Shields Introduces Lobbyist Contribution Ban During Session

Senate Leader Charlie Shields introduced legislation Tuesday that would bar lobbyists from contributing to any incumbent legislator or the Governor during the legislative session that runs between January and May.

Tuesday is the first day lawmakers can file legislation for the 2010 session.

Shields' three-pronged legislation would also create the position of an independent investigator within the Ethics Commission to investigate violations and file complaints and increase financial disclosure among staffers. He said the ethics reform package is in direct response to the resignation of three elected officials this year.

"Ethics violations are unacceptable, especially because of the damage they cause to the public’s trust in our democratic process," Sen. Shields said. “I believe we should continue to build on reforms we passed in 2007 by bringing even more transparency and accountability to the process in every way we can," he said in a statement.

The most far-reaching and potentially controversial measure is the contribution ban on lobbyists during the session. The ban would cover contributions to "any incumbent legislator’s candidate committee, incumbent governor's candidate committee, any continuing committee, or any campaign committee during the regular session of the General Assembly that runs from January to May."

In addition, the ban would apply to "any incumbent governor's candidate committee or and any continuing or campaign committee when legislation from the regular session awaits gubernatorial action." Incumbents seeking office in a special election would be exempted. In the legislation, a lobbyist is defined as "someone who is employed to influence legislation on a regular basis."

"We should work to avoid even the appearance of conflicts of interest and you can’t do that if you continue to allow campaign contributions while the Legislature is in session," Sen. Shields said.

The only exemption in the bill would be for those incumbents seeking office in a special election. According to the legislation, a lobbyist is defined as someone who is employed to influence legislation on a regular basis.

Another provision would require all employees and staff of the General Assembly to file yearly financial interest statements disclosing supplemental income received totaling $5,000 or more. Shields said the disclosure must include the source of the income and the general nature of the business conducted.

The Senate bill will be assigned a number by the end of the day and full text of the legislation will be available here in the coming weeks.

Wardell Rips Nodler For Comments on Lobbyists

7th District Republican Congressional candidate Michael Wardell called Sen. Gary Nodler's comments about the influence of lobbyists on campaigns "astounding" and said it exemplifies "so many of our problems."

On Thursday, while explaining his endorsement from Washington, D.C. lobbyist Gregg Hartley, Nodler told The Notebook that lobbyists ties to candidates and campaign contributors are a normal part of the political system.

"You're not going to find any significant contributor base that isn't tied to a lobbyist base. Any candidate who's raised any substantial money, has accepted money from lobbyists, people who have been lobbyists, paid lobbyists or employed lobbyists," Nodler said. You can read his entire remarks HERE.

Wardell called that remark "astounding." "Based on what he said, one would think 'lobbying up' is a qualification for holding congressional office," Wardell said Friday.

"Nodler implies lobbyists go with the territory, that their support is an indication of your strength as a candidate or office-holder; nothing could be further from the truth. What you need to get elected and get things done in Washington, DC is the support of the people you represent," Wardell continued.

"The grip lobbyists have on Congress is the source of so many of our problems. At worst, Senator Nodler is representing the wrong people at the expense of his constituents. At best, he has a political tin ear.

Wardell did not make any specific pledges about who he would not take money from. He only said he would put his constituents against "special interests." Nodler said he wasn't being critical of how people went about raising money, but just pointed out that most campaigns have some type of ties to lobbyists.

Wardell and Nodler are two of seven announced Republican candidates running to replace Congressman Roy Blunt in the 7th Congressional District.

A Look Inside Roy Blunt's "Alter Ego"

"Most of what people deride in politics is because people don't understand it."

There may be no single person who's been more important to Roy Blunt's political rise than Gregg Hartley.

In his new instructive book, So Damn Much Money, about the rise of money and lobbying in Washington, Robert Kaiser describes Hartley as Blunt's most important personal aide and friend for around three decades.

The two have been close since the 1970s, when Blunt served as Greene County Clerk.

One lobbyist is quoted calling Hartley "Blunt's alter ego."

Hartley is one of the featured players in Kaiser's book in order to provide an example of the continuous and to some, troubling, revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street.

Kaiser depicts Hartley as a conservative, friendly, unpretentious but outgoing Republican who followed Blunt to Washington and eventually ran his whip organization. It was April 2003 when Hartley decided it was time to "go downtown -- to become a lobbyist."

Hartley's story is not only important to understanding the way Washington works, but likely gives readers a window into Blunt's thinking, at the very time Republicans are contemplating his candidacy for U.S. Senate.

Below are excerpts of Kaiser's reporting on Hartley and his relationship with Blunt, beginning with Hartley's decision to go work for one of the top lobbying groups in Washington, Cassidy & Associates. Italics represent text and direct quotes from So Damn Much Money. (And if you're interested in the rise of money in politics and how the earmark originated, the entire book is well worth the read.)

"Blunt and I both concluded that I could still be a valuable part of his team, and there was no reason for us not to continue our personal relationship and our political relationship," Hartley is quoted. "I was fortunate in the sense that, being fifty years old instead of thirty-five, having spent seven years on the Hill . . . virtually all of it on leadership staff, having worked for a guy who had build a pretty good reputation in this town and moved up rather quickly, gave me lots of opportunities that the average staffer leaving the Hill doesn't have," Hartley went on.

Because he was a Republican with ties to the leadership entering a predominately Democratic firm, Hartley's skills were considered a top commodity for the legendary lobbyist Gerry Cassidy. Hartley was able to bring in scores of new climates, and reorganized the firm from top to bottom. He was at the top of hit game. Life was good.

Hartley liked his new life. "I enjoy 80 percent of the work" and the hours were delightful. "When I worked for Roy I worked 70 hours a week," he said, but at Cassidy it was 9 a.m. to 6 p.m . . . And he stayed close to Roy Blunt, raising money for him, donating $47,000 himself (with his wife) to Blunt, his leadership PAC and the House Republican campaign committee."

Hartley also enjoyed the era of the permanent campaign.

"I didn't grow up wanting to run government, I came from the political side of the equation. I like campaigns, I like politics. I only worked in government because that's what paid your way to do the political side." Hartley grew up as a Democrat, started his professional life as an administrator of legal aid programs in southwestern Missouri and fell in love with politics. "I quickly learned there wasn't much potential in Democratic politics in southwestern Missouri," he said, so he became a Republican. That decision was "as much practical as philosophical. It's hard to be impactful when you're in a minority - I learned that lesson early."

Hartley made no secret his love of fundraising. "I think it's an important part of the political process. I think a measure of a good campaign and how successful it's going to be is its ability to raise money." What about reformers who complain the system is corrupt . . .? What about Fred Wertheimer, the former president of Common Cause and founder of a group called Democracy 21, an advocate of reform who had criticized DeLay's tactics for years? "Fred is full of shit," Hartley replied, softening the message with his friendly grin. Raising money was part of the game, part of the helter-skelter of it . . . the rough-and-tumble of it . . . The American public is intrigued by politics and campaigning and the routes to power," he said. "They want to know about it, and on the other hand they go, 'Ohmigod, isn't this distasteful . . . I think politics works. I think most of what people deride in politics is because people don't understand it."

"Hartley is not troubled by the relationship between lobbyists and members of Congress, and he won't accept the formulation that the Hill now depends on downtown, and downtown depends on the Hill. Instead he sees more complicated interactions: "A lot of people on the Hill are a new breed . . . they understand there's lots of things you do that interrelate with government." In other words, you can help people who need something from the government, and you can accept their help in return, and that's fine."

"Most people in the lobbying business contribute [money] so that they're seen as active participants in the process. And if you're seen as an active participant, does that sort of move you into a different realm than people who aren't? Yeah . . . I would presume that lobbyists who participate heavily in the political process are probably more successful by and large" But giving money "is not compulsory," he emphasizes. "I can't possibly give money to everybody I know on the Hill. It's impossible. But people I don't give money to still see me and talk to me and work with me on my clients."

To open his book, Kaiser outlines the relationship cultivated between Cassidy's firm and disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. He includes a telling quote from Hartley "not over-worrying" the deal he had help strike with Abramoff.

"Washington is a town full of controversies," Hartley was quoted in The Washington Post. "If you over-worry about controversies, you'd end up doing nothing."

Lobbyist Liaisons vs. Meals on Wheels

WATCH 'EM AT IT
Democratic Minority Whip Jeff Roorda challenges freshman Republican Scott Largent (not seen on camera) on his amendment to eliminate funding for legislative liaisons in cabinet agencies and put the money towards the Meals On Wheels program.
****
With Roorda obviously taking the upper hand in the debate over the newly minted State House member from Clinton, attorney and GOP pitbull Rep. Tim Jones comes to the rescue BELOW.

Roorda argues that Republicans never had a problem with these "liaisons" during the Blunt administration; Jones pushes back and dares Roorda to vote against an amendment that would transfer money from "lobbyists" to meals for the needy. In the clip immediately below, Jones begins his argument with the premise that department liaisons should not be taking positions and lobbying lawmakers to support or oppose any particular legislation.

Roorda, referring to the GOP's budget proposals, answers: "Because they're crazy."
GENTLEMEN, PLEASE
MUST-WATCH BACK & FORTH BELOW

WHO WON THE DEBATE -- ROORDA or JONES?

WaPost Features McCaskill on Bizarre Linestanding

Sen. Claire McCaskill doesn't want lobbyists to be able to pay placeholders to stand in line for them to get into Senate hearings.

The Washington Post has the quirky story here.

Money Bite: "I was walking along the hallway to the Judiciary Committee" about two months ago, "and I said what's up with these people? . . . Who's paying them,?" McCaskill said.