State Department Official Lobbied by Former Employer

Robin Raphel, the State Department's nonmilitary aid coordinator for Pakistan and a former lobbyist for Pakistan, attended meetings to help that country craft lobbying strategy until shortly before her new position was announced last summer. Now, new lobbying disclosure reports show her former firm contacted her regarding Pakistan within a month after the announcement.

A filing submitted to the Justice Department this month by lobbying firm Cassidy & Associates reports that the firm, which has a $700,000-a-year contract to represent Pakistan, e-mailed Raphel on Sept. 2 regarding "ROZ legislation" - economic development legislation giving the president authority to establish “Reconstruction Opportunity Zones” (ROZs) in Pakistan’s frontier area with Afghanistan.

The filing also shows two more e-mails from Cassidy to Raphel in September regarding a Senate bill known as the Kerry-Lugar bill, which increased nonmilitary aid to Pakistan. The bill was signed into law by President Barack Obama in October.

Tom Alexander, a spokesman for Cassidy & Associates, said in an e-mail to The BLT that the firm had "contacted Ambassador Raphel to discuss the status of" the aid bill and "to seek clarification of statements she had made to the press."

In August, a State Department spokesman said Raphel was a temporary worker who can only work 130 days out of 365 and, because of that, was subject to different conflict-of-interest requirements, though he did not provide specific information about what those requirements were. The State Department has since not answered questions about Raphel's appointment, despite repeated requests.

The Obama administration has been extremely vocal about its conflict-of-interest policies, and repeatedly promised to limit the influence lobbyists have in Washington. Obama signed an executive order shortly after taking office banning federal appointees from participating in matters involving former clients or employers. Read a previous BLT item on this issue here.

Source:legaltimes.typepad.com/

Senators Add the Ornaments and Trimmings

The term “Christmas tree” has its own special meaning on Capitol Hill. It usually refers to a bill that has been decorated with “ornaments,” loaded up with special goodies for the folks back home.

But the term is particularly apt this week, as Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, works to have a vote on a heavily festooned health care bill by Christmas Eve.

They decorations include these:

The “Louisiana Purchase,” as it is being called, a provision for Senator Mary Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana, who obtained an extra $300 million in Medicaid funds for her state.

The Hawaii exemption, a measure that allows the state to keep its own health care system.

A break on the excise tax on so-called Cadillac health insurance plans for people in the 17 states where premiums are the highest. (The measure was initially intended to apply to the 10 states with the highest premiums, a Senate aide said, but some other senators wanted in and the number was bumped to 17.)


An exemption for small makers of medical devices from a new tax — relief that was sought by Democratic senators from states including Indiana, Massachusetts and Minnesota, where such device makers are based.

Favors for Nebraska as yet undescribed, sought by Senator Ben Nelson, a Democrat, for his home state as he demanded that the bill contain strict anti-abortion language.

Supporters of the bill say these sugar plums are a small price to pay to round up the necessary votes to pass landmark legislation that will result in most Americans having health insurance, many with subsidies, and will end some of the insurance industry’s most discriminatory practices.

Lavish Lobbying

But these ornaments are mere baubles compared with some of the neon measures that some lawmakers and lobbyists have fought to keep out of the bill.

Most prominent was the demand by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, that leaders drop two provisions that the insurance industry and big business had been lobbying vociferously against.

One, of course, was a government-run insurance plan, or public option, which would have competed with private insurance companies. The other was an expansion of Medicare to include some people ages 55 to 64, a change that hospitals and doctors fought because it would have meant taking care of more patients at lower Medicare rates.

Insurers also beat back an attempt to strip the industry of a partial antitrust exemption that it has long enjoyed.

To achieve these goals, the lobbying campaign on health care legislation has been lavish, even by Capitol Hill’s inflated standards.

Final spending amounts for the year will not be known until mid-January. But in the first nine months of the year, health care lobbyists spent at least $396 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks the influence of money on elections and policy.

Because the lobbying intensified in the fourth quarter as both the House and Senate prepared their final bills, the year-end total is likely to shatter the previous record for money spent on a single issue in a single year.

Perhaps not surprisingly, that record was set just last year, when health care lobbyists spent $486 million in anticipation of the legislative action this year.

“If spending this quarter remains on pace with the first three quarters — just on pace — lobbying in the health care sector will obliterate the high-water mark that it set last year,” said Dave Levinthal, a spokesman for the center.

But even those figures do not give the full picture of the flood of cash funneled into lobbying on health care in 2009.

For example, the center’s health care figures do not include lobbying by the insurance industry. Mr. Levinthal said the center could not isolate the amount the industry spent only on health insurance, as opposed to other forms of insurance.

Nor do the figures include spending by groups like the United States Chamber of Commerce, which has multiple issues pending before Congress but led the effort to kill the public option.

Some of the lobbying, especially in the early days, was done on behalf of remaking the health care system. But over all, more has been spent against it. Because Democrats control both houses, they have received more money than Republicans.

Corporate Glee

The insurance companies were probably among the merriest of industries last week. Because the legislation mandates that everyone buy insurance, those companies stand to gain 30 million new customers — and there will be no government plan to compete with.

But the drug companies were certainly joyful too. So far, they have kept intact a deal with the White House to bar the importation of cheaper drugs from Canada and elsewhere. In exchange, the drug companies agreed to give up $80 billion over 10 years through discounts and rebates.

Some Senators fought the pharmaceutical deal, noting that $80 billion represents only about 2 percent of the $3.6 trillion that Americans are expected to spend on drugs in the next 10 years. But the Senate effectively voted last week to keep the drug pact in place.

The pharmaceutical industry has spent more money by far than any other on lobbying in the first nine months of the year, laying out $199 million. That is also the single highest amount that any industry has ever spent on lobbying in a nine-month period, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Citizens who do not normally pay attention to Congressional gift exchanges may have been galled at the process, particularly with the health care of the nation’s citizens and one-sixth of its economy at stake.

But they will see more maneuvering in the weeks ahead, as lobbyists seek to ensure that the measures they kept out of the Senate bill will also be excluded from the final bill that the Senate produces in conference with the House.

On Capitol Hill, decorating the Christmas tree is always in season.

Source:prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/

Support for gay marriage marches on despite lobbying

Catholic bishops continued to keep the same-sex marriage issue at the top of their agenda on Sunday, asking New Jersey Catholics to pray that state lawmakers don’t allow same-sex marriage before the Republican Chris Christie takes office in January. On Sunday’s Meet the Press, Camelback Church pastor Rick Warren professed that in his mind, the gay rights movement should take a back seat to feeding the poor, but he didn’t deny his belief that because the Bible says so, same-sex marriage is wrong or admit where he would stand should something like Prop 8 be done over, except to say he wasn’t really involved with Prop 8.

But while the controversial groups talk the talk, the Massachusetts Episcopal Diocese proceeds in its quest to have sacraments include all people, and in so doing, actually walks the walk.

Bishop M. Thomas Shaw announced that Episcopalian clergy are now allowed to marry all eligible couples—including same-sex ones—effective the beginning of Advent, which was yesterday.

Christian marriage is a sacramental rite that has evolved in the church, along with confirmation, ordination, penance, and the anointing of the sick, and while it is not necessary for all, it must be open to all as a means of grace and sustenance to our Christian hope.

I believe this because the truth of it is in our midst, revealed again and again by the many marriages—of women and men, and of persons of the same gender—that are characterized, just as our church expects, by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, and the holy love which enables spouses to see in one another the image of God.

In the 76th General Convention, C056 was passed, allowing bishops where same-gender marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships are legal to “provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this church.”

The decision is voluntary. Solemnizing same-sex marriages will be at the discretion of the clergy and individual congregations within the diocese. It includes “hearing the declaration of consent, pronouncing the marriage and signing the marriage certificate.”

Realizing that those who rally against same-sex marriage refer to the Bible as their support for marriage between “one man and one woman,” Bishop Shaw emphasizes that the New Testament emphasizes love for all:

We also know that by calling us to minister in the context of this particular place and time God is again blessing our diocese with a great challenge by which we might enter more fully into that ethic of love which Jesus speaks to us through the New Testament. It is an immeasurable love given for all. We are being asked to live it, all of us, children of God, each with equal claim upon the love, acceptance and pastoral care of this church, so that the newness and fullness of life promised through word and sacrament might be for all people and for the completion of God’s purpose for the world.

Source:examiner.com