Based on a true story. A lobbyist is treating a legislator to a round of golf. Legislator tees off, muffs his shot and reaches for another ball for a do-over.
“Wait a minute,” calls out the lobbyist. “With these new ethics concerns, I’m not sure I can let you do that.”
They have a good laugh and play on, realizing though, their rounds together might be numbered.
After Bobby Jindal led his governor’s campaign with ethics reform, with a chorus of legislative candidates chiming in, they actually are going to have to do something that not only sounds good but also works and makes a real difference. The last two are the tricky parts.
The Jindal transition’s first ethics advisory council hearing established that new laws that sound good are a virtue in themselves, for they will improve the state’s tawdry image, a major hindrance to attracting new companies.
Beyond that, the greater challenge is to answer the skeptics who question if legislators will substantially change the way they do business, especially with lobbyists, both inside and outside the Capitol.
Last year, the Legislature, spurred on by a coalition of civic and business groups, focused on an income disclosure bill that passed both houses in different forms but ultimately failed. Hardly any consideration was given to dealings between lawmakers and lobbyists. Next time will be different.
Legislators assume that a stricter income disclosure bill than last year’s is going to pass. What’s more, the growing consensus is that they can kiss goodbye to sports tickets, golf outings and fishing trips paid for by lobbyists. Those kindnesses currently are exempted from the ban on gifts.
On this score, the pushback from lobbyists has been light to non-existent, according to what advisory council co-chairman Sean Reilly heard after the first meeting. “Several [lobbyists] came up later and said virtually anything you do to eliminate the tie between my checking account and legislative lifestyles we’re in favor of,” he said.
But many lobbyists and legislators would balk at cutting out restaurant meals, which is part of the culture of the Capitol, not to mention its economy.
Some lobbyists say they can do their business with legislators without feeding them. For others, the practice is good relationship-building and, they insist, harmless. The view from both sides of the table is that no votes are bought for the price of a meal.
Yet even the most benign encounters tilt the playing field, because advocates for the poor, the uninsured, the environment—also known as joyless do-gooders—haven’t the expense accounts to foster their own relationships with lawmakers.
Short of a “no cup of coffee” rule, which the Florida Legislature passed but Louisiana’s won’t, trying to set limits on steaks and martinis misses the bigger picture of how lobbyists influence the legislative process.
More far-reaching is a point in Jindal’s plan to require lobbyists to disclose who is paying them to work on what. If combined with complete disclosure of what lobbyists spend entertaining legislators [current reporting is very spotty], citizens would have the transparency they need to draw their own conclusions.
The advisory council also has waded into the issue of limiting lobbyists’ contributions to legislators. One idea floated is to allow lobbyists to contribute to lawmakers only after the final legislative session of a four-year term, when the lawmaking is done and re-election campaigns begin. That’s possible, though the gold rush at the end of a cycle might prove as unseemly as spreading out the giving.
Toughening any rules will matter little unless the Board of Ethics is strengthened to crack down on violators and better staffed to keep track of the mountain of new reports. But that’s cheap and easy to do. It would cost only $2 million to double the number of auditors and attorneys and to upgrade the computer data base to make it searchable not only by candidate but also by donor.
Sorting out all of the above will no doubt require detailed consultations between lobbyists and lawmakers, preferably over dinner and drinks or a round of golf, especially with so many new members to build relationships with. What better time for that than during the upcoming special session on ethics?
Bartender!
Comments
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)