Lobbyists

At last, I have put up online a final version of what has turned out to be a separate book, The Regulation of Local Lobbying. This free 342-page resource has three parts. The first part explains what local lobbying is, how it differs from lobbying at the state and, especially, the federal levels, and the special characteristics of procurement and land us lobbying.

“I think people should know right from wrong, and if folks are going to do something they’re not supposed to, they’re going to do it. If people are calling up commissioners at night on their personal cellphones, I have no idea about it. … If I knew something was going on, I would go directly to (County Attorney) David Escamilla.”
—Travis County, TX (Austin) Purchasing Agent Cyd Grimes. Travis County has no lobbying law.

Most people believe that lobbyists are guns hired to influence government officials, and most lobbying laws reflect this by applying only to those who lobby, not to the clients for whom they lobby. Unlike most laws, lobbying laws focus on agents rather than their principals.

When a lobbying code requires that lobbyists report "specific lobbying issues" or "the subjects on which they have lobbied," what exactly is required? The best approach is to include more specific language in the disclosure section, such as "information sufficient for an ordinary member of the public to identify the law or resolution, contract, grant, regulation, real property or project, rule, proceeding, board or commission determination, or other matter."

This is the second post on Alan Rosenthal's The Third House: Lobbyists and Lobbying in the States (CQ Press, 1993). This post focuses on the importance of connections over influence, the role of money and constituents in local lobbying, and local lobbyists as relatively unprofessional, and what that means for lobbying regulation.

Professionalization

Small towns don't need lobbying registration, because no lobbying of any consequence occurs there.

Small towns don't need lobbying registration, because no lobbying of any consequence occurs there.

Say it often enough — as local government and lobbying associations do — and people believe it's true. But it's not. And here's a good example why.

One of the areas where government ethics laws are weakest is the indirect relationship, such as when a gift is given not to an official, but to an official's spouse or child; an official's business relationship is not with a developer, but with the owner of the developer's parent; an official's aide participates on a recused official's behalf; or an official participates in a contract matter when she has a family relationship with the owner of a subcontractor that is not directly involved in the bid.

Worth reading is an op-ed piece Saturday in the Canberra Times by Jack Waterford, the paper's editor-at-large. With a title you'd never see in an American paper — Weaning Players Off the Public Teat — Waterford takes a very frank approach to the revolving door between government and lobbying.

A dispute in Kansas raises the question:  which takes precedence, the First Amendment (free speech) or the Second Amendment?

On July 1, 2013, a Kansas state law became effective that prohibited the use of state funds to pay for promotion or lobbying on gun control legislation or regulation at any governmental level.

In preparation for the chapter on lobbying that I'm working on, I just finished reading a 2002 book entitled The Ethics of Lobbying from the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University (Georgetown UP). It's an excellent introduction to a number of issues involved in lobbying of the federal government, most of which are relevant at the local level, as well.