When is an influence peddler not a lobbyist?

Recently, the Texas Ethics Commission (TEC) unanimously agreed to fine Michael Quinn Sullivan $10,000 for failing to file as a lobbyist. You can read a Texas Tribune story about it (“Ethics Commission Slaps Conservative Activist With Fine“) or read the original TEC order (pdf). The debate has drifted over to press relations as legislators try to decide who should be counted as media in the Texas Capitol (“Analysis: A Conundrum for Texas Capitol Gatekeepers‘).

Sullivan heads Empower Texans. It is widely recognize that Empower Texans has become one of the most influential organizations in the state and Sullivan was paid well over $100,000 a year to head the organization. The law specifics requires you to register as a lobbyist if you get paid to communicate directly with legislators in an attempt to influence legislation. Part of Sullivan’s defense is that he merits an exemption from the registration requirement because he is “media.” Some of that argument is spelled out in a Empower Texans statement (“Why Every Journalist Should Care About the Michael Quinn Sullivan Case“). The argument seems very weak to me and I’m not surprised that they lost on a unanimous vote.

Empower Texans has attacked the TEC process (as spelled out by spokesman Joe Nixon) and the TEC certainly merits scrutiny. However, it’s worth pointing out the TEC is not some liberal bureaucracy. Four of the commissioners were appointed by Governor Perry, two by the Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst, and two by Speaker Joe Straus. That group seems unlikely to form the kind of malicious kangaroo court described by Sullivan’s defenders.

Sullivan has become living proof that the hubris so common in Austin and Washington is not limited to those in office. It’s unfortunate that a group committed to transparency in government would spend so much time and money undermining transparency in the massive lobbying industry. Anyone who has read the vague spending reports filed with the TEC (lobbyists don’t report precise payment, they report a range of contract costs), seen the massive amount given to candidates, and obscene amounts spent on feeding legislators and staff would have trouble believing that restrictions in Texas are too tight. Over 1,000 lobbyists register every legislative session (1,663 managed to do so in 2013). It’s clearly not a burden that unreasonable.

Empower Texans donors can look forward to seeing their contributions go to an expensive bank of lawyers attempting to squeeze Sullivan through loopholes in the law. That doesn’t seem like a fiscally responsible thing to do.

How Washington Ruined Governors

National Journal has a long analysis on how state politicians are getting themselves tangled up in national politics (“How Washington Ruined Governors“).

It seem clear that there are many governors who would rather play on the national stage than do serious work at home. Traditionally, America has seen the political ambitions of our governors motivate them to make their leadership within the state as a proving ground for the presidency. They used their time in the state house to demonstrate that they could produce the best education, roads, etc.  Today, its seems that governors are simply trying to be the most liberal/conservative. George W. Bush ran for the presidency bragging about Texas schools and touting his ability to work with members of both parties. You don’t hear much of that these days.

The preferred path of many governors seems to be very different today and the states have suffered in this process. Too many governors would rather battle over federal issues than pursue reforms at home. After all, it’s easier to complain about the federal government than to fix your own.

Today’s partisan battle lines often have little to do with the concerns of most voters. Too many politicians want to spend their time taking rigid about ineffective border walls and dramatic wars on drugs while most voters hold more nuanced views about the world they live in. Organized interests are diving much of the public debate. These organized interests thrive on the divisive, misleading language of fundraising letters designed to scare people into coughing up money for ads designed to scare even more people (while much of the money actually goes to the care and feeding of group leaders and political consultants). Whether it’s the National Rifle Association stirring up fears that the government will take away the rifles of hunters or the left’s claims of efforts to deliberately starve seniors, the debate is both contrived and counterproductive. There was a time when state leaders would calm the waters and help find solutions. There seems less interest in that today because the business of compromise and coalition building just doesn’t appeal to fringe groups.

Here’s a quick video overview of the story:

Homeowners associations without those pesky homeowners

A story in the Forth Worth Star Telegram (“Keller homeowners say they’ve been shut out of association despite new state law“) is reporting how area homeowners associations have effectively barred residents from board meetings. That is, homeowners associations in Texas don’t have to associate with homeowners.

How can this happen in an era in which the Texas legislature claims to be committed to individual property rights? According to the story, several lawmakers were surprised to see this happen under the law. I understand that there will be oversights in the legislative process. However, you can’t help but notice that these oversights almost always benefit special interests with lobbyists.

This appears to be a good example of the kind of influence that organized interests in Texas enjoy. An issue pops up that angers millions of Texans (for a little background, check out a previous blog entry on what homeowners associations have been up to). The legislatures spring into action and addresses the issue. However, somewhere in the process a well-funded interest group gets their lobbyist to make a couple of little changes that protect their clients.

This how special interests win in the legislative process. They pay much closer attention to the details than the rest of us.

Legislators have either played a shell game with voters or are ignorant of the consequences of those little changes in wording that they let slip into the law. Whatever the case, legislators did not get the job done.

If the legislature insists on perpetuating this kind of arrangement they should change the legal term for associations whose boards are controlled by developers to “Corporate Kingdoms.” This would make clear that homeowners they are actually signing away some of their rights to self-government. The state places signs that tell us where our speed on the highway is limited. The least they could do is put up warnings for citizens entering areas where their rights are limited.

How much does lobbying matter?

Politico is reporting (“K Street: ‘Let’s meet’; Hill staffers: ‘Text me‘”) the highlights of an in-depth study of lobbying practices and how they are received on the Hill. The report compiled input from over 2,200 lobbyists and 700 Congressional staffers. The study sounds really interesting but costs $597, a price that only a lobbyist could love.

One interesting finding is that more than one in five congressional staffers said lobbyists have little or no influence at all and less than two in five agreed with the idea (held by four out of five lobbyists) to be very influential. Congressional staffer may not want to admit how often they are influenced and lobbyists are inclined to overestimate their importance.

Where to congressional staffers turn for information? In the study, 30 percent of Democrats and 25 percent of Republicans consult lobbyists when researching public policy issues and 30 percent of Republicans and 25 percent of Democrats almost always consult constituents. It may seem alarming to see congress turning to lobbyists for advice. However, congressional votes turn on relatively technical issues that constituents. Further, as the graph below suggests, staffers are most likely to turn to those lobbyists who have given them accurate information in the past.

Members of congress know their constituents and a conservative member is not going to rely on the advice of a liberal lobbyist in making decisions. A lobbyist serving as a source of information does not mean that they are a source of influence.

I spent time with lobbyists researching a book on White House relations with Congress since almost everyone who works as a lobbyist for the White House goes on to make big bucks as a lobbyist for the private sector. I learned that there are two types of lobbyists when it comes to access to key decision makers: the haves and the have-nots. The have-nots sit in the waiting room with other unimportant people (me), hoping to get a few minutes with the member of Congress or  a staffers. Members of Congress stop to chat with the haves. I had a senator stop by to chat while I was interviewing a lobbyist in one of the areas behind the Senate chamber.  On another occasion, I was interviewing on lobbyist in his office when the chair of a House committee called the lobbyists. I have always suspected that lobbyists on average have almost no influence but that a handful of lobbyists have the connection and credibility to have some real influence.

Another key to understanding the influence of lobbyists is that they have the most influence when we’re paying the least attention. Most of these lobbyists are talking to legislators about issue most of us haven’t thought about. Even if they don’t have much influence on what we consider important issues, they may have a huge impact on the issues of interest to the organized interests they represent. Tax loopholes come from someplace.

So, the question of how much influence lobbyists have is complicated and we need to understand how they work in order to judge how effective they are.

PETA’s greatest hits

Pound for pound, no organized interest is better at gaining attention that PETA  (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). Their base of support seems to include a disproportionate number of models, and they put that to use. While I disagree with much of their agenda, they are very successful at getting it across.

KIROTV has put together a kind of greatest hits of PETA’s protests (“PETA’s most outrageous protests“). You have to admit that their “KFC tortures chics” protest is memorable.

Why organized interests succeed

The “Big Rich” in Texas politics

The role of big donors was back on display this week as the Koch brothers hosted one of their semi-annual gatherings. Billionaires Charles and David Koch have been hosting meetings that bring together some of the biggest conservative donors in the country with some of the nation’s leading conservative politicians. This year the event is drawing the state’s attention because Rick Perry is attending.

I thought the meeting was especially interesting because I have been reading Bryan Burrough’s The Big Rich: The rise and fall of the greatest Texas oil fortunes. Part of what he documents is how the men who made billions off oil translated that into political power.

Perry’s staff and others have been defending the meetings saying that it’s completely legal and that both sides have similar meetings. That is true.

That does not keep me from worrying.

Here are the problems.

1. The argument that “both sides” have these kinds of meetings does not mean that all sides do. Also, maybe a billionaire is not a typical liberal/conservative.
2. These wealthy donors have interests that go beyond broad ideological concerns. The access they gain through their donations is used to seek very specific business or personal favors.
3. Saying that something is not a violation of current campaign finance laws should lead you to ask as many questions about the law as the activity. The fact that what powerful political interests want to do is permitted may result more from the exercise of power in the past than the morality of what they are doing now. There is a difference between what is right and what is permitted by law.

Those of you that have some billionaires somewhere in America interested in you cause are finding a voice through meeting like this. The rest of us…

A few facts about higher education

Recently, the Houston Chronicle ran an opinion piece by Ronald Trowbridge. Trowbridge is a senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) and the article appeared first on their web site. I wish that the people who gave Trowbridge the title of “Senior Fellow” at the TPPF had done a little research before sending out his article.

Let me highlight are a few the mistakes that Dr. Trowbridge allows to taint the work of faculty throughout the state.

First, he claims that “many of Texas’ professors today teach only two classes per semester” and that their salaries “run in the vicinity of $100,000 for two semesters.  Do “many” faculty have this kind of teaching load and salary? Yes. However, most do not. Dr. Trowbridge has chosen to talk about the highest-ranked, highest paid faculty at a few of our most elite research institutions and imply that they’re typical. They are not. So, the savings he proposes by boosting faculty teaching loads are much smaller than he would like readers to believe.

Trowbridge dodges the issue of whether or not those salaries are deserved. Yes, full professors (those with decades of experience and a record of success) at the state’s top PhD granting institutions average over $100,000 a year. However, if you have years of success teaching the highest level courses offered on the planet (people from around the world flocking to America’s graduate programs), you probably deserve such salaries. There are Nobel Prize winners making a fraction of the minimum salary in major league baseball.  If Dr. Trowbridge feels brave about taking on the most excessive salaries at UT and A&M, let him start at the top and take on the football coaches. After all, C.S. Lewis did say that, “Courage is the most difficult virtue because it is the testing point of all virtues.”

Trowbridge also forgets the value lowering teaching loads to encourage research. Perhaps Dr. Trowbridge felt his own research was of little value to society. However, the state’s leaders have always realized how much the research coming from our universities contributes to advances in science, medicine, and economic development.

Texas needs to consider the competitive position of our universities as they compete with private schools and private companies. Many faculty labor for salaries that their students wouldn’t accept as a starting salary. I think it’s reasonable that the  faculty training students seeking an MBA make a salary competitive with what a new MBA makes.

If Trowbridge actually valued a heavy teaching load, he would have at least mentioned the faculty that had a heavy teaching load. Instead, he attacked the relatively few who have low teaching loads. Many faculty at the state’s two and four-year schools have exactly the teaching loads Trowbridge suggest. Unfortunately, he prefers to pretend that faculty with high teaching loads don’t exist. He probably chose to ignore us because he knew that making the more nuanced argument would be difficult and it would be easier to play to anger and anti-elitist resentment. The irony is that Trowbridge uses a broad brush to taint all faculty in part because of his elitist views. Those of us who teach more and are paid less are not worth his attention.

After complaining that too much of higher education’s budget is salaries and “lucrative fringe benefits” (Ask yourself if you ever met a faculty member who got a Christmas bonus) Trowbridge complains about  “the constant effort to refurbish and build new physical facilities.” I gather that Dr. Trowbridge hasn’t been on my campus lately. Like most schools, we have added significantly to our facilities. However, these additions were to meet the demands of students as we attempted to compete with other schools. Pinning the bill for facilities on faculty reveals a view dramatically out of touch with modern universities. His argument is not with the faculty, it is with the demands of our students.

Trowbridge also likes to parrot the myth that faculty “teach 30 weeks a year, with the other 22 weeks off.” Perhaps Trowbridge didn’t bother to put in time conducting the research needed to sustain his teaching or the scholarship required of university faculty in Texas. The demands of scholarship that drive promotions and pay raises keep most of us working all year. With a heavy teaching load and about 200 students a semester, there’s no much time for me to do research during the semester and I spend the time between semesters catching up (or, trying to).

Trowbridge is almost comical at moments. He complains that all these problems persist because “the academic establishment was like taking on a sleeping giant, armed with extraordinary speaking and writing abilities.” The notion that the political establishment trembles at the approach of a bunch of academics is silly. Politicians have been beating up on academics in “ivory towers” for decades.

Trowbridge and TPPF needed a strawman to attack. They want to insist that higher education is getting too much money. However, the state has been cutting back their share of higher education for years. Cuts to higher education will mean more increases in tuition that they don’t want to take responsibility for. Trowbridge is being paid to pit faculty against Texas families so that a few people in Austin can pretend that cutting state funding for higher education has no consequences.

You might notice that Trowbridge didn’t bother to provide any budget research. He did quote  Speaker Straus’s claim that “more than 60 percent of our state’s general revenue goes to public and higher education.” However, careful readers noticed that Straus was combining K-12 and higher education and using “general revenue” rather that total spending (a larger number). In fact, Legislative Budget Board’s Fiscal Size Up for 2010-2011 reveal that only 12.5% of the state’s budget (or 17% of “general revenue”) is for higher education. Anyone willing to read all the way to page 3 of the report can calculate those numbers. Why would someone rely on such broad categories when precise data was readily available (it took me less than five minutes and I’m not a “Senior Fellow” at a policy think tank)? Clearly, Trowbridge’s research doesn’t make the grade. His research certainly wouldn’t get a passing grade in my undergraduate classes.

It true that spending in higher education has increased over since the last budget. However, Trowbridge should note that Governor Perry was behind this increase with his goal of adding 500,000 new students to higher education. Perhaps, this is another faculty conspiracy implemented through Perry because he fears the power of the might faculty lobby in Austin.

Dr. Trowbridge has used  broad stereotypes and misleading data to create a seriously flawed picture of higher education in Texas. One lesson I’ve learned from his article is to be very careful trusting the research produced by special interest groups like TPPF.

Forgive my rant. I work hard. My colleagues work hard. I’m tired of politicians and special interests attacking my colleagues for political gain. It’s clear from the hateful comments on the Houston Chronicle’s web site that Trowbridge has succeeded in turning citizens against faculty. I’m sure he’s very proud. This may be the greatest accomplishment of his career. It was especially unfortunate that Trowbridge’s stab in the back appeared on a weekend when so many of my colleagues were putting in long hours trying to work through big piles of grading. The only thing worse than spending your weekend grading papers and exams is doing it as so many people criticize you for not working hard enough.

There are significant problems with higher education in Texas and it’s troubling that the TPPF’s “expert” appears oblivious to them. Refuting all the problems in Trowbridge’s article doesn’t allow time here to into those problem. However, it’s clear that his article has sent people on a snipe hunt that will distract Texans fixing what ails higher education in Texas.

Let’s hope that think tanks in Texas do a little more thinking in the future.

A friend of the pole tax

Law.com has reported Texas State Representative Ellen Cohen (D-Houston) has submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the state’s “pole tax” that would impose a $5 tax on admission to sexually oriented establishments that serve alcohol. Representative Cohen joined with the Texas Association Against Sexual Assault and the Texas Legal Services Center in writing the brief which asserts that there is a link between sexual violence and the combination of live nude dancing and alcohol. The Law.com story includes both a discussion of the case as well as links to several of the briefs filed in the case.

Miley Cyrus entertains fans who haven't paid the adult entertainment tax or met the two-drink minimum

As noted in an earlier post on “sin taxes,” this attempt to discourage “sexually oriented” business is complicated since so many popular entertainers routinely try to have the best of both worlds and cash in on sexuality while denying the adult-only label. There are lots of civil liberties arguments to bring into class about free expression. There are also interesting arguments about what the state should try to tax out of business and what should be left alone.

However, this is an especially good story to use to talk to students about organized interests’ use of amicus briefs.

An amicus brief is a written argument (brief)  given to the judge by someone who is not a party in the case. The term comes from the term amicus curiae or “friend of the court.” The premise behind the “friend of the court” label is that the brief is not filed by the friends of the plaintiff or defendant–the brief is filed to help the make the judge’s job easier. Judges may reject these briefs. However, once an amicus brief is accepted it becomes part of the official court record.

Organized interests often file amicus briefs because while they may not be directly involved in that particular case, the interests they represent will be impacted by the court’s decision. In Susan Combs, et al. v. Texas Entertainment Association, the Texas Association Against Sexual Assault is arguing on behalf of women who are not a directly involved in to the legal case but could be impacted if the tax is ruled unconstitutional.

While this particular amicus brief may not carry much weight in the court’s final decision, it illustrates the role of these brief pretty well.

The DMN on ending partisan judicial election

The Dallas Morning New recently chimed in on ending the election of judges in partisan elections. The chances of change are slim since no one is showing any real interest in amending the Constitution. Still, the editorial is food for thought about a serious problem. I’ve always found the election of judges a great way to get students to reflect on how they think about elections (especially how much they think about these elections) and what they expect from their judicial system. It’s also a good way to reflect on what we expect elections to accomplish.

The editorial focuses on good judges put in bad situations by partisan elections. That’s a great way to illustrate some of the problems with political campaigns that have little to do with fairly dispensing justice. However, I think there is even more to worry about and that the situation will only get worse.

Can Texas justice outgrow its tawdry image?

First, Texas voters seem to be about as blindly loyal to their party as any I’ve seen. Texans like to see themselves as politically independent, but I don’t see it in their voting behavior. Some Republicans did break rank and become part of the 18% of Texans that voted for Carole Keeton Strayhorn in 2006. And, I’m sure there were Democrats among the 12% of Texans who voted for “Kinky” Friedman. However, there’s very little variation in most races. Republican percentages in statewide races with Democratic challengers ranged from the 51% Don Willett received in his Supreme Court race to 61.5% forKay Bailey Hutchison in her reelection to the US Senate. Justice Willett had squeaked through the Republican primary .

That 10% range between the strongest and weakest Republican makes me think that relatively few Texas partisans will consider voting for someone other than a member of their party. Texas need more independent voters ready to help the state clean house when it means a judge of their party needs to go.

Second, it gets nutty inside Texas parties. When so few Texans vote in the primaries you have to ask who is going into the voting booth during primaries. The people I see playing leading roles in Texas parties are very ideological (to put it politely). They may be good at putting together angry attacks on other parties, but that doesn’t mean they’re of a mind to pick a fair and thoughtful judge.

Just over 600,00 Texans voted in the Republican primaries in 2006. About 500,00 voted in the Democratic primary. When the slice of the electorates get that thin you have to worry that whatever got those voters to show up that day is going to make them vote differently than those Texans who stayed home.

So, it’s not bad enough that we have partisan judges. We’re going to have very partisan judges.

Now think about what it would take to break out of the partisanship of Texas voters and go beyond the narrow and intense partisanship of so many primary voters: money–lots and lots of money. Personally, I’ve got doubts about any hope premised on asking people to become impartial judges by taking large sums of money from others. The only way for judicial candidates to make themselves visible enough to break through party-line voting in Texas is to raise a lot of money. And, since most Texans don’t contribute to judicial races you can bet that the people giving money have some particular interests. So we go from narrow partisan voting to narrow special interest funding.

The bottom line is that a system of elected judge may have made sense at some time. However, the state of parties in Texas is pushing justice out of the state’s judicial system. Today, judicial candidates must pander to a narrow set of primary voters and/or a special interests looking for a return on their investment. The choice between extreme partisanship or conflict of interest doesn’t leave Texas judges with any good decisions.