In a recent Op-Ed in the Hartford Courant, Patricia Shea, “lawyer, lobbyist and partner in the government relations firm of Levin, Powers, Brennan & Shea in Hartford” asked the question, “Why Are Lobbyists Whipping Boys For Corruption?“

On the surface, the answer seems pretty simple. When trying to ferret out corruption, the first thing we are told to do is to “follow the money”. What better place to start than to look at the people who are being paid to try and bring about specific legislation?

The accomplishments of Levin, Powers, Brennan & Shea as listed on their website, LobbyCT.COM provides a useful glimpse at what they are up to: “Succeeded in legislative affirmation of property tax credit...Achieved the overwhelming defeat of a proposed ‘Windfall Profits Tax’...Lobbied to ensure that Connecticut pension funds would not divest $50 million of Hydro-Quebec (HQ) bonds...Successfully lobbied the largest Medicaid Rate Increase for Connecticut’s Hospitals in over eighteen years...Successfully lobbied for the creation of a Distressed Hospital Fund...successfully convinced legislators not to pursue a specific provider tax on dentists...we have gained unprecedented state financial support…created the organization that developed the Pfizer Global Research Center...Negotiated for a gross receipts tax exemption for alternative fuels...We were one of the key architects of Connecticut’s film tax credit program”

Follow the money.

Now, this is not to say that everything that they have done is about reducing taxes for corporations and increasing state funding to companies that pay them for their services. This is not to say that some of the things they have done may actually benefit the people of Connecticut, and this certainly isn’t to say that they have been involved in any corrupt practices. As a matter of fact, I suspect that Levin, Powers, Brennan & Shea does some important work that does benefit the people of Connecticut.

I should note also that I, myself, am the spouse of a registered lobbyist. Kim, as a senior organizer for Common Cause, is paid by them, in part, to lobby. I believe that her lobbying also significantly benefits the people of Connecticut.

Ms. Shea’s complaint is that “U.S. District Judge Stefan R. Underhill's 98-page decision to uphold the lobbyist ban is based on a ‘perception’ of undue influence in government.” She goes on to note “Lobbyists have been unjustifiably vilified despite the fact that no registered lobbyist has been involved in any of the corruption cases that Connecticut has seen over the past several years.”

Yes, there is a perception, perhaps unjustified about lobbyists wielding undue influence in government. Perhaps the ‘achievements’ page of Levin, Powers, Brennan & Shea contributes to that perception. So, what do we do about addressing this perception?

Judge Underhill seems to think that continuing the ban on lobbyists contributing to political campaigns will help. I agree with the Judge on that. As much as I would like to contribute to various state campaigns or attend their fundraisers, I feel that it is part of my responsibility as the spouse of a lobbyist to avoid such activity as part of my effort to reduce any undue influence, perceived or real, that paid lobbyists might have on government.

As a matter of fact, as part of my efforts to reduce any such influence, I vocally support the Citizen’s Election Program’s funding of state elections. This program is one of the most effective ways of reducing any undue influence, perceived or real, that paid lobbyists might have on our state government. Who knows, it might even lead to decisions about tax rates and state funding that are more in the interest of all the people of Connecticut and not just those that can afford to hire a lobbyist in Hartford.

“The Whipping Boys of Corruption”. Yes, it does bother me that this is how paid lobbyists are perceived. Really, all of us should be lobbyists as we get more involved our state government, both directly and through supporting the Citizen’s Election Program. Then, perhaps, “The Whipping Boys of Corruption” can cease to be used as a moniker for paid lobbyists and can be used as a much better moniker, perhaps for a new band.