Home Mission Join Alerts Opinion Action Watchdog Links Regional Contact Us Statistics
|
|
Editorials "An Informed Voter Is The Best Defense Against Bad Government"
"Push to redefine 'LOBBYIST' by State Chamber has hidden agenda" by Steve Cleary, Executive Director, AkPIRG. March 24, 2003
The legislative push by the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce (HB 106) to redefine lobbyist has a hidden agenda: To remove legal restrictions that limit lobbyists to campaign contributions only in their own districts.
“By redefining ‘lobbyist’ representatives of powerful, monied interests can return to their old ways of matching persuasive talk with campaign contributions to buy influence in the political process,” stated Steve Cleary of AkPIRG. “This is not about talk. This is about money.”
“Alaskans pressed for Campaign Finance Reform that included a mandate to break the link between lobbying and salting the system with money. The public wants to know who lobbies its lawmakers far away from the public eye and it wants to limit lobbyist to words and not buckets of cash,” Cleary continued. “HB 106 is a sneaky way to defy the public will and allow lobbyists to get around campaign finance reform.”
The Alaska State Chamber of Commerce is leading the effort to pass the bill. Pete Leathard, VECO President, is also on the Executive committee of the Chamber and will take over as Chair next year. Bill Allen, a registered lobbyist for VECO in 2002 and 2003, was fined $590 in June of 2002 by the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) for failing to register as a lobbyist.
Mr. Allen donated $21,800 to candidates and political parties in 1998, $12,250 in 1999, $22,550 in 2000, $12,350 in 2001 but just $6,950 in 2002 since as a lobbyist he was only allowed to donate in his district.
"TESTIMONY ON HB 106 - AMENDING LOBBYING REGULATIONS" By Steve Cleary, Executive Director, AkPIRG; February 28, 2003
AkPIRG wishes to express its opposition to HB 106 which will gut the Regulation of Lobbying Act to such a degree that nearly no one will be required to register as a lobbyist in the State of Alaska. This is bad public policy and will further erode the public’s trust in the political system by increasing the influence of lobbyists on Alaska lawmakers by shielding them from public view.
There appears to be substantial misunderstanding about what constitutes lobbying. In testimony on Friday, several testifiers cited speaking with the Dept. of Natural Resources and their local Legislative Information Office as lobbying. Clearly, this is not lobbying.
These frequent misunderstandings form the basis of most support for the bill. Further testimony cited the onerous and draconian burdens placed on small businesses, but after reviewing the 33 pages of employers with lobbyists, I find few if any small businesses. Fines for breaking the law were also deemed “significant,” though they are $10 a day.
Since statehood, Alaska has had a law regulating lobbyists, and this would render that law useless. This current legislation would override a 26 year-old regulation. To be able to transparently see who is attempting to influence our legislators is something the public has come to depend on. This bill will greatly decrease that transparency and expand the power of special interests over our political system.
Since this bill addresses a law that has been extant since 1978, one needs to wonder why this sudden call for a change in definition. Currently, registered lobbyists are not able to host fundraisers, nor are they able to donate to candidates outside their legislative district. There are two ways to attempt to get around that. First, one could attempt to directly remove the prohibition on such fundraisers or donations. Second, one could attempt to alter who is considered a lobbyist, and by so doing eliminate the effect of the fundraiser and donation ban. This legislation appears to be an attempt at the latter, that is, an effort to exempt everyone from having to register as a lobbyist, thus exempting them from the fundraiser and donation ban.
The definitions in this bill for “regular” and “substantial” are not adequate to capture all the people currently engaging in lobbying. Someone could lobby the last quarter of the session and not meet the 30 day requirement. Forty hours of direct communication in a 30-day period is a bar so high as to be meaningless.
HB 106 is bad public policy and AkPIRG urges your strong opposition to its passage.
|
