Dump Truck Autotrader

Obama criticizes "lobbyists Parade," demands disclosure of contacts

cozying with Big Business, conciliatory gestures toward the Republicans - this is currently the tactics the White House. Nevertheless failed Leave it to U.S. President Obama does not, the lobbyists a few things to heart. The criticism was, however gently, as measured by the accusatory rhetoric, Obama behaved themselves before.

Especially in the tax laws he began. A "Parade lobbyists" have riddled the tax code to individual industries and companies to provide benefits (" Over the years, a parade of lobbyists has rigged the tax code to benefit Particular companies and industries ").

Obama called on members of Congress to post their meetings with lobbyists on the web - so, as the government already have implemented (" Because you deserve to know when your elected officials are meeting with lobbyists, I ask Congress to do what the White House has already done -. put that information online).

The way he has on a year ago, 27 January 2010, called for ever (" It's time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or Congress ") - then had his Democrats have total control over both chambers of Congress.

Obama's government has tried at the very start of his term in 2009, with a number of transparency initiatives ( Open Government Initiave ) to achieve the disclosure of lobbying contacts between officials. The trick, but most just like the stakeholders to avoid the new rules. According toxic fell from media reports and comments from watchdog groups criticized the government for being slow in reporting the meeting with lobbyists Register stakeholders.

One of the tricks the outsourcing of the meeting. Does not such a contact takes the White House, but in the café opposite the message attributable to the visitor's web site - like the New York Times last summer smugly reported in a feature. More and more often would be "off-site meetings "in preference to the names of lobbyists and their hosts is not often in the database appeared.

Blister On Thumb From Lighter

EP Initiative Finance Watch is launched

reported in June of this blog to " Brussels 'desire for alternatives to the expert-monopoly of the banks' . went This is a call from MEPs establishing a counter-lobby from civil society: NGOs, trade unions, academics and others to create an organization that will provide the alternative expertise to regulate financial markets, because the politicians have found that, when the regulation actually only. draw on the expertise of banks, insurance and funds.

The cross-party initiative now seems to take away. Under the name Finance Watch came loud FTD recently for the first time the participants of the new NGO in Berlin together. Finance Watch, but probably based in Brussels. Among the supporters of the foundation phase included Attac, Transparency International, Oxfam, Misereor, European Trade Union Confederation, the European Consumers' Organisation BEUC, accountants and small shareholder associations, the Viadrina School of Governance, as well as individuals from the financial industry and scientists.

The Green member Sven Giegold (including Attac closely) is one of the brains behind the idea. The FTD quoted him, should produce Finance Watch expertise and engage in active lobbying and campaign work : "To connect to an alternative, independent force in addition to the active lobbying of the banks." A public financing had long excluded. "The funding will be dispersed as to prevent a specific influence," said Giegold. A Swiss foundation ( "Fondation pour le progrès de l'Homme" ) finance the start. After exploratory meeting in Brussels, Paris and Berlin in early February was a great kick-off meeting vorgesehent in Brussels. By the summer should be Finance Watch fully functional and active.

The FTD says, should also look forward to EU Internal Market Commissioner Michel Barnier. He wanted to push back the influence of lobbyists on the bank financial regulation. Distance industry players had in a "balanced" to speak.

Another example of Brussels like "lobbied us!" calls and is not afraid to be in the interest of Balance obstetrics lobby for new organizations to provide start-up and continuous funding. Of which have environmental benefits of energy-up to women and science groups, so many NGOs can. Mostly it was, however, the Commission, which took the initiative. The public appeal of Parlamantariern from the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee was a novelty.

You can also see in a demonstration that the EP is increasingly self-confident and just after the crisis in financial matters to the Commission and their favorite lobbyists do not want to give all the responsibility.

it should not be overlooked that the deputies repeatedly poor provision of the House have criticized: Parliament has still not Research Services as the Bundestag (Division "W" with about 270 employees, a third of academics) or wants we set the standard even higher, the U.S. Congress with its Congressional Research Service . The CRS has approximately 900 employees and a budget of $ 100 million, plus still get the Congressional Budget Office, which takes care of financial matters, and the Government Accountability Office. CRS, CBO, and GAO together have about 4,000 employees. The influence of the lobby, with its experts and expertise in the Congress is of course great, but the vote in addition to their rather large personal staffs always also the possibility of the government and lobby information with analysis and policy advice from their own apparatus to counter. This contributes significantly to the information and independence of the Congress at.

As long as something for the EP parliamentarians is not available, the initiation and promotion of civil society actors is probably the easiest way to tap into alternative information systematically. But lobbying is lobbying.

Speech Therapy Rhotacism

Uni-lobby in the United States: Are private research universities a political heavyweight

U.S. universities have professionalized their lobbying in the past two decades and highly developed. This is especially true for the top private universities, for Harvard & Co., which represented their interests very systematic in many policy areas. As this practice looks like and the lobbying is being organized, I'm in a lecture in the conference series "Science-Ethics-Politics" the ZIBI Graduate School (Max-Planck-Gesellschaft/Charité Berlin) is shown. Which complemented the Conference on German and European research policy Enno Aufderheide (Secretary General of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, Bonn) and Jens-Peter Gaul (KoWi, Brussels).

Until the 1980s, was lobbying for most U.S. universities a sparse problem, the Washington Post called it even a "two-horse operation." The policy environment and financing have been increasingly difficult. Since the 1990s, a growing professionalization observed that in the past decade strongly developed added. Here, the universities rely no longer on their established associations, but investing in their own political resources:

• own policy bars the responsibility of the presidential administration, often divided into "Federal Relations," State Relations "and local" Community Relations " under the general label of "Public Affairs" or "government relations;
• own Relay in the state capitals and in Washington;
• active policy of alliances and participation in strategic alliances (eg Science Coalition ) and thematic ad-hoc coalitions with and parallel to lobbying by the major scientific associations;
• large expenditure contract lobbyists , ie hiring of consulting firms;
• and the extension of political communication through public relations and mobilization ("grass roots advocacy") from alumni, students, staff and as well as patients the university hospitals.

The major private universities are particularly active. This is not surprising, since de facto, the private schools of government and politics as dependent as the public. "Private universities are just public universities in disguise," writes William McMillen, chief lobbyist for the University of Toledo, In his new book, From Campus to Capitol : The Role of Government Relations in Higher Education . Private relations massive subsidies from the state, directly or indirectly (the high tuition fees are often obtained by federal grants and loans payable, and the foundations have major tax benefits) and are highly regulated and draw their legitimacy, their "license to operate", by the performance of a public contract. They also have the best universities now significant commercial interests, particularly in the marketing of patents and technology transfer.

fragmentation of the lobbying landscape

The associations policy still has an important influence - but with increasing turbulence. The elite private universities account for about half of the members of the influential Association AAU , one of the "Big Six" of the high school lobby. The AAU has only about 60 member universities, but this strong research universities produce about half of the doctorates in the United States and receive half of all research funds.

addition to the AAU to the "Big Six" are NAICU (private), and AASCU aplu (State public high schools) AACC (public community colleges) and the umbrella organization American Council on Education (ACE) . ACE also operates the Washington Higher Education Secretariat which coordinates about 50 associations. Total active in the U.S. capital some 200 associations, care about higher education and research policy.

The "Big Six" have dominated the science policy since the 1960s with an almost European-style, Korporate and consensus-oriented associations mechanics. that it was possible to require the facilities of the highly fragmented U.S. system of higher education to a "united front" against the policy is already a small miracle. It was probably above all because in the first decades much Money was available, which needed only to be distributed - and the policy in principle, the higher education system is not questioned.

Since the 1990s, the consensus is to produce more and more difficult the political, ideological and economic conflicts of interest are apparent. In fact more and more universities commit their lobbying association projects flight and seek alternative ways of individual policy strategies. The big private research universities have played a big part: you have the means and ways to enforce without the associations their goals.

The fragmentation increases. The can not surprise:

is the tertiary education sector in relation to German conditions, unimaginably large. The approximately 4,400 institutions that award academic degrees enrolled, nearly 20 million students and have 3.6 million employees, the annual budgets are over $ 430 million (U.S. Census, 2011 and U.S. Department of Education, NCES, 2009 ). Around 1,600 private non-profit universities and about 1,000 private commercial facilities are somewhat in contrast with more than 1,600 public institutions. The private institutions have about 5 million students, which is significantly less than the public, under which it - like in Germany - many "Mass universities" are.

At the top research are the top private universities significantly more dominant than in teaching. In a study of "Top American Research Universities," examined the Center for Measuring University Performance at ASU which universities are for typical performance indicators pointed to research in the United States. Of the 88 universities that are in the top 25 of the United States for at least one of the indicators, at least 35 private high schools (non-profit) are. Not surprisingly, are high - even before the public universities - familiar names such as Columbia, MIT, Stanford, Harvard, Penn, Duke, Yale (MUP 2009 Annual Report).

• Among the indicators of overall spending on research and development, the share of the highly competitive federal research funding, the number of professors who are members of the national science academies, the number of prestigious research awards, the performance levels of students, the number of for doctoral degrees, the number postdoctoral job, the scope of the university endowment and donations received.

money, money, money

almost always goes to the private university lobby about money, mainly in four areas:

• funding for research, especially the federal government,
• Federal grants and loans for students (student aid),
• health policy (because of the important medical research, because of the revenue for the university hospitals, and because the universities as a great employer health insurance must pay for)
• and tax policy, because the asset management and commercial activities of the private universities are highly tax-relevant.

The private universities saw the financial and economic crisis melt her foundation's assets and break away the income from tuition fees. Obama's support package for the U.S. economy was therefore an important lobbying target for the universities. Approximately 790 billion dollars were from research and development at universities around 21 billion, as the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, also called" stimulus "is known to stimulate the economy) was adopted in 2009, as seen on the website ScienceWorksforUS can see. The share of investment in education is at the ARRA total of more than 140 billion dollars even much larger, but goes to a great extent in the schools.

The range of policy interests in research and technology is great. Among them are

• economic interests in the intellectual property (patents and licenses, copyrights, etc.), technology transfer initiatives, regional economic development support (cluster à la Silicon Valley, North Carolina Research Triangle, Boston cluster) and Public-Private Partnerships;
• legal restrictions and regulation of science, such as in stem cell research and animal testing, the network neutrality of the Internet, privacy and reporting requirements, issues of IT security and security policy (in this case also reflects the importance of cooperation between universities, military and security agencies;
• and a variety of topics such as the immigration (visas for foreign scientists and students), medical education, anti-discrimination policy including

to lobby, in which policy areas, the private universities , can be thanks to the lobbyists register with databases such as opensecrets.org easily understood, in the detail of bill to bill. For example, the Washington office of Harvard University : education policy was for this in the required reports 2010 not the most frequently mentioned policy area, but priority research and technology, tax policy, immigration, health, arts and culture, and intellectual property; also energy policy and of course the Federal Budget . And that made the Harvard-policy professionals priority in Congress, but also with many ministries, the White House and even the SEC representations.

The budgets for direct lobbying are also largely related. Harvard were about $ 600,000 from 2009 on to his federal lobbying in the first nine months of 2010, the university announced already $ 460,000. Harvard was so far ahead of all universities, such as the Overview shows.

Einzirkelung politics: Unibüros in Washington

Harvard has also "only" a 5-person team in Washington. Large public universities - such as the high school associations from California, New York and Texas - have quite a dozen heads in the U.S. capital. Among private universities, but Harvard is at the forefront.

Meanwhile, dozens of universities have their own liaison office in Washington . Hundreds leave, are also constantly or project support from political consultants on a fee basis. A glance at the map shows that the federal offices of the private universities in DC are often only a stone's throw away from the decision centers (pictured left, own chart, map base GoogleMap). Some private universities afford whole building, then where However, not only fits the political staff, but also offices for visiting scholars (who like and provides targeted as experts for hearings in Congress and public authorities), conference facilities for seminars and alumni (of which there are in Washington a lot - often in positions of influence) and even dorm rooms will be accommodated.

"Bringing home the bacon"

order to lobby the university for some time is also debated controversial . Even within the higher education scene. In addition to the very different opportunities for access to political decision makers, conflict of interest and the fusion of business and science and national security and science are often about the " Earmarks . The budget proposals are to be smuggled outside the regular budget process by members of Congress in various laws. Most in favor of their own constituency or home state. This is no small stuff: Each year, approximately 2 billion dollars added over 2000 individual projects, and in recent years, President and Group tours always failed from limiting this "Earmarks" or even prevent. No wonder: Public and private universities spend a lot of money for lobbying to edit their parliamentarians - in addition to infrastructure projects (Such as Alaska's famous "bridge to nowhere") are favorites of academic projects Wahlkreiskümmerer. Bringing home the bacon "is called, or" pork "- the pork fat-metaphor, a common practice. Thus, for example, science centers, research and education projects are funded.

The private research universities have significant abdominal pain. For this type of research funding are increasingly cut off the regular funding pots of money. While the large federal budget for research funds their money is awarded only in the formal competition in addition to scientific peer review (and get the best universities it very, very much), is the "Earmarks" practically decided only political. The latter, of course, like all (public and private) universities, which in the pecking order of academic excellence are lower and have fewer opportunities in the formal, competitive research contracts. "Earmarks" are smaller and less research-intensive universities, the only way to get from the U.S. government large sums for projects and scientific positions.

resist contrast, the top research universities in years. It is part of official policy, "Earmarks" as non-scientific subsidies legitimized in principle and refuse also try not to such lobbying (see the Statemenst the Duke University and Yale University ). However, it happens that the university administration discovered that, contrary to the official line of individual institutions and professors or university outsourced companies seek just such "Earmarks" - which has shaken the credibility often.

The University of lobbyists on the Web

Almost all private universities publish their own websites on personnel, structure and policy priorities of their political staffs and liaison offices. A selected list:

• Brown University, Office of Government Relations and Community Affairs 
• California Institute of Technology (CalTech), Office of Government and Community Relations  
• Carnegie Mellon University, Office of Government Relations  
• Case Western Reserve University, Office of Government and Community Relations  ;
• Columbia University, Division of Government Affairs
• Cornell University, Office of Government  and Community Relations und Blog des Washington-Büros "CU in DC"
• Drexel University, Office of Government and Community Relations
  
• Duke University, Office of Federal Relations (Magazinbericht DukeToday zur Eröffnung des Washingtoner Büros) 
• Emory University, Office of Govermental and Community Affairs  (Magazinbericht Emory Report , "Queen of the Hill" )
• George Washington University, Government Relations
• Georgetown University, Office of Federal Relations  
• Harvard University, Office of Federal Relations
• Johns Hopkins University, Office of Government Affairs
• Massachussetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Government Relations und Washington Office
• New York University, Office of Government and Community Affairs 
• Purdue University, Vice President for Governmental Relations  
• Rice University, Government Relations  
• Stanford University, Office of Government and Community Relations
• Stanford School of Medicine, Office of Government Relations  
• Stanford-Kinderklinik mit Office of Government Relations and Advocacy   und "Grassroots Advocacy Network"  
• Syracuse University, Office of Government and Community Relations  
• Tulane University, Office of Government Affairs  
• University of Rochester, Office of Government and Community Relations (Unimagazin Currents dazu: The University's "eyes and ears on the ground" ) 
• University of Southern California (USC), Office of Federal Relations 
• Vanderbilt University,  Office of Federal Relations
• Yale University, Office of Federal Relations (Magazinbericht Yale News , "Meet Richard Jacob, Yale's Lobbyist" )
• Washington University St. Louis, Magazinbericht "Advocating for the University"

Literatur the background:
Althaus, M. (2007, March). The campus lobbyists - How America's universities professionally represent their interests. Public Affairs Manager 2 (3), 213-229.
Cook, CE (1998). Lobbying for Higher Education. How Colleges and Universities Influence Federal Policy. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
McMillen, W. (2010) From Campus to Capitol. The Role of Government Relations in Higher Education. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

How Much Is It To Buy 100g. Gold Bar

ministries need help: "Legislation outsourcing

legislation Outsourcing is "in some cases made the award of legislative drafts to an outside" , formulated by the President of the Federal Bar Association (BRAK), Axel Filges , in an interesting essay. The discovered associations talk Blogger Dirk Günther . " legislation Outsourcing - a new profession for lawyers? "is the title of a lecture in September 2010 at the Institute of Legislation and the Constitution at the Humboldt University of Berlin, which now is in the BRAK messages appeared.

"outsource" What state and local governments do not now everything IT, real estate, cleaning, canteen, printing, fleet, technical maintenance, communications, consulting, financial, personnel and security services, various things of general interest. And the welfare state is on us to outsource government to do in the charities and the voluntary sector much of what is actually a state responsibility. Everything will understand, but also to focus on core management skills, motto: Do what you do best, outsource the rest. The idea followed by many countries, the OECD says the outsourcing rate in the developed world for 20 years at around 45% ( OECD Government at a Glance 2009 ). Where outsourcing of simple procurement to privatization public enterprises last.

Until now, however, at least in Germany agreed that all Sovereign is taboo. Leave
bills appear quite sovereign. And if that is not a core competence of ministries, then what is not?

The question is important. Rightly, there was heated debate in recent years about the practice of some ministries, the draft law firms can ("law firms") to write as Linklaters and Freshfields. The watchdog organization LobbyControl thinks this is highly problematic and deals with the phenomenon in its Lobbypedia . However, it should

we remain cautiously despite the criticism. The administration gets - as well as companies and NGOs - to the Adviser for many projects home. Advice is legitimate and often useful. Why not also in bills?

As the government pass legislation internal procedures "organized is largely up to them. If you take a legislative initiative, it does so anyway as a formal cabinet decision. The Ministry has its individual design, as always, he came about to bring, through the Cabinet. If this happens, the entire government takes responsibility for it.

outsourcing, however, was previously not an issue for most ministries or only a marginal phenomenon. BRAK-chief Filges has a parliamentary paper ( Ds. 16/14133, response to an inquiry ) out after only participated in 61 laws 1990-2009 external consultants. Alone, 36 of which are the responsibility of the Ministry of Environment, ten more from the consumer protection ministry. The first she paid a 3.6 million for professional fees, the second EUR 2.1 million. Financially, it was no big deal: about 6 million euros (some data missing) were paid for consulting fees - in two decades. Moreover Filges notes that different advisers conceded, not just law firms.

Filges is not as adventurous, the ministries in principle to recommend the outsourcing of production laws. He sees the support rather than in individual cases , the exception, not the rule: only recommended "for urgent action" if "short-term no sufficient human resources with practical knowledge and experience" are ready. And is legally not a problem. "As long and as far as the officials of the Ministry review these templates third party for independent and can recommend the political house line as suitable proposal"

gray area between advice and advocacy

Filges involved " Complete outsourcing ministerial activities to external parties. What legislation, outsourcing, according Filges not is:

• (a) lobbying and submit it to the outside interests in comments on a draft, which then flow - here called Filges but not too common practice for stakeholders to contribute in advance all the passages ;
• (b) the temporary employment of external consultants in order to help in the legislative process in the Ministry itself and
• (c) advice of impartial, independent experts - which says Filges realistic

"in Putting this to the separation of experts, stakeholders and interested parties, but hold out little. (...) can The stakeholders are the one who has the most expertise, ie expert stakeholders is . Although the boundaries blurred between these people are, all have one thing in common that they only participate in the decision to prepare an existing bill, but not in the decision itself is true here also the boundaries between a decision independent of a entscheidungspräformierenden and decision effectively replace advice fluently. But expert Advice is nonetheless usually a forward already by shape policy created Ministry draft, seen once on the run-up guidance on whether a regulatory requirement. "

The legislation outsourcing, so Filges," no expert discourse refers to the Ministry instead of the property, adequacy of home design . Rather, the creation of a Ministry, where the draft from his hand and delegated to a third party or a law firm. "

He noted that the distrust of the public is justified by the fact that such cases have mostly after the fact became public. Since then lying near a doubt, whether the contract with a political Creative will was provided, so in addition to the issue to target and content sufficiently identified or whether the law firm a blank contract with the motto "Just think of something" was issued .

material and personnel overburdened ministries

The ministries need help to show Filges convinced. The officers had often different and better things to do and are often overwhelmed in the case. " The line ministries to respond because of the complexity of the rules matter no longer able to use their own human resources in a timely manner to newly emerging problems. The reason for this is . Not in the widespread prejudice that lacked the officials there in the necessary motivation, "he the Justice Department cites as an example: 513 employees, including approximately 100 lawyers, were just complex enough for high regulatory matters A flexible staffing increase is as a rule. impracticable. Since was "beneficial, selective additional external expertise to consult, as this permanent staff hold 'quoted Filges the federal government.

may be the most economically justified. But the rub lies in the power of a design consultant who can write the entire draft. "Negotiations are what is on the table lies, "it says. Filges says:

" Who will prepare a draft, so in fact determined the scope of the subsequent decision making. The discussion revolves around the design. Why the draft is silent threatens to sink into oblivion, if not the unspoken is currently the focus of an interest group. A convincing upcoming draft so easily leads to that is hasty only argued about wording and details get suitable alternatives from view. The lead in a design could quickly become a question of power. Who writes, remains . "

Sure, the officials and the political head of a department need to consider what they received from their advisers. They have the well-understood self-interest is only a draft on the way to bring that is technically sound and not the house fool. However: " Compliance with this audit requirement is of course to outsiders should not really be controlled and the cause more mistrust, the less the later the government draft of the origin of the draft law firm is different," says Filges.

The advantage of the lawyers

He now is interested in outsourcing as a legislative task for lawyers. He points out, however, that this is also a new profession for other consulting firms is, especially in complex environmental law, with its intermeshing of scientific knowledge on the one hand and the right knowledge on the other.

In any case, he looks destined Lawyers for the task - not only as specialists in standard form and questions, but as experts who have mastered the material. And attorney consultant team consisted of professionals for short term and accepted piece support staff. They are fast, flexible, effective.

"They are not involved, because they would dominate the legislative technique better than ministry officials, but because of years of referral more familiar with clients affected the substantive problems of the legal matter as it one of the desk - in theory - could be active ministry official. Legislative technique - just like a legal command is formulated technically clean - the staff better control legislation in ministries usually as lawyers, as they are daily familiar with the matter. The shortcomings of the ministry administration, therefore, usually in the substantive law because the ministry officials are not concerned with the specific impact of a law or amendment. They are more theorists (or once were in the past judges) and then possibly get into trouble with, if the Judges specific inputs or petitions to her. The lawyer, however, is every day with the specific legal problems of clients employed, which causes a particular law. He is therefore able to describe the problems and to lead in a legislative solution "

conflicts of interest and transparency as a solution

The Horse's Mouth. Conflicts of interest. Filges cheating is not the question around. He identifies the problem that the public interest may be affected, because the lawyers, the interests of its client base from business and industry might have in mind. Filges says However, this experience with other clients was so now the main reason why firms would be involved . This was also only a " abstract-general role conflict . As long as the ministry now using another firm client in the dispute are, lies a conflict of interests does not. "The legislative advocate a different mandate shall perform than the conventional consulting a lawyer."

After all, admits Filges: "The danger of balancing the interests of the permanent advised clients against the interests of the concrete legislative plan once advised sovereign power can not be denied. "

The solution: the greatest possible transparency. example, in the form of a mandatory disclosure of the earlier relevant client relationships. Or at least, without giving client names, disclosure, how many counseling and litigation, has a similar legal matter they dealt with in a period of time before placing the order (eg five years).

" instructing law firms for legal preparation must be made public, secrecy is out of place here. are also the subject matter and scope of the ministerial order shall specify that the professional public interested check critical, whether the policy have been complied with or is it not made yet on some key points the course different. This is also also said that the political objective of a draft regulation must necessarily out of politics, so here come from the ministry. The law firms will be used as an expert with a specific order. You can and should therefore not engage in the policy-making will itself. Only a political objective, the Ministry may review the foreign design to determine whether this was complied with. "

Disclosure of fees will Filges quite" sensitive "with respect to the . Disclosure of operational and business secrets, but he thinks that it is not harmful to competition if the total fees would be published - it is so let see anything about individual performances and sensitive operational and financial details. His diplomatically worded "question whether the principle of transparency should not lead to making the appointment of external third party to require the consent to the publication of the total fee" may be understood as a plea for it.

who spreads the blanket of silence over the "financial benefits" provides, "in the political and legal-political space again and again [for] distrust in the objectivity and independence of the legatee, who like the conjecture still be unjustified. "



Conclusion All in all a thoughtful, self-critical for BRAK and surprisingly honest article. central message to the law firms and the rest of the consultancy scene: Legislation outsourcing can develop as a business only if we produce more political acceptance. And that is only with transparency and a few other rules and sensitivity to legitimate criticism.

fact is, however, that law firms that regularly for the government work, are becoming increasingly attractive because of their contacts as lobbyists for companies and associations. No wonder other lobby consultants - such as advertising agencies and political consulting companies - this competition is very critical to see . And fear that the lawyers withdraw from invoking attorney-client privilege onto the transparency obligations, as happened at the EU lobbyists register and there were complaints from the German Association of Political Consultants (degepol) and numerous watchdog organizations.


Unfortunately the public debate on the subject now silted up. Roland Schimmel, a professor at the Fachhochschule Frankfurt am Main, which has recently in the Legal Tribune regrets

"because some questions remain open, the legal profession representatives and senior ministry officials in their own right can not answer:

• Are The few relevant rules are actually in the bylaws made by the federal institutions or to professional ethics of lawyers?
• the Federal Court is the only appropriate supervisory body?
• If speed of the legislative process and cost optimization Characteristics of good legislation?
• is to drag the border to unwanted lobbying really that selective?

Although the rebellion has now vanished, remains a stale aftertaste. The idea must be to reconstruct the legal scholars of the future of the motives of the legislature from the files of a law firm, is the idea of a democratic and therefore transparent legislative process right away. "

mold drilled in the proper wound.



SPD initiative to outsource


The "networkers" of the SPD parliamentary group in December 2010, an application "More transparency dare - to give lobbying a framework" , which also refers to the legislative outsourcing. In a " law on the representation of interests before the German Bundestag and the federal authorities (IntVertG) " should include a code of conduct for ministers, a "transparency of title" in the rules of procedure of Parliament and government, and a lobbyist registry, the use of external consultants by Federal Ministries be regulated. Here, the Social Democrats also refer to the recommendations of the Federal Court of 25 March 2008.

"Important and required external expertise "should not be lost." In particular areas in which are subject to complex technical, legal and economic framework for the work of federal ministries, which require expertise that is essential for the proper performance of specific tasks, "they say. The networker request however:

• regular public debates in the Bundestag on the reports of the Federal Government on the use of external persons in the federal administration;
• publication of reports on the Internet;
• analogous to an EP initiative each bill a "legislative footprint " attached, ie information "if and done what external people make a significant contribution in the drafting of the bill have"; secure
• review by the Budget Committee;
• that these functions are not carried out by external staff:
• Lead the formulation of draft laws and other legislative acts,
• management duties and functions in leading sectors in the Federal Ministry
• supervision of the nominating body,
• public procurement and
• functions specific business interests of the nominating body touching;
• status as an external employee without exception clear in all official internal and external contacts is to justify
• and documented, why einWissenstransfer necessary and what specific skills are needed
• the selection of external employees is designed to be open, by which the deployment is done properly known, and the Federal Ministry of professional competence and potential contribution to knowledge transfer has been observed;
• remains a use for more than six months duration of the exception.

It is hoped that 2011 will be more talked about that seriously. Some new rules are necessary.

references

• Filges, AC (2010). Legislation Outsourcing - a new profession for lawyers? BRAK Communications, 41 (6), 239-253. Online at http://www.brak-mitteilungen.de/media/77818_brak0610_druckdatei_low.pdf
• About the Conference told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung: (. 2010, 28.9) Jahn, J. . Even the law is sometimes called "outsourced" . Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.
• This also Schimmel, R. (2011, 27 January). Legislative Outsourcing: The dogs bark, the caravan moved on. Legal Tribune online
• Hipp, D. et al . (2008, August 17). Lawyers: The laws Whisperer. Federal Economics Minister Guttenberg is coming under fire because he was a law made by a large design firm. But that is now common practice. The mirror , 68-70.
• Battis, U. (2009). Outsourcing of bills? Journal of Legal Policy (ZRP) 7, 201-203
• break, D. (2010). Outsourcing legislation - legislation by lawyers? state and local government (AFR) 11, 502-503.
• Giesberts, L., Ostermann, M. & Viehmann, H. (2010, February). Participation of lawyers in the legislative process? Pro / Contra. German newspaper Richter 2, 42-43.
• Kloepfer, M. (2011). Legislation Outsourcing - The preparation of draft laws by lawyers. NJW 3, 131-134.
• Krüper, J. (2010). Lawfirm - legibus solutus? Legitimacy and rationality of the internal legislative process and the "outsourcing" of bills. Juristenzeitung (JZ), 655-662.

Gay Male Hookups Washington Dc

policy agency J + K probably inspired Atom TV shocker "residual risk"

similarities are purely coincidental screenwriters gathered material for the fictional consulting company of a nuclear energy company - a few things to remember the real companies Johanssen + Kretschmer


Sat1 aired yesterday the TV movie "residual risk" . Two Million € has cost the strip, about two million viewers saw him. A very expensive movie (filmed in the Austrian nuclear Zwentendorf that never went to the grid) and for a private channel a highly political message.

About the story of the meltdown of a fictional nuclear power plant "Oldenbüttel" at Hamburg could say many things. These policy details had to ruffle the hair in places - since when are parliamentary committees of inquiry in a position to lead times and operating licenses of nuclear power stations to decide?

Amusing for connoisseurs, however, the figure of the communication consultant and lobbyist Stefan Strathmann , played by Matt Koeberlin . The actor himself says on the Sat1 Web site for the film :

"I hope we keep up with this film, the critical approaches to nuclear power alive, even if it is an oversized entitlement for a film might be a concern. aroused while pointing to a scenario that makes our leaders more and more difficult to get away with questionable decisions. "

The type Strathmann: a cynical professional that comes along plenty of their former glory and unappealing at first, but in time for sympathy and support is at the end against their own customers - the nuclear power plant operators - works, but is also contaminated himself and die. A unlikely hero and martyr.

similarities are, in the film productions always "coincidentally" , but may assume with a little imagination you that for the figure Strathmann Heiko Kretschmer of Johanssen + Kretschmer Strategische Kommunikation , one of the leading public affairs agencies in Berlin, was the force behind ... (Off his glasses, his beard a little fuller, her hair a little different - if you squint your eyes, can convince themselves that) and the company itself as well.

Stratmann The figure is introduced in the film at a Bauer demonstration outside a government building. Dairy farmers tilt on the road, mooing cows, accompanied Stratmanns a spokeswoman for the Minister of Agriculture shall enter into force before the angry farmers with an obviously good news for farmers. A happy association with Bavarian chief thanked staining with a glass of milk in hand, at Strathmann. "Jo, the Lord Strathmann Thank you for the lobby I mean of course the persuasion that you made. have Then we drink. "Strathmann:" I also really proud that I have to convince the government commission on the value of an extra portion of milk could have "

This was obviously a deliberate throwback to the marked by similar images . "Fair Milk" campaign of Federation of German Dairy Farmers (BDM) 2009, which accompanied the agency Johanssen + Kretschmer. A smart move, and prime example of innovative PA Consulting was then the formation of a sensational coalition between the milk lobby, and NGOs such as the Bund, the German Animal Protection Federation, German Watch, and Oxfam .

The name of the fictitious communications consulting "Morgan + Bremer" has a language not far removed from "Johanssen + Kretschmer. Acting scenes in contemporary surroundings entrance of a tall building in the agency office and also familiar and reminiscent of the J + K offices in the Beisheim Center on Potsdamer Platz ... and even the blue-green logo "M + B" associations provides a model "J + K".

Morgan + Bremer works for a power company and, as is suggested for the "Association for Nuclear Energy" in Berlin. In reality, Johanssen + Kretschmer important agency clients from the (also nuclear) energy sector.

"How to advise communicative an industry that is used by politicians, consumer advocates and their clients massively attacked?" is the main issue of J + K-self-description in the campaign database PR Report outlined where, as J + K for the Electricity Association (VDEW, since 2007 BDEW) a Issues Management System with daily reports on the media agenda, media response analysis and database functions developed.

The computer-based monitoring is the film "residual risk" the scene: At the "Association for Nuclear Energy" search for in the night and a computer automatically press databases by media reports of incidents.

Undercover allowed to use the nuclear power plant engineer consultant Strathmann later thanks to the databases in his company "Morgan + Bremer" to come to official internal documents. "So you get everything from latte to the minutes of the last cabinet meeting at the chancellery ," says Strathmann, as he passes the investigators against their own employer engineer the card with the access code for the database.

In the film's PR people are quite busy, as will the first crises. Strathmann conceived after the first incident (a transformer fire as NPP crumbs) a image campaign with a poster testimonials of staff of the NPP that will be presented at a discussion moderated by Strathmann press conference in Hamburg Hotel Atlantic (shown at left. film segment ).

The role model? Apparently the by J + K designed in 2006 campaign "Sure. Nuclear energy for EnBW, E. ON, RWE and Vattenfall in (with Germans Atomic Forum related real) Information Group Nuclear Energy (IK) .

Also in the campaign known in view three NPP employees from Biblis, Isar and Phillipsburg about safety standards and human sparkled in their Testimonials (Figure right source ).

sicher.kernenergie.de The print series belonging to the campaign microsite (part of the continuing web presence http://www.kernenergie.de ) the Internet Archive to find WayBackMachine . "It is an attempt to commit to this form of energy and to make clear that it is a safe form of energy production -. without provoking, "Kretschmer said at the time the trade publication horizon An article from PR Report to this is the homepage of J + K - apparently for the writer-researchers a helpful find.

Well, as much chance never was. It is time to think again. The change of film consultant Strathmann for anti-nuclear warrior is a cause for reflection. He had "his principles," he says in a key scene. to cover up instead of the machinations of the energy company, he helps the NPP staff in the detection of the scandal. In "Morgan + Bremer" he flies in the same way as the engineer, which he smuggled into his own company. He leads the internal documents, while already sent soldiers guns on him to continue online to the press. And because he himself goes into the contaminated area to rescue the protagonist, it becomes the radiation victims, blood-spitting - and at the end of film clips wife and children his photo to a tree, hanging on the already many obituaries. The voice of the nuclear industry, a victim of many.

Despite the crude Story: Plenty of material for a discussion on professional ethics of a communications and policy advisor. must give the ethics officer of the German Society of Political Consultants (degepol) actually fallen. His name is way Kretschmer.

PS

way: Heiko Kretschmer notes explicitly that neither the authors of the film, nor SAT 1 or the third person ever contact the agency had Johanssen + Kretschmer Strategische Kommunikation

movie quotes . ;

scene staff meeting in the cafeteria of the nuclear power plant, the employees themselves Strathmann presents:

" I have enormous respect for the nuclear power It is effective it is.. lucrative. It is the only climate-neutral form of energy. And now comes the but.

A hydrogen explosion that caused a crack in the reactor lid. A defective safety valve. The incorrect simulation of the reactor safety system. And so on and so on. A transformer fire is as void, that may be. He is just one part of a series of mishaps that have happened here in recent years.

I'm sorry to say this, but you get through the nuclear power a lousy image. And if you give your opponents still so much under attack, then it may be that you are permanently disabled despite prolonged period.

Good They will say that explodes the current price. But he will not do, as we all know. It is also not matter whether you earn a million euros so far as profit per day, or whether it is two million after completion of the retrofitting work. Your Executive Committee would prefer to double its profits.

And that's why I'm here. My name is Stefan Strathmann. I'm communications consultant "

security chief Wernecke: . communications consultant, which is a nice euphemism for lobbyist? "

Strathmann: " Nice descriptions are actually not quite my style. I think I've just proved "

Wernecke: ." I heard your name before. How long have you worked in nuclear power "

Strathmann: ? For about twelve hours,"

scene in the nuclear power plant An official of the supervisory authority leaves the room, Strathmann goodbye.

. "Greet please the Prime Minister to thank Mr Morgan. "

nuclear chief: " Who is Morgan "

Strathmann: ?" This is my boss. To be but you do not get to face "

nuclear chief: . Oh, what because we would have to do, that the Lord condescends to us? "

Strathmann: " With your oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico contaminate, for example. Or kill with a poison gas cloud from your chemical plant a few thousand people in an Indian slum. Well you see, so see it is better that my boss is not here, "

scene in the office of the security chief Wernecke, forced vacation must take:

Wernecke: . At least I have a attitude. I am not selling to the highest bidder. "

Strathmann: " Oh, you mean like me, thou No right-wing extremists, no pedophiles, no advocate of violence. I also have my principles, Katja. "

Acr Suburban Dynaline Service

Oxford study: Lobby coalitions context and issues in Brussels

" Get there fastest with the mostest " kalauerte, once the Confederate Civil War General Nathan Bedford Forrest (who was named after the movie hero Forrest Gump ). The winning formula the cavalry is wrong for the lobbyists not on the battlefield Brussels.

who filled early with a large number of combatants is a political issue, has secured a disproportionate influence. The influence of interest groups on policy depends on the relative strength of the stakeholders and environment issues from . Depending on the stakeholder and thematic context, a lobby has better or worse chances.

With the empirical evidence and differentiation, the science does, however, difficult. On individual case analysis, it is usually also do not influence and is indeed not easy to measure.

tried a new study it with a big throw: Heike Klüver , postdoc at the University of Oxford, in 2696 brings input from interest groups and 56 individual topics in an investigation. She is interested in the policy formulation stage at the European Commission, leading to a draft law. With quantitative text analysis, they attempted to diffuse Phenomenon of "influence" issues and in evaluating who was instrumental in lobbying won or lost at this stage - and why.

The results of the study are enlightening as confirmation and differentiation of practice experience:

• Lobbying is not a game for "lonely rider", but a collective effort - regardless of whether interest groups unite formal alliances, informally coordinate or speak not at each other. As for their influence opportunities, they sit on the high seas of politics in the same boat - and the opposite side in another.
• Central is the relative strength: Like many other stakeholders on your side and how many are on the opposite side. Whatever the political issue, the impact on the draft law of the European Commission continues to grow with the relative strength of the alliance comrades.
• But Who now believes that we must drum them hard and increase the awareness of a topic to attract more allies to his side, can be mistaken huge.
• For, according to the statistics, the drums for more attention to a topic is usually good only for the already larger and more dominant side.
• The empirical analysis shows that the reduce interest on the weaker side with such a strategy in fact their chances of political influence. go so better off, the topic does not draw more in the public and to the top of the political agenda. "This has important implications for the lobbying strategies of interest groups," said Kluever.
• how complex an issue is and how much is debated about is in contrast to the influence of an interest group in this stage of the legislative process rather irrelevant.

context of topics: Important factor for lobbyists

The starting point: A political conflict theme (issue) has certain characteristics:

• attention and prominence of a topic - scientifically known as salience, this is about the question of whether a subject more sector-specific and "technical" nature and will be considered, therefore, only a few experts, or whether many stakeholders and interested even across sectors, the general public for it;
• intensity of the conflict - thus how much arguing about politics;
• the gain by events to a focus are on the subject;
• the breadth and complexity of a topic, so the difficulty level of problem understanding, analysis and solutions, and
• the formation and relative size of coalitions of interest groups on this topic .

Klüver emphasized that lobbying is a complex collective process. So if you only individual lobbyists and their influence sees noticed, perhaps the forest for the trees.

Successful lobbying mostly a joint product, is "solitary Riders "are not the norm. Policy makers almost always see a list of related informal alliances for or against certain positions to. And this group formation depends on the specific issues cut.

Klüver For the recipe for success is simple. If a large number of interest groups stand up for something and a very small number of groups to the contrary, would probably rather listen to the political decision-makers to the larger coalition. The effect is therefore greater, the more interest groups rallied behind a particular position.

It did not matter whether these groups worked together formally, exchanging information and strategies as coordinated - as long as they have a common political goal. Klüver understands so under a lobbying coalition not an official and co-driven alliance, but simply assigns each group a political thrust under one roof. So at least a virtual lobby team.

is crucial, so Kluever, not the absolute number of participating groups, but the relative strength of an alliance in comparison to the strength on the opposite side. An example: When

topic 1, the lobbying coalition A consists of 100 interest groups, the Alliance B of 300th In Theme 2 are 10 stakeholders together in a coalition C and 30 D. In terms of the alliance in absolute size, the lobby coalitions A and B are stronger than C and D. But this is not much, because you must pay attention to the subject: If theme A 1 represents only 25 percent, 75 percent of B, however, the subject of active interest groups. At about 2, it is for C and D as well. The covenants B and D have an influence because of their relative strength advantage.

Sun jib comes to hypothesis (1): The higher the relative size of a lobbying coalition, the greater the likelihood that a member of this coalition can influence the political process.

formulated to complexity of topics jib is just as simple hypothesis (2) : The more complex the issue is, the greater the chance that an interest group can influence the political process. The tougher it is to understand a problem and think through solutions, the more it is opened for the political decision-makers expertise of various stakeholders.

The salience of a theme - that attention and prominence - is not to Klüver constant. Rather, it depends on the relative size of the lobby coalitions - and of course from the bustle of the stakeholders, to create awareness for the topic. Kluver believes that large coalitions particularly benefit from higher salience, since typically more stakeholders to join the dominant coalition. The author writes as hypothesis (3) : The greater the awareness of an issue, the greater the chance of influencing a group if it belongs to the larger lobbying coalition. And vice versa: the chance to exert political influence, be smaller when a group joins the smaller coalition.

is now particularly intense struggle for a subject, policy-makers are drawn with a lot of pressure in different directions. In both ways, there are big headwind. Sun comes to the jib hypothesis (4): The greater the conflict on an issue, the less likely it is to take effect.

The investigation: Entries in online consultations

The four hypotheses examined the author is now using a first quite simple before-after comparison . What comes back (namely, the draft law of the European Commission) is matched with the preferences of the stakeholders.

The before-and-after approach is controversial, as Klüver grants. What between "before" and "after" will happen, it does not state clearly, whether by chance or other factors in addition to the lobbying of interest groups play a role, no one knows. That the Commission has approached the preferences of a lobby, does not necessarily lie on lobbying. Sometimes it was influence, sometimes it was luck. Kluever said, however, when a Commission proposal to the objectives correspond to strong, be this a success for the interest group, or so, and success is more plausibly with influence than can be explained by luck.

There remains the methodological problem of how to capture the specific policy positions on a subject to measure the changes. Here is a quantitative text analysis comes into play.

often allows the Commission eight-week online consultations n . Usually a paper is published by the Commission to respond to the stakeholders and their positions in documents online. The author examines the main paper, the submitted documents of interest and determine whether and how the Law Commission draft Resemblance to this has.

• For this they used a statistical program, which goes by the name Word Fish . This allows the statistics take political positions from text documents. Counted, terms and phrases. Measured the frequency that occur with certain phrases. The program name is a pun on the French word "poisson" (= fish) because it is about the statistical Poisson distribution .

jib is aware that the published consultation documents from the interest groups are quite used strategically, in the background of other channels be used. Nevertheless, she says, the papers are useful because they differed significantly from the actual position of the groups that allow early access and consultation, many stakeholders involved in it. To compare the papers were in all cases: 92 percent of the terms used in the Commission's text, appeared in the papers of the stakeholders.

The extensive preparatory work in coding and mapping of the texts here are not interested to continue (Klüver describes it exactly). Selected from the EU database PreLex topics are from the "first pillar" EU policy (community method), they relate only to EU directives and regulations as well as after the co-decision procedure or advice based instruments between 2000 and 2008. And of course, only those issues dealt with, where there was a public consultation, otherwise the author would not need access to the documents. Of the 57 bills, finally, that appeared likely, however, the jib-sized REACH chemicals regulation from - namely, there was 6000 entries and for economic reasons, the author abandoned the analysis.

gave to the other 56 designs, it nevertheless or 4871 entries. Half rejected the author, focused exclusively on the input from organizations (2,643) and Enterprise (775) , because they are the most active lobbying actors at EU level and also most often involved in online consultations. Short entries and entries that were not written in English landed also in the trash. This selection may not be satisfactory, but in practice is to understand the process. It remained 2696 documents for the analysis .

The operationalization of the explanatory variables is also interesting for non-scientists:

• The relative strength of lobbying coalitions is operationalized simply by the author, the number of interest groups "left" and shared "right" from the original position of the EU Commission by the total number of participating groups.
• The complexity of a topic by three indicators identified: the word count, the number of the draft law designated recitals and the number of articles of the draft
• The salience of a subject measured by the number of entries during the online consultation (for the greater the visibility of. subject, the more stakeholders participate).
• charged The only conflict of a topic, the author so that is shared, the number of interest groups in the smaller coalition lobbying by the number of groups on the opposite side.
• Finally, there is "controlling variables", such as whether it is a amendment to an existing EU legal act or something totally new legislation and what procedure was used. Random effects were also considered.

results

What came out of it now? The data were unruly. According to the theory should complexity and conflictual a political topic have significant effect on whether an interest group can exert influence. The statistics, however denies this - not a relevant variable . Hypotheses 2 and 4 were confirmed.

is contrast, the relative strength of a coalition lobbying statistically significant, the positive relation . So a good result for Hypothesis 1: The greater a lobbying coalition vis-à-vis the other side, the greater the likelihood that its member interest group can influence the draft law of the European Commission. And reinforced the relative size of a coalition lobbying by one count (occurs it added so an interest group) increases, the impact probability on average by around 4 percent.

The chart (below), Kluever is the forecast of how the influence of an interest group compared to the growth of a lobbying coalition behaves ( when all other variables are held constant). clearly understood: Whatever the political issue, the impact on the draft law of the European Commission continues to grow with the relative strength of the alliance comrades

example. grows the relative strength the lobby coalition of 0 (minimum) to 25 meter increases, the influence of chance on average by 11 percent. Comparing two lobby coalitions A (relative intensity 25) and C (50), the probability of exercising influence, is about 19 percent higher for the coalition lobbies in A than in the coalition as

As for the salience of a political issue terms, that the attention and prominence, confirmed Klüver guess. According to the theory is more salience mean more difficulties for the influence of smaller coalitions and lobby easier for large impact. Just as it is, says the statistics. With the advantage of the great Lobbying coalitions with increasing attention to a political issue participation is relatively lower than the disadvantage of the small lobby coalitions.

Klüver Conclusion:

"This has important implications for the lobbying strategies of interest groups: A number of authors have shown that stakeholders aware of the salience of trying to boost a policy issue at to attract additional supporters, and thereby increase their opportunities to influence the outcome of the policy-making process. The empirical analysis shows, however, that this Strategy is only worthwhile for stakeholders, the - members of the dominant coalition lobby - on any subject ever. Stakeholders on the weaker side, thus reducing their chances of actually political influence. "

could be on the methodology criticize some things, but it is Klüver credit for having taken a quantitative, thematic and cross-sectoral investigation into the lobbying influence in attack, where there are mostly single case studies on specific topics. The quantitative analysis is a text interesting approach, even if the instrument has only a small part of the lobby scene under the microscope of science brings .

Klüver confirmed relevant experience and insights from the field - and underscores the value that the policy-makers in Brussels attach to the pooling of interests and European majority Education

The open edges of the complexity and conflictual from. Topics that play no role in the statistics seem to designate that they own - and know that it is precisely these factors after the initial stage of the legislative process, a central role. The more complex and contentious issues is a topic that is, the more likely that a bill of the Commission of the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers is intensely debated, negotiated and changed dramatically. Here, there are also the greatest opportunities for advocacy coalitions, which had been unsuccessful in the initial phase

Klüver rightly says. Lie in the comprehensive analysis of the legislative process for the research with her chosen method for some potential.

source

Kluver, H. (2010, December 6). Lobbying and the issue context: A quantitative analysis of interest group infuence in the European Union. Paper for the Conference Quantifying Europe: Pitfalls and Challenges of Data Generation Processes, Mannheim, 13-14. December 2010. Online at http://www.heike-kluever.com/downloads/Kluever_Lobbying_and_the_issue_context.pdf

What Is The Price Of Amf Bowling

Facebook discovered the lobbying

Facebook gets gradually political problems. Not only in Europe but at home in America. How USA Today reported , Facebook is building out its representative office in Washington, therefore, investing more in its policy and regulatory departments ( "Facebook changes its status lobbying in Washington" ).

It repeated an old pattern: high-tech companies often only seen relatively late that they themselves with the political framework must address. Microsoft and Google delivered later in legal battles with the state before they proactively invested in lobbying and political public relations and public affairs strategies developed. Facebook does now forced to do the same - with the company's strategic mistake by Microsoft, Google & Co want to avoid.

In the U.S., increases the policy massively in the regulation of consumer and data protection, Internet governance, network neutrality and other public policy issues for the IT markets, and this is for the young billion dollar business of social media industry both opportunity and threat.

Facebook may already be planning for 2012 IPO. The crazy billions that the company could be worth dominated the headlines in recent days. It will be crucial for investors but, as the regulatory environment of the future, to be continued for the Facebook business model and expand. There is considerable uncertainty.

Both the Congress, the Economic Ministry and the regulatory Federal Trade Commission (FTC) are planning new rules for the consumer and data protection (eg "do-not-track" legislation to restrict the trade of the data tracks of the customer). The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), meanwhile, observed a critical trade in securities of IT companies.

The Facebook's office in Washington

USA Today notes that has Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg a political "charm offensive" launched and at the same time expanding the Washington office. Recently, the seventh person has been accepted in the representative office, the office is looking for a more policy experts and relate in April a new home with 740 square meters of office space.

Facebook is now seven years old. The bad example Microsoft, which has long ignored the policy, Facebook made to a relatively early stage in the political relations to invest.

maintains an office in Washington Facebook since 2007. the first year and a half bestandt the crew of a single lobbyist, Adam Conner, in his early twenties is not just a political veteran. The higher-level lobbying by the Privacy Commissioner (Chief Privacy Officer) Chris Kelly does in the corporate office, who was on leave in 2010 but for the election campaign in California: Kelly was Minister of Justice (Attorney General) to be subject, however, even in the primaries the Democratic Party. is led today by the representative

Marne Levine, Vice President of Global Public Policy. She came last June to Facebook and was previously associate with Obama's economic adviser Larry Summers.

"We have to be present and define ourselves before someone else does" cited the Journal of Facebook employees Tim Sparapani, who until 2009 data protection expert at the civil rights organization, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). "It is clear that we must be part of the new thinking in Washington, and that early in the maturation process of the company."

respect held by the new regulatory ideas, the company is still covered. "We had not yet been clearly position for or against something," Sparapani is quoted as saying. Most bills are "still not ripe. "" We are here to share our views, to clarify long-term critical issues and to inform. "is clear only that the politicians and officials, quite familiar with the Facebook technology are capable of understanding them and for very interest.

For Sparapani self-interested, the media already. The Washington Post of Personnel dedicated in 2009 an article ( "Facebook Taps account Hawk as a lobbyist" ).

Facebook recruited with the ACLU privacy advocates an opponent of the company. Sparapani, ten years older than Facebook founder Zuckerberg was a very prominent critic of the policy, a "Champion the privacy of consumers. ", according to the paper, the civil rights lay with the most important private and public companies, airports to hospitals that he is seen after the break now from NGOs and critical politicians in particular is Sparapani clear:" I was one of them - I know that they issue me a free ride "

A colleague agrees:". We will be tough against Tim. Sparapanis position in the Internet company was "a litmus test for Facebook. He understands the business of data collection and is very concerned about this. With his background is certainly not without Tim crisis of conscience any techniques approve of, that Facebook unfairly data used and disclose. "

Even in the U.S. states Facebook is politically active. As a California Youth and data protection law for social media was on the agenda, hired Facebook to a lobbyist and in bringing the bill to case half ( USA Today , "Facebook lobbied to kill Bill Aimed at social media" )

Public pressure is rising -. Internet companies prepare politically

Some see Facebook's new interest in policy in response to massive pressure from politicians and the public. "They thought there was for them no need for lobbying, "cited USA Today consumer protection experts Justin Brook man of the NGO Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) ." Then she got in trouble, were dragged from angry politicians, and were threatened in actions ".

Other Internet companies have a political presence in the U.S. capital increase massively, so USA Today .

Six years ago, Google had no presence yet in Washington, today the company employs in the U.S. capital of 25 employees. They are almost as many as in Microsoft Office (26), which opened in 1998. 2010 Google, according to lobbying registration was $ 4,030,000 for lobbying in 2005, there were only $ 260,000.

the IT companies, only the software giant Oracle was more out (5.1 million dollars). The ten biggest IT companies in Silicon Valley increased its lobbying expenditures of 12.4 million dollars in 2005 to 26.4 million in the year 2009. According to the public database of NGOs OpenSecrets.org Center for Responsive Politics is the recognized IT-sector in 2010 around 87 million dollars for lobbying expenses on the federal level have a lobbying giant. However, these budgets were still significantly smaller than that of the pharmaceutical, electronics and financial industries.

The lobby register reveals that Facebook in the first nine Months of the year 2010, approximately 221 000 U.S. dollars for its capital spending representation. Not much, but at least 30 percent more than a year earlier 2009th By comparison, Google spent the first three quarters of 2010, almost $ 4 million.

See also the PAM Blog Posts:

• "USA: Google, Facebook, eBay, Amazon and young IT companies intensify lobbying
• " permanent visitors "in Google