webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Nielsen, Merksamer

bogie married dtr?!

works withbell and h

~ STEYER MCNERNEY MARC BERMAN PG AND E CORP LOBBYING

The California Electric Utility Industry Labor-Management Cooperation Committee

2350 Kerner Blvd Ste 250

San Rafael, CA 94901

HUNTER STERN NIEL MERK

A devoted Republican, Hiltachk was behind a plan to split California’s electoral votes, which would have significantly eased the Republican path to the presidency (backed by Vulture Capitalist Paul Singer, currently extorting the gov't of Argentia).

..."WASHINGTON -- San Joaquin Valley congressional candidate Jose Hernandez flew in space, but his astronaut identity is now under political fire.

In a pointed new challenge, a Sacramento law firm is asking a judge to block Hernandez from describing himself as an "astronaut/scientist/engineer" on the June ballot. The lawsuit notes Hernandez has left NASA.

"Hernandez's attempted use of 'astronaut' violates the Election Code's unambiguous requirement that a candidate's ballot designation reflect one's current profession, vocation, or one held during the previous calendar year," the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit quietly filed Wednesday in Sacramento County Superior Court by the firm Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk strikes right at the heart of Hernandez's biography. It's a life story he's making considerable use of as he seeks to challenge freshman Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Turlock...."

Ironically, BMH works often with Nielsen Merksamer, which has represented 320 ballot measure committees during the last 31 years.

==

Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/big-sodas-move-to-hide-funding-of-anti-tax-campaign/262092/

nestle

docs tro:http://www.docstoc.com/docs/128291123/120830-Motion-for-TRO-Motion-for-OSC 404 $?

==

richmond soda: essentially SLAPP since went to recover own court costs, which could be huge?

According to Rogers' accounton September 4, Big Soda has sued the city in federal court to stop it from insisting that campaigns disclose who funds them.

On what grounds? The First Amendment, of course:

The suit, filed in federal court in San Francisco on Aug. 30, seeks an order barring the city from imposing its campaign ordinance on the Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes, a declaration that the groups' First Amendment rights were violated and money to cover court costs.

The coalition is funded mostly by the American Beverage Association and has spent more than $350,000 locallyin an effort to defeat a November ballot measure that could impose a penny-per-ounce tax on sales of all sugar-sweetened beverages in the city.

...Coalition spokesman Chuck Finnie said Tuesday that the law itself is unconstitutional and should not be applied to the anti-soda tax groups.

"The law in question is being enforced to prevent opponents of an unfair, misleading and misguided tax from being able to communicate effectively with Richmond voters," Finnie said. "The sponsors of the Measure N tax don't want voters to hear how the tax is going to raise grocery bills, hurt local businesses on which livelihoods depend, and the fact that city politicians would befree to spend all of the money raised by Measure N in any way they see fit [// prop 34 on cigs?]and that not one penny must be used to fund anti-obesity efforts."

In other words, revealing funding sources prevents "effective communication."

==

SODA

BMWL:

mosher

660 Mission Street

Suite 200

San Francisco, CA 94105

http://www.bmwl.net/?p=88

Chuck Finnie

Vice President of Media & Communications

Chuck Finnie

Contact Chuck:

Email

415.615.0311 x15

One of San Francisco’s most recognized and respected public affairs journalists, Chuck uses his familiarity with the making of the news, policy, research and story-telling principles to help our clients meet their public affairs and public relations objectives in a rapidly changing communication landscape.

During a 20-year newspaper career, Chuck led local government and political reporting for the Hearst Corporation’s San Francisco Chronicle and San Francisco Examiner newspapers as a City Hall beat writer, investigative reporter and finally as Assistant Metro Editor—San Francisco. Previously, he co-authored a political column for SF Weekly; covered the court system and legal affairs in the Bay Area and Washington, DC for the Contra Costa Times, San Francisco Daily Journal and Legal Times; and reported for the Orange County Register, Los Angeles Times and Fresno Bee.

Chuck is a 1988 recipient of a Master of Arts degree from the renowned University of Missouri School of Journalism, and a 1983 graduate of Saint Michael’s College of Vermont. Chuck has two sons, lives in Kentfield, and excels at all manner of poker. Follow Chuck

==

Ms. Leoni is a nationally renowned redistricting and voting rights expert and is one of few California attorneys with expertise in administrative preclearance practice before the United States Department of Justice under Section 5 of the Federal Voting Rights Act and Section 5 enforcement litigation. She also has years of experience in the law and practical considerations surrounding local elections and the drafting and qualifying of local initiative/referendum petitions and associated litigation. Ms. Leoni is also a specialist in school district reorganization.  UCB

He is an honors graduate of Claremont McKenna College, and received his law degree from the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law. He has served as a member of the Board of Overseers of the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace at Stanford University, the Board of Governors of the Rose Institute of State and Local Government, and the Board of Directors of the Governor's Residence Foundation, the California Museum, and the California Musical Theatre. He is currently a member of the Board of Directors of the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), the California Chamber of Commerce and the Stevenson School and is a past Chairman of State Law Resources, Inc., a national network of independent law firms.

--

For more than 25 years, Mr. Parrinellohas represented clients in regulatory, constitutional and government law and complex litigation. He has argued cases successfully before the United States and California Supreme Courts and Courts of Appeal. Mr. Parrinello is an expert on theconstitutionality of governmental regulations; legality of state and local initiatives and referenda; voting rights and reapportionment; rent control and property rights.

Representative cases include Citizens Against Rent Control v. Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290 (1981) [struck down ordinance limiting contributions to ballot measure campaigns as violating First Amendment], Chemical SpecialtiesManufacturers Association v. Deukmejian, 227 Cal.App.3d 663 (1991) [successfully argued Proposition 105, the so-called Public's Right to Know Act, violated the California Constitution’s single subject rule]; Pala Band of Mission Indians v. Board of Supervisors, 54 Cal.App.4th 565 (1997) [successfully defended legality of San Diego County initiative establishing zoning and general plan amendments for sanitary waste facility]; San Francisco 49ers v. Nishioka, 75 Cal.App.4th 637 (1999) [invalidated anti-stadium initiative for false representations to prospective signers];

Citizens to Save California v. California Fair Political Practices Commission, 145 Cal.App.4th 736 (2006) [struck down FPPC regulation restricting contributions to candidate controlled ballot measure committees]; County of Amador v. Ione Band of Miwok Indians, 149 Cal.App.4th 1089 (2007) [successfully invalidated Tribal-City Municipal Services Agreement]; Vargas v. City of Salinas (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1 [successfully represented amici in briefing and oral argument in decision re-affirming Stanson v. Mott doctrine]; Larson v. City and County of San Francisco (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1263 [voiding numerous provisions of so-called tenant “anti-harassment” ordinance].

[[

Misuse of Public Funds

Public Funds may not be Used for Personal Purposes

The starting point for any analysis concerning the misuse of public funds begins with the principle that public funds must be expended for an authorized public purpose. An expenditure is made for a public purpose when its purpose is to benefit the public interest rather than private individuals or private purposes.

Once a public purpose is established, the expenditure must still be authorized. A public official possesses only those powers that are conferred by law, either expressly or impliedly.

The California Constitution and a variety of state statutes make it clear that public funds may not be expended for purposes that are primarily personal. Such expenditures are neither for a public purpose nor are they authorized.

The prohibition against using public funds for personal purposes does not mean that no personal benefit may result from an expenditure of public funds.

For example, the payment of a public employee’s salary confers a personal benefit on the employee, but it is an appropriate expenditure of public funds because it is procuring the services of the employee for public purposes.

The misuse of public funds occurs when the personal benefit conferred by a public expenditure is not merely incidental. The term “public funds” is not limited to money, but includes anything of value belonging to a public agency such as equipment, supplies, compensated staff time, and use of telephones, computers, and fax machines and other equipment and resources.

Back To Top

Examples of Misuse of Public Funds

  1. In People v. Dillon, a city commissioner used official government discounts to purchase items for himself and others. This was a misuse of public funds, even though those receiving the discount paid for the items with personal funds.
  2. In People v. Sperl, a county marshal furnished a deputy marshal and a county vehicle to transport a political candidate, his staff and family.
  3. In People v. Battin, a county supervisor used his county compensated staff to work on his political campaign for Lieutenant Governor.
  4. In People v. Harby, a city official used a city car, entrusted to him for use in connection with official business, to take a pleasure trip from Los Angeles to Great Falls, Montana and back.

Violations of the laws prohibiting misuse of public funds may subject the violator to criminal and civil sanctions.

These penalties may include imprisonment for up to four years and a bar from holding office.

Back To Top

State Agency Participation in Ballot Measure Elections

There is another issue involving the misuse of public funds that does not concern the personal use of public funds. This issue concerns the use of public funds in connection with ballot measure campaigns. Following is a list of what we’ll cover in this section.

Using Public Funds and Ballot Measure Campaigns

The California Supreme Court case of Stanson v. Mott is the cornerstone case concerning the expenditure of public funds in election campaigns.

In Stanson v. Mott, a private citizen sued the Director of the California Department of Parks and Recreation, challenging the director’s expenditure of Department funds to support passage of a bond act appearing on a statewide ballot. The Supreme Court unanimously found that the director had acted unlawfully, concluding that “in the absence of clear and explicit legislative authorization, a public agency may not expend public funds to promote a partisan position in an election campaign.”

Stanson v. Mott

The Supreme Court wrote in Stanson: “A fundamental precept of this nation’s democratic electoral process is that the government may not ‘take sides’ in election contests or bestow an unfair advantage on one of several competing factions. A principal danger feared by our country’s founders lay in the possibility that the holders of governmental authority would use official power improperly to perpetuate themselves, or their allies, in office....”

The Supreme Court further wrote in Stanson “...The selective use of public funds in election campaigns, of course, raises the specter of just such an improper distortion of the democratic electoral process.”

Endorsements and Informational Materials: Subsequently, court cases have said that a government agency may endorse a measure that is related to its expertise so long as it does not expend funds to promote its passage.

Similarly, a government agency may draft legislation or a ballot measure related to its expertise, but may not promote the passage of the measure in an election campaign.

Here is Jose Lopez discussing the findings in the Stanson case in regard to the agency participation in ballot measure elections.

  1. “The Stanson Court also noted that if a state agency or department has authority to disseminate information relating to its activities, it may spend funds to provide the public with a fair presentation of relevant information.”
  1. “The Court found that it would be contrary to the public interest to bar knowledgeable public agencies from disclosing relevant information to the public, so long as such disclosure is full and impartial and does not amount to improper campaign activity.”
  1. “To be fair, a presentation must consider all important points and provide equal treatment to both sides of the issue.”

Improperly Using Public Funds may Trigger Fines: Improper use of public funds also may trigger fines from the Fair Political Practices Commission for failing to report campaign contributions. In 1996, Sacramento County paid a $10,000 fine to the Commission in connection with a utility bill insert explaining the effect on the county of several ballot measures. The Commission ruled that the insert advocated a position on the ballot measures and was not a neutral and fair presentation of the facts.]]

July 15, 2011

Amazon referendum creates jobs -- for political strategists

Amazon.com has set off a feeding frenzy in Sacramento, and it has nothing to do with free shipping.

Political consultants have been giddy with the prospect of an expensive ballot war ever since Amazon filed papers this month to overturn a new online tax collection law. If the Seattle-based company can gather enough signatures for a referendum and survive a legal challenge, Amazon ($96 billion market value) would square off against retail giant Wal-Mart ($186 billion) in the June 2012 election.

Other Fortune 500 retailers and labor groups would also join the fray over whether the most populous state in the nation should force online stores to collect taxes on purchases.

"It's very rare that you see so many deep pockets preparing to engage in the same fight," said Dan Schnur, a former GOP strategist and director of the Jesse Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California.

Under Assembly Bill X1 28, a bill passed by Democratic lawmakers and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown last month, major online retailers would be required to collect sales taxes on purchases by Californians. Democrats believe the proposal would raise $200 million in the first year.

Though 10,000 Amazon affiliates complained about job losses once the company cut off its customer referral program in California in an attempt to avoid collecting taxes, a referendum of the so-called "Amazon tax" would create instant employment for select Capitol insiders.

Not since billionaire Meg Whitman ran for governor has Sacramento seen such a rush to line up political work. Political consultants across town are scrambling to get a piece of the action, and one Republican strategist admitted he was pitching both sides of the measure.

"Usually these fights divide along very predictable ideological lines," Schnur observed. "But because you have factions of the business community in opposition to each other, any consultant can sign up with either side."

Sacramento law firm Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Gross & Leoni filed the referendum papers and is providing legal counsel to Amazon. A nascent coalition of online retailers has yet to finalize other partners, but Sacramento-based strategist Rick Claussen has been tied to a potential campaign, as has former Department of Finance director Michael Genest.

Genest said he does not yet have an agreement. But he has engaged in talks and said his firm, Capitol Matrix Consulting, "would be an influential voice if someone wants to bring us aboard."

On the other side, Mercury Public Affairs, has worked with brick-and-mortar retailers all year to push for the tax law. The firm's Sacramento office includes Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger adviser Adam Mendelsohn, former Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez and former Schwarzenegger aide Becky Warren.

Brian Brokaw, a Democratic strategist who ran Attorney General Kamala Harris' campaign last year, has been responsible for coalition building with retailers, small businesses and labor groups.

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/07/amazoncom-has-touched-off-a.html#storylink=cpy

https://igs.berkeley.edu/people/steven-lucas

bs

Partner

Nielsen Merksamer

Steven Lucas is a partner at Nielsen Merksamer specializing in political law, including campaign, election, lobby and ethics laws in various federal, state and local jurisdictions.  He specializes in state and local ballot measures, non-profit law, and maintains a 50 state national compliance practice in the area of campaign and lobby law.  As a lecturer in law at Stanford Law School, he has taught “Law and Politics” and “Election Law” for second and third year law students.  He has also served on the faculty of, and an author for, the Practising Law Institute’s “Advanced Compliance and Ethics Workshop,” addressing national campaign and lobby compliance and pay-to-play issues.  Mr. Lucas is the author of "Designing a Political Law Compliance System for Broker-Dealers and Advisors" which appears in PLI's treatise "Broker-Dealer Regulation."

Since 2003, Mr. Lucas has served on the Board of Directors of Stillwater Mining Company (NYSE:SWC), a company that mines platinum and palladium in Montana and is developing gold, PGM and copper mines in Canada and Argentina.  He serves as the Chairman of the Compensation Committee as well as a member of the company’s Audit Committee.

Mr. Lucas previously served at the appointment of the Governor of California as Chairman of the Bipartisan Commission on the Political Reform Act.  He is a past president of the California Political Attorneys Association.   He has also served on the California Secretary of State’s Task Force on Online Disclosure as well as the FPPC Chairman’s Advisory Task Force.

Before joining the firm and following his clerkship with Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas of the California Supreme Court, he practiced corporate litigation in the Los Angeles office of Sullivan & Cromwell.  During that time he served as Counsel to the Webster Commission, appointed by the Los Angeles Police Commission to investigate the LAPD's preparedness for and response to the Los Angeles riots.

Mr. Lucas has published numerous opinion-editorial columns relating to constitutional and other legal issues in the Los Angeles Times as well as other California newspapers, and has experience working for federal and state public officials and political campaigns.

==

James Gross is a partner specializing in government law and the legislative process. He is one of the original members of the firm’s government law section and is a member of the firm’s management committee.

Jim’s practice focuses on health care issues, professional licensing, state and local tax policy and local government issues. Over the last 30 years he has participated in the development and passage of major legislation affecting the delivery of health and human services in California. He provides technical and strategic expertise to a variety of business interests as they consider investment opportunities in the health care arena.

==

cos dukmejian

http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/steven-a-merksamer

http://www.ppic.org/main/policyarea.asp?i=4

bs

Steven A. Merksamer is the senior partner in the Northern California law firm of Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Gross & Leoni, LLP. He was elected to PPIC’s Board of Directors in 2009. He served as the chief of staff to Governor George Deukmejian, a position he held from 1982 to 1987. Before that, he was the special assistant attorney general of the State of California, serving as the attorney general’s senior counselor and policy advisor. He has also served as a California deputy attorney general, assistant to the lieutenant governor of California, and assistant to the Speaker of the California State Assembly. He chaired and directed the transition between the Brown and Deukmejian administrations. He was appointed by President Reagan to serve on the President’s Administration of Justice Task Force, the President’s Export Council, and the National Commission on Presidential Scholars. He is an honors graduate of Claremont McKenna College, and received his law degree from the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law. He is currently a member of the board of directors of the California Chamber of Commerce and the Stevenson School and is a past chairman of State Law Resources, Inc., a national network of independent law firms.

==

bs

For nearly 40 years, Nielsen Merksamer has specialized in government, political and initiative law, trial and appellate litigation, taxation and tax policy, civil and constitutional rights, voting rights and redistricting, and regulatory agency law.

Our national clientele includes businesses, associations, individuals, unions and public agencies.  In fact, one-third of Fortune's Top 20 Largest U.S. Companies turn to Nielsen Merksamer for legal counsel in political matters.

Many of our senior attorneys have held top positions in California state and local government for elected officeholders of both major political parties. Others have served in important elected or appointed positions. As a result we have a thorough understanding of the governmental process at every level, and are able to anticipate and resolve issues arising in the Legislature and administrative and regulatory bodies.

Our experience with and knowledge of important public policy issues allows us to maintain open communication with top officials in the executive and legislative branches of California government as well as the state's major business, industry and labor associations and local governments.

We provide legal and strategic advice to corporations, trade associations, state contract bidders, government entities, permit applicants, developers, public relations consultants and other law firms on a wide range of government matters. Many attorneys in our firm are registered to lobby the Legislature and state tax and administrative agencies, and a significant portion of our practice is in representing clients before these bodies. In addition, our firm frequently works with other lawyers and lobbyists as part of a comprehensive team effort to help clients in their dealings with the state's legislative and executive branches.

We represent clients before almost all state and numerous local administrative agencies in a number of key areas, including health, energy, gaming, transportation, environmental compliance, public finance, taxation, licensing, contracting and procurement and land use. We also represent clients before California's constitutional offices and administrative bodies such as the Department of Justice, Department of Insurance, Franchise Tax Board, Board of Equalization, Fair Political Practices Commission,Air Resources Board, Energy Commission,Board of Control, Coastal Commission, Gambling Control Commission, Lottery Commission, Department of Health Services, Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, Department of Corporations, State Board of Education and Department of General Services.

Summary of Representative Ballot Measures

Nielsen Merksamer has represented 320 ballot measure committees during the last 31 years.

http://web.nmgovlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Nielsen-Merksamer-Ballot-Measure-Chart.pdf

2010-2011

Open Primary/California  SUPPORT passed top 2 non-part  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_14_(2010)

Voting on Municipilizing Power/California  PG&E won https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Supermajority_Vote_Required_to_Create_a_Community_Choice_Aggregator_(June_2010)

Insurance Rate Change/California

Development Approval/Pleasanton

Reapportionment Commission/California

Vehicle fee for Parks/California

Protect Locals’ Revenue/California

Reverse a Sales tax Change/California

Budget & Taxes Vote/California                   Definition of Fee vs. Tax/California              Mello-Roos Tax/Santa Clara Unified                Billboard Tax/West Hollywood

2008-2009

Education Funding/California

Housing and Parks/Santa Clara

Development Referendum/Rocklin

Eminent Domain/California

Napa Redevelopment/Napa

School Parcel Tax/San Francisco

Hunters Point Initiative/San Francisco

Home Depot/Thousand Oaks

Humane Farms/California NM support https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_2_(2008)

Energy/California

Reapportionment Commission/California

Beverly Hilton Hotel Referendum/Beverly Hills

School Unification/Pleasant Valley

Energy Municipalization/San Francisco

Open Space/City of Moraga

Open Space/Redwood City

Budget Reform/California

School Funding/California

Lottery Act Amendment/California

Tobacco Tax Amendment/California

Mental Health Revenue Amendment/California

No Raises in Deficit Years/California

Development Approval/Mendocino County

Neiman Marcus Approval/Walnut Creek

2006-2007

Reiner First 5/California

Transportation Bond/California

Education Bond/California

Water Bond/California

Tobacco Tax/California

Oil Severance Tax/California OPPOSEhttps://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_87,_Alternative_Energy_Oil_Tax_(2006)

School Parcel Tax/California

Public Funding of Campaign/California

Eminent Domain/California

SMUD Annexation/Sacramento, Placer and Yolo

Open Space/Albany

Signs/Parking Initiative/Santa Ana

Growth/Newport Beach

Development/Pacifica

Developer Referendum/Cupertino

Development/Freemont

Bay Meadows/City of San Mateo

2004-2005

Shakedown Lawsuits/Californiasupport  won https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_64,_Unfair_Business_Competition_Lawsuits_(2004) 7:1 $, cars, US CoC

Local Government Revenue Protection/California

Phone Tax for Medical Services/California

Indian Gaming/California

Racetrack/Card Club Gaming/California

Stem Cell Research/California

Higher Education Bonds/ California

Lower Vote on State Budget/California

No on M/San Francisco

Yes on AA (BART)

No on Measures A, B & C/ Glendale

No on Proposition B/ San Diego County

6 Other Local Measures

2002-2003

Voting Machines/California

Transportation Tax/California

Term Limits/California

Higher Education Bonds/ California

After School Funding/California

Election Day Registration/ California

Infrastructure Funding/California

13 Local Measures

2000-2001

Gang Violence/California

Campaign Reform/California

2 School Bonds Vote %/ California

Bad Faith Insurance/California

State Contracting/California

Pebble Beach Resort/Monterey

Rural Heritage/Sonoma

Hospital Initiative/Ventura County

Living Wage/Santa Monica

9 San Francisco Measures

8 Other Local Measures

1998-1999

State Contracting/California

Utility Regulation/California

School Bonds/California

Indian Gaming/California

Class Size Reduction/California

Transportation Funding/California

Padres' Stadium/San Diego

Charter Amendment/City of Alameda

1996-1997

Securities Lawsuits/California

Health Care-HMOs/California

Income Tax Increase/California

Attorneys Fees/California

School Bonds/California

Safe Bridges/California

49ers Stadium/San Francisco

3 San Francisco Measures

Charter Commission/Los Angeles

Hospital Merger/ Contra Costa County

Hospital Referendum/ Ventura County

Land Use Initiative/Napa County

Junkyard Referendum/ City of San Jose

1994-1995

Single Payer Health System/California OPPOSE

4% Gas Tax/California

Smoking Restrictions/California

Higher Education Bonds/California

K-12 School Bonds/California

Steinhart Aquarium/San Francisco

Downtown MUNI Tax/ San Francisco

FAIR Share/City of Petaluma

LEGO Development/ City of Carlsbad

1992-1993

Basic Health Care /California

Job-Terminator Tax /California

:{Welfare-Budget Reform /California

University Bonds/California}:

Cardrooms/Colma and Santa Clara

1990-1991

Transportation Bonds/California

Crime Victim Initiative/California

:{Redistricting/California

Anti-Business (Big Green) Initiative/California

Forests Forever Initiative/California}:

CAREFUL Initiative/California

Right to Vote/California

Prison Labor/California

Anti-Growth Initiative/ City of Burbank

Waterfront Development/ San Francisco

Mission Bay Development/ San Francisco

1988-1989

K-12 Guaranteed Funding/California

Tobacco Tax/California

Insurance Initiatives/California

Transportation Bonds/California

K-12 School Bonds/California

Regional Transit/Bay Area Counties

Mobile Home Rent Control/Lancaster

San Francisco Ballpark/ San Francisco

1986-1987

Tort Reform/California

School Bonds/California

No on Aids Testing/California

Toxics/California

Sales Tax/Alameda County

1979-1985

State School Building Bonds/California

Campaign Reform/California

Rent Control/County of Los Angeles

Abolish Inheritance Tax/California

Jarvis-Income Tax/California

Victims Bill of Rights/California

Peripheral Canal/California

:{Bottle Bill/California

Offshore Oil Restrictions/ County of Santa Barbara}:

Anti-Growth Initiative/Walnut Creek

Property Rights Initiative/Carson

Anti-Growth Referendum/ El Segundo

Toxics/City of West Covina

Rent Control Preemption/ California

:{Oil Excess Profit Tax/California

Smoking Restrictions/California

Gann Spending Limit/California}:

Representative Clients

- CH2M Hill

- Costco Companies, Inc.

- Exxon Mobil Corporation

- Farmers Insurance Group

- Pacific Life Insurance Company

- Valero Energy Corporation

- Walton Enterprises

- Wells Fargo Bank

- Western States Petroleum Association

Tobacco Dole (cont'd)

���By Sheila Kaplan

| May/June 1996 Issue

This particular tie between tobacco and the Dole campaign ended in February when Dole fired McInturff because of his failure to predict the majority leader's embarrassing loss to Steve Forbes in the Delaware primary--not because of his tobacco connections.

Dole and the tobacco industry share the need to win at all costs, which has forged a mutually beneficial relationship. By March, nearly every major media outlet reported the increase in Big Tobacco's contributions to the Republican Party: from $546,224 in "soft" donations in 1993 to $2.4 million in 1995. But few have investigated Dole's current ties to the industry. As one of tobacco's top congressional allies, the powerful Kansas senator has helped the industry broaden its overseas markets and battle domestic foes, such as Food and Drug Administration Commissioner David Kessler.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Now, as Dole wages his campaign for the presidency, many of the tobacco industry's biggest hitters are whispering in his ear.

Lobbyists for businesses, trade groups, and other special interests often attach themselves to presidential campaigns, seeking future jobs and political chits. Tobacco operatives are no exception. But the sheer number of tobacco lobbyists, lawyers, and pollsters working for the Dole team sets a new standard. For example:

Others working for Dole are less well-known within the Beltway, but play important roles in the tobacco industry's emerging national strategy. Steve Merksamer, for example, joined the Dole campaign last fall as a senior adviser and California strategist. His Sacramento law firm, Nielson, Merksamer, Parrinello, Mueller & Naylor, has collected $1.9 million from the industry since 1988, more than any other California firm.

In 1994, Nielson, Merksamer was paid an additional $350,000 to write Proposition 188, called the Tobacco Control Act. The proposition promised tough statewide restrictions, but its language actually weakened state law by acting as a "pre-emption law" to kill dozens of tougher local restrictions throughout the state. When the media exposed Proposition 188 as a tobacco industry ploy, voters defeated it.

But the tobacco industry's behind-the-scenes maneuvers in California may well be the model for a national strategy under a Dole presidency and a Republican Congress: Defeat popular grassroots anti-smoking measures with secret legislative and executive overrides, pre-emptions, and subversions. For example, the tobacco industry is using California Gov. Pete Wilson and the Republican California Assembly to gut anti-smoking education efforts financed by the state's 25-cent-per-pack cigarette tax. Tobacco companies, in a convenient alliance with the California Medical Association, lobbied legislators to divert money out of California's anti-smoking efforts (which activists call the single greatest threat to the tobacco industry) and into low-income health care programs--effectively using financially needy programs as a cover to derail anti-smoking campaigns.

Other operatives link Dole to the tobacco industry's secretive grassroots campaign, specifically, Midwest strategist Tom Synhorst and Alaska campaign coordinator Frank Bickford, who were both field coordinators for RJR's "grassroots" efforts in the states.

Synhorst has particularly close ties to Dole. A star in the majority leader's 1988 presidential campaign, Synhorst masterminded Dole's primary win in Iowa. In between stints for Dole's two presidential campaigns, Synhorst has been a grassroots organizer for RJR. He co-founded his telemarketing firm, Direct Connect, with top RJR lobbyist Read deButts.

Direct Connect is the Dole campaign's telemarketing firm of choice, with monthly billings exceeding $60,000. Dole's former leadership PAC, Campaign America, also paid Direct Connect more than $20,000 a month last year.

Synhorst and Bickford illustrate an important aspect of the tobacco industry's survival plan: Create grassroots front groups to make pro-tobacco legislation handed down by state and national politicians appear to be the public's will. These groups, many posing as "anti-tax" organizations, are key to the tobacco industry's efforts to win over the anti-big government segment of the electorate. This is also a crucial audience for Dole, who writes in his campaign brochure's "personal message": "My mandate as President would be to rein in the Federal government in order to set free the spirit of the American people."

Tobacco doesn't seem an obvious benefactor for a senator from Kansas, where there are plenty of wheat fields but few tobacco farms. Still, Dole has received more than $330,000 directly from RJR, Philip Morris, and U.S. Tobacco during his career, in addition to untold tobacco soft money through the Republican National Committee. Meanwhile, Dole has consistently fought tobacco tax increases--even when proposed by fellow Republicans.

During this presidential campaign, Dole has gone after FDA Commissioner David Kessler, promising an audience of pharmaceutical giants at a GOP fundraiser last September that Kessler would be out of a job if Dole were elected. Three months later, Dole was one of 32 senators who signed a letter to the FDA protesting its proposed crackdown on tobacco advertising. Dole also spoke out against Kessler's plans to limit cigarette advertising at sporting events. Before an appreciative crowd at a NASCAR auto race in Darlington, S.C., he waved a T-shirt that read, "Let Winston Cup make the rules for NASCAR, not the FDA."

In less dramatic fashion, Elizabeth Dole has also earned Big Tobacco's appreciation. In 1987, while serving as secretary of transportation, she refused to ban smoking on airplanes, ignoring recommendations from Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and the National Academy of Sciences. Perhaps coincidentally, tobacco contributions to the American Red Cross, which she heads, have escalated. Philip Morris, Brown & Williamson, and RJR gave the charity a combined $265,530 in 1995, compared to a total over the previous five years of $231,427.

But Bob Dole's friendship with the tobacco companies is not limited to the industry's domestic battles. With tobacco's popularity dying in the United States, companies must hook foreign populations. For this, the industry needs unfettered access to large global markets. Dole has been crucial in helping them get it.

In 1985, Reagan trade representatives focused their attention on Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand, threatening retaliatory tariffs on their exports if they declined to open their tobacco markets. Tobacco lobbyists actually sat in on the official trade negotiations.

During talks with South Korea in 1987, Brown & Williamson's lobbyist, Thomas Humber (now the chief of Philip Morris' National Smokers Alliance), wrote the office of the U.S. trade representative corporate liaison Sandy Kristoff to inform her of a favorable meeting between South Korea's U.S. ambassador, Dole, Sen. Jesse Helms, and senators from four other tobacco states. According to the letter, the senators expressed "their support for fair market conditions in Korea" during the meeting. The ambassador, in return, thanked Dole and Helms for voting against threatened trade sanctions against Korea. Then, Humber wrote, "[The ambassador] assured the Senators of Ôbest efforts' toward market expansion" for U.S. tobacco companies.

Trade agreements on tobacco have shifted under Clinton. Last year, U.S. trade representatives allowed South Korea to enact tobacco advertising restrictions after approval from the Department of Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency. Officials from both agencies now sit in on trade proceedings to decide whether tobacco restrictions reflect health and environmental concerns.

Under a Dole presidency, this would probably change. Helms would play a dominant role in foreign trade policy, as would Robert Lighthizer, a former top Dole aide and Dole's rumored choice for his chief of staff or U.S. trade representative. Lighthizer, currently an attorney with Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, used to work for Covington & Burling and served as deputy U.S. trade representative from 1983 to 1985. During that period, the United States began bullying countries to open their tobacco markets. Should Lighthizer have a prominent trade role, he might turn back the clock to a time when tobacco lobbyists, not health officials, sat in on trade negotiations.

The GOP convention in San Diego this August promises to be even more of a tobacco-fest than the 1992 convention. Ken Rietz, president and CEO of the Washington, D.C., office of the public relations firm Burson-Marsteller, is a vice chairman of this year's convention host committee. Rietz oversaw the California chapter of the National Smokers Alliance, which worked against tobacco control ordinances in Los Angeles and San Diego.

Rietz candidly admits convention sponsors get opportunities for private meetings with political bigwigs. But he calls the high number of tobacco lobbyists involved with the convention and the Dole campaign pure coincidence. "If you look at Burson-Marsteller, [tobacco is] only one of thousands of clients," Rietz says. But of those thousands, Philip Morris and NSA sit comfortably among the firm's top five Washington clients.

As Mother Jones went to press, GOP convention plans were still being negotiated, but Philip Morris had already scored one coup, signing a letter of intent to rent the sought-after space at the San Diego Museum of Art, and was reportedly trying to book the San Diego Zoo for another event. The company has yet to decide on specific receptions but is likely to sponsor the high-profile reception for the GOP's Team 100 (party contributors who give $100,000 or more) and the reception for the Republican Governors Association.

But ultimately, if the tobacco industry achieves what it wants, these festivities will be only a warm-up. The real tobacco party will come in January, at Bob Dole's inauguration.

Sheila Kaplan is a Washington, D.C.-based journalist.

Grassroots Enterprise, Inc.

Jump to: navigation, search

According to the company's web site, Grassroots Enterprise, Inc., led by its CEO, John Hlinko, "combines online technology and communications strategy to help our clients achieve their public affairs objectives. Our proprietary technology Grassroots Multiplier® uses the Internet to centralize and simplify the recruitment, management, and mobilization of our clients' supporters - employees, members, customers, vendors and other stakeholders who can grow into a long-term asset to our clients' business."

Contents [hide]

Management Team

Advisors

[1]:

SourceWatch Resources

External links

Kevin O'Neill, Executive Director of American Association of Political Consultants, Joins Grassroots Enterprise, US Newswire, October 19, 2005

Category: