Peck Madigan J & S

<table class="lobbyFirm" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.33em; border: 0px; border-collapse: collapse; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); border-spacing: 0px; line-height: 20.2125px;"><tbody style="border-top-width: 1px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(204, 204, 204);"><tr style=" padding: 0px; margin: 0px; border: 0px;"><td class="healthNo" style=" padding: 0px; margin: 0px; border: 0px;">clients</td><td class="healthInfo" style=" padding: 0px; margin: 0px; border: 0px;">

<h2 style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 1.33em; letter-spacing: -0.047em;">Peck, Madigan, Jones & Stewart, Inc.</h2>

<li style=" margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">Billed clients $4.50 million</li>

<li style=" margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">Firm’s <a href="http://jmp-dc.com/professionals/jones.html" title="Jonathon Jones" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Jonathon Jones</a> is ex-chief of staff to Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del.</li>

<li style=" margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">Clients included U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Harley-Davidson Financial Services, and the International Swaps and Derivatives Association.</li>

</ul>

</td></tr></tbody></table>

=McConnell Blocks Election Security, Takes Checks From Voting Machine Lobbyists <a href="https://truthout.org/articles/mcconnell-blocks-election-security-takes-checks-from-voting-machine-lobbyists/" target="blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://truthout.org/articles/mcconnell-blocks-election-security-takes-checks-from-voting-machine-lobbyists/&source=gmail&ust=1562701514656000&usg=AFQjCNHu4myBd7NMh55pR5R_VkrBd3T5aQ" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">https://truthout.org/articles/mcconnell-blocks-election-security-takes-checks-from-voting-machine-lobbyists/</a>In 2016, Russian hackers targeted voting systems in 21 states and, according to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report, breached systems in Illinois and two counties in Florida, gaining access to information on millions of registered voters. In his report, Mueller described the Russian government’s interference in the 2016 elections as “sweeping and systematic.”Three years later, security experts warn that not enough has been done to address vulnerabilities in the U.S. election system. The director of the Federal Bureau of Investigations recently <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/26/us/politics/fbi-russian-election-interference.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; cursor: pointer; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;">told</a> Congress that “the threats just keep escalating,” adding that he viewed the 2018 midterms as a “dress rehearsal for the big show in 2020.”In fourteen states, some 2018 midterm voters submitted their votes on touchscreens that did not produce paper trails necessary to verify their votes or audit election outcomes. If votes had been inaccurately processed in these precincts — whether through equipment errors or foreign hacking operations — election officials wouldn’t have been able to find or correct the problems.Several Democratic and Republican members of Congress have submitted legislation to shore up election security. Proposals from Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) and Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Md.) include replacing paperless electronic voting machines with hand-marked paper ballots and optical scanners, subjecting voting equipment vendors to rigorous cybersecurity standards, and requiring vendors to report cybersecurity incidents.But all the bills have hit a roadblock. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has reportedly told his colleagues that he will not allow the Senate to vote on election security legislation this session.“At this point I don’t see any likelihood that those bills would get to the floor if we mark them up,” Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said recently when asked by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) whether the Rules Committee, which Blunt chairs, would mark up any election security bills. <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/443948-top-gop-senator-says-senate-unlikely-to-vote-on-any-election-security" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; cursor: pointer; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;">The Hill</a> asked McConnell’s office about Blunt’s comments regarding election security and was referred to the majority leader’s verdict on the Mueller report: “case closed.”Senator Wyden told Sludge he thinks McConnell does not want to make elections more secure.“The only logical conclusion is that Senator McConnell wants American elections to be vulnerable to hackers and foreign interference,” Wyden said. “It is unconscionable for Republicans to stick their heads in the sand and do nothing after what happened in 2016. If Congress doesn’t act, it’s only a matter of time before hackers successfully interfere again.”The two largest voting machine vendors in the U.S., Election Systems & Software (ES&S) and Dominion Voting Systems, together supply more than <a href="https://trustthevote.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2017-whartonoset_industryreport.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; cursor: pointer; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;">80%</a> of the nation’s voting machines. The companies have operated <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/how-voting-machine-lobbyists-undermine-the-democratic-process" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; cursor: pointer; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;">extensive lobbying operations</a> in states for years, and both companies recently hired new lobbyists to represent them at the federal level.ES&S hired lobbying firm Peck Madigan Jones in Oct. 2018 and paid it a combined $150,000 to lobby the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives in the fourth quarter of 2018 and the first quarter of 2019. ES&S did not employ any federal lobbyists in 2017, and when they reported lobbying in previous years it was at a much lower level, spending just $10,000 in many quarters. Dominion Voting Systems, which was recently acquired by New York-based hedge fund Staple Street Capital, signed its first-ever federal lobbying contract in January 2019 with Brownstein Hyatt Farber and Schreck and has paid the company at least $30,000 so far to lobby Congress.Several of the lobbyists working for ES&S and Dominion Voting Systems have recently made contributions to McConnell’s campaign and joint fundraising committee.Brownstein Hyatt Farber and Schreck lobbyist David Cohen, who <a href="https://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=4D4DFCF4-B80D-4E43-BA2D-729765C7C452&filingTypeID=1" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: inherit; cursor: pointer; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;">lobbies</a> for Dominion Voting Systems on issues related to election security and monitors federal legislation for the company, gave McConnell $2,000 on March 31: $1,000 to his campaign committee and $1,000 to his joint fundraising committee. Lobbyist Brain Wild, who works alongside Cohen on the Dominion contract, gave McConnell $1,000 on the same day.Emily Kirlin, a lobbyist for Peck Madigan Jones who <a href="https://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=AFF5B44B-FEF5-4F8A-9818-395657C78000&filingTypeID=51" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: inherit; cursor: pointer; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;">lobbies</a> for ES&S on election security and H.R. 1, gave McConnell’s campaign committee $1,000 on February 19, and her colleague who works with her on the contract, Jen Olson, gave McConnell $1,000 on March 4.“It’s not surprising to me that Mitch McConnell is receiving these campaign contributions,” the Brennan Center for Justice’s Lawrence Noren told Sludge. “He seems single-handedly to be standing in the way of anything passing in Congress around election security, and that includes things that the vendors might want, like money for the states to replace antiquated equipment.”“Mitch McConnell’s conflicts of interest in blocking any and all election security legislation is not only shameful, it is placing our democracy at risk,” Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist at Public Citizen, told Sludge. “The conflicts of interest arise from more than the campaign contributions he is receiving from voting machine vendors — contributions which certainly appear to be a reward from the industry for letting them off the hook — but it is also a self-serving act for strictly partisan purposes.“McConnell believes this foreign interference in our democratic process will again favor the GOP, and so he is doing everything possible to make sure that window stays wide open for those who seek to do harm to our political system,” Holman said.McConnell’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Voting machine vendors like ES&S and Dominion Voting Systems are not currently subject to any specific regulations or mandatory security standards.“In contrast to other sectors, particularly those that the federal government has designated ‘critical infrastructure,’ there is almost no federal oversight of private vendors that design and maintain the systems that allow us to determine who can vote, how they vote, what voters see when they cast their vote, how votes are counted, and how those vote totals are communicated to the public,” Noren told Congress recently in a <a href="https://docs.house.gov/meetings/HA/HA00/20190508/109410/HHRG-116-HA00-Wstate-NordenL-20190508-U1.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; cursor: pointer; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;">testimony</a>. “In fact, there are more federal regulations for ballpoint pens and magic markers than there are for voting systems and other parts of our federal election infrastructure.”Several of the bills that have been proposed in Congress would subject them to regulation and oversight for the first time, and some could result in the companies doing less business with the states as they encourage the use of hand-marked ballots instead of machines.A bill from Senator Wyden — the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1472?s=3&r=12" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; cursor: pointer; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;">Protecting American Votes and Election Act (PAVE Act)</a> — would, for the first time, establish minimum cybersecurity requirements that election equipment vendors would have to comply with in order for their equipment to be eligible for use in federal elections. The rules would be established by the Department of Homeland Security, and systems would have to be tested and certified by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC).The PAVE Act would also require voting systems to use an “individual, durable, voter-verifiable, paper ballot of the voter’s vote that shall be marked and made available for physical inspection and verification by the voter before the voter’s vote is cast and tabulated.” And while the bill does not explicitly ban electronic systems for marking paper ballots — something that both ES&S and Dominion Voting Systems have begun manufacturing — it specifies that funding it would give to states to replace their paperless systems could not be used “to acquire any electronic device that a voter can use to mark a paper ballot.”If a paper ballot requirement were to become law, with or without a funding restriction such as the one included in Wyden’s bill, the increased costs and security risks of ballot-marking machines could make them less appealing to states looking to purchase new systems.According to <a href="https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/AP23/20190227/108959/HHRG-116-AP23-Wstate-HaldermanJ-20190227.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; cursor: pointer; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;">testimony</a> from Alex Halderman, Professor of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Michigan, equipping a precinct with ballot-marking electronic devices costs about three times as much as equipping it with a truly paper-based system along with a dedicated electronic device for voters with disabilities. “Fortunately, the most cost-effective approach is also the most secure: hand-marked paper ballots counted using optical scanners,” Halderman stated.Another bill being blocked by McConnell, the House-passed <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1/text" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; cursor: pointer; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;">H.R.1</a>, includes a paper ballot requirement and would subject vendors to additional new security regulations. Voting machine vendors would be required to follow cybersecurity best practices that would be issued by the EAC’s Technical Guidelines Development Committee, and they would have to report election cybersecurity incidents and response plans to the EAC. They would also be forced to submit their equipment to independent security testing, and the EAC would be empowered to decertify any equipment that does not meet its security standards.“I don’t know why Mitch McConnell is staging a full roadblock of election security legislation,” Wyden said. “But it is clear as day that there are politicians in the country who view insecure voting equipment as a benefit that helps them win elections. Instead of defending Americans’ constitutional rights, they are looking at this issue from a purely cynical and political standpoint.”=619 an

 As he blocks election security bills, Mitch McConnell takes checks from voting machine lobbyistswritten by June 12, 2019This article was written by Donald Shaw and reprinted from Sludge, which produces investigative journalism on lobbying and money in politics. In 2016, Russian hackers targeted voting systems in 21…This article was written by Donald Shaw and reprinted from Sludge, which produces investigative journalism on lobbying and money in politics.
In 2016, Russian hackers targeted voting systems in 21 states and, according to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report, breached systems in Illinois and two counties in Florida, gaining access to information on millions of registered voters. In his report, Mueller described the Russian government’s interference in the 2016 elections as “sweeping and systematic.”
Three years later, security experts warn that not enough has been done to address vulnerabilities in the U.S. election system. The director of the Federal Bureau of Investigations recently told Congress that “the threats just keep escalating,” adding that he viewed the 2018 midterms as a “dress rehearsal for the big show in 2020.”
In fourteen states, some 2018 midterm voters submitted their votes on touchscreens that did not produce paper trails necessary to verify their votes or audit election outcomes. If votes had been inaccurately processed in these precincts—whether through equipment errors or foreign hacking operations—election officials wouldn’t have been able to find or correct the problems.
Several Democratic and Republican members of Congress have submitted legislation to shore up election security. Proposals from Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) and Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Md.) include replacing paperless electronic voting machines with hand-marked paper ballots and optical scanners, subjecting voting equipment vendors to rigorous cybersecurity standards, and requiring vendors to report cybersecurity incidents.
But all the bills have hit a roadblock. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has reportedly told his colleagues that he will not allow the Senate to vote on election security legislation this session“At this point I don’t see any likelihood that those bills would get to the floor if we mark them up,” Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said recently when asked by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) whether the Rules Committee, which Blunt chairs, would mark up any election security bills. The Hill asked McConnell’s office about Blunt’s comments regarding election security and was referred to the majority leader’s verdict on the Mueller report: “case closed.”
Senator Wyden told Sludge he thinks McConnell does not want to make elections more secure.
“The only logical conclusion is that Senator McConnell wants American elections to be vulnerable to hackers and foreign interference,” Wyden said. “It is unconscionable for Republicans to stick their heads in the sand and do nothing after what happened in 2016. If Congress doesn’t act, it’s only a matter of time before hackers successfully interfere again.”
The two largest voting machine vendors in the U.S., Election Systems & Software (ES&S) and Dominion Voting Systems, together supply more than 80% of the nation’s voting machines. The companies have operated extensive lobbying operations in states for years, and both companies recently hired new lobbyists to represent them at the federal level.
ES&S hired lobbying firm Peck Madigan Jones in Oct. 2018 and paid it a combined $150,000 to lobby the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives in the fourth quarter of 2018 and the first quarter of 2019. ES&S did not employ any federal lobbyists in 2017, and when they reported lobbying in previous years it was at a much lower level, spending just $10,000 in many quarters. Dominion Voting Systems, which was recently acquired by New York-based hedge fund Staple Street Capital, signed its first-ever federal lobbying contract in January 2019 with Brownstein Hyatt Farber and Schreck and has paid the company at least $30,000 so far to lobby Congress.
Several of the lobbyists working for ES&S and Dominion Voting Systems have recently made contributions to McConnell’s campaign and joint fundraising committee.
Brownstein Hyatt Farber and Schreck lobbyist David Cohen, who lobbies for Dominion Voting Systems on issues related to election security and monitors federal legislation for the company, gave McConnell $2,000 on March 31: $1,000 to his campaign committee and $1,000 to his joint fundraising committee. Lobbyist Brain Wild, who works alongside Cohen on the Dominion contract, gave McConnell $1,000 on the same day.
Emily Kirlin, a lobbyist for Peck Madigan Jones who lobbies for ES&S on election security and H.R. 1, gave McConnell’s campaign committee $1,000 on February 19, and her colleague who works with her on the contract, Jen Olson, gave McConnell $1,000 on March 4.
“It’s not surprising to me that Mitch McConnell is receiving these campaign contributions,” the Brennan Center for Justice’s Lawrence Noren told Sludge. “He seems single-handedly to be standing in the way of anything passing in Congress around election security, and that includes things that the vendors might want, like money for the states to replace antiquated equipment.”
“Mitch McConnell’s conflicts of interest in blocking any and all election security legislation is not only shameful, it is placing our democracy at risk,” Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist at Public Citizen, told Sludge. “The conflicts of interest arise from more than the campaign contributions he is receiving from voting machine vendors—contributions which certainly appear to be a reward from the industry for letting them off the hook—but it is also a self-serving act for strictly partisan purposes.
“McConnell believes this foreign interference in our democratic process will again favor the GOP, and so he is doing everything possible to make sure that window stays wide open for those who seek to do harm to our political system,” Holman said.
McConnell’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Voting machine vendors like ES&S and Dominion Voting Systems are not currently subject to any specific regulations or mandatory security standards.
“In contrast to other sectors, particularly those that the federal government has designated ‘critical infrastructure,’ there is almost no federal oversight of private vendors that design and maintain the systems that allow us to determine who can vote, how they vote, what voters see when they cast their vote, how votes are counted, and how those vote totals are communicated to the public,” Noren told Congress recently in a testimony. “In fact, there are more federal regulations for ballpoint pens and magic markers than there are for voting systems and other parts of our federal election infrastructure.”
Several of the bills that have been proposed in Congress would subject them to regulation and oversight for the first time, and some could result in the companies doing less business with the states as they encourage the use of hand-marked ballots instead of machines.
A bill from Senator Wyden—the Protecting American Votes and Election Act (PAVE Act)—would, for the first time, establish minimum cybersecurity requirements that election equipment vendors would have to comply with in order for their equipment to be eligible for use in federal elections. The rules would be established by the Department of Homeland Security, and systems would have to be tested and certified by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC).
The PAVE Act would also require voting systems to use an “individual, durable, voter-verifiable, paper ballot of the voter’s vote that shall be marked and made available for physical inspection and verification by the voter before the voter’s vote is cast and tabulated.” And while the bill does not explicitly ban electronic systems for marking  paper ballots—something that both ES&S and Dominion Voting Systems have begun manufacturing—it specifies that funding it would give to states to replace their paperless systems could not be used “to acquire any electronic device that a voter can use to mark a paper ballot.”
If a paper ballot requirement were to become law, with or without a funding restriction such as the one included in Wyden’s bill, the increased costs and security risks of ballot-marking machines could make them less appealing to states looking to purchase new systems.
According to testimony from Alex Halderman, Professor of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Michigan, equipping a precinct with ballot-marking electronic devices costs about three times as much as equipping it with a truly paper-based system along with a dedicated electronic device for voters with disabilities. “Fortunately, the most cost-effective approach is also the most secure: hand-marked paper ballots counted using optical scanners,” Halderman stated.
Another bill being blocked by McConnell, the House-passed H.R.1, includes a paper ballot requirement and would subject vendors to additional new security regulations. Voting machine vendors would be required to follow cybersecurity best practices that would be issued by the EAC’s Technical Guidelines Development Committee, and they would have to report election cybersecurity incidents and response plans to the EAC. They would also be forced to submit their equipment to independent security testing, and the EAC would be empowered to decertify any equipment that does not meet its security standards.
“I don’t know why Mitch McConnell is staging a full roadblock of election security legislation,” Wyden said. “But it is clear as day that there are politicians in the country who view insecure voting equipment as a benefit that helps them win elections. Instead of defending Americans’ constitutional rights, they are looking at this issue from a purely cynical and political standpoint.”<a href="https://www.alternet.org/2019/06/as-he-blocks-election-security-bills-mitch-mcconnell-takes-checks-from-voting-machine-lobbyists/">https://www.alternet.org/2019/06/as-he-blocks-election-security-bills-mitch-mcconnell-takes-checks-from-voting-machine-lobbyists/</a>secret sci tate powell=
<a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Johnson,Madigan,Peck,Boland%26_Stewart">https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Johnson,Madigan,Peck,Boland_%26_Stewart</a>

Johnson, Madigan, Peck, Boland & Stewart is a Washington, D.C.-based lobbying firm.

<h2>Contents</h2>

</div></div><div id="toc" class="toc"><ul><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Johnson,Madigan,Peck,Boland%26_Stewart#Working_for_Colombia">1 Working for Colombia</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-2"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Johnson,Madigan,Peck,Boland%26_Stewart#Clients">2 Clients</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-3"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Johnson,Madigan,Peck,Boland%26_Stewart#Contact_details">3 Contact details</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-4"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Johnson,Madigan,Peck,Boland%26_Stewart#SourceWatch_resources">4 SourceWatch resources</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-5"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Johnson,Madigan,Peck,Boland%26_Stewart#External_links">5 External links</a>

<ul><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-6"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Johnson,Madigan,Peck,Boland%26_Stewart#Sources">5.1 Sources</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-7"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Johnson,Madigan,Peck,Boland%26_Stewart#Articles">5.2 Articles</a></li></ul>

</li></ul>

</div>

<h2>Working for Colombia</h2>

In November 2006, Jeffrey J. Pech, the President of the Washington

D.C. lobbying firm Johnson, Madigan, Peck, Boland & Stewart,

notified the U.S. Department of Justice that his firm had negotiated a

tentative agreement with <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ProExport_Combia&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="ProExport Combia (page does not exist)">ProExport Combia</a>,

the Colombian government trade bureau, "to assist in the passing of a

free trade agreement." The agreement was specified to run for 50 days

from the date that the contract was signed at a cost of $50,000. The

proposed terms of the consultancy included some that are very similar

objectives with those that ProExport negotiated with the Glover Park

Group. In particular, the agreement required the lobbying firm to:

<dl><dd>"Identify the public opinion in relation to the temporary renewal of

the ATPDEA [Andean Trade Preference and Drug Eradication Act]

preferences and the approval of the TPA in the United States Congress,

and specially the groups that are interested in using their influence in

favor or against them"</dd></dl>

<dl><dd>"Identify the significant issues (positive and negative) to everyone involved in the decision making process"</dd></dl>

<dl><dd>"Based on a carefully elaborated diagnostic, and bearing in mind

that Colombia's main objective is the implementation of the TPA, propose

to the Colombia government a comprehensive government relations

strategy aimed at the temporary renewal of the ATPDEA preferences and

the approval of the TPA in the United States Congress as soon as

possible".</dd></dl>

<dl><dd>"Identify within the press, the Congress, the academy, business

leaders and in general the United States society, speakers and leaders

that can help the Government of Colombia to transmit its arguments and

priorities in relation to the ATPDEA and the TPA";</dd></dl>

<dl><dd>"Implement the strategy for the above objectives, working closely

with Colombian Government teams in Washington DC and in Colombia. This

includes the necessary contacts and actions to promote support for the

temporary renewal of the ATPDEA preferences and the approval of the TPA

in Congress of the United States"<a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Johnson,Madigan,Peck,Boland%26_Stewart#cite_note-1">[1]</a></dd></dl>

In early November 2006, Peter Thomas Madigan from the lobbying firm

submitted an addendum to the contract which specified that the duration

of the contract would run until June 27, 2007 with the value of the

contract increased from $51,000 to $273,000. This was amended later

still to a total of $240,000. In January 2008 the duration of the

contract was extended until June 27th, 2008.<a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Johnson,Madigan,Peck,Boland%26_Stewart#cite_note-2">[2]</a>

<h2>Clients</h2>

On its website the firm states that its clients have included<a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Johnson,Madigan,Peck,Boland%26_Stewart#cite_note-3">[3]</a>

Our Clients have included:

<ul><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Accenture" title="Accenture">Accenture</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ACE_INA&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="ACE INA (page does not exist)">ACE INA</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Adelphia_Communications&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Adelphia Communications (page does not exist)">Adelphia Communications</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Alliance_for_Quality_Nursing_Home_Care" title="Alliance for Quality Nursing Home Care">Alliance for Quality Nursing Home Care</a>, Inc.</li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Altria_Corporate_Services&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Altria Corporate Services (page does not exist)">Altria Corporate Services</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Institute_of_Certified_Public_Accountants&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (page does not exist)">American Institute of Certified Public Accountants</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Insurance_Association" title="American Insurance Association">American Insurance Association</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Amgen" title="Amgen">Amgen</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Applied_Biosystems&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Applied Biosystems (page does not exist)">Applied Biosystems</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Arctic_Power&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Arctic Power (page does not exist)">Arctic Power</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/AstraZeneca" title="AstraZeneca">AstraZeneca</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Bank_of_New_York" title="Bank of New York">Bank of New York</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/BellSouth_Corporation" class="mw-redirect" title="BellSouth Corporation">BellSouth Corporation</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Brooklyn_Philharmonic%26_Symphonic_Orchestra&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Brooklyn Philharmonic & Symphonic Orchestra (page does not exist)">Brooklyn Philharmonic & Symphonic Orchestra</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Brooklyn_Public_Library&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Brooklyn Public Library (page does not exist)">Brooklyn Public Library</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Business_Roundtable" title="Business Roundtable">Business Roundtable</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=CARI/PEC&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="CARI/PEC (page does not exist)">CARI/PEC</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Charles_Schwab%26_Company&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Charles Schwab & Company (page does not exist)">Charles Schwab & Company</a>, Inc.</li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Cisco_Systems" class="mw-redirect" title="Cisco Systems">Cisco Systems</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Committee_on_Capital_Markets_Regulation&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Committee on Capital Markets Regulation (page does not exist)">Committee on Capital Markets Regulation</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=County_of_Nassau&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="County of Nassau (page does not exist)">County of Nassau</a>, New York</li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Deloitte_%26_Touche" class="mw-redirect" title="Deloitte & Touche">Deloitte & Touche</a> LLP</li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Delta_Dental_Plans_Association&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Delta Dental Plans Association (page does not exist)">Delta Dental Plans Association</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dubai&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Dubai (page does not exist)">Dubai</a>

- a two-year, $25,000 per month contract "to provide government

relations and lobbying services to promote 'Brand Dubai'," according to O'Dwyer's <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Johnson,Madigan,Peck,Boland%26_Stewart#cite_note-4">[4]</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Electronic_Payments_Coalition" title="Electronic Payments Coalition">Electronic Payments Coalition</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Entergy" title="Entergy">Entergy</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Fannie_Mae" title="Fannie Mae">Fannie Mae</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Globalstar&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Globalstar (page does not exist)">Globalstar</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hong_Kong_Trade_Development_Council&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Hong Kong Trade Development Council (page does not exist)">Hong Kong Trade Development Council</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Employee_Stock_Options_Coalition&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="International Employee Stock Options Coalition (page does not exist)">International Employee Stock Options Coalition</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Invitrogen&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Invitrogen (page does not exist)">Invitrogen</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lockheed_Martin_Corporation&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Lockheed Martin Corporation (page does not exist)">Lockheed Martin Corporation</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/MasterCard" title="MasterCard">MasterCard</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Microsoft_Corporation" class="mw-redirect" title="Microsoft Corporation">Microsoft Corporation</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Music_Publishers%27_Association&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="National Music Publishers' Association (page does not exist)">National Music Publishers' Association</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=New_Castle_County&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="New Castle County (page does not exist)">New Castle County</a>, Delaware</li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=New_York_Hall_of_Science&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="New York Hall of Science (page does not exist)">New York Hall of Science</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=New_York_Software_Industry_Association&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="New York Software Industry Association (page does not exist)">New York Software Industry Association</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=New_Zealand-United_States_Business_Council&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="New Zealand - United States Business Council (page does not exist)">New Zealand - United States Business Council</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=NYSE_Group&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="NYSE Group (page does not exist)">NYSE Group</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Organization_for_International_Investment&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Organization for International Investment (page does not exist)">Organization for International Investment</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/PhRMA" class="mw-redirect" title="PhRMA">PhRMA</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=PMX_Industries&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="PMX Industries (page does not exist)">PMX Industries</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Poongsan_Corporation&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Poongsan Corporation (page does not exist)">Poongsan Corporation</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Private_Equity_Council" title="Private Equity Council">Private Equity Council</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ProExport&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="ProExport (page does not exist)">ProExport</a> / <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Colombia" title="Colombia">Colombia</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Republic_of_Panama&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Republic of Panama (page does not exist)">Republic of Panama</a> - Ministry of Trade and Industry</li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=State_of_Iowa&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="State of Iowa (page does not exist)">State of Iowa</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Third_Way" title="Third Way">Third Way</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=USAA&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="USAA (page does not exist)">USAA</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/U.S._Chamber_of_Commerce" title="U.S. Chamber of Commerce">U.S. Chamber of Commerce</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Verizon_Wireless" title="Verizon Wireless">Verizon Wireless</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Vietnam_Veterans_of_America_Foundation" title="Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation">Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Wilmer_Culter_Pickering_Hale_and_Dorr&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Wilmer Culter Pickering Hale and Dorr (page does not exist)">Wilmer Culter Pickering Hale and Dorr</a>, LLP</li></ul>

<h2>Contact details</h2>

1300 Connecticut Avenue, NW

Sixth Floor

Washington, DC 20036

Phone: (202) 775-8116

Fax: (202) 223-0358

Email: info AT jmp-dc.com

Website: <a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="http://www.jmp-dc.com/">http://www.jmp-dc.com/</a>

<h2>SourceWatch resources</h2>

<ul><li><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Colombia" title="Colombia">Colombia</a></li></ul>

<h2>External links</h2>

<h3>Sources</h3>

<ol class="references"><li id="cite_note-1">
</li></ol></div><div id="bodyContent" class="mw-body-content"><li id="cite_note-1"> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.fara.gov/docs/5776-Exhibit-AB-20080125-8.pdf">"Exhibit B; Registration Statement Pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended"</a>, November 17, 2006, page 1.</li>

<li id="cite_note-2">
</li><li id="cite_note-2"> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.fara.gov/docs/5776-Exhibit-AB-20080125-8.pdf">"Exhibit B; Registration Statement Pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended"</a>, January 24, 2008, page 3.</li>

<li id="cite_note-3">
</li><li id="cite_note-3"> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.jmp-dc.com/expertise/clients.html">"Clients: We believe our clients should know the people in power personally"</a>, Johnson, Madigan, Peck, Boland & Stewart, accessed April 2008.</li>

<li id="cite_note-4">
</li><div id="mw-content-text" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr" lang="en"><div class="mw-parser-output"><div class="mw-references-wrap"><ol class="references"><li value="4" id="cite_note-4"> "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.odwyerpr.com/members/0616branddubai.html">'Brand Dubai' Worth $25K Monthly</a>," O'Dwyer's PR Daily (sub req'd), June 16, 2008.</li></ol>

</div>

<h3>Articles</h3>

<table style="margin:0.5em 0.57em 0.5em 0.7em; border-collapse: collapse; background: #fffacd; border: 1px solid #dad26d;"><tbody><tr><td style="padding:.25em .25em 0.25em .25em;" width="100%">This article is a <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/SourceWatch:Find_or_fix_a_stub" title="SourceWatch:Find or fix a stub">stub</a>. You can <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/SourceWatch:Find_or_fix_a_stub" title="SourceWatch:Find or fix a stub">help</a> by <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Johnson,Madigan,Peck,Boland%26_Stewart&action=edit">expanding it</a>.</td><td>
</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div>

    <div id="catlinks" class="catlinks" data-mw="interface"><div id="mw-normal-catlinks" class="mw-normal-catlinks"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Special:Categories" title="Special:Categories">Categories</a>: </font><ul><li><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:Lobbying_firms" title="Category:Lobbying firms">Lobbying firms</a></font></li><li><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:United_States" title="Category:United States">United States</a></font></li><li><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:Stubs" title="Category:Stubs">Stubs</a></font></li></ul></div></div></div><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">==<br /></font></p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">

<div>Peck, Madigan</div>

<div>

</div>

<div>

Third Way, a centrist think tank that portrays itself as a Democratic group, has some advice for the party: avoid economic populism at all costs. In a <a href="http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304337404579213923151169790#printMode" target="_blank" data-ls-seen="1" style="text-decoration: none;">column</a> for The Wall Street Journal today, the group argues that the party should steer clear of creating a strong safety net, and criticizes Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio’s call for universal pre-K funded through an upper-income tax increase as a foolhardy idea for national Democrats.

As many have noted today, in reaction to the column, Third Way’s attacks on Social Security and Medicare fail on the <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/12/03/3012791/wall-street-journal-column-says-elizabeth-warrens-policies-politically-disastrous-ignores-actual-data/" target="_blank" data-ls-seen="1" style="text-decoration: none;">merits</a>. It’s bad policy, and it’s equally bad politics.

But for Third Way, a group founded in 2005 that is highly active on Capitol Hill, the think tank is merely defending the special interest groups that allow it to exist.

Buried <a href="http://thesecondalarm.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/thirdway.jpg" data-ls-seen="1" style="text-decoration: none;">inside</a> the annual report for Third Way is a revelation that the group relies on a peculiar DC consulting firm to raise half a million a year: Peck, Madigan, Jones & Stewart. Peck Madigan is no ordinary nonprofit buckraiser. The group is, in fact, a corporate lobbying firm that <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?id=D000034920&year=2013" target="_blank" data-ls-seen="1" style="text-decoration: none;">represents</a>Deutsche Bank, Intel, the Business Roundtable, Amgen, AT&T, the International Swaps & Derivatives Association, MasterCard, New York Life Insurance, PhRMA and the US Chamber of Commerce, among others.

The two organizations complement each other well. Peck Madigan <a href="http://www.politico.com/politicoinfluence/0613/politicoinfluence10987.html" target="blank" data-ls-seen="1" style="text-decoration: none;">signs as a lobbyist</a> for the government of New Zealand on the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade deal; Third Way aggressively <a href="https://twitter.com/ThirdWayTweet/status/405783395755515904/photo/1" target="blank" data-ls-seen="1" style="text-decoration: none;">promotes</a> the deal. Peck Madigan <a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/us-chamber-social-security-medicare-doomed-without-40-trillion-more/article/2532135" target="_blank" data-ls-seen="1" style="text-decoration: none;">clients</a> push for entitlement cuts, and so does Third Way.

Notice that Humana, a major health insurance company, lists its <a href="http://apps.humana.com/marketing/documents.asp?file=1877291" target="_blank" data-ls-seen="1" style="text-decoration: none;">$50,000 donation</a> to Third Way not as a donation to a think tank but as part of its yearly budget spent on lobbying activity, up there with the Florida Chamber and other trade associations. The company views financial gifts to Third Way as part of its strategy for increasing its profit-making political influence.

What’s more, Third Way’s leadership has tenuous connections to the Democratic Party it hopes to shape. Daniel Loeb, a hedge fund manager listed as a trustee on Third Way’s 2012 annual disclosure, bundled <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/bundlers.php?id=N00000286" target="blank" data-ls-seen="1" style="text-decoration: none;">$556,031</a> for Mitt Romney last year. Third Way <a href="http://www.thirdway.org/trustees" target="blank" data-ls-seen="1" style="text-decoration: none;">board member</a> Derek Kaufman, another hedge fund executive, also <a href="http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/derek-kaufman.asp?cycle=12" target="_blank" data-ls-seen="1" style="text-decoration: none;">gave to Romney</a>.

There is a long and storied tradition of corporate, right-wing interests seeking to shape the economic policies of the Democratic Party. The DLC, another Third Way–style group that folded in 2011, was funded by none other than Koch Industries. Richard Fink, a strategist to the Koch brothers who helped found what is now known as Americans for Prosperity, <a href="http://prospect.org/article/how-dlc-does-it" target="_blank" data-ls-seen="1" style="text-decoration: none;">was on the DLC’s board</a>.

Washington’s <a href="https://twitter.com/ron_fournier/status/407909020704727040" target="blank" data-ls-seen="1" style="text-decoration: none;">Big Business–friendly</a> press has greeted the Third Way column as a “<a href="https://twitter.com/gzornick/status/407963043067592704" target="blank" data-ls-seen="1" style="text-decoration: none;">game changer</a>.” But these arguments aren’t new, and neither are the strategies. Large corporations have many ways of finding useful surrogates, and Third Way is a prime example.

UPDATE: Daily Kos’s Hunter has a nice post <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/03/1259899/-Why-the-Third-Way-hates-Sen-Elizabeth-nbsp-Warren#" target="blank" data-ls-seen="1" style="text-decoration: none;">noting</a> how Third Way’s hatred of Senator Elizabeth Warren may relate to the fact that Third Way’s board is made up almost entirely of investment bankers and other Wall Street executives. Also worth considering, the anti-privatization drive of those “economic populism” types might rub some Third Way board leaders the wrong way—especially <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurgood_Marshall,Jr." target="_blank" data-ls-seen="1" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration: none;">the one</a> who sits on Correction Corporation of America’s board.

More Lee Fang: how the Turkey Lobby <a href="http://www.thenation.com/blog/177407/turkey-lobby-helped-block-child-labor-regulations" target="_blank" data-ls-seen="1" style="text-decoration: none;">blocked child-labor regulations</a>.

=

</div>