Uranium, Other Conflict-of-Interest Issues Cause Lobbyists To Walking a Fine Line w/ GA

It appears that transparency could expose conflicts, double-dipping, etc.

JEFF E. SCHAPIRO, COLUMNIST

TIMES-DISPATCH

Published: January 31, 2009

Chuck Duvall is a lobbyist of the old school. Quiet, droll, with a purposeful stride, he carries his office in his pocket. What was said of a House speaker from Duvall's 'hood might apply to Duvall: He can walk through the woods without rustling the leaves.

But Duvall's mix of clients and this year's blend of legislation have state Capitol habitues stirring over a perceived conflict of interest.

Duvall, who came to Richmond from Frederick County as a legislative aide in the early 1970s, deals with this dilemma by intentionally not dealing in the issues that put his clients at cross-purposes.

For lobbyists, conflicts of interest are a growing challenge, if not problem, that can be largely attributed to Virginia's rapidly changing political and economic landscape. However, the principal safeguard against possible abuses remains unchanged: self-policing.

Given the amount of money spent influencing the General Assembly -- $20 million last year, up from $16 million in 2007 -- a skeptical public may have little confidence that lobbyists can be relied upon to keep their nest clean.

Another complication: lobbyists' innate aversion to scrutiny. Many lobbyists believe the most effective way to ply their trade -- that is, peddling information that molds government policy -- is to be heard and not seen. In other words: Leave the headlines to the politicians.

Del. Sam Nixon, R-Chesterfield, hopes to promote some transparency with legislation forcing lobbyists to report bill-specific spending -- the gifts and entertainment showered on a lawmaker for this vote or that.

Nixon got the idea from contract lobbyists who complain about opaque post-General Assembly disclosures to the state by their counterparts at the high-roller firms.

Duvall lobbies for hospital giant HCA, which favors higher tobacco taxes for Medicaid. He also represents Bailey's cigarette maker S&M Brands, a foe of additional levies. And Duvall has 7-Eleven. The convenience-store chain is against more tobacco taxes as well as a proposal to strip retailers of their cut for collecting the sales tax.

For the 2009 legislature, Duvall -- with his clients' OK -- skirts a possible conflict by not lobbying on these issues. That way, he preserves long-standing -- and lucrative -- business relationships. Further, Duvall avoids disrupting ties to lawmakers, who look to him for the straight skinny and the occasional campaign contribution.

Duvall isn't the only lobbyist bumping into conflicts.

Lawyer Alan Albert represents Virginia Beach. His partner, Tom Lisk, schmoozes for the Virginia Hospitality and Travel Association. The city favors tougher controls on smoking in public; the group opposes them. The firm and Virginia Beach decided Albert would not lobby on smoking bills.

Albert snapped up Virginia Beach as a client because of a conflict of interest by another lobbyist. Ben Dendy represented the city for years. The relationship ended because Dendy signed with a proposed uranium mine that Virginia Beach fears will poison its water supply.

More troublesome than conflicts of interest may be the protocols -- or lack thereof -- for identifying and avoiding them. Lawyers risk public punishment by the Virginia State Bar for breaching the profession's canons. Not nonlawyers.

The best solution may be to let daylight upon the mystery. That's assuming the lobbyists, and their assembly friends, don't lock the shutters first.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/columnists_news/article/JEFF01_20090131-220546/194252/