What should be done about gifts by lobbyists to Utah legislators? Should lawmakers be reported if they accept over $100 a day - or over $25 a day? Should all giving, no matter how small, be reported? Or should the lobbyist-reporting law be repealed altogether?
House Republicans and Democrats have different ideas about restricting spending by lobbyists - and senators may refuse to do anything about it in January's legislative session or even vote to repeal the existing reporting law.Rep. Jordan Tanner is realistic: He sees his bill, which would lower the reporting level from the current $100 a day to $25 a day - passing the House but floundering in the Senate, where he anticipates little support.
House Minority Whip Kelly Atkinson, D-West Jordan, says he'll introduce a bill that moves the $100 level to $0. "I want to report all giving to us by lobbyists. That stops this game-playing once and for all."
"There's no question the people want these reforms," says Tanner, R-Provo, who has fought these battles before only to see the Senate refuse to even debate his bills. "We'll see what happens this year."
Tanner has prefiled his lobbyist-disclosure bill. He's also prefiled a campaign-reform bill aimed at reducing the financial influence of special interest groups, like PACs and labor unions, on legislative campaigns. Similar bills last year failed.
Senate Majority Leader Lane Beattie, R-Bountiful, has said before that the current lobbyist-reporting law hasn't worked, that it is mainly used by the media to embarrass lawmakers and lobbyists, insinuating wrongdoing where none is taking place. Beattie doesn't expect either Tanner's or Atkinson's bill to pass the Senate. Indeed, Beattie says the lobbyist-reporting law should be repealed and replaced with internal House and Senate rules aimed at stopping egregious behavior - like a lawmaker accepting a trip to Hawaii or soliciting Utah Jazz tickets from lobbyists.
Under current law, a registered lobbyist must file a report with the lieutenant governor's office if he spends more than $100 a quarter entertaining lawmakers. If the lobbyist spends more than $100 a day on a single lawmaker or a member of the lawmaker's immediate family, he must include in his report the lawmaker's name and what the money purchased.
Even though more than $70,000 was spent entertaining lawmakers during the 45 days of the 1993 Legislature, a review of lobbyist reports shows only a handful of lawmakers' names listed. Gross spending amounts were listed, as the law requires, but the spending is not tied to any legislator. Thus, the intent of the law - to see who is trying to influence whom - is lost.
To get at greater disclosure, Tanner wants to lower the reporting level from $100 a day to $25 a day. He also wants to make it illegal for a registered lobbyist to spend more than $50 a day on any "public official" who may, in the near future, make a decision that could impact the lobbyists' clients. In practice, that would mean no lobbyist could spend more than $50 a day on a lawmaker - since all lawmakers could at just about any time take a vote that could affect a lobbyist's client.
Atkinson praises Tanner for taking up the lobbyist issue the past several years. But he says the public's opinion of the lobbyist/-lawmaker relationship is so jaded that only complete disclosure will suffice. "The central issue is: Is anyone selling his vote? I don't think so. But if you assume someone could sell (his) vote for $100, why not $25? The only answer is report all giving (by name). Now, if one of my constituents wonders who is giving me things that cost under $100, there is no public record for me to show him. At $25, he could still ask who is giving me things under $25. At zero, total reporting, I can show my constituent what things I've taken. Better yet for me, I can show him that I haven't taken these things," Atkinson says.
But at $0 wouldn't lawmakers, fearing public exposure and criticism, stop going to lunch with lobbyists, stop going to Jazz games and accepting free golf?
"Yes," says Atkinson. "And I don't think that's a bad thing."
Tanner counters that at $25, lawmakers could still go to lunch with lobbyists and not have their names listed in reports. The lunches provide valuable material that helps part-time lawmakers make decisions, he says.
The political kicker is this: Democrats may well vote against Tanner's $25 limit, saying it is inadequate and encourages cheating by lobbyists. And Republicans may well vote against Atkinson's $0 reporting level, feeling that as the majority party (more lawmakers eating more lobbyist lunches), they could be setting themselves up for campaign criticism.
And, according to Beattie, senators may vote against both measures, meaning nothing will change.