Kate Sheppard

Reporter

Kate Sheppard is a staff reporter in Mother Jones' Washington bureau. She was previously the political reporter for Grist and a writing fellow at The American Prospect. She can be reached by email at ksheppard (at) motherjones (dot) com.

Full Bio | Get my RSS | Follow @kate_sheppard

Her work has also been featured in the New York Times' Room for Debate blog, the Guardian's Comment Is Free, Foreign Policy, High Country News, The Center for Public Integrity, the Washington Independent, Washington Spectator, Who Runs Gov, In These Times, and Bitch. She was raised on a vegetable farm in southern New Jersey (yes, they do exist), but has adapted well to life in the nation's capital. She misses trees and having a congressional representative with voting power, but thinks DC is pretty great anyway.

A Lobbyist by Any Other Name

—By Kate Sheppard

| Thu Nov. 12, 2009 8:00 AM PST

Where have all the lobbyists gone? A recent study of disclosure forms by OMB Watch and the Center for Responsive Politics finds that a larger-than-average number "deregistered" this year, removing themselves from the official ranks of influence peddlers. But they haven't gone very far. The groups say that these former lobbyists are now simply seeking to shape government policy in less transparent ways.

The study found that 1,418 federally registered lobbyists deregistered in the second quarter of 2009, between April and June (an average quarter would see a few hundred lobbyists terminate their active status.) The drop occurred shortly after Barack Obama issued Executive Order 13490, which put new restrictions on former lobbyists appointed to the executive branch.

The study observes that the "data does not provide enough context to provide a direct correlation to the executive order." But it also argues the the mass deregistration is likely not coincidental—and it's evidence of some of the larger flaws in lobbying disclosure rules.

The report suggests that many of the lobbyists who lobbyists deregistered—possibly in the hope of getting a job in the executive branch some day—now have some other title that allows them to continue doing very similar work:

Another troubling issue highlighted by the organizations is that the thousands of lobbyists who appear to have left their line of work may not have actually done so. At the federal level, many people working in the lobbying industry are not registered lobbyists, instead adopting titles such as "senior advisor" or other executive monikers, thereby avoiding federal disclosure requirements under the Lobbying Disclosure Act.

In short, the deregistration doesn't mean there are actually fewer people seeking to influence policy. They're just doing so with less transparency, as they're no longer legally obligated to disclose their activities. So when the White House announced in September that "it is our aspiration that federally-registered lobbyists not be appointed to agency advisory boards and commissions," it might have had the opposite effect from what the new administration intended.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Graham Censured for Sensible Climate Stance

—By Kate Sheppard

| Wed Nov. 11, 2009 10:36 AM PST

The Republican Party of Charleston County, S.C. on Monday voted to censure Sen. Lindsey Graham over his support for climate legislation and his willingness to work across party lines on the issue.

The Republican has often worked with Democrats in Congress, but Charleston County Chairwoman Lin Bennett says his work on climate legislation is the last straw.

The party resolution passed Monday says Graham has weakened the Republican brand. Bennett expects a similar resolution to be introduced at the state GOP convention next year.

Bennett called his views "out of step with the beliefs of Republican voters."

Graham hasn't been able to catch a break back home lately. The American Energy Alliance, a shadowy group backed by dirty energy interests, has spent $300,000 on television, radio, and online advertisements in the state lambasting Graham for supporting "a national energy tax called cap-and-trade."

UPDATE: Plum Line has the full resolution from the Charleston GOP, which we've reprinted in full below the fold.

[Read more in the MoJo blog]

Cantwell's Alternate Climate Bill

—By Kate Sheppard

| Wed Nov. 11, 2009 10:00 AM PST

Having cleared the Environment and Public Works committee, the cap-and-trade bill is now being considered by Sen. Max Baucus' finance panel, which has jurisdiction over how carbon permits will be allocated. But at a hearing on Thursday, committee member Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) signaled that she thinks cap and trade contains too many opportunities for manipulation of carbon markets, and instead wants to offer her alternative—a proposal for a "cap-and-dividend" scheme.

Cap-and-dividend works by only limiting emissions by "upstream" industries—that is, the first sellers of fossil fuels, like oil refineries and coal mines. All pollution permits under the cap would be auctioned, and most of the revenues would be returned to energy consumers. As with cap-and-trade, the limit on emissions becomes stricter over time.

Now Cantwell may have a chance to offer elements of her bill for consideration. "When the right time is there we'll certainly be putting ideas on the table," she told reporters. The dividend idea, Cantwell said, "would be something that the committee want to discuss and have a lot of input on."

Cantwell has a far better acronym than the Kerry-Boxer bill—hers is called the "Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal– or CLEAR, for short. In part because her proposal only covers first sellers, her bill is more concise than the cap-and-trade proposals, coming in at just 32 pages. By comparison, the chairman's mark of the Kerry-Boxer bill is 925 pages, and Waxman-Markey totaled 1,427 pages in the end. Granted, legislation is by nature complex and brevity does not necessarily make good policy. But at a time when complicated, inscrutable market structures have wreaked havoc on our financial system and distrust about climate legislation doling handouts to big business runs rampant, the appeal of something simple and direct is clear.

[Read more in the MoJo blog]

Coal Group Misrepresents Veterans

—By Kate Sheppard

| Tue Nov. 10, 2009 1:49 PM PST

The coal front group American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity has been in hot water lately for employing an astroturf group that forged letters to Congress opposing the House climate bill—and then for possibly lying under oath about their position. Now ACCCE is in trouble again—for misrepresenting the views of two major veterans groups in an email hyping coal's role in energy security.

The email, sent in anticipation of Veterans' Day, argues that coal can play a vital role in reducing America's dependence on foreign oil and cites two groups—VoteVets and Operation Free. The problem: both of those groups are strong supporters of climate legislation—in part because of the national security threats posed by global warming—while ACCCE has been working energetically to undermine a bill.

Here's the email:

With Veterans Day around the corner, we wanted to take a moment to reflect on all the military personnel who are involved in ensuring our country is protected.

Energy security is one issue that has become increasingly important to our veterans. In fact, national veterans groups Votevets and Operation Free are urging the government to become more energy independent and less reliant on foreign oil.

We can do this by using the abundant domestic fuels we already have. With more than 250 billion tons of recoverable coal reserves, the United States has more coal than the Middle East has oil.

We need to start putting our coal to use - and technologies such as hybrid-electric cars and cleaner, more efficient power plants are making it easier for us to do that.

"This is insulting to all of the Veterans who are fighting to protect America’s national security by supporting clean, American power," wrote David Solimini, Operation Free's media director, in a blog post.

"Carbon pollution causes climate change, and that makes world a less stable, more dangerous place," Frankie Sturm, communications director for Operation Free, told Mother Jones. "As if that isn't bad enough, it's simply unacceptable that the ACCCE would politicize Veterans Day to safeguard its own profit."

Max Baucus' Revolving Door

—By Kate Sheppard

| Tue Nov. 10, 2009 7:15 AM PST

There was just one "no" vote on advancing a climate and energy bill among the Democrats on the Environment and Public Works Committee last week: Max Baucus. Now the Montana senator plans to claim jurisdiction over significant portions of the bill in his role as chair of the Finance Committee, starting with a hearing on the topic this morning.

Baucus, who has advocated for lower near-term emissions targets and provisions to lower the overall costs of a climate bill, is probably hearing from lobbyists of all stripes these days. But none are likely to have his ear like the dozen former staffers who are now lobbying on climate and energy policy for groups like the American Petroleum Institute, the Business Roundtable, Koch Industries, and the National Biodiesel Board. The Sunlight Foundation put together a chart illustrating the relationships between Baucus, his former staffers, and their clients.

Former Baucus staffers are now lobbying on behalf of clients who both support and opposed climate legislation. The includes four former chiefs of staff who have gone through the revolving door. Among them is former chief of staff David Castagnetti, who works for Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti and represents a number of groups who oppose the legislation or have sought to weaken it, like the American Petroleum Institute, the Business Roundtable, Edison Electric Institute, the Air Transport Association of America and Koch Industries.

Michael Evans, a former legislative director, now works at K&L Gates, and has clients ranging from the Environmental Defense Fund, which is staunchly pro-climate bill, to Peabody Coal, one of the largest coal companies in the country and a fierce opponent of carbon regulations. Former chief tax counsel Nick Giordano, now at Ernst & Young, lobbies for Boeing Co., Exxon Mobil, General Electric, National Biodiesel Board, the National Hydropower Association, and the Solar Energy Industries Association.

Ethics rules only require a one-year "cooling off" period before staffers-turned-lobbyists can approach their former bosses.