In Shift, Lobbyists Look for Bipartisan Support to Repeal a Tax

Cook executives had backed Representative Bobby Schilling, her Republican opponent in last year’s election for Illinois’s 17th District seat, after he had joined with other House Republicans to push for the repeal of a new medical device tax imposed to pay for President Obama’s health care law. The company said the tax would cut its profits this year by an estimated $15 million, perhaps limiting future expansions. But in a hint of a shift in corporate lobbying strategy now under way in Washington, the industry pitch is now focused on Democrats like Ms. Bustos.

“Republican or Democrat, we need them to understand who we are and what we do,” said Steve Ferguson, the chairman of Cook’s parent company, who was there alongside Ms. Bustos as she toured his company plant. The visit ended with Ms. Bustos telling local reporters she would consider joining the effort to repeal the tax, which is expected to raise $29 billion over 10 years.

“If current laws are holding businesses back from hiring locally, I’m open to looking into ways to improve and fix them,” Ms. Bustos said in a statement.

Just last year, with Republicans still within reach of taking over the Senate and White House, many companies were willing to burn a chunk of their corporate lobbying budget to push House Republicans to pass bills that everyone on Capitol Hill knew had no chance of ever becoming law. The muscle flexing at least made a political point — and potentially set up special-interest groups, like the medical device industry, for a successful push this year, assuming their hoped-for Republican victories had been scored.

But then the 2012 election took place. Candidates like Mr. Schilling were defeated, even though Cook executives had contributed generously to his re-election effort, to try to keep Ms. Bustos, a strong advocate of the Obama health care plan, out of office.

Now, lobbyists across the city are redoubling their efforts to build bipartisan coalitions — not just on the 2.3 percent medical device excise tax, but other hot topics, like the possible rewriting of corporate tax laws and revisions to the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act that revamped the way financial corporations are regulated.

Republicans still get the bulk of the money that the medical device industry contributes. But there are some key Democrats who are pulling in large amounts of industry financial support, like Senators Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, who have been outspoken in their opposition to the medical device tax.

Bipartisanship, of course, is not unheard of in Washington, and the lobbyists and corporate players who have intensified their bipartisan push this year credit their dedication to good governance. But much of this is about figuring out a way to get the legislative train running again — so they can deliver some rewards to their clients.

“Lobbing grenades back and forth — that is not good enough,” said Don Nickles, a former Republican senator from Oklahoma, who runs a lobbying firm whose client roster includes Medtronic, one of the nation’s top medical device companies.

It remains unclear whether the strategy will work. The animosity between Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill — and between the White House and Republican leaders — might be so intense that even this lobbying push will fail.

But this is the moment to try, lobbyists in Washington are telling their clients. The first two years of any presidential term are when Congress, at least by historical precedent, is typically more productive — before the political posturing for the next election takes over.

“It is no longer just about sending signals or messages,” said L. F. Payne Jr., a former House Democrat whose lobbying firm was hired by Cook Medical’s parent company last year to help its push to appeal to Democrats. “But it is time to actually pass some laws.”

The bid to repeal the medical device tax is a prime example of this shift in lobbying tactics. Last year in the Senate, the industry effort was led by Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, who secured the support of 33 other senators, all of them of his party. A House version pushing the tax repeal passed in June largely with Republican support. But the measure died, after it failed to come to a vote in the Senate.

This year, Mr. Hatch is again sponsoring a repeal bill, but he has four Democrats as co-sponsors, including liberals like Senator Al Franken of Minnesota.

Perhaps even more important, industry lobbyists helped circulate a letter among Senate Democrats in December, after the election, criticizing the tax and urging a delay in its Jan. 1 establishment. Sixteen sitting Democratic senators and two who had just been elected ultimately signed on. It was a real coup for the industry, as the letter included top Senate Democrats like Richard J. Durbin of Illinois and Charles E. Schumer of New York.

The behind-the-scenes story of how those signatures were secured offers a window into the changing lobbying tactics. Companies like Cook Medical have seen their lobbying budgets soar, as they have beefed up their representation by lobbying firms with Democratic credentials, like the firm where Mr. Payne works, McGuire Woods, which also has former Senator Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana, as a lawyer on its team.

The appeal has included dozens of telephone calls from executives at medical device companies to the Senate Democrats or their staff, as well as many meetings in person on Capitol Hill.

Trade associations like the Advanced Medical Technology Association, have organized rallylike events in different states, and “fly-ins” to Washington, in which employees of medical equipment firms make it clear that they expect the help of their local members of Congress.

Donations from industry executives to certain important Democratic allies, like Ms. Klobuchar of Minnesota and Mr. Casey of Pennsylvania, surged in the last election cycle as the industry played a significant role in their re-election efforts.

Ms. Klobuchar, whose state has an estimated 400 medical device companies employing about 35,000 people, has emerged as one of the industry’s most important allies — cornering other Democrats on the Senate floor to press them to join the push, industry lobbyists said. The first real test will come this week. Senate backers of the device tax repeal, like Mr. Hatch and Ms. Klobuchar, plan to propose a nonbinding amendment to a federal budget bill to make their bipartisan opposition to the tax clear.

The industry executives and the lawmakers involved have at least so far avoided identifying how they would pay for the repeal of the device tax. They realize that they would only draw opposition from lobbyists representing whatever industry it is that would be targeted to make up the money. The biggest obstacle remains the White House, which last year threatened to veto the House medical tax repeal bill. The White House argues that demand for new devices will offset the economic impact of the tax.

But the industry, which sells devices ranging from wooden tongue depressors to pacemakers, has important Democratic allies now trying to squeeze the White House as well. Ms. Klobuchar and Mr. Franken brought up the topic last month with Mr. Obama during a ride they took with him on Air Force One.

“I think that there has been some renewed understanding on the president’s part,” Mr. Franken told the editorial board of a Minnesota newspaper last month — which then repeated his call for the repeal of the tax, under a headline, “If a tax has bipartisan opposition, Obama should listen.”

View the original article here

Small Shift in Numbers Gives House Democrats a Fresh Shot at Relevance

Joe Straus became the speaker of the Texas House in 2009, when Democrats and Republicans had nearly even numbers in that body.

Every deal had to be brokered. Party lines were soft.

Republicans clobbered the Democrats in the 2010 elections and ran over them in Mr. Straus’s second term as speaker. They had a supermajority, and they acted like it.

As a bloc of votes, the Democrats were broken. Demoralized, they never coalesced behind any particular leader. They had a caucus head in Representative Jessica Farrar of Houston. And they had a brawler, Representative Trey Martinez Fischer of San Antonio. But the Democrats did not show up as a unified force in 2011.

Now they get to choose between cooperation and resistance, and you can find Texas Democrats in both camps. The trick for their leaders is to figure out where they want to go. In Mr. Straus, they have a speaker who is probably less of what they fear from the right than any of his would-be replacements might be.

If Republicans who don’t like Mr. Straus are right, he is more moderate than the rest of the party. And if that’s the case, how could the Democrats do better? On the other hand, they are Democrats: any Republican successes weigh against them, and some would prefer to oppose Straus and Company no matter what.

Some important things have changed since the last time around.

The 2010 election left Republicans with the idea that they didn’t need to compromise on anything, what with a supermajority and the national mood coming out of those midterm elections. Moderate Republicans mostly stuck with their party even when they didn’t like what was being served, because the alternative was a potentially risky primary in 2012 with a more conservative Republican at home.

Two years ago, the governor was putting together his bona fides for what turned out to be a presidential run. Remember that list of “emergency issues” at the beginning of the session two years ago? Sanctuary cities, photo identification for voters, state-mandated pre-abortion sonograms and eminent domain protection were all tailored to please Republican primary voters.

The formula is different this time. Republicans don’t have a supermajority in either chamber of the Legislature, and the governor hasn’t declared anything worthy of emergency status that must be handled in the first two months of the session.

The Democrats are also in a better place. They have recovered from the spurning of 2010. Their overall numbers still stink, but not as much as before. Republicans suffered some lumps in the presidential race. The party’s urgent designs on Hispanic voters — spurred by the presidential results — has made some Republican lawmakers more interested in dealing with Hispanic lawmakers of either party.

Instead of Republicans pillaging and looting in 2011 in a Texas House that had previously been evenly balanced, this session finds Democrats seeking a way back into power and Republicans trying to woo Latinos and also needing alliances with Democrats on some votes.

The early days of a legislative session are marked with warm and optimistic feelings, so it’s hard to tell how the relationships will go. But even if the parties hated each other, they would have to work together on some things.

It’s a Republican room — 95 members versus 55 — but some things require 100 votes or more. The Republicans can’t get there alone, but members from both parties wonder whether anyone can pull together a regular Democratic voting bloc.

The Democrats started the session by electing Representative Yvonne Davis of Dallas to lead the caucus. She is not known as a great orator. You are unlikely to see her very often on television — she doesn’t particularly like having her picture taken. But she is one of the best in the House at working members and votes on the floor, putting deals together, and she can raise money for the caucus.

And Mr. Martinez Fischer, who heads the Mexican American Legislative Caucus, which includes 37 of the 55 Democratic members, is still around.

Last week, he was part of a bipartisan group working to restore some of the education cuts made last session. Ms. Davis was working the floor on a linked appropriations bill.

Mr. Straus and the others are in there, too, wondering if it will be different this year. Will anyone follow the leaders?

View the original article here

Democrats Bet on Shift in Hispanic Numbers to Win Arizona Race

Mr. Carmona, 62, is an untested candidate of vast experiences with a made-for-Hollywood biography. He was a high school dropout, born into poverty in New York City to Puerto Rican parents who struggled with alcoholism and drug abuse. He served in Vietnam, earning Bronze Stars, Purple Hearts and other combat decorations, and attended medical school before his eventual rise to surgeon general under President George W. Bush.

He is running for public office for the first time, challenging a six-term congressman, Jeff Flake, 49, a Republican. Both are vying for the seat held by another Republican, Senator Jon Kyl, who is retiring. Though there is little reliable polling in the contest, both camps acknowledged that the race is closer than they expected in such a heavily Republican state.

Beyond the balance of power in the Senate — enough states are in play that Republicans could regain the majority — the race carries enormous significance for Arizona, whose shifts in demographics threaten to upend its role as a Republican stronghold.

Mr. Carmona was handpicked by President Obama to run for the Senate because of his résumé and his ethnicity, which could help galvanize the state’s Latino voters. The Democratic Party then cleared the field for him, sparing him primary attacks but depriving him of the chance to test his skills before the big fight.

Mr. Flake, in the meantime, waged a feisty primary contest against Wil Cardon, a wealthy businessman who spent a small fortune on his campaign but lost by a considerable margin. Unlike Mr. Carmona, who often refers to himself as a “street kid,” Mr. Flake was raised on a ranch in Snowflake, a northern Arizona town named in part for his great-great-grandfather, the Mormon pioneer William J. Flake.

Mr. Flake says he is “for limited government, economic freedom, individual responsibility and free trade,” tenets that have earned him staunch support from the Tea Party movement. He has also embraced issues of particular significance to rural voters, like environmental rules that he says have curbed the operation of coal plants, leaving many people unemployed and “devastating small-town economies.”

From his campaign headquarters in Phoenix on Tuesday, where he was surrounded by young volunteers polling voters on the phone, Mr. Flake said, “I’m fighting to have some rational policy,” singling out the Forest Service and the Environmental Protection Agency as agencies that “need to be reined in.”

Outside groups have been pouring money and resources into the state as the race has tightened. On Wednesday, FreedomWorks for America, a “super PAC” linked to the Tea Party, opened an office in Mesa. The operation at the heart of Mr. Flake’s base in suburban Phoenix will organize volunteers to solicit votes, said its executive director, Russell Walker, who flew in from Washington.

On Tuesday, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee bought $526,000 in airtime on behalf of Mr. Carmona, its first direct expenditure in the contest. (The committee had previously given $500,000 to the state’s Democratic Party to help pay for the campaign’s field offices, among other things.) The National Republican Senatorial Committee has donated $500,000 worth of ads to the Flake effort.

Mr. Carmona, a longtime independent, is running as a Democrat. That is not because the party is “a perfect fit,” he said, but because “I was forced to pick a position, and when I looked at where the Republicans were, especially in this state — immigration, women’s issues — I chose the Democratic Party.”

He has nonetheless tried to stitch together what he has taken to calling “a coalition of reasonable people” to carry him to victory. He has focused on constituencies long believed to be Republican stalwarts, like veterans, who make up roughly 15 percent of eligible voters in the state, and seniors, many of whom dislike the Medicare plan proposed by Representative Paul D. Ryan, the Republican vice-presidential nominee. Mr. Carmona has also appealed to women who are unhappy about the state’s attempts to curb reproductive rights.

All along, though, Mr. Carmona has courted Latino voters. He released his second Spanish-language commercial on Tuesday, which introduces him as “uno de nosotros” — one of us — while highlighting Mr. Flake’s vote against the Dream Act, which would have given certain immigrants brought to the country illegally as children a path to legalization.

Mr. Flake has begun to make his case to Latinos as well. He has started running his first Spanish-language ad on television and radio, trying to tap into whatever anti-Obama sentiment there is in that community by referring to Mr. Carmona as “el hombre de Obama” — Obama’s man.

A combination of factors, including the state’s legislative push to curb illegal immigration and the presence of a Hispanic candidate like Mr. Carmona in the race, — have been galvanizing among advocacy groups in Arizona, triggering the largest Latino voter registration efforts in memory.

Still, Tara Blanc, a lecturer at the School of Public Affairs at Arizona State University who has studied Latino voting patterns in the state, said Latinos tended to be poorer, younger and less educated than the rest of the population. Those factors generally contribute to low turnouts, she said, so “whether they’ll go to the polls is anybody’s guess.”

Their transformative power lies, most likely, in the future. By 2030, Latinos are expected to make up 25 percent of all registered voters in Arizona, up from 15 percent in 2010, according to an analysis by the Morrison Institute for Public Policy at Arizona State.

Chip Scutari, who runs a bipartisan political consulting firm in Phoenix, said a Latino on the ballot could be “the tipping point for the Latino vote.” But, he added, the state has “a lot of conservative, pro-life Latinos,” who are more likely to vote Republican.

“To say the Latino vote will automatically go to Democrats,” Mr. Scutari said, “is oversimplifying the situation.”

View the original article here