Double agents: NJ lobbyists playing both sides in political controversies

A watchdog group reports that New Jersey lobbyists are working for both the culprits and the victims in some of the Garden State’s most celebrated controversies, ranging from health care to climate change.

The Princeton Public Affairs Group (PPAG) worked on behalf of the New Jersey Outdoor Alliance, a grassroots coalition of outdoorsmen and outdoorswomen dedicated to environmental stewardship.

On behalf of the Association of Environmental Authorities, PPAG secured the introduction of legislation that requires a thorough review and evaluation before a municipality is permitted to dissolve a local sewer, water or utilities authorities. PPAG additionally secured amendments to legislation to clarify compensation provisions involving authority employees.

PPAG also represents most of the major fossil fuel companies doing business in the state, including TC Energy, Atlantic Richfield, and the sponsors of the now-canceled PennEast Pipeline.

The obvious conflict between fossil fuel companies that are the primary source of emissions that cause global warming and any environmental cause

PPAG also lobbies on behalf of 18 different healthcare interests, including the Nemours Foundation.

A September 2022 report from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection found that the climate crisis will have increasingly severe effects on residents’ physical and mental health, especially among low-income communities and people with chronic health conditions.

Princeton Public Affairs Group (PPAG), a well-established lobbying firm in New Jersey, represents a wide range of clients with seemingly conflicting interests.

Doris Duke was a renowned environmentalist who dedicated a significant portion of her wealth to a foundation established in her name, to continue the mission of funding environmental projects worldwide.

PPAG represents both the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation (DDCF) and a trio of clients with seemingly opposing interests: BP America Inc, Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO), and the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM).

These companies are major players in the fossil fuel industry, which has a significantly harmful environmental impact. Additionally, PPAG lobbies for the Association of Environmental Authorities, a group tasked with protecting the environment.

This situation raises a red flag. How can a lobbying firm advocate for environmental protection while simultaneously representing companies whose practices can be detrimental to the environment? There’s a potential for PPAG to prioritize the interests of their high-paying fossil fuel clients over the environmental mission of the DDCF and the Association of Environmental Authorities.

Here are some more examples that raise questions about potential ethical concerns and how PPAG manages these situations.

Health: PPAG lobbies for both health insurance companies (e.g., Aetna, Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield) and healthcare providers (e.g., RWJ Barnabas Health, Hackensack Meridian Health). This could create a situation where PPAG advocates for policies that benefit insurers but limit reimbursement rates for hospitals.

Addiction: PPAG represents both organizations that help people overcome addiction (e.g., 180 Turning Lives Around) and companies that sell potentially addictive products (e.g., Altria Client Services, which represents Philip Morris USA). This creates an ethical dilemma, as PPAG could be advocating for policies that both support addiction treatment and make it harder to regulate addictive substances.

Cannabis: PPAG lobbies for both traditional healthcare providers and the cannabis industry (e.g., NJ Marijuana Retailers Association). There could be a conflict if PPAG pushes for policies that benefit dispensaries while hindering access for patients through traditional medical channels.

Education: The firm represents both private schools (e.g., NJ Private School Council) and public education interests (e.g., Morris County Education Services Commission). PPAG might navigate a situation where they advocate for increased funding for education but also for policies that favor private schools over public ones.

PPAG doesn’t disclose how they handle these potential conflicts. Lobbying firms could create internal walls to prevent information sharing between teams representing opposing interests.

Overall, Princeton Public Affairs Group’s representation of clients with potentially conflicting interests highlights the complexities of lobbying and the importance of transparency in such practices.