WASHINGTON — State and local governments are the underdogs in influence peddling in Congress mostly because they spend little to nothing on lobbyists, in contrast to the millions of dollars spent by the big securities, banking and investment groups.
The National Association of State Treasurers is the only state and local government group among the five such organizations in The Bond Buyer's annual compensation survey that hires lobbyists, according to the Center for Responsive Politics' opensecrets.org, which tracks lobbying, as well as political contributions.
NAST spent $150,000 and $200,000 on lobbyists in 2014 and the previous year, respectively, all from one firm.
The $150,000 that NAST spent this year is only 2.4% of the $6.25 million that the American Bankers Association paid 79 in-house and outside lobbyists — the most spent on lobbying by any of the 21 industry, self-regulatory, governmental and other muni-related groups in the survey.
ABA spent even more -- $8.14 million on 85 lobbyists — last year. ABA affiliates paid an additional $440,000 and $665,000 for lobbyists in 2014 and 2013, respectively.
Most of the ABA's money stays in-house. Forty-five outside lobbyists from seven firms were paid $840,000 this year, compared to forty-nine from eight firms paid $1.14 million last year.
The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association was the next highest purveyor of influence, having paid $5.8 million for 50 lobbyists this year and $5.2 million for 45 of them last year, according to opensecrets.org.
Like the ABA, most of the money SIFMA spent was for in-house lobbyists: $4.85 million this year and $4.0 million last year. SIFMA spent $950,000 on 29 outside lobbyists from six firms this year and $1.2 million on 26 lobbyists from eight firms last year.
More than 50% of the lobbyists used by each of SIFMA and the ABA came through a "revolving door," meaning they were previously members of Congress, congressional staff, or administration officials.
The two groups are characterized as "heavy hitters" by opensecrets.org. They also use some of the same lobbying firms, such as Capitol Counsel and Covington & Burling. Edward Yingling, former ABA president and chief executive officer who is now a partner at Covington & Burling, was hired by both the bankers' group and SIFMA.
The two groups also shared several lobbyists at Capitol Counsel, including John Raffaelli, a founding partner who formerly was tax counsel for the late Sen. Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen, D-Texas, and Shannon Finley, who served as a consultant and political advisor to former Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., for eight years. She was also a staffer at the Democratic National Committee. The ABA and SIFMA both used John J. O'Neill, who formerly served as staff for the Senate Republican Leadership and the Senate Finance Committee, as well as Jim McCrery, a former ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee.
Other lobbyists hired by the ABA in 2014 were from: Federal Policy Group; Glover Park Group, JDM Public Strategies; Jones Walker; McIntyre & Lemon; Ogilvy Government Relations; Porterfield, Lowenthal, Fettig & Sears; and Williams & Jensen.
SIFMA hired other outside lobbyists from: Cleary, Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton; Elmendorf Ryan; Ernst & Young; Prime Policy Group; and Steptoe & Johnson.
The total amounts that the ABA and SIFMA spent for lobbying could be viewed cumulatively because they advocated for some of the same bills.
Both groups, for example, pushed for H.R. 797, a bill Rep. Steve Stivers, R-Ohio, introduced in February 2013 to ease municipal advisor rules for dealers. The bill would define as MAs those individuals or firms engaged with issuers to provide financial advice for compensation — something current rules don't do. It would also prohibit the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board from regulating underwriters as MAs.
The ABA and SIFMA also both lobbied for several of the same swaps bills.
SIFMA pushed for H.R. 789, a bill introduced in February 2013 by Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass. to permanently reinstate Build American Bonds, as well as for S. 387, introduced that same month by the retiring Sen. John Rockefeller, D-Va., to establish an American Infrastructure Investment Fund within the Department of Transportation.
The ABA lobbied over two muni bills sponsored by Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va. One, introduced in April 2013, would exempt from MA registration requirements any banks as well as individuals appointed or volunteering to serve state and local governments. The other, S. 2114, was introduced in March of this year and would define riskless principal transactions. The MSRB has proposed dealers disclose reference prices for principal transactions in an attempt to get more transparency from these transactions.
The ABA also lobbied for bills that would have required regulators to weigh the risks and benefits of Basel III capital requirements.
Besides these two groups, individual bank and broker-dealer firms also spent hundreds of thousands of dollars for lobbyists for legislation, for some of the same bills, such as on derivatives.
The Investment Company Institute spent almost $3.98 million this year for 48 lobbyists, 33 or 68.8% of whom went through a revolving door, and $5.45 million last year for 46 lobbyists, 33 or 71.7% of whom were revolvers.
Bond Dealers of America, in contrast, spent just $330,000 and $420,000 on six outside lobbyists during 2014 and 2013, respectively. In each year, three, or 42.9%, of the lobbyists were revolvers.
There were no specific bills tied to BDA on opensecrets.org, but the group has been very interested in MA legislation, such as the bills sponsored by Stivers and Warner.
NAST spent $150,000 on 17 outside lobbyists this year and $200,000 on 18 of them last year. All of the lobbyists were from Williams & Jensen.
The treasurers lobbied on a handful of bills, three of which involved college savings plans set up under Section 529 of the federal tax code. These are tax-advantaged investment plans for parents or other adults who want to save money for higher education for their beneficiaries. In these plans, parents invest in trusts set up by a state and the interests in the trusts are considered to be municipal securities.
