Business Lobby Presses Agenda Before '08 Vote

The NY Times reports:

Business lobbyists, nervously anticipating Democratic gains in next year’s elections, are racing to secure final approval for a wide range of health, safety, labor and economic rules, in the belief that they can get better deals from the Bush administration than from its successor.

Ivan H. Adler, an executive recruiter, says Democratic lobbyists are in demand.
Hoping to lock in policies backed by a pro-business administration, poultry farmers are seeking an exemption for the smelly fumes produced by tons of chicken manure. Businesses are lobbying the Bush administration to roll back rules that let employees take time off for family needs and medical problems. And electric power companies are pushing the government to relax pollution-control requirements.

“There’s a growing sense, a growing probability, that the next administration could be Democratic,” said Craig L. Fuller, executive vice president of Apco Worldwide, a lobbying and public relations firm, who was a White House official in the Reagan administration. “Corporate executives, trade associations and lobbying firms have begun to recalibrate their strategies.”

The Federal Register typically grows fat with regulations churned out in the final weeks of any administration. But the push for such rules has become unusually intense because of the possibility that Democrats in 2009 may consolidate control of the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives for the first time in 14 years.

Even as they try to shape pending regulations, business lobbies are also looking beyond President Bush. Corporations and trade associations are recruiting Democratic lobbyists. And lobbyists, expecting battles over taxes and health care in 2009, are pouring money into the campaigns of Democratic candidates for Congress and the White House.

Randel K. Johnson, a vice president of the United States Chamber of Commerce, said, “I am beefing up my staff, putting more money aside for economic analysis of regulations that I foresee coming out of a possible new Democratic administration.”

At the Transportation Department, trucking companies are trying to get final approval for a rule increasing the maximum number of hours commercial truck drivers can work. And automakers are trying to persuade officials to set new standards for the strength of car roofs — standards far less stringent than what consumer advocates say is needed to protect riders in a rollover.

Business groups generally argue that federal regulations are onerous and needlessly add costs that are passed on to consumers, while their opponents accuse them of trying to whittle down regulations that are vital to safety and quality of life. Documents on file at several agencies show that business groups have stepped up lobbying in recent months, as they try to help the Bush administration finish work on rules that have been hotly debated and, in some cases, litigated for years.

At the Interior Department, coal companies are lobbying for a regulation that would allow them to dump rock and dirt from mountaintop mining operations into nearby streams and valleys. It would be prohibitively expensive to haul away the material, they say, and there are no waste sites in the area. Luke Popovich, a vice president of the National Mining Association, said that a Democratic president was more likely to side with “the greens.”

A coalition of environmental groups has condemned the proposed rule, saying it would accelerate “the destruction of mountains, forests and streams throughout Appalachia.”

A priority for many employers in 2008 is to secure changes in the rules for family and medical leave. Under a 1993 law, people who work for a company with 50 or more employees are generally entitled to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for newborn children or sick relatives or to tend to medical problems of their own. The Labor Department has signaled its interest in changes by soliciting public comments.

The National Association of Manufacturers said the law had been widely abused and had caused “a staggering loss of work hours” as employees took unscheduled, intermittent time off for health conditions that could not be verified. The use of such leave time tends to rise sharply before holiday weekends, on the day after Super Bowl Sunday and on the first day of the local hunting season, employers said.

Debra L. Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women and Families, an advocacy group, said she was “very concerned that the Bush administration will issue new rules that cut back on family and medical leave for those who need it.”

That could be done, for example, by narrowing the definition of a “serious health condition” or by establishing stricter requirements for taking intermittent leave for chronic conditions that flare up unexpectedly.

The Chamber of Commerce is seeking such changes. “We want to get this done before the election,” Mr. Johnson said. “The next White House may be less hospitable to our position.”

Indeed, most of the Democratic candidates for president have offered proposals to expand the 1993 law, to provide paid leave and to cover millions of additional workers. Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut was a principal author of the law. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York says it has been “enormously successful.” And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois says that more generous family leave is an essential part of his plan to “reclaim the American dream.”

Susan E. Dudley, administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, said, “Research suggests that regulatory activity increases in the final year of an administration, regardless of party.”

Whoever becomes the next president, Democrat or Republican, will find that it is not so easy to make immediate and sweeping changes. The Supreme Court has held that a new president cannot arbitrarily revoke final regulations that already have the force of law. To undo such rules, a new administration must provide a compelling justification and go through a formal rule-making process, which can take months or years.

Within hours of taking office in 2001, Mr. Bush slammed the brakes on scores of regulations issued just before he took office, so his administration could review them. A study in the Wake Forest Law Review found that one-fifth of those “midnight regulations” were amended or repealed by the Bush administration, while four-fifths survived.

Some of the biggest battles now involve rules affecting the quality of air, water and soil.

The National Chicken Council and the U.S. Poultry and Egg Association have petitioned for an exemption from laws and rules that require them to report emissions of ammonia exceeding 100 pounds a day. They argue that “emissions from poultry houses pose little or no risk to public health” because the ammonia disperses quickly in the air.

Perdue Farms, one of the nation’s largest poultry producers, said that it was “essentially impossible to provide an accurate estimate of any ammonia releases,” and that a reporting requirement would place “an undue and useless burden” on farmers.

But environmental groups told the Bush administration that “ammonia emissions from poultry operations pose great risk to public health.” And, they noted, a federal judge in Kentucky has found that farmers discharge ammonia from their barns, into the environment, so it will not sicken or kill the chickens.

On another issue, the Environmental Protection Agency is drafting final rules that would allow utility companies to modify coal-fired power plants and increase their emissions without installing new pollution-control equipment.

The Edison Electric Institute, the lobby for power companies, said the companies needed regulatory relief to meet the growing demand for “safe, reliable and affordable electricity.”

But John D. Walke, director of the clean air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the rules would be “the Bush administration’s parting gift to the utility industry.”

If Democrats gain seats in Congress or win the White House, that could pose problems for all-Republican lobbying firms like Barbour, Griffith & Rogers, whose founders include Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Loren Monroe, chief operating officer of the Barbour firm, said: “If the right person came along, we might hire a Democrat. And it’s quite possible we could team up in an alliance with a Democratic firm.”

Two executive recruiters, Ivan H. Adler of the McCormick Group and Nels B. Olson of Korn/Ferry International, said they had seen a growing demand for Democratic lobbyists. “It’s a bull market for Democrats, especially those who have worked for the Congressional leadership” or a powerful committee, Mr. Adler said.

Few industries have more cause for concern than drug companies, which have been a favorite target of Democrats. Republicans run the Washington offices of most major drug companies, and a former Republican House member, Billy Tauzin, is president of their trade association, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.

The association has hired three Democrats this year, so its lobbying team is split evenly between Republicans and Democrats.

Loren B. Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute, a policy research organization, said: “Defense contractors have not only begun to prepare for the next administration. They have begun to shape it. They’ve met with Hillary Clinton and other candidates.”

Getting Around Rules on Lobbying

Despite New Law, Firms Find Ways To Ply Politicians

The Washington Post reports:

In recent days, about 100 members of Congress and hundreds of Hill staffers attended two black-tie galas, many of them as guests of corporations and lobbyists that paid as much as $2,500 per ticket.

Because accepting such gifts from special interests is now illegal, the companies did not hand the tickets directly to lawmakers or staffers. Instead, the companies donated the tickets back to the charity sponsors, with the names of recipients they wanted to see and sit with at the galas.

The arrangement was one of the most visible efforts, but hardly the only one, to get around new rules passed by Congress this summer limiting meals, travel, gifts and campaign contributions from lobbyists and companies that employ them.

Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) found bipartisan agreement on maintaining one special privilege. Together they put language into a defense appropriations bill that would keep legal the practice of some senators of booking several flights on days they return home, keeping the most convenient reservation and dumping the rest without paying cancellation fees -- a practice some airlines say could violate the new law.

Senators also have granted themselves a grace period on requirements that they pay pricey charter rates for private jet travel. Lobbyists continue to bundle political contributions to lawmakers but are now making sure the totals do not trigger new public reporting rules. And with presidential nominating conventions coming next summer, lawmakers and lobbyists are working together to save another tradition endangered by the new rules: the convention party feting one lawmaker.

"You can't have a party honoring a specific member. It's clear to me -- but it's not clear to everybody," said Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate ethics committee. She said the committee is getting "these questions that surround the edges -- 'If it's midnight the night before,' 'If I wear one shoe and not the other.' "

Democrats touted the new ethics law as the most thorough housecleaning since Watergate, and needed after a host of scandals during 12 years of Republican rule. Prompted by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's wheeling and dealing and the jailing of three members of Congress on corruption charges in recent years, the law, signed by President Bush on Sept. 14, was heralded by congressional leaders as a real change in Washington's influence game.

But the changes have prompted anxiety about what perks are still permissible. In recent months, the House and Senate ethics committees have fielded more than 1,000 questions from lobbyists and congressional staffers seeking guidance -- or an outright waiver -- for rules banning weekend trips and pricey wedding gifts, five-course dinners and backstage passes.

Looking for ways to keep spreading freebies legally, hundreds of lobbyists have been attending seminars at Washington law firms to learn the ins and outs of the new law.

At a recent American League of Lobbyists briefing, Cleta Mitchell of the Foley & Lardner law firm said that while the law bans lobbyists from buying lawmakers or staffers a meal, it is silent on picking up bar tabs. A woman in the third row asked hopefully, "You can buy them as many drinks as you want, as often as you want?"

No, Mitchell said, not unless the drinkers are the lobbyist's personal friends, and she pays from her own pocket.

If that rule was clear to some, two charity dinners allowed hazier interpretations.

Most of the 40 lawmakers dining on red snapper ceviche and beef tenderloin at the recent Hispanic Caucus Institute gala at the Washington Convention Center got their tickets from corporations, said Paul Brathwaite, a principal with the Podesta Group lobbying firm.

Brathwaite said about a dozen of Podesta's corporate clients bought tables of 10 for $5,000 to $25,000 for the Hispanic dinner and the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation gala over the past three weeks. The companies then gave the tickets back to the foundations -- along with lists of lawmakers and staff members they wanted to invite. Some lawmakers did buy their own tickets, Brathwaite said, but many did not.

The rules require that charity sponsors do the inviting and decide who sits where. But "at the end of the night, everyone is happy," said Hispanic Caucus Institute spokesman Scott Gunderson Rosa.

"The corporate folks want us at their tables, of course," said Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who sat at a Fannie Mae-sponsored table at the Hispanic dinner.

Another provision of the new ethics law bans House members from flying on corporate jets. But senators, including the half-dozen presidential candidates among them, can still do so. Previously they were required to reimburse plane owners the equivalent of a first-class ticket, but now they must pay charter rates, which can increase travel costs tenfold.

The Senate ethics committee decided not to enforce that rule for at least 60 days after it took effect Sept. 14, citing "the lack of experience in many offices in determining 'charter rates.' "

The decision surprised some Senate staffers, Mitchell said, one of whom e-mailed her to say, "Welcome to the world of skirting around the rules we pass."

"Breathtaking. . . . In my view, they're not complying with the plain language of the law," Mitchell said. "I think it should be easier for members of Congress to travel, not harder. But what I don't appreciate as a citizen is Congress passing something but then interpreting it so it doesn't mean what the law clearly says."

The law has dragged into view several such perks that members long enjoyed but didn't reveal -- until they sought exemptions to the new rules.

Lawmakers for years have booked several flights for a day when they plan to leave town. When they finish work, they take the most convenient flight and cancel the rest without paying fees, a privilege denied others. But after the new law passed, some airlines stopped the practice, worried that it violates the gift ban.

Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) appealed to the Senate ethics committee to allow multiple bookings. Then Reid and McConnell added language to the defense bill that, if it passes, would extend the perk to staffers, too.

New bans on corporate-paid fun could hit hardest at the 2008 presidential nominating conventions. The law prohibits parties honoring a lawmaker on convention days; some lobbyists say the wording means such parties before or after those days are okay. House and Senate members have asked the ethics committees for guidance.

"That's one of the issues that's going to need some clarification," said Senate ethics panelist Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), whose home state will host the Democrats in August.

Meanwhile, lobbyists are booking up Denver's trendy warehouse district and Minnesota's Mall of America, near the GOP convention site in Minneapolis-St. Paul, for the pre-convention weekends. Host committees for both conventions say they will honor state delegations, including members of Congress who take part.

"I think you'll see a lot of umbrella invitations," said Patrick Murphy, lobbyist for Capitol Management, who is planning Democratic convention parties. "Invite 'Friends of Montana' and see who shows up."

One of the most fought-over parts of the law requires that lobbyists who bundle multiple campaign contributions totaling more than $15,000 file reports every six months. But lawyers say that a fundraiser for Hillary Rodham Clinton signals a way to avoid public reporting when that rule kicks in Jan. 1.

Female politicos have been e-mailing each other a slick online invitation to "Make History With Hillary," a summit and fundraiser on Wednesday. The invitation encourages women to bundle for Clinton by promising them online credit for each ticket they sell. Women who have already donated their legal individual limit of $2,300 cannot attend unless they bring in another $4,000.

"It's a universe of junior bundlers under the radar screen," said Kenneth Gross, a campaign finance lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. For the lobbyists among them, the amounts are so small that "you don't have to worry about tracking them, and it would add up to a material sum over time" -- but less than the $15,000 limit.

If a lobbyist asked his advice on the practice, Gross said, "I'd say 'Go for it.' "

Fred Thompson on K Street

At the Nation, Ari Berman writes:
David Sirota has a good post up about how the media is overlooking Fred Thompson's lucrative stint as a lobbyist. In a profile of the possible presidential candidate yesterday, the New York Times mentioned that during the eighteen year gap between working as a Congressional staffer and winning a Senate seat in 1994, Thompson "took on some lobbying clients." Who those clients were and what the work entailed, goes unmentioned. It's a mere throwaway in the larger narrative of the Reagan Republican returning to save the GOP.

In case you were curious, Thompson represented Westinghouse and General Electric in the deregulation of the savings and loan industry, which eventually led to the S&L crisis of the 1980s. After leaving the Senate in 2002, he was paid $760,000 to protect the British reinsurance company Equitas from asbestos claims. He registered to represent foreign clients such as deposed Haitian leader Jean Baptiste Aristide, Toyota and a German mining company.

Thompson's all-but-announced campaign has downplayed this history. "It being so far back, that's an awful undue pressure, burden for the senator to have to go dragging back through records," spokesman Mark Corallo (who recently worked for Karl Rove) told the Politico when asked to provide more information on Thompson's lobbying days. It may behoove his campaign to dust off those records. In 1994, Thompson's Democratic opponent, Congressman Jim Cooper, called him "a Gucci-wearing, Lincoln-driving, Perrier-drinking, Grey Poupon-spreading millionaire Washington special interest lobbyist." It's not hard to imagine a Republican rival saying nearly the same thing.

Fred Thompson, Capitol Hill Lobbyist

Politico.com reports:
Republicans pining for a Fred Thompson presidential bid contend the "Law & Order" star would make a strong candidate because of his experience as a senator, federal prosecutor and Watergate investigation counsel, as well as his conservative credentials and fame as a television and movie actor.

But supporters rarely focus on another hat he wore before and after his eight years in the Senate: lobbyist.

The role could be an issue if he seeks to move from his current flirtation with running, which has generated escalating poll numbers and buzz, to actually running, which would subject him to a heightened level of scrutiny.

Over about two decades of lobbying (during which he also acted and practiced law), Thompson made nearly $1.3 million and represented clients including a British reinsurance company facing billions of dollars in asbestos claims, Canadian-owned cable companies, and deposed Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, according to government documents and media accounts from his first run for the Senate in 1994.

During that special election to fill the Tennessee seat vacated by Al Gore's ascendance to the vice presidency, Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), Thompson's opponent, had blasted him as "a Gucci-wearing, Lincoln-driving, Perrier-drinking, Grey Poupon-spreading millionaire Washington special interest lobbyist."

But Republican Thompson crushed Cooper, 61 to 39 percent. That, however, was in a watershed Republican year, and it was before the Jack Abramoff scandal tarred lobbyists in the public's mind as corrupt, self-dealing influence peddlers.

Lobbying accounted for only a fraction of Thompson's income, said his spokesman, Mark Corallo. The former senator is not lobbying now and has no plans to do so, Corallo said, "but he's not going to foreclose any options."

Nor will Thompson hide from his past if he runs, the spokesman said.

"There's nothing wrong with lobbying. It's an honorable profession," Corallo said. "Let's face it: If you're a politician, you're being lobbied on a daily basis. So it's just not an issue."

But it will become one if Thompson declares his candidacy, aides for two Republican presidential candidates predicted.

"These would be logical lines of attack," one said, though both said their campaigns have yet to build opposition research files on Thompson’s lobbying.

But whatever they might dig up "won't stick, said Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.), national co-chairman of the Draft Fred Thompson 2008 committee.

"In politics, everything is fair game," Wamp said. "But I don't think anybody sees Fred Thompson as a lobbyist. They see him as a senator, and I think they will view him as a president." Thompson plans to huddle with lawmakers on Capitol Hill this month to gauge support, Wamp said, adding that a number have signed on to help Thompson should he decide to run.

Wamp was not familiar with the specifics of some of Thompson's lobbying work. But he called the lobbying a "limited" part of a résumé that includes asking the Watergate congressional investigation hearing question that exposed President Richard M. Nixon's secret recording system, helping uncover a payoff scheme that landed a Tennessee governor in prison and playing a host of television and movie roles, including his ongoing portrayal of the quick-witted, drawling Manhattan District Attorney Arthur Branch on the popular NBC cops-and-courts television drama "Law & Order."

Thompson's commanding presence, background and conservatism bring to mind another actor-turned-pol, Wamp said. "The whole thing is very Reagan-esque. The whole story."

Thompson cruised to a full Senate term in 1996 but decided not to run again in 2002. A year after stepping down, he registered to lobby for British reinsurance company Equitas Ltd.

The company paid him $760,000 to guard its interests against several bills seeking to protect businesses from asbestos lawsuits, according to records Thompson filed with the Senate.

The legislation died, and Thompson this year filed papers ending his relationship with Equitas, the only client on whose behalf Thompson registered to lobby after leaving the Senate.

"We were very satisfied with his representation," Equitas spokesman Jon Nash said in an e-mail. The company, which spent $5.3 million on a team of lobbyists from eight firms from 2004 to 2006, wanted Thompson, Nash explained, because "we needed help in lobbying Republicans in the Senate, and in addition, as a former senator from Tennessee, he had a good relationship with the then-majority leader, Sen. Frist," also a Tennessee Republican.

The provisions that concerned Equitas were removed from the last version of the legislation, according to a lobbyist with a Republican background who worked on the issue, and said Thompson had the ability to become a successful K Streeter.

"He gets into the weeds of an issue," the lobbyist said, adding that lawmakers' doors opened easily for Thompson, though not necessarily because he was a former colleague. "He's well-received on the Hill in no small part because of his Hollywood status. People like to mingle with him."

Thompson appears to have earned less money lobbying before serving in the Senate. But it's difficult to trace lobbying work done before 1995; before then, Congress did not require lobbyists to report how much clients paid them, and records are not easily searchable by lobbyists' names.

Thompson did file papers with the Justice Department to represent Haitian President Aristide in October 1991, two weeks after Aristide was overthrown. The filing lists Thompson as a member of the Washington-based law firm Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn and says he intended to lobby Congress, the State Department and the White House "in order to obtain the restoration of the democratically elected government of the Republic of Haiti."

Corallo had a different take, asserting Thompson "didn't file papers to represent President Aristide. He filed papers to discuss the Haitian embargo." And Corallo said Thompson was not paid for his Haiti work, which consisted of a single telephone call to then-White House Chief of Staff John Sununu.

"That's the only thing he ever did on that. So that's that," Corallo said, adding that Thompson is no longer associated with Arent Fox or any other law or lobbying firm.

From 1975 to 1993, Thompson was paid $507,000 lobbying for six clients, according to a 1994 article in the Memphis Commercial Appeal.

The newspaper reported that Thompson's campaign provided information showing Thompson received payments from Westinghouse, two Canadian-owned cable companies, the Tennessee Savings and Loan League, a Teamster's pension fund and a Baltimore-based coalition of businesses seeking federal grants.

Corallo said Thompson's camp assumes the Commercial Appeal report is accurate. But he declined to provide The Politico with information on lobbying payments to Thompson.

"It being so far back, that's an awful undue pressure, burden for the senator to have to go dragging back through records," Corallo said.

During the 1994 campaign, Cooper said Thompson lobbied for legislation that caused the collapse of the savings and loan industry and against a bill that would have limited foreign involvement in the U.S. cable industry.

Thompson's camp shrugged off those criticisms, according to press reports at the time, which quoted his aides as saying he had worked on earlier savings and loans legislation that was rolled into the controversial 1982 legislation and had pushed for more competition in cable.

If Thompson declares for president, his opponents would be ill-advised to rehash Cooper's 1994 strategy, Corallo said.

"I really can't see any of the candidates wasting their time attacking him for doing things that were perfectly legal, honorable, ethical and public," Corallo said. "It's just not a big deal."

Hill Ties Reap Rewards For Top Defense Firms

The Hill reports:

Letitia White, former defense appropriations staff member for Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), is known on the Hill and in industry circles as the golden girl of earmarks.

It is those earmarks and the hefty price paid for them — in campaign contributions and lobbying fees — that have spurred federal investigators to look into the connection between White, now a partner at the firm of Copeland Lowery Jacquez Denton & White; Jeff Shockey, a former lobbyist at the firm and one of Lewis’s top committee staff members; and Lewis, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.

Former Rep. Bill Lowery (R-Calif.), Lewis’s longtime friend, is also a founding partner of Copeland Lowery.

The probe, which grew out of the investigation into former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-Calif.) that led to his resignation from Congress and his imprisonment, has prompted increased scrutiny of the defense-contracting business.

But the defense-contracting lobbying business has been a lucrative part of the K Street community for years, lawfully helping sell defense industry products to Capitol Hill and the Pentagon.

While Copeland Lowery targeted all appropriations bills, not just defense, there are several lobby shops that specialize almost solely in defense. They provide what Washington insiders argue is a necessary service.

Here is a look at the top defense-contracting lobbying firms and their connections to Congress and the Pentagon:

THE PMA GROUP

In 2006 alone, the PMA Group accounted for at least 60 earmarks in the conference report of the defense spending bill, according to data compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog organization tracking earmarks in bills. That amounted to roughly $95.1 million, according to an analysis of that data.

Determining exactly how many earmarks a certain firm has secured is difficult because that information is not publicly available and defense companies often hire several lobbying firms to represent them.

Paul Magliocchetti, a nine-year veteran of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, is the founder of the PMA Group. Out of its team of 35 lobbyists, at least 30 have worked on Capitol Hill, in the Pentagon or both.

One member of the team, Richard Kaelin, was the chief of staff to longtime House Appropriations Committee member Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-Ind.).

Kaelin also served as the lawmaker’s appropriations director, focusing on national security, energy and water development. That position “allowed him to develop keen negotiating skills essential to protecting multimillion-dollar projects and programs of national significance,” according to his company bio.

Another, Melissa Koloszar, was chief of staff to Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), also a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. For five years Koloszar also served as Moran’s legislative director. As an associate staff member on the Appropriations Committee, she was the primary contact to the defense subcommittee.

And if Moran ever becomes a chairman of a spending panel, PMA could be in luck. The lawmaker said Tuesday that if he were a chairman of a spending panel he would “earmark the [expletive] out of it.”

PMA’s Dan Cunningham has a close relationship with subcommittee ranking member Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), according to K Street sources.

Cunningham also served as the director and deputy director for the Army’s congressional liaison team. He directed the legislative strategy for presenting the Army’s budget for military pay, operations and maintenance, military construction, acquisition, and research and development, according to his bio.

PMA is also a heavyweight when it comes to political contributions.

For the 2006 cycle alone, PMA’s PAC doled out more than $250,000 to federal candidates. Since 2000, the PAC contributed close to $1 million to members of the House and the Senate, focusing on GOP and Democratic members of the authorization and appropriations committees.

With its 139 clients, the firm ranked as No. 10, with revenue of $7.8 million in 2005, on a list of the most profitable lobbying firms compiled by PoliticalMoneyLine.

ADI

American Defense International (ADI), with 105 clients, mostly defense and technology, was able to secure at least 32 earmarks for its clients in the 2006 defense spending bill, according to data compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense.

ADI also has attracted an all-star cast. The chairman, Van Hipp Jr., headed the South Carolina Republican Party in 1988. He was deputy assistant secretary of the Army for reserve forces and mobilization and was appointed by then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney as the principal deputy general counsel of the Navy.

John Barth, meanwhile, was chosen to serve as the secretary of the Navy’s personal liaison to the House and Senate Appropriations committees for all Marine Corps matters.

Michael Khatchadurian served on the House Armed Services Committee, was military legislative assistant for Reps. Jim Ryun (R-Kan.) and Ander Crenshaw (R-Fla.), who was then a member of the House Armed Services Committee and is now a member of the Appropriations Committee. After leaving Congress, he worked in the public-affairs office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Former House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ron Dellums (D-Calif.) serves as ADI’s senior national-security adviser.

ADI’s president, Michael Herson, also has experience at the Pentagon. During Cheney’s tenure there, Herson was the special assistant to the assistant secretary of defense for force management and personnel. After that, Herson joined the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution as a visiting fellow for national-security affairs.

“It is important to be a good practitioner with what you do,” Herson said. “You have to have a story to tell, have all the forms filled out and all the material that the staff needs. It is more about relationships, and you can establish those by being well-prepared and having a good story to tell.”

Several media reports have noted that Herson is married to a legislative assistant to Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.). She works part time for Specter and does not handle appropriations matters.

It has also been reported that ADI does not take clients into Specter’s office.

ADI’s total earmarks for the 2006 Pentagon budget amount to at least $81 million.

ADI employees also donate mightily to the political process. For the 2002, 2004 and 2006 cycles, they contributed a total of $284,000.

ADI was ranks No. 29 with revenue of $3.9 million in PoliticalMoneyLine’s list of top lobbying firms.

COPELAND LOWERY AND OTHERS

Meanwhile, Letitia White’s firm, Copeland Lowery, with its 105 clients, ranks No. 32 with revenue of $3.7 million.

While PMA, ADI and Copeland Lowery have a large number of defense clients, other smaller, well-connected and successful shops that focus almost exclusively on defense issues are also major players.

One of them is Robison International, which is run by retired Maj. Gen. Randall West. Robison International is a steady contributor to Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.)

Ervin Technical Associates is yet another powerful force in the defense lobbying world. Founding partner Jim Ervin’s experience includes program management and international sales with the Air Force. He also served as a congressional liaison.

Cheney's Halliburton Won $3.8 Billion In Contracts From Government

The Guardian reports:

The oil services company once headed by United States Vice-President Dick Cheney reaped massive rewards in government contracts and bank loans after he took its helm, including one deal with a Russian firm under investigation for mafia connections.

This was disclosed as President George Bush renewed his efforts to stabilise stock markets and distance himself from the wave of accounting scandals afflicting corporate America. Yesterday, Bush urged Congress to punish corporate abuses.

From 1995 to 2000 Cheney was chief executive and chairman of Halliburton, the Dallas-based company that provides products and services to the oil and energy industries, employing 100,000 people worldwide.

Its share value has fallen by two-thirds because of lawsuits over asbestos poisoning and an investigation of accounting changes introduced under Cheney.

Most of Halliburton's government contracts were won by its construction subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown and Root - a company with British origins that was sold to the US parent in the 1970s.

Documents uncovered by a Washington researcher, Knut Royce - formerly with the Centre for Public Integrity - and by The Observer show that government banks loaned or insured loans worth $1.5 billion during the five years that Cheney was chief executive, compared with only $100 million during the previous five years.

The company under Cheney benefited from $3.8bn in government contracts or insured loans. Although Bill Clinton was in the White House, Capitol Hill - where the Appropriations Committee handles government contracts - was controlled by Cheney's Republican Party, to which Halliburton doubled its contributions to $1,212,000 after his arrival.

The most eye-catching contract was for the refurbishment of a Siberian oilfield, Samotlor, for the Tyumen oil company of Russia. The company was loaned $489m in credits by the US Export-Import Bank after lobbying by Halliburton; it was in return to receive $292m for the refurbishments.

The White House and State Department tried to veto the Russian deal. But after intense lobbying by Halliburton the objections were overruled on Capitol Hill. One of Halliburton's top lobbyists was David Gribben, who had been Cheney's chief of staff at the Pentagon.

The State Department's concerns were based on the fact that Tyumen was controlled by a holding conglomerate, the Alfa Group, that had been investigated in Russia for mafia connections.

Alfa strongly denies that it has ever had any criminal connection, describing the allegations as 'nonsense'.

Cheney was highly valued by Halliburton because of connections made in the Arab oil-producing states while Defence Secretary during the war against Iraq under George Bush Snr.

Halliburton denies that Cheney used his position or contacts to win government business. A spokeswoman said: 'Any innuendo that Halliburton or Dick Cheney has acted improperly is false.'

The company's fortunes have flourished during the 'war on terrorism'. It has landed contracts to build the cells for al-Qaeda detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

A Securities and Exchange Commission investigation is under way into accounting changes introduced by Halliburton in 1998, when it inflated its revenue figures by including uncollected debts.