Relatives of lawmakers work as lobbyists in D.C. (names names)

WASHINGTON--Two years ago, when regional phone companies wanted Congress to make it easier for them to compete in the high-speed Internet market, they did what special interests usually do with billions of dollars at stake: They amassed an army of experienced lobbyists.

But one of the so-called Baby Bells didn't stop there. BellSouth also hired a pair of lobbyists distinguished by their family trees -- John Breaux Jr. and Chester T. "Chet" Lott Jr.

They are the sons of two of the most powerful men in America when it comes to telecommunications policy: Sen. John B. Breaux, D-La., and then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss. Both are senior members of the Senate commerce committee and its communications subcommittee.

Soon, the sons and their firms began banking thousands of dollars a month in BellSouth consulting and lobbying fees. In Breaux Jr.'s case, the total now surpasses $280,000, and in Lott's, $160,000, records show.

The son of another heavy hitter on telecommunications, Rep. W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, R-La., was already on the BellSouth payroll, working in community relations.

While their sons have been getting paid by BellSouth, Breaux and Tauzin have sponsored bills to loosen federal restrictions on Baby Bells that want to compete with cable companies in the high-speed Internet market. They didn't prevail on Capitol Hill, so the fathers are now pressing the Federal Communications Commission to lift those restrictions. Sen. Lott has not taken a position on the issue.

An examination of lobbyist reports, financial disclosure forms, and dozens of other state and federal records reveals that at least 17 senators and 11 members of the House have family members who lobby or work as consultants on government relations, most in Washington and often for clients who rely on the related lawmakers' good will.

Perhaps the best-known example is Democratic Senate Leader Tom Daschle, whose wife Linda represents the aviation industry. She says she does not lobby the Senate. But her partners do, and her clients benefited from the airline bailout pushed by the Democratic leadership.

In addition, Sen. Daschle's daughter-in-law, Jill Gimmel Daschle, registered as a federal lobbyist in May. She had planned to lobby the Senate but decided against it last week, an aide to the senator said.

Others include Republican Ted Stevens of Alaska, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Democrat Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate's minority whip. Virtually every major interest group in their states pays lobbying, legal or consulting fees to their relatives or relatives' firms.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert's son Joshua is a lobbyist for technology companies; Hastert is active on technology issues. And California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer's son Doug works for a lobbying firm representing clients that have sought her help in Congress on tribal and airport issues.

Without exception, lawmakers contacted by the Los Angeles Times said they had not been influenced by their relatives' business relationships.

Richard Richards, a retired lobbyist and former chairman of the Republican National Committee, said, "I'd think members of Congress would be a little concerned when their kids lobby that there is an appearance of impropriety. If this trend continues, it is going to get pretty sticky."

Successive reforms have made it harder for individual favor-seekers to distinguish themselves in the eyes of elected officials through traditional campaign contributions alone.

Offering work to the relatives of important members of Congress, however, can send an unusually personal message. The practice is unregulated. It is barred by neither House nor Senate rules.

Some relatives, such as Linda Daschle, a former Federal Aviation Administration official, draw on years of experience in the subjects on which they lobby. But many appear to have no such expertise.

When BellSouth hired Chet Lott, for instance, it had a stable of seasoned communications lobbyists. Lott was living in Kentucky, running a string of pizza franchises and playing polo, having earlier dabbled in country music.

Hiring relatives of legislators seems especially prevalent among industries heavily regulated by the federal government, such as telecommunications, prescription drugs and mining.

Thanks in large part to the efforts of Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah, for example, the controversial herbal stimulant ephedra remains on the market as an additive to dietary supplements promising weight loss. Hatch played a leading role in drafting a 1994 law that permits supplements to be marketed without prior scientific evidence of safety and efficacy -- the standard that is applied to prescription drugs and food additives.

In the past decade, the supplements industry has paid nearly $2 million to lobbying firms where Hatch's son Scott worked. And when Scott Hatch opened his own lobbying firm last year, a dietary-supplements trade group and an ephedra maker were among his first clients.

Although the industry says ephedra products are safe if used properly, the Food and Drug Administration has linked the stimulant to dozens of deaths. A medical examiner concluded the stimulant contributed to the death of Baltimore Orioles pitcher Steve Bechler during a workout this spring.

Sen. Stevens has channeled so much federal money into Alaska that so-called "Stevens money" is considered an engine that drives its economy. It also has furthered son Ben's career as a consultant.

When the senator helped direct $30 million in disaster relief funds to the Southwest Alaska Municipal Conference in 2000, the agency hired his son to mediate negotiations over how to divvy it up.

A dozen Alaska interests benefiting from the senator's efforts have paid Ben Stevens at least $754,976 in consulting fees for part-time work over the past three years, financial disclosure reports show.

Just before the GOP took over the Senate this year, the chamber's ethics committee was presided over by Reid, who seems to have more family members working for interests he supports than anyone else in Congress: three of his four sons, plus his son-in-law.

After the Times began making inquiries about the family-lobby dynamic in September, Reid instituted a written ban on direct lobbying of himself or his office by relatives. Sen. Boxer and her son have agreed that he will not lobby anyone in the Senate. She also said she would recuse herself from anticipated legislation that would affect an Indian tribe that is a client of her son's firm.

Only a handful of the lawmakers with lobbying relatives said they had a blanket rule against sponsoring or voting on legislation that benefits their family members' clients. But nearly all said they had imposed voluntary bans on direct lobbying by relatives.

Yet even when direct lobbying is avoided, the separation may be more about appearance than reality. In Hatch's case, for example, when personal contact is needed, one of Scott Hatch's two partners makes the call.

Sen. Hatch, for one, said "not really." He and his son "just do what is right," he explained.

In addition to Sens. Breaux, Hatch, Lott, Reid and Stevens, a search of public records found there are at least 23 other members of Congress who have a son, daughter-in-law, wife, husband or father as a Washington lobbyist:

I think this article highlights somethign that it is important to remember about politics in this country. It is not a democrat or republican thing. These people (and obviously their families as well) are becoming rich feeding off of the taxpayers of this country. The system is insulated from us and is largely unaccountable to us. They create laws and regulation that are so voluminous and complex that it is an impossibility for any individual citizen to keep up ith everything they are doing to us on a daily basis. Just following the regulations on a particular industry is a full time job. Those of us who have to pay 40% of every dollar we make just to keep ourselves above water have no hope of ever being able to do anything about it.

I don't even think voting helps anything. It just shifts the party identification of the thieves in office, and changes to a small degree which group gets targeted by them first. Republicans now hold the house, senate and executive offices. Has government regulation been lessened in any way over the past couple of years?

Federal, State, and local bureaucracies have existed at opressive levels for years, and I really don't see any liklihood it will change any time soon.

Cozy little group, isn't it? Why should their relatives be hired? This is exactly why there should be term limits, and this is not the same as a family OWNED business. I am tired of our public officials getting rich. They are really pigs. When Lott told about a centuries's worth of stealing of White House and Government property by our oh-so honorables, including White House occupants, I was really mad. It seems besides any kind of money they can steal from us is not enough, they have to steal everything that is not nailed down.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.