The Sun and the Post say no. Blogger Steve Lebowitz says yes. Let's be clear: your author would not have released the attack ad that the O'Malley campaign put out on Ehrlich, lobbying and oil because the evidence behind such charges, in our opinion, does not rise to an appropriate threshold of proof. In fact, O'Malley's people have committed a significant tactical error because they have shifted the focus away from Ehrlich and towards O'Malley's truthfulness, thereby hampering their future credibility. Still, the debate over Ehrlich's private sector activity is worth having because his campaign has released so little information about it.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
Adam -
1. In 2007 Bob Ehrlich and David Hamilton opened the Maryland branch of a huge North Carolina law firm with a large Washington based lobbying practice.
2. Henry Fawell said that Mr. Ehrlich's job is to bring in clients that are serviced by the Washington office.
3. Mr. Hamilton has a history of selling access to government officials without triggering the lobbying registration requirement. That doesn't mean he doesn't lobby; it means he uses other employees of his firm or other firms to act as proxies so he does not trigger lobbying registration requirements.
4. The firm advertises that Mr. Ehrlich heads the firm's "government affairs [ie; lobbying] team,"...
Led by Governor Ehrlich, our Maryland team has the access to ensure that our clients’ interests are represented in legislative debates at the state, local and federal levels.
5. Mr. Ehrich admitted that he has "made a lot of money" at Womble Caryle over the past four years, which means he's succeeding at the job that Mr. Fawell described in # 2 above.
6. Despite Mr. Ehrich's and Mr. Hamilton's unequivocal claims to the contrary, I produced evidence that two lawyers in Womble's Baltimore office, both of whom were high ranking Ehrlich gubernatorial staffers, did indeed register as lobbyists and their firm disclosed $88,000 in payments from their lobbying client.
7. I also produced evidence that Womble's Washington office registered to lobby for a different client that Mr. Fawell said Mr. Ehrlich recruited.
8. I explained that the Lobbying Disclosure Act and Internal Revenue Code permit lawyers in law firms to engaging in "lobbying activity" for up to 25 percent of their time working for a client without triggering the registration requirement.
9. Because Mr. Ehrlich's law and lobbying firm advertises that he is a lobbyist; and
because Mr. Ehrlich "made a lot of money" over the past four years recruiting lobbying clients for his law firm; and
because Mr. Ehrlich's branch office engaged in lobbying for hire despite Mr. Ehrlich's claim to the contrary; and
because Mr. Ehrlich's partner in the venture has a history of lobbying by using proxies to avoid triggering lobbying disclosure requirements;
because federal law permits lawyers in law firms to engage in a percentage of "lobbying activity" without registering;
Mr. Ehrlich is a lobbyist whether he has triggered the narrow registration requirment or not, and the O'Malley campaign is justified in calling him a lobbyist.
It would be nice if Mr. Ehrlich would not have taken care over the past four years to avoid ruining his chances of ever getting elected to anything by registering to lobby, but the fact that he avoided registration does not mean that he was not a lobbyist, and it's fair game for his detractors to call him one.
- Steve Lebowitz, Annapolis
Post a Comment