Ethics quandary at the Gold Dome: What’s a lobbyist?
Of all possible obstacles to ethics reform, who thought the biggest one would be defining the word “lobbyist”? Yet, that’s where we stand today.
For years, the biggest obstacle was getting legislators to take up the issue of lobbyist gifts to legislators. Georgia is one of three states with no restrictions at all on them.
House Speaker David Ralston was one of the strongest, and most powerful, objectors to regulating these gifts. To Ralston’s credit, he responded to public pressure by revealing this past week two mostly good bills. Among other changes, his bills would ban nearly all lobbyist gifts to state and local officials; require campaign contributions in the run-up to the session to be reported within days (rather than in July); and, critically, restore the state ethics commission’s rule-making authority.
Now, if we can only figure out who the lobbyists are.
It sounds easy, right? After all, everyone knows what lobbying is: an effort to influence public officials to do something.
But there’s nothing wrong with that, per se. On the contrary, freedom of speech and the right to petition the government are enshrined in the First Amendment.
The original text of Ralston’s bill ran afoul of those rights. Its definition of who must register with the state as a lobbyist was far too broad, conceivably affecting everyone from school children meeting multiple legislators at the Capitol to folks addressing their local county commission.
Again to their credit, Ralston and other House leaders seem to be responding to criticism in good faith. Rep. Rich Golick, the Smyrna Republican who chairs the subcommittee handling these bills, repeatedly promised during a Thursday hearing to offer a narrower definition soon. All eyes will be on that revision.
But Golick and other legislators at Thursday’s hearing openly struggled to define “lobbyist” properly. Who deserves that label and the restrictions that come with it?
Is a lobbyist anyone representing anyone else? If so, does that include church pastors?
Is it anyone paid by another entity? Same question about pastors. Only people paid specifically to lobby? If so, you’ll see a lot of new business cards without the words “government affairs” printed on them.
How about only those who represent for-profit entities? That’d omit non-profit hospitals with a clear interest in how much the state spends on health care.
Maybe it’s anyone arguing for or against a measure in which he, or an entity he represents, has a financial stake. If so, could citizens not speak their minds about income-tax legislation?
Only people who hold a certain number of meetings with legislators? That’d be welcome news for certain large corporations whose lobbyists rarely show up at the Capitol until there’s a specific bill they want to push or kill — and which almost always get their way.
That last bit gets to the heart of public concern with lobbying: the belief certain folks have undue influence over legislators.
“Undue,” and for that matter “influence,” are in the eye of the beholder. So here’s my unlobbied-for advice: Cast the net broadly in terms of registration, to maximize the number of people subject to the new restrictions about gifts, but keep the burden on them as low as possible.
Require a fee and report-filing only from those who, on their own or some other person or entity’s behalf, spend more than a certain amount on lobbying expenses. Create sufficient penalties for anyone who games the system.
Then fix a couple of other problems with the bills: Close the exception for food and beverages provided to entire committees or subcommittees, and perhaps require travel reimbursements for “official duties” to be pre-approved by the ethics commission.
And then move on.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
81 comments Add your comment
Kyle Wingfield
February 4th, 2013
12:00 pm
MarkV @ 11:38: The “restrictions” relate to the gifts, among other things. But because you cannot ban everyone on Earth from giving something to the legislators — see my earlier example about neighbors and co-workers — you have to decide who is covered by the ban.
The financial stake argument sounds good, until you realize any number of companies could set up non-profit entities headed by retired executives to do the lobbying, entities which technically wouldn’t have financial stakes in anything the Legislature did. As I said in the column, I think the focus should be on what the influencer spends on influencing … in gifts still allowed under exceptions to the ban, in salary for the influencer, etc.
Bruno
February 4th, 2013
12:02 pm
No need for me to shave strokes because I play strictly for fun, and am careful to play with others who are there to have fun as well. Nothing worse than playing with some uptight pro-wannabe who spends 45 minutes lining up each putt. With no one in front of me, I can finish in a little over 2 hours.
Bruno
February 4th, 2013
12:06 pm
As I said in the column, I think the focus should be on what the influencer spends on influencing … in gifts still allowed under exceptions to the ban, in salary for the influencer, etc.
Kyle–From what I understand, GA is only one of three states which doesn’t have ethics legislation in place. Why can’t we simply review the legislation in place in the other 47 states and choose a model which works well?? Why are we in the position of having to reinvent (or redefine) the wheel??
indigo
February 4th, 2013
12:07 pm
Tiberius – “there are always alternatives within each party”
Georgia politics has been a mess for many years now. And, its no secret that, in theory, there are always alternatives. And, for years now, many people HAVE been working hard for improvement.
Unfortunately, Big Business has an iron grip on our politicians, especially Republicans, and average citizens, even with all the hard work in the world, cannot break it. This is why we get the same old candidates election after election.
Money must me taken out of politics. But, the chances of this happening in our lifetimes is about zero.
That’s just the way things are.
But wait!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Even thought I’m just giving “lazy man’s excuses for mediocrity” and am “not willing to do that work”, your brilliant insights and hard work will save the day.
I look forward to your energy, zeal and hard work transforming Georgia politics into the “viable democratic Republic” we all deserve.
barking frog
February 4th, 2013
12:10 pm
You can spend $500.00 to influence a legislator if you
are a registered lobbyist, which requires a signed admission,
a form easily carried by the legislator. Avoiding either is a felony.
Folks who can define fraud and conspiracy should have no
problem with ‘lobbyist’.
JDW
February 4th, 2013
12:12 pm
@Kyle…” But I do think it’s harder than most people realize to write this law”
I think it is impossible to write this law. If we must do this then it is going to have to be a “low hanging fruit” sort of process…target the 10%-30% where the worst offenders will surface and target them. Forget about an all encompassing law that sets clear guidelines because it can’t happen
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
February 4th, 2013
12:16 pm
“With no one in front of me, I can finish in a little over 2 hours.”
Same here.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
February 4th, 2013
12:17 pm
“I look forward to your energy, zeal and hard work transforming Georgia politics into the “viable democratic Republic” we all deserve.”
Typical lib living off the hard work of others.
barking frog
February 4th, 2013
12:19 pm
With no one in front of me, I can finish in a little over 2 hours.”
Same here.
……………………………………………………………………….
Is this kind of talk really necessary in a public forum ?
Uncle Jed
February 4th, 2013
12:26 pm
All citizens are essentially lobbyists as are non-citizen types seeking to influence the legislative process. The simple solution is to ban all gifts to all legislators and any other public servants in order to avoid the possibility of influence. Building inspectors as well as dogcatchers are humans and are subject to bias, even without the sweeteners called gifts.
JDW
February 4th, 2013
12:30 pm
“I’ve never done business on a golf course or at a football game, and don’t see why anyone else thinks this is a good idea.”
I have done and continue to do significant business in both places…plus restaurants, sponsored trade events, golf tournaments, World Cup games etc… When to get to an executive level you don’t have any choice. You can’t take the CEO of decent sized company to a moderately priced venue and expect to be taken seriously.
That said business and politics are slightly different…none of those things are really going to sway a CEO’s decision but they do get you the opportunity to make your case. In many cases those things will sway a politician because of the simple economics and the type of person involved. Today’s politician is more often than not in office for the trappings.
Uncle Jed
February 4th, 2013
12:30 pm
“But because you cannot ban everyone on Earth from giving something to the legislators…”
One need not worry about banning the giving side of the equation. Simply ban receiving. I was an elected official once upon a time and it was unethical to receive anything of value from any person with business before the entity. That translated to all citizens; vendors; contractors; etc.
indigo
February 4th, 2013
12:34 pm
Tiberius – 12:17
Yes, I will just live off your “hard work”.
If you’re right, yours and others hard work will, in time, transform Georgia politics.
If I’m right, our political system is beyond repair and no amount of hard work will make any difference at all.
Time will tell as to which one of us is right.
JDW
February 4th, 2013
12:37 pm
@Tiberius…”They’re largely the same people year in and year out.”
They are but not on the strength of my vote. I support changes that would help but of course the Politicians and most “Conservatives” don’t.
For example…
-Non partisan elections. Put them all in a big pool and pick the best. Enough with the partisan primaries that pick the two choices that pander to their base the best.
-Public funding of elections. Remove the entire campaign funding issue from the equation by providing public money for each candidate that meets the stated criteria involved in competing for an office. That way the candidates play on a level field with the same amount of money and they don’t spend most of their time raising money for the next race.
MarkV
February 4th, 2013
12:44 pm
Kyle Wingfield @ 12:00 pm
Kyle,
I do not disagree with you in what you suggest. I would merely point out that the argument that some people would avoid he designation based on financial gain by setting up “non-profit entities headed by retired executives” is not necessarily a reason for eliminating this criterion as long as it is not the only one used.
barking frog
February 4th, 2013
12:47 pm
Pelosi this law. Pass it to see what’s in it. If it’s not right, change it later.
Don’t let the crooks debate or define it to death.
Cutty
February 4th, 2013
12:48 pm
Legislators should be held to the same rule as state employees. That would eliminate this farce of defining what a lobbyist is. State employees can’t accept any gift of value from anyone, period. Why is there an exception for legislators?
Hillbilly D
February 4th, 2013
12:50 pm
In my opinion, this is the beginning of watching the legislation die a death of a thousand small cuts.
As for what’s a lobbyist, I’d start with folks who are getting paid to talk to legislators. You could also think about including people lobbying those who don’t represent them. If somebody from one of end of the state (or even out of state), is bending the ear of somebody from the other end of the state, odds are, they’re lobbying. Getting one’s own representative to talk to the other legislators is better and also a lot more effective, in the long run. If for instance, I go up and start talking to a legislator from somewhere in South Georgia, he’s most likely going to a) blow me off and/or b) nod politely and pay no attention to what I have to say. It’s the nature of the game that some people get listened to more than others. Lobbyists get listened to a lot more than members of the Great Unwashed.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
February 4th, 2013
12:51 pm
“-Non partisan elections.” Agreed.
“-Public funding of elections” Strongly disagree. Stop relying on government to provide you everything.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
February 4th, 2013
12:53 pm
“I support changes that would help but of course the Politicians and most “Conservatives” don’t.”
Except this has nothing to do with conservatives vs. liberals, JDW, and you know it.
md
February 4th, 2013
12:53 pm
“Solution–Lawyers hould be baned from politics–End of problem. ”
From politics? More like from life…….take out their little system designed to confuse and exploit the masses and life would be a whole lot easier for everybody…….
As for lobbyists and politicians, no gifts period. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
If they want to go play golf and meet or go to football games, then join the private business world…….
md
February 4th, 2013
1:05 pm
And I know it’s off topic, but isn’t karma a wonderful thing to see the niners lose in the exact same way they beat the Falcons………..
JDW
February 4th, 2013
1:05 pm
@Tiberius…”“-Public funding of elections” Strongly disagree. Stop relying on government to provide you everything.”
And that is why we will continue with politicians that are beholden to campaign contributors, special interest groups and spend their time raising money rather than doing their job. Politics is like anything else follow the money to see where the allegiances lie.
JDW
February 4th, 2013
1:08 pm
@Tiberius…”Except this has nothing to do with conservatives vs. liberals, JDW, and you know it.”
No I don’t…take a poll on the two issues and see where you get support…it won’t be from the view that gave us Citizens United
Politico
February 4th, 2013
1:11 pm
“In my opinion, this is the beginning of watching the legislation die a death of a thousand small cuts.”
Underlying intent veiled as some willingness to present reform?
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
February 4th, 2013
1:17 pm
JDW
I could go with you on the public funding is it was tightly controlled and the election season limited to about 2 weeks. We need a paltry amount of money, no infusion of private money, dedicated time devoted to the choices on GA Public TV. State your case and lets vote. The huge amount of money now spent is to influence low information voters. Those voters can watch GPB or just play ennie, meanie, it will not make that much difference anyway. Most folks know, who they are going to vote for as soon as the ballot is complete, in most instances.
JDW
February 4th, 2013
1:32 pm
@Rafe…I mostly agree with you, I might give them a bit longer window say 6-8 weeks and try to have true head to head discussion among the candidates rather than the tripe that currently passes for a political debate.
md
February 4th, 2013
1:36 pm
“it won’t be from the view that gave us Citizens United”
Citizens United is merely common sense if one reads the first amendment and knows how to connect the dots………….
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
February 4th, 2013
2:40 pm
“take a poll on the two issues and see where you get support”
The problem with ethics reform, JDW, is your insistence on relying on polls and opinion for your ethics (and your policies), neither of which should be controlled by the whims of the masses.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
February 4th, 2013
11:30 pm
Freedom of speech gave us Citizens United.
Morning Reads Wednesday 6 February — Peach Pundit
February 6th, 2013
7:00 am
[...] Kyle Wingfield may be onto something with his definition of a lobbyist. [...]