Virginia Capitol Connections Spring 2020

Reflections of a Veteran Lobbyist By James S. Turpin Having been around the General Assembly since 1976, I have seen many things change. Most of them have been for the good. But suffice it to say, the institution itself is very different than it was when I first started at the General Assembly.

the region from NorthernVirginia through Richmond to Tidewater. As Virginia has changed, so has the tone of the General Assembly. The issues brought before the General Assembly are broader and more complex. The system itself is more transparent. Gone are the days when committee meetings would be held at someone’s desk or even in the men’s room. Today all committees and subcommittees can be viewed remotely. Legislators now have staff as well as partisan caucuses and campaign committees. With those changes, the politics surrounding the General Assembly have changed. It used to be that the costs of running for the General Assembly used to be fairly small. The contests were often largely for the Democratic nomination and revolved around the remains of the Byrd organizations and challenges from new progressives. Now campaigns pit the two major parties against each other to the point that in the last election, virtually all 140 seats had partisan contests with several exceeding $1 million being spent by both sides. This increased partisanship has itself changed the tone of the General Assembly. Prior to 2000 with the selection of the first Republican Speaker, whether a member was a Republican or a Democrat was not as much of an issue. Members’ collaboration was built more on personal relationships and other matters such as family and school ties. However, as contests became more competitive and extensive, the level of personal interaction has declined. In many ways, the Virginia General Assembly, like most state legislatures, is becoming more like Congress—more partisan and more confrontational. If you are advocating for an issue, this is one of the factors that must be taken into account. One thing that has not changed although it has intensified, is the relationship between the House of Delegates and the Senate. Going back to the early days of the General Assembly, there have been disagreements between the House and Senate based on process and individuals. This is just as true today. However, this element, again like the Federal system, is changing as more former House members are elected to the Senate. From it earliest days, there have been regional differences in the General Assembly. This was accelerated as the state became more urbanized. Again, as population trends have evolved and Virginia has become a more urban and suburban state, power has shifted from the rural to the developed parts of the state. This has presented new challenges to balance the needs of the whole state going forward. A distinction that has been around since Jamestown or at least Williamsburg, are differences between newer members eager for change and members who have been there for a while and are more committed to a philosophy of “this is the way we have always done it”. That is as true today as it has always been and remains a challenge to the process. With all of this as background, how has lobbying changed? First, there is the sheer number of lobbyists. Earlier in the life of the legislature the number of lobbyists was in the hundreds. Today, there are thousands. This has changed the character of lobbying. It is no longer a small group of familiar faces around the General Assembly. Advocates represent a large and diverse group of interests and petitioners. With increased regulations and reporting requirements, it is easier to track who is trying to influence legislation. This is compounded by the agendas and number of national organizations who are actively involved in the process. This has contributed to the nationalization and increased partisanship of issues not just in Virginia but at the state level nationally. At the same time, both the number and type of issues brought before the General Assembly have changed dramatically. In the past, issues that were lobbied were generally business or regionally related. While social issues were considered, they did not attract either the time or attention they now do. Today, social issues receive as much or more attention. With this comes increased See Reflections of a Veteran Lobbyist , continued on page 18

The nature and approach to lobbying have changed greatly. There used to be a small group of individuals who were regular “Assembly” lobbyists—all of whom knew each other and had been around for years. The General Assembly was very much a Southern institution not that different than when the Byrd organization ran the state. Both Chambers were overwhelmingly Democratic though geared to and focused on the more rural parts of the state. It is hard to believe that the Speaker of the House John Warren Cooke who served in the House of Delegates from 1942 to 1980 was the son of a Confederate veteran. Things began to change in 1969, then again in 1973, and 1977 with the election of Republican Governors. However, the General Assembly was still very much a closed and traditional institution run by the Democrats Starting with those elections and going into the 1980’s and beyond, the General Assembly continued to evolve. This included moving from multi-member to single member districts and the emergence as power centers of the urban crescent compromised of

Senator Emmett Hanger with James Turpin

V irginia C apitol C onnections , S pring 2020

12