Former Sen. John Watkins, R-Powhatan

by Steve Haner

In 2020, according to documents filed with the State Corporation Commission, Dominion Energy Virginia paid former state Senator John Watkins $92,297 for lobbying services. At the end of the reporting period, it officially claimed spending only $1,641 for him to influence the legislative process.

In a similar manner, former Fairfax Delegate John Rust was retained over four years for a combined $265,000. But for his services in 2020, the year of the massive Virginia Clean Economy Act, Dominion’s lobbying expense disclosure listed his fee at $7,679.

The full payments to both former Republican legislators, all perfectly legal, are the subject of an online article on the Richmond Times Dispatch website, probably awaiting print publication. It also focuses on large payments made to a Hampton Roads journalist and former Democratic gubernatorial aide, which Dominion never had to disclose on any state report since buying friendly editorials isn’t covered by disclosure laws.

Add up the reported payments to all the other outside law and lobbying firms Dominion hired, compare them to the official disclosures, and a similar pattern of under reporting will be evident. The reporter missed the best part of this story — that information gap.

What do we learn here?  Anything we didn’t know?

  • Even the great and powerful Dominion has to tell the truth to the State Corporation Commission. It can duck and weave and deceive down at the state Capitol, or with state media dependent on its ad revenue (or consulting fees), but it must show its cards to the regulatory body. “Under oath” matters.
  • The lobbyist disclosure and ethics laws in Virginia would embarrass a backwater, third-world dictatorship. They are beyond meaningless and rise to the level of outright lies. There is no real push from any direction to change things. Both political parties and the lobbyists love being able to hide the boodle. Most lobbying principals also fail to honor the request to list the specific bills, resolutions or appointments they sought to influence. Nobody makes them.
  • Even the “independent” media can be bought, an editorial writer no less. Dominion is not the only one buying. Claims the money didn’t influence journalistic output defy basic psychology.

Rust, who had a reputation as an excellent legal mind while in the House, basically has been providing legitimate legal and lobbying services to the utility for many sessions. His fees as finally disclosed are reasonable given the level of his skills, but the idea that such a small amount of his time qualified as “lobbying” is questionable. Fault the law, however, as time spent researching, drafting or redrafting bill language, perhaps even time in negotiations, can be excluded as “not lobbying.” The definition is that porous. Intentionally.

While in the Senate representing mainly Chesterfield and Powhatan counties, Watkins rose to the chairmanship of the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee, where the energy bills go to live or die. He was not perceived as a total tool of the utility during his tenure, and at the time it was disappointing to many of us to learn he had signed on as one of their lobbyists.

Watkins is not a lawyer or accountant providing professional services. He was likely not involved in drafting or amending any actual bill language. He was hired for his name and contacts and, frankly, his reputation as having been somewhat skeptical of the utility’s motives. The idea that only 2% of his time involved “lobbying” stretches credulity.

Most of the firms, associations and lobbying groups hide the real amounts they spend. The rules allow them to disclose only that part of their expenses tied to direct lobbying, and they use the narrowest definition possible and claim most of the time is spent on other activities. Anybody who fully discloses suddenly stands out, and appears to be the biggest spender, when in most cases they are not. Basically to level the playing field, everybody uses some method of pro rating the costs (and I have, I admit).

For once, though, with that SCC filing we get a rare glimpse at just how completely we are lawfully lied to.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

22 responses to “More Proof Virginia Disclosure Laws are Crap”

  1. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    I really don’t blame Dominion. They are basically following the law and in doing so, exposing what mockery Virginia’s laws actually are.

    Some folks don’t realize how and why VPAP, a NGO, got “born”.

  2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    I saw that on-line article, too, and was surprised. I worked with both John Watkins and Jack Rust and respected both of them. Obviously, the lobbying laws need clarifying and there needs to be some entity to enforce them. Maybe the SCC.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Neither of them did anything wrong. This was just too good an opportunity to illustrate the problem to pass up. Morse, who was being paid without disclosure and still writing editorials, is another matter.

  3. William O'Keefe Avatar
    William O’Keefe

    Why not just require that Dominion publish quarterly how much it spent on Individual consultants and lobbyists? Total transparency is simple.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      How about as a first step the legislature itself or some outside agency actually writes clear rules, and enforces them by releasing the names of those who ignore the rules and preventing them from future activity as lobbyists. The bet is that the voters don’t care and so far that has proven correct. In this case, the watchdog was being paid, too.

      1. William O'Keefe Avatar
        William O’Keefe

        I don’t know anything about the Virginia lobbying regulations but do know about the federal ones. They are too complex and subject to interpretation. Registering is ofter out of an abundance of caution. That’s why I favor simple transparency and reporting of money spent for consultants and lobbyists.

  4. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    A really simple way to have full transparency would be that ANY direct contributions would be illegal. Any and all money would have to first go through a State agency which then would forward the money to the designated recipient, but everyone would know who gave the money, who got it and how much.

    Any direct contributions would be felonies will jail time.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      This is about people being hired for services rendered, not contributions.

      https://scc.virginia.gov/docketsearch/DOCS/5kny01!.PDF

      That’s the link to the SCC file, and the discussion of lobbying and public affairs expenses starts on P 16. The news stories so far have scratched the surface. It lists just under $19 million for outside lobbyists, association memberships and services, polling, other marketing — hey, nobody said buying total control of a state was cheap. And these are the expenses “removed from cost of service,” meaning not charged to ratepayers. I bet there is more we did pay for as ratepayers (another key point the reporters miss.)

      I’ll make you open up the file! Bacon’s 2018 and 2019 payments are on the list. Looking at what Gordon Morse got paid, Jim, you wuz robbed.

      Seriously, add all that into what Dominion paid out in direct political contributions during the same four years and it gets to be real money.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        I don’t really care where the money comes from, I want to know who got it, how much and when which is what VPAP is “sorta” premised on. but there apparently are various paths for money to flow, not all of which are effectively disclosed on a timely basis – ergo the fuzzy lobbying money (and I suspect other).

        And I don’t think you get true fidelity when it is a “reporting” requirement that has various caveats and loopholes.

        That’s why I favor the 3rd party conduit that takes the money and distributes it and reports every single transaction as soon as the transaction occurs.

        That’s what was originally promised – no restrictions on money but full disclosure of all of it and we’re simply not there.

        The reason VPAP was born is that disclosure was done on paper in Richmond and even though anyone could “see” it – the process of getting that info out to everyone was apparently not something the State was interested in doing so VPAP came along started basically hand-copying the logs and then posting them to a website. The state was not going to pay them to do this, nope, that cost was on VPAP.

  5. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    If healthcare is the 6th largest industry, lobbying is the 7th. If lobbying is the 7th, determining ways to sidestep transparency laws is the 8th.

    You will never get complete disclosure. Lawmakers don’t want it. Lobbyists don’t want it. And the enterprises that pay lobbyists don’t want it. Nobody else matters, nor has leverage.

    Moreover, the big difference in violating what laws and regulations do exist, and criminalizing these violations is one REALLY big hurdle — proving intent. “Oh, did we not disclose those payments? Our bad. Here. Let me give you the forms now. I assure you, it was a simple oversight.” No intent, no harm. You know the rest. No harm, no foul.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      And those who want to talk about the “political class”, this is true political class – those elected and receive money and want and need shell-game type disclosure rules.

      The only way to truly fix it is to outlaw direct donations of any kind, felony and jail time. The only money allowed is money that goes through a 3rd party processor that posts every single transaction at the time it occurs.

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        It’s like you read a different column, Larry….whatever.

        I’ve argued before that it is really more important to require and enforce disclosure on the issues being influenced — whether they be bills, regulations, appointments or procurements. How much a lobbyist who used to be a legislator got paid is less important than what issue he or she worked on to enrich a private entity. Appointments and procurements in particular get no attention, but which companies pushed for a new DEQ director, for example, might be of interest to others. We are about to go into another round of that post election, either way.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          Same column. Just pointing out that “political class” is in the eye of the beholder and in my eyes, the exchange of money and other “in-kind” favors is the political class independent of what party.

          I just don’t think we’d ever track down every appointment, every email, every text, etc between two parties nor really should we but we should KNOW the transactions and I do not think “disclosure” rules and laws are to be trusted because they almost always have exceptions and really function as a shell game where they show you the rules they follow but not the loopholes they also use and that’s what we see in that RTD article.

        2. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Yeah, but knowing who and why can’t be known any better than how much. Any disclosure laws are toothless.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            disclosure laws are like that redistricting process.

            Designed to convince people that a simple concept can get the job done. In reality, there are a bunch of players who have other “ideas”.

            The disclosure rules are for rubes to believe.

  6. tmtfairfax Avatar
    tmtfairfax

    What is lobbying? Back when I was in Iowa decades ago, I drafted legislation in connection with utility regulatory laws from the industry side. One draft went between me and the general counsel for the Iowa Commerce Commission for multiple weeks. Finally, it reached the point where the general counsel and the utilities found it to be reasonable. The Legislature’s staff tweaked it and the draft became a major amendment to the bill, which, in turn, passed both houses with fairly strong bipartisan support. Was this lobbying by the ICC’s general counsel and by me?

    Later, I drafted a bill that added language specifically addressed a need of my employer. There was some back and for with the ICC’s general counsel and the House committee chair with jurisdiction over the bill asked me to come with our company’s lobbyist to answer the chair’s questions. We met in a committee room, and I answered the questions, apparently to the chair’s satisfaction, as he shepherded the bill through the House. It passed the Senate and the Governor signed it. Did I lobby?

    In D.C., during the revamp of the Communications Act during the Clinton administration, I went with our company’s lobbyist to Capitol Hill a few times to meet with members of committee staff and the aides to a few members of Congress to answer their questions about specific regulatory issues and versions of the proposed Telecommunications Act of 1996 that made major changes to the Communications Act. Did I lobby?

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Lobbying is not a bad thing. Any proposed legislation or rule-making needs to give an opportunity for those that might be affected to offer their views and further craft it.

      The problem comes, in my mind, when money or in-kind things become a transaction to make changes that are not necessarily in the best interests of others and sometimes legislation that has been modified and the details of those changes are not known until afterwards.

      Money or not, transactions or not, there is still a lot of sausage making in the process.

      But the money is corrupting and if it is “to be reported” , there are a bunch of ways that can happen, not necessarily in the most transparent way.

      I’m impressed that Steve, whom I think was a lobbyist is, himself, impressed by some transactions disclosed after the fact. I would have thought little of that would be a revelation to lobbyists “in the know”!

      1. tmtfairfax Avatar
        tmtfairfax

        We still need to define lobbying. I’m all for requiring more disclosures on lobbying and lobbyists. But what constitutes lobbying? It needs to be defined clearly.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          I would say any kind of communication from a person, business, institution whose interests may be affected by legislation or rule-making.

          1. tmtfairfax Avatar
            tmtfairfax

            That’s a start. I think there needs to be some definition of the “to whom” and “for what purpose.”

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            to a legislator and/or rule-maker with regard to how legislation/rule-making may affect the interests of people, organizations, institutions and businesses.

            As far as I know most legislation as well as rule-making actually requires the developers of the legislation/rule-making to “hear” from those whose interests might be affected.

            In other words, “lobbying” is explicitly a “right”.

            Lobbying doesn’t bother me. I think it is actually needed because lawmakers and rule makers often have not fully or completely considered the impacts, and really they do need feedback from those that might be affected.

            It’s when a “transaction” occurs that I feel is corrupting – and the disclosure laws and rules are anything but mandatory reporting of any/all transactions and even when it is and it is violated, the penalties are more wrist-slap than sufficient sanctions to change behaviors.

  7. […] profits, one of the highest margins around for a regulated utility, also fund things like the hiring of former legislators at nearly $100,000 for one legislative session of lobbying, regular annual large payments to a […]

Leave a Reply