One of America’s Fastest-Growing Lobbying Firms - Ranked by Bloomberg

A Look at What’s On Tap for the December Work Period

Congress has funded the government into early 2024, but lawmakers must still contend with several year-end legislative priorities when they return after the Thanksgiving holiday. Notably, a bipartisan group of senators plans to resume negotiations over a supplemental appropriations package that could potentially include buckets of funding for Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan in exchange for additional border spending and policy changes. The negotiations have proven to be a tough slog throughout the fall, especially given the lack of appetite among House conservatives for additional foreign spending. Other items that need to be addressed prior to the end of the year include the fiscal year (FY) 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) as well as reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

  • Government Funding Update. Leadership will look to get the appropriations process back on track with the goal of clinching a broader fiscal year (FY) 2024 spending deal. According to intel from Capitol Hill, the Senate is eyeing another “minibus” package that would contain funding bills for Defense, Labor-HHS-Education, Energy-Water, and Commerce-Justice-Science. With the House’s process on ice over several intraparty disputes within the GOP majority, bipartisan cooperation will be needed among Senate leaders and Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) to clinch a deal for next year’s spending levels.

A look at Speaker Mike Johnson’s Legislative Agenda

House Republicans have formally elected Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) to serve as Speaker of the House, drawing a merciful end to the 22-day ordeal after former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) was ousted. Speaker Johnson has a tall task ahead of him with getting the House back to business, especially when it comes to several pending “must-pass” items. In a letter to GOP lawmakers earlier this week, the new Speaker outlined his vision for floor activity in 2023 and beyond:

 

  • Speaker Johnson proposed the following schedule for considering appropriations bills on the House floor: (1) Energy-Water Development prior to the end of this week; (2) Legislative Branch, Interior-Environment, and Transportation-HUD next week; (3) Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) and Commerce-Justice-Science (CJS) the week of November 6; and (4) Labor-HHS-Education and Agriculture-FDA the week of November 13. In an attempt to quell lingering disagreements over the Labor-HHS-Education and Agriculture-FDA spending measures, the Speaker is proposing to discharge these bills from the Appropriations Committee and stand up a Member working group to address these issues. The Speaker also suggested another continuing resolution (CR) to keep the government funded past the end of the year, through January 14 or April 15, 2024, as well as passing all appropriations bills by the end of the November work period.

 

  • Supplemental Funding. Military and economic assistance for both Israel and Ukraine was notably absent from the new speaker’s letter, which could put him at odds with both the White House and senators on both sides of the aisle that have been working on a bipartisan supplemental funding bill. Ukraine funding in particular has been a point of contention within the House GOP Conference, but some on the Hill have speculated that Speaker Johnson could opt to leverage these funds for additional funding and reforms for U.S.-Mexico border security. However, it is too early to tell whether this idea has enough momentum at this point.

 

  • Speaker Johnson is pushing for negotiations with the Senate on a final version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) by the end of next month, followed by a floor vote in December. Conferees will have a tall task this year of reconciling the differences between both bills, as there are several provisions within the House version that could impede the path to passage in both chambers.

 

  • Farm Bill. Consideration of the 2023 Farm Bill will occur in the December work period, according to the timeline that Speaker Johnson proposed. He plans to begin negotiations with the Senate “as soon as possible,” but it is growing increasingly likely that a new farm bill will not be passed until 2024. The new speaker will need to reconcile lingering disagreements over Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) program benefits, higher crop subsidies, and climate funding to clinch another long-term deal.

 

  • Looking Ahead to 2024. Speaker Johnson outlined an ambitious legislative schedule for next year, especially when the upcoming 2024 election cycle is factored in. The Speaker is hopeful to build a consensus within the GOP conference on FY 2025 funding levels, assuming that a FY 2024 deal is hammered out sometime within the first quarter of next year. Other notable callouts in the 2024 agenda include consideration of several “must-pass” items during the May-July work period next year, including: (1) House FY 2025 spending bills (2) the FY 2025 NDAA during May-July of next year; and (3) the 2024 Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). Speaker Johnson’s goal is to have all of these items negotiated with the Senate ahead of the final stretch of the 2024 campaign in October.

 

  • Situational awareness. While House Republicans were jubilant after finally finding a successor to former Speaker McCarthy, Speaker Johnson must now navigate the aftermath of the three-week saga that saw contentious intraparty clashing among Republican lawmakers. With less than a month to go until the November 17 government funding deadline — as well as limited floor bandwidth for the balance of the year — the newly-elected Speaker will need to walk a tough political tightrope to appease both moderates and conservatives within his own party, as well as find common ground with Senate Democratic leadership and the White House on items that require bipartisan support.

 

House Remains Speakerless After Scalise Drops Out

The House speaker race is back to square one after Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA) withdrew himself from consideration on the floor.

Leader Scalise’s decision came as more than a dozen House Republicans came out against his nomination, either in favor of Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-OH), former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), or someone else. Chair Jordan is reportedly working the Conference to shore up support for another bid to claim the speaker’s gavel. However, the Ohio Republican is facing some math problems of his own, as five House Republicans — Reps. Ann Wagner (R-MO), Austin Scott (R-GA), Mike Simpson (R-ID), Carlos Gimenez (R-FL), and John Rutherford (R-FL) — are currently opposed to his speakership campaign.
  • What’s next? The Conference has gaveled in for another round of internal speaker nominations this morning, at which point Chair Jordan is expected be nominated as a candidate. Other potential nominees that have been floated within GOP circles include House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-MN), Republican Study Committee Chair Kevin Hern (R-OK), Conference Chair Elise Stefanik (R-NY), as well as Reps. Mike Johnson (R-LA), Tom Cole (R-OK), and Byron Donalds (R-FL). However, no one else has officially launched a bid as of this writing. Additionally, lawmakers are mulling the possibility of giving the current Speaker Pro Tempore Patrick McHenry (R-NC) additional authority to bring legislation to the floor — something that could require cooperation with Democrats if some form of rules or legislative change is needed — as well as nominating him for the full-time position within the Conference.
— NEXT WEEK IN CONGRESS. Both chambers are slated to resume legislative business next week, starting first with the Senate on Monday. The upper chamber is slated to focus on pending nominations next week, which could include Jack Lew’s nomination to be Ambassador to Israel as the White House scrambles to fill the post amid the Israeli-Hamas conflict. We will also be watching to see what happens on the government funding front, as senators were in the process of considering a three-bill “minibus” before pivoting to the short-term CR during last month’s session. Meanwhile, House legislative business will remain at a standstill until the next round of speaker votes, but committee activity will resume as normal off the floor.

A Look at How Congress Reached a Last-Minute Deal to Avoid a Shutdown

The federal government is open for business today after lawmakers pulled out a surprise last-minute deal to keep the lights on for the next 45 days. Here’s a look at what happened and what it means for the rest of the 2023 legislative calendar.

Continue reading “A Look at How Congress Reached a Last-Minute Deal to Avoid a Shutdown”

What We’re Hearing on Government Funding as Congress Returns

Lawmakers will gavel in today as they look to avert a government shutdown ahead of Saturday’s deadline. Here’s a look at where things stand and what we’re hearing as Congress scrambles to fund the government:

Continue reading “What We’re Hearing on Government Funding as Congress Returns”

In BGov, TRP’s Andy Rosenberg Offers Commentary on Lobbying & AI

Thorn Run’s Andy Rosenberg recently sat down for an interview with Bloomberg Government for an article that describes how government affairs firms like TRP are approaching the rise of artificial intelligence (AI).

Rosenberg astutely notes that, while AI is not a substitute for the human element of government relations, the industry must learn to embrace it.

“If we want to be known, and if we want to be effective, as lobbyists in this space, we ought to use the technology,” said Rosenberg. “Our entire team needs to be trained on how to harness AI, but also not to become lazy or over-reliant on it. It can’t replace critical thinking or strategic planning, and at present it will never get the voice just right.”

The article in its entirety can be viewed below.

Lobbyists Flirt with AI While Remaining Cautious of its Promises

Lobbyists are scrambling to put their imprint on federal oversight of artificial intelligence and grappling with its influence on their own profession even as they predict robot-lobbyists will likely remain in the realm of science fiction.

Some lobbyists say they’re willing to embrace generative AI. They have begun to experiment with it to ease tedious and time-consuming tasks, such as legislative analysis, background research and drafting client memos. Others, eyeing it with trepidation, say they’re holding off to see how it evolves.

Lobbying in the future, they predict, will still hinge largely on human connections and relationships – the kind cultivated over late-night deal-making in congressional offices or grueling, junk-food-fueled weeks on the campaign trail.

Still, lobbyists are reckoning with possible dramatic shifts in how they, and the officials they seek to influence, do their jobs.

“AI will never replace the human element of lobbying,” said Andy Rosenberg, a founder of the lobbying firm Thorn Run Partners. “But with regard to our business, and the way we service our clients, we have to embrace it.”

Health care, financial services and technology companies are all looking to influence Capitol Hill and the executive branch on whether and how to regulate AI. It’s a hot topic in Congress. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) is hosting a who’s who of executives, including Tesla’s Elon Musk, Sept. 13 for a forum on AI.

Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, right, shakes hands with Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) before the start of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law Subcommittee hearing on Oversight of A.I. on May 16.

Lawmakers already have offered legislation this Congress dealing with AI including a bill (H.R. 4223) to create a national AI commission and measures (H.R, 5077, S. 2714) that would set out a shared infrastructure for AI research.

Rosenberg says lobbyists need to be familiar with the technology if they’re to speak with credibility to lawmakers and clients.

“If we want to be known, and if we want to be effective, as lobbyists in this space, we ought to use the technology,” said Rosenberg whose shop is using AI for early drafts of writing and for policy research. “Our entire team needs to be trained on how to harness AI, but also not to become lazy or over-reliant on it. It can’t replace critical thinking or strategic planning, and at present it will never get the voice just right.”

The rise of social media and online activism, even the Zoom advocacy of the Covid pandemic, has not supplanted in-person lobbying. Veteran lobbyists say they don’t expect AI will, either, at least not anytime soon.

“If you can have 10 virtual meetings a day versus three or four in person, I would take those three or four. Points resonate better in person,” said Joseph Hoefer, a lobbyist at Monument Advocacy, who regularly gives presentations, to clients and potential clients, on how AI might transform lobbying.

More likely, he said, it’ll save a lobbying team on the backend; instead of hours reading through legislation, AI can analyze text in minutes. A human still has to read it now.
“We don’t really trust it yet,” he said.

Tricky Balance
That makes for a tricky balance. Not using AI might put a firm at a competitive disadvantage, while going all-in too quickly poses risks, Hoefer said.

Michael O’Brien, vice president of global public affairs for BSA | The Software Alliance, said that lobbyists, like members of Congress, are “trying to wrap their arms around this technology and what it means – and whether it presents any specific risks.”

Some also say they worry about AI-generated lobbying campaigns confusing Congress about what their real constituents think about an issue.

“AI could be used for nefarious purposes to simulate or impersonate constituent communications,” said Brad Fitch, president and CEO of the Congressional Management Foundation. “The good news is Congress is taking it seriously.”

Paul Miller, a longtime lobbyist, said he’s been a skeptic but has come to believe that AI will transform his profession.

The National Institute for Lobbying and Ethics, a group he started, is planning a Zoom session later this month dubbed “Harnessing the Power of AI in Modern Advocacy Campaigns.”

Game-Changer
“I am actually becoming a believer that this can really truly be a game-changer,” Miller said, adding that AI will require updates to his group’s code of ethics but holds promise to “save us a lot of time.”

Miller and others said they’d resist using AI to write proposed legislative text, a possibility that raises thorny questions for lobbyists and lawmakers. But, he said, it could help smaller lobbying shops, like his, analyze legislation more quickly, perhaps helping it compete with larger firms.

Even though he sees the upside of AI, Miller said he worries that companies and groups will want to downsize their lobbying teams.

“That is a reality that could happen,” he said.

Cristina Antelo, who runs Ferox Strategies, said some of her firm’s junior team members use AI tools to help them monitor and transcribe congressional hearings. She said it still requires people to read and edit it.

New companies have popped up, including one called Rescript, pitching lobbyists on its tools to automatically cover hearings and generate memos, according to emails sent to lobbyists. Rescript did not return a request for comment.

Rich Gold, who runs the lobbying practice at Holland & Knight, said the firm is doing a “comprehensive look” at places to use AI but noted that “everything is in the formative stage.” He said emerging companies show promise in covering what happens at congressional hearings, for example.

“I don’t think anything can replace the ability to walk into a room, read your audience in 15-30 seconds and be able to convey a message,” he said.

Chloe Autio, director of policy at The Cantellus Group, which advises clients on AI and other emerging technology, said she’s surprised lobbyists aren’t using AI tools more now. But she noted one of the possible pitfalls: “If you’re relying on something for lobbying or policy advocacy, you really want to make sure whatever source it came from is real and verifiable.”

‘Getting Our Feet Wet’
The Public Affairs Council, a group for lobbyists and communications executives, wrote this spring about how ChatGPT might change the industry. ChatGPT wrote the introduction.

“I told my team: ‘Start playing around with ChatGPT, but remember you’re the boss of ChatGPT, it’s not the boss of you,’” said Laura Horsley, senior director of marketing and communications for the Public Affairs Council. “We’re in the getting our feet wet stage.”

Horsley said her group is wary and extra careful when using the tools but noted that it can “open up new ideas and ways of thinking about something,” including designing images.

Humans are still better at crafting eye-catching messages, said Adam Kovacevich, founder and CEO of Chamber of Progress, a left-leaning tech industry group. He doesn’t expect robots to dominate K Street. AI text, he said, doesn’t have the same kind of flair that a person can infuse in their messaging.

“Part of your job is to stand out,” he said. “A big part of lobbying has always been relationships, and that’s not going to change.”

In IHP, TRP’s Shea McCarthy Forecasts Congressional Activity on Medicare Physician Pay Reforms

In an article for Inside Health Policy, TRP Partner Shea McCarthy offered his take on where things stand regarding potential for Medicare physician pay reforms to advance in Congress later this year.

Given the ongoing challenges faced by physician practices due to the rising cost of doing business and workforce shortages, McCarthy suggested that Congress should seriously consider policies to increase pay for physician’s services. “While Congress provided some certainty to physician practices in the 1.25% increase in Medicare payments for 2024, they’ll need to take a really hard look at whether that’s adequate in light of the 3.36% reduction anticipated by CMS, high rates of medical inflation, and workforce shortage issues that have impacted every specialty across the house of medicine,” said McCarthy.

The article in its entirety can be read below:

AMA Pushes Medicare Pay Revisions While Family Docs, Surgeons Square Off Over E/M Add-On

The American Medical Association has support from more than 100 lawmakers for long-term Medicare physician pay reform, while specialists and family physicians clash over a new evaluation and management code for complex patients that contributed to the overall drop in CMS’ proposed 2024 conversion factor. But lobbyists don’t expect long-term physician payment reform to move until next year or beyond, and are looking at various potential shorter-term pay relief options.

Some lobbyists believe that with doctors facing a proposed 3.3% pay cut, including a small patch for 2024 that was passed at the end of last year, lawmakers will have to step in with some relief. But others believe an extension of the alternative pay model bonus could have a better shot of being included in year-end legislation than an overall pay bump.

Inside Health Policy previously reported that a bipartisan group of House members was gathering support for Medicare physician pay reform in the run up to a House Energy & Commerce oversight subcommittee hearing on the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act. AMA recently touted the letter, noting that more than 100 House lawmakers ultimately signed on.

“The letter points out the problematic Medicare payment system that fails patients because physician practices are struggling to keep their doors open amidst spiking inflation and rising costs. As a pillar of its Recovery Plan for America’s Physicians, the American Medical Association has urged member of Congress to take up Medicare reform to ensure that patients will have access to health care,” AMA says.

But since the letter went to House leadership in late June, lobbyists have become skeptical that long-term physician pay reform could move. Many believe Congress will have neither the time nor the money to tackle longer-term reforms before the end of the year, especially as physicians have been pushing for an annual provider pay bump tied to the Medicare Economic Index and that could be pricey.

One lobbyist told IHP the hearing and House letter signal lawmakers’ acknowledgement of the need for a long-term fix, but it could take a year, or even two, before Congress has the bandwidth to tackle longer-term reforms.

What, if anything, Congress might do in the next few months is still up in the air, the lobbyist said.

Rodney Whitlock, vice president at McDermott+Consulting, said most people think Congress must take action before the year ends to tackle the 3.3% drop in the conversion factor in the proposed 2024 physician fee schedule, though it’s not clear how that would get that accomplished given the cloudy congressional forecast, and others agreed.

However, a third lobbyist said that since Congress passed a 1.25% patch for the 2024 physician fee schedule at the end of last year, additional patches are unlikely.

“While Congress provided some certainty to physician practices in the 1.25% increase in Medicare payments for 2024, they’ll need to take a really hard look at whether that’s adequate in light of the 3.36% reduction anticipated by CMS, high rates of medical inflation, and workforce shortage issues that have impacted every specialty across the house of medicine,” said Shea McCarthy, partner at Thorn Run Partners.

When CMS proposed a 3.3% decrease to the conversion factor, the agency pointed to the lower, 1.25% mitigation factor from Congress and changes to evaluation and management pay, including the implementation of the add-on code for complex evaluation and management services, as driving forces behind its calculations. The add-on code has earned support from the American Academy of Family Physicians, and American College of Physicians, while surgical organizations have opposed its implementation.

“If implemented, this code will inappropriately result in overpayments to those using it while at the same time penalizing all physicians due to a reduction in the Medicare conversion factor that will be required to maintain budget neutrality under the PFS,” the surgical organizations say in a July 26 letter to CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure.

On the other hand, AAFP and ACP say in their letter that the add-on code is “long overdue, necessary, and will ultimately ensure the Medicare program provides patients with timely access to longitudinal, comprehensive, coordinated, whole-person care.”

Julius Hobson, senior policy advisor at Polsinelli, said an extension of the alternative pay model bonus past the end of the 2023 is more likely than an overall pay bump meant to counteract the conversion factor cut — but even that still could be difficult given the current fiscal climate.

The Value in Health Care Act, which would extend the APM bonus at 5% for two years, was recently introduced by Reps. Darin LaHood (R-IL) and Suzan DelBene (D-WA) and backed by close to 20 physician groups. The APM bonuses were extended at 3.5% last year, which one lobbyist noted was due to budget constraints.

However, Aisha Pittman, National Association of Accountable Care Organizations’ senior vice president of government affairs, said the 5% APM bonuses are important to ensure providers’ incentives for participating in APMs are larger than the incentives for the Merit-based Incentive Payment System.

“We’re hopeful that Congress does another extension of the incentive payments at the end of the year while we continue to discuss the ideal long-term approach,” she said

POLITICO Lists TRP Among Top Ten Lobbying Firms for 2023 Q2

Thorn Run Partners is proud to officially rank among the nation’s top 10 lobbying firms according to POLITICO Influence — the leading government affairs beat in Washington, D.C. Since its founding in 2010, TRP has consistently ranked among Washington’s fastest-growing lobbying firms according to analyses from POLITICO, The Hill, Bloomberg Government, and others.

“Claiming a spot in POLITICO’s Top Ten is a meaningful milestone and is a point of pride for everyone at our firm.” said TRP co-founders Chris Lamond and Andy Rosenberg. “We are excited about the prospects of continued growth and success for 2023 and into the future.”

Here are POLITICO’s Lobbying Disclosure Act revenue rankings for the second quarter of 2022.

  1. Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck: $15.7 million (versus $15.8 million in Q1 2023 and $15.3 million in Q2 2022)
  2. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld: $13.4 million (versus $13.3 million in Q1 2023 and $13.4 million in Q2 2022)
  3. Holland & Knight: $12 million (versus $10.8 million in Q1 2023 and $10.8 million in Q2 2022)
  4. Cornerstone Government Affairs: $10.6 million (versus $9.8 million in Q1 2023 and $9.3 million in Q2 2022)
  5. BGR Group: $10.3 million (versus $10.2 million in Q1 2023 and $9.6 million in Q2 2022)
  6. Invariant: $9.7 million (versus $9.7 million in Q1 2023 and $9.4 million in Q2 2022)
  7. Thorn Run Partners: $7 million (versus $6.5 million in Q1 2023 and $6.7 million in Q2 2022)
  8. Mehlman Consulting: $6.6 million (versus $6.4 million in Q1 2023 and $6.6 million in Q2 2022)
  9. Capitol Counsel: $6.5 million (versus $6.2 million in Q1 2023 and $6.3 million in Q2 2022)
  10. Crossroads Strategies: $6.3 million (versus $5.9 million in Q1 2023 and $5.9 million in Q2 2022)
  11. Forbes Tate Partners: $6.1 million (versus $6.2 million in Q1 2023 and $6.23 million in Q2 2022)
  12. Tiber Creek Group: $6.1 million (versus $5.8 million in Q1 2023 and $6.4 million in Q2 2022)
  13. Squire Patton Boggs: $5.8 million (versus $5.8 million in Q1 2023 and $6.8 million in Q2 2022)
  14. Cassidy & Associates: $5.7 million (versus $5.3 million in Q1 2023 and $5.5 million in Q2 2022)
  15. Van Scoyoc Associates: $5.5 million (versus $4.8 million in Q1 2023 and $5.5 million in Q2 2022)
  16. Subject Matter+Kivvit: $4.8 million (versus $4.8 million in Q1 2023 and $4.9 million in Q2 2022)
  17. Alpine Group: $4.7 million (versus $4.6 million in Q1 2023 and $4.3 million in Q2 2022)
  18. Ballard Partners: $4.6 million (versus $4.5 million in Q1 2023 and $4.9 million in Q2 2022)
  19. Monument Advocacy: $4.3 million (versus $3.9 million in Q1 2023 and $3.3 million in Q2 2022)
  20. Tarplin, Downs & Young: $4.2 million* (versus $3.8 million* in Q1 2023 and $3.9 million* in Q2 2022)