USA Lobbyists >- Hunton & Williams (Lawyers) > Corporate & Right-Wing Causes

Hunton & Williams (Lawyers) Employs more than 800 lawyers - HQ Richmond, Virginia  -  "one of the most well-connected legal and lobbying firms in DC" - wiki: here. Acxiom Corporation - technology - here - (*hacked). American Electric Power - electric utility - here - tax breaks; no tax; $28.85 million on lobbying  & other.  Americans for Affordable Climate Policy (the climate change-denying) - here. Bank of America - largest bank & brokerage firm - here.  >>  [Fix the Debt - here] Berkshire Hathaway -  Warren Buffett's company - subsidiaries - here. Duke Energy - one of largest electric power coy. - here.  >>  [Fix the Debt - here] Energy Corporation - here. Gas Processors Association (the friendly “fracking” people!) - here. General Dynamics - 5th largest defence contractor - here. Koch Industries - subsid. manuf/ trade /investment - here.  Spent $50m on lobbying WA 2006-2011. MasterCard - tried to block WikiLeaks payments - here  (*Hacked). National Association of Manufacturers - NAM - here. Southern Company - elect. utility holding co. - here. Wells Fargo- 4th largest bank - prison investment - here. [+ many more] >> OpenSecrets and SourceWatch   Source - Tom Burghardt (2011) - here.

TWITTER Lobbying

Tend to do things on the fly rather than after careful consideration and extensive research, so my attempt at the odd bit of Twitter campaigning is rather lame to say the least! Is it best to selectively target an 'audience' or is getting the word out broadly and maybe stirring a little interest and debate a worthwhile pursuit, irrespective of the values or ideologies of the target 'audience'? The problem with not being selective is perhaps coming across as aligned with or open to groups, causes, beliefs etc that aren't necessarily in keeping with one's own values -- as well as potentially alienating more suited 'audiences'. Hmmmm ....

UK - DAVID CAMERON'S CASH PEERAGES IS 'LOBBY FODDER'

‘King of Bling’ who gave the Tories £300k is made a Lord: ‘Cash for peerages’ row flares again By Daniel Martin Published: 02:04 AEST, 8 August 2014 The row over ‘cash for peerages’ was reignited last night after it emerged a jewellery tycoon who has handed the Tories more than £300,000 is to be made a Lord. Ranbir Singh Suri – last night nicknamed the ‘King of Bling’ by Labour sources – was nominated by David Cameron. The Prime Minister has already handed out 161 peerages in this parliament. The announcement that another political crony is to be handed a peerage will lead to further calls for the controversial system of patronage which persists in this country to be scrapped. About 20 new peers are expected to be announced today, swelling the total to 850, making the House of Lords bigger than at any time since most of the hereditaries were removed in 1999. And it emerged that the expenses bill for the House of Lords has risen by more than £4million since 2010. According to Lords figures, the cost of peers’ allowances has risen from to £21.6million from £17.2million before the 2010 election. The new peers will increase the bill even further. Based on an average expense claim of £28,000, they could add £600,000 to the bill. Constitutional experts warn that the handing of peerages to dozens of political allies and donors is ‘unsustainable’. Paul Flynn, Labour member of the public administration select committee, said: ‘Our legislature is being prostituted; jobs are being given out to the highest donors. ‘The Lords is overcrowded as it is, only two thirds of them can get in.’ ... Last night Alistair Graham, former chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, said: ‘It is absurd to keep adding to our overblown second chamber through nominations from the PM – particularly as many of the nominees seem to be big donors to the Conservatives. ‘No other second chamber in the Western World is so large. Every democrat should be pressing for a reform of the House of Lords as a matter of urgency.’ While the very idea of parties cramming the Upper House with political appointees is controversial, the idea that donors should be given seats is even more so. EXTRACTS ONLY - FULL @ SOURCE http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2719114/Cameron-make-jewellery-tycoon-gave-Tories-312-000-peer-alongside-Karren-Brady-ex-M-S-boss-Stuart-Rose.html

Lords Reform - 1997–2010

The Labour Party included in its 1997 general election Manifesto a commitment to remove the hereditary peerage from the House of Lords. Their subsequent election victory in 1997 under Tony Blair finally heralded the demise of the traditional House of Lords. The Labour Government introduced legislation to expel all hereditary peers from the Upper House ... House of Lords Act 1999 (see below for its provisions), making the House of Lords predominantly an appointed house.

Since 1999 however, no further reform has taken place.

Overcrowding

The size of the House of Lords has varied greatly throughout its history. From about 50 members in the early 1700s, it increased to a record size of 1,330 in October 1999, before Lords reform reduced it to 669 by March 2000.

In April 2011, a cross-party group of former leading politicians, including many senior members of the House of Lords, called on the Prime Minister David Cameron to stop creating new peers. He had created 117 new peers since becoming prime minister in May 2010, a faster rate of elevation than any PM in British history. The expansion occurred while his government had tried (in vain) to reduce the size of the House of Commons by 50 members, from 650 to 600.

In August 2014, despite there being a seating capacity of only approximately 400 seats in the Lords chamber, the House had 828 members (although of these 54 were not entitled to attend or vote, having been suspended or granted leave of absence). This made the House of Lords the largest parliamentary chamber in any democracy and surpassed in size only by China’s National People’s Congress ...  Baroness Boothroyd  ... criticised successive prime ministers for filling the second chamber with “lobby fodder” in an attempt to help their policies become law. She made her remarks days before a new batch of peers were due to be appointed..

Legislative functions

Legislation, with the exception of money bills, may be introduced in either House.

The House of Lords debates legislation, and has power to amend or reject bills. However, the power of the Lords to reject a bill passed by the House of Commons is severely restricted by the Parliament Acts. Under those Acts, certain types of bills may be presented for the Royal Assent without the consent of the House of Lords (i.e. the Commons can override the Lords' veto). The House of Lords cannot delay a money bill (a bill that, in the view of the Speaker of the House of Commons, solely concerns national taxation or public funds) for more than one month.

Other public bills cannot be delayed by the House of Lords for more than two parliamentary sessions, or one calendar year. These provisions, however, only apply to public bills that originate in the House of Commons, and cannot have the effect of extending a parliamentary term beyond five years. A further restriction is a constitutional convention known as the Salisbury Convention, which means that the House of Lords does not oppose legislation promised in the Government's election manifesto.

By a custom that prevailed even before the Parliament Acts, the House of Lords is further restrained insofar as financial bills are concerned. The House of Lords may neither originate a bill concerning taxation or Supply (supply of treasury or exchequer funds), nor amend a bill so as to insert a taxation or Supply-related provision. (The House of Commons, however, often waives its privileges and allows the Upper House to make amendments with financial implications.) Moreover, the Upper House may not amend any Supply Bill. The House of Lords formerly maintained the absolute power to reject a bill relating to revenue or Supply, but this power was curtailed by the Parliament Acts, as aforementioned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords

Democracy at work in feudal UK.

So David Cameron's aim is probably:

1. thanking his political party's benefactors for their support; and
2. getting them on-board as House of Lords lobbyists, when it comes to the Conservatives proposed legislation getting passed.

Sounds like the entire system should be scrapped.

Another point against Cameron.

Need to get my list up and running somewhere prominent.  LOL