Lobbyists Still Buying Meals for Md. Legislators
Practice Is Allowed for Delegations

By John Wagner
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 27, 2008; B01

When two committees of the Maryland legislature held hearings this year on a bill to allow speed cameras statewide, some arguments undoubtedly sounded familiar. Weeks earlier, a national speed camera contractor invited the membership of both committees to a dinner at an upscale steakhouse organized by its Annapolis lobbyist. The night's tab: more than $3,700.

What is striking about the dinner is not that it took place, but how commonplace such largesse has become. During the 90-day legislative session that ended last month, close to $1 million was spent on meals and receptions hosted by lobbyists and their largely corporate clients, according to State Ethics Commission filings.

Under a nearly decade-old law, lobbyists cannot buy meals for individual lawmakers. Yet they are allowed to entertain them in large groups such as committees or county delegations, and often do so at considerable expense to those they represent.

"It's one of the bizarre contradictions within our ethics law," said Sen. Richard S. Madaleno Jr. (D-Montgomery). "Only the wealthiest of interests can have access to us. . . . I don't think any of us are bought over a steak dinner, but unlike in a public hearing, where the other side can counter arguments that are made and where there are time limits, you a have a captive, private audience."

The 1999 law, meant to curb excesses of an earlier era, is now widely seen as a disadvantage to grass-roots organizations and lobbying shops with smaller budgets. But even some of those whom the law seems to favor question its rationale.

Joel Rozner, the top-earning lobbyist for Rifkin, Livingston, Levitan & Silver, a prominent lobbying firm in Annapolis, said it does not make sense to ban meals with individual legislators while permitting other overtures that could arguably exercise greater influence.

"It seems inconsistent that the law prohibits me from buying a $2 hot dog for a legislator, but it allows me to write a $4,000 campaign contribution check," Rozner said, adding: "Not that I would."

During the past session, Rozner's firm hosted 15 dinners and receptions, typically dividing the cost among a dozen or more clients, some of whom were in attendance. The average cost of a dinner was nearly $4,400. Lobbyists from the firm also attended other dinners organized by clients, including the Maryland Association of Realtors and Children's National Medical Center.

Lobbyists from Annapolis's top-earning firm, Alexander & Cleaver, played a role in coordinating more than 50 meals and receptions for clients that included a range of health-care interests, a manufacturer of electronic bingo machines, Wal-Mart and ACS State and Local Solutions, the speed-camera contractor.

Rozner argued that allowing meals with individual lawmakers -- with full disclosure of who is entertained -- would permit his firm to "do business the way it is conducted in this country" and make it easier for those with fewer resources to make their case to legislators over lunch or dinner.

Under current law, lobbyists must disclose which committees or delegations they invite and how much is spent, but they are not required to report who attends. Some lawmakers are regulars at lobbyist-sponsored dinners, accepting two or three invitations a week, while others stay away for philosophical reasons or a desire to spend time with their families.

The rationale for the 1999 law was partly to sever the free-spending relationships between some lobbyists and favored lawmakers, a move that some say still makes sense, however imperfect the solution.

Sean Dobson, executive director of Progressive Maryland, is critical of the current system but said the state should not revert to allowing individual meals.

"There should be zero tolerance for giving a lawmaker anything of value," said Dobson, whose group advocates for working-class families.

A better solution, he said, would be to ban lobbyist-sponsored meals altogether and increase the $41-per-day allowance that lawmakers receive from the state for meals while in session. That would put legislators in a better position to pay their way if they want to eat with lobbyists.

A review of ethics filings from the 228 meals and receptions reported last session shows that many were hosted by perennial players in Annapolis, apparently attempting to maintain familiarity with lawmakers. In several cases, the hosts had obvious interests at stake.

Speed cameras are one of many government services offered by Dallas-based ACS State and Local Solutions. Among the localities for which it provides speed camera services are the District and Montgomery County, the only Maryland jurisdiction now authorized to use the devices. A bill backed last session by Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) would have extended the authorization to all counties.

In January, shortly after O'Malley introduced the bill, the entire membership of the House and Senate committees with jurisdiction over the legislation was invited to Ruth's Chris Steak House by Alexander & Cleaver, the firm hired by ACS. Among the attendees was the company's director of marketing.

Del. Tom Hucker (D-Montgomery) said that no hard sales pitch was made at the dinner but that it did provide a chance for the company to make its case in a relaxed atmosphere to lawmakers with qualms about speed cameras.

"If people went in agnostic about how they were going to vote on the bill, they probably had their questions answered," Hucker said.

Kevin Lightfoot, an ACS spokesman, said the dinner was "an opportunity for us to engage legislators on issues important to them and to their constituents."

Different versions of the speed camera bill passed the House and the Senate, but a compromise bill was not debated in the Senate in time for final passage on the closing night of the session.

In early March, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on another controversial bill, which would have made it easier to bring lawsuits against lead paint manufacturers.

In late February, shortly after the hearing was announced, two law firms that specialize in lead paint poisoning cases, Saul E. Kerpelman & Associates and the Law Offices of Evan K. Thalenberg, invited the entire House committee, as well as its counterpart in the Senate, to a dinner at Jerry's Seafood in Annapolis. The tab for the night was more than $3,600.

Susan O'Brien, a registered lobbyist who coordinated the event, said the evening provided an opportunity to strategize with legislators and get their feedback on the bill.

"I had a chance to talk with legislators for extended amounts of time that night," O'Brien said. "I don't get that when I stop people in the hall."

More than 40 people testified at the hearing two weeks later. The House committee later defeated the bill on a close vote, but O'Brien said it will be reintroduced next year, and advocates will start with a better sense of whose votes to target.

O'Brien, who specializes in public relations, said the dinner was "totally worthwhile" but unusual for her because most of her clients, including children who are victims of sexual abuse, have fewer resources. "I wish all my clients could do that," she said of the dinners.

Among those with interests in Annapolis who can afford to entertain lawmakers is Diageo, an international alcohol manufacturer that has been active in an effort to hold the line on alcohol taxes in Maryland, among other issues.

In February, Marta D. Harting, a lobbyist with DLA Piper who works in Annapolis, invited the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee to a dinner hosted by Diageo at Reynolds Tavern, a restaurant near the State House. The company reported spending $2,759 on the gathering, which has become an annual tradition in recent years.

"We have a number of issues in the state, and this is an important committee," Diageo spokeswoman Zsoka McDonald said.

The company was involved in a battle last session over whether flavored malt beverages, which it produces, should be classified as beer or distilled spirits. Legislation classifying the drinks as beer, which is taxed at a much lower rate and can be distributed more widely, was considered by another Senate committee before reaching the floor.

O'Malley resisted calls to veto the bill from health advocates and groups that fight drunken driving. Last week, he allowed the bill to take effect without his signature, saying he hopes the legislature will revisit the issue next year.