A One-Way Prohibition on Misuse of Office for Clients

On Monday, Anthony Man of the Sun-Sentinel wrote an excellent analysis of the lobbying elements of Florida Senate bill 846 (a copy of the bill is attached; see below), which was recently passed by the senate unanimously.

The law would prohibit local officials from registering as a lobbyist of state legislators or agencies, except on behalf of their political subdivision. This is a good prohibition, because it is not clear to the state official whether the local official is lobbying on behalf of the city or on behalf of a client. It is a classic situation of wearing two hats. And the local official may be harming the municipality by seeking a favor for a client rather than for the municipality, because such favors are limited.

A state representative is quoted as saying, "They would come to see me for both at the same time. That's incompatible."

Intra-Local Lobbying Problems
But from what I've read over the years, the biggest local lobbying problem in Florida involves county officials, who have some power over and extensive contacts with city officials in their county, being hired to lobby these officials. When this occurs, there is the possibility of coercion, of the trading of county favors for local action that involves private interests rather than the public interest.

It is also problematic when municipal officials are hired to lobby their colleagues inside and outside their county. These are individuals with whom they sit on political party and municipal association committees and with whom they develop personal and professional relationships, even alliances, based solely on the offices these individuals hold. These relationships should not be taken advantage of for the benefit of private clients.

The prohibition in this bill, and the others that belong there, are not really about lobbying. They involve conflicts of interest, wearing multiple hats, and the misuse of office and of the special relationships that form among government officials.

One-Way Streets Lack Fairness
There are two problems with the lobbying prohibition in SB 846. One is that the bill does not deal with the intra-local lobbying problems described above, apparently because they don't bother state senators directly.

Second and most important, the bill does not make the lobbying prohibition a two-way street. That is, it allows state legislators to lobby local officials while prohibiting local officials from lobbying them.

Fairness is one of the most important aspects of government ethics. With respect to fairness, the lobbying prohibition is a total failure. As a city mayor is quoted as saying, "If [a ban] is such a good idea, why wouldn't the Legislature do it for itself?" The fact that it was unanimously passed says that the state senate has no interest in fairness. It's just tired of local officials lobbying them.

The Problems with State Reps Lobbying Locals
According to the article, Katy Sorenson, CEO of the Good Government Initiative at the University of Miami, and longtime member of Miami-Dade County's ethics commission, told Man that, "because legislators are in a position to approve or deny money and laws sought by counties and cities, their lobbying carries a much bigger threat than local officials lobbying in Tallahassee, because the local officials don't have power to help or hurt the legislators they lobby. I remember a very uncomfortable situation when a sitting senator came to lobby on behalf of a private client, when I was a county commissioner. And at the time the county had some interests in a committee he was heading ... And in the back of my mind I was thinking, if I vote against this guy and his private client, is it going to be held against us?"

Sen. Joe Abruzzo, who is a lobbyist of local officials, but not, he says, of those in his district, is quoted as saying, "I have a self-moral standard, and I completely put up a wall and separate the two functions." If he considers this to be a serious defense, then he lacks a basic understanding of ethics. No one can see this supposed wall inside his mind, neither the public nor the local officials he lobbies, who know that Sen. Abruzzo can affect the well-being of their constituents. If Sen. Abruzzo does not realize this essential fact, he should not be sponsoring ethics bills or criticizing ethics programs the way he has been over the last several months (see my blog posts on his activities).

Abruzzo says the House won't get to this otherwise valuable bill during the current legislative session, so it will likely die. But the limited, one-way lobbying prohibition certainly sends a signal that the state senate considers primarily the personal interests of its members.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---