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Concerns that the data had fallen completely out of date were assuaged by promises that the new system would be excellent.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.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
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)
