Influence comes in many forms. Often, influencing the influencers is a smart strategy. Free food never hurts, either.

The head of public relations for the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer makes free food a centerpiece of his “tips for managing journalists” an industry conference, Advertising Age reports.

In this video clip, Pfizer’s global public relations chief Ray Kerins explains his strategy for working with journalists, whose coverage, in the words of Advertising Age,”so heavily impacts the pharmaceutical giant’s reputation.” Kerins says:

“…[T]omorrow, we’re hosting a lunch with the communications team for Linda Johnson, who’s one of the top health care folks at the Associated Press. She’s outstanding, she’s brilliant we love her to death. But we’re bringing her into our home and we’re saying, look, here’s who we are and here’s what we’re talking about. She’s not meeting with executives, she’s meeting with communications, with my folks on the media team. We do this about every other week.”

Johnson won’t be the first journalist to be feted at Pfizer. Kerins estimates that his team met with about 115 journalists in 2008, on and off-site.

No doubt it’s a good investment for Pfizer. Critical media coverage can cost a drug company billions in lost sales, diminished good will, and even legal and political scrutiny. Stories with headlines like “Maker of Vioxx Accused of Deception” hurt Merck’s bottom line.

Kerins claims that that his team has “no agenda” when journalists are made honored guests at corporate headquarters. But, as someone who has worked in the pharmaceutical industry, writing ad copy for various well-known brands including some of Pfizer’s products, I can categorically say “Yeah, right.” He may not be pitching specific stories, but he’s almost certainly mounting a charm offensive.

The pharmaceutical industry is perhaps second only to Hollywood in the economic emphasis placed on lunch. A couple advertising agencies where I worked did a brisk business designing customized boxes for bagels served at so-called “Lunch and Learns”–promotional events where company representatives, or scientists hand-picked by the company, tried to woo doctors into prescribing the latest ACE inhibitor or antidepressant. We’d get memos from the marketing teams explaining how our colorful bagel boxes, emblazoned with company logos and drug tag lines, reinforced the key sales messages of the lecture.

When big pharma reaches out to influencers, such as doctors and journalists, its always couched in terms of education — but Merck is not an educational institution. It sells drugs.

Ironically, a lot of the worst press big pharma has gotten in recent years centered on the companies’ shameless attempts to ingratiate themselves with physicians through free food, conveniently-packaged information, and flattery. Apparently, Pfizer has decided that the cure for bad press is to offer journalists similar perks.

That lesson has not been lost on the bailed out banks, The Hill reports today:

Financial firms and other companies receiving billions of dollars in federal bailout money spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for meetings and charitable gifts on behalf of lawmakers.

In the last six months of 2008, as a financial crisis enveloped the country and lawmakers voted on a $700 billion financial rescue package, eight companies that would benefit from that package spent roughly $366,000 on events and charities connected to members of Congress, according to a review of congressional lobbying records.

If you and I want to give a charitable donation, we usually write a check. Corporate America does us one better by throwing lavish charity events and inviting the very lawmakers they seek to influence. Bank of America, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs kicked in tens of thousands of dollars each to a gala sponsored by the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange at which Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) was the keynote speaker, according to the Hill.

Frank is the chair of the powerful House Financial Services Committee and a key architect of the bank bailout, which had given billions to Bank of America, Citi, and Goldman just weeks before the party.

High-minded philanthropy, will only get you so far, though. ABC News reports that Bank of America also shelled out millions for a five-day Super Bowl party last week. The bank defended the outlay as a legitimate business expense, and part of its “growth strategy.”

The fallout from the Jack Abramoff scandal continues…

Lobbyist Todd Boulanger was charged Wednesday with conspiracy to commit wire fraud in connection with tickets and meals he lavished upon public officials at the behest of his then-boss, the disgraced über-lobbyist,  Jack Abramoff.

He is expected to plead guilty to honest services fraud, according to court documents obtained by ABC News.

You may recognize Todd Boulanger from his regular appearances as a political commentator during the 2008 elections under the billing “Republican strategist.”

The Washington Post notes that, for a time, it appeared that Boulanger had been successfully rehabilitated, at least by Washington standards. Politico last year heaped praise on Boulanger, the former vice president of the Washington lobbying firm, Cassidy & Associates, as a “politico to watch” who “has proven his nattily attired, outside-the-box staying power.”

Well, Boulanger’s is probably hoping that his guilty plea is enough to keep him outside of the federal minimum security box.

The loss of the birth control provision came as a blow to Planned Parenthood, which had lobbied forcefully for it.

Despite the news, as I reported today, there is still plenty of reason for the feminist lobby to be pleased — billions and billions of them, in fact.

The bill allocates billions of dollars for education, health care, direct aid to needy families and support for state governments to maintain social programs — all items on the feminist wish list. Stimulus money will create or preserve jobs for teachers, librarians, nurses, and childcare workers around the country.

The outcome of the House bill contrast with feminist fears from just a few weeks ago, when it seemed that stimulus job creation would be confined to the male-dominated construction and energy industries. But the bill allocates only five percent of the stimulus for infrastructure, according to The Boston Globe, a figure that shrank progressively as the details of the stimulus were hashed out:

“Priorities changed,” [Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.)] said. “Someone says, ‘How about food stamps, how about early childhood education?’”

We also haven’t seen the last of the Medicaid family planning expansion. The Senate is expected to take up a stand alone version of the family planning expansion next week.

WASHINGTON–While companies across the board were losing record amounts of money and laying off employees last year, at least one industry seemed to weather the recession: lobbying. Special interests paid Washington lobbyists $3.2 billion in 2008, more than any other year on record and a 13.7 percent increase from 2007, the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics has found.

Analyzing 4th Quarter disclosure reports filed Jan. 20, the Center calculated that interest groups spent $17.4 million on lobbying for every day Congress was in session in 2008, or $32,523 per legislator per day.

Expect this trend to continue in 2009, as more dying corporations hire lobbyists to beg lawmakers for publicly funded rescues.

Sam Stein reports in The Huffington Post:

Three days after receiving $25 billion in federal bailout funds, Bank of America Corp. hosted a conference call with conservative activists and business officials to organize opposition to the U.S. labor community’s top legislative priority.

Participants on the October 17 call — including at least one representative from another bailout recipient, AIG — were urged to persuade their clients to send “large contributions” to groups working against the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), as well as to vulnerable Senate Republicans, who could help block passage of the bill.

Talk about chutzpah. Imagine you’re an AIG customer. How would you feel if AIG hit you up for money to fight some labor law?  It turns out that the U.S. taxpayer is in a similar position. Having recently hit the U.S. taxpayer up for billions of dollars, AIG turned its attention to politicking, not insurance.

Separately, good government groups are calling for a congressional investigation to find out whether bailout money ended up in the coffers of any political organizations.

Nearly 70 years after this poster encouraged women to join the workforce, feminist organizations want to ensure that the stimulus package includes enough jobs for women. (Wikimedia Commons)

National women’s rights advocacy groups are using their newfound political clout with the Obama administration to shape the $825 billion economic stimulus package.

In late 2008, when the debate over the stimulus bill was in full swing, many feminists feared that the package would shortchange women by focusing job creation on the male-dominated construction industry. Feminist author and activist Linda Hirshman was among the first to wave a red flag in an influential New York Times op-ed. “Women represent almost half the work force — not exactly a marginal special interest group,” Hirshman wrote. “By adding a program for jobs in libraries, schools and children’s programs, the new administration can create jobs for them, too.”

Meanwhile several national women’s groups began a quiet but concerted pressure campaign on Obama and members of Congress to keep women’s economic security on the stimulus agenda.

In the bill, which passed in the house Wednesday, feminist organizations appear to have gotten much of what they wanted, including notably sizable investments in health care, education, and job training as well as billions of dollars to stabilize state budgets. For example, the bill includes $88 billion for Medicaid and $79 billion to help states continue to provide public services, according to an analysis by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. An estimated $150 billion is allocated for various educational programs from kindergarten to post-graduate education, the New York Times reported, Wednesday. These big ticket expenditures are expected to create or sustain significant numbers of jobs in female-dominated sectors of the economy, like teaching, nursing, and social work. More broadly, these figures may be an indication that feminist groups have more political clout and access with the Obama administration than they did under President Bush.

As the stimulus began to take shape, women’s groups moved quickly to cash in political capital they earned during the 2008 election. Last year, women’s organizations threw themselves into Democratic politics with uncharacteristic enthusiasm. The National Organization for Women, the largest organization of feminist activists in the United States took the unusual step of endorsing Obama for president. NOW’s main political action committee spent $239,364 to elect Democrats to Congress in 2008, compared to just $38,419 in 2004.

Planned Parenthood’s endorsement of Obama was only the second presidential endorsement in the group’s 93-year history, the first being John Kerry in 2004.

The main Planned Parenthood-allied PAC spent $556,870 on Congressional races in 2008, with 98 percent of the money going to Democrats. Other feminist groups like EMILY’S List and the National Abortion Rights Action League also rolled up their sleeves and backed the Obama ticket. As a result, Obama came to power in the debt of feminist groups for helping him get elected and expanding Democratic majority in Congress, which will be key to passing his ambitious agenda.

From Planned Parenthood’s perspective, that investment appears to have paid off, not only in the form of a pro-choice president, but also in terms of access to power.

“It’s hard to overstate the difference from having a government where there literally was no conversation to have a government reaching out on on a whole range of issues,” said Laurie Rubiner, Planned Parenthood’s vice president for public policy.

So, what’s in the package for women? “Expanding health for them, childcare, unemployment insurance, direct help in higher food stamps, and energy assistance,” said Joan Entmacher, vice president for family economic stability at the National Women’s Law Center, a non-profit, nonpartisan advocacy group that has worked closely with the Obama transition team and key members of Congress. “It also protects a lot of jobs for women in education, early education, and social work services,” she added.

“You don’t get everything you ask for,” said Entmacher, “[But] we’re pleased with the funding specifically targeted to childcare and Head Start and other investment for children with disabilities.”

Other feminist leaders are also guardedly positive about the stimulus.

“We’re pretty happy with what we’re seeing so far,” said Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, “But we’re waiting to see details.”

Asked whether the Obama administration was more friendly to feminist advocacy groups than the last administration, Gandy laughed and replied, “Are you kidding? The difference is like night and day.”

Gandy says that NOW and other women’s groups have met with Obama’s economic policy director Jason Furman and his senior aides to discuss the needs of women in the stimulus. NOW even set up a special page on its website to document their interactions with the transition team.

Having won a seat at the table, Gandy said her organization made the case for “investing in social infrastructure, like education and health.” Gandy is gratified to see a “very, very sizable investment in education,” including money set aside to train nurses and other health care professionals.

However, feminist leaders also agree that whether the stimulus package is fair to women will depend in large part on how the program is implemented. The current stimulus package includes a $79 billion Fiscal Stabilization Fund to help cash-strapped states maintain their current public services in the face of massive revenue shortfalls and increased demands on social welfare programs. Over half of the stabilization money, $39 billion, will go directly to educational institutions through existing federal formulas, according the latest summary of the bill posted on the House Appropriations Committee website; but over $25 billion is to be used for “flexible fiscal relief,” meaning that the states would have broad discretion over how to spend the money.

There will be some structural safeguards. “States won’t be able to just say we’re going to pour concrete across the entire state,” Entmacher says. But states will still have to make tough choices that will dramatically effect how women fare under the stimulus. Will governors go along with powerful local construction interests and spend money building new schools and libraries, or will they use the money to hire more teachers and librarians?

“If there’s any life in the feminist movement, every chapter of NOW would be writing to the governor,” says feminist writer Linda Hirshman.

NOW president Kim Gandy says that state and local chapters will make their voices heard. “NOW is primarily a grassroots organization,” Gandy says, “Our national operation is small compared to our state and local chapters.” She expects that local NOW chapters will start pressuring state and local politicians as soon as the plan is finalized.

The access to the new president and his top advisers feminist groups have enjoyed so far is a change from the last eight years, but only time will tell the extent of their influence. The relationship between the Obama administration and feminist groups is sure to be tested in the days ahead as the fight over the details of the stimulus heats up.

Required qualifications include, among others, personal faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, agreement to and affirmation of the NAE Statement of Faith, and participation in an NAE affiliated congregation.

Lobbyists aren’t normally expected to believe in the causes they represent. In this industry, salvation comes by works alone.

Deep-seated moral beliefs can be a liability for a lobbyist, as the NAE found out last month. Former top NAE lobbyist Richard Cizik was forced to resign, after 28 years on the job, when his personal beliefs conflicted with NAE doctrine.

Cizik’s downfall was a Dec. 2 interview with National Public Radio’s Terry Gross. The lobbyist just couldn’t bring himself to repeat the party line on gay families:

In a short portion of the program, Gross asked him, “A couple of years ago when you were on our show, I asked you if you were changing your mind on that. And two years ago, you said you were still opposed to gay marriage. But now as you identify more with younger voters, would you say you have changed on gay marriage?”

Cizik responded, “I’m shifting, I have to admit. In other words, I would willingly say that I believe in civil unions. I don’t officially support redefining marriage from its traditional definition, I don’t think.”

James Dobson, the leader of Focus on the Family, also tried to get Cizik fired in 2006 for being an environmentalist.

Maybe the NAE should rethink that job description. When it comes to lobbying, true believers can be trouble.

Testifying before the Senate panel Tuesday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said stringent ethics rules are a major reason it is difficult to fill top posts at the Pentagon.

It’s funny because it’s true.

Ironically, Gates was testifying in support of Lynn’s confirmation. In his attempt to defend his colleague, Gates inadvertently indicted his department and the entire defense industry as a morass of crony capitalism.

Let’s assume that ethics regulations are a significant obstacle to obtaining top talent at the Pentagon. Let’s assume it’s hard to find senior public servants who haven’t already cashed in on their expertise in the private sector. What does that say about the system?

The Lynn affair is another illustration of the real-world consequences of an unchecked revolving door and the institutions that treat this kind of back-and-forth between government and industry as the norm.

Here is a guy who is probably highly qualified, but who will take office under a cloud. His efficacy may suffer as a result. In a lot of people’s minds, he’s always going to be the lobbyist from Raytheon. That may not be fair to him, and it’s certainly not fair to the institution he serves.

Tougher institutional controls on the revolving door, such as those Obama tried to impose with his executive order, are part of the solution. Sustained public pressure is also important. It’s  harder for lobbyists to slip quietly back into government now that Jack Abramoff is a household name.

If journalists and watchdog groups keep up the pressure, politically ambitious people will eventually learn that a lobbying background can be a long-term liability, and not just an easy way to make a quick buck.

One thing is clear, ad hoc ethics waivers like the one Obama gave to Lynn, will only exacerbate the problem. Rules can slow the revolving door, but the problem won’t go away until decision-makers impose real career consequences for candidates who rack up conflicts of interest.

Unions support the bill because it would make union organizing easier. Big business opposes the measure for the same reason. The stakes are high and business and labor are pouring money into TV ads, field organizers and lobbyists.

You might expect that venture capital firms like the Carlyle Group, capitalists that they are, would join with their brothers and sisters in big business to defeat pro-union legislation. But as Matt Cooper reports on TPMDC, that’s not how it’s playing out:

But the main voice of private equity firms in Washington, the Private Equity Council, has stayed out of the fight and the answer would seem to be owing to the fact that unions provide so much capital to private equity. In fact, the Private Equity Council’s own research shows in 2007 alone,” the top 20 public pension funds, representing nearly 10 million retirees in states including California, New York, Texas, Florida, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan, had a collective private equity investment of nearly $140 billion.”

So there you have it. The private equity lobby has opted out of the fight because its interests pull in different directions. They don’t like unions, but they want union money. It’s strictly business. The Private Equity Council’s decision to sit this one out is a blow to the business coalition arrayed against the EFCA and could help tip the balance for the unions.