Your daily dose of news and tidbits from the world of money in politics:

The Vancouver Canucks and Boston Bruins will finish out the 2010-2011 professional hockey season tonight in game seven of the Stanley Cup finals, with both teams tied at three wins each.

But just because the season will soon be over doesn’t mean the National Hockey League‘s work is done. The NHL, which has contracted lobbyist Phillip R. Hochberg for the past eight years, has plenty of politics to play.

Since 2003, the NHL has typically spent between $30,000 and $60,000 per year on federal lobbying efforts, with the significant exception of 2005, when the league spent $220,000, hiring Quinn Gillespie & Associates for $180,000, an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics indicates.

It’s worth remembering that the NHL canceled the entire 2004-2005 season as a result of a lockout stemming from disagreements between the league player’s association and the league office.

In recent years, the NHL has primarily focused its lobbying efforts on the Federal Communications Commission, the U.S. Copyright Office and both houses of Congress, the Center’s analysis indicates. Hochberg’s lobbying group currently represents the National Basketball Association as well, and in the past has also worked for the National Football League and the Football Bowl Association.

The NHL and NBA have both lobbied on bills such as the Controlled Substances Act, with the sporting organizations specifically concerned about penalties and research about anabolic steroid. Both leagues have also been active on bills regarding satellite television and how regulation could affect their various licensing agreements.

Both the NBA and the NHL are eclipsed in lobbyist spending, however, by both Major League Baseball, which lobbies through the Office of the Commissioner, and the National Football League. Even the NCAA, which oversees college varsity sports, spends two to three times as much as the NHL on lobbying every year.

Interestingly enough, the NFL, which has recently locked out its players like the NHL did seven years ago, has rapidly increased its own spending on lobbyists in the midst of a labor spat. Between 2000 and 2006, the NFL spent an average of $449,000 per year on lobbying.

In 2007, that figure nearly tripled to $1.4 million in annual lobbying, and in 2010 the league spent just under $1.5 million to lobby the federal government. In 2006, there were only six registered lobbyists working for the NFL. In 2010, 25 individual lobbyists worked on the NFL’s behalf.

The National Football League Players Association, the union representation for NFL players, has seen a more pronounced jump in anticipation of the lockout.

Before 2009, the NFLPA had spent less than $120,000 every year for lobbying. In 2009, the union more than tripled its spending, from $100,000 to $310,000, followed by an additional increase to $450,000 in 2010. The NFLPA also switched its lobbying firm affiliation from Baach, Robinson & Lewis, a smaller firm, to Patton Boggs LLP in 2009, which had $40,080,000 in income from lobbying in 2010.

While the NFL and the NFLPA are increasing their lobbying, Major League Baseball’s lobbying has been decreasing steadily since 2005.

While it still spent $570,000 last year, MLB is spending considerably less for political influence than it did in 2004, when the league spent close to $1.3 million while engrossed in a national steroid scandal. Since congressional hearings on baseball in 2005, the money spent on lobbying has halved.

The Major League Baseball Players Association also follows this trend, spending $78,639 on lobbying last year when in 2005 they paid six firms $440,000.



POTATO LOBBY FAMISHED: Potato growers are reeling from recent limits imposed by the department of agriculture which would mandate a one-cup-per-week limit on spuds served to students in school cafeterias, reports Roll Call.

The groups have argued, through letter writing campaigns and meetings with the USDA, that potatoes are nutritious. The executive director of the Washington State Potato Commission even stopped eating anything but potatoes for two months, to demonstrate the humble tuber’s nutritional value. But the Potato Farmers have also resorted to the tried and true strategy of federal lobbying and campaign donations through a political action committee.

The American Potato Trade Alliance was active until 2009, and it reported lobbying the Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Trade Representative. The National Potato Council, which spent more than $100,000 every year between 2002 and 2008 on lobbying, lobbied the Senate, House of Representatives and Department of Agriculture so far this year.

The National Potato Council also lobbied on several appropriations amendments this year, specifically funding for potato research and for the Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act.

In recent years, however, the potato lobby has decreased its involvement in lobbying, as it has instead funneled cash to potato-friendly candidates, spreading $51,500 among 20 federal candidates during the 2010 election cycle through National Potato Council PAC.

That political action committee also funneled $5,500 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and $5,000 to the Democratic Party of Colorado.

A second political action committee, Spud PAC, donated $39,500 during the 2010 cycle to exclusively Democratic candidates.

CONGRESSMEN HIRE LOBBYISTS IN REDISTRICTING FIGHT: Three House representatives from New York have contracted the services of New York State lobbyists to lobby for advantageous redistricting, the Ithaca Journal reports.

Reps. Eliot Engel (D) of the Bronx, Brian Higgins (D) of Buffalo and Joseph Crowley (D) of Queens are paying between $2,000 and $5,000 to firms working toward ensuring a smooth redistricting process. The three, all Democrats, will be paying the tab out of their campaign cash. A review of OpenSecrets.org records show that the congressmen won’t exactly be missing the money.

Engle, according to the Center‘s records, has $171,617 on hand as of the beginning of 2011. Engle spent close to $1.1 million last year on his re-election, with the employees or PACs of Verizon Communications, Monroe College and the National Action Committee accounting for his top three contributors.

Higgins has $387,210 on hand after an election that cost $1.3 million. Higgins is on the influential House Ways and Means Committee, and his top contributor for his 2010 campaign was the National Association of Realtors.

With the exception of Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.), Crowley has more cash on hand — $934,051 — than any other member of the New York delegation. Last year, Crowley spent $2.1 million for his own re-election campaign.

Other congressional representatives may not be so lucky.

For one, Rep. Anthony Weiner‘s future fund-raising abilities appear dim — as do his prospects for political survival — which may make it difficult for the photogenic and tweet-happy congressman to mount a lobbying effort over anything, even if he stands to lose from redistricting efforts.

Have a news tip or link to pass along? We want to hear from you! Email us at [email protected].



For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: [email protected]

·

·

·

Support Accountability Journalism At OpenSecrets.org we offer in-depth, money-in-politics stories in the public interest. Whether you’re reading about 2020 presidential fundraising, conflicts of interest or “dark money” influence, we produce this content with a small, but dedicated team. Every donation we receive from users like you goes directly into promoting high-quality data analysis and investigative journalism that you can trust. Please support our work and keep this resource free. Thank you. Support OpenSecrets ➜

Read more OpenSecrets News & Analysis: