ROHDE AND MCLEAN LOBBYING ON RUS WAS DONE PRO BONO

Two former Clinton Administration officials were credited last month with saving a rural broadband loan program, but due to a shortage of funds among the effort’s beneficiaries, their lobbying efforts were performed free of charge. Former NTIA Dir. Greg Rohde and former Rural Utilities Service (RUS) Dir. Christopher McLean in 2003 grossed more than $200,000 from companies involved in rural broadband issues, Rohde revealed last week in lobbying disclosure filings with the Secy. of the Senate. However, he told us that the lobbying he did in the Senate to save the RUS broadband program was done pro bono, as the lead entity in the effort, the Wireless Communications Assn. International (WCAI), couldn’t afford to pay them, a difficulty confirmed by WCAI Pres. Andrew Kreig.

Meanwhile, WCAI hasn’t filed a lobbying disclosure form in at least the last 6 years, but Kreig told us he was working on the advice of counsel that such disclosure wasn’t required by law, a position supported by WCAI’s outside counsel. Such disclosures are an important means for citizens, trade association members -- and rivals -- to determine to what extent an association is active on Capitol Hill and what it’s spending on lobbying.

“It’s not a great way to make a living,” Rohde said of the pro bono work, but he said the RUS program was important to some of his clients such as BellSouth and Prairie iNet, so his efforts weren’t completely lacking in self-interest. Rohde and McLean run a broadband consulting firm, e- Copernicus Group, that partnered with the WCAI in the effort. Rohde said WCAI didn’t retain Rohde and McLean. Instead, Rohde saw that the funding for the RUS broadband program was in jeopardy and pointed out to WCAI Pres. Andrew Kreig that many WCAI members -- including BellSouth and Prairie iNet -- relied on that program. “We went to Andy,” Rohde said, “and fortunately Andy kicked into gear.” “I said, ‘We can’t pay you,'” Kreig said he told Rohde, and Rohde replied he wasn’t fighting to save the RUS program for money, but rather because of his role in creating the program.

WCAI repeatedly in Oct. and Nov. gave credit to Rohde and McLean for securing RUS funding in the omnibus. Under House language, RUS would have had authority for only $335 million in rural broadband loans in FY 2004, but the omnibus figure ended up closer to the higher Senate figure, resulting in $602 million in loans. (The Senate is scheduled to vote on the omnibus in late Jan. Some senators object to the bill, but not to the RUS figures.) WCAI said Rohde and McLean lobbied “the Senate Appropriations Committee and rural state senators,” in particular meeting with Sens. Dorgan (D- N.D.) and Harkin (D-Ia.), authors of the farm bill provision that created the rural broadband loan program. Dorgan and Senate Communications Subcommittee Chmn. Burns (R-Mont.) authored an amendment that preserved a high level of funding in the Senate appropriations bill. Rohde said he stayed in contact with Dorgan, his former boss, and other members such as Burns but didn’t always bill someone for those contacts.

Kreig doesn’t appear in records kept by the Secy. of the Senate as a registered lobbyist, and WCAI hasn’t filed any lobbying disclosure forms in recent years. The lack of disclosure has occurred despite the fact that WCAI frequently informs its members in weekly e-mails of its Washington efforts. (Kreig told us that those communications to members could be time-consuming, making it more difficult to find time for lobbying disclosure filings that might not be legally necessary.) The only lobbying activity recorded in recent years for WCAI was by the law firm Latham & Watkins, which listed less than $10,000 in lobbying for WCAI in 2002 and exactly zero lobbying in 2003.

“We've had legal opinion” on whether WCAI has to file lobbying disclosure forms, Kreig said, and have been told “we're not covered.” He said 99% of his activities were with federal agencies, which he wasn’t required to disclose. However, lobbying disclosure forms do ask if any federal agencies have been contacted, and trade groups such as CTIA routinely list such lobbying efforts of the FCC and other agencies. Kreig said the reports were meant for House and Senate lobbying, specifically lobbying members. He said that in all of 2003, he had participated in one Capitol Hill meeting, joining 9 others in a meeting with a single Hill staffer.

WCAI has on retainer 2 attorneys with Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer -- Paul Sinderbrand and Robert Primosch. The WCAI Web site says “they are highly effective advocates before the FCC, United States Congress, the Federal Trade Commission, United States Justice Department, in Washington, state capitals and the judicial system.” In particular, the site lists Sinderbrand as an expert “on the interface between government policy and such technical concerns as wireless interference protections, cellular networking and standards- setting.” However, Sinderbrand told us he didn’t lobby the Hill, although he did somewhat for WCAI a few years ago when it was in the wireless cable business. Neither Sinderbrand nor Primosch has filed lobbying disclosure forms with the Senate, and the last time Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer did so was in 2000, for the Northwest Hydroelectric Assn.

Sinderbrand said he felt that his firm’s work on the Hill “doesn’t meet the threshold requirements” for disclosure and said WCAI did so little on the Hill, it was unlikely it would be required to file. Sinderbrand pointed out that lobbying involving agency rulemakings are exempt from disclosure requirements, and the “bulk” of WCAI’s work involves agency rulemakings. Disclosure forms filed at the Senate that involve Hill lobbying, however, typically also list agency lobbying, and there is a space on the forms for agency lobbying disclosures.

Kreig said that “if I go and watch Senate testimony, that’s not lobbying.” Other trade groups and law firms interpret lobbying disclosure requirements differently, however. For example, Card & Assoc. filed disclosure forms earlier this year for work done on behalf of Comcast and NCTA. In each case the client was billed $60,000, but lobbyist Lorine Card indicated on the forms that no formal lobbying was done on the House or Senate. Instead, Card billed for “monitoring hearings on telecommunication.” Based on the minimal contact he had with the Hill, Kreig said, “we made a deliberate decision” that it was “far more cost- effective” not to file a disclosure form. There still is time to file a 2003 form, however, and Kreig said that before the deadline “I might [file], just to be on the safe side.”

In an internal communication with WCAI members, Kreig noted how the RUS lobbying effort was done through efforts by WCAI member companies along with Rohde and McLean. He suggested WCAI and its partner, the License Exempt Alliance (LEA), might “create a greater watchdog apparatus” for RUS issues, perhaps by the “hiring of a new, independent lobbyist by various entities that convened in this struggle.” Kreig asked members for input on that suggestion. Asked what feedback he had had on that suggestion from members, Kreig said that due to the holiday season “there’s only a very modest level of discussion,” but that the idea would be explored further in the new year.

Rohde filed numerous year-end lobbying disclosure forms with the Secy. of the Senate last week, many of which involved rural broadband lobbying. Rohde and McLean collected $60,000 from BellSouth for year-end efforts on universal service. Rohde and McLean collected a total of $80,000 from Prairie iNet over the course of 2003 for RUS issues. Extend America was billed about $40,000 for 2003 for efforts on “broadband government financing,” while Key Communications was billed about $70,000 in 2003 for RUS efforts. Neither is listed by WCAI as a member. On the disclosure forms, Rohde doesn’t list the House, Senate or federal agencies as lobbying targets. He said he didn’t do formal lobbying for those clients, but instead helped them apply for govt. funding programs. “BellSouth doesn’t give us lobbying assignments,” Rohde said, but he files lobbying disclosure forms anyway “on the extreme side of caution.” “Lobbying isn’t just going up and knocking on doors,” he said.

Other Rohde clients for 2003: (1) Motorola, less than $10,000 for general communications issues. Motorola is the only Rohde client listed that is involved in the cellular industry; Rohde specialized in spectrum issues at NTIA. (2) Inmarsat, less than $10,000 for “maritime” issues. (3) The Grant County, Wash., public utility, $20,000 for broadband issues. (4) The Hispanic Information & Telecom Network, $10,000 for universal service lobbying. (5) Lifelink Monitoring, less than $10,000 for RUS issues. (6) RFD Communications, less than $10,000 for lobbying the Agriculture Dept., the National Endowment for the Arts, the House and Senate on noncommercial TV programming issues. (7) Gemstar, less than $10,000 for lobbying on electronic program guide competition; that contract has been terminated.