 |
 |
|
NONE OF THIS means that legislative outcomes are predetermined by lobbyists’ spending. The legislature has passed strong anti-smoking measures in recent years despite heavy lobbying by the tobacco industry, notes Watertown state representative Rachel Kaprielian. "There are lobbyists I agree with and those I don’t," Kaprielian says. "It almost levels the playing field. You have big corporate interests, and a labor PAC can counter that with a contribution." Lobbyists themselves downplay their own influence. "If it’s a choice for a representative to talk to a constituent or talk to me, I’ll be waiting outside no matter how much I’ve given," says Ruddock. But it’s unlikely that Associated Industries of Massachusetts would pay Ruddock, and several other lobbyists, a quarter-million dollars a year for nothing. And typical constituents don’t have the $270,000 that AIM spent last year to put together research presentations. The Massachusetts Medical Society has produced a "Physician Workforce Study" during each of the past three years to help persuade legislators to pass medical-liability reform. Of course, the Massachusetts Academy of Trial Lawyers lobbies just as hard against that same reform, and produces equally compelling statistics. The personal relationships lobbyists look for, and spend the most to cultivate, are ones with the most influential legislators — those who can move or bury a bill, who select speakers at hearings, and who can influence others when it comes time to vote. A state senator, as one of 40, receives far more attention and money than the average representative, who is one of 160 — unless the representative holds an especially powerful position in a caucus or on a key committee. That helps explain why a fairly obscure representative from Needham, who faced no opponent for re-election, is so popular among PACs and lobbyists. Lida Harkins, who has represented the 13th Norfolk District since 1989, became assistant majority floor leader in 2002. In the last election cycle — 2003 and 2004 — Harkins raised $80,474. About 30 percent of that, or $23,675, came from registered PACs and unions. Another $6000 was donated by the state Democratic Committee. The remaining $50,799 came from "individuals," but a Phoenix analysis shows that at least $16,000, or nearly a third, of those individual contributions came from registered lobbyists — most of whom are not identified as such on Harkins’s campaign filing documents. Much of the rest was contributed by corporate executives and association members with legislative interests. Only about 15 percent of the money Harkins raised came from addresses in Needham, Dover, or Medfield, the towns she represents. To determine how best to spend their time and money, lobbyists are watching the current legislative restructuring and committee assignments closely. "Obviously, committee chairs that have our legislation, those are people we focus on," says Kathleen Kelly, president of the Massachusetts Federation of Teachers. Kaprielian sits on the Health Care Committee, and not surprisingly receives contributions from the Massachusetts Hospital Association and other health-care interests. Salvatore DiMasi has sharply increased his war chest since becoming House Speaker, taking in close to $10,000 from beer-distribution executives, and a similar amount from the Mintz Levin law firm. Over in the Senate, Dianne Wilkerson co-chaired the commission that last year overhauled the state’s public-construction laws; this turned into a windfall for her. She received contributions from the Associated Subcontractors of Massachusetts, the Eastern Massachusetts Bricklayers People’s Committee, and the Massachusetts Building Trades Council; from just about every lobbyist in the state; and, most important, from a veritable who’s who of the state construction industry’s CEOs. Committee assignments could become even more important now, since DiMasi and Senate president Travaglini are expected to take a relatively less-centralized approach to leadership than did former House Speaker Tom Finneran. Senator Susan Fargo should make out well with her move from Local Affairs to the newly titled Public Health Committee, as should Senator Robert O’Leary in his new assignment as co-chair of the newly titled Higher Education Committee, and Senator Steven Tolman as the new assistant vice-chair of Ways and Means. ALL THIS builds up war chests for those in office. That makes them more impervious to challenges, which in turn makes them more attractive to PACs and lobbyists, who tend to adhere to the old motto of the Daley machine in Chicago: "Don’t make no waves, don’t back no losers." The Boston Carmen’s Union Local 589 made 158 contributions in the 2003-’04 cycle, to Democrats and Republicans, and only two of the recipients (Angus McQuilken and Vincent Ciampa) lost their elections. Other large PACs had similar patterns, often regardless of the incumbents’ party affiliations. Those representing business interests financed incumbent Democrats over Republican challengers, and those representing union interests gave money to prominent Republicans. In fact, most simply gave to incumbent legislators across the board. "If we dislike an incumbent, the best we can usually do is not support the incumbent," says Ralph White, president of the 60,000-member Retired State, County, and Municipal Employees Association of Massachusetts (Mass Retirees). It would be extremely unusual for his organization to back a challenger, he says. "Lobbyists and PACs give much more frequently and generously to incumbents," says the Massachusetts Money and Politics Project’s Nelson. "They have built up relationships with them. They are known quantities." And in fact, White’s Mass Retirees PAC ends up funneling much more to incumbents than the $500 a year it can give in cash to an individual candidate. PACs can blast through that cap by encouraging their executives and in-house lobbyists to contribute individually; hitting up their association membership for contributions; and providing in-kind contributions like volunteer labor, mailings, get-out-the-vote efforts, and other helpful services, as the Mass Retirees did for about two dozen selected candidates. White and other lobbyists concede that all this makes it difficult for challengers to compete financially. In fact, many Republican challengers last year, particularly those challenging an incumbent state senator, financed themselves: Gail Bronwyn Lese, against Robert O’Leary; John Thibault, against Susan Fargo; Timothy Duncan, against Therese Murray; and Lawrence Novak, against Robert Creedon. Each lost. The incumbents returned to Beacon Hill — where the ones who helped keep them there were waiting for them. Many of those lobbyists, after all, know exactly what it’s like in the legislators’ shoes — quite a few have been there themselves. It is hardly unusual to find former legislators lobbying the current ones. Bob Quinn, of Quinn & Morris, was a state representative, and even spent a term as House Speaker in the late 1960s before becoming state attorney general. Stephen J. Karol served 16 years as a state representative before founding the Karol Group — where he employs former House majority leader Paul White. William Cass of the Suffolk Group is a former state representative. Robert Bernstein of ML Strategies and Henri Rauschenbach of Smith & Rauschenbach were both senators as recently as 2000. (Kristine Glynn, lobbyist for the Victory Group, tried unsuccessfully to move into the legislature last year, but lost in the primary to Marty Walz.) Plenty of aides and counsels now lobby. Joe Baerlein, of the Rasky/Baerlein Group, worked in the State House and was campaign manager for Lieutenant Governor Evelyn Murphy in 1986. Former executive-branch veterans have also made the switch. ML Strategies — the lobbying arm of law firm Mintz Levin — is led by Stephen Tocco, who once ran the Massachusetts Port Authority and now chairs the state Board of Higher Education. O’Neill & Associates is led by Tip O’Neill scion Thomas P. O’Neill III, himself a former lieutenant governor and state representative. His firm’s lobbyists include former Ted Kennedy aide Shelly McPhee; former MassPort executive John Cahill; Matthew Irish, the former chief of staff to State Senator Steven Tolman; former House committee counsel and analyst Gary Murad; and, for good measure, Andrew Paven, a former Bechtel Inc. employee, who served as communications director for the Big Dig. These names and connections often elude the general public. Other states do more to ensure transparency; in Wisconsin, for instance, you can see exactly which groups spent what on which side of any bill under consideration. Following Wisconsin’s example in Massachusetts might not change the role of money, but it would at least make the trail easier to follow. David S. Bernstein can be reached at dbernstein[a]phx.com page 2 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Issue Date: February 4 - 10, 2005 Back to the News & Features table of contents |
|
| |
 | |
|
| |
| |
| about the phoenix | advertising info | Webmaster | work for us |
| Copyright © 2005 Phoenix Media/Communications Group |