IBJNews

Gregg's lobbying record doesn't worry Democrats

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Many of the same Democrats who blasted Republican Sen. Dan Coats last year for his time spent as a federal lobbyist are backing Democratic gubernatorial candidate John Gregg, who's a registered lobbyist in Indiana.

It's a political role reversal from the 2010 Senate campaign, in which Democrats criticized Coats for months over his lobbying work. The state party even set up a website to portray Coats as a friend of well-funded special interests, not average voters.

"Those who spent 2010 attacking Senate candidate Coats and misrepresenting his record may have a lot of awkward explaining to do," said Kevin Kellems, an adviser to Coats during the Senate campaign.

Pete Seat, Coats' former campaign spokesman and now the spokesman for the Indiana Republican Party, said he's not surprised Democrats have changed their position.

"This isn't the first time they'll be forced to eat their own words," he said.

Coats did not run for re-election to the U.S. Senate in 1998 and later joined the high-powered firm of King & Spalding, where he helped lead the company's government affairs division and lobbied for pharmaceutical, defense and energy companies, among others. He was re-elected to the Senate in 2010.

Gregg — a gregarious former Indiana House speaker who said Monday he would run for Indiana governor in 2012 — is a lawyer at the Indianapolis-based firm of Bingham McHale. Lobbying records show he's associated with topics including government, alcoholic beverages, gaming, finance, taxes and legislative ethics, though no expenditures or gifts to lawmakers are listed.

Advisor Steve Campbell said Gregg registered in case he would be called on to do lobbying work through the law firm but he isn't actively lobbying. Campbell said Gregg has returned to the Statehouse just twice since leaving his post in 2002 — once for an event and once for a funeral.

Indiana Democratic Party Chairman Dan Parker, who was a chief critic of Coats' lobbying work, said the senator did more lobbying work than Gregg and had questionable clients.

"The situation is apples and oranges," he said.

Republicans were quick to point out what they called the hypocrisy of once-critical Democrats now backing Gregg — but they can't easily criticize Gregg for lobbying after dismissing Democrats' complaints of Coats' lobbying in the high-profile 2010 race. The issue never gained traction among voters in 2010, Democrats point out.

"Hoosiers pretty much weighed in on that last year when they sent Dan Coats to the Senate," Campbell said. "Hopefully this will be a campaign about the issues important to Hoosiers."

Andy Downs, director of the Mike Downs Center for Indiana Politics at Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne, said some voters might find it interesting, though not especially unexpected, that Republicans and Democrats seem to have swapped positions on lobbying.

"This will not shock anybody," he said.

Gregg is the only Democrat to declare a run at the governor's office currently held by Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels, who cannot seek a third consecutive term under state law. Gregg will likely face Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Pence, an outspoken conservative considered the frontrunner in a GOP primary that also includes Fishers businessman Jim Wallace.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT