Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/17/2003 01:10 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 17, 2003
1:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lesil McGuire, Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Jim Holm
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative Les Gara
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Tom Anderson, Vice Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 106
"An Act amending the definition of 'lobbyist' in the Regulation
of Lobbying Act, and as it applies in the act setting standards
of conduct for legislators and legislative employees, to define
'regular' and 'substantial' as those terms describe activities
for which a person receives consideration for the purpose of
influencing legislative or administrative action."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 106
SHORT TITLE:DEFINITION OF LOBBYING
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/14/03 0216 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/14/03 0216 (H) JUD
02/14/03 0216 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
02/28/03 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/28/03 (H) Heard & Held
02/28/03 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/17/03 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
BROOKE MILES, Executive Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
Department of Administration
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of HB 106.
PAMELA LaBOLLE, President
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce (ASCC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of HB 106.
TAMMY KEMPTON, Regulation of Lobbying
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of HB 106.
PETE ROBERTS
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of HB
106 and suggested a change.
GRAHAM G. STOREY, Executive Director
Nome Chamber of Commerce
Nome, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of HB
106.
MARGARET WOLFE
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of HB
106.
STEVE CLEARY, Executive Director
Alaska Public Interest Research Group (AkPIRG)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of HB
106.
ANDREE McLEOD
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of HB
106.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-21, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR LESIL McGUIRE called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. Representatives
McGuire, Holm, Coghill, Samuels, and Gara were present at the
call to order. Representative Gruenberg arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
HB 106 - DEFINITION OF LOBBYING
Number 0032
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 106, "An Act amending the definition of
'lobbyist' in the Regulation of Lobbying Act, and as it applies
in the act setting standards of conduct for legislators and
legislative employees, to define 'regular' and 'substantial' as
those terms describe activities for which a person receives
consideration for the purpose of influencing legislative or
administrative action." [In members' packets was a proposed
committee substitute (CS), Version 23-LS0405\H, Craver, 3/15/03,
and a proposed amendment.]
CHAIR McGUIRE reminded the committee that HB 106 was drafted
based on the framework already contained in the Alaska statutes
regarding lobbying. She noted that many on the committee,
excluding Representative Gara, have heard complaints regarding
the four-hour limitation. There have also been complaints
regarding: how one would know when the four-hour limitation is
being violated, what are the definitions of "communication" and
"lobbying", and what is one supposed to do for registration.
She noted that about 11 folks from different sectors of business
throughout the state met with her, and although the complaints
varied, most people were concerned that during [an upcoming]
meeting of the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce (ASCC), they
would meet with legislators and have a dinner, and then be over
the four-hour limit.
CHAIR McGUIRE noted that initially, [HB 106] increased the
number of hours contained in the statute. However, after
further review and discussion with various folks, she said she
decided to change focus, move away from the current statutory
framework, and look at a different model. This has led to
conversations between Chair McGuire's office, the Alaska Public
Offices Commission (APOC), and the ASCC in order to develop
language that would meet the goal without allowing professional
lobbyists not to register. With this in mind, she explained,
Colorado's statute and various ideas have been combined into a
CS.
CHAIR McGUIRE reminded the committee that in California there
are essentially no restrictions, but one must report everything.
In Washington there is a categorization of the different levels.
Colorado [statutes] define a volunteer lobbyist versus a
professional lobbyist on the basis of compensation. However,
the statutes in all of the aforementioned states are different
than the proposed [committee substitute (CS)] in that [the other
states] allow any lobbyist the ability to give money to any
candidate, whereas the proposed CS still prevents a professional
lobbyist from donating to candidates outside his/her district;
she added that this has been upheld by the Alaska Supreme Court.
Number 0404
CHAIR McGUIRE explained that Barbara Craver [Attorney,
Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative Legal and Research
Services, Legislative Affairs Agency] reviewed the existing
regulations and law in an attempt to develop comprehensive
legislation. She relayed Ms. Craver's opinion that much of [the
work addressing lobbyists] had been done piecemeal since 1976.
She noted that on page 4, line 21 of the CS [Version 23-
LS0405\H, Craver, 3/15/03], "payment" is defined. Furthermore,
Section 7 includes an entirely new [paragraph] defining
"communicate directly". She offered her belief that in the
past, APOC's position was to exclude testimony provided in
public hearings as well as preparation and research, and
suggested that the aforementioned was done through regulation.
[Version H] incorporates [such a provision] into law, she added.
Also, [Version H] defines "lobbying". She then posed a
situation in which a lobbyist bumps into [a legislator] on
his/her way to the floor session, and opined that such is
lobbying [due] to the person attempting to influence [the
legislator]. She opined that this [definition of "lobbying"] is
meant to discount communications between friends when the
discussion isn't related to legislation.
CHAIR McGUIRE explained that she and Brooke Miles, Executive
Director, APOC, had discussed and liked the notion of [defining
"lobbyist"] based on the percentage of compensation as opposed
to the percentage of hours. However, the drafter inadvertently
expressed the [definition of "lobbyist"] as a percentage of time
rather than a percentage of compensation. Therefore, she added,
there will be an amendment offered to [define "lobbyist" in
terms of the compensation received in a calendar month]. The
aforementioned proposed amendment reads [original punctuation
provided]:
Pg. 6, Ln. 1 &2
"(A) is employed as an employee, [SPENDS] earns
not more than 25 percent of [THE TIME] their employee
compensation in a calendar month [FOR WHICH THE PERSON
RECEIVES COMPENSATION FROM THE PERSON'S EMPLOYER]..."
CHAIR McGUIRE said she has a strong belief in the First
Amendment as well as in the continued use of watchdogs - agency
oversight - with regard to the dealings of the legislature. She
said she believes that four hours of contact in a 30-day period
is too little. "What we have been doing over the last 20-some-
odd years is basically ignoring the law, and I think most people
will admit that," she stated. She viewed that as a bad
practice. Furthermore, the legislature being located in Juneau
poses a particular challenge because when people spend the money
to fly into Juneau, they want to have as much contact with the
legislature during that possibly one-time visit. Moreover, the
short length of the session means that legislation moves in a
quick fashion and thus the contact necessary with various
legislators will amount, on average, to more than four hours in
a calendar month.
CHAIR MCGUIRE acknowledged the argument that one can just pay
$100 and register as a lobbyist and have unlimited communication
with the legislature. However, she said she disagreed because a
lobbyist that makes money should register as one, whereas an
individual merely expressing his/her opinion as a citizen
shouldn't have to [register] as a lobbyist unless he/she is
getting paid for expressing his/her opinion.
CHAIR McGUIRE said she welcomes all constructive conversation.
She also acknowledged her frustration, however, with the
characterization by some of media that HB 106 attempts to let
all lobbyists slide through the cracks, not register, and
provide undue influence. She stressed that the aforementioned
is not her goal.
Number 0877
BROOKE MILES, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), Department of Administration, said that she
finds [Version H] far more acceptable than the original, adding
that the original version was troubling because it appeared to
make it possible for even a professional lobbyist to not be
subject to the law. She opined that [Version H] appears to do
little if any harm to the public's right to know the identity
and activities of those who are paid to and who make payments to
influence the actions of the state's public decision makers.
Ms. Miles noted that [Version H] would not have a fiscal impact.
In conclusion, Ms. Miles also noted that she was only speaking
on behalf of APOC's staff rather than APOC itself, since it
hasn't had the opportunity to review [Version H].
Number 0981
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to adopt CSHB 106, Version 23-
LS0405\H, Craver, 3/15/03, as the work draft. There being no
objection, Version H was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA sought confirmation that APOC isn't taking a
position on this legislation at this point.
MS. MILES answered that she wasn't prepared to provide an
official APOC position. This legislation is on APOC's agenda
for its meeting in Juneau next week, she said, and APOC may or
may not have an official opinion on this legislation. She noted
that it isn't unusual for the commission to adopt a neutral
position because of the realization that it's the legislature's
constitutional responsibility to write the laws while it's the
executive branch's - in this instance, APOC's - responsibility
to administer or enforce the law. She indicated that [any
possible] concern would surround a significant loss of public
information or a fiscal impact, and if either were the case,
APOC may weigh in.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA surmised, then, that Ms. Miles wasn't
offering her personal opinion as to whether existing law or this
legislation would be preferable.
MS. MILES said that [APOC] staff always appreciates the intent
to provide a brighter line, a more objective method for
determining when a person who isn't specifically retained or
employed to be a lobbyist would be subject to the law. In past
investigations or public inquiries, the four-hour requirement
was difficult to substantiate with evidence. Therefore, the
ability to review an employee's work time and payroll records
[in order to establish whether the individual is a lobbyist]
would be easier.
Number 1141
REPRESENTATIVE GARA relayed his view that [Version H] makes it
even more difficult to prove. He reminded everyone that the
[existing] law provides that a lobbyist couldn't donate outside
his/her district when that individual spends four hours of face-
to-face, phone, or letter writing time during a month in order
to influence legislation. He posed a situation in which the
chief executive officer (CEO) spends a week of his time lobbying
to change the oil tax laws in Alaska. He inquired as to how it
would be easier to track 25 percent of a person's salary time
versus four hours of face-to-face, phone, and letter writing
time.
MS. MILES clarified that letter writing has never been subject
to the four-hour limit because it hasn't been considered direct
communication under APOC's regulations; that would remain the
case under this legislation. The problem substantiating
evidence for face-to-face time and telephone time [arises] if
the legislators and/or staff don't track it. She indicated that
people don't always track meetings either, which creates
difficulties as well. However, the work assignments and payroll
records of a company can be obtained. She made mention of
APOC's subpoena power.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA posed a situation in which the CEO of a
hazardous waste management company spends a full week in Juneau,
but not 25 percent of that CEO's salary time for the month.
Furthermore, if that CEO doesn't keep time records, how would
that situation be easier for APOC to decipher?
MS. MILES answered that there would be payroll records. The
APOC could substantiate that the individual was in Juneau for
the week, unless the individual was on leave without pay in
which case the individual wouldn't be subject to the law.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA pointed out that the payroll records
wouldn't specify how much of the week the lobbyist spent
lobbying legislators. Therefore, APOC would still have to
determine how much of that week the CEO spent lobbying, which is
the same problem that exists with the four-hour rule.
MS. MILES agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA viewed the situation [under the proposed
legislation] as more difficult for APOC because it would have to
count not just four hours but upwards of 40 hours before
determining whether the person violated the law.
MS. MILES replied that she didn't know [whether it will be more
difficult]. Off of the top of her head, she said, she felt that
basing it on the pay would be a more objective measure,
although, in the end, Representative Gara's position may be
true.
Number 1340
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG requested that Ms. Miles review the CS
and amendments and produce an analysis of each change this
legislation makes to existing law, regulation, and APOC
policies, including APOC's [informal] opinions.
MS. MILES agreed to do so.
CHAIR McGUIRE returned to Representative Gara's earlier remarks
and offered that the intent is to move away from time [as a
defining element for lobbyists]. She mentioned that in the
proposed amendment, the 25 percent refers to
earnings/compensation, not time. If an individual is
compensated to influence legislators and if over 25 percent of
that individual's salary per month is for the purpose of
lobbying legislators or administrators, then that individual
would be considered a lobbyist.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA posed the following hypothetical situation
of a corporate CEO who is expected by his employer to work 50
hours a week, approximately 210 hours a month. That corporate
CEO lobbies the legislature for a full 40 hours during that
month, and, therefore, spends a little less than 25 percent of
his/her work time that month lobbying. He offered his
understanding that the aforementioned CEO will never have to
report to the public that he lobbied the legislature, and,
furthermore, after the legislative session, that CEO would be
allowed to donate to candidates outside of his district as well
as hold fundraisers for candidates outside of his district.
Would that be correct, he asked.
MS. MILES answered that it may be correct under certain
circumstances. However, if part of the CEO's job is to
influence the actions of the legislature, then [Version H] would
require the CEO to register before engaging in lobbying
activities. If [lobbying] isn't part of the CEO's work
agreement, then the individual would fall under the 25-percent-
compensation test.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA pointed out that most employment contracts
don't go to that level of specificity. He posed a situation in
which an employee's contract didn't speak to lobbying but an
issue to the corporation comes up one month and the employee
spends a week speaking to the legislature, but it amounts to
less than 25 percent of the time the employee is expected work.
In such a situation, wouldn't the individual avoid public
scrutiny because the individual wouldn't be required to report
as a lobbyist? And then this individual could donate [to
candidates outside his district] after the session is over. He
asked if that would be correct under this legislation.
MS. MILES replied that she was unsure. However, she
acknowledged the possibility that some CEOs could spend less
than 25 percent of their compensatory time attempting to
influence the legislature and, then, once the campaign cycle
begins, be able to donate up to $500 to the candidate of their
choice.
Number 1668
PAMELA LaBOLLE, President, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce
(ASCC), opined that the remarks from APOC staff that [the
original legislation] would keep professional lobbyists from
having to register raised an invalid specter. She stressed that
the laws and regulations enacted by the legislature and the
administration have significant impact on the cost for
businesses because the only taxpayers to the state treasury are
corporate and business taxpayers. Furthermore, it is not
uncommon for business people to travel to Juneau to communicate
with legislators and administration staff while in town [in
order] to maximize time spent in Juneau. It also isn't uncommon
for business people to go on trade missions with the
administration because those in business have the expertise with
regard to the industries' operations and the cost to the
industries.
MS. LaBOLLE said that moreover, business people also speak with
legislators and administrators at conferences and other events.
Although the aforementioned activities may be a very small part
of what an individual does for his/her business or company, APOC
determined through regulation that such [a person] would be
considered a lobbyist. Therefore, she explained, ASCC requested
that the legislature create a new definition that will continue
to regulate professional, paid lobbyists, but not restrict
business people that are not in the business of lobbying and for
whom lobbying is not part of their job.
MS. LaBOLLE said that she could understand Representative Gara's
concern with regard to business people being able to give money
to candidates outside their district. However, she pointed out
that Representative Gara represents a relatively small, well-
defined area of the state when compared to others. For example,
Representative Foster has a district that covers hundreds of
square miles of Alaska. She questioned how those with large
districts are supposed to travel throughout their vast district
if they have to rely solely on money from those constituencies.
Although the aforementioned is another subject, it impacts this
discussion, said Ms. LaBolle.
Number 1920
MS. LaBOLLE opined that the media has been overlooked in that
news editors and columnist can write unlimited opinion pieces
with the intent of influencing legislation or administrative
action. However, those folks don't have to register as
lobbyists and, thus, their First Amendment rights aren't
impacted, she added. Furthermore, state and municipal employees
are exempt from the existing law and would be exempt from the
proposed law. She offered her belief that public officials and
employees can lobby an unlimited amount of time for laws and
regulations that increase the cost of government or business.
She said that professional lobbyists, already defined in law,
and business people who want to spend more than four hours
speaking about the very laws and regulations impacting the way
they do business are the individuals that have to register [as a
lobbyist] and must pay to do so.
MS. LaBOLLE turned to Version H and noted that she was aware of
the change with regard to the 25 percent of time spent [per
month] lobbying and was satisfied with that. However, she said
she couldn't speak to the 25 percent of income stipulation in
the aforementioned proposed amendment. In conclusion, Ms.
LaBolle relayed ASCC's belief that the state will benefit by
providing business owners greater access to state government.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM stated that [legislators] rely on the
expertise of individuals in order to make more informed
judgments. In many cases, the legislation [requiring the
expertise] is not special interest legislation. Therefore, he
inquired about Ms. LaBolle's assertion that municipal and state
employees receive extra compensation for being present in Juneau
and lobbying for their own pocketbooks. He pondered whether the
law should be changed so that those individuals have to follow
through with the same registration and reporting requirements as
private businesses.
Number 2104
MS. LaBOLLE acknowledged that the aforementioned [concept] had
been discussed among [ASCC members]. She relayed her belief
that it would be fair if as many Alaskans as possible have the
opportunity to provide as much input as necessary for the
legislature and the administration to make informed decisions.
She opined that restricting the time business people and
lobbyists are allowed to spend with the legislature is
tantamount to restricting the number of books one could check
out from the library. Therefore, she acknowledged, she didn't
know whether further limiting peoples' [access to the
legislature] is going in the appropriate direction.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said that he is somewhat disillusioned by
the process. While people are trying to be make [the
legislature] informed, there are accusations charging the
legislature with an inability to make a just decision because
[those informing the legislators] are attached to some
enterprise. However, those attached to a state union are
[treated differently].
MS. LaBOLLE said that it's unfair when business people with all
the facts and information on a issue are eliminated from the
process while public employees don't have the same constraint
placed on their First Amendment rights.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS noted that he was involved in politics in
two ways. In one capacity he would fly to Juneau to try to
influence legislation. He also was involved in politics as a
small-business person who made appointments with legislators to
discuss issues impacting his business. In those cases, he would
automatically exceed the four-hour limit, although he wasn't a
professional lobbyist. Furthermore, he said he didn't even know
about APOC then and was probably in violation. He remarked that
he didn't sympathize with the large companies [that lobby the
legislature], but did sympathize with the "little person" who
wants to influence the government.
TAPE 03-21, SIDE B
Number 2371
REPRESENTATIVE GARA pointed out, however, that under the current
law, citizens can speak to legislators regarding changing
legislation. Furthermore, under current law, people who are
paid [to influence legislation] can speak to legislators as much
as desired. Therefore, there is no prohibition against
accessing government, and businesses can be heard under the
current law. He opined that the real question is whether
businesses, after being heard, should be allowed to donate to
the legislators with whom they've spoken. The aforementioned is
of concern, he said. Why, he asked, is it not good enough that
business people can be heard as much as they want to be heard
under current law? Why change the law to then let them donate
and hold fundraisers after the session for the people with whom
they've spoken to?
MS. LaBOLLE responded by asking why business people should have
any fewer rights to participate in the electoral process than
anyone else. Furthermore, she asked why business people have to
pay $100 in order to speak more than four hours and have forms
to fill out and report. She also mentioned that failing to fill
out the reports correctly or in a timely manner engenders a fine
of $50 a day. She emphasized that business people are a class
of citizens who want to have the same rights as everyone else
when it comes to participating in the legislative,
administrative, and electoral processes.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA suggested making the form filing
requirements easier and changing the $100 filing fee, which,
incidentally, only applies if the individual receives
compensation for lobbying to change the law. He asked if Ms.
LaBolle would be satisfied with those changes or would she also
want changes allowing lobbyists to have greater ability to
donate to candidates outside their district and hold fundraisers
for candidates outside their district.
MS. LaBOLLE specified that [ASCC] is merely saying that the
business community is being treated as a separate class of
citizens in Alaska and aren't afforded the same rights.
Number 2227
CHAIR McGUIRE noted that she has taken money from the public
employee unions that she supports, and that these same unions
have sent people down to talk with her about issues they are
concerned with.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, addressing Ms. LaBolle, said:
If we got rid of the provisions of this bill that let
people who get paid to influence legislation donate
more money to candidates, if we got rid of those
provisions and kept the rules the same as they are
today for people who receive compensation to influence
legislation, if we left those rules the same about
donations but just made the filing forms more friendly
for you, made the $100 registration fee maybe a lower
amount, if we just address the registration fee and
the filing requirements for you, would you be happy to
leave the law the same as it is today as it relates to
donations by people who get paid to influence
legislation?
MS. LaBOLLE said no. She said that ASCC wants business people
to have the same rights as private citizens. She indicated that
she still has a problem with the regulation that says a regular
and substantial portion of someone's time is four hours per
month. She opined that when the original legislation specifying
that someone who spends a regular and substantial portion of
time be registered as a lobbyist, it was not meant for that to
be merely four hours per month, as was interpreted via
regulation. However, because no one challenged that regulation
at the time, and since further layers of change to the statute
have been made, members of the business community are now
feeling intimidated into having to register as lobbyists, she
remarked.
CHAIR McGUIRE opined that when making laws, they should be
written using the most objective terms possible. Keeping time,
however, is not objective, and she surmised that doing so is
difficult for APOC. She mentioned that the goal [of HB 106] is
to provide an objective analysis regarding what it means to be a
professional lobbyist. She opined that someone who derives
income from lobbying should register as a lobbyist, be subject
to disclosure laws, and be prohibited from donating to a wide
variety of districts. She mentioned a newspaper article that
had made the point that lobbying laws are designed to protect
legislators from lobbyists.
Number 1972
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned to Ms. LaBolle and noted her
comment regarding infringement of First Amendment rights. He
remarked that no one's First Amendment rights are being
infringed upon, since nothing prevents a businessperson or
anyone else, for that matter, from lobbying. The current law
merely stipulates that one must pay a small registration fee,
provide some financial information, and file some reports. The
only thing one can't do, under current law, is serve as a
campaign manager or director. Incidentally, he noted, the
"Wisconsin federal court" struck down the latter restriction as
being an infringement on free speech; therefore, perhaps the
legislature should investigate whether the current restrictions
on lobbyists with regard to campaign issues are constitutional.
He opined that when a person makes the choice to lobby for
legislation, that's his/her personal choice; he/she merely has
to decide whether it is worth it to give up the ability to
donate to people outside his/her district in favor of being able
to lobby.
MS. LaBOLLE opined that this is not such a small choice. She
pointed out that the business community is concerned with having
to disclose their financial information, since this information
would ultimately be available to competitors.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined, however, that if someone is
lobbying for a piece of legislation, the public has a right to
know whether he/she has a financial interest in that
legislation, at least in some manner. He suggested that instead
of using a sledgehammer on the current law, the legislature
should simply look into specifically changing what types of
information must be disclosed, for example, making an exception
for a business's client list and other proprietary information.
MS. LaBOLLE argued that business people are not lobbyists;
rather, they are merely citizens with a vested interest in what
government does. She noted that she is a lobbyist and made the
choice to give up some of her rights; however, she did not want
business people to have to make that same choice and be required
to fill out reports.
Number 1678
TAMMY KEMPTON, Regulation of Lobbying, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), Department of Administration, after noting
that she is the "Juneau branch administrator" for APOC,
indicated that she has brought for the committee copies of the
registration and reports that lobbyists must complete. She
said, "I think it's really important to know that employers do
not have to provide their client list. I'm not sure why that
misinformation is out there, but employers do not have to
provide a client list."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised, then, that only legislators
have to provide such a list.
MS. KEMPTON agreed. She said that the reports that are filed by
lobbyists and by employers of lobbyists are not nearly as
onerous as the financial disclosures that public officials have
to file. She continued:
The papers in front of you, that's all that gets filed
with us. Lobbyists file monthly during session; they
file quarterly thereafter. So they file a total of
eight reports. There is no annual report, wrap-up
report, at the end of the year. Employers of
lobbyists file quarterly, so they file four reports in
a year. There is a fine if you file late and you
don't have good cause for it. For good cause your
fine can [be] totally waived or at least reduced, but
the fine is not $50 a day; the fine is $10 a day. So,
I wanted to make those points first while they were
still fresh in everyone's mind.
CHAIR McGUIRE noted that the forms Ms. Kempton provided are
titled "2003 Lobbyist Registration Statement," "2003 Lobbyist
Report," and "2003 Employer Of Lobbyist Report."
MS. KEMPTON noted that these forms are also available on APOC's
web site. She surmised that Version H appears to do little if
any harm to the public's right to know the identity of and the
amounts spent by persons to influence legislative or
administrative action. An employee who spends 25 percent or
less time - or, via the aforementioned proposed amendment, 25
percent or less of his/her compensation - in a 30-day period
will not have to register. However, the employer is required to
report all payments made for services, time, and/or expenses of
that employee for or in connection with direct communication
with a public official if the employer also a has a registered,
professional lobbyist. So, businesses that have a professional
lobbyist and send people here to talk to legislators have to
tell APOC who was sent, and how much was paid in terms of
compensation, travel, and per diem. So, to a certain extent,
APOC should still be getting that information, she added.
Number 1468
MS. KEMPTON relayed that APOC staff is troubled by a couple of
exclusions listed in Section 7 regarding direct communication.
The first one, paragraph (13)(A), is troubling because it
excludes any and all testimony in front of public bodies such as
[the House Judiciary Standing Committee]. She added:
I have recently done the history of the lobbying law,
and it was [the House Judiciary Standing Committee]
who actually did the majority of the work in 1976 on
the lobbying law. And they were very clear about what
they meant about public testimony, because that was
something that they went over a lot. And what they
were trying to do was make sure that the public who
were not being paid to testify didn't have to register
as lobbyists; they didn't want them to become
lobbyists strictly because they had come and
testified. What they meant to get - I'm not sure they
wrote it as well as they might have, but hindsight is
always better once you see how things get interpreted
later - ... and what they said very clearly at their
hearings was that the people who were paid to come and
talk to them and then later track them down in the
halls and in their offices and [discuss] it more,
those were the people who should be registering.
CHAIR McGUIRE mentioned that she was willing to work on that
definition because she did not mean to exclude the professional
lobbyist. She indicated that she had meant to exclude the
businessperson that comes down to testify.
MS. KEMPTON pointed out however, that the House Judiciary
Standing Committee, back in 1976, had also intended to include
business employees who were being paid to come down and
influence the legislature. "So ... when employees came and
testified and then later tracked them down and lobbied some
more, those were the people they were trying to get," she added.
She went on to say, "They didn't think it was that difficult to
get the professional lobbyist; what they were looking at were
the employees."
Number 1310
MS. KEMPTON, in response to a question, suggested that paragraph
(13)(A) be modified so that it only includes people who are
solely testifying in public hearings. "We want to make clear
that we are not trying to get the person who pays their own way
to come here and sit down and talk to you people and that's the
extent of what they do; we certainly don't want to have them
feeling like they're supposed to be registered," she added.
And, of course, right now, people who don't receive compensation
don't have to and never have had to register as lobbyists. "We
want to be able to keep that very clear distinction," she
remarked.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to the question of whether
plane tickets are considered compensation, pointed out that this
issue is addressed on page 6, line 5, in that reasonable
reimbursement for such is not considered compensation.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked Ms. Kempton to draft substitute language for
paragraph (13)(A) before the committee next hears this
legislation.
MS. KEMPTON agreed to do so.
CHAIR McGUIRE noted that current regulation defines "communicate
directly" as: "to talk, either in person or by telephone, with
any public official or legislative employee; it does not include
time spent in the research, drafting, preparation, or adaptation
of documents for use by the lobbyist."
MS. KEMPTON pointed out that the other part of Section 7 that
troubles APOC staff is paragraph (13)(E), which exempts a person
meeting or speaking with a public official while in the company
of that person's registered lobbyist. She said, "We weren't
sure why that was included there, but we're also concerned, and
the attorneys on the committee would certainly know this better
than I, but the concern is that that may not pass muster."
Number 1154
REPRESENTATIVE GARA agreed that the aforementioned provision is
"completely troubling." He elaborated:
The way I read it, it would allow a corporate CEO to
come down here with a paid lobbyist ... and if they
came into your office, they could spend all month with
you, but since they're with a paid lobbyist, they're
not considered a lobbyist. I think that's what
[subparagraph] (E) says. If you lobby but you're
sitting next to somebody who is a professional
lobbyist, you can still donate, you can still hold
fundraisers, you're not considered a lobbyist. I
think it's pretty clear.
CHAIR McGUIRE mentioned that the aforementioned language was
meant to address situations in which the company employee is
able to relay more of an issue's specific technical details than
the lobbyist can.
MS. KEMPTON pointed out, however:
The other problem we saw with it is, that means if a
CEO and their registered lobbyist come in and talk to
you, the CEO would never run the risk of being
considered a lobbyist, but if they come in with their
vice president, now they could run that risk. And so
there just seems to be some equal protection problems
with this [subparagraph] as it's written. And I think
what we were looking more at - both for this one and
for [paragraph (13)(A) - rather] than to say, "We'll
do away with them altogether," is to ensure that,
rather than exempt it from "communicate directly",
have them count [it] towards that 25 percent of their
compensation because, especially (E), they really are
in there lobbying.
CHAIR McGUIRE surmised, then, that the suggestion is to have
those types of communications count towards the 25 percent of
one's salary which goes toward lobbying.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, referring to the proposed amendment,
said it does not track and it is not grammatically correct. He
asked, "How can you tell whether your 25 percent is related to
lobbying or not unless you track it in time?" It seems to add
another layer to it, he remarked, noting that he does not see
the nexus or how the provision can be enforced.
Number 0937
CHAIR McGUIRE mentioned that the proposed amendment came from
conversations she'd had with Ms. Miles.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG argued, however, that if a person
receives a yearly salary of $100,000, one would not know whether
25 percent of it was for lobbying as opposed to some other duty.
He went on to say:
I don't know how you can quantify that, unless you
were to try and do it by time and unless you're a
lawyer who keeps track of their time; nobody else
does, as far as I know, and I think lawyers are
somewhat getting away from that now, too, to task-
based kinds of [calculations].
CHAIR McGUIRE remarked, "This comes from Colorado," and that she
would try to find out more information regarding its
applicability prior to the legislation's next hearing. She
added, "This is a tried-and-true method in other states."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said, "I would hope we don't vote on
this [amendment] today until we know on that; I would ask you to
postpone it until next time."
CHAIR McGUIRE said, "Okay."
MS. KEMPTON, returning to Version H, said:
We do feel that a really important accomplishment of
[Version H] is that it does provide ... clearer
definitions than the current law does. And bright-
line definitions are easier for the public to
understand, which is the most important thing.
They're also easier for us to enforce, which, of
course, is just a nice little extra. The really
important part is so that when the public reads this,
they know whether or not they're a lobbyist, or they
know what constitutes lobbying. And the current law
doesn't define lobbying; this Version [H] does. I
think that's a really good addition. I had a lobbyist
the other day tell me, "Well, it's not defined; how do
I know when I'm lobbying?"
MS. KEMPTON thanked legislative staff for working with her, and
the committee for providing her with an opportunity to testify.
Number 0779
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he wanted to know "how much of a gaping
hole we're putting into the existing law as far as allowing
people to donate to candidates after they've lobbied them." He
elaborated:
If you look at page 6, lines 1-7, that announces the
new 25-percent rule, which takes the place of the old
four-hours-per-month rule in some sense. ... The way I
read it, I don't think a single CEO anywhere in the
state would ever have to register as a lobbyist under
this new law. But I want to find out if I'm wrong.
So, let's assume you have a CEO who, like many
professionals, let's say, is assumed to work 50 hours
a week - that's the expectation of the employer. And
so, let's say that's roughly 210 hours a month in a
four-and-a-quarter-week month. So, this CEO of an oil
company [for example] works 210 hours a month in a
four-and-a-quarter-week month. Can you tell me how
much that CEO would be able to work to influence
legislation and still not have to register as a
lobbyist and still be able to donate to candidates and
hold fundraisers outside of their district? Up to how
much are we letting these people do now without
reporting, under this section?
MS. KEMPTON said she could not provide that information without
a calculator.
CHAIR McGUIRE, notwithstanding Representative Gruenberg's
request to delay the adoption of the proposed amendment and her
initial agreement to do so, asked for a motion in order that the
amendment's specific language be before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked if Ms. Kempton could be provided with
a calculator.
Number 0657
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment
1 [text previously provided].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for the purpose of discussion.
He asked members to read the amendment so that they, too, could
see that it is not grammatically correct.
CHAIR McGUIRE remarked that the purpose of making Amendment 1
conceptual was to allow the drafters leeway.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said: "It reads like this, 'Who is employed
as an employee earns not more than 25 percent of their employee
compensation in a calendar month'."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said, "That doesn't make sense."
CHAIR McGUIRE reiterated that since Amendment 1 is conceptual,
the drafters could work on it more. She suggested the committee
vote on the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out, however, that if the
amendment is intended to address compensation for lobbying, it
currently lacks any reference to lobbying.
CHAIR McGUIRE observed that the phrase, "incurred while
lobbying" can be found on line 5 of the language that's being
amended on page 6.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA objected.
Number 0407
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gruenberg, Coghill,
Holm, Samuels, and McGuire voted in favor of adopting Conceptual
Amendment 1. Representative Gara voted against it. Therefore,
Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote of 5-1.
CHAIR McGUIRE remarked that with the adoption of Conceptual
Amendment 1, the committee could now address the 25-percent-of-
compensation issue.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA returned to his earlier example, and again
asked how much lobbying a CEO who works 200 hours a month could
do during a month without having to register as a lobbyist.
MS. KEMPTON calculated that it would be 50 hours.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA surmised, then, that in this example, the
CEO could lobby 50 hours a month, the public would never know
that person lobbied because he/she does not have to register,
and that person could donate to all of the legislators he/she
lobbies during that month.
MS. KEMPTON replied:
Possibly. And the reason I say possibly is because it
would depend on the company that [he/she] ... is
working for. If the CEO is working for a company that
has a registered lobbyist, their compensation and
expenditures for coming down here will be reported,
and where it gets reported on those forms I handed out
is on the "Employer of Lobbyist Report: Schedule B."
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said, "Let's assume we're talking about a
corporation that doesn't have a registered professional lobbyist
on board; instead, they've decided they're going to use their
CEO, so they don't have a professional lobbyist."
MS. KEMPTON replied that the answer for that example is yes,
such a person could lobby 50 hours a month, not have to
register, and donate to everyone he/she lobbies.
CHAIR McGUIRE noted that the aforementioned example is
hypothetical, and that although the legislature directs policy,
it is then up to the agency to write regulations reflecting that
policy.
Number 0156
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL mentioned that it might be difficult to
calculate the [compensatory] value of a person's time spent in
the airport attempting to fly into Juneau, for example, so that
he/she can talk to legislators.
CHAIR McGUIRE said that that was one of the reasons for moving
toward "this Colorado model of compensation."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pointed out, however, that compensation
must be extrapolated "out of a time element."
CHAIR McGUIRE turned to the issue of volunteer lobbyists, and
stated that they, too, must fill out a form. "So it isn't that
the public doesn't have any idea whatsoever about what's going
on; ... they do know.
TAPE 03-22, SIDE A
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE GARA indicated that that statement is incorrect.
The public only gets to know a [volunteer lobbyist] is spending
50 hours a month lobbying if a corporation also employs a
professional lobbyist; if the corporation does not do so, then
the public does not get to know. In response to Representative
Coghill, he noted that time spent in the airport or in a hotel
would not count toward lobbying under either current law or
Version H. He ventured that the only time that counts is the
time actually spent lobbying the legislature, adding, "so we
really wouldn't have this specter of people who just come down
for a couple of days who would all of a sudden have to
register."
CHAIR McGUIRE remarked that apparently Representative Gara is
clearer about the laws than is APOC.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA countered, "I think the agency would agree
with me."
CHAIR McGUIRE stated, "That's not the case; they've had a lot of
difficulty in terms of interpreting this."
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked how APOC would even know whether
somebody from a small company spent more than four hours
lobbying the legislature.
MS. KEMPTON said that APOC frequently does not know unless
someone brings the issue forward, for example, by calling APOC
and saying: "So and so is in the legislature lobbying and I
don't see them on the [lobbyist] directory."
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM remarked that most CEO's don't sign
contracts saying how many hours they will work. Thus, he
surmised, a percent of compensation is "the only way you can
look at it."
Number 0327
PETE ROBERTS remarked that Version H is a step in the right
direction; four hours is arbitrary, subjective, and means
nothing because "in some cases, 15 minutes will do it and in
some cases 14 days won't." He suggested, however, that perhaps
it would be better to calculate one-quarter or one-third of
compensation for a whole legislative session, since one cannot
predict whether one will need to spend a lot of time lobbying
during the first two months of session, for example, but not any
time thereafter.
Number 0427
GRAHAM G. STOREY, Executive Director, Nome Chamber of Commerce,
noted that the vast majority of CEO's and business owners in the
Nome area run small businesses. He opined that the current
four-hour limitation is unreasonable. With regard to time spent
lobbying, he said that although he is getting paid to testify
today, he has spent 118 minutes waiting for the opportunity to
do so.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered an apology on behalf of the
committee for Mr. Storey's wait.
Number 0579
MARGARET WOLFE said that as a citizen, she wants to know
everyone who is being paid or compensated in any way for
lobbying the legislature. That includes the businessperson who
will charge the expenses to his/her business; it includes the
salaries, the consultation fees, and the contracts. "Anybody
who is being paid to talk to the legislature on behalf of any
particular group or interest, I want to know who those people
are, I want them registered as lobbyists, I don't care whether
it's four or four hundred hours," she stated.
CHAIR McGUIRE suggested that Ms. Wolfe ask Representative Gara
to introduce a bill that will require all state employees to
register as lobbyists. She asked Ms. Wolfe whether she would
support such a bill.
MS. WOLFE said:
Not when you call them and ask them to come in and
tell you things; that's different. If they do it on
their own time, and they do it at their own behest,
and if they do it on vacation time, that's fine. But
I know that the committees often call employees in to
talk to them, and then it's a part of their job.
CHAIR McGUIRE said she did not disagree. She opined that the
same analogy would hold true if she were to ask a businessperson
to come in and testify.
MS. WOLFE disagreed. She said the businessperson is going to
charge those expenses back to the company, whereas the state
employee isn't going to get any more money.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked, "So do you support regulation of the
testimony, or the lobbying, of public employees or municipal
employees of any kind of any nature of any amount of hours of
time?"
MS. WOLFE replied, "No; if they're coming in to you, and I
assume that they're doing it on work time, then they better have
a work reason for being there."
CHAIR McGUIRE asked:
Can you envision a situation where an employee might
be in a contract dispute with a company, and both have
two different sides of an issue ..., perhaps a
contract dispute that's before the legislature? Do
think it's fair that one side gets the opportunity for
unlimited access and influence over the legislature
when the other side does not?
Number 0749
MS. WOLFE pointed out that she is not speaking about limiting
access. She reiterated that she does not care how many hours
are spent; she simply wants to know whether someone is getting
paid to influence the legislature.
CHAIR McGUIRE remarked, "So, in other words, you would support
government employees or municipal employees simply registering
and letting us know the time that they're spending and what
they're influencing us on."
MS. WOLFE responded, "And if they're doing it on their own
behalf, then they better be taking vacation time to do it."
REPRESENTATIVE GARA thanked Ms. Wolfe. He went on to say:
I'm just going to state for the record that my
comments have maybe not been understood perfectly well
by the Chair. I, too, object to the idea that
somebody, regardless of whether you're a CEO or a
small-business person, can spend large amounts of time
trying to influence legislation and keep the public
from knowing that they're doing that. So, I'm not so
focused on the CEO example, either. I think if you
spend time trying to influence legislation and you're
paid for it, the public should know.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked Representative Gara whether he would support
the addition of requiring public and municipal employees to
declare when they are attempting to influence legislation or
administrative action.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA replied:
There's never been a demonstrated problem that
municipal employees are spending large amounts of time
down here trying to influence legislation, but if
that's a problem, I'll certainly work with you on it.
Right now, we're talking about allowing private
businesses to influence legislation, and, since that's
what the bill does, I've directed my comments to that
problem. But I'd work with you if wanted to start
addressing something having to do with public
employees.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked, "How do we know, if they're not
registered; how do we know there's not a problem?"
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that during his time as a legislator,
he has had no state employees walk through his office, on their
work time, trying to lobby to influence legislation. There have
been school board folks, he remarked, but not state employees or
municipal employees, while on city or state payroll, spending 40
hours a month trying to influence legislation. "At least none
that I have seen, but if that is a problem, then let's deal with
it," he added. But there is a huge disconnect with trying to
deal with any perceived public employee problem by opening the
floodgates to private corporate and business donations to
candidates, as this bill would do, he concluded.
Number 0907
STEVE CLEARY, Executive Director, Alaska Public Interest
Research Group (AkPIRG), said:
I appreciated your earlier comments ... Madam Chair,
about keeping the donation and the fundraiser ban on
professional lobbyists, and also your comments
directed towards continuing to have watchdogs. And I
believe the Alaska Public Offices Commission has been
a great watchdog for Alaska for a long time, and I
hope they continue to receive your support,
particularly in the lobbying arena. I did have some
comments prepared from last time, when I thought there
were a lot of misunderstandings, but it seems like
there are still many misunderstandings as to what
lobbying is, and I certainly could have some of them
myself.
Ms. LaBolle of the [ASCC] was [likening] ... trade
missions, ... which I assume would be to other states
or other countries, ... to lobbying, and, frankly,
that's mind-boggling to me that ... businesses would
be invited to go on a trade mission and have to
consider that lobbying, as well as testimony in front
of your committee today. As the rule stands, as I
understand it, this is not lobbying, and so the
gentleman up in Nome didn't spend ... his two minutes
nor his two hours lobbying today. And if you testify
at a public hearing, that is not lobbying. And we
already heard Ms. Kempton correct Ms. LaBolle, who was
exaggerating the fines at $50 a day, when really
they're only $10. The registration fee is not onerous
and draconian, as we've heard before.
Number 1009
MR. CLEARY continued:
Really, the law as it is now is protecting Alaska and
allowing open access to the lobbyists, who are, in
turn, influencing our politicians. And it's very
important for Alaskans to continue to have that. As
we've seen through the hearing today, it comes out
that a company, without employing a professional
lobbyist, could have one or more lobbyists who could
lobby up to 40-50 hours a month and not have to
register. So, my question to the committee is, why
would the company get a registered lobbyist in the
first place?
There are currently 11 companies registered in Alaska
who have four or more lobbyists. I'm looking at the
Exxon Mobil Corporation, right here, with six
lobbyists. If they had six lobbyists who split their
time equally, none of them would be required to report
it [if] they didn't go over 25 percent. There's other
corporations like VECO [Corporation] with four
lobbyists; they could split it equally or even just
cut back a little bit to 24 percent, then they don't
have to register with the state. Alaskans aren't
going to know about it, and they're influencing our
politicians and, more importantly, they're able to
donate to everybody, across the board, [and] hold
fundraisers for everybody.
Now, really I'll finish with what I think is the main
issue here: Citizen access to government versus
business access to government. And obviously,
citizens run businesses. I would never dispute that.
But if a businessperson comes to Juneau to talk to
more than their Senator and Representative, then
they're a lobbyist, plain and simple. They're trying
to influence legislation that isn't for citizen
purposes; it's for their business purposes. And those
are the kind of people that Alaskans need to know
about because ... these special interests have an
undue influence on our political system, so much so
that we've come up with these regulations to monitor
that. And this bill is bad public policy because it
would undermine that. I thank you for the opportunity
to testify; I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Number 1124
CHAIR McGUIRE offered her belief that currently, testifying in
front of committee does count toward the time limit, whereas
with Version H, it would not. She added that APOC staff have
indicated that they would prefer that such continue to count
toward a time limit. She suggested that small businesses can't
afford to hire professional lobbyists, and that the discussion
today was in the interest of small businesses as opposed to big
businesses such as Exxon Mobil Corporation.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS noted that according to a newspaper
article, over 92 percent of Alaskan businesses have less than
five employees. He said he agrees that professional lobbyists
for large businesses should be regulated.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA clarified that one can testify before
committees as much as one wants and not be considered a lobbyist
as long as he/she is not getting paid while testifying. He went
on to say:
What we're dealing with in this bill is regulating
people who get paid to lobby. But citizens don't have
to register as lobbyists if they're not getting paid
to change the law. The small-business issue is an
interesting one. Certainly we want small businesses
to be able to approach their representatives. They
can; under current law they can approach their
representatives. The question is whether they can
donate to the representatives they meet.
And I would just point out one real-world example.
The Chamber of Commerce is a conglomeration of small
and large businesses ... to the extent they support
the Chamber's policies. The Chamber is working on
rolling back a certain portion of our minimum wage;
that's one of their agenda items. I think, regardless
of whether you're a small-business owner [or] a large-
business owner, if you're coming down to the
legislature to try and convince us to roll back the
minimum wage, if you're trying to influence
legislation and you're being paid for it, I think the
public has a right to know.
CHAIR McGUIRE opined that currently someone who is not getting
paid can testify as much as one wants, but only so long as it
does not exceed four hours in a month.
Number 1395
ANDREE McLEOD thanked the committee for the opportunity to
testify, both at this meeting and at the prior hearing of HB
106. She remarked that intimidation is the undercurrent of HB
106. She went on to relay that she was involved at the
municipal level in getting lobbying regulations enacted. She
said she'd noticed that that system was broken when she realized
that whenever anyone sitting on the assembly had to vote on an
issue, he/she would first gaze at someone specific in the
audience for a reaction. This municipal lobbying law was put
into place in 2000. She said that this system, which had been
broken, is almost fixed; almost in that the amounts being paid
to lobbyists is still not known. Money is a tool that is used
to assess political activity, she remarked; politics is all
about relationships, and assessing those relationships is done
through tracking money with the help of existing statutes and
regulations
MS. McLEOD said:
There is a purpose to the regulation of lobbying in
the Alaska statutes, and it is that the people are
entitled to know the identity, ... income,
expenditures, and activities of those persons who pay,
are paid or reimbursed for expenses, or who make
expenditures or other payments in an effort to
influence legislative or administrative action.
That's there for you to protect. It's not up for
discussion, I don't think; it's there. So ... the
more you try to drive those activities underground,
the more you direct that information underground and
out of the public light, the less transparent those
activities become.
And then the risk to the member of the public, in
order to follow that money trail, increases. And one
of the things I experienced as I was trying to bring
about some type of change into the dynamics of our
municipal government was the level of intimidation
that came my way. I have to be careful in what I say
because I don't want to be sued, but I was verbally
assaulted, I was very intimidated.
Number 1540
And right now we have a clearinghouse; we have a place
to go when we want to find out information. And it's
a very safe environment; we can do it safely. If you
take these activities, that now occur, and you put
them underground, and just because you define lobbying
as something else, [it] doesn't mean that those
activities don't occur anymore. They'll just be
called something else.
MS. McLEOD continued:
When we talk about relationships in politics, it is
very personal, and in order to bring some type of
rhyme or reason to all of these relationships, it gets
emotional. And we need to stay rational, and
[tracking] money is a way to keep it rational. Having
a clearinghouse that provides the information so that
people can go to get this information - practically
anonymously we can get this information - then it no
longer becomes personal and we can stay rational with
it.
And I think paramount to anything that you do, you not
only protect the public's right to know, which is put
in statute, you not only protect the people to find
out that information, but you protect it in a way that
you maintain a safe environment so that they can find
out what's going on without bringing any undue risk to
themselves or their families. And I thank you for all
the time you're taking on this; ... as Representative
Coghill said, ... I hope you would all bring a respect
for the system and the institution of our government,
our rules, and the people who fit them together.
Please remember the public's right to know - we're not
irrelevant.
Number 1640
CHAIR McGUIRE thanked Ms. McLeod and said:
I don't have a different goal in mind than anything
that you've just said. What I'm looking at is a
system that isn't working by the ... agency's own
admission. It's difficult, if not impossible, to keep
track of what four hours means. So that kind of
watchdog that you're talking about - that kind of
action - is not occurring right now. It's not
because they're incompetent; it's because it's a very
difficult system to try to keep track of. I do think
it's important to have a watchdog, I do think it's
important to have this agency, but I think we need to
try to come up with some method ... that is more
objective versus subjective. And so that is what
we're trying to do. I don't have a different goal
than any single thing that you said, and I hope you
understand that.
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that HB 106 [Version H, as amended]
would be held over. [Note to the reader: On 5/17/03, HB 106 -
Definition of Lobbying had all text removed and became HB 106 -
Telecommunications & RCA Actions.]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1693
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|