After serving Springfield, Massachusetts in the U.S. House for thirty years, Democratic Rep. Richard Neal achieved a major milestone in January 2019 by becoming the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, giving him significant influence over the nation’s tax code. His son, Brendan Neal, started his own public affairs firm dedicated to political advice, lobbying, and strategic communications at the age of 45.
Soon after, Richard Neal’s campaign committee began making regular payments to Brendan Neal’s firm for strategic consulting services. These payments, totaling $196,340 by August, raised questions about potential conflicts of interest. Brendan Neal had also received payments from other entities with interests before the Ways and Means Committee, such as lobbying firms and businesses in Springfield.
While Brendan Neal’s lobbying work began before receiving funds from his father’s campaign, he secured a lucrative contract with a Boston-based technology company. This raised concerns among tax advocacy groups and progressives about potential conflicts of interest, given Richard Neal’s influential position on tax policy.
Richard Neal, who is known for being a powerful force in tax policy and has close ties to industries that fund his campaign, is set to lead the House Ways and Means Committee through significant tax negotiations. However, critics view him as too close to special interests and a barrier to closing tax loopholes that benefit corporations and wealthy individuals.
The relationship between Richard and Brendan Neal has come under scrutiny, with concerns raised about potential corruption and conflicts of interest. While both declined to be interviewed, Richard Neal’s office stated that Brendan Neal does not lobby his father or the Ways and Means Committee. Brendan Neal defended his work, emphasizing his experience in various roles and his adherence to ethics rules.
Despite these assurances, many individuals working in tax policy express concerns about the Neals’ relationship and the potential influence of lobbyists on the committee. While it is not uncommon for lawmakers to have ties to lobbyists in Washington, the situation involving the Neals has raised eyebrows among observers in the tax policy arena. Members of both parties serving on tax-writing committees have a longstanding practice of holding fundraisers to solicit donations from those seeking to influence bills. This practice is part of a tradition where national parties require members on important committees to contribute more than the average member to party-affiliated campaign committees. For example, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee suggested “party dues” of $660,000 for the ranking members of key committees like Ways and Means in the 2023 election cycle.
Richard Neal, the chief Democratic tax writer, has a reputation for strong interaction with lobbyists, even by Congress’ standards. Lobbyists’ proposals have often made their way into complex tax bills overseen by Neal, such as the 2022 retirement legislation known as Secure 2.0, which had a $51 billion cost to the federal government. Neal is known to regularly solicit campaign contributions from firms doing business with his committee, not just for himself but for all his Democratic colleagues.
While Neal is a top fundraiser, his campaign spokesperson insists that the contributions he receives do not influence his values but rather go towards flipping the U.S. House. He has close ties to major donors like Fidelity and MassMutual. As the House Democrats aim to win back the majority, Neal is poised to oversee significant changes in the tax code, including renegotiating personal income-tax rates, the Child Tax Credit, and business tax breaks.
Business interests view Neal as a receptive ally, especially with progressive tax legislation gaining momentum. However, some progressives feel that Neal is overly protective of corporate special interests and should be more proactive in advocating for higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy. As questions arise about Neal’s business connections, ethicists and tax policy advocates warn about potential conflicts of interest and the influence of deep-pocketed special interests on Capitol Hill. “I wouldn’t allow a lobbyist to pay my son a large sum of money and then have them lobby the committee.”
Richard Neal’s rise in Springfield politics was rapid and, to some constituents, embodied the American dream. He grew up in a working-class neighborhood in Springfield, raised by relatives on Social Security survivor benefits after his parents passed away.
His political career began as co-chair of George McGovern’s 1972 presidential campaign in western Massachusetts. He later worked as an aide to Springfield Mayor William Sullivan. Neal served three terms on the Springfield City Council starting in 1977, and then successfully ran for mayor in 1983, unseating the incumbent and winning reelection in 1985 and 1987.
During his time in office, Springfield maintained its reputation for patronage politics, but Neal also received praise for revitalizing the city’s neighborhoods and downtown areas.
In 1993, after being elected to Congress, Neal faced scandal when reports emerged that the Massachusetts attorney general was investigating a no-bid $2.5 million contract he had awarded to a company called Insurance Cost Control. The investigation revealed that company employees were reimbursed by the company after donating to Neal’s campaign, leading to allegations of improper conduct. Although Neal denied any wrongdoing, the company’s president admitted to false billing and paid penalties.
Neal succeeded his predecessor, former Democratic Rep. Ed Boland, in 1988 and went on to become the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee in 2019. He used his position to secure federal aid for local programs and renovations, and was a vocal advocate for Social Security.
In his role as chairman, Neal oversaw the tax provisions of the Build Back Better Act, which aimed to implement new taxes on corporations and high-income individuals to fund various social programs. Although the bill did not become law, parts of it were included in the Inflation Reduction Act.
While some colleagues praised Neal for his legislative accomplishments, others criticized him for his handling of tax policies and his close ties to financial companies. Neal also faced scrutiny for hosting a congressional reception for American International Group, a company that had previously received a government bailout.
As Neal prepares to resume his position as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, he faces both praise and criticism from different factions. Some view him as a pragmatic leader willing to consider business interests, while others believe he is too hesitant to challenge special interests. Despite the mixed perceptions, Neal’s family members have also been involved in his political endeavors, with his son receiving payments from his campaign committee and later starting a lobbying firm that overlapped with his father’s legislative work. Federal law requires that federal lobbyists must register with Congress and disclose their expenses, as well as the topic of their lobbying efforts and other relevant information.
The connection between Brendan Neal and Matt Trant, a veteran lobbyist, was first noticed when Neal announced his new firm. Trant, who has a background in appropriations lobbying, reached out to Neal on LinkedIn to discuss their work in public affairs and communications.
After their initial meeting, Trant secured a contract with a biotechnology company seeking government contracts from the Department of Homeland Security. Subsequently, Brendan Neal Strategies also registered as a lobbyist for the same company, making it one of Neal’s most profitable contracts.
Trant claimed that the appropriations work was brought to them by a consultant friend who had previously worked for DHS. Despite this, Trant and Neal continued to work with the company for several years.
In another instance, Trant began lobbying for the administrative arm of Blackstone on tax-related provisions within the Build Back Better Act. Trant earned a significant amount from this lobbying work, and also made substantial donations to Richard Neal’s campaign committee and leadership PAC.
Furthermore, Blackstone had a vested interest in maintaining favorable tax treatment, particularly related to “carried interest.” The company and its CEO have been actively involved in lobbying efforts to protect this tax benefit.
Despite some pushback from Democrats to close the carried interest loophole, legislation under Richard Neal’s leadership only extended the holding period for the tax benefit. This move was criticized by some as inadequate in addressing the issue.
Trant’s lobbying activities for Blackstone were not explicitly mentioned, however, during the Senate debate on the Inflation Reduction Act, Trant was one of only two lobbyists advocating for Blackstone’s administrative arm on tax issues.
Overall, the relationships between lobbyists, lawmakers, and private companies highlight the complexities and potential conflicts of interest within the lobbying industry. In 2019 and 2020, Van Heuvelen’s firm hired Brendan Neal under a contract worth at least $20,000 while simultaneously lobbying for four clients on tax provisions related to Build Back Better and Secure 2.0. Van Heuvelen also made his first-ever contributions to Richard Neal in 2019, donating a total of $26,600 to the lawmaker’s campaign committee and leadership PAC between 2019 and 2022. Additionally, between 2020 and 2021, Van Heuvelen’s firm had contracts totaling at least $190,000 with three companies to lobby on various issues, including tax credits for businesses engaging in carbon capture and storage.
Legislation passed through Richard Neal’s committee significantly expanded the carbon capture credit and made it directly payable to businesses, resulting in a cost of $2.13 billion to the federal government. The carbon capture industry praised Neal and other committee members for including their top priorities in the clean energy tax package.
Van Heuvelen’s firm was also paid a minimum of $390,000 between 2019 and 2021 to lobby for Genworth Financial, a New York insurance company, on tax and other matters related to Secure 2.0, particularly focusing on long-term care insurance for seniors. Secure 2.0, which became law in late 2022, allowed savers to withdraw funds from retirement accounts for certain long-term care insurance premiums and expanded investment options for retirees in insurance contracts.
Lobbyist Rob Epplin was also active in lobbying for his clients’ tax priorities, including paying Brendan Neal Strategies $20,000 in 2021 to lobby for the Trevor Project. Epplin’s firm had been under contract with the National Association of Broadcasters, paying $180,000 between 2021 and 2022 to lobby on advertising and media-related tax issues.
Epplin also lobbied for an association of trial lawyers on tax issues affecting their profession. Provisions in the Build Back Better Act aimed to change how the IRS treats deductions for trial lawyers, potentially providing significant tax benefits to them.
Brendan Neal, who worked with federal lobbying firms, also represented a nursing home company in western Massachusetts owned by Cesar Ruiz. Ruiz, a local business figure, had made significant donations to a super PAC in 2023 but ran into issues with campaign finance regulations, leading to the dissolution of the PAC. Ruiz’s donations were redirected to local charities, including the Irish Cultural Center in West Springfield, where Richard Neal was named honorary chair of a fundraising campaign.
Local political figures in Springfield noted the influence of Richard Neal in local politics, suggesting that his approval is crucial for success in the area. Eso puede ser especialmente tentador para intereses especiales con mucho dinero que quieren evadir reglas que limitan las donaciones a PAC a $5,000, dicen los expertos en ética.
“Están buscando oportunidades para abrir el acceso y ganar influencia por encima de la cantidad de influencia que se puede obtener por cantidades de dinero de cinco cifras bajas,” dijo Jeff Hauser, un experto en ética y director ejecutivo del Proyecto Puerta Giratoria, un grupo de vigilancia que examina la influencia corporativa en la formulación de políticas.
Dijo que los representantes cuyos familiares son lobistas deberían hacer todo lo posible para evitar apariencias de influencia indebida.
“Puedes intentar enviar un mensaje de que… haré todo lo posible para desanimar a cualquiera de contratar a mi hijo de una manera que dé la apariencia de comprar influencia con el Comité de Medios y Arbitrios,” dijo Hauser. “No suena como si [Richard Neal] estuviera haciendo ninguna de ellas.”
En cuanto a los pagos por servicios de consultoría que Brendan Neal recibe del comité de campaña de su padre, Kathleen Clark, una experta en ética legal y profesora en la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Washington, dice que la ley de financiamiento de campañas permite que los fondos de campaña de los legisladores paguen a sus familiares, siempre y cuando estén realizando servicios a tarifas de mercado justas.
Aunque el personal de Richard Neal ha dicho que Brendan Neal proporciona servicios equivalentes por sus pagos, Clark dijo que los pagos también plantean una pregunta razonable de “si [Richard] Neal es realmente un buen administrador de su dinero de campaña, o si está utilizando su campaña como una especie de fondo de dinero en efectivo para beneficiar a un miembro de su familia.”
Aunque las relaciones entre el legislador de Massachusetts y su hijo no son sin precedentes, las revelaciones llegan en un momento en que tanto demócratas como republicanos se están preparando para la expiración de billones de los recortes de impuestos de Trump en 2025.
Expertos en política fiscal dicen que les preocupa las apariencias causadas por el trabajo de cabildeo de Brendan Neal, en la medida en que sus clientes también tienen negocios ante Medios y Arbitrios.
“Especialmente dado que los demócratas, y especialmente el presidente [Richard] Neal, han estado criticando al ex presidente Trump por usar el sistema de impuestos a su favor, perjudica la causa demócrata si hay una impropiedad en la cúpula del liderazgo de Medios y Arbitrios,” dijo Daniel Hemel, profesor de derecho fiscal en la Facultad de Derecho de la NYU, cuya investigación se centra en el sistema tributario y la desigualdad de riqueza.
Lobistas fiscales con la mirada puesta en 2025 han estado buscando adelantarse en las negociaciones.
Una de las mayores preguntas del debate de 2025 se centra en qué medida las empresas extranjeras mantendrán sus beneficios fiscales, con los republicanos sugiriendo que las deducciones fiscales deben ser recuperadas de las empresas que no fabriquen sus productos en América.
Trump ha sugerido reducir la tasa impositiva corporativa del 21 por ciento al 15 por ciento, excepto para las empresas que no fabriquen sus productos nacionalmente. Asimismo, los republicanos del Congreso también se aseguraron de que la legislación fiscal incluyera una exclusión de las empresas extranjeras de beneficios fiscales más grandes para la investigación y el desarrollo.
“Esto es ciertamente preocupante, pero augura algo aún peor para el futuro: muchas más disposiciones favorables de la TCJA comenzarán a expirar a finales de 2025,” dijo Michael DiRoma, socio director de la firma de cabildeo DiRoma Eck and Co. LLP, en un artículo de abril para la revista Business & Finance sobre el tema. “¿Qué va a motivar al Congreso a actuar de manera diferente hacia las empresas extranjeras?”
DiRoma sugirió “tomar medidas afirmativas tempranas para conectar con los encargados de formular políticas” – acciones que su firma estaría bien equipada para facilitar.
DiRoma, que no respondió a múltiples solicitudes de comentario, fue anteriormente asesor fiscal de la senadora republicana Susan Collins de Maine y cabildeó sobre temas fiscales internacionales en la Ley de Rescate Económico para Credit Suisse.
Su cofundador es un ex alto funcionario del Departamento del Tesoro. El asesor estratégico principal de la firma es David Malpass, ex presidente del Banco Mundial y veterano en política fiscal y tributaria que trabajó para las administraciones de Reagan y Trump.
La firma también tiene un activo adicional en sus reservas: su asesor senior, Brendan Neal.
Enlace de fuente