U.S. Chamber of Commerce looks West to boost tech business - The Washington Post

David Chavern says it was his idea to feature a picture of William Howard Taft wearing Google Glass on the brochure for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s new Center for Advanced Technology & Innovation.

“We’re establishment and we’re part of the Washington scene,” said Chavern, a top executive at the Chamber, which evolved from an idea the 27th president had more than 100 years ago.

Those aren’t seen as good qualities in the tech community, where disruption trumps D.C. bona fides. But that’s exactly who the chamber is targeting with its San Francisco center.

So Chavern decided to confront the problem head-on, he said in an interview last week, invoking the past while using some Photoshop fun to show that the Chamber “is part of the new economy.” (In another image in the small brochure, Taft is seen clutching a tablet under his arm.)

The center — which was <a href="https://www.uschamber.com/press-release/us-chamber-open-center-advanced-technology-innovation-silicon-valley-under-leadership">announced in April</a> and hosts its first event this week — is the Chamber's only major office outside Washington, and part of its mission is to serve the powerful business lobby's existing members. But the big focus is persuading Silicon Valley that it needs what Chavern calls "public policy leadership on national issues" and the kind of lobbying muscle he says that only the Chamber can provide.

That could be a tough sell. After long avoiding Washington, many tech companies realized that public policy does matter — and could either help or hurt their businesses. And they've bolstered their lobbying presence in recent years, working through their own corporate teams and through a bevy of <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/tech-industry-trade-groups-vie-for-business-as-companies-step-up-their-washington-presence/2013/12/08/8f97ebb0-5070-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html">new trade associations</a>.

There's another problem. The Chamber was a vocal proponent of anti-piracy legislation (known as SOPA in the House and PIPA in the Senate) that many tech firms opposed. (Things got so bad that Yahoo <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/web-giants-at-odds-with-chamber-of-commerce-over-piracy-bill/2011/11/15/gIQAkY5hPN_story.html">quit the trade group</a> in 2011.) In the current debate over net neutrality, in which most tech companies are on one side and telecoms giants on the other, the Chamber has been largely silent.

All of it has left some in the tech world wondering what exactly the Chamber can offer.

“On the issues that matter most to Silicon Valley, they’ve either been on the opposite side or unable to take a position,” said one tech-industry lobbyist, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about the new competition. “If you can’t advocate for a very specific position, what value is that to an industry or a company?”

But the new Chamber venture does have some early supporters. "There's always room for people to be advocating for the needs of the technology community," Carl Guardino, CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, a trade association, <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/politics/joegarofoli/article/U-S-Chamber-of-Commerce-opens-S-F-office-to-woo-5605421.php">told the San Francisco Chronicle</a> last week.

Before taking on his new gig, Chavern spent more than seven years as the Chamber’s chief operating officer, and saw total revenues increase more than 60 percent. Not surprisingly, he sees plenty of room for the Chamber to boost its tech business.

He mentions tax policy and immigration as “universal issues” that all major businesses care about. There are also 70 people at the Chamber who work on international issues and could help the U.S. tech sector expand its global reach, he added.

While he acknowledged that the Chamber has sometimes been at odds with Silicon Valley, he said there are several emerging issues on which he sees common ground, including cybersecurity and privacy.

“I’m confident we’ll be on their side in some big debates,” Chavern said.

At an event, to be held Thursday at RocketStudios, a tech incubator, the Chamber will screen "<a href="http://www.underwaterdreamsfilm.com/">Underwater Dreams</a>," a new documentary about immigration and education. (The film's funders include the Bezos Family Foundation. Jeffrey P. Bezos owns The Washington Post and sits on the board of directors of the foundation, which was established by his parents.)

The Chamber’s Silicon Valley center is now negotiating with a landlord for office space in San Francisco, and by this time next year, Chavern expects to have a staff of 8 to 10 people working there.

Even then, though, he’s boasting to would-be members that the Chamber can offer the services of a 500-strong team of Washington lawyers, lobbyists and others, working from a stately building across Lafayette Square and up from the White House.

As Chavern said, “I’m not going to run away from that.”

Holly Yeager

The Washington Post

Politics

Post Politics from The Washington Post is the source for political news headlines, in-depth politics coverage and political opinion, plus breaking news on the biden administration and White House, Congress, the Supreme Court, elections and more.

Post Politics from The Washington Post is the source for political news headlines, in-depth politics coverage and political opinion, plus breaking news on the Trump administration and White House, Congress, the Supreme Court, elections and more.

Bloomberg

Delta Air Lines Inc. Chief Executive Officer Richard Anderson Testifies On Reauthorization Of The Export-Import Bank

The Influence Industry: Ex-Im Bank renewal, a familiar issue on K Street, divides GOP - The Washington Post

It was just a week ago that the debate over keeping the doors open at the usually little-noticed Export-Import Bank burst into the spotlight, the latest flash point for a divided Republican Party. But the topic has been keeping corporate lobbyists and trade associations busy for years.

The Aerospace Industries Association, whose members — including Boeing, the bank’s biggest beneficiary — rely on its loan guarantees to help sell their products abroad, has, since 2008, listed the bank among the issues it lobbies on, according to federal disclosure reports. Caterpillar, another exporter that benefits from the bank’s loans, lobbied on the bank in 2009.

In fact, according to <a href="http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/06/19/ex-im-bank/">a new study</a> by the Sunlight Foundation, a D.C. nonprofit that advocates for greater government transparency, at least half of companies and organizations that have been most active on the issue reported lobbying on the bank every year since 2010.

Delta Air Lines, perhaps the bank’s most outspoken corporate critic, started lobbying on the issue in 2011. (The airline isn’t wild about the way the U.S. government agency helps finance purchases of wide-body aircraft by its foreign competitors.)

That’s the year things started to get more serious, ahead of the bank’s most recent reauthorization in 2012.

“There was a bigger level of critique than we had seen” in past debates about renewing the bank’s charter, said Linda Dempsey, vice president of international economic affairs at the National Association of Manufacturers.

In May 2012, <a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll224.xml">a vast majority</a> of House Republicans ended up supporting renewal, with 147 voting yes and 93 opposing it. NAM, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and big exporters kept working on the issue.

And now — after Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the incoming House majority leader, signaled his opposition to the bank, and an energized tea party wing of the GOP has seized on it as an example of crony capitalism — they’re glad they did.

Faced with complaints that the bank is a form of corporate welfare whose work would be better left to the private sector, the manufacturers association is spearheading a big corporate push, arguing that its renewal is key to creating jobs and ensuring American competitiveness.

In December, NAM took representatives from large companies and their suppliers to the Hill to help explain to House freshmen — who haven’t voted on the issue before — how the bank works.

The group organized a House Ex-Im lobby day in early May, and another on the Senate side on June 5. Then, three weeks ago, during a “Manufacturing Summit,” hundreds of NAM members made the case for the Ex-Im Bank on the Hill.

NAM’s top political strategist, Ned Monroe, wouldn’t talk about how the many business groups involved in the fight are coordinating their efforts. But he acknowledged that his group recently “re-engineered” its Ex-Im Bank campaign. “The political dynamics change with every single Congress and every single issue,” he said Friday.

Last week, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/06/23/business-groups-step-up-fight-on-ex-im-bank/">the NAM-led coalition</a> sent a letter to Congress from 865 organizations that support the bank, and the group announced that it had hired a few political heavy hitters to help make their case, including Richard A. Gephardt, the former House Democratic leader, and Haley Barbour, a former Mississippi governor and Republican National Committee chairman.

The choice of Barbour was an especially interesting one. That same week, he <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/cochrans-counter-to-the-tea-party-mississippi-needs-dc/2014/06/23/35ed07c6-fb10-11e3-b1f4-8e77c632c07b_story.html">played a big role</a> in helping Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) fight off a tea party challenge. Is he really best placed to help win over the same crowd when it comes to the bank?

“This is not about our legislative opponents,” Monroe said, not quite embracing the question. “This is a jobs issue. This is an opportunity to find out who is the best messenger.” (Barbour, a well-connected lobbyist, also counts Caterpillar among his clients, though he doesn’t list the bank among the issues he works on for the company.)

On the other side, much of the push is coming from conservative groups such as the Club for Growth.

Of course, NAM isn't alone in making the case for the bank. Lots of exporters are tapping their own lobbyists, and some of them have been encouraging Hill staffers to use <a href="http://www.exim.gov/customcf/congressionalmap/us_map.cfm">a feature on the Ex-Im Bank's Web site</a> that shows the dollar value of exports the bank has agreed to finance in each state and congressional district.

The Aerospace Industries Association is stepping up its effort, too, with tough messages about jobs and American competitiveness. At a House Financial Services Committee <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/ex-im-bank-chief-prepares-to-defend-agency-at-house-hearing/2014/06/25/061a5282-fc65-11e3-b1f4-8e77c632c07b_story.html">hearing Wednesday</a>, the group scored big when Fred P. Hochberg, president and chairman of the bank, held up a full-page ad it had placed in Politico, arguing that China, Russia and France all have their own versions of the bank, and shuttering the U.S. one would send thousands of jobs overseas.

The Chamber of Commerce is playing big, too, and, like NAM, promises that its members and affiliates will use the July 4 congressional recess and the month of August to show lawmakers how important the bank is to businesses in their districts.

As NAM’s Monroe put it, “at the end of the day, the issue that matters most is hearing from constituents.”

With the Ex-Im Bank’s current charter set to expire on Sept. 30, they’ll find out soon if that’s enough.

President Obama Signs U.S. Export-Import Bank Reauthorization

Long-building conservative anger at Export-Import Bank reaches boiling point - The Washington Post

The tea party had waged wars against President Obama’s health-care plan and government spending. But in early 2012, it was beginning to sound its next battle cry, one that is now deepening the split within the Republican Party: “crony capitalism.”

On the sixth floor of a Washington office building, Barney Keller, a 20-something communications director and researcher for the conservative group Club for Growth, was searching the Web for information about the Export-Import Bank. The little-known government agency provides tens of billions of dollars annually in financing to help foreign buyers purchase U.S. planes, trucks and other goods.

Every few hours, Keller would howl with news the bank had helped a special corporate interest: the corrupt energy ­giant Enron, or the solar-panel-maker Solyndra, or Hollywood studios. In the eyes of Keller and his bosses, Ex-Im was emblematic of a culture in Washington that puts corporate interests over ordinary people.

“I’m sitting in my office, and I hear Barney screaming, ‘This is unbelievable,’ ” recalled Chris Chocola, the former Indiana congressman who leads the group.

“It was like a treasure trove,” Keller said. “You could take any bad thing the government has done and put it into the Export-Import [Bank] and get hits.”

What began as a pet issue for a handful of conservatives is now turning the GOP on its head. The fight over the obscure agency has pitted traditional lawmakers backed by big corporations against tea party conservatives, who, still fuming over bank bailouts of 2008, insist that supporting free markets is not the same as supporting business interests.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups are mounting a major campaign to save Ex-Im, whose authorization expires Sept. 30 without congressional action, by contacting businesses that benefit from the agency and are based in Republican districts. “We have a ground game fully in place,” said Ned Monroe, the National Association of Manufacturers’ top political strategist.

The rift within the GOP could have consequences beyond internal party politics. Democrats are relishing the opportunity to back Republicans into an election-year corner over Ex-Im, whose authorization expires on the same day that legislation is required to keep the government open. Some on Capitol Hill fear the Ex-Im debate could become intertwined with the discussion over extending federal funding.

Opponents tend to seize on the most extreme stories about Ex-Im, such as loans that went to companies that struggled or allegedly behaved badly. But their broader ideological argument is that the agency represents the power of lobbying by big, wealthy companies, such as Boeing and General Electric, which are among those that benefit the most from the bank’s activities.

Supporters of Ex-Im, which government auditors say makes money for taxpayers, contend a few bad apples should not diminish the beneficial role the agency plays in the U.S. economy, helping hundreds of American businesses offer credit to foreign buyers in a world where many other countries subsidize their industries.

Concerns about giveaways to corporations helped fuel Virginia Republican congressional candidate Dave Brat’s successful tea party primary challenge to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in Virginia. Cantor, with close ties to the Chamber of Commerce and other corporate groups, helped organize a deal in 2012 that saved Ex-Im despite growing criticism by conservatives.

His successor as majority leader, Rep. Kevin McCarthy of  California, surprised constituents and many colleagues when he announced last Sunday that he would not support Ex-Im’s re­authorization.

“I was pretty shocked,” said Don Nelson, who runs an oil equipment company based in Bakersfield, Calif., in McCarthy’s district. He says his business needs Ex-Im support to sell overseas. “We have about 100 people, and if we lose the export business, that’s a lot of people we have to let go.”

McCarthy, who has voted for the bank in the past, is joined in opposition to its reauthorization by some key Republican figures, including Reps. Paul Ryan (Wis.) and Jeb Hensarling (Tex.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

“Whether it is termed public-private partnership, mercantilism, industrial policy or crony capitalism, regrettably a great deal of economic activity that masquerades today as free enterprise is not,” Hensarling said in a high-profile speech at the Heritage Foundation last month. “For the sake of our republic, our movement had best unmask the imposters and come down clearly on the side of free enterprise.”

The opposition to Ex-Im has forced House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) into a familiar if unwelcome spot, facing the choice of bowing to conservative forces in his party or overriding them by forging a compromise with Democrats.

In the past, “crony capitalism” has been used as a political mantra by some liberals. Its rise as a tea party issue raises questions about how Republicans who have relied on business support — and campaign donations — will respond to growing economic populism within their party.

Concerns about crony capitalism run deep among conservatives — especially young ones — nationwide. A <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/27/elizabeth-warren-says-the-american-economy-is-rigged-many-conservatives-agree/">major new Pew poll</a> this week found that 69 percent of young, conservative-leaning voters and 48 percent of conservative voters overall say the economic system favors the powerful. Two-thirds of "business conservatives" think the economic system is fair.

Crony capitalism "is one of the core reasons that there's a disconnect between Republican voters today and Republicans in Washington," said Michael Needham, the 32-year-old chief executive of Heritage Action, which is pressuring Republicans to oppose Ex-Im and other corporate subsidies.

Needham became closely attuned to the issues of crony capitalism while studying at Stanford University's business school in 2008 and 2009. He was required to take a course on "strategy beyond markets," which the university describes as a response to the fact that "the profit-maximizing activities of firms often give rise to issues that involve governments and the public."

"It was an explicit recognition by a top business school that to be a successful CEO, you have to be able to lobby Washington," Needham said. "That distills everything that's wrong."

The first signs of the business-populist split in the GOP emerged in Washington during the 2008 bailout battle and the 2009 stimulus debate. Many big businesses supported the government’s efforts to rescue the financial system and the economy, fueling skepticism among hard-line conservatives who were wary of any government involvement.

That division abated during the rest of Obama’s first term, when both tea party and business conservatives found common cause in opposing the Affordable Care Act and efforts to raise taxes on the wealthy.

But conservatives kept their eye on issues that might have broader symbolic value. In 2012, organizations such as Heritage Action and the Club for Growth began to rail against Ex-Im and the Chamber of Commerce for supporting it.

“Ex-Im is a tiny little thing, but it’s creating a national debate,” said Andrew Roth, vice president for government affairs at the Club for Growth.

The effort against Ex-Im was also supported by the tea party group FreedomWorks. Max Pappas, who helped lead the drive against corporate subsidies for FreedomWorks, now works for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.).

Chocola, the Club for Growth president, said it is incumbent on conservatives to oppose business giveaways if they are also pushing for an overhaul of the social safety net. “There is a moral argument to be made,” he said. “How can you be out there talking about reforming social welfare if you’re not talking about reforming corporate welfare?”

Rebecca Robbins contributed to this report.

Zachary Goldfarb is Climate & Environment Editor at The Washington Post, overseeing a new department dedicated to covering climate, the environment and extreme weather. 

Zachary Goldfarb

Economy

The source for business news and analysis. Covering economic policy, business policy, financial news, economic issues, stock market data, local business, technology and more.

Business

Business groups step up fight on Ex-Im Bank - The Washington Post

A day after the incoming House majority leader said he supports letting the charter of the Export-Import bank expire later this year, two powerful business groups said Monday that they are stepping up their fight to keep the bank in business.

The Ex-Im Bank, which makes loan guarantees to foreign customers buying from U.S. exporters, has become the latest flash point between business leaders and conservatives who say the system is a form of  "corporate welfare."

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the outgoing majority leader, helped the bank win reauthorization two years ago. But Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who is set to take over as majority leader following Cantor's unexpected primary loss, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/06/22/rep-kevin-mccarthy-supports-letting-the-export-import-bank-expire/">said Sunday</a> that the bank is "something government does not have to be involved in. The private sector can do it." McCarthy was among those who voted to reauthorize the bank in 2012. Its current charter is set to expire at the end of September.

"Business leaders are perplexed by the inside-the-Beltway campaign against the Ex-Im Bank," Tom Donohue,  president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said in call with reporters Monday.

The Chamber and the National Association of Manufacturers announced a new coalition to press for quick action on the bank and released <a href="http://exportersforexim.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2014/06/FINAL-NAM-Chamber-Joint-Ex-Im-Letter-with-signatories.pdf">a letter from 865 organizations</a> that argue that the bank helps level the playing field for U.S. companies and creates thousands of American jobs.

Jay Timmons, president and CEO of NAM, said his group has brought on three heavy hitters to help make their case on the Hill: Haley Barbour, a former Mississippi governor and chairman of the Republican National Committee; Dick Gephardt, the former House Democratic leader; and Tony Fratto, who served in the second Bush White House.

In addition, "There is a lot of grass-roots and grass-tops activity going on right now and there is going to be more," Timmons said.

The Chamber, which has <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/05/21/the-biggest-winner-in-primaries-u-s-chamber-of-commerce/">boosted GOP candidates</a> against tea party challengers in primaries across the country this year, has been holding meetings across Capitol Hill on the bank, Donohue said. The Chamber's members have also been active; there are more than 3,000 small businesses that benefit from the bank's financing and they "are all located in somebody's district," he said.

"I don't know how this will all work out," Donohue said, "but the Ex-Im Bank will not fade quietly into the sunset."

Redskins realize lobbying isn’t just a legislative thing - The Washington Post

The Washington Redskins’ recent decision to hire lobbyists shouldn’t come as a shock.

The Redskins made the move a week after 50 senators wrote to the NFL commissioner urging the league to press the team to change its name.

But is this really a moment when lobbyists can make a difference? After all, most of the debate has been raging outside the halls of Congress.  And while it’s a big public relations mess, legislative action against the team seems pretty unlikely at this point.

Well, not surprisingly, influence industry pros say there still might be something K Street can do.

“They may calm down the senators. They may resolve one potential hot spot,” is how one seasoned lobbyist put it.

But there’s more. “Lobbyists can be like Navy SEALs you’re sending in to find out what kind of bombs are out there,” said Larry Kamer,  a public affairs and crisis management expert whose clients have included Toyota and Nike. “They can come back and say, ‘We’re in a dangerous situation, and here’s what we’ve got to do to get out of it.’ ”

Others in the business agree: Sometimes, it’s not opening doors or detailed policy advice that clients need, but someone who can realistically assess the circumstances and tell them what needs to be done to get to a better place — even if it’s not what the clients want to hear.

That's not how McGuireWoods Consulting describes what it's doing for the Redskins. In a disclosure report filed this month, the firm said it would discuss "team origins, history and traditions, Washington Redskins Charitable Foundation and youth sports," as well as the activities of the Original Americans Foundation, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-redskins-foundation-is-helping-tribes-but-it-wont-quell-name-controversy/2014/03/25/031d2b5e-b45d-11e3-8cb6-284052554d74_story.html">set up by the team</a> to help Native Americans.

The four lobbyists on the account include Frank Donatelli, who worked in the Reagan White House and also represents the NBA, and L.F. Payne Jr., a former member of Congress from Virginia (and former member of the powerful Ways and Means Committee) who was the builder of the Wintergreen Resort in western Virginia. Ron Platt, who worked for top Democrats in the House and Senate and on several presidential campaigns, and Russ Sullivan, who worked for former senator Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and the Senate Finance Committee, which Baucus chaired, also are on the account.

McGuireWoods — which, like the team, has strong Virginia ties —  declined to discuss its work for the Redskins, and we won’t know how much the firm is making until July, when the next quarterly disclosure reports are due.

Phil Hochberg, a veteran sports lawyer and lobbyist who has represented the NFL, NBA, NHL and PGA, called Donatelli “a top-notch guy.” Beyond that, though, Hochberg, a former Redskins stadium announcer, didn’t want to talk about the team and the trouble its name is causing.

Hochberg isn’t currently representing the NFL. But at last count, the league had two dozen other lobbyists working on its behalf at several outside firms and a small Washington office. The NFL reported spending $260,000 on that effort in the first quarter of 2014.

Issues such as player safety, drug testing, antitrust concerns and broadcast policies are the lobbyists’ usual focus.

Now that the NFL has <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2014/05/22/senators-urge-nfl-to-act-on-redskins-name-citing-nba-action-with-donald-sterling/">heard from 50 Democratic senators</a>, including Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), a leading critic of the team, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2014/05/22/maria-cantwell-explains-the-senates-letter-to-the-nfl-about-the-redskins/">recently mentioned</a> the league's tax-exempt status, it's a fair bet that some of the NFL's lobbyists are paying attention to the name issue, too.

The fight over the team name is, for the most part, a public relations battle. While sentiment may have shifted, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/washington-redskins-name-washington-post-poll-finds-most-dc-area-fans-support-it/2013/06/24/84bc2d0e-dd03-11e2-a484-7b7f79cd66a1_story.html">a Washington Post poll</a> a year ago found that 61 percent of Washingtonians liked the team's name, and two-thirds said the team should not change it. <a href="http://ap-gfkpoll.com/featured/our-latest-poll-findings-30">A national poll conducted by the Associated Press </a>in January found that 83 percent of respondents said the team should not change its name.

But many in the influence industry agree that it makes sense for the Redskins to bring in their own lobbyists, even if there isn’t a live fight about legislation. The Redskins’ lobbying teams is likely to do a fair bit of talking, trying to tell the team’s side of the story and put a different face on the issue.

As Kamer, the crisis management pro, said, “When 50 senators sign a letter about anything, it’s hard to imagine a situation where you don’t want to bring in lobbyists and lawyers who can help you navigate all of the difficulties that represents.”

But the lobbyists’ most important role, he and others said, might be offering an up-close read of the situation.

“A connected lawyer, a knowledgable lobbyist, a smart consultant can make the rounds, find out what’s going on, and go back to the principal and say, ‘The way you think is the way out is not the way out. The way out is this.’”

House Judiciary Committee hearing on Competition in the Video and Broadband Markets - the Proposed Merger of Comcast and Time Warner Cable

Economists wield big influence in merger reviews - The Washington Post

When executives from Comcast and Time Warner Cable met with Federal Communications Commission staffers last month to make the case for their merger, the expected antitrust and communications lawyers went along with them.

But the companies also took four economists — part of a highly specialized but low-profile set of number-crunchers who can be highly influential when it comes to winning approval for <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/comcast-time-warner-agree-to-merge-in-45-billion-deal/2014/02/13/7b778d60-9469-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html">big deals like these</a>.

“People think lawyers run the world,” said Matt Wood, policy director at Free Press, a consumer advocacy group that opposes the merger. “These are the people the companies hire to help the lawyers do that.”

These elite economists — some earning as much as $1,000 an hour, like their law firm peers — try to predict the questions that antitrust regulators will have about a deal. And then, using gobs of data about products, companies, markets and industries, they help prepare answers that will persuade regulators to see the deal — and its effect on things like prices and consumer choice — as their clients do.

Some work full-time at speciality consulting firms, and others are based at top universities. And while they don’t like to talk publicly about their work, especially while a proposed deal is under review, public filings and company statements reveal quite a bit about what they do and the impact they can have.

Take Compass Lexecon, whose Web site boasts of a staff that includes “135 highly skilled Ph.D. economists and econometricians and more than 145 other individuals with advanced degrees.” The firm does work in many areas and often gets called on when economic experts are needed in big legal battles.

But it got its start with antitrust issues, and last year worked on several big deals, including US Airways/American Airlines, OfficeMax/Office Depot and Omnicom/Publicis, helping make 2013 the firm's best year ever, according to <a href="http://www.compasslexecon.com/highlights/newsletter/">a recent letter to clients</a>.

A Compass Lexecon team advised the OfficeMax board of directors and then provided an economic analysis of the proposed deal. The firm also worked with lawyers working for Office Depot on the deal, the client letter said.

“Compass Lexecon performed detailed econometric analyses of the competitive retail price effects of the transaction and the merging parties’ pricing,” the firm said. “The analysis concluded that there was no systematic evidence that the proposed merger would result in higher retail prices,” a finding that was cited by the Federal Trade Commission as one of the main reasons to approve the merger.

Compass Lexecon is also working for Comcast, and, according to a document filed by the telecomms giant, four of its economists were on hand for the May 6 meeting with more than two dozen FCC staff members.

Comcast, which has said it expects the deal to be approved by early next year, declined to comment on its use of economic consulting firms, and Compass Lexecon declined to comment on its work for Comcast. But a redacted version of a 19-slide presentation made by Mark Israel, a Compass Lexecon economist, at the May meeting makes several conclusions about the proposed merger, calling it “pro-consumer, pro-competitive, and in the public interest.”

Two other economists working for Comcast’s lawyers, one a professor at Stanford and the other an antitrust expert at Cornerstone Research, another consulting firm, also declined to comment on their work. Their early assessment of the deal, filed with the FCC in April, reached similar conclusions. “The proposed combination ... will benefit current and future residential consumers, businesses, and advertisers across the footprint of the combined company,” they wrote.

While firms like these are most often hired by companies trying to win approval of a big deal, they are occasionally tapped by other companies with a stake in the outcome, or by government agencies that need help on a particular case.

On the Comcast deal, Discovery Communications, a large programming supplier, has hired two analysts at Charles River Associates, another well-known consulting firm, according to a company filing with the FCC. A Discovery executive 
<a href="http://www.multichannel.com/news/transactions/zaslav-comcasttwc-raises-issues/374786">said last week</a> that the company was still studying the deal.

Public interest advocates who oppose the deal point out that the consulting firms are filled with economists who have passed through the revolving door and can give clients an insider’s view of the process. One of the best known in the field is Michael Katz, a professor at Berkeley’s Haas School of Business who served as the FCC’s chief economist and in a top job at the Justice Department’s antitrust division. Katz, who is affiliated with Compass Lexecon, said in an email Friday that he isn’t currently working on the transaction for any company.

Critics of the deal also complain that they can’t afford the high-priced statistical help that companies use to advocate in front of regulators. But they acknowledge that the government has its own economists charged with weighing big mergers and that sometimes other companies share their views and weigh in with their own heavy-hitters.

For the economists who do the work, the debates tend to be about different things.

“It’s very academic, and often very technical,” said a person who runs an economic consulting firm, about things like error structures and regression analysis. “It makes economists very excited.”

Readers on summer office wear: flip flops, frigid AC and give interns a break! - The Washington Post

I got the idea for <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/its-summer-in-washington-dont-put-your-best-flip-flop-forward/2014/05/25/afd357e0-e1fa-11e3-9743-bb9b59cde7b9_story.html">Monday’s story</a> about the challenge of dressing for work in the summer from a few interesting conversations with friends about their office dress codes. And, judging from the comments prompted by the piece, it’s a topic that lots of people want to talk about.

There were a few defenders of flip flops, but also plenty of scorn — and a little debate about whether Crocs are any better.

I always shudder at the sight of flip flops in Metro. Aside from exposing your feet to the grunge there’s the possibility of losing toes in the escalators. I recently bought a pair of Crocs and they came with instructions on how to ride an escalator safely. Protect your pinkies!!

There was also some discussion of how the office air conditioner can help, or maybe go too far:

My office solves the problem of summer dress codes by keeping the temperature at about 65 the entire summer. You would risk frostbite if you wore flip-flops.

And a few commenters suggested that we all give unpaid interns a break, since working for free doesn’t give them a lot to spend on clothes.

I also received a few interesting e-mails from readers.

Donna J. Deters of Fort Washington wrote:

Young people today just don’t have a clue.  There is respect due at your job, and your attire reflects that.  I’m 64, retired after 30 years with the federal government.  Had an experience with dress code myself.

A large conference scheduled for the next day, my male boss asked me to please wear a dress or skirt.  Without hesitation I asked him why my naked legs made me more professional.

That shut him up quickly.  I wore slacks.  Just wanted to share.

And this from Carole E. Hunt in Arlington:

In 1998, Coopers and Lybrand (subsequently PriceWaterhouseCoopers, now IBM) issued its informal dress code, one that was imminently reasonable and brief.  Men were required to wear shirts with collars.  Both women and men were to wear leather shoes (not Adidas/running shoes).  No one was allowed to wear denim, no matter the cost or style.  T-shirts and any shirts with a slogan were not permitted.  Women were permitted to wear slacks (not as skin-tight as they are today).  Brief, understandable, and easy compliance were the words of the day.

Later, I went to work as a subcontractor, in an environment in which women who wore slacks were required to wear a pants suit, not the equivalent of a men’s sport coat and slacks.  I remember specifically, because at the time, I always wore skirt suits to work.  One winter day I fell, and couldn’t manage to put hose over my damaged knee.  Breaking the rule, I apologized to the Program Manager for wearing a plaid jacket and solid slacks, not a suit.  His reply, which indicated that I was merely pond scum, was, “That’s okay.  You’re ONLY a subcontractor.”

What is your office dress code? And what are your best suggestions for coping with the heat?

Arts & Entertainment

Getty

It’s summer in Washington. Don’t put your best flip-flop forward. - The Washington Post

Abra Belke shudders when she thinks about summer mornings in the Rayburn Building. "It sounds like the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse," said the former Capitol Hill staffer and lobbyist. "Interns and junior staffers are just clomping down the hall in their $5 Old Navy flip-flops."

Flip-flops are a fashion don't for Belke, who writes the <a href="http://www.caphillstyle.com/">Capitol Hill Style</a> blog. But those Hill aides aren't the only ones flashing their toes. All across Washington, rising temperatures mean a switch to summer styles. And from shoulders to shoes, it's a moment that tests what can and can't be worn at work.

For some HR departments, the change of season — and the arrival of a new batch of interns — is an occasion to send friendly reminders about the dress code, which in this city can come with a level of detail befitting <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/">the Federal Register</a>.

Others take the approach of one downtown law and lobby firm, which tells its employees to "use good judgment and taste" when deciding what to wear.

"Oh, yes, we have a dress code," a neighbor told me with a sigh one morning when we were talking about the move from boots to bare legs.

The two-page memo on appropriate attire at the health association where she works is crystal clear on the flip-flop issue. The "summer casual dress code" that takes effect on Memorial Day expressly forbids "rubber flip-flops or any flip-flop style shoe that is audible (slapping against the bottom of the foot)."

In the seasonal office-appropriate-wardrobe puzzle, it could always be worse, at least according to hushed-office-hall legend. I’m told that one august philanthropic foundation with a big office here goes so far as to pronounce that women may wear shoes with open toes, or with open heels, but not both, but it’s not something the foundation has been willing to discuss.

Of course, written dress codes — and those unwritten customs that can loom just as large — apply to much more than footwear. There are policies on spandex, skirt length, spaghetti straps, even socks (at one accounting firm, the guidelines say men should always wear them ).

In some parts of town, like K Street, there are still plenty of suits and ties. “In other places, people dress to impress,” one somber-looking influence-industry pro told me last week. But here, “we dress like we’re going to testify.”

Lots of offices have adopted “business casual” as their year-round look, and some of them break that down in remarkable detail. At the accounting firm KPMG, the “appropriate” list includes “gauchos or cropped slacks if worn with jacket or sweater set.”

Interestingly, skorts and culottes don’t make the business-casual cut at one international law firm’s Washington office. According to the written policy, neither does “anything you would wear to the gym, beach, the park or to clean the garage.” Good to know. (At one environmental nonprofit, T-shirts with logos are off-limits, unless the shirt is making an enviro-friendly point.)

In most of these situations, women have more options than men. But that doesn’t mean it’s easier for women — and many of them complain that, from heels to hemlines, that also means they have more rules to follow.

“This button-down shirt was my attempt to make these pants office-appropriate,” a young woman in a pressed pink blouse and straight pants with a pastel geometric print told me as she and a handful of colleagues ate their lunch one sunny afternoon in Farragut Square.

The downtown trade association where they work doesn’t have a written policy, but there are plenty of lines that can’t be crossed. Heels are frequently expected, but no jeans or denim dresses, they said, and, these days, summer dresses need scarves and blazers to make sure they pass muster.

Men can flirt with questionable warm-weather choices, too.

Ivan Adler, a headhunter who places lobbyists for the McCormick Group, an executive search firm, calls his office dress code “situational attire.” For him, that means occasional Hawaiian shirts in summer, worn with chinos. “They’re nothing unbelievably gaudy that would make someone throw up,” he assured me. “They’re nice. They’re silk.”

But the lines can get fuzzy, especially on Capitol Hill, where old traditions die hard and each member can make the rules for his or her staff.

The Washington Post doesn’t have a dress code. But reporters who cover Congress know that things get serious in the Speaker’s Lobby, just off the House floor, where they can ask to speak with lawmakers.

As the congressional “Guide for Reporters” puts it: “Appropriate attire, such as jacket and tie for men, is required at all times in the Speaker’s Lobby.” (For the record, hats are not permitted).

There are no seasonal adjustments and no precise guidelines for women, and, occasionally, a bare shoulder or exposed midriff has caused a bit of a kerfuffle.

Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group, remembers being a staff member on the House Judiciary Committee in 1994, when Rep. Jack Brooks (D-Tex.) was its chairman.

Sloan worked for then-Rep. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), and, she said, “I wore pants. I usually do.” But someone who worked for Brooks approached her and said, “The chairman prefers to see women in skirts.”

She mentioned it to Schumer, and then-Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) overheard the conversation. “In solidarity with you, we should all wear skirts,” Frank quipped. The men didn’t wear skirts, and Sloan didn’t change her style.

At CREW, where she’s in charge, “we’re pretty casual,” Sloan said. “But nobody wears shorts. I think that would be a step too far for me.”

And while she hasn’t opted for a written dress code, she understands why others do.

“My biggest concern has been with interns, who have sometimes come in with remarkably scanty clothes,” she said. (That’s not an uncommon view. Some people really do call them “skinterns.”)

Belke — who has worked for then-Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) and the National Rifle Association, but recently moved out of the city to attend law school — said she encourages people who run offices to write down the rules, because it makes it easier to enforce them.

While some of Washington’s written policies can be so precise that they’re silly, it does seem better to be able to say “check the manual” than enter one of those tricky conversations without a bit of paper to point to.

Either way, they’re not easy talks to have. As another working Washington woman put it: “How do you find a delicate way to say, ‘Your skirt is too short?’ ”

Or: “Don’t wear flip-flops, you’re an adult.” The noisy sandals have prompted outrage in the past.

Remember the stir in 2005, when a few members of Northwestern University's women's lacrosse team were shod in the rubber sandals <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8643829/ns/msnbc-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/t/white-house-flip-flop-flap/#.U39N9_ldWSo">during a visit to the White House</a>? But flip-flops are welcome in a few places, including the Washington offices of Quinn Emanuel, a Los Angeles-based law firm where almost anything goes.

These days, Belke says she worries that casual Fridays are emboldening people to wear shorts to work — a no-no in almost any office situation. And she’s had it with people who keep their sunglasses on the top of their head or dangling around their neck, even when they’re not outside. “You’re inside now. You wouldn’t walk around all day wearing your winter coat. You shouldn’t walk around with your sunglasses on.”

In the great flip-flop debate, some fans say the shoes make sense for summer commuting and can easily be slipped off at work.

But Belke isn’t buying that. There are plenty of alternatives, she said, like simple flats. And she’s had the odd experience of sitting in an office lobby and seeing a Hill staffer return from lunch in a strappy summer dress and flip-flops — and then reemerge for a meeting with a jacket and more proper shoes.

“It’s almost like a superhero changing their clothes.”

Style

Washington Post Lifestyle gives you the latest fashion and beauty trends, home d&eacute;cor pointers, food and recipe ideas and reviews, relationship advice, travel ideas, wellness tips and much more.

Lifestyle

other

2550 M St Building, Patton Boggs

Patton Boggs agrees to merger with Squire Sanders - The Washington Post

Patton Boggs, the Washington legal pioneer that helped established the modern-day lobbying industry, is merging with Squire Sanders, a large international law firm with roots in Cleveland.

The deal, approved by partners at both firms this week, brings to an end Patton Boggs’ 52-year run as an independent law and lobby firm, one that saw it become a trailblazer in the influence industry.

The newly combined firm, which will bring together Squire Sanders' 1,300 lawyers with Patton Boggs' 330 attorneys, is effective June 1 and will be called Squire Patton Boggs. The firms had been<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/patton-boggs-in-preliminary-talks-to-merge-with-squire-sanders/2014/02/26/7c439d96-9f1e-11e3-9ba6-800d1192d08b_story.html" title="www.washingtonpost.com"> in merger talks since February</a> and the deal is widely viewed within the legal industry as critical to Patton Boggs' survival.

Patton Boggs “evolved into an industry game-changer,” Thomas Hale Boggs Jr., chairman of Patton Boggs said in a statement. “Through our combination with Squire Sanders we are doing it again.”

The end of Patton Boggs as a standalone firm is a tale of a changing industry, where a firm’s ability to influence a few key powerbrokers is giving way to the need to sway larger groups of lawmakers and the public as a whole.

In recent months, Patton Boggs' erosion has been on full display. The firm had to <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/after-a-tough-year-patton-boggs-maps-future/2013/11/15/1f16a1d4-4e0d-11e3-be6b-d3d28122e6d4_story.html" title="www.washingtonpost.com">lay off 40 attorneys and 70 staffers</a> to deal with declining finances, high-profile partners defected to other firms, and at least one <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/patton-boggs-calls-off-merger-talks/2013/12/20/5f31a430-698d-11e3-a0b9-249bbb34602c_story.html" title="www.washingtonpost.com">previous merger attempt was called off</a>. Patton's troubles were heightened by its involvement in an unusual and expensive legal battle with Chevron, which was resolved after <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/chevron-and-patton-boggs-settle-their-epic-legal-battle-over-jungle-oil-pits-in-ecuador/2014/05/07/8fa73ad4-d5ef-11e3-aae8-c2d44bd79778_story.html" title="www.washingtonpost.com">Patton Boggs agreed earlier this month to pay a $15 million settlement</a> to the oil giant.

Patton Boggs is not the only law firm in recent years to struggle — <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/26/AR2011022603160.html" title="www.washingtonpost.com">Howrey</a> dissolved in 2010, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/the-fracturing-of-big-law/2012/05/11/gIQAgkNvMU_story.html" title="www.washingtonpost.com">Dewey &amp; LeBoeuf</a> famously imploded in 2012, and almost every major U.S. law firm is <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-business/wp/2014/05/05/washingtons-biggest-law-firms-saw-profits-vary-widely-in-2013-as-revenues-remained-flat/" title="www.washingtonpost.com">facing pressure to maintain revenue and profitability</a>. This is largely a symptom of the economic downturn that began in 2008 and forced law firms' biggest clients — the legal departments of major corporations — to drastically scale back their legal budgets. But because Patton Boggs is a marquee lobbying brand in Washington, news of its troubles has been scrutinized more closely here.

Patton Boggs’s rise owes much to one of its namesakes, Boggs, the son of Louisiana congressman and House majority leader Thomas Hale Boggs Sr. and Lindy Boggs, who succeeded her husband after he died. After working in the Lyndon B. Johnson administration, Boggs went to law school and joined James Patton Jr. as the sixth lawyer of the firm that became Patton Boggs.

Holly Yeager

U.S. Chamber of Commerce looks West to boost tech business

The Influence Industry: Ex-Im Bank renewal, a familiar issue on K Street, divides GOP

Long-building conservative anger at Export-Import Bank reaches boiling point

Business groups step up fight on Ex-Im Bank

Redskins realize lobbying isn’t just a legislative thing

Economists wield big influence in merger reviews

Readers on summer office wear: flip flops, frigid AC and give interns a break!

It’s summer in Washington. Don’t put your best flip-flop forward.

Patton Boggs agrees to merger with Squire Sanders

A good week for Big Potato