From the Washington Post: From airlines to ticket sellers, companies fight U.S. to keep junk fees

Is this market failure? 

Suppliers seem to inflate prices by adding on various fees. I think we've all dealt with this.

Uneven information.

- Click here for the article.

Frustrated with airlines that charge passengers steep fees to check bags and change flights, President Biden last fall embarked on a campaign to crack down on the practice — and force companies to show the full price of travel before people pay for their tickets.

Fliers rejoiced, flooding the Department of Transportation with letters urging it to adopt the policy. Airlines including American, Delta and United, however, did not seem so enthused.

It would be too difficult to disclose the charges more clearly, warned Doug Mullen, the deputy general counsel at Airlines for America, an industry lobbying group representing the three carriers. Testifying at a federal hearing in March, he said the new policy would only cause customers “confusion and frustration” — and, besides, the extra costs for bags and other services historically have resulted in “very few complaints.”

“The department should not regulate in this area,” Mullen added.

Since then, the Biden administration has broadened its efforts to expose or eliminate “junk fees” throughout the economy, touching off a groundswell of opposition from airlines, auto dealers, banks, credit card companies, cable giants, property owners and ticket sellers that hope to preserve their profits.

Behind the scenes, these corporations have fought vigorously to thwart even the most basic rules that would require them to be more transparent about hidden charges, according to a Washington Post review of federal lobbying records and hundreds of filings submitted to government agencies. The fees together may cost Americans at least $64 billion annually, according to a rough White House estimate, underscoring its efforts to deliver financial relief to families grappling with high prices.

__________

For More:

- Ticketmaster to Show Full Ticket Pricing and Eliminate Hidden Fees.

- How much does Taylor Swift make from Spotify?

From Open Secrets: Federal and state lobbying spending soared to $10 billion during the 2020 election cycle, but state lobbying disclosure remains limited

- Click here for the article. 

Big dollar lobbying efforts are not limited to the federal level. Federal lobbying spending broke $3.7 billion in 2021 — an all-time high — and billions more were spent on lobbying efforts at the state-level.

The two-year 2020 election cycle saw more than $10.3 billion in lobbying spending at the federal level and across the 19 states tracked by OpenSecrets, a new analysis found.

Of that lobbying spending, $5.1 billion came in 2020. In 2020, federal lobbying spending reached $3.5 billion and OpenSecrets tracked about $1.6 billion in lobbying spending across 19 states.

OpenSecrets’ analysis revealed about $3.3 billion in lobbying spending during the two-year 2020 election cycle across 19 states with $1.7 billion in 2019 and $1.6 billion in 2020.

Of the states tracked by OpenSecrets, California saw the most lobbying spending over the two-year election cycle with over $760 million paid to lobbyists in 2019 and 2020. The top spending lobbyist clients in the states tracked were Reynolds American Inc, a U.S. subsidiary of British American Tobacco previously known as RAI, and AT&T, each spending in excess of $15 million over the two years. AT&T spent money in 18 of the 19 states and Reynolds was active in 17 of them.

While these numbers are striking on their own, it only tells part of the story of state lobbying efforts.

Because of variations in data availability, OpenSecrets has only been able to collect spending data from 19 of the 50 states. The $3.3 billion in known spending in 2019 and 2020 is just a portion of the actual, unknown, total.

The issue here comes down to what states require to be reported.

From ProPublica: Clay Pigeons: How Lobbyists Secretly Woo Top Election Officials - Secretaries of state, who oversee ballot measures on topics from gun control to the minimum wage, are increasingly courted by interest groups and industries with billions of dollars at stake.

If elections are indeed rigged, this might be why.

- Click here for the article.

Big-money corporate lobbying has reached into one of the most obscure corners of state government: the offices of secretaries of state, the people charged with running elections impartially.

The targeting of secretaries of state with campaign donations, corporate-funded weekend outings and secret meetings with industry lobbyists reflects an intense focus on often overlooked ballot questions, which the secretaries frequently help write.

The ballot initiatives are meant to give voters a direct voice on policy issues such as the minimum wage and the environment. But corporate and other special interests are doing their best to build close ties with the secretaries because a difference of even a few words on a ballot measure can have an enormous impact on the outcome.

The influence campaign has intensified, with more citizen-driven ballot initiatives to be decided on Election Day this year than at any time in the past decade.

Emails and internal memos show top election officials soliciting industry groups for contributions specifically because they are facing unfavorable ballot initiatives. Read more.

Secretaries of state from Washington, Ohio, Colorado and Nevada — all Republicans — participated in closed-door meetings in May with representatives from Reynolds American, the nation’s second-largest tobacco company; the National Restaurant Association; and the National Rifle Association, while ballot initiative signatures in those states were still being collected, documents obtained through open records requests show.

At a weekend retreat last month at a hunting lodge in Kansas, Republican secretaries of state mingled with donors, including a representative from Koch Industries, as they shot pheasant and clay pigeons. The owners of Koch Industries — Charles G. and David H. Koch — have funded groups involved in several ballot initiative fights this year, including over a solar energy measure in Florida.

“The Koch brothers out with the Republican secretaries of state — that’s a news story I don’t need,” Allen Richardson, a Koch lobbyist, joked, unaware that a reporter was in attendance.

Groups aligned with Democrats have also targeted secretaries of state, mobilizing during the 2014 campaign to try to elect more officials sympathetic to their causes.

From the Fiscal Times: How Big Pharma Lobbyists Keep Medicare Drug Prices High

For our look at interest groups and iron triangles.

- Click here for the article.

For nearly a decade, veteran Democratic Rep. Peter Welch of Vermont has been waging a lonely battle to empower Medicare officials to negotiate the price of prescription drugs, just as Medicaid, the Veterans’ Administration and other government health care providers are entitled to do.

When Congress enacted the Medicare Part D subsidized prescription drug program for seniors in 2003, the drug industry secured an amendment that barred the federal government from negotiating rebates or lower drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries – a sweetheart deal that subsequently provided drug manufacturers with many billions of dollars in extra profits.

Welch, a liberal Democrat, condemned the restrictive policy as the ultimate in “crony capitalism” and sponsored or co-sponsored at least six bills to allow drug price negotiations.

But a well-financed drug industry thwarted Welch and his allies at every turn, and the proposed legislation repeatedly was bottled up in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, or simply ignored. He concluded that big-money lobbying efforts and generous campaign contributions to key Republican and Democratic lawmakers effectively blocked his legislation, even as many consumers and policy advocacy groups clamored for ways to control soaring prescription drug prices.

“It truly is exhibit A in the intersection between crony capitalism and big money in politics,” Welch said in an interview on Thursday. “The whole essence of a free market is that willing buyers and willing sellers can negotiate prices and reach a market price … How in the world can one explain that the government actually passed a law saying that you can’t negotiate prices?”

According to Welch and political watchdog groups, the answer is fairly simple. The pharmaceutical industry spent unprecedented sums on lobbying and campaign contributions to get the prohibition on price negotiations into the original legislation and to keep it there, despite the best efforts of Welch and others to eliminate the provision.

An analysis jointly published this week by the Center for Responsive Politics and FairWarning, a non-profit news organization, highlights the political clout exerted by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), a major industry group, and some of the largest U.S. drug companies.

From 538: Nearly All Of Silicon Valley’s Political Dollars Are Going To Hillary Clinton

Most went to Obama in 08 and 12 also.

In return they got one of their own put in charge of the FCC.

- Click here for the article.

. . . while many technology companies have shared policy interests, they don’t yet see themselves as a political cohort, which “makes it quite hard to organize them in any sort of politically effective way.”

“Until just a few years ago, the perspective in Silicon Valley was to have nothing to do with Washington,” he said. “It’s only in the last few years that tech companies have really established a significant lobbying presence in Washington.”

Becky Tallent, the head of U.S. government relations for Dropbox and a former immigration assistant to former House Speaker John Boehner, also sees technology’s relationship to government as just starting to grow.

“There is a generational gap between the people who are running our government right now and the people who are using the technology and creating the technology,” she said.
The big political concerns for the tech industry this election cycle include trade and the status of high-tech H-1B visas. In 2015, the U.S. exported nearly $205 billion worth of computer and electronic products, constituting 13.6 percent of total U.S. exports, the second-largest category of exports. That’s why many tech executives have been alarmed by Trump’s opposition to free trade and trade agreements. Clinton now opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership but is much more supportive of free trade than Trump is. In addition, Clinton wants to continue the H-1B visa program, while Trump has criticized it and said he will severely limit it. The program is designed to supply workers in specialty fields when Americans are in short supply, though one pending lawsuit alleges it has been used improperly, with Americans training their cheaper replacements.

The H-1B program, along with various post-student work visas, have been gateways into American entrepreneurship for some of America’s biggest tech companies. A 2016 report by the National Foundation for American Policy, a business-oriented research group that supports immigration, found that more than half of America’s billion-dollar startups were founded or co-founded by immigrants.

From the New York Times: Former House Speaker John Boehner Joins Washington Law Firm

For our look at lobbying and the revolving door.

- Click here for the article.

John A. Boehner, the former speaker of the House who left Congress and his leadership post last year, is joining Squire Patton Boggs, a Washington-based law firm long known for its lobbying work.

However, Mr. Boehner, who served as speaker for four years and as a Republican representative from Ohio for 24 years, will not lobby in his new role at the law firm. Instead, he will serve “as a strategic adviser to clients” in the United States and abroad on global business development, according to the firm’s announcement.

“I left the private sector and got into public service decades ago because I wanted to help remove government barriers to economic growth and job creation, and that’s still the mission that drives me,” Mr. Boehner said in a statement on Tuesday.

This month, Mr. Boehner, a cigarette smoker, was appointed to the board of the tobacco giant Reynolds American, which is currently fending off more regulation of the industry, including regulation of e-cigarettes. He is to serve on the board’s committee for corporate governance, nominating and sustainability.

He has kept a relatively low profile since stepping down from the Republican leadership in September 2015, drawing occasional attention, as when he described Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, as “Lucifer in the flesh.”

In April, Mr. Boehner made a surprise video appearance with President Obama — with whom he had scorching political battles, including a lawsuit House Republicans filed accusing the president of abuse of his official powers — in a humorous vignette for the annual dinner of the White House Correspondents’ Association.

In it, Mr. Boehner offered a cigarette to President Obama, who once smoked but says he gave it up; he stuck to that stance in the video.

In his new law firm role, Mr. Boehner will not be working with political adversaries but with a cadre of his former staff members. They include two longtime aides, John Criscuolo and Amy Lozupone, who will join the firm, forming a team that also includes the former speaker’s deputy chief of staff, Dave Schnittger, and former policy adviser, Natasha Hammond.

Governing: Gov2Gov: The Lobbying That Falls Under the Radar Cities, counties and states put a lot of effort -- and money -- into lobbying other levels of government.

For our look at both local governments and lobbying.

- Click here for the article.

Data reported by the Center for Responsive Politicsindicates that states, localities and their associations collectively spent $71 million in federal lobbying last year. The education sector, primarily colleges and universities, spent another $77 million. When combined, more was spent on those two areas of public-sector lobbying than defense, oil and gas, and some other major industries.

Some governments employ dedicated intergovernmental relations staff, and a select few larger cities maintain personnel in Washington. Many contract with private lobbying firms to give them broader reach. State and national associations further represent governments and groups of officials on a range of issues.“Intergovernmental relations is one of those under-the-radar-activities for any city,” says Jeff Coyle, who heads government affairs for San Antonio. “How a city relates to and is governed by states and the federal government is crucially important to people in the community, whether they realize it or not.”

At the federal level, top priorities of state and local government associations include protecting tax exemption for municipal bonds and seeking the authority to collect sales taxes from online retailers. “Whether it’s education, advocating or lobbying, those who are closest to the people ought to have a seat at the table in informing decisions made by other levels of government,” says Carolyn Coleman, director of federal advocacy for the National League of Cities.

From Vox: Big Marijuana is coming — and even legalization supporters are worried

This story applies to 2305 - since it touches on the influence of interest groups on both the legislative and administrative process - and 2306 because it hits on changed attitudes about marijuana. Modest changes were made in the 84th session of the legislature to criminal law regarding possession and medical marijuana, but some floated the idea of outright legalization.

It appears that some groups promoting legalization also want a monopoly on selling it - we noticed that that was the condition in Ohio when voters were offered the chance to legalize marijuana for recreational use, but only on the condition that sales be restricted to a monopoly.

I flagged the following labels for the story: monopolies, initiatives, lobbying, laboratories of democracy, criminal law, agency capture, 

- Click here for it.

Last month, Ohioans rejected a very unusual marijuana legalization proposal. Beyond legalizing pot, the ballot initiative would have given campaign donors direct rights to the state's 10 pot farms as an explicit gift for their support. It was, even legalization advocates argued, a flagrant display of would-be members of the pot industry trying to cash in on a movement motivated primarily by social justice issues.

But while Ohio's measure was rare in its blatant cash grab, some legalization backers are increasingly concerned that something like Ohio's initiative will become standard — and the interests of the pot industry, which will grow more and more as legalization spreads, will take priority over the public's best interests.

Dan Riffle, the former director of federal policy at the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), a legalization advocacy group, recently told me that these concerns pushed him to leave MPP. In a revealing interview, he said that "the industry is taking over the movement."
"We used to talk three or four years ago about how we're creating this industry, yet nobody in the industry gives to MPP," Riffle said. "But now that they do give at least a little, it's like, 'Be careful what you asked for.' Because we owe them now, and they get to drive the agenda."

More than posing as a concern for the face and heart of the legalization movement, the worry that the industry will take over poses some challenges on the policy end as well. As support for marijuana legalization continues to grow, the question is quickly shifting from whether to legalize to how to legalize. And a movement that's led by a pot industry has different interests than the public and policy reformers might have.

Introducing: Gephardt Government Affairs

In class - and in the class notes - I mentioned that ex-members of Congress can cash in after they leave office and offer their services to industry. By "services" I mean their internal knowledge of the legislative process and familiarity, if not friendships, with current members of Congress.

Examples abound, but here's a link to lobbying firm established by ex Democratic Majority Leader Dick Gephardt so you can get an idea of what these institutions look like.

- Click here for the website.
- Wikipedia: Dick Gephardt.

From the Intercept: Lobbyists Mourn House Speaker John Boehner's Departure

Not everyone is happy to see Boehner go:

- Click here for the article.

House Speaker John Boehner’s surprise resignation on Friday was reason to celebrate for members of his own caucus who often complained that he let corporate lobbyists exercise undue influence over Congress.

But for lobbyists, Boehner’s announcement was a reason to mourn.

“We are grateful for Speaker Boehner’s leadership in so many areas,” saidChip

Bowling, the chief lobbyist for the corn growers industry. “Speaker Boehner’s departure will leave a hole, to be sure,” said John Engler, a lobbyist who represents the chief executive officers of major American corporations.

Other lobbyists used social media to express grief and salute Boehner’s tenure as Speaker of the House.

. . . Lobbyists enjoy access to establishment politicians of both major parties. But Boehner leaves behind a career that is marked by a particularly extreme coziness with K Street.

He was once caught handing out tobacco industry campaign checks on the House floor before a vote on tobacco legislation.

In 2009, Boehner slowed down House proceedings to allegedly attend the “Boehner Beach Party,” an annual event hosted by lobbyists. Before he became Speaker, Boehner served as the House GOP contact for regular meetings with lobbyists and convened a weekly meeting with lobbyists called the “Thursday Group.”

And for a period of time, Boehner rented a Capitol Hill apartment from a lobbyist.
As he raised millions from corporate political action committees, Boehner encouraged lobbyists to have a direct influence over the policy process. Under Speaker Boehner, the reverse revolving door became a blur, with more and more corporate lobbyists hired to manage the day-to-day business of key congressional committees and to serve as senior staff.

Boehner at one point called on bank lobbyists to be more aggressive when dealing with congressional staff, declaring: “Don’t let those little punk staffers take advantage of you.”

This makes you think he'll land on his feet.

Bracewell & Guiliani and the Revolving Door

While clicking around to find info for the story below I stumbled across lists of people that have worked - or consulted - with Bracewell & Guiliani I noticed that the Center for Responsive Politics has lists of individuals connected with the company and what various positions they have held. They call it an employment timeline.

It provides a specific look at this otherwise general concept.

They do so for all types of companies and firms. Were focusing B&G because the previous story mentioned them and because they are a powerful local firm.

Here's a list of the people in their orbit. By clicking on the link you get an idea of where their connections lie.

- Kay Bailey Hutchison.
- Edward Krenik.
- Gene E Godley.
- Jeffery Holmstead.
- Lisa Jaeger.
- Paul Maco.
- Michael Pate.
- Scott Segal.
- Eric Washburn.
- Salo Zelermyer.

From Vox: Corporations now spend more lobbying Congress than taxpayers spend funding Congress

Interesting detail:

- Click here for the story.

Well, this isn't good:

Corporations now spend about $2.6 billion a year on reported lobbying expenditures – more than the $2 billion we spend to fund the House ($1.16 billion) and Senate ($820 million).

Those numbers come from political scientist Lee Drutman, author of the book The Business of America is Lobbying, who notes, over email, that they've fallen slightly out of date. In 2014, the House's operating budget was $1.18 billion, and the Senate's operating budget was $860 million. That pays for, among other things, all congressional staff. Add in the funds for the Congressional Budget Office and the Congressional Research Service — the two most important agencies meant to inform members of Congress about the issues corporate America is lobbying them on — and you've added another $150 million to the tab.

Which is to say, Drutman's point stands: businesses* are spending more money lobbying the House and Senate than taxpayers are spending running the House and Senate and informing its members. And that should scare you

Update: A related story from The Hill:

- Lobbyists begin to cash in on Republican-led Congress.

K Street’s largest firms are starting to reap the rewards of the new GOP-controlled Congress, leaving lobbyists bullish about 2015.

Nearly all of two-dozen firms that provided their first-quarter earnings totals to The Hill on Monday — the deadline to report the figures to the House and Senate — saw their revenues increase.

While some reported only modest gains, many in the influence industry say the uptick is likely just the beginning of an influx of new business generated by November’s elections.

“With the return to regular order and a robust pent-up policy agenda, we’re seeing renewed energy and efforts for bipartisan progress that should last at least until mid-2016, when campaign dynamics may finally take over,” Bruce Mehlman told The Hill.

His firm, Mehlman Castagnetti Bingel Rosen & Thomas, saw first-quarter advocacy revenue on par with the same period in 2014. Although it lost one of its major partners and underwent a rebranding last year, the firm earned $2.82 million from January through March.

The fight over local control continues

In the news today:

The Texas Tribune: Local Government, School Lobbying in Ethics Crosshairs.

Thursday unleashed a torrent of criticism against a pair of bills that would restrict how they can interact with members of the Texas Legislature.

The legislation, sponsored by freshman Rep. Matt Shaheen, R-Plano, is designed to bar school districts and local government entities from using tax dollars to hire lobbyists or pay associations that lobby for them in Austin, such as the Texas Association of Counties or the Texas Association of School Boards. Some last-minute tweaks would weaken the outright prohibition in some circumstances.

Dallas Morning News: Energy interests are threatening local control.

At the behest of the Texas Oil and Gas Association, bills rocketing through the Legislature would “expressly pre-empt” local ordinances that regulate drilling in urban areas. The bills would undermine drilling ordinances in more than 300 Texas cities, including Dallas. Limits on drilling near homes, prohibitions of drilling in parks and bans on waste injection wells could be eliminated.

Dallas Morning News: Senators debate tighter caps on city, county property taxes.

Tea party activists called Thursday for restrictions on what cities and counties can collect from property taxes, despite warnings by mayors and county judges that a “revenue caps” bill could result in fewer cops and more potholes.

Dallas Morning News: Local control looms over House committee debate on statewide rules for Uber, Lyft.

The vehicle-for-hire rules crafted by the city of Dallas last year in a laborious, months-long process would be effectively wiped out under legislation heard Thursday by House lawmakers. A bill by Rep. Chris Paddie, R-Marshall, would instead create statewide regulations for “transportation network companies” like Uber and Lyft. The state Department of Motor Vehicles would administer the rules, which wouldn’t apply to cabs and limos.

Houston Chronicle: Unhappy businesses make Austin lobbyists rich.

Democracy is about giving the power of self-determination to the people, and in the United States we believe that power should be given to local governments as much as possible. Conservatives in the Texas Legislature rail all the time about federal environmental regulations designed to stop interstate pollution. They say the rules infringe on the rights of Texans to make their own laws. However, that same lawmaker is more than happy to pass a state law trumping a city ordinance. That's why business people spend millions of dollars a year on lobbyists in Austin. And this year is a very good year to be a lobbyist.

From Pro-Publica: TurboTax Maker Linked to ‘Grassroots’ Campaign Against Free, Simple Tax Filing

Just in time for tax day, a story that points out how interests groups can try to influence public opinion.

- Click here for the full story.

Over the last year, a rabbi, a state NAACP official, a small town mayor and other community leaders wrote op-eds and letters to Congress with remarkably similar language on a remarkably obscure topic.

Each railed against a long-standing proposal that would give taxpayers the option to use pre-filled tax returns. They warned that the program would be a conflict of interest for the IRS and would especially hurt low-income people, who wouldn't have the resources to fight inaccurate returns. Rabbi Elliot Dorff wrote in a Jewish Journal op-ed that he "shudder[s] at the impact this program will have on the most vulnerable people in American society."

"It's alarming and offensive" that the IRS would target the "the most vulnerable Americans," two other letters said. The concept, known as return-free filing, is a government "experiment" that would mean higher taxes for the poor, two op-eds argued.

The letters and op-eds don't mention that, as ProPublica laid out last year, return-free filing might allow tens of millions of Americans to file their taxes for free and in minutes. Or that, under proposals authored by several federal lawmakers, it would be voluntary, using information the government already receives from banks and employers and that taxpayers could adjust. Or that the concept has been endorsed by Presidents Obama and Reagan and is already a reality in some parts of Europe.

So, where did the letters and op-eds come from? Here's one clue:

Rabbi Dorff says he was approached by a former student, Emily Pflaster, who sent him details and asked him to write an op-ed alerting the Jewish community to the threat.

What Pflaster did not tell him is that she works for a PR and lobbying firm with connections to Intuit, the maker of best-selling tax software TurboTax.

"I wish she would have told me that," Dorff told ProPublica.

The website of Pflaster's firm, JCI Worldwide, had listed Intuit among its clients, but removed it after ProPublica contacted them. Pflaster said Intuit had been listed by mistake, but added that the firm does work for the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), a trade group of which Intuit is a member. Pflaster also said her firm has reached out to multiple groups and encouraged them to share information about the "flaws" of return-free filing.

Update on the story from Slate.

Theoretically, it should be far easier for Americans with simple finances to file their tax returns. Instead of making tax filers putz around W-2s and tax prep software, the IRS could electronically prepopulate their paperwork with the information it already receives from banks and employers, and tell filers how much they owe. If the final figure looked about right, you’d have the option to file. As Matt Yglesias wrote here last year, the whole process could be a five-minute snap.

Theoretically. But for years now, Intuit, the maker of TurboTax, has fought tooth and nail to prevent automatic tax filing from becoming a reality, lobbying against bipartisan legislation to introduce it with the help of a powerful tech industry trade group and conservative anti-taxers like Grover Norquist. Intuit and its competitors in online tax prep don’t want the government cutting its market share. The tax-crusaders want to ensure that paying the government remains as much of a painful, resentment-generating slog as ever. And thus a potent alliance has been born.

Today, ProPublica, which published a great report on this subject last tax season, explains that the Computer & Communications Industry Association, which counts Intuit as a member, has been sponsoring an astroturf campaign to convince Congress that easyfiling would end up hurting the poor. A public relations firm working on the trade group’s behalf has been luring unsuspecting spokespeople to join its cause—reaching out to them without mentioning any lobbying ties.

The flip side of the McCutheon decision

Its not just that lobbyists and the wealthy can contribute more, its that incumbents know they can and will now demand more funding from them.

An ironic consequence of the decision.

- Click here for an article from The Hill making this argument.

A collective groan went up on K Street Wednesday as the Supreme Court struck down aggregate limits on donations to candidate and party committees.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court said the cap on an individual's overall campaign contributions infringed on First Amendment rights. The ruling clears the way for donors to donate the maximum amount to as many candidates and political parties as they wish during a two-year election cycle.

That’s a dispiriting outcome for lobbyists, who are fixtures on the fundraising circuit but complain about being inundated with constant phone calls and emails asking for donations.

The ruling means that a common K Street excuse for brushing off fundraising requests — that they’ve already “maxed out” their donations under the cap — is now moot.

“The Supreme Court didn't give me more money. I have a budget. I don't have unlimited funds,” said Steve Elmendorf, president of lobby firm Elmendorf | Ryan.

A prime Democratic donor, Elmendorf has already made $97,000 in campaign contributions for the 2014 election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Several lobbyists typically come close to reaching the aggregate limit in campaign giving every two years. The Supreme Court ruling could allow them to expand their influence by giving more, but K Streeters told The Hill that they weren’t looking forward to revved-up fundraising pressure.

“You just can't afford to spend more money than that,” said Pat Raffaniello, a principal at Raffaniello & Associates, about the old aggregate limit.

“Lobbyists not happy...only increases their $$ exposure to fundraising calls,” tweeted Paul Equale, a Democratic consultant who has registered to lobby in the past.

Are revolving door lobbyists more likely to come from the federal bureaucracy and the White House, or from Capitol Hill?

This a question addressed by a couple Monkey Cage contributors that was spurred by a comment by Nancy Pelosi in a recent appearance on the Daily Show.

- Click here for the post.

She claimed that most lobbyists - those who began their careers in government and used the revolving door to get a lucrative lobbying job - came from the executive branch, not the legislature.

The contributors happen to have studied the issue and found this not to be the case:

In new article, “Revolving Door Lobbyists and Interest Representation,” we categorize previous employment for 1,600 randomly selected registered lobbyists. Among them, 834 lobbyists had previously worked in the federal government, for a total of 1,495 government jobs, ranging from Cabinet secretaries and members of Congress down to congressional staff assistants.

So, what about Pelosi’s hypothesis? Are revolving door lobbyists more likely to come from the federal bureaucracy and the White House, or from Capitol Hill? About 65 percent of our “lobbyist-job” observations were in Congress, vs. only 23 percent in the bureaucracy, and 9 percent in the White House. (Note: some people may have worked in more than one position in Congress, so we count the “lobbyist-job,” not the lobbyist.)

When we account for people who held jobs in multiple branches of government, we find that congressional experience is by far the most common among lobbyists. More than three-fourths of the sample have worked in Congress. And, when we break these categories down by party — whether a lobbyist’s former employer was a Democrat or Republican — we find no clear partisan bias among revolving door lobbyists across categories. Lobbyists comes from both parties at an equal rate.

So, our data show the exact opposite pattern hypothesized by Pelosi.

Its more hip for politicians to solicit political contributions from high tech than big oil or trial lawyers

So says this article in Politico. Soliciting money from Silicon Valley is different than doing so from others:

It’s not just contributions that the officeholders are seeking. Many also are eager for association with an industry that — while clearly as self-serving about its economic interests as any other — projects an aura of glamour and new-economy dynamism that the typical Washington pol, to put it mildly, does not enjoy.

But raising money from high tech is an art form of its own, requiring special techniques for finding the erogenous zones of rich people who tend to take themselves and their ideas very seriously. Tech leaders see Silicon Valley not just as a special place, but as unique — almost a nation within a nation that drives innovation, economic growth and the very way Americans live their lives. So capital lawmakers who don’t come prepared risk confirming the typical tech industry view of Washington politicians as clueless buffoons.

Here, based on interviews with tech political players in Washington and the West Coast, is a user’s guide for how candidates can loosen the wallets of technology tycoons.

Any evening on Capitol Hill there is a familiar ritual: A lawmaker stops by an event, gives a little speech and goes home with campaign checks. This simply won’t work for reaping tech dollars.

Just look at what happened to former Sen. Olympia Snowe. The Maine Republican sat on the powerful Commerce and Finance committees — both key for the tech industry. But during one Silicon Valley swing, she didn’t convince tech execs she cared for their industry or understood their policy desires, according to a technology source. Her perfunctory effort drew equally perfunctory results, yielding only about $20,000.

Snowe knew one thing — that most big players expect the politician to come to them — visiting with tech players in their native habitat. But what’s even harder for many pols: The tech money players usually want to do at least as much talking as the politicians. They insist on knowing that the politicians are really listening. As a general rule, the first meeting is not the right time to ask for money.

“Lesson One: We’re old-fashioned; we don’t like to kiss on the first date,” said Carl Guardino of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, a tech industry advocacy organization. “Prove that you care about our policy before reaching for our purse. I find that all too often, members of Congress treat Silicon Valley like an ATM machine and expect to come out here without establishing themselves on our policy, without building personal relationships, and simply want to reach into our purse. And that rarely works, and it certainly doesn’t work more than once.”

The emerging field of political intelligence - the fastest growing field you've never heard of

The Dish had a recent post telling how to profit from boring subcommittee meetings.

Hire yourself out to large businesses who want quick information about what is happening in these meetings.

From Mother Jones:

As Wall Street has pursued ever more complex ways to make a buck, the political-intelligence industry has boomed, bringing in $402 million in 2009, according to Integrity Research Associates, which tracks the PI sector. That's still small potatoes compared to the $3.3 billion lobbying industry, but it has caught the eye of critics who worry that it amounts to selling special access to the public's business. "This is basically the kind of thing that America hates," says former lobbyist-turned-reformer Jack Abramoff.

Heather Podesta, a corporate lobbyist who once proudly sewed a scarlet "L" on her dress at a Democratic convention party, recalls the moment several years ago when she realized political intel had taken on a life of its own. Hedge funders had packed the audience at a Senate hearing on asbestos legislation. They had no interest in the policy implications; they just wanted to find out first so they could place their bets for or against the asbestos makers. "The whole thing," Podesta tells me at the power-lunch staple Charlie Palmer, "was just so sleazy." Yet so long as they don't veer into insider trading or Abramoff-style shenanigans, the political-intelligence firms aren't breaking any laws. "All they're doing is discovering the information and conveying it," concedes Abramoff, whose influence-peddling schemes swept up a half-dozen Republican lawmakers and landed him in prison. "I'm not even sure if you made it illegal there's any way to enforce it. It's ingenious."

The political-intelligence industry began to take shape in the early 1980s. As federal regulatory power expanded, big business wanted to know what happened in obscure subcommittee hearings—and didn't want to wait for the next day's papers to read about it. In 1984, investment banker Ivan Boesky hired lobbyists to attend committee hearings about a big oil merger and report back to him. It paid off: Boesky made a cool $65 million just by finding out first and buying low. "Investors started to realize that there was money to be made by knowing what was going on in Washington and knowing it as quickly as possible," says Michael Mayhew, the founder of Integrity Research Associates.

Click here for a link to Integrity Research Associates.

From the Washington Post: Capital gains: Spending on contracts and lobbying propels a wave of new wealth in D .C.

For our look at money in politics available to people who know the inside game:

The avalanche of cash that made Washington rich in the last decade has transformed the culture of a once staid capital and created a new wave of well-heeled insiders.

The winners in the new Washington are not just the former senators, party consiglieri and four-star generals who have always profited from their connections. Now they are also the former bureaucrats, accountants and staff officers for whom unimagined riches are suddenly possible. They are the entrepreneurs attracted to the capital by its aura of prosperity and its super-educated workforce. They are the lawyers, lobbyists and executives who work for companies that barely had a presence in Washington before the boom.

. . . big companies realized that a few million spent shaping legislation could produce windfall profits. They nearly doubled the cash they poured into the capital.

AIPAC

I'll throw occasional posts out highlighting some of the stronger interest groups in politics right now - those that are in the best position to shape and coordinate the activities of Congress and the executive branch. We'll begin with AIPAC - the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee - which was founded in 1951 and has emerged as a driving force in strengthening American support for Israel.

Here are a few stories on the group's attempt to influence America's stanch towards Syria:

- Lobbying Group for Israel to Press Congress on Syria.
- Israel Lobby silent on Syria.
- Pro-Israel Lobby finds longtime supporters defect on Syria.

Click here for a broader overview of the Israel lobby in the United States.