The main purpose of government is to shake down people for money and give it to special interest groups. Its not about providing services or protecting rights. Its about stealing money from one group of people and giving it to another group of people. Original Article Lobbyist industry balloons in Valley Cities spend more seeking D.C. cash Pat Flannery The Arizona Republic Jan. 3, 2006 12:00 AM Valley governments spend more than $1 million a year lobbying in Washington, D.C., mostly priming the federal funding pump for appropriations and grants to stretch their budgets without raising taxes. It used to be that cities from Goodyear to Chandler, and public agencies such as community colleges and transit systems, could call their Arizona senators or congressional representatives to solve a problem with a federal agency or bring home a sample of Uncle Sam's largesse. Today, they compete one on one with hundreds of other local and state governments nationwide, and getting a fatter slice of the federal money pie has become big business. Cities describe the process as "every man for himself," a mad scramble for financial aid that often bypasses the state's congressional delegation and, instead, relies on seasoned Capitol Hill advocates to directly tap agencies and congressional committees. The activity has grown so pervasive since the late 1990s that many lobbying firms now specialize in municipal advocacy. But the practice also is stirring debate as new Beltway lobbying scandals, larger tax-paid lobbying tabs and conflicts among state, regional and local funding priorities put a spotlight on the subject. The volume of local issues being touted in Washington often makes it impossible for members of a state's congressional delegation to go to bat personally for cities in their districts, or to track their activities. Some members of Arizona's delegation - notably Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl, and Reps. John Shadegg and Jeff Flake, all Republicans - frequently ignore city wish lists because they consider them rife with unnecessary requests, or political pork. "It's a symptom of too much government largesse," Kyl said. "Everyone is elbowing their way to the trough to get their fair share." Local officials say they have no choice. "We can't afford our transportation needs here," said Bryan Jungwirth, deputy executive director of Valley Metro. "And if we don't play the game, the money gets distributed to other states." A growth industry A report last year by the Center for Public Integrity in Washington suggests just what kind of a growth industry municipal lobbying is. The watchdog group found that more than 1,400 local governments spent upward of $350 million lobbying for federal funds from 1998 through 2004. During that period, annual federal lobbying expenditures by local governments more than doubled. The center, relying on filings with the Senate Office of Public Records, calculated that Arizona's state, local and tribal governments combined spent $9.8 million on federal lobbying over the period studied, placing it 11th among the states. Topping the list was California at $102.7 million. Some cities send their own staff lobbyists to Washington. But increasingly, they contract with firms that have a full-time presence on Capitol Hill. Two Valley lobbying firms, Triadvocates and Landry, Creedon & Associates Inc., have found enough Washington business, including municipal clients, to open offices there. Larry Landry, a veteran on the Arizona political scene, hired a full-time lobbyist to staff a Washington office four years ago. Among his clients are Flagstaff, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community and tribal clients in Alaska. Landry said he would "love to have more cities" on his roster. He believes they get a return on their investment. Hiring a firm like Landry's is not cheap. A survey of local contracts showed many at or above $100,000 a year. The advantages, according to cities, are worth it. They do not need to work exclusively through their own delegations, relying instead on Washington insiders to carry their agenda to those who can deliver the goods. "It costs money to buy influence in that town . . . to get to people we can't get to as local governments," said Jungwirth, whose agency splits a $120,000 annual Washington lobbying tab with Valley Metro Rail. Mesa City Manager's Assistant Jim Huling said his city and Williams Gateway Airport together spent $159,000 last year for Washington lobbying that gave them "a voice on the ground 24-7. And it's invaluable, frankly." Phoenix an early player Phoenix was among the earliest cities nationally to get into the game. It has for "many, many years" used a lobbying team to promote its interests inside the Beltway, said Lynn Timmons, management assistant for intergovernmental programs. To keep pace with growth, Phoenix has for more than a decade lobbied Congress to fund local projects and programs falling at least partly in the federal arena: highways, mass transit, airport security and expansion, energy and water development, environmental protection, public-safety improvements and community development. In fact, Jungwirth said, the Valley's entire regional transportation plan is "premised on getting these funds from Washington." At least 20 percent of the $15.8 billion plan requires federal appropriations over the next 20 years. But some smaller Valley cities are now equally enthusiastic players. Most experienced rapid growth since the late 1990s. Keeping up with the demands on their roads, sewers and other public amenities has made the lure of federal aid almost irresistible. "A lot of federal lobbying, unfortunately, is about dollars," said Patrice Kraus, Chandler's intergovernmental affairs coordinator. Even cities such as Glendale that use a staff lobbyist to make their case in Washington find similar benefits. Kristin Greene Skabo, Glendale's director of intergovernmental programs, said the city in 2004 assigned one lobbyist to focus exclusively on federal issues. She flies to Washington six or seven times per congressional session to visit with lawmakers, keeping city officials briefed on funding and policy issues. She also makes sure city departments coordinate their grant requests. Hitting the jackpot The payoff, according to city officials, is never guaranteed. But quite often, Washington advocacy proves lucrative. Phoenix came home in 2005 with $119 million in federal funding, including $90 million for light rail that Valley Metro helped secure, and aid for other programs ranging from a Salt River restoration project to homeland security. It also landed $18 million in Community Development Block Grants that will be spread among blight-reduction projects, economic development programs and local non-profits doing work the city considers valuable. There are other recent examples of niche funding for local programs or activities: Maricopa County narrows its funding requests to four or five a year for items like transportation, services for the homeless, emergency-management operations and homeland security. In the past three years, grants have ranged from $500,000 to $1.2 million, said Christian Stumpf, a federal relations and grants analyst. Because new federal environmental rules required Avondale to expand its wastewater treatment plant, the city in 2004 hired a contract lobbyist specifically to find money for the project. Landry's firm landed the city $1.5 million in funding over three years. Stephanie Prybyl, the city's intergovernmental affairs manager, now handles the city's Washington lobbying at a substantially lower cost. Mesa successfully lobbied in 2005 for several appropriations, including $190,000 for a wireless data link for its police department, $400,000 for a Salt River restoration project, and $1.5 million for roads at Williams Gateway Airport. Goodyear and its contract lobbyist are gearing up to fight for highway funds to help pay for widening Interstate 10 in the West Valley, where bottlenecks and heavy truck traffic have caused several fatalities. "This is an issue of regional significance," Goodyear Mayor Jim Cavanaugh said. "We need our legislators to know this is valid, that we're talking about people's lives, quality of life, and commerce through the state. This isn't pork." Debate grows The city has a fight on its hands. Congressional debate over last year's $286 billion transportation bill, which funds highways and transit nationwide for six years, was particularly testy because of the number of state and local projects lobbyists "earmarked" in the legislation. Earmarks are specific money allotments for designated projects inserted into legislation, skirting the usual appropriations review process. Flake, one of Congress' most vocal critics of earmarking, said there were 10 in federal legislation in 1982. In 2005, he said, there were 6,300. Arizona had 41 earmarks totaling $137.6 million in the transportation bill, placing it well behind most other states, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a conservative Washington watchdog group that tracks federal spending. But starting in 2005, every state's highway earmarks must be paid for out of that state's discretionary federal highway funding. That effectively pits cities and states against each other. If a city succeeds in getting one of its own projects earmarked, it can divert money from other projects in its home state and circumvent priorities set by regional or state planners. "That is one of our concerns," said Eric Anderson, transportation director for the Maricopa Association of Governments, which oversees the Valley's regional freeway plan. "Through an earmark . . . if Congress says we're allocated $10 million for a widening project in Goodyear, it is no longer subject to our prioritization." So far, Arizona planners have not butted heads often, Anderson said. In Utah, however, a state lawmaker wants to prohibit cities and counties from hiring their own lobbyists to chase federal funds, saying all requests should be coordinated by the state. Kyl said that goes too far. But he said he would welcome a return to the days when local leaders picked up the phone to lobby him directly. "It ought to be done by the elected officials themselves because they have the credibility," Kyl said. "And it's not like we aren't willing to help." Reach the reporter at pat.flannery@arizonarepublic.com.