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.
Monday, July 23, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
