Local Government TV

Thursday, October 07, 2010

Senator Browne & The Lobbyist

Not long ago, I questioned whether it is appropriate for State Representative Jennifer Mann to be a "consultant" with an engineering and architectural outfit that does lots of state business. What compounds this problem is that Mann is a member of the "Stimulus Oversight Commission," and the firm for which she consults is involved in several stimulus projects. I was also concerned that a registered lobbyist, who may or may not be dating her, was seeing constituents in her Harrisburg office, a charge that Mann denies.

Isn't all this just asking for trouble?

What about an elected official who is actually married to registered lobbyist? Isn't that asking for trouble, too? Well, State Senator Pat Browne's wife, Heather, has been a registered lobbyist since February.

Ms. Browne lobbies for Alfred Benesch & Company (engineering), McKissack & McKissack (construction and design) and IIRP (rehabilitation for criminal offenders). They are all obviously interested in state business.

Isn't all this just asking for trouble?

Rick Orloski, who is running against Pat Browne, certainly thinks so. I almost wish he weren't, because his own political motivations can certainly be questioned. But he raises a very valid concern. Here's a portion of his own email to Senator Browne.

"Almost a year to the date, a major drama was playing out in the Florida Legislature. Senator Alex Diaz de la Portilla, R- Miami, was named to steer an energy and environmental committee that would address removing the ban on off shore drilling in Florida. His wife, Claudia, was hired as a paid lobbyist to get the State Legislature to remove the ban. The conflict-of-interest was obvious. The de la Portilla household was directly receiving funds from people who wanted the Legislature to vote their way on an important environmental issue. More significantly, there is the psychological solace that spouses give each other. Her success was his success, and if he could further her career by voting her way, it was a win-win for the spousal relationship. Of course, spouses are expected to be there for each other.

"On June 25, 2010, CBS News carried an expose about the family connections between members of Congress and paid lobbyists. See link below. CBS identified 19 federal lobbyist closely related to members of Congress. Considering the there are 100 Senators and 435 members of Congress, that is a surprisingly low number. It appears that most Congressional families chose to avoid this conflict-of-interest.

"As observed by watchdog Craig Holman, the reason why family members are hired as lobbyist is to give money to the Congressman or his family for influence on legislation: 'We're allowing family members of senators and congressmen to be employed at very lucrative salaries by the same corporations that have business pending before Congress,' said Holman. 'It's just an obvious conflict of interest that should not be allowed.'

"As more bluntly observed by Holman: 'They're finding ways to throw money at the feet of the members of Congress, and you do it through the family members,' Holman, the watchdog, said.

"On February 1, 2010, The Pat Browne family decided to jump feet first into this conflict-of-interest minefield.Without public acknowledgment by the Senator -- no press release, no press conference, no photo op -- Heather Browne registered as a lobbyist with the Pennsylvania Department of State. To date, Browne has not addressed how he intends to address this conflict. Silence appears to be his modus operandi.

"First and foremost, let me make this abundantly clear. Heather Browne has an absolute right under the First Amendment to work as a paid lobbyist. As a matter of constitutional law, a spouse cannot be prohibited from functioning as a paid lobbyist. She probably makes more money as a lobbyist than he does as a Senator.The same is not equally true for Senator Browne. He does not have a constitutional right to be State Senator. The first remedy is at the ballot box. The citizens of the 16th senatorial district are clearly at liberty to decide that his wife's chosen profession disqualifies him from being a State Senator.

"On the opposite side of the equation, it is patently obvious that our system would not allow a judge to participate in a case where the judge's spouse has a financial interest either as counsel or party. No one would seriously argue that a judge can put aside the obvious emotional and financial considerations of helping a spouse in litigation and be fair to both sides. In the normal course of business, a judge would recuse himself/herself, or face the sanction of losing the judicial post because the judge participated in a proceeding involving a family member.

"The simple act of recusal is not so easily applied in the Legislative forum. Bills become laws because of relationships that legislators have with each other. Even if Senator Browne took the obvious step of recusing himself from votes that benefit his wife's corporate clients, there sill is the insidious opportunity of other legislators helping Heather Browne on her projects in exchange for Senator Browne helping them on their pet projects. Nota Bene: Senator Browne has not said he will recuse himself in such obvious conflicts.

"Pat and Heather Browne have injected something new into Lehigh Valley politics, namely, the husband and wife team working in the Capitol with Pat Browne receiving public monies and Heather Browne receiving private monies to advance private agendas. Senators are supposed to serve the public good, not private agendas. Maybe the ideal solution is for Pat Browne to relinquish his public position and join his wife's lobbyist firm. That is an option that the voters will have on November 2nd to compel. For too long, Harrisburg has been an insider's game. Employing a spouse to be a lobbyist is 'throwing money at the feet' of a State Senator. Pat Browne ought to join his wife in private practice , not continue functioning as a State Senator."

Ms. Browne is associated with Pugliese Associates. In their bio, they mention many of Heather's achievements, but fail to mention that she just happens to be the wife of a state senator.

31 comments:

  1. if this was about Jennifer Mann, there would be a dozen comments by now telling how terrible she is and how deep in the pockets of labor her hands are. here we have a bonafide scenario (Mann's was a lot of inuendo about dating). Is the outrage tempered b/c Browne is a Republican? Where is the outrage! The Senator's wife is a lobbyist for firms that make no secret of trying to obtain millions of dollars of taxpayer money for construction projects and prisons. Where is the outrage?

    ReplyDelete
  2. This just posted at 6:10 AM. I just checked my Mann post, and after one hour, there was one comment there, just like here.

    ReplyDelete
  3. FWIW -

    7:04

    Most of us who identify as traditional conservatives think this just as bad, just as sleazy, as what Mann - allegedly - has going on. Regrettably, our choices usually boil down to the electing the sleaze that will do the least to feed the monster aka the government.

    The political/electoral process virtually requires candidates, regardless of party, to be of gargantuan ego and hubris. Only a fool would believe the winner would change his/her stripes and not exploit the leverage and power of office. That leverage and power is like heroin and fresh syringes to a junkie.

    They just can't help themselves. They are our betters, and they are entitled. From Callahan's coverups to Rendell's cardboard check vote-buying, from Ernie Preate to Pawlowski's mancave, from Mann to Browne and so many, many more examples, the evidence is overwhelming. They all believe they are our betters, and they are entitled. And if we don't fix it, we are agreeing with them.

    I now preemptively denounce myself as just another wingnut teabagger.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh My Gosh Bernie
    Does this ever end!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Is Ms.Browne on government payroll? Does government now decide where one can work?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bernie -

    #1 - If Orloski was so outraged by the situation, isn't it a bit odd that he waited 8 months to say anything about it?

    #2 - The Browne's are 100% wrong and should know better.

    #3 - Our legislature should pass a law against members serving if their spouses are registered lobbyists. I have no idea if that is possible, but there should be some sort of prohibition.

    Sadly, replacing Browne with Orloski isn't a viable option for the people of Browne's Senate district. Orloski is a party hack who will support whatever the Democrat leadership tells him.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The only thing Rich Orlowski has run for and caught is a LANTA Bus. Run Rich, run!

    ReplyDelete
  8. As long as Harrisburg and we the taxpayers allow this to continue, we get what we deserve. Shame on Pat Browne allowing his wife to do this! What happened to him!
    As someone recently posted on your blog, when is it enough money?

    ReplyDelete
  9. #1 - If Orloski was so outraged by the situation, isn't it a bit odd that he waited 8 months to say anything about it?

    Excellent Point. If voters had learned about this in the spring, Orlowski for the first time in the past two centuries, might have had a chance.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Does government now decide where one can work?

    8:41 AM

    Give it time.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Bernie, you posted the mann article at 1 AM. By 7:15 AM on that article, you had 7 comments. Until 8 AM on this article, you had 2 comments, one pointing out that the outrage was absent in the 6 and 7 AM crowd and your sad attempt to defend their silence.

    And nobody in this list has yet to call for Browne to resign (there were plenty in the Mann article and that was an article that raised a question of her dating life... here we have a concrete example). McHenry came the closest by saying "there oughta be a law" and then watered it down by saying there is no viable electoral option.

    Lobbyists like Heather Browne are the reason our state taxes are horrible. Politicians like Pat Browne are the reasons why gov't doesn't work for us.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Bernie
    Do you know what the rules are about
    outgoing politicians? When can they become lobbyists? Is there some time constraint or can they just jump into a lobby uniform the day after Harrisburg adjourns.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Bernie you are wrong about the Brownes being the first husband and wife lobbyist and legislator team in the Lehigh Valley.

    I remember that Senator Jeanette Reibman's husband was a lawyer and lobbyist and so was State Rep Karen Ritter's, before she decided not to run for re-election to her House seat back in 1994(?). Not sure of date, but it was legal then and is legal now.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It gets back to personal morals.

    ReplyDelete
  15. remember that Senator Jeanette Reibman's husband was a lawyer and lobbyist and so was State Rep Karen Ritter's, before she decided not to run for re-election to her House seat back in 1994(?). Not sure of date, but it was legal then and is legal now.

    10:20 AM

    But should it be? It's wrong and we all know it!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anon 10:14 said:

    "McHenry came the closest by saying "there oughta be a law" and then watered it down by saying there is no viable electoral option."

    ********************************

    I didn't water anything down, I just pointed out reality.

    No one was running on the Dem side, so at the last minute Rick Orloski - a party insider who has been rejected by the voters on many occasions for many offices - gathered barely enough signatures to get on the ballot.

    Now we have an issue that has existed for a while but only comes up a month before the election and people are supposed to believe Orloski is legitimately concerned. Possible, but not likely.

    I do hope that Mr. Orloski - win or lose - and others pursue a solution to correcting this loophole in the law.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Since we are on the subject of lobbyists,influence peddling,egos,partisan politics,etc. etc.Heres an interesting story to tell.The life and times of Joe Uliana.Once a local respected conservative politician.Once touted as an up and coming,now one of the most powerful lobbiest in the area.Wonder if he has carried his conservative stripes through his private sector career.

    ReplyDelete
  18. So she registered as a lobbiest in conformance with state law and there is no allegation that he used his official power to benefit her, her employer of those she lobbies on behalf of. The only allegation is that a politician married a lobbiest.

    So much for this being aclean issues based race.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anon said:

    "The only allegation is that a politician married a lobbiest."

    **********************************

    Not quite.

    They've been married for years. Apparently she didn't register as a lobbyist until earlier this year.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "They've been married for years. Apparently she didn't register as a lobbyist until earlier this year."

    Further, she used to work in his office. I've never liked the idea of somebody working FOR their spouse, especially on teh public dollar.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Rick Orloski is the funniest ambulance chaser in the area. When he runs to lose yet another election, he ups his game from ridiculous to sublime. Run, Rick. Run. Never give up.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Just Slipped On Your SidewalkOctober 7, 2010 at 4:45 PM

    Even if we don't ever see Rick in Harrisburg, we can always visit him "down on Cedar Crest."

    ReplyDelete
  23. "Bernie, you posted the mann article at 1 AM. By 7:15 AM on that article, you had 7 comments. Until 8 AM on this article, you had 2 comments, one pointing out that the outrage was absent in the 6 and 7 AM crowd and your sad attempt to defend their silence."

    What you are not grasping is that the Mann post was published at 1 AM. This one was published at 6:10 AM bc I was asleep last night.

    There was more interest in the Mann post, but I doubt it's bc she's a Dem. I believe it's because it''s contrary to the general public perception of her. I don't really know. But then again, neither do you.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Do you know what the rules are about outgoing politicians? When can they become lobbyists? Is there some time constraint or can they just jump into a lobby uniform the day after Harrisburg adjourns."

    I thought there was a rule or law against this revolving door, but have not found it yet. I'll look tonight.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "So much for this being aclean issues based race."

    Whatever Rick's motives may be, I assure you that any elected official who is married to a lobbyist is raising that issue himself.

    I have high regard for Pat Browne. I've met ans spoke to his wife, too, and she is an impressive person. But they are both asking for trouble when one is a state senator and the other is a lobbyist.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Just one more reason why we need term limits and publicly funded elections. Until we take the money out of the game, this is what politicians will continue to do. Not like Browne (or his wife) really cares what any of us think of him anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Bernie O'Hare said:

    "There was more interest in the Mann post, but I doubt it's bc she's a Dem."

    **********************************

    More likely, it is because she HERSELF is being paid as a consultant in addition to being a FULL-TIME legislator. And the fact that the cash is coming DIRECTLY to her.

    While I don't think either situation is right, I think Mann's is much more serious.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The man article generated 63 responses within 24 hours of its publication. this one, 27. I ask again, where is the conservative outrage. We had a couple show up and offer a pretty good rebuke (though I think they were weak rebukes, I'll give the benefit of the doubt). what is most charming about those responses in the Mann article is that they managed to bring in one potential former boyfriend, one former intern and a chief of staff, questioning whether it is right for two of them to be on city council. Not once did you ask whether it is right for Browne to have employed his own wife for years but you spent a great deal of time trying to learn if Mann's supposed boyfriend was on the public dime. Come to think about it, in your Mann article, you communicated directly with her staff. Did you even bother to call Browne?

    Your bias is showing.

    ReplyDelete
  29. 1) Not the point, but I think Pat Browne does a pretty good job, represents his district well and is a decent guy, despite his personal baggage.

    2) I think it is VERY, VERY different----that is, the difference between having a wife who is a lobbyist and being in the DIRECT EMPLOY of a state vendor who also doese other government business. The first ain't great and care and ethics are needed to prevent conflicts that may arise on occasion, the other is pretty close to criminal.

    ReplyDelete
  30. To your #2--Mann went to the state ethics commission. They disagreed. If you want to make an issue, file a complaint with the state ethics commission. To anybody's knowledge, Browne never went to the state ethics commission on this matter.

    Browne now stands in the horrible situation of being bribed through his wife. The firms hire his wife, throw tons of money into the house hold income and can cut them off or continue to feed the trough while Browne votes their way. B/c they are married, these firms are in effect paying the Brownes as lobbyist and voting legislator. That may not be criminal, but it should be.

    ReplyDelete
  31. No surprise. I guess it all comes down to money. Whether you are Democrat or Republican.

    Some issues just will not go away. I would say that Pat Brown is in the early stages of easing out of his political career.

    His future is very uncertain but perhaps his wife has other designs for the future of the family.

    I think there is a lot more to this story and it will be revealed with the passage of time.

    ReplyDelete

You own views are appreciated, especially if they differ from mine. But remember, commenting is a privilege, not a right. I will delete personal attacks or off-topic remarks at my discretion. Comments that play into the tribalism that has consumed this nation will be declined. So will comments alleging voter fraud unless backed up by concrete evidence. If you attack someone personally, I expect you to identify yourself. I will delete criticisms of my comment policy, vulgarities, cut-and-paste jobs from other sources and any suggestion of violence towards anyone. I will also delete sweeping generalizations about mainstream parties or ideologies, i.e. identity politics. My decisions on these matters are made on a case by case basis, and may be affected by my mood that day, my access to the blog at the time the comment was made or other information that isn’t readily apparent.