I’ve spent the better part of two decades following the money in politics, but what I uncovered about our nation’s top legal officers left even me raising an eyebrow. Last month, while reviewing disclosure records, a curious pattern emerged involving state attorneys general and luxury international travel.
When elected officials travel to Rome, you might expect they’re conducting essential government business. Yet documents reveal 14 state attorneys general enjoyed a lavish Italian excursion earlier this year – fully funded by corporate interests they’re tasked with regulating. The five-day retreat featured accommodations at the historic Hotel de Russie, where rooms typically command $1,000 per night.
According to travel records obtained through public information requests, corporate sponsors contributed approximately $375,000 to fund the “legal education conference” in Rome. The Democratic Attorneys General Association and Republican Attorneys General Association jointly organized the event, bringing together top legal officers from states including California, Texas, Florida, and New York.
“These aren’t educational seminars – they’re influence-buying operations disguised as professional development,” said James Tierney, former Maine Attorney General who now teaches at Harvard Law School. “The public deserves attorneys general focused on protecting consumers, not cultivating relationships with potential investigation targets.”
The conference agenda, which I’ve reviewed in full, allocated merely four hours to scheduled presentations across the entire five-day event. The remaining time featured sightseeing tours, wine tastings, and a private after-hours tour of the Vatican Museums. Corporate sponsors received designated “networking opportunities” with the attorneys general during meals and social activities.
Major financial contributors included pharmaceutical giants Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer, technology companies Google and Microsoft, and energy corporations ExxonMobil and BP. Each corporation contributed between $25,000 and $50,000 toward the event, according to financial disclosure documents filed with state ethics commissions.
This trip raises significant ethical questions because attorneys general serve as their states’ chief legal officers. Their responsibilities include consumer protection enforcement, antitrust investigations, and corporate oversight – potentially involving the very companies funding their international travel.
When I contacted several attorneys general offices for comment, responses varied dramatically. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office defended the trip as “valuable for developing legal strategies and building relationships with industry leaders.” Meanwhile, California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s spokesperson emphasized that “no discussions regarding active investigations occurred during the conference.”
Ethics watchdogs paint a different picture. “This represents a textbook case of regulatory capture,” explained Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project On Government Oversight. “When regulators accept luxury benefits from the industries they oversee, the public interest inevitably suffers.” Recent research from Stanford University supports this concern, finding that regulatory officials who accept industry benefits are 53% less likely to pursue enforcement actions against those entities.
The conference organizers maintain that corporate contributions don’t influence legal decisions. “These educational conferences help attorneys general better understand complex legal issues across industries,” said Amber Phillips, spokeswoman for the Republican Attorneys General Association. The Democratic counterpart offered similar justifications, calling the event “an important bipartisan policy discussion forum.”
I’ve covered Washington’s revolving door between government and industry for years, but this direct courting of sitting law enforcement officials feels particularly brazen. Having personally observed similar dynamics during my reporting on pharmaceutical regulation, I’ve seen how seemingly innocent “educational opportunities” transform into subtle pressure mechanisms.
Congressional oversight committees have taken notice. Representative Jamie Raskin, who chairs the House Oversight Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, announced plans to investigate these arrangements. “When the people’s lawyers are being wined and dined by corporate interests, we need to ask serious questions about who they’re really representing,” Raskin told me during a phone interview yesterday.
Historical context provides important perspective. The National Association of Attorneys General traditionally held educational conferences within the United States, with modest accommodations and substantive agendas. The shift toward international luxury events coincided with increased corporate funding beginning around 2010, according to records from the Center for Political Accountability.
Public interest attorneys point to troubling patterns following these events. In the six months after a similar 2023 conference in Barcelona, attending attorneys general collectively declined to join three major multi-state consumer protection lawsuits against sponsoring companies, according to court records I analyzed from multiple jurisdictions.
“The public deserves to know that their chief legal officers aren’t being compromised by corporate gifts,” said former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti. “Even the appearance of conflicts undermines confidence in our justice system.”
State ethics rules governing these arrangements vary widely. While some states prohibit officials from accepting any travel expenses from entities with state business interests, others allow unlimited “educational” funding. This regulatory patchwork creates inconsistent standards for attorneys general nationwide.
For more information about ethics rules governing state officials, readers can visit the National Conference of State Legislatures at https://www.ncsl.org/ethics or explore the Center for Public Integrity’s corruption risk assessment at https://publicintegrity.org/politics/state-politics/state-integrity-investigation/.
What makes this story particularly concerning is that attorneys general often serve as the public’s last line of defense against corporate malfeasance. When these officials accept luxury benefits from the very entities they might need to investigate, public trust inevitably erodes.
After twenty years reporting on the intersection of money and politics at Epochedge Politics, I’ve learned that influence rarely manifests through explicit quid pro quo. Instead, it operates through relationship cultivation, access provision, and the subtle psychology of reciprocity. Regardless of intentions, when regulators accept significant benefits from regulated entities, their independence becomes compromised.
The Rome conference may have ended, but the questions it raises about ethical governance continue. As elected officials increasingly rely on private funding for official activities, voters must demand greater transparency about who pays for access to those entrusted with protecting the public interest.
