Will Citizens United Bill Gain Traction?
By Bara Vaida - Staff Correspondent, National Journal

A bipartisan group of lawmakers, Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del., Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. and Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md. are expected this week to unveil a bill, called the DISCLOSE Act, to respond to the Supreme Court's January ruling in Citizens United vs the FEC. The Court struck down decades-old limits on corporate and union spending in elections.

While some polls have shown the public is deeply opposed to the ruling, Castle is the only Republican who has joined with Democrats on the legislation, which would beef up campaign disclosures and impose new limits on political involvement in elections by government contractors and foreign governments. Does the bill have a chance of going anywhere in Congress? If it passed, what would the impact be on elections? Would it provide the necessary transparency for voters to know who is backing candidates in elections, or would chill free speech?
 

Kagan Plus Citizens United = Disclosure
By Bob Maloney - Principal, Maloney Government Relations, LLC

As we know, the DISCLOSE ACT is an effort to provide transparency and to stifle the controversial Citizens United decision. Remember, this was the opinion, which President Obama called out the Supreme Court on during the State of the Union Address. Several members of Congress, lead by my law school classmate Chuck Schumer, have introduced the DISCLOSE Act. This legislation was bound to stir up debate, but probably would have not moved too quickly if at all. This could change.

The American voters are starting to speak and they're not too happy with either party. Just last week Utah's Senator Bob Bennett lost. Senator Specter is in real trouble in Pennsylvania. In the following weeks, there could be discontent from the voters in Oregon, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Hawaii. These electoral outcomes could be far more impactful in passing the DISCLOSE Act than the actual substance of the legislation.

And then there is the Kagan factor. There is no judicial record to evaluate Kagan with, regarding her qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice. Now make no mistake, as the first woman Dean of Harvard Law School she is a brilliant scholar and role model, but she was not a judge.

However, she did argue before the Supreme Court as Solicitor General and she argued Citizens United. In part, the renewed interest in Citizens United will come from just how central this case is to her winning confirmation. These hearings must delve into the intricacies of this case because Kagan made some very intriguing arguments in this decision. When the dust settles, Kagan will be confirmed and Citizens United will remain under a critical lens.
 

What Influence Will Economy Have On The 2010 Election?
By Bara Vaida - Staff Correspondent, National Journal

I think the economy will likely be the key decider in the November elections. Unemployment remains stuck at 9.7 percent and even President Obama's economic advisers don't expect major improvement by November. Democrats will likely lose House and Senate seats, but expect to retain control of both chambers, while Republicans believe they can defeat enough Democrats to create divided government in 2011.

Yet, the economy is growing and adding jobs, albeit slowly, as the March employment numbers showed late last week.

Because many of you on K Street and in the advocacy world are able to detect the early signs of recovery and job creation, I thought I'd ask you where you are seeing some of those green shoots this spring and what it might mean for the election.

In which segments of the U.S. economy are you seeing expansion? Is economic growth occurring in certain business sectors and specific parts of the country that could prove important in the midterm elections?

In places where growth and recovery are discernible, do you believe Democrats will get the credit or not? By November do you think voters will feel significantly better about their job prospects?

What's your biggest worry about this recovery after the Great Recession?
 

Control The Message Win The Votes
By Bob Maloney - Principal, Maloney Government Relations, LLC

Sustained jobs growth, deficit reduction, an upward trend in the economy, and the surge in the stock market, should influence the midterms. But don't expect credit to go to the Democrats. While 162,000 jobs were created in March, most economists agree that it will take at least 150,000 jobs a month to keep up with population growth.

Assuming a positive jobs creation trend continues until the midterms, the party that creates these jobs should be rewarded by the voters with another term. You'd think? Well, which party receives credit will be determined by who controls the jobs message.

Recently, a major think tank reported that nationally 91% of the 257 talk radio stations devote nearly 2,600 hours a day to conservative points of view, as opposed to the 9% of liberal stations, who are on air for only 260 hours a day. Bear in mind that 98% of all Americans listen to some form of radio at least once a day.

Now some of these voices may be reasonable, but they do not attract attention. Attention goes to those who overstate and obsure the facts. Too often, their "opinions" are not factually based. These messages are mirrored by the cable stations and played over and over again. This is the reality that the American voters hear and see.

If Democrats hope to receive credit for jobs creation, it won't be from this source. It will take legions of Administration officials, the Congress and the President in a 24/7 media blitz from now until November, to get credit for jobs creation and a shot at re-election.
 

How Will Health Care Vote Change Washington?
By Bara Vaida - Staff Correspondent, National Journal

Now that the House has passed health care reform, how do you think Washington will change? What does it mean for the interest groups that fought the legislation and what does it mean for those who supported it?

What does it mean for President Obama and for the 2010 election?

Will there be more bipartisanship, less bipartisanship for the rest of the year? One lobbyist told me the Senate would shut down if reconciliation was used to move health care reform, will that happen? Will anything else pass Congress this year?
 

Civility First--Bipartisanship Next?
By Bob Maloney - Principal, Maloney Government Relations, LLC

In last week's "Political Insiders Poll", I anonymously predicted that healthcare legislation had a 100% probability of passing--honest. In earlier blogs, I urged the President to pass the Senate version and start using the power of the Executive Order. Now, if only I could get my kids to listen to me!

While the healthcare bill is a once in a hundred year accomplishment, it will not bring bipartisanship to Washington. Remember no Republicans voted for "Obamacare", while 34 Democrats, mostly from states where McCain won, opposed it. Now, don't expect the Senate to self-destruct over Reconciliation, but do expect Republicans to fight back. To get the Presidency back, to win in 2010, they need to look like winners, not whiners. As General Patton said ,"Attack" to win. Attack by supporting job creation and reg reform.

Attack by restoring America's faith in our political process--the greatest on earth. Repudiate those who disgraced our system of government by shouting epithets at a true American icon and hero Rep. John Lewis (as well as the Speaker, Majority Leader, Whip and Chairman of the Financial Services Committee). After civility first, bipartisanship may have an opportunity to come next.
 

Will We See More Bipartisan Action?
By Bara Vaida - Staff Correspondent, National Journal

A Democratic lobbyist was lamenting to me the other day that it's been increasingly difficult to knit together bipartisan support on issues important to his clients, so I thought a bipartisan question would be in order given the events of this week.

This week, the Senate passed a jobs stimulus bill -- its first piece of significant bipartisan legislation in quite awhile; this week, President Obama is holding a bipartisan meeting on health care reform. Will this bipartisanship continue? Has the log jam been broken? Do Democrats and Republicans really want bipartisanship?

How has the growth in the intensity of partisanship in D.C. been affecting the profession?
 

The Congress of the Filibuster
By Bob Maloney - Principal, Maloney Government Relations, LLC

We all know that the flagrant misuse of the filibuster has not promoted bipartisanship. Look at history. In the 1960's, the filibuster was used less than 8% of the time to oppose legislation. In this Congress, the filibuster has been utilized a staggering 80% of the time. Perhaps this is one reason why over 290 bills passed by the House have stalled in the Senate.

So it's great that a baker's dozen of Republicans voted for the jobs bill, however, one vote does not make this Congress bipartisan. And while much has been made of Senator Brown's support for the jobs bill, don't forget that the labor unions supported him big time and unions like jobs.

Who's at fault? In recent New York Times/CBS polls, Americans by a ratio of 2 to 1 say President Obama is trying to work with Republicans, while 2 to 1 say Republicans are not reciprocating.

While deveining the duration of bipartisanship is great copy for political commentators, and bloggers, don't bet the farm on this predicting. As long as Democrats are in control and things get done, Republicans lose and Democrats win. Isn't that what the commentator, who said, "I hope this President fails", meant?

Expect Democrats to call for more and more votes to test bipartisanship. Who knows, while climate change and healthcare won't escape the partisan lens, more jobs and reg reform just might garner support from both sides of the aisle.

The bottom line is that just saying "no" will be seen for what it is--stonewalling. Republicans need to look to what they can support and take
credit. Democrats need to keep the votes coming. Public sentiment demands getting things done and expunging what has become the Congress of the filibuster.
 

Obama Vs Lobbyists At The State Of The Union
By Bara Vaida - Staff Correspondent, National Journal

President Obama laid out some more restrictions on lobbyists during his State of The Union address Wednesday evening. He said lobbyists should be required to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with Congress and the administration and they should face new limitations on campaign contributions to federal candidates.

What do you think of these latest rules? Will they reduce the influence of "special interests" and "powerful interests?" As a journalist, I love the idea of more transparency, but are these ideas workable? As to the issue of campaign finance, many lobbyists have told me over the years, they'd be happy to give up fundraising, but can lobbyists be singled out to be limited or banned from contributions? Won't that run into Constitutional problems?
 

Obama's Got His Mojo Back
By Bob Maloney - Principal, Maloney Government Relations, LLC

A while back, President Obama joked that some had felt he'd lost his "mojo." Now I've never been quite sure what a mojo is, but I'm told it reminds you of George W's, "Texas swagger." Well whatever a mojo is, it's back!

On Tuesday night, President Obama didn't just give his typically brilliant "come from behind speech", but he "felt" the middle class' pain. Like them, he's mad with the banks and knows Americans demand jobs. As a solution, Obama outlined an aggressive plan to help small businesses, not raise taxes, put the other deficit back on Bush, and even bring the troops back from Iraq in August.

Finally, he told Republicans that saying "no" is not governing, and to Democrats, who make up the majority, that they need to get things done. He was very credible. You have to like the, "I don't quit." All Americans can unite around this call.

Also, President Obama said two significant things. First, and this really is a first, he dressed down the Supreme Court over their recent decision in Citizens United--never seen that in a State of the Union Address before. Second, his insistence that Congress impose the requirement that
lobbyists disclose their Congressional contacts, on behalf of clients, is chilling to the business of lobbying. This has been done before in some
corporations on a volunteer basis. It's a record-keeping nightmare.

Moreover, very few on Capitol Hill will speak to you because they don't wish to be named somewhere in a report. The only people, who benefit, are those legions of workers needed to keep all the records. Somehow, I don't think that's the jobs creation initiative the President so eloquently articulated in the State of the Union Address.
 

What Should Obama And Democrats Do Now?
By Bara Vaida - Staff Correspondent, National Journal

Given the outcome of the Massachusetts Senate race Tuesday night, what strategy do you think President Obama and congressional Democrats should now pursue to get their agenda through Congress?

Should they abandon the health care bill? Or move left or right on policy issues?

What strategy should Republicans pursue?
 

Democrats Relax
By Bob Maloney - Principal, Maloney Government Relations, LLC
January 21, 2010

The Massachusetts Senatorial election reminds me of the football player, who catches this picture perfect pass, dances in the end zone, thinking he scored a touchdown only to find he missed the goal line. To make matters worst the vigilant defender, recovers the ball and runs 100 yards to win the game for his team.

There was no entitlement to the Kennedy held seat. You needed to listen to the voters on healthcare and not think standing in the cold to shake the hands of hockey fans was a waste of time. Also, anytime your opponent has 93,000 friends on Facebook and you have 14,000 you are not connecting with an important electoral demographic. Enough about Massachusetts and sports analogies, Democrats relax.

Here's what our President should do: take the State of the Union to unite our country and bridge the partisan divide. Point to legislative wins for America. Focus on job creation, reduced deficit and national security. Cover the 30,000,000 people with healthcare--even if you must pass the Senate bill without changes.

Going forward make your Cabinet more visible. The President should not have to provide every detail on every piece of legislation. Look closely on what the President can do through Executive Orders to create jobs.

Republicans should continue to say "no" and emphasize that this President is out of touch. Continue to remind America that Democrats are in charge of everything and are making policies that are bad for America. Specifically on healthcare, if health insurance passes blame the Democrats. If it doesn't pass remind voters that, but for, Massachusetts the Democrats would have supported it.
 

Should The Definition Of Lobbying Be Expanded?
By Bara Vaida - Staff Correspondent, National Journal

Should the definition of lobbying include other areas of the influence industry including grassroots lobbying and public relations work? Should the threshold for registering to lobby drop below 20 percent - for example, if a person spends 10 percent of his or her time lobbying, should they be required to register?

Given the outcry I have heard from many in the advocacy and lobbying community that President Obama's lobbying rules are more symbolic than substantive, what do you think would result in real reform? Expanding the definition of lobbying?

Currently a person falls under the legal definition of a lobbyist based on several criteria including whether or not that person spends more than 20 percent of his or her time lobbying and makes more than one contact with a "covered" official during a quarter. Grassroots and public relations work are currently exempted from that definition.
 

Obama Lobbying Restrictions Working
By Bob Maloney - Principal, Maloney Government Relations, LLC

Expanding the definition of lobbying and broadening it to include, among other things, grassroots--are you nuts! The Obama Administration's restrictions are working. The only exception is if you are perceived to have an in. A funny thing about restrictions is that even they can erode "perceptions." There are exceptions. Take the name Podesta. It's a brand name which signifies access and success.

However when you hear the name Podesta the perception is that you're hiring the guy who worked in the Clinton White House and headed the Obama Transition Team. That's not, the case. You're hiring the other Podestas, who by the way are real good. Unfortunately, for the rest of the lobbying world perceptions are not on our side and these regulations are working. To bolster this premise the Congressional Research Service has just released a report, which says they are working.

Lobbyists are keeping away from Administration officials and to no one's surprise these officials are happy not to be bothered. Of course to say differently would suggest that said officials are not complying with the President's Executive Order.

While, the report is inconclusive as it pertains to the recruitment and retention of government employees or the barring of registered lobbyists from serving in the Executive Branch, the lobbying profession feels the chill. Don't expand the definition.
 

Obama And The Lobbyists
By Bara Vaida - Staff Correspondent, National Journal

President Obama wants to reduce the influence of "special interests" in public policy. To that end, he signed an executive order limiting the ability of registered lobbyists to get jobs in the administration; he imposed new communications restrictions on lobbyists wanting to talk to executive branch officials on stimulus projects; and he banned lobbyists from serving on government advisory boards.

Have these actions reduced the influence of special interests in public policy? Has "lobbying" become a dirty word?
 

Obama Getting Incomplete Info
By Bob Maloney - Principal, Maloney Government Relations, LLC

The policies of the Obama Administration are not the only reason that "lobbying" has become a dirty word but the focus on lobbying regulation suggests that there is something corrupting in the profession. This comes from someone who has consistently supported (and still supports) Barack Obama.

However, unfortunately this negative perception of lobbying has become public policy. The result is that the flow of information is narrowed and all but eliminated. The question becomes what information is the Administration basing its decisions on? Dismissing or not even considering the views of the private sector, particularly when some of the most creative and motivated thinkers reside there, doesn't make sense.
 

Elections Will Be On Lobbyists Minds In 2010
By Bob Maloney - Principal, Maloney Government Relations, LLC

After nearly four decades in the lobbying business, I have come to believe that few things in the lobbying business are 100% certain, however, there is absolutely ONE exception. In 2010, what is absolutely certain is that each and every lobbyist and lobbying firm in Washington and beyond, must begin and end every Monday morning strategy meeting with... "how will we on behalf of our clients to Congress, demonstrate how what our clients want will significantly create and/or preserve jobs and improve the economy."

If the December 85,000 job loss and 10% unemployment rate continues, health care reform, financial services reform, and global warming reform are not legislative victories that translate into election day victories and keep Democratic majorities high in the House and Senate.

Historically, there is about a 20 seat loss in off year elections. However, what is currently helping Democrats is that: 14 Republicans are leaving on their own, Michael Steele and the Republican Party are far from a cohesive voice, and quite frankly the Republican's response to the Democratic agenda has been to say "no." Even in his most recent mixed message, Steele has said that "Republicans will not take over."

To seal the deal for Democrats, two things will have to happen. First, President Obama must fire somebody after the Christmas day national security fowl-up. It shows great leadership that the President said the "buck stopped with him", but after 25 years in corporate America, I recommend that he hold those who report to him responsible or the American people really will fire him. Second, either spend the remaining 80% of the stimulus money or pass a second stimulus bill. Of course, this will emerge as the top legislative priority for 2010.
 

Best Lobbying Efforts In '09?
By Bob Maloney - Principal, Maloney Government Relations, LLC

With the passage of a landmark stimulus package, financial services overhaul, credit card reform, enhancement of employee rights and the first significant movement in health reform in 40 years, these should be considered "the best lobbying" efforts of '09, but instead they are disappointing.

What is going on? How has President Obama reached an all time low in job performance and popularity? And remember this last category means the American people don't like your policies and don't like you personally. Wow, what a wonderful time to be a critic of the Administration--you can say whatever you wish.

Expect a rough ride in '10 with health care, global emissions, financial services and immigration all on tap- in an election year. Do the American people have outlandish expectations of this President and are they letting the near-perfect get in the way of the good? Or did President Obama take too long to come up with an Afghan strategy, didn't deserve the Nobel Prize, only released 20% of the stimulus money as of November 1, and where are the jobs and what about the deficit?

After all, the Dem's control the Congress and the American people expect results. If you take the long range view, I for one think the President has done a good job in his first year, but what may be the "best" lobbying may turn out to be his "worst" lobbying.