that business now,” he said.
Cash Flow
Jeffery B. Garfield, executive director of the State Elections Enforcement Commission, said there was little doubt that the new rules were the cause for the rash of terminated committees. As of July 17, there were 514 PACs, down from over 700 in December.
“I suspect it has a lot to do with the fact that lobbyists and contractors are no longer allowed to contribute to the candidates and committees,” he said.
So if business groups can no longer sway state candidates through campaign donations, where is all the money going?
Well, when there’s only a little money left over it sometimes goes to charity. The IAC emptied its account by giving $404.52 to House of Bread, in Hartford, while Riley’s truckers gave its last $31.63 to the Make-A-Wish Foundation of Connecticut.
But it also might be headed to one of the only remaining places where lobbyists’ dollars can be used in campaigns: municipal elections.
Consider the Robinson & Cole political action committee, run by one of the state’s strongest lobbying units. Robinson & Cole has decided to keep its PAC despite the fact that two of its top competitors, Gaffney, Bennett and Associates, of New Britain, and Sullivan & LeShane, of Hartford, both terminated theirs and emptied their accounts.
In doing so, it indicated to the state that it would be contributing to municipal elections only.
Not only is Robinson and Cole’s committee still alive, it is still humming. It raised $3,614 in the first quarter of 2007, according to filings with the State Elections Enforcement Commission, doing so through payroll deductions from 34 of the firm’s lawyers.
Could the strategy be to pepper the state municipal elections with small contributions, rather than write big checks to the Senate and House committees, the way they would before the end of fundraising parties?
Commitment To Hartford
It’s probably too early in the campaign season to tell, and S. Frank D’Ercole, treasurer of the Robinson & Cole committee, declined to comment when reached on the phone.
But his committee has already made a start in spending its new money locally. On March 21 the committee wrote a check for $500 to something called “Perez for Mayor 2007.”
If other municipal candidates are smart, they will follow Eddie’s lead and try to get the remaining committees to get back into the fundraising game, at least before the campaign finance reformers take aim at shutting down the local parties, too.
Lobbyists and association directors this time of year are used to getting pretty envelopes in the mail asking if they would like to attend one dinner party or another, pay a fee of a few hundred dollars and also buy an advertisement in the event pamphlet.
But now that lobbyists may not participate in fundraising for candidates of state offices, the parties have stopped.
“I haven’t had any invitations or solicitations because of the new requirements. That’s all dried up,” said Robert A. Kehmna, president of the Insurance Association of Connecticut.
Normally at this time of year, he recalls, “there would have been fundraising invitations for candidates, caucuses and committees.” Two years ago at this time, for instance, the IAC’s political action committee had $17,590 on hand and was fresh off giving contributions to the House Democrats, the Senate Republicans and a number of individual candidates.
Without the parties, Kehmna said the committee would remain closed, barring a change to the new rules by the courts or the state.
“We figured, given the various unknowns, we’ll just shut it down,” he said.
The trucking lobby closed its committee two months ago. Michael J. Riley, president of the Motor Transport Association of Connecticut, said the group also cut its advertising budget from $30,000 for this year to $3,000 for 2008, given the paucity of event pamphlets in which to advertise.
“We’re out of that business now,” he said.
Cash Flow
Jeffery B. Garfield, executive director of the State Elections Enforcement Commission, said there was little doubt that the new rules were the cause for the rash of terminated committees. As of July 17, there were 514 PACs, down from over 700 in December.
“I suspect it has a lot to do with the fact that lobbyists and contractors are no longer allowed to contribute to the candidates and committees,” he said.
So if business groups can no longer sway state candidates through campaign donations, where is all the money going?
Well, when there’s only a little money left over it sometimes goes to charity. The IAC emptied its account by giving $404.52 to House of Bread, in Hartford, while Riley’s truckers gave its last $31.63 to the Make-A-Wish Foundation of Connecticut.
But it also might be headed to one of the only remaining places where lobbyists’ dollars can be used in campaigns: municipal elections.
Consider the Robinson & Cole political action committee, run by one of the state’s strongest lobbying units. Robinson & Cole has decided to keep its PAC despite the fact that two of its top competitors, Gaffney, Bennett and Associates, of New Britain, and Sullivan & LeShane, of Hartford, both terminated theirs and emptied their accounts.
In doing so, it indicated to the state that it would be contributing to municipal elections only.
Not only is Robinson and Cole’s committee still alive, it is still humming. It raised $3,614 in the first quarter of 2007, according to filings with the State Elections Enforcement Commission, doing so through payroll deductions from 34 of the firm’s lawyers.
Could the strategy be to pepper the state municipal elections with small contributions, rather than write big checks to the Senate and House committees, the way they would before the end of fundraising parties?
Commitment To Hartford
It’s probably too early in the campaign season to tell, and S. Frank D’Ercole, treasurer of the Robinson & Cole committee, declined to comment when reached on the phone.
But his committee has already made a start in spending its new money locally. On March 21 the committee wrote a check for $500 to something called “Perez for Mayor 2007.”
If other municipal candidates are smart, they will follow Eddie’s lead and try to get the remaining committees to get back into the fundraising game, at least before the campaign finance reformers take aim at shutting down the local parties, too.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Fonfara Plays Dangerous Political Game To Boost His Company
Weeks ago it was suggested in this space that the hiring of Sullivan & LeShane lobbyist Jude Malone by state Sen. John W. Fonfara was a boost to the credibility and caché of the firm.
Which it was, but that wasn’t the whole story. It turns out that Sullivan & LeShane isn’t the only firm enjoying a shared employee with the Hartford’s Democratic senator and his billboard company, Face Value.
With Norwich-native Malone representing him, in April Fonfara secured a contract with that city to refurbish and sell advertising on four billboards.
Meanwhile, back at the Capitol, Sullivan & LeShane was representing the interests of its many lobbying clients. Among them was NRG Energy, a New Jersey company with ownership in 47 power plants around the world. NRG wanted to make sure Connecticut would keep its electricity market open enough for wholesalers like itself, so no doubt the supplier was pleased to see Fonfara – a main author of the state’s energy deregulation – so comfortable with its lobbying team that he actually hired one of the members himself.
And no doubt the company was further pleased when Fonfara successfully argued that a market for electricity generators ought to remain.
But as it turns out, Sullivan & LeShane’s clients aren’t the only ones who can beam with approval that they and Fonfara share a business partner, as became clear when the senator made a bid for a billboard project in East Hartford last week.
At a public hearing before the town council July 10, Fonfara unveiled a plan to create three new tri-vision or electronic billboards along I-84 in prime territory near Rentschler Field, which he would operate for the next 40 years.
To meet a town ordinance aimed at reducing the number of billboards, Fonfara proposed to acquire and take down seven other billboards. The town council could vote as early as August 7.
In pursuing the contract, Fonfara used the same model he had in Norwich: choose a former politician with strong local ties to represent him. For the East Hartford deal, Fonfara hired none other than Robert M. DeCrescenzo, mayor of East Hartford from 1993 to 1997 and currently a member of the government affairs unit at the Hartford law firm Updike, Kelly & Spellacy.
Wide Power
If the first two stops are any indication, Fonfara looks around the state for good billboard space and, upon finding some, uses his standing in the legislature to hire a political operative with enough clout in that community to help complete the deal.
Other billboard companies are concerned by the political power Face Value can employ, as evidenced by competitor Charles Ghione, owner of NextMedia Outdoor Advertising Co., who chalked up Fonfara’s deal in Norwich to “influence and backroom politicking.”
Competitors should always be wary. But shouldn’t the rest of us be worried about the damage Fonfara’s business model could have on the legislation he writes?
With campaign finance reform, the legislature and Gov. M. Jodi Rell acknowledged that money from lobbyists and their clients was marring the policymaking and election process.
Thanks to the law’s passage, lobbyists and their immediate families may not make donations to candidates for state office. Lobbyists are not even allowed to advise their clients as to which candidates to write checks for.
They also may not be solicited by legislators for causes related to their private professions, as we discovered with Speaker James A. Amann’s job raising money for the National Multiple Sclerosis Society.
Considering all these efforts at separating policymakers from lobbyists, aren’t Fonfara’s hiring practices a step in the wrong direction? The expectation that, after they help drive Fonfara’s business and personal income, Malone and DeCrescenzo’s clients will receive no special favors whatsoever at the Capitol doesn’t seem to hold water.
Fonfara and DeCrescenzo declined to return phone messages on the issue.
Jonathan O’Connell is a Hartford Business Journal Staff Writer.
Which it was, but that wasn’t the whole story. It turns out that Sullivan & LeShane isn’t the only firm enjoying a shared employee with the Hartford’s Democratic senator and his billboard company, Face Value.
With Norwich-native Malone representing him, in April Fonfara secured a contract with that city to refurbish and sell advertising on four billboards.
Meanwhile, back at the Capitol, Sullivan & LeShane was representing the interests of its many lobbying clients. Among them was NRG Energy, a New Jersey company with ownership in 47 power plants around the world. NRG wanted to make sure Connecticut would keep its electricity market open enough for wholesalers like itself, so no doubt the supplier was pleased to see Fonfara – a main author of the state’s energy deregulation – so comfortable with its lobbying team that he actually hired one of the members himself.
And no doubt the company was further pleased when Fonfara successfully argued that a market for electricity generators ought to remain.
But as it turns out, Sullivan & LeShane’s clients aren’t the only ones who can beam with approval that they and Fonfara share a business partner, as became clear when the senator made a bid for a billboard project in East Hartford last week.
At a public hearing before the town council July 10, Fonfara unveiled a plan to create three new tri-vision or electronic billboards along I-84 in prime territory near Rentschler Field, which he would operate for the next 40 years.
To meet a town ordinance aimed at reducing the number of billboards, Fonfara proposed to acquire and take down seven other billboards. The town council could vote as early as August 7.
In pursuing the contract, Fonfara used the same model he had in Norwich: choose a former politician with strong local ties to represent him. For the East Hartford deal, Fonfara hired none other than Robert M. DeCrescenzo, mayor of East Hartford from 1993 to 1997 and currently a member of the government affairs unit at the Hartford law firm Updike, Kelly & Spellacy.
Wide Power
If the first two stops are any indication, Fonfara looks around the state for good billboard space and, upon finding some, uses his standing in the legislature to hire a political operative with enough clout in that community to help complete the deal.
Other billboard companies are concerned by the political power Face Value can employ, as evidenced by competitor Charles Ghione, owner of NextMedia Outdoor Advertising Co., who chalked up Fonfara’s deal in Norwich to “influence and backroom politicking.”
Competitors should always be wary. But shouldn’t the rest of us be worried about the damage Fonfara’s business model could have on the legislation he writes?
With campaign finance reform, the legislature and Gov. M. Jodi Rell acknowledged that money from lobbyists and their clients was marring the policymaking and election process.
Thanks to the law’s passage, lobbyists and their immediate families may not make donations to candidates for state office. Lobbyists are not even allowed to advise their clients as to which candidates to write checks for.
They also may not be solicited by legislators for causes related to their private professions, as we discovered with Speaker James A. Amann’s job raising money for the National Multiple Sclerosis Society.
Considering all these efforts at separating policymakers from lobbyists, aren’t Fonfara’s hiring practices a step in the wrong direction? The expectation that, after they help drive Fonfara’s business and personal income, Malone and DeCrescenzo’s clients will receive no special favors whatsoever at the Capitol doesn’t seem to hold water.
Fonfara and DeCrescenzo declined to return phone messages on the issue.
Jonathan O’Connell is a Hartford Business Journal Staff Writer.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Non-Compete Bill Found Itself Anchored Down
ESPN would have preferred to stay about as far from the issue as Barry Bonds has from baseball’s steroids investigation.
But it didn’t get its wish.
As Bonds has for months, ESPN made unsavory local headlines through the winter and into the spring. This despite the fact that it was clear — in the company’s case — that by all accounts it had done nothing wrong.
The Bristol-based sports megalith’s contract with New York City-based Guardsmark security company ran out in December and, after putting the contract up for bid, ESPN signed a new deal with Securitas Security Services, of New Jersey.
When Guardsmark laid off about 40 security personnel but did not permit them to be hired by Securitas — citing a contract clause forbidding workers to go to a local competitor — suddenly Richard Blumenthal’s sirens were blaring.
As the Attorney General made trips to the state Capitol to testify, the bad-looking publicity kept coming. Headlines like “ESPN Guards Can’t Stay” and “Guards Let Down” made it seem like ESPN was in some sort of labor tug-of-war.
The adage about any publicity being good publicity was not holding true. As spokesman Michael Soltys explained, the company was a victim of happenstance.
“It was an issue between Guardsmark and Securitas, that happened to be at ESPN. It could have been anywhere,” he said.
As legislation barring non-compete clauses for security guards began to move, the best thing, it seemed, was not to take a position.
Bill Changes Face
Then happenstance struck again. Channel 3 anchor Al Terzi heard about the legislation and, having been barred from changing television jobs in 1994, jumped in to have broadcasters exempted in the bill as well. Legislators happily tacked them on.
Though they are common practice in many industries, non-compete clauses (usually lasting six months or a year) are more being more frequently viewed as unenforceable in various states.
Still, they are increasingly being used by software companies and others to prevent secrets from being given to competitors when programmers switch jobs. This has some programmers as angry as Terzi, as evidenced by cases like when Montreal’s Ubisoft Entertainment sued Electronic Arts Inc., of Redwood, Calif., for hiring away their video game techies.
But besides the non-compete clauses, the two industries included in the Connecticut bill, having come from two completely unrelated sources, had no relation to one another — except a connection to ESPN.
Suddenly ESPN, which employs over 200 broadcasters, was roped back into the mess.
It is the company’s standard procedure, according to Soltys, to include first negotiation/first refusal clauses in broadcasters’ contracts. When looking for his next deal, for instance, anchor Dan Patrick would need to consider ESPN first and even if he then decided to sign with, say, Fox Sports, ESPN would be given the chance to match the offer and thereby retain him.
The resulting bill, after Terzi had his say, would have made those clauses illegal in the broadcasting world.
So Levin, Powers, Brennan & Shea, ESPN’s lobbying firm jumped onto the playing field, eventually getting the state House to add an amendment specifically excluding cable broadcast employees. It was aided by the Connecticut Business & Industry Association which, at the behest of business owners in many other industries, wanted to limit restrictions on non-compete clauses as much as possible.
Soltys said that when the bill (with which it previously wanted nothing to do) began reflecting Terzi’s wishes, the company wanted to make sure it had a chance to weigh in on “the broadcasters’ part of it,” though in reality the broadcasters part was nearly identical to the security guards part.
Thus, beginning in October, the Securitas guards manning parking lots and vestibules in Bristol for hourly wages will have employment rights that the multi-million dollar broadcasting crew it protects does not.
Jonathan O’Connell is a Hartford Business Journal Staff Writer.
But it didn’t get its wish.
As Bonds has for months, ESPN made unsavory local headlines through the winter and into the spring. This despite the fact that it was clear — in the company’s case — that by all accounts it had done nothing wrong.
The Bristol-based sports megalith’s contract with New York City-based Guardsmark security company ran out in December and, after putting the contract up for bid, ESPN signed a new deal with Securitas Security Services, of New Jersey.
When Guardsmark laid off about 40 security personnel but did not permit them to be hired by Securitas — citing a contract clause forbidding workers to go to a local competitor — suddenly Richard Blumenthal’s sirens were blaring.
As the Attorney General made trips to the state Capitol to testify, the bad-looking publicity kept coming. Headlines like “ESPN Guards Can’t Stay” and “Guards Let Down” made it seem like ESPN was in some sort of labor tug-of-war.
The adage about any publicity being good publicity was not holding true. As spokesman Michael Soltys explained, the company was a victim of happenstance.
“It was an issue between Guardsmark and Securitas, that happened to be at ESPN. It could have been anywhere,” he said.
As legislation barring non-compete clauses for security guards began to move, the best thing, it seemed, was not to take a position.
Bill Changes Face
Then happenstance struck again. Channel 3 anchor Al Terzi heard about the legislation and, having been barred from changing television jobs in 1994, jumped in to have broadcasters exempted in the bill as well. Legislators happily tacked them on.
Though they are common practice in many industries, non-compete clauses (usually lasting six months or a year) are more being more frequently viewed as unenforceable in various states.
Still, they are increasingly being used by software companies and others to prevent secrets from being given to competitors when programmers switch jobs. This has some programmers as angry as Terzi, as evidenced by cases like when Montreal’s Ubisoft Entertainment sued Electronic Arts Inc., of Redwood, Calif., for hiring away their video game techies.
But besides the non-compete clauses, the two industries included in the Connecticut bill, having come from two completely unrelated sources, had no relation to one another — except a connection to ESPN.
Suddenly ESPN, which employs over 200 broadcasters, was roped back into the mess.
It is the company’s standard procedure, according to Soltys, to include first negotiation/first refusal clauses in broadcasters’ contracts. When looking for his next deal, for instance, anchor Dan Patrick would need to consider ESPN first and even if he then decided to sign with, say, Fox Sports, ESPN would be given the chance to match the offer and thereby retain him.
The resulting bill, after Terzi had his say, would have made those clauses illegal in the broadcasting world.
So Levin, Powers, Brennan & Shea, ESPN’s lobbying firm jumped onto the playing field, eventually getting the state House to add an amendment specifically excluding cable broadcast employees. It was aided by the Connecticut Business & Industry Association which, at the behest of business owners in many other industries, wanted to limit restrictions on non-compete clauses as much as possible.
Soltys said that when the bill (with which it previously wanted nothing to do) began reflecting Terzi’s wishes, the company wanted to make sure it had a chance to weigh in on “the broadcasters’ part of it,” though in reality the broadcasters part was nearly identical to the security guards part.
Thus, beginning in October, the Securitas guards manning parking lots and vestibules in Bristol for hourly wages will have employment rights that the multi-million dollar broadcasting crew it protects does not.
Jonathan O’Connell is a Hartford Business Journal Staff Writer.
Monday, July 2, 2007
Survey Says....
It is not all that difficult for an elected official to say “no” to lobbyists of unpopular causes. Some legislators aren’t afraid to curse them out in the hallway and explain what, um, schmucks they are. Especially if they don’t represent campaign contributors.
But declining is harder when a legislator is met by a supporter of an idea that’s popular with the public, even if the idea isn’t practical.
That’s where public opinion polling comes into play. Demonstrating that a group of legislators is at odds with the public can add serious political pressure, even if the public has incredibly foolish views or doesn’t really care.
And here’s the best part: Polling can make the public appear to like or dislike just about anything.
By tactfully wording questions, choosing respondents and packaging results, pollsters can make the public appear supportive of whatever they are pushing, particularly as most legislators don’t have time to comb through research methodology (which usually isn’t included in survey results, anyway).
So it should be no surprise that larger lobbying firms have not only added public relations units, but many of them contract with large polling companies in Washington, D.C. or New York – or, increasingly, with Quinnipiac University in Hamden, which has built a large polling organization and reputation.
Insuring Opinion
Associations are increasingly turning to polling, too. Take the group “Insure Connecticut’s Future,” formed last year by insurance companies grown tired of taxes and regulation.
Apparently, legislators didn’t realize that the average Connecticut resident walks around thinking how important the insurance industry is to his own well-being. A poll was in order.
But first, to pump up the results, the insurers hired the Glastonbury firm Cronin & Co. to buy radio and print advertisements pointing out that taxes paid by insurers and their employees help in “improving roads, schools, hospitals, libraries and public safety.”
On the group’s Web site it created three animated stories of how insurance improves our lives. Sam, an asthmatic Little Leaguer, is the third best batter on his team, the narrator says, “all thanks” to a health program “funded by a Connecticut insurance company.” Now Sam can play basketball at the “insurance-supported Boys & Girls Club near his house, the house his mom bought through a home ownership program developed with an insurance foundation grant.”
Then, to show how much residents really value the insurance industry (or, maybe, how well its ads worked) the group surveyed 800 residents and found that 93 percent believe the insurance industry plays an important role in the state’s economy.
Among questions that weren’t asked: “Are you happy with how much you pay for health insurance in light of the $30.86 million in total compensation that Aetna CEO Ronald A. Williams took home last year?”
All sides play the polling game, of course. Connecticut Voices for Children, a backer of expanding health care, released poll results in March commissioned by the New England Alliance of Children’s Health, which pushes for more health care across the region. Conducted by Lake Research Partners, a liberal D.C. polling firm funded by labor unions, those results showed that 89 percent of 400 Connecticut voters wanted health care for all children.
Just Cause
Just as with the insurers, the health care advocates had little doubt when beginning their poll that the results would help their cause. Respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement or disagreement with reasons for spending more on children’s insurance, such as “All children should have the health care they need to grow and learn.” About 96 percent at least somewhat agreed, but who wouldn’t?
The survey did probe further, asking if each American should be willing to pay $28 per year to cut the number of uninsured children in half. Most respondents agreed.
But it is too bad the group didn’t survey babies, children and the indigent, because all Americans seem to be included in the $28-per-American estimate, and it’s a good bet we won’t see toddlers filling out I.R.S. forms come April. It’s also unlikely the group would find agreement on the cost it suggests, $8 billion per year, among conservative taxpayers groups.
Did they survey the Yankee Institute?
Jonathan O’Connell is a Hartford Business Journal Staff Writer.
But declining is harder when a legislator is met by a supporter of an idea that’s popular with the public, even if the idea isn’t practical.
That’s where public opinion polling comes into play. Demonstrating that a group of legislators is at odds with the public can add serious political pressure, even if the public has incredibly foolish views or doesn’t really care.
And here’s the best part: Polling can make the public appear to like or dislike just about anything.
By tactfully wording questions, choosing respondents and packaging results, pollsters can make the public appear supportive of whatever they are pushing, particularly as most legislators don’t have time to comb through research methodology (which usually isn’t included in survey results, anyway).
So it should be no surprise that larger lobbying firms have not only added public relations units, but many of them contract with large polling companies in Washington, D.C. or New York – or, increasingly, with Quinnipiac University in Hamden, which has built a large polling organization and reputation.
Insuring Opinion
Associations are increasingly turning to polling, too. Take the group “Insure Connecticut’s Future,” formed last year by insurance companies grown tired of taxes and regulation.
Apparently, legislators didn’t realize that the average Connecticut resident walks around thinking how important the insurance industry is to his own well-being. A poll was in order.
But first, to pump up the results, the insurers hired the Glastonbury firm Cronin & Co. to buy radio and print advertisements pointing out that taxes paid by insurers and their employees help in “improving roads, schools, hospitals, libraries and public safety.”
On the group’s Web site it created three animated stories of how insurance improves our lives. Sam, an asthmatic Little Leaguer, is the third best batter on his team, the narrator says, “all thanks” to a health program “funded by a Connecticut insurance company.” Now Sam can play basketball at the “insurance-supported Boys & Girls Club near his house, the house his mom bought through a home ownership program developed with an insurance foundation grant.”
Then, to show how much residents really value the insurance industry (or, maybe, how well its ads worked) the group surveyed 800 residents and found that 93 percent believe the insurance industry plays an important role in the state’s economy.
Among questions that weren’t asked: “Are you happy with how much you pay for health insurance in light of the $30.86 million in total compensation that Aetna CEO Ronald A. Williams took home last year?”
All sides play the polling game, of course. Connecticut Voices for Children, a backer of expanding health care, released poll results in March commissioned by the New England Alliance of Children’s Health, which pushes for more health care across the region. Conducted by Lake Research Partners, a liberal D.C. polling firm funded by labor unions, those results showed that 89 percent of 400 Connecticut voters wanted health care for all children.
Just Cause
Just as with the insurers, the health care advocates had little doubt when beginning their poll that the results would help their cause. Respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement or disagreement with reasons for spending more on children’s insurance, such as “All children should have the health care they need to grow and learn.” About 96 percent at least somewhat agreed, but who wouldn’t?
The survey did probe further, asking if each American should be willing to pay $28 per year to cut the number of uninsured children in half. Most respondents agreed.
But it is too bad the group didn’t survey babies, children and the indigent, because all Americans seem to be included in the $28-per-American estimate, and it’s a good bet we won’t see toddlers filling out I.R.S. forms come April. It’s also unlikely the group would find agreement on the cost it suggests, $8 billion per year, among conservative taxpayers groups.
Did they survey the Yankee Institute?
Jonathan O’Connell is a Hartford Business Journal Staff Writer.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Ethics Office Takes A Wrong Turn On Lobby Data
There’s no glory in piling on someone who has already been laid flat on the mat, but there’s good reason to excoriate Benjamin Bycel, who heads the office of state ethics as of this writing (but may not as of your reading).
And it has nothing to do with his Vermont license plates.
Bycel, who has reportedly been recommended the boot by five members of his staff, clearly has some management issues, which could be the cause of his ouster.
That news came last Monday, the very day—in a strange twist—that his office finally unveiled on its Web site three years’ worth of previously unreleased data on the lobbying industry.
This should have provided a spot of sun during an otherwise stormy week. Instead it should do the opposite, since the newly posted information, long overdue, is nearly impossible to use. Insinuations that Bycel is hard to work for are one thing; failing to perform a key mandate of the office is far worse.
Bycel’s office is charged with enforcing lobbying rules. The state, through new rules passed in the “Let’s Clean Up Our Corrupt Government” year of 2005, requires that it collect client and compensation data from everyone providing lobbying services for $2,000 or more per year, and that it provide that information to the public.
The office has been woefully slow at this, as it is implementing an entire new data system and painstakingly moving the entire registration process onto its Web site. This has left long gaps in the record on lobbyists. Until last Monday, for instance, the newest available information on lobbyists’ earnings was from the 2004 session.
Many Uses
Under the old system, whatever its faults, one could search by lobbyist or by client. Enter “General Motors” and one got a handy list of who is lobbying for the carmaker—information that could potentially connect to how, say, an auto regulation bill died.
Lobbyists themselves probably used the system as much as anyone; it was key to seeing which competitor signed what client and how much they were being paid. It was also a tool that allowed businesses and advocates who hire lobbyists to see if they were being given competitive rates, and if the firms they hire have hidden conflicts of interest.
Most importantly, though, it was a tool for the public to see how money affects the political process.
Concerns that the data had fallen completely out of date were assuaged by promises that the new system would be excellent.
Now it’s clear, however, that all the promises were empty. The office’s new computer system seems to be good at only one thing: producing gargantuan PDF files, which, though termed ‘portable document format,’ we all know to be static and unmaleable.
Moreover, the site has no search function. Want to know who buried some dumpster regulation for, say, a Danbury trash hauling firm, and how much they were paid? Click on “Lobbyist List” for the year. Out comes a 600-page PDF.
To see compensation, you will get another 306-page PDF. Not sure of the company’s name? Too bad.
Roadblock
Users will also notice that obtaining each massive, unwieldy document requires typing in a verification code, much like the sort used for online purchases. The office says this is to prevent “misuse by unscrupulous data-miners who run scripts that acquire data from these reports” or “malicious hackers who wish to attack our servers.”
But of the thousands of public documents posted by the state or country on the Internet, good luck finding any other with access that burdens users this way. Even the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission doesn’t have anything like that. Neither does the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; with the FDIC, it’s just jump on and “acquire data” all you want.
The office says it plans to reintroduce data and search functions shortly, but by then another session of the General Assembly will have closed without the public knowing who is spending what to quietly fashion proposed legislation as they see fit. Meanwhile, the rest of us are waiting for the PDFs to download. Whether or not this is related to Bycel’s napping is unclear. But somebody is certainly sleeping on the job.
Jonathan O’Connell is a Hartford Business Journal Staff Writer.
And it has nothing to do with his Vermont license plates.
Bycel, who has reportedly been recommended the boot by five members of his staff, clearly has some management issues, which could be the cause of his ouster.
That news came last Monday, the very day—in a strange twist—that his office finally unveiled on its Web site three years’ worth of previously unreleased data on the lobbying industry.
This should have provided a spot of sun during an otherwise stormy week. Instead it should do the opposite, since the newly posted information, long overdue, is nearly impossible to use. Insinuations that Bycel is hard to work for are one thing; failing to perform a key mandate of the office is far worse.
Bycel’s office is charged with enforcing lobbying rules. The state, through new rules passed in the “Let’s Clean Up Our Corrupt Government” year of 2005, requires that it collect client and compensation data from everyone providing lobbying services for $2,000 or more per year, and that it provide that information to the public.
The office has been woefully slow at this, as it is implementing an entire new data system and painstakingly moving the entire registration process onto its Web site. This has left long gaps in the record on lobbyists. Until last Monday, for instance, the newest available information on lobbyists’ earnings was from the 2004 session.
Many Uses
Under the old system, whatever its faults, one could search by lobbyist or by client. Enter “General Motors” and one got a handy list of who is lobbying for the carmaker—information that could potentially connect to how, say, an auto regulation bill died.
Lobbyists themselves probably used the system as much as anyone; it was key to seeing which competitor signed what client and how much they were being paid. It was also a tool that allowed businesses and advocates who hire lobbyists to see if they were being given competitive rates, and if the firms they hire have hidden conflicts of interest.
Most importantly, though, it was a tool for the public to see how money affects the political process.
Concerns that the data had fallen completely out of date were assuaged by promises that the new system would be excellent.
Now it’s clear, however, that all the promises were empty. The office’s new computer system seems to be good at only one thing: producing gargantuan PDF files, which, though termed ‘portable document format,’ we all know to be static and unmaleable.
Moreover, the site has no search function. Want to know who buried some dumpster regulation for, say, a Danbury trash hauling firm, and how much they were paid? Click on “Lobbyist List” for the year. Out comes a 600-page PDF.
To see compensation, you will get another 306-page PDF. Not sure of the company’s name? Too bad.
Roadblock
Users will also notice that obtaining each massive, unwieldy document requires typing in a verification code, much like the sort used for online purchases. The office says this is to prevent “misuse by unscrupulous data-miners who run scripts that acquire data from these reports” or “malicious hackers who wish to attack our servers.”
But of the thousands of public documents posted by the state or country on the Internet, good luck finding any other with access that burdens users this way. Even the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission doesn’t have anything like that. Neither does the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; with the FDIC, it’s just jump on and “acquire data” all you want.
The office says it plans to reintroduce data and search functions shortly, but by then another session of the General Assembly will have closed without the public knowing who is spending what to quietly fashion proposed legislation as they see fit. Meanwhile, the rest of us are waiting for the PDFs to download. Whether or not this is related to Bycel’s napping is unclear. But somebody is certainly sleeping on the job.
Jonathan O’Connell is a Hartford Business Journal Staff Writer.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Lobbying With Energy
The state’s new energy law is the result of hundreds of hours of hashing and rehashing, drafting and redrafting. It is the work of long debate and compromise.
It is also the result of millions of dollars of spending by electricity generators, distributors, buyers and sellers, all hoping the state will bend the electricity market in a way that benefits them best.
Those who earn their living in the world of electricity could see this fight coming from a mile away since previous legislation that opened up the market for buying and selling electricity — intended to lower prices dramatically — did exactly the opposite. Everyone knew something needed to be done to fix the mess, and they began gearing up for it well in advance.
And maybe nobody can gear up for a pricey fight like energy companies.
Northeast Utilities, the parent company of Connecticut Light & Power (which distributes power to most of the state), spent an incredible amount of money gearing up for this debate. Last year alone, the company spent $2.7 million lobbying the state according to filings with the Office of State Ethics, by far the most. (In a distant second place came the Connecticut Hospital Association, which spent $342,061, or about one-eighth as much.)
It’s difficult to convey how large a number NU’s spending really was, particularly for a part-time legislature in a small state, but here goes: NU’s spending represented 10.2 percent of the total spending by all other lobbying clients combined. And that was during a year when the legislature had a short session.
This was a about a fourfold increase over the previous year, when NU spent about $660,000. Clearly the issue was “on their radar screen” as people like to say.
Not all of the spending is on one bill of course, since NU has an interest in a bevy of legislative areas including taxes, the environment, transportation and much more, and the company has a lineup of lobbyists to meet all their needs. Six company employees spend time lobbying. It additionally has about $459,000 annually in contracts with four different outside firms: Gaffney, Bennett & Assoc., Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, DeFilippis Assoc. and Malloy & Assoc.
The Play’s The Thing
Why did NU up their spending so dramatically? Well, although they spent the most, they weren’t the only ones opting to spend more. And there are a lot more players on the other team.
Deregulating the electricity market, which the state initiated in 1998, though failing to lower prices, did bring in electricity generators and dealers trying to sell electricity.
Once they sold some, they wanted the market to remain open, and it shows.
Baltimore-based Constellation NewEnergy, which has made a number of the biggest commercial electricity sales in the state, spent less than $40,000 lobbying in 2005. But when the debate over the market began they responded by nearly doubling that, spending $62,000 in 2006 and hitting a a similar pace in 2007.
Dominion, one of the nation’s largest producers of energy, upped its spending in Connecticut by more than $20,000 in 2006, to about $205,000. Same thing for another major national electricity producer, PSEG Power, which spent only $106,000 in 2005 and then pushed that up 75 percent, to about $180,000 in 2006.
Not only that, but new clients jumped in to put down their first lobbying dollars in the state. The New England Power Generators Association, which has a mission of sustaining exactly such markets, spent nothing in 2005 but $8,200 last year and $6,600 so far this year. Noble Environmental Power, a wind power firm that is majority-owned by J.P. Morgan Partners and designed to profit off of new laws encouraging renewable energy, spent its first $40,000 this year. And more to come.
Whose money went the furthest? Like everything else in the 165-page energy bill, the answers aren’t in black and white. But Connecticut Light & Power and United Illuminating have not been allowed back into the generation business, which means outside producers and dealers still have a market here.
“We still believe that we should have the ability to go directly to generators and eliminate the middle man,” laments Mitch Goss, Connecticut spokesman for NU.
Perhaps he can take solace in the fact that although his company spent close to $3 million in 2006 toward a bill it doesn’t love, it earned $1.1 billion overall, so it can always spend more next time around.
Jonathan O’Connell is a Hartford Business Journal Staff Writer.
It is also the result of millions of dollars of spending by electricity generators, distributors, buyers and sellers, all hoping the state will bend the electricity market in a way that benefits them best.
Those who earn their living in the world of electricity could see this fight coming from a mile away since previous legislation that opened up the market for buying and selling electricity — intended to lower prices dramatically — did exactly the opposite. Everyone knew something needed to be done to fix the mess, and they began gearing up for it well in advance.
And maybe nobody can gear up for a pricey fight like energy companies.
Northeast Utilities, the parent company of Connecticut Light & Power (which distributes power to most of the state), spent an incredible amount of money gearing up for this debate. Last year alone, the company spent $2.7 million lobbying the state according to filings with the Office of State Ethics, by far the most. (In a distant second place came the Connecticut Hospital Association, which spent $342,061, or about one-eighth as much.)
It’s difficult to convey how large a number NU’s spending really was, particularly for a part-time legislature in a small state, but here goes: NU’s spending represented 10.2 percent of the total spending by all other lobbying clients combined. And that was during a year when the legislature had a short session.
This was a about a fourfold increase over the previous year, when NU spent about $660,000. Clearly the issue was “on their radar screen” as people like to say.
Not all of the spending is on one bill of course, since NU has an interest in a bevy of legislative areas including taxes, the environment, transportation and much more, and the company has a lineup of lobbyists to meet all their needs. Six company employees spend time lobbying. It additionally has about $459,000 annually in contracts with four different outside firms: Gaffney, Bennett & Assoc., Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, DeFilippis Assoc. and Malloy & Assoc.
The Play’s The Thing
Why did NU up their spending so dramatically? Well, although they spent the most, they weren’t the only ones opting to spend more. And there are a lot more players on the other team.
Deregulating the electricity market, which the state initiated in 1998, though failing to lower prices, did bring in electricity generators and dealers trying to sell electricity.
Once they sold some, they wanted the market to remain open, and it shows.
Baltimore-based Constellation NewEnergy, which has made a number of the biggest commercial electricity sales in the state, spent less than $40,000 lobbying in 2005. But when the debate over the market began they responded by nearly doubling that, spending $62,000 in 2006 and hitting a a similar pace in 2007.
Dominion, one of the nation’s largest producers of energy, upped its spending in Connecticut by more than $20,000 in 2006, to about $205,000. Same thing for another major national electricity producer, PSEG Power, which spent only $106,000 in 2005 and then pushed that up 75 percent, to about $180,000 in 2006.
Not only that, but new clients jumped in to put down their first lobbying dollars in the state. The New England Power Generators Association, which has a mission of sustaining exactly such markets, spent nothing in 2005 but $8,200 last year and $6,600 so far this year. Noble Environmental Power, a wind power firm that is majority-owned by J.P. Morgan Partners and designed to profit off of new laws encouraging renewable energy, spent its first $40,000 this year. And more to come.
Whose money went the furthest? Like everything else in the 165-page energy bill, the answers aren’t in black and white. But Connecticut Light & Power and United Illuminating have not been allowed back into the generation business, which means outside producers and dealers still have a market here.
“We still believe that we should have the ability to go directly to generators and eliminate the middle man,” laments Mitch Goss, Connecticut spokesman for NU.
Perhaps he can take solace in the fact that although his company spent close to $3 million in 2006 toward a bill it doesn’t love, it earned $1.1 billion overall, so it can always spend more next time around.
Jonathan O’Connell is a Hartford Business Journal Staff Writer.
Monday, June 4, 2007
As Session Ends, Lobbyists Report Raking In Millions
There is still a lot to be decided between now and midnight on Wednesday, when the gavel automatically comes down on the General Assembly session at the state Capitol.
The lobbyists have been running grooves in the halls of the Capitol for months, never more feverishly than now. Yet with so much left to be decided many of them are still unsure whether all the asking, pleading and, yes, begging for votes has paid off for their clients.
At least they know how much cash they’re raking in, though. And now, finally, so will everyone else.
According to filing data obtained by the Hartford Business Journal, $11.1 million has been paid to lobbyists in 2007, through May 23. The Office of State Ethics plans to put the data on the Internet June 8.
Considering that many payments arrive near the end of one month or the beginning of the next, that still puts the industry about on pace with the two previous years, as lobbyists took in $26.7 million last year and $29.1 million in 2005.
Data on what’s inside all those black leather briefcases is long overdue. Though state law requires that lobbyists report their compensation to the state and that the information be made public, data for 2005, 2006 and 2007 hasn’t been available because of restructuring of the Ethics office. In terms of who is making what and who is paying what, the record after 2004 was blank.
Not anymore. Critical areas of state policy may still be up in the air, but here is who is pocketing the money being poured into the process and the clients who are holding the checkbooks.
Gaffney Wins
In terms of lucrative lobbying, the conversation still starts with New Britain-based Gaffney, Bennett & Assoc., whose dominance in the market remains. In each year from 2000 to 2004, the firm brought in between $4.0 and $4.5 million, and it is on about the same pace this year, having been paid about $1.3 million thus far.
The next three spots are also the same from 2004, with Robinson & Cole ($627,686), Sullivan & LeShane ($570,079) and Levin, Powers, Brennan & Shea ($510,545) the others over a half million this year to date.
If the firms were publicly traded, a stock one might like to have is that of Rome Smith & Assoc., in fifth place with $438,601 this year, after taking only about $556,264 for all of 2004.
Founded by former Senate Republican Majority Leader Lew Rome and former Democratic Rep. Pete Smith, the firm represents a handful of big reliables, like Pfizer at $70,000 per year and the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority at $12,000 per month, as well as earning a big chunk of money — $61,425 per year — from the Connecticut Association of Realtors. But it reports payments from 26 total clients in all, many of which will be worth at least $10,000 for the year.
Another firm that’s been bulking up is Halloran & Sage, which never ranked in the top 10 from 1999 to 2004, but which pulled in $285,760 already this year, putting it in the seventh pole position. Part of a 72-year-old law firm based in Hartford, the lobbying unit was buoyed by $26,076 for its difficult work pushing the Broadwater liquid natural gas project. It also capitalized on the debate over health care by cornering the market on specialty medical groups such as eye physicians, dentists, orthopedists, dermatologists and the state Ear Nose and Throat Society.
Falling Behind
While Roy & Leroy ($380,743) and Murtha Cullina ($345,033) are holding steady so far, others haven’t been. Hughes & Cronin, which banked $794,354 in 2004, has more than two dozen clients now but only $278,361 to show for them. Some of them might be more trouble than they are worth. Feld Entertainment, the parent of Ringling Bros. Barnum & Baily Circus — which has been defending its elephant handling tactics — is scheduled to pay only $17,000 for the year, which might look like a bargain if it comes out unscathed.
Updike, Kelly & Spellacy may have fallen out of the top tier. Though the firm still boasts big checks from Northeast Utilities and Diageo (global seller of Smirnoff, Guinness, etc.), it took in $706,611 in 2004, well beyond the pace set by the $154,651 it has amassed to date. It had 27 clients in 2004; it has payments from 14 this year.
Whether growing or shrinking, the bad news for all the firms is that gross spending on lobbying, as campaign finance reform arrived, has been essentially flat for the last three years.
The good news is that at the end of every session, there are clients who are unhappy with the outcome and looking to pay for a better one next time around.
Jonathan O'Connell is a Hartford Business Journal staff writer.
The lobbyists have been running grooves in the halls of the Capitol for months, never more feverishly than now. Yet with so much left to be decided many of them are still unsure whether all the asking, pleading and, yes, begging for votes has paid off for their clients.
At least they know how much cash they’re raking in, though. And now, finally, so will everyone else.
According to filing data obtained by the Hartford Business Journal, $11.1 million has been paid to lobbyists in 2007, through May 23. The Office of State Ethics plans to put the data on the Internet June 8.
Considering that many payments arrive near the end of one month or the beginning of the next, that still puts the industry about on pace with the two previous years, as lobbyists took in $26.7 million last year and $29.1 million in 2005.
Data on what’s inside all those black leather briefcases is long overdue. Though state law requires that lobbyists report their compensation to the state and that the information be made public, data for 2005, 2006 and 2007 hasn’t been available because of restructuring of the Ethics office. In terms of who is making what and who is paying what, the record after 2004 was blank.
Not anymore. Critical areas of state policy may still be up in the air, but here is who is pocketing the money being poured into the process and the clients who are holding the checkbooks.
Gaffney Wins
In terms of lucrative lobbying, the conversation still starts with New Britain-based Gaffney, Bennett & Assoc., whose dominance in the market remains. In each year from 2000 to 2004, the firm brought in between $4.0 and $4.5 million, and it is on about the same pace this year, having been paid about $1.3 million thus far.
The next three spots are also the same from 2004, with Robinson & Cole ($627,686), Sullivan & LeShane ($570,079) and Levin, Powers, Brennan & Shea ($510,545) the others over a half million this year to date.
If the firms were publicly traded, a stock one might like to have is that of Rome Smith & Assoc., in fifth place with $438,601 this year, after taking only about $556,264 for all of 2004.
Founded by former Senate Republican Majority Leader Lew Rome and former Democratic Rep. Pete Smith, the firm represents a handful of big reliables, like Pfizer at $70,000 per year and the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority at $12,000 per month, as well as earning a big chunk of money — $61,425 per year — from the Connecticut Association of Realtors. But it reports payments from 26 total clients in all, many of which will be worth at least $10,000 for the year.
Another firm that’s been bulking up is Halloran & Sage, which never ranked in the top 10 from 1999 to 2004, but which pulled in $285,760 already this year, putting it in the seventh pole position. Part of a 72-year-old law firm based in Hartford, the lobbying unit was buoyed by $26,076 for its difficult work pushing the Broadwater liquid natural gas project. It also capitalized on the debate over health care by cornering the market on specialty medical groups such as eye physicians, dentists, orthopedists, dermatologists and the state Ear Nose and Throat Society.
Falling Behind
While Roy & Leroy ($380,743) and Murtha Cullina ($345,033) are holding steady so far, others haven’t been. Hughes & Cronin, which banked $794,354 in 2004, has more than two dozen clients now but only $278,361 to show for them. Some of them might be more trouble than they are worth. Feld Entertainment, the parent of Ringling Bros. Barnum & Baily Circus — which has been defending its elephant handling tactics — is scheduled to pay only $17,000 for the year, which might look like a bargain if it comes out unscathed.
Updike, Kelly & Spellacy may have fallen out of the top tier. Though the firm still boasts big checks from Northeast Utilities and Diageo (global seller of Smirnoff, Guinness, etc.), it took in $706,611 in 2004, well beyond the pace set by the $154,651 it has amassed to date. It had 27 clients in 2004; it has payments from 14 this year.
Whether growing or shrinking, the bad news for all the firms is that gross spending on lobbying, as campaign finance reform arrived, has been essentially flat for the last three years.
The good news is that at the end of every session, there are clients who are unhappy with the outcome and looking to pay for a better one next time around.
Jonathan O'Connell is a Hartford Business Journal staff writer.
Retailers Rout Bankers In Fraud Liability Fight
If you shop at T.J. Maxx or Marshalls department stores frequently, you might remember where you were when you heard the news on Jan. 17.
That’s the day TJX Cos., the Framingham, Mass.-based owner of 2,500 retail stores including the two above, announced that its computer system had breached large amounts of customer data.
More than three months later, the company revealed that the number of credit and debit cards that had been stolen was, um, you know, an itty-bitty 45.7 million.
The resulting rush of anger didn’t come just from shoppers but from banks and credit unions, many of which have each reissued thousands of debit and credit cards at their own expense.
The hit was particularly bad for some smaller institutions, which generally lack sophisticated theft detection software. So many community banks and smaller credit unions simply reissued cards for all of the customers whose data was at risk, rather than just monitoring the affected accounts.
Dennis Cardello, president of the Collinsville Savings Society, has joined the bankers associations of both Connecticut and Massachusetts, as well as the Credit Union League of Connecticut, in suing TJX.
“I think it’s hurt the entire financial industry and it’s time to take a stand,” he said in an interview.
And it’s not just a monetary issue. As Rheo Brouillard, president of the Savings Institute Bank and Trust in Willimantic, told the Banks Committee in February: “It is our reputation that is tarnished, because we have to notify our customer, and they often associate that notification with an admission that we are somehow responsible.”
So banks came to the state legislature out for revenge. They wanted the retailers to pay. Literally.
Payment Plan
The bill proposed by the banks, and pushed by Connecticut Bankers Association lobbyist Thomas S. Mongellow and Fritz Conway of Gaffney, Bennett and Assoc., would have made retailers that lose customer data liable to banks for the cost of canceling and reissuing cards; closing and opening accounts; refunds to customers for stolen funds; and the cost of providing assistance to customers to mitigate their inconvenience. They wanted retailers to be left holding the entire bag.
The chairs of the Banks Committee seemed primed for action. Both considered –- and still find — TJX at fault for losing customer data.
“I still blame TJX. They should be blamed, they should be sued, they should be fined,” said state Sen. Bob Duff (D-Norwalk), in an interview.
But on the other side was Timothy G. Phelan, president of the Connecticut Retail Merchants Association, along with the team at Murtha Cullina, the association’s contract lobbyists.
Phelan began suggesting that the real bad guys in the TJX case were the hackers.
“TJX was a victim of a crime,” Phelan says. Not only that, he argues, but retailers that accept credit and debit card payments are at the whim of a system put in place by Visa and Mastercard, which are owned and implemented by banks. They were doubly victims.“We haven’t come to the legislature and said, ‘Give us relief from the Visa-Mastercard issue,’” even though the financial institutions are the ones that created it, Phelan said.
After Phelan brought the ‘We’re a Victim’ pitch around to senators for a few weeks, the careless, irresponsible discount retailer didn’t look so bad.
It’s a case study in the work that many corporate and industry groups do each session: madly scour proposed legislation and –- upon finding something injurious –- fight like heck to kill it.
On May 16, Sen. Duff did just that, concerned that he could end up putting mom-and-pop shops at risk because many of them use third-party companies to process credit purchases. If those processors got hacked, he didn’t want the sandwich shop around the corner being forced under amid payments to banks.
“I really wanted to do something on this, but in the end we couldn’t put something together,” Duff said.
The other chair, Rep. Ryan Barry (D-Manchester), still supports the idea, but would have to find a way to revive it in the House.
“They worked the bill very hard,” Rep. Barry said of the retailers. After he’d heard of Sen. Duff’s decision, he gave Phelan his due.
“I went by to Tim and I said, ‘Congratulations.’”
Jonathan O’Connell is a Hartford Business Journal Staff Writer.
That’s the day TJX Cos., the Framingham, Mass.-based owner of 2,500 retail stores including the two above, announced that its computer system had breached large amounts of customer data.
More than three months later, the company revealed that the number of credit and debit cards that had been stolen was, um, you know, an itty-bitty 45.7 million.
The resulting rush of anger didn’t come just from shoppers but from banks and credit unions, many of which have each reissued thousands of debit and credit cards at their own expense.
The hit was particularly bad for some smaller institutions, which generally lack sophisticated theft detection software. So many community banks and smaller credit unions simply reissued cards for all of the customers whose data was at risk, rather than just monitoring the affected accounts.
Dennis Cardello, president of the Collinsville Savings Society, has joined the bankers associations of both Connecticut and Massachusetts, as well as the Credit Union League of Connecticut, in suing TJX.
“I think it’s hurt the entire financial industry and it’s time to take a stand,” he said in an interview.
And it’s not just a monetary issue. As Rheo Brouillard, president of the Savings Institute Bank and Trust in Willimantic, told the Banks Committee in February: “It is our reputation that is tarnished, because we have to notify our customer, and they often associate that notification with an admission that we are somehow responsible.”
So banks came to the state legislature out for revenge. They wanted the retailers to pay. Literally.
Payment Plan
The bill proposed by the banks, and pushed by Connecticut Bankers Association lobbyist Thomas S. Mongellow and Fritz Conway of Gaffney, Bennett and Assoc., would have made retailers that lose customer data liable to banks for the cost of canceling and reissuing cards; closing and opening accounts; refunds to customers for stolen funds; and the cost of providing assistance to customers to mitigate their inconvenience. They wanted retailers to be left holding the entire bag.
The chairs of the Banks Committee seemed primed for action. Both considered –- and still find — TJX at fault for losing customer data.
“I still blame TJX. They should be blamed, they should be sued, they should be fined,” said state Sen. Bob Duff (D-Norwalk), in an interview.
But on the other side was Timothy G. Phelan, president of the Connecticut Retail Merchants Association, along with the team at Murtha Cullina, the association’s contract lobbyists.
Phelan began suggesting that the real bad guys in the TJX case were the hackers.
“TJX was a victim of a crime,” Phelan says. Not only that, he argues, but retailers that accept credit and debit card payments are at the whim of a system put in place by Visa and Mastercard, which are owned and implemented by banks. They were doubly victims.“We haven’t come to the legislature and said, ‘Give us relief from the Visa-Mastercard issue,’” even though the financial institutions are the ones that created it, Phelan said.
After Phelan brought the ‘We’re a Victim’ pitch around to senators for a few weeks, the careless, irresponsible discount retailer didn’t look so bad.
It’s a case study in the work that many corporate and industry groups do each session: madly scour proposed legislation and –- upon finding something injurious –- fight like heck to kill it.
On May 16, Sen. Duff did just that, concerned that he could end up putting mom-and-pop shops at risk because many of them use third-party companies to process credit purchases. If those processors got hacked, he didn’t want the sandwich shop around the corner being forced under amid payments to banks.
“I really wanted to do something on this, but in the end we couldn’t put something together,” Duff said.
The other chair, Rep. Ryan Barry (D-Manchester), still supports the idea, but would have to find a way to revive it in the House.
“They worked the bill very hard,” Rep. Barry said of the retailers. After he’d heard of Sen. Duff’s decision, he gave Phelan his due.
“I went by to Tim and I said, ‘Congratulations.’”
Jonathan O’Connell is a Hartford Business Journal Staff Writer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
