April 19, 2012
In a new article published this week by the Claremore Daily Progress, Chad ALexander, former InsureNet Lobbyist comes forward with more information about District 2 congressional candidate, Wayne Pettigrew’s activities with the infamous “spy cam” insurance verification company, Insurenet.
Pettigrew acted as a lobbyist from 2009 to the middle of the 2010 Oklahoma Legislative Session, according to Alexander.
Pettigrew somehow still maintains that he was not a lobbyist for InsureNet despite his activities which can only be described as lobbying.
It started with the Governor’s office. They were getting the green light to move forward,” Alexander said.
As the reporter explained in the first article, Lobbyist or not? Wayne Pettigrew’s InsureNet connection under scrutiny,
According to Oklahoma laws pertaining to lobbying, one can serve as a lobbyist by representing the interests of a client before government officials or enable such work as a “lobbyist principle,” that is a person who “employs or retains another person for financial or other compensation to conduct lobbying activities on behalf of the lobbyist principle.”
Pettigrew did both and admits that he was to receive a percentage amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars, upon securing a contract with a state to use the InsureNet insurance verification system.
Incidentally, this is a system that would have had ALPR license tag scanning camera to capture every driver’s license plate along with the date, location and time when it was captured, to verify insurance status. Pattigrew also maintains that this system in no way, would have been an invasion of privacy.
Mr. Alexander correctly sums up Pettigrew’s activities in this way;
Part of the problem with Pettigrew’s activities according to Alexander is that in Oklahoma lobbyists are not allowed to operate on a pay for play basis.
“The fact is that in Oklahoma you can not have a contingency based contract,” Alexander said, “Just because he did not get paid does not mean he was not attempting to get the system passed.”
Just because Pettigrew did not make a contract does not mean he was not breaking the rules for attempting to do so, according to Alexander.
But according to the article;
Pettigrew continues to maintain that his role was “that of a business consultant promoting a service that he believed was beneficial to the state of Oklahoma and other states and that the program provided greater privacy protections than the system in place currently.”
“This service was competitively bid by the state of Oklahoma and the company that I promoted was not chosen,” Pettigrew said.
However, the fact that InsureNet, the company that Pettigrew was “promoting” never secured a contract for it’s ‘spy cam’ based service didn’t stop him from testifying before Pennsylvania House members on March 2, 2010 that Oklahoma (and two other states) were “currently in the implementation process” (see the Pennsylvania House of Representatives transcript pg 30)
What does “currently implementing” mean to you?
I referred to Mr. Pettigrew in a recent post as being “truthy” I think that I was being much too generous.
What do you think?
Read the entire article by Salesha Wilken, Pettigrew disputes lobbyist claims