Levick Weekly - Nov 9 2012

03 Contents
04 Congressional Investigations
with Mark Paoletta
COVER Image: The United States Capitol is the meeting place of the United States Congress, the legislature of the federal
government of the United States. Located in Washington, D.C., it sits atop Capitol Hill at the eastern end of the National Mall.
Though it has never been the geographic center of the federal district, the Capitol is the origin by which both the quadrants of
the District are divided and the city was planned. Officially, both the east and west sides of the Capitol are referred to as “fronts”.
Historically, however, only the east front of the building was intended for the arrival of visitors and dignitaries. Like the federal
buildings for the executive and judicial branches, it is built in the distinctive neoclassical style and has a white exterior.
This edition of LEVICK Weekly looks at the impact of the 2012 vote and what business can expect to
happen—or not happen—on multiple fronts. Our Election Edition features interviews with ten of the top
government relations experts in the country in which they discuss what’s next in general areas from
regulatory to tax policy, as well as specific prognoses on healthcare, homeland security, and the lessons
businesses can learn from how the campaigns leveraged social media.
08 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
with Jonathan Pompan
12 FDA
with Joseph A. Levitt
14 Healthcare
with Laura Bozell
18 Homeland Security
with Michelle Mrdeza
22 Labor & Employment
with Maurice Baskin
26 Media
with Peter Fenn
30 Regulatory Landscape
with Andrew Zausner
34 Tax Policy
with John Kelly
38 USDA
with Jessica Adelman
41 Blogs
Worth Following
42 LEVICK
In the News

05
Congressional
Investigations
― with ―
Mark Paoletta
Do you foresee any likely change in
this new Congress, in terms of either
increased or decreased aggressiveness
in how it goes about its investigatory
mission?
Mark Paoletta: With the partisan divisions
unchanged, it will be difficult to pass sig-
nificant legislation, and therefore there will
be an increase in oversight activity in both
chambers, particularly with the Republican
House. From the Affordable Care Act to the
Dodd-Frank legislation, the GOP will use its
oversight powers as a means to try to blunt or
alter the implementation of the Obama Admin-
istration’s signature programs.
House Chairmen got their sea legs last Con-
gress on oversight. The E&C Committee made
Solyndra a household name and the Oversight
Committee made the Fast & Furious inquiry a
major issue. Chairman Upton (of E&C) and Issa
Mark Paoletta
To discuss how Congress will pursue investigations and hearings in the next four
years, we spoke to Mark Paoletta, a partner at DLA Piper. Mr. Paoletta has worked
in both the public and private sectors, including positions in the White House
Counsel’s Office and on Capitol Hill as a Chief Investigative Counsel for the House
Energy & Commerce Committee for a decade. His work focuses on government
investigations, with an emphasis on congressional investigations and hearings.

Weekly
07
06
(Oversight) will lead the oversight work in the
House again next year. Expect to see a number of
other committees step up their oversight work.
Are there any particular different
directions—in particular, specific
industry sectors—that Congress will
be emphasizing or deemphasizing as
investigatory targets after January?
Mark Paoletta: The health care sector will
see a significant uptick in oversight activity.
During the campaign, the President talked a
lot about finding savings in rooting out waste
fraud and abuse in this sector. Both chambers
will look aggressively for these savings by
conducting significant oversight both into the
agencies and the contractors. Second, there is
still much to implement in the Affordable Care
Act, and at least two House committees (E&C
and Ways & Means) will conduct inquiries
into how it is being implemented, what are the
costs, issuance of waivers, and quality of care.
They will use their oversight powers to shine a
light on what is happening and perhaps affect
the rules being implemented.
We will see similar efforts in the financial
services and energy/environment sectors.
Dodd-Frank still has many significant regula-
tions that are still being implemented, and the
House GOP will scrutinize these regulations
and try to modify the final rules. EPA’s regula-
tions on utilities and other sectors of the U.S.
economy have been very controversial and
several House committees (notably E&C) will
continue to do vigorous oversight in this area.
Cyber security will emerge as an even more
significant topic of oversight. The House Intel
committee recently issued a draft report on cy-
ber security threats from China, and this issue
will be a top priority in several committees,
including Energy & Commerce and Homeland
Security committees and their counterparts
on the Senate side. It’s a hot button issue, and
I think you will find a great deal of bi-partisan
cooperation to identify and craft effective solu-
tions to this threat.
Expect to hear a lot more about what hap-
pened in Benghazi. House Oversight held a
hearing last month and I expect several others
committees to investigate and have high-profile
hearings. Defense contractors will also come
under increased scrutiny, in particular with
the hiring of a highly-regarded former pros-
ecutor and congressional chief investigative
counsel as the head of SIGAR. He has already
delivered some interesting audits and testimo-
ny in his first months in the job.
Of course, there will be many issues that will
drive the oversight agenda in the next Con-
gress that are not even on the horizon. For
example, the meningitis outbreak recently
came on the radar and it has at least a couple
of Committees working hard to figure out how
this happened. And don’t forget that second
terms of Presidencies usually provide several
scandal-type episodes that will be sure to cap-
ture Congressional attention.
As a result of the election, are there
any key individuals who will be either
relinquishing or assuming investigatory
roles that will change the dynamics in a
way that affects your clients?
Mark Paoletta: The House Energy & Com-
merce Committee will have a new Subcommit-
tee Chairman of its Oversight & Investigations
Subcommittee, and front runners include
Representatives Blackburn, Terry, and Bur-
gess. The committee has a newly-promoted
chief counsel who is very seasoned, having
just run the Solyndra investigation. The Finan-
cial Services committee put a bright spotlight
on the MF Global scandal. Incoming Chairman
Hensarling recognizes the value of aggressive
oversight and I expect the committee to con-
tinue with this type of work.
The Ways & Means Committee recently hired
an impressive chief oversight counsel and, in
fact, the committee’s staff director is a former
chief oversight counsel so I would look for this
committee in particular to get more engaged in
very aggressive oversight. Chairman Camp has
built a team to conduct some serious oversight.
On the Senate side, the Senate Government
Affairs and Homeland Security will continue
to have the lead role in oversight, along with
its Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
(PSI). Chairman Lieberman is retiring and is
expected to be replaced by Senator Carper.
Ranking Member Collins, who is term limited,
is expected to move to PSI as the Ranking Mem-
ber and Senator Coburn is expected to take the
Ranking Member slot on the full Committee.
Chairman Levin is expected to keep his inves-
tigative focus on banking and other financial
and tax issues. Senator Grassley continues to
be very involved in oversight work. L
“Cyber security will emerge as an even more
significant topic of oversight. The House Intel
committee recently issued a draft report on
cyber security threats from China, and this issue
will be a top priority in several committees,
including Energy & Commerce and Homeland
Security committees and their counterparts on
the Senate side. It’s a hot button issue...”

Weekly
8 9
next steps at the
Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau
with Jonathan Pompan

Weekly
10 11
Since its inception, we’ve see the
CFPB focused predominantly on issues
pertaining to “at-risk” groups such as
veterans, seniors, and students. Do you
see that continuing, or will the Bureau
begin to broaden its approach?
Jonathan Pompan: The focus on student loans,
home buying, retirement, and service members
will continue. But it’s important to note that,
thus far, the Bureau has been merely setting
the table for what will be more scrutiny and
more aggressive proposals for reforms in
those areas.
It’s also important to note that the “fiscal cliff’
will have no effect on the Bureau, which is
funded through the Federal Reserve. At the
same time, a second term for the President
spells real trouble for efforts to reorganize or
eliminate the Bureau altogether. The President
is a staunch CFPB supporter and Elizabeth War-
ren’s ascendency into the Senate puts a vocal
champion into a high-profile position. Perhaps
the only safeguard for moderating the Bureau’s
influence is the courts; but none of the legal
challenges brought to date have yet been effec-
tive in that regard.
Simply put, it seems that the CFPB is here to
stay—and, as a result, financial service pro-
viders need to double down on compliance
and brace for more scrutiny. At the same time
however, they also need to foster productive
relationships with relevant staff at the Bureau
in order to move from an adversarial rapport
to one that it is rooted in cooperation and a
shared pursuit of market fairness.
How do you see Congress’ work with the
CFPB evolving as a result of the election?
Do you see the relationship warming or
cooling over the coming years?
Jonathan Pompan: The House of Representa-
tives, in particular, will continue to be a source
of scrutiny and criticism for the Bureau, as
adversarial Republicans maintained their
majority. While the Democratic majority in
the Senate will temper the efforts to restruc-
ture the Bureau, in the Senate, there will be
the question of another term for Director
Richard Cordray or confirmation of his even-
tual replacement. All of this means that the
relationship between some on Capitol Hill and
the CFPB is likely to remain contentious, but
any real changes would require the President
and Democrats to compromise. As result, the
Bureau will remain in the news.
That will lead to interesting questions about
how various financial services providers
choose to involve themselves in the public
debate. They all have a great deal of skin in
the game and each will have to carefully
consider the pros and cons of wading into the
fray from their own particular perspectives.
How do you see priorities changing—or
not changing—at the CFPB as a result of
the election? What issues will dominate
the agency’s attention in the coming
months and years?
Jonathan Pompan: Just about everything
we’ve come to know about the CFPB is going
to remain the same for at least the next year—
and likely for the next two years. This means
that the CFPB is going to continue increasing
its regulation over banks and non-banks. The
Bureau has open investigations in virtually all
the market areas under its jurisdiction; such
as private student lenders, mortgage servicers,
payday lenders, debt collectors, and more.
The fact that the President has won reelection
means that these investigations will continue
unabated, and that more are certain to come.
Jonathan pompan
To examine the ways in which the newly-established Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (CFPB) will evolve under President Obama’s second term,
we spoke with Jonathan Pompan, an Of Counsel with Venable LLP
. Mr. Pompan
focuses his practice on providing comprehensive legal advice and regulatory
advocacy in the areas of consumer protection and financial services.
L

Weekly
12 13
FDA Priorities
with Joseph A. Levitt
How do you see priorities changing at
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
as a result of the election? Are there
particular hot-button issues, such as
food labeling, which might see more or
less attention?
Joseph Levitt: FDA’s top priority in the food
area has been implementation of the FDA
Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA)—and
that will most certainly remain the case.
Proposed rules that have long been under re-
view at the Office of Management and Budget
should soon break loose and be published for
public comment.
On the nutrition side, FDA is expected to
publish final regulations on menu and vend-
ing machine labeling of product calories. I
would also be on the lookout for FDA to step
up efforts to reduce sodium levels in a wide
range of foods.
How will the election results impact the
FDA budget? What do new funding levels
mean for the food and pharmaceutical
companies that FDA regulates?
Joseph Levitt: Regardless of the election
results, the prospects of the fiscal cliff and
possible sequestration mean that budgets
across all federal agencies will be severely
constrained. Even if Congress and the Admin-
istration can reach a deal to prevent a worst
case scenario, the Food and Drug Administra-
tion budget is likely to be limited for years to
come—and especially in the foods area.
FDA will adopt FSMA regulations and take
other actions mandated by law, but, due to
resource limitations, the agency will have to be
selective in its enforcement activities. As such,
companies will have to watch closely to see
how those priorities evolve.
Do you see the FDA as being more or less
receptive to business concerns as a result
of the election? Are there particular issues
on which businesses and the FDA will be
able to work more closely?
Joseph Levitt: Under President Obama’s
first term, FDA conducted an unprecedented
amount of outreach to the food industry and
other stakeholders, and the agency is to be
commended for coming across as wanting to
publish proposed rules that are both scientifi-
cally sound and economically feasible. The
goal for achieving such commonality on the
nutrition side may be more challenging, as the
Administration is expected to double down on
its initiatives to combat childhood obesity.
One new opportunity for collaboration with
the food industry will be in the area of geneti-
cally engineered foods, where FDA and food
industry positions have been historically been
quite similar. California’s Prop 37 has again
raised this issue’s visibility and it’s clearly not
going away. As such, food companies should
be communicating with the agency to ensure
continued alignment on their approaches to
producing, labeling, and marketing foods that
contain bio-engineered ingredients. L
Joseph a. levitt
To discuss how the election impacted regulatory priorities at the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA), we spoke with Joseph A. Levitt, a Partner in the law firm
of Hogan Lovells US LLP and former Director of FDA’s Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition. Joe counsels numerous food companies and trade associations
on food safety, labeling and compliance matters, and how to work effectively with
the FDA. He is also a recognized expert in the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act
(FSMA), including all phases of its development and implementation.

Weekly
14 15
How has the election most dramatically
impacted the healthcare industry? What
do doctors, hospitals, insurers, and
pharmaceutical manufacturers need to
know about what’s coming next regarding
legislative and regulatory priorities?
Laura Bozell: The biggest takeaway is that not
much is going to change. Implementation of
the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is going to con-
tinue and industry players need to accept the
reality that the law is not likely to be repealed.
Those that have been delaying preparations
now face implementing a law that still lacks
many necessary regulatory elements and will
be awaiting further details on what to expect
between now and January 1, 2014.
There will also be the annual fight in Congress
over the sustainable growth rate—the physi-
cian payment mechanism within Medicare that
seeks to discourage doctors from initiating rap-
Laura Bozell
For our examination of the election’s impacts on healthcare policy, we spoke
with Laura Bozell, a Vice President at Cornerstone Government Affairs. For the
last five years, Laura served on the Professional Staff on the Ways and Means
Committee’s Health Subcommittee. In this capacity, she was responsible for
the Medicare Part A portfolio, providing policy direction for the Committee and
advising the Chairman and other Committee Members on issues affecting the
nation’s 6,000 hospitals, home health providers, skilled nursing facilities and all
other post-acute care providers.
Healthcare
Policy
with Laura Bozell

Weekly
16 17
id increases in volume of services. If Medicare
spending increases too fast, a cut kicks in—and,
right now, there is a 27 percent cut looming if
Congress takes no action to stop it. If Congress
does act, as it undoubtedly will, it might look to
other parts of the Medicare program for spend-
ing cuts to balance the increased costs incurred
by fixing the physician payment system.
Finally, there is the question of sequestration.
Under the Budget Control Act, Medicare cuts
are capped at two percent should sequestra-
tion kick in. If that should come to pass, it will
impact every healthcare provider that deals
with the Medicare program, although we
do not yet have a clear idea of how it will
be applied.
What are the major issues with Medicaid
moving forward?
Laura Bozell: Right now, the big issue I see
surrounds the Supreme Court’s decision to
make the ACA Medicaid expansion optional
for states. Specifically, that decision may have
the unintended effect of stranding a number
of disadvantaged people that potentially won’t
qualify for Medicaid or the subsidies available
to purchase health insurance through the new
state-run exchanges. In many states, childless
adults and even some children living below
100 percent of the poverty level are ineligible
for Medicaid and, because of the way the ACA
was written, they are also ineligible for exchange
subsidies. If their state opts out of the ACA
Medicaid expansion, these people may find
themselves without any health care coverage.
So unless Congress acts (which doesn’t seem
likely), there will be pockets of people that are
left on the outside looking in.
The problem for providers is that they agreed
to the ACA’s cuts precisely because everyone
was going to have health insurance coverage.
If you have a subset of people who still aren’t
covered, the providers will have to cover the
costs of treating them. The issue is further
complicated by the fact that in 2012 Congress
L
reduced hospitals’ bad debt reimbursements
from 70 percent to 65 percent.
All of this means that providers have a great
deal of incentive to work with Congress and
the White House to see that Congress acts on
this critical issue.
How has the election impacted the
healthcare regulation landscape? How
can providers, insurers, and others in
the healthcare industry ensure their
voice is heard as ACA implementation
moves forward?
Laura Bozell: There is a tremendous amount
of ACA-related regulation that was being slow-
walked before the election. Now, it will all be
coming down the pike in huge waves. To date,
some ACA regulations have been introduced as
interim final rules, bulletins or even guidances
that do not allow for the traditional 60-day
comment period—thus limiting the industry’s
influence. I expect there to be some congres-
sional oversight on this issue. My hope would
be that new rules will be promulgated in ways
that allow for greater transparency and in-
dustry input. But, at the same time, HHS has a
short period of time to meet a lot of deadlines.
Once that happens, industry players should
make the most of every opportunity to have
their say in the writing of rules that will define
the health care system for some time to come.

Weekly
18 19
HOMELAND
SECURITY
with Michelle Mrdeza
How will DHS priorities change as a result
of the election? What can we expect to
happen to the DHS budget over the next
2-4 years?
Michelle Mrdeza: Homeland Security priori-
ties are unlikely to dramatically change during
the President’s 2nd term and 113th Congress.
This is true for several reasons.
First, threats remain the same and major
programs continue to collect broad biparti-
san support: cyber security, aviation security,
cargo inspection, and disaster response and
recovery. Second, there is unfinished business
that both the Administration (and some in)
Congress want to tackle, not the least of which
is immigration reform and cyber security, both
of which pertain directly to homeland security.
However, remember the devil is always in the
detail. What might be different over the next
four years despite a fairly constant emphasis
on our highest threats? The degree to which
the federal government involves itself in issues
such as cyber security might be different, as
Michelle Mrdeza
To understand the impact of the 2012 elections on America’s approach to
homeland security, LEVICK spoke to Michelle Mrdeza, who leads the homeland
security practice group at Cornerstone Government Affairs. Ms. Mrdeza is a twenty-
three-year Capitol Hill veteran, including four years as Majority Staff Director of the
House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security.
Anthony Correia / Shutterstock.com

20 21
might the size of that government involvement
in real dollars.
Similar to most other non-defense discretion-
ary programs, we can and should expect to see
a shift in funding for DHS. While homeland se-
curity in general and the Department of Home-
land Security (DHS) in particular have enjoyed
significant support from Congress and the
Administration over the past eleven years, fis-
cal realities will temper efforts to “super size”
everything that’s homeland security-related.
Homeland security is no longer immune to belt
tightening, as observers are seeing as the 112th
Congress winds down its work on the fiscal
year 2013 appropriations bills. Both the House
and Senate DHS spending bills are below the
fiscal year 2012 enacted levels and DHS will
be subject to the across-the-board sequester
scheduled to go into effect on January 2, 2013.
The challenge for decision makers is how to
cut or reduce programs in a way that will have
neither an immediate impact on daily opera-
tions nor a longer-term impact on homeland
security. This challenge will be difficult when
the country continues to face direct threats to
domestic security—for example, the recently
disrupted plots to bomb the Federal Reserve in
Manhattan, the Washington Metro system, and
the United States Capitol complex.
Of course, all the talk about belt tightening did
not necessarily consider the wrath of Hurri-
cane Sandy. While it is way too early to predict
the financial impact of that major event and the
federal cost, we do know efforts are underway
to calculate what FEMA might need as the East
Coast continues to recover. The Budget Control
Act of 2011 allowed for emergency spending
but ultimately this spending will only contrib-
ute to the deficit and the challenges of dealing
with the fiscal cliff.
Has the election created new opportunities
for the defense and security companies?
Are there new challenges that these
industries will have to overcome?
Michelle Mrdeza: There will always be oppor-
tunities for transformational technologies within
the defense and security space. DHS simply can-
not achieve its mission without the technology to
innovate solutions that help achieve security and
efficiencies. Again, what will change is the avail-
ability of dollars. Absent a major catastrophic
event, dollars will continue to shrink and the
landscape will become increasingly competitive.
The challenge for companies will be to under-
stand where both the Administration and Con-
gress will put the taxpayers’ limited resources
and to follow that money.
How do you see DHS policy evolving with
regard to cyber-security? Are there unique
opportunities emerging for companies
that specialize in data protection?
Michelle Mrdeza: Cybersecurity will remain
one of the top priorities for both the Admin-
istration and Congress. Absent some form of
legislation that moves quickly through a lame
duck session (and there is some speculation that
Congress may try to do just that), the Administra-
tion is poised to issue an Executive Order, which
we expect sooner rather than later now that
elections are behind us.
Similar to opportunities for transformational
technologies across the homeland security
space, there will always be opportunities within
cyber security, particularly those that protect
data. One of the main sticking points in security
cyber security legislation has been information
sharing as the ability to protect information is
critical to achieving a workable solution. L
Anthony Correia / Shutterstock.com

023
How do you see the election impacting
policy at the federal labor agencies,
particularly the Department of Labor
(DOL) and the National Labor Relations
Board (NLRB). Are there specific areas
that will come under increased scrutiny
from a monitoring and enforcement
perspective? Are there areas where
efforts will be scaled back?
Maurice Baskin: Both the NLRB and DOL
have been pushing a strongly pro-labor regu-
latory agenda under President Obama, par-
ticularly since the Democrats lost their chance
to enact pro-union legislation after the 2010
Congressional elections. During the last six
months, the Administration postponed a num-
ber of significant policy changes until after the
Presidential election, apparently to avoid any
negative political effects. Now that Obama has
won, expect the freeze to be lifted, unleashing
a flood of new regulations and agency rulings
from both DOL and NLRB.
The most likely new rules to be issued post-elec-
tion include the DOL’s “persuader” rule, which
radically changes the “advice” exemption. It
will make it much harder for companies to get
EMPLOYMENT
with Maurice Baskin
LABOR Maurice Baskin
To address the impact of the election on labor and employment issues, LEVICK
spoke to Maurice Baskin, a partner in the Labor and Employment Law Practice
Group at Venable in Washington, DC. Mr. Baskin counsels management on all
aspects of labor and employment law, including union organizing, collective
bargaining, wrongful discharge, employment discrimination, arbitration,
government contracts, wage/hour law and “prevailing” wages, executive
agreements, unfair competition, and personnel advice.

Weekly
24 25
“I would expect legislative gridlock to
continue on the labor issues and no
significant legislation is likely to pass both
houses... and there’s not much hope of
Congress intervening to stanch the flow
of ongoing regulatory initiatives, except
perhaps in the most extreme cases.”
outside advice on responding to labor activities
and communicating to employees—and even
criminalize failure to disclose the fact that they
do rely on third parties. The NLRB’s “ambush”
election rule, currently tied up in the courts
on procedural matters, likewise decreases the
employer’s options because it significantly
shortens the time between a union’s filing for
election and its holding one.
Other rules include a radical proposal by the
OFCCP [Office of Federal Contract Compliance
Programs] for an affirmative action rule for
disabled workers of government contractors.
It will substantially increase the cost of compli-
ance for government contractors and poten-
tially result in fewer qualified bidders.
There’s much more. For example, redoubled
efforts by the Administration to impose union-
only project labor agreements on government
construction projects, which have been hotly
contested, will if successful effectively shut out
non-union companies—around 80% of
the total pool—from competing for a share
of the biggest projects, at an increased cost to
taxpayers.
We’re also looking at the continued expansion
of wage and hour enforcement and cover-
age. DOL is expected to continue to challenge
employer classifications of workers, both as to
their exempt or non-exempt status for purpos-
es of overtime, as well as the workers’ status as
employees versus independent contractors.
Court challenges are pending against an NLRB
micro bargaining unit rule that makes it easier
for unions to carve out smaller, special interest
segments of the total employee population as
“appropriate units” for union elections. If that
challenge fails, then employers should
expect to see increased union organizing and
a proliferation of bargaining obligations. Also
pending in the court of appeals is a challenge
to the NLRB’s unprecedented notice of rights
poster rule, which would force some six million
employers to post notices telling workers how
to unionize. More NLRB rulings are expected
permitting greater union access rights, and
there have been an increasing number of NLRB
cases involving new challenges to employee
handbooks.
More regulations and tougher enforcement are
also expected now from OSHA, again with po-
tentially significant costs for employers. And,
of course, with Obamacare now impervious
to repeal, all of the economically burdensome
taxes and regulations, primarily aimed at em-
ployers, will become facts of life during 2013.
How has the election impacted Congress’
work on labor issues? What can we
expect over the next two years with
regard to labor legislation?
Maurice Baskin: I would expect legislative
gridlock to continue on the labor issues and
no significant legislation is likely to pass both
houses. This inaction makes all the regulatory
agenda items I’ve mentioned even more im-
portant because it means that there’s not much
chance of undoing or reforming the relevant
legislation, and there’s not much hope of Con-
gress intervening to stanch the flow of ongoing
regulatory initiatives, except perhaps in the
most extreme cases.
What are now the most significant
opportunities for industry and government
to work together on labor issues?
Maurice Baskin: It is hard to envision much if
any industry/government cooperation on labor
issues, in light of the Administration’s regula-
tory agenda and the Congress’s inability to act.
So what this election ultimately means in the
labor and employment arena is that we will be
looking at a long succession of new mandates
and legal challenges over the next four years.
The government will issue orders and, if the
legal challenges fail, employers will have no
choice but to obey, if they can stay in business
at all under the increased regulatory burden.
That is not a recipe for cooperation between
business and government, nor does it seem to
be a good plan for job creation. L

Weekly
26 27
media
lessons
What can businesses learn and leverage
from the ways that candidates utilized
social media during the 2012 election
cycle? Are there trends emerging that
impact public and private sector
outreach alike?
Peter Fenn: This election showed more than
any other—even 2008—the value of the per-
sonal connections that social media facilitate.
We are witnessing a remarkable technological
advance that allows us to precisely target vot-
ers, opinion makers, consumers, and average
Americans in ways that help us determine
what their interests, likes, and dislikes are. In
turn, we are able to reach out to them in ways
that breed a real sense of familiarity. It’s as
if we’re talking to them in the grocery store
aisles or over the backyard fence. In many
ways, it’s as if social media have brought us
“back to the future.”
The Obama Campaign did a tremendous job
of leveraging social media to connect with vot-
Peter Fenn
With the passing of every election cycle, we learn multitudes about the ways in
which the media landscape is evolving.To discuss the lessons gleaned in 2012,
we spoke with Peter Fenn of Fenn Communications Group, one of the nation’s top
political and public affairs media strategists. Since 1983, he has worked on more
than 300 national, statewide, and local campaigns and represented numerous
Fortune 500 companies.
with Peter Fenn

Weekly
28 29
to Facebook friends in swing states to ensure
they got to the polls. The campaign found that
when five of a potential voter’s friends reached
out, that potential voter was transformed into
a real voter because he or she was contacted
by someone familiar, rather than via TV or an
anonymous email address.
That’s the real value of social media—and it is
changing communications as we know it.
ers in ways that were genuine, authentic, and
exceedingly likely to establish strong personal
relationships. Voters weren’t just being con-
tacted by campaign personnel; they were being
influenced by their friends. In the end, that
made all the difference in getting out the vote
and aptly demonstrated the declining value of
traditional advertising.
For instance, Obama supporters could down-
load a mobile application in the final weeks of
the campaign that enabled them to reach out
What did we learn about the future
of traditional media during the 2012
election cycle? In an increasingly digital
world, how are consumers of goods,
services, and public policy interacting
with the television and print outlets that
once dominated the landscape?
Peter Fenn: The latest figures show that $1.1
billion was spent on television advertising—
and my guess is that figure will rise substan-
tially when all is said and done. But the real
question isn’t what was spent; it’s about the
return on that investment. Traditional media
have become the “pay more, get less” option
today. Campaigns feel that they have to engage
on TV and in print, but I would argue that
about 90 percent of that money is wasted.
My sense is that we are going to see more
campaigns putting more resources into social
media in future election cycles. In 2008, politi-
cal messages went viral and garnered tens
of millions of hits. In 2012, those numbers
were even higher. Think about Romney’s “47
Percent” remark or Obama’s “You Didn’t Make
That” claim. More people saw those on their
computers than on TV. That tells us a great
deal about where smart voter outreach is
headed in 2014 and beyond.
How has the public affairs landscape
changed as a result of the election?
Which industries saw their influence
grow? Which will have to work harder
over the next two-to-four years to achieve
their policy goals?
Peter Fenn: Now that the President has won a
second term, we are going to see implementa-
tion of Dodd-Frank and the Affordable Care Act
move full speed ahead. But I believe that this
Administration is one that is willing to work
closely with industry to solve the nation’s big-
gest problems. There will have to be compro-
mises where the fiscal cliff is concerned—and
those compromises may set the stage for real
return to consensus building and cooperation
not only across the political aisle; but between
the public and private sectors as well.
As such, I would advise healthcare and finan-
cial services providers to do all they can to
ensure a seat at the table as Dodd-Frank and
the ACA round out into form. They will have
chances to make their voices heard—and
they need to make the most of every opportu-
nity to do so. L
“social media..is changing communications
as we know it.”

THE REGULATORY
LANDSCAPE
with Andrew Zausner

Weekly
32 33
There are two mitigating factors. One is that
deals on various issues might actually get cut
with Congress that will encourage the Obama
Administration to back off on the regulatory
front to some reasonable degree or another.
The other is that many of the proposed rules
will wind up in court, which at the very least
will give businesses some breathing room. Best
case scenario, they’ll die there.
The industries affected will cover a wide
gamut. There’s no question that fracking will
continue to be a focal point for regulatory ac-
tivity. As an enforcement priority, the consum-
er-oriented provisions of Dodd-Frank should
get a lot of renewed attention from the Obama
Administration. FDA actions will increase
across the board: food, drugs, and tobacco. In
the aftermath of the meningitis outbreak, the
compounding pharmacies will be a target for
some time to come.
What changes are in store for regulatory
budgets across the federal government?
What challenges and opportunities may
arise for the larger business community
as a result of these changes?
Andrew Zausner: While there will be an
invigorated political climate for regulatory
activity, budgetary factors are a stress point,
although enforcement will be the last regula-
tory area that will be cut. In the months ahead,
the lame duck Congress will be focusing on the
fiscal cliff but, whatever the results of those
deliberations, discretionary spending will be
How do you see federal regulatory
prerogatives shifting as a result of the
election? Are there particular areas
that are positioned for greater levels of
scrutiny and enforcement?
Andrew Zausner: During the past four years,
the Obama Administration has shown that,
when it cannot get the results it wants through
legislation, it does so by exercising Executive
Power via regulation. The next four years will
be no different.
Predictably, then, the business community can
expect an unremitting barrage of new regula-
tory burdens as well as an intensified focus on
enforcement. For businesses, the situation is
exacerbated because, for months now, there’s
been a sizable queue of regs at the OMB [Office
of Management and Budget] that the Obama
Administration has not issued or publicly dis-
closed for political reasons during the campaign
season. There will now be a push to clear that
docket, and to create room to introduce more.
affected. That’s something of a mixed bless-
ing for business, as companies’ user fees will
increase, perhaps dramatically.
The salient opportunity for business is probably
not related to the overall budget for regulatory
activity per se, as it involves some decision-
making that has to be made in fat times or lean.
It’s all about the design of any new regulation,
and whether or not there are competitive ad-
vantages for companies in what the final result
looks like. That means businesses must make
decisions whether to fight an impending reg, or
to embrace it—to collaborate in its making in
order to minimize the fallout or, hopefully, real-
ize a marketplace advantage.
How has the election impacted
companies’ ability to work with the
government toward a less burdensome
regulatory environment?
Andrew Zausner: President Obama himself
said it best in 2009: “Elections have conse-
quences.” It seems pretty apparent that this
election has negatively impacted the ability
of companies to use their influence toward
a less burdensome regulatory environment.
That said, all Presidents fret dearly over their
legacies and this one may yet see how a more
collaborative approach on the regulatory front
is very much in his interests.
Andrew Zausner
For commentary on the impact of the elections on federal regulation, LEVICK
spoke to Andrew Zausner, a partner at Dickstein Shapiro LLP and a member of
the firm’s Public Policy & Law Practice. Mr. Zausner has served as counsel on a
myriad of legislative and regulatory issues with a primary focus on matters that
relate to energy and natural resources.Among the legislative issues that he has
concentrated on are the Energy Policy Act of 1992, the National Energy Security
Act of 1991, and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
L

Weekly
34 35
We heard a great deal about tax reform
during the 2012 election cycle. Now
that the voters have spoken, how much
change are we really likely to see? Who
stands to benefit most from potential
reforms? Who will benefit least?
John Kelly: The outlook for tax policy and the
prospects for meaningful tax reform remain
muddled after what amounts to a status quo
election.
What happens prior to the end of the year
when lawmakers attempt to deal with the
approaching fiscal cliff will set the stage for
consideration of tax reform. Congress will con-
vene in a lame duck session over the next six
weeks principally to address the coming fiscal
cliff—the budget sequester, expiring tax cuts,
and the like. With regard to the lame duck
session beginning next week, it is important to
note that Congress will not rewrite the Inter-
nal Revenue Code over the next few weeks.
While it remains to be seen how it plays out
over the coming weeks, there are some conclu-
sions to be drawn with the elections behind
us. By most accounts, any agreement struck
by Congress and the Administration during
lame duck to address the fiscal cliff will likely
extend most if not all the expiring Bush tax
cuts into if not through 2013. If that’s the case,
there will be significant tax reform implica-
tions. A lame duck agreement to temporarily
extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts in and of
itself will establish some context as well as
a budget baseline for a comprehensive tax
reform debate in 2013.
TAX
POLICY
with John Kelly
Congress will likely include a legislative road
map for tax reform in the form of expedited
process and timeline to facilitate passage of
a bill in the next Congress. The House passed
one such measure earlier this year. With the
election results maintaining a relatively slim
Democratic majority in the Senate and a Re-
publican majority in the House, some sort of
fast track legislative process similar to budget
reconciliation may be the only way Congress
can conceivably pass major tax legislation
through both chambers in the next Congress.
A temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts
would naturally establish a deadline for tax re-
form legislation, probably at the end of 2013. Un-
less a tax reform bill is passed in 2013, the fiscal
cliff scenario plays out all over again a year from
now. It is hoped that that may provide enough in-
centive to work productively toward enactment
of comprehensive reform legislation.
With respect to the actual content of tax reform,
clearly the Obama and Romney campaigns had
vastly different visions. We are not likely to
see fundamental changes to the tax system in
Obama’s second term relative to what a Romney
administration would have put forward.
Although the smoke has yet to clear, winners
in terms of tax policy include the renewable
energy sector, which has seen mounting criti-
cism of targeted tax breaks designed to jump-
start the industry. Many of those tax credits
are set to expire. Tax provisions favoring the
manufacturing sector such as the research
credit will continue to receive support from
John Kelly
For insights on how the 2012 elections will affect tax policy, we spoke to John
Kelly of Cornerstone Government Affairs. Mr. Kelly has 25 years of government
relations work in public and private sector tax policy. He was formerly Director
of Federal Government Relations for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and served as the Tax
Legislative Advisor to the Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy at the U.S. Treasury
Department, where he led the Office of Tax Policy legislative efforts.

Weekly
37
36
this administration. Conversely, oil and gas pro-
visions targeted by Obama during the campaign
will be in play as a way of paying for other
tax proposals or addressing mounting budget
deficits deficit. U.S. corporations with overseas
operations will continue to be forced to defend
against the perception that competition in the
international marketplace comes at the expense
of U.S. jobs.
To the extent that any major tax policy changes
are ultimately made permanent, in the long run
businesses will benefit from by certainty in the
tax laws. U.S. businesses have been hampered
by a tax code teeming with temporary and
expiring provisions. We expect a great deal of
focus on eliminating temporary tax provisions
from the code if they can’t be made permanent.
What do large corporations and small
businesses need to be doing now to pre-
pare for the most likely changes in tax
policy? How can they best leverage the
changes to come?
John Kelly: U.S. businesses, large and small,
need to be engaged in discussions with law-
makers surrounding inevitable changes in tax
policy in the next Congress. The status quo
election may have narrowed the scope of tax
reform options. But the most substantive debate
over tax policy in decades will take place in
the next Congress whether or not legislation is
signed into law.
Large businesses will have to come to terms
with the idea that, for example, a reduction in
the corporate tax rate will come at a cost. Under
Obama, international tax policy will be viewed
more through the prism of deficit reduction and
compliance rather than competitiveness and
simplification. U.S. multinationals will find little
clarity in this area as a result of the election.
Small businesses, especially pass-through enti-
ties like partnerships, S Corporations and sole
proprietorships, will inevitably get swept up in
debate over individual tax rates. Under Obama,
the top individual tax rates—those paid by
pass-throughs—will not be reduced and are
likely to increase for those in the top brack-
ets. That said, any reduction in the corporate
rate brings into play numerous business tax
benefits affecting both corporations and small
business pass-throughs. Certain small business
ownership structures such as master limited
partnerships will also face scrutiny.
Businesses in general need to frame the dis-
cussion over tax reform in terms of economic
recovery and job creation before tax policy de-
cisions are made law makers in the context of
deficit reduction and higher taxes. Tax reform
will inevitably involve winners and losers and,
if there is a takeaway from the election, the list
of winners in the business sector got shorter
while the list of losers may have gotten longer.
What changes are in store for the
Treasury Department as a result of
the election?
John Kelly: Treasury Secretary Timothy
Geithner announced his intention to leave
the administration at the end of Obama’s first
term. The choice of Geithner’s successor will
send an important signal for how high a prior-
ity tax reform will be in the President’s second
term. Comprehensive tax reform and, for that
matter, any major tax legislation is virtually
impossible without Presidential support and
leadership. In the run-up to 1986, the last
major rewrite of the tax code, Treasury
played a critical role throughout a process
that began with a plan drafted by President
Reagan’s Treasury Secretary at the end of his
first term in 1984.
Speculation over President Obama’s pick for
Treasury Secretary in his second term has
centered around two contenders: White House
Chief of Staff Jack Lew and Erskine Bowles
who co-chaired the President’s bipartisan
deficit reduction panel. By many accounts Lew
has an inside track. He served the President
as director of OMB and in 2010, he served as
one of Obama’s key negotiators when the Bush
tax cuts were temporarily extended. But it was
his role in the failed budget negotiations in the
summer of 2011 (the so called Grand Bargain)
that drew sharp criticism from Congressional
Republicans. Consequently a nomination to
Treasury Secretary may not be viewed as a
post- election olive branch when it comes to
tax reform.
In contrast, if Obama were to nominate Bowles
as Treasury Secretary, it would be a sign that
the President intends to prioritize tax reform
during his second term. The President’s deficit
panel, the so called Simpson Bowles Commis-
sion, laid out several options for comprehen-
sive tax reform though the report was largely
ignored by the administration. Bowles enjoys
good relationships with members of congress
on both sides of the aisle by virtue of his time
on the committee. Interestingly, Bowles has
had kind things to say about Paul Ryan’s bud-
get plan, which passed the Republican con-
trolled House earlier this year.
I would expect President Obama to make tax
reform a centerpiece of his State of the Union
address in February and to use the occasion to
instruct his new Treasury Secretary to draft a
comprehensive tax reform proposal.
Either way, the Treasury Secretary must be
confirmed in the Senate and face a confirma-
tion hearing before the Senate Finance Com-
mittee chaired by Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT). We
can assume tax reform will be front and center
in the confirmation process regardless of the
nominee for Treasury Secretary. L

39
what’s next at
USDA
― with ―
Jessica Adelman
How do you see priorities shifting
at USDA as a result of the election?
Are there particular issues that are
positioned for greater scrutiny?
Jessica Adelman: As with a number of regula-
tory agencies across the federal government, I
think that we can expect the positive trends at
USDA to continue into the President’s second
term. Most important, USDA has done an
outstanding job of recognizing where process
improvements could take place and acting
to implement them. I would expect that con-
structive trend to continue; as agriculture is an
economic story this Administration can hold
up as a success.
The acceleration of biotechnology trait deregu-
lation is a great example. Agricultural exports
are one of the brightest spots in this economy.
We were seeing what had previously been a
smooth regulatory process bogged down by
hurdles and litigation. That enabled key global
competitors—such as Brazil—to gain access to
Jessica Adelman
For an in-depth look at what to expect from the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) under President Obama’s second term, we spoke with Jessica Adelman,
Vice President for North America Corporate Affairs at Syngenta. Ms.Adelman
oversees numerous teams throughout the United States who focus on federal
government relations, media relations, thought leadership, corporate social
responsibility, internal communications and agriculture industry affairs.

Weekly
40
the best agricultural technologies ahead of the
U.S. farmer. Now, the USDA—led by a Secretary
who understands just how crucial this issue is
to American competitiveness—has pledged to
cut the red tape and reassert itself as the criti-
cal farm partner.
I would hope and expect that level of coopera-
tion to continue to be a USDA hallmark mov-
ing forward.
What is in store for the USDA budget?
How might impending cuts impact the
companies that USDA regulates?
Jessica Adelman: The big question comes in
terms of the Farm Bill, which has two com-
ponents—Fair Play and Nutrition Titles—that
will be competing for limited resources. Nu-
trition Titles include initiatives such as food
stamps and school lunch programs that are
going to be very challenging to cut from a
political perspective. That means farmers and
food manufacturers are going to need to pull
congressional leaders and the White House
together to help ensure that Fair Play funding
levels remain conducive to U.S. grower success
in global markets.
In terms of inspections and enforcement, I
don’t see USDA dropping off in any significant
fashion. The agency is more consumer-facing
than most and the team there is great at what
they do. They understand their responsibility
to the American public and, regardless of
BLOGS worth following
Thought leaders
Amber Naslund
brasstackthinking.com
Amber Naslund is a coauthor of The Now Revolution.
The book discusses the impact of the social web
and how businesses need to “adapt to the new era
of instantaneous business.
Brian Halligan
hubspot.com/company/management/brian-halligan
HubSpot CEO and Founder.
Chris Brogan
Chrisbrogan.com
Chris Brogan is an American author, journalist,
marketing consultant, and frequent speaker about
social media marketing.
David Meerman Scott
davidmeermanscott.com
David Meerman Scott is an American online
marketing strategist, and author of several books
on marketing, most notably The New Rules of
Marketing and PR with over 250,000 copies in
print in more than 25 languages.
Guy Kawasaki
guykawasaki.com
Guy Kawasaki is a Silicon Valley venture capitalist,
bestselling author, and Apple Fellow. He was one
of the Apple employees originally responsible for
marketing the Macintosh in 1984.
Jay Baer
jaybaer.com
Jay Baer is coauthor of, “The Now Revolution: 7
Shifts to Make Your Business Faster, Smarter and
More Social.
Rachel Botsman
rachelbotsman.com
Rachel Botsman is a social innovator who writes,
consults and speaks on the power of collaboration
and sharing through network technologies.
Seth Godin
sethgodin.typepad.com
Seth Godin is an American entrepreneur, author
and public speaker. Godin popularized the topic
of permission marketing.
Industry blogs
Holmes Report
holmesreport.com
A source of news, knowledge, and career
information for public relations professionals.
NACD Blog
blog.nacdonline.org
The National Association of Corporate Directors
(NACD) blog provides insight on corporate
governanceand leading board practices.
PR Week
prweekus.com
PRWeek is a vital part of the PR and communications
industries in the US, providing timely news, reviews,
profiles, techniques, and ground-breaking research.
PR Daily News
prdaily.com
PR Daily provides public relations professionals,
social media specialists and marketing
communicators with a daily news feed.
BUSINESS Related
FastCompany
fastcompany.com
Fast Company is the world’s leading progressive
business media brand, with a unique editorial
focus on business, design, and technology.
Forbes
Forbes.com
Forbes is a leading source for reliable business
news and financial information for the Worlds
business leaders.
Mashable
mashable.com
Social Media news blog covering cool new websites
and social networks.
budget cuts, I am sure they will do their best
to fulfill their duties wherever food safety
is concerned.
How do you see USDA’s relationship with
industry evolving over the next four years?
Jessica Adelman: I see the potential for a great
deal of cooperation between USDA and the
industry it regulates. Right now, everyone has
a vested interest in creating jobs and getting
the economy moving again. That means there
is room for farmers and food manufacturers
to start a conversation about how USDA can
play the critical catalyst role in helping the U.S.
farmer remain competitive.
As I noted earlier, what we’ve seen in the area
of biotech deregulation is a great example of
how farmers, industry, and regulators can
work together to strengthen this critical compo-
nent of the American economy. If we see more
of the same, as I suspect, that can only be a
good thing. L

Articles
Bloomberg Television | November 6, 2012
Taking Stock With Pimm Fox
PR Week | November 6, 2012
PR Pros Call the 2012 Election in Advance for Obama
CNN Money | November 6, 2012
Election 2012: Corporate America Gets Feisty
Seeking Alpha | November 5, 2012
Will The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Grow Stronger Or Die After The Election?
Business 2 Community | November 4, 2012
Interview with Crisis Communications Expert Richard Levick—Part 1
US News | November 1, 2012
Crisis Management Experts say Sen. Bob Menendez Prostitution Story Won’t Stick
IN THE NEWS
THE URGENCY
OF NOW.

Levick Weekly - Nov 9 2012

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (12)

More from LEVICK

More from LEVICK (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Levick Weekly - Nov 9 2012