In-Depth coverage
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has covered the push for ethics reform every step of the way with investigative reporting looking into how our public officials interact with lobbyists, where the system fails and how other states have done it better. As the Legislature wrestles with how to overhaul the system, the AJC will continue to provide in-depth coverage you will not find anywhere else.
Republican leaders in the Senate say the $100 lobbyist gift cap adopted on the session’s first day “set a new tone” for the Capitol. House Speaker David Ralston claims the Senate cap is really a “visor” because it covers so little.
The real reform, Ralston claims, is his proposed ban on lobbyist gifts.
Neither measure will appease voters looking for a total ban on the trips, meals and other gifts lobbyists have long provided lawmakers, but an analysis by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution finds the Ralston’s House bill gets much closer.
That will come as little surprise to the Blue Ridge Republican, who has made no effort to hide his disdain for the Senate plan. When asked if it was too weak, Ralston said, “I don’t even know if it rises to weakness.”
Some advocates who have lobbied hard for a cap complain that Ralston’s bill — House Bill 142 — is rife with loopholes.
The AJC reviewed lobbyist spending during a frenetic period of last year’s legislative session – the week leading up to crossover day, after which bills that haven’t passed one house or the other are dead for the session – and then determined how the new House and Senate measures would have affected that spending.
While the results come with some caveats, the speaker’s plan had dramatically greater effects both on total spending and on the number of individual expenditures.
During the crossover week of March 4-10, 2012, lobbyists reported 380 separate expenditures on lawmakers totaling $35,396. The spending covered everything from large receptions and concert tickets to fancy meals and cheap lunches.
Had the Senate rule been in force that week and been applied across state government, it would have reduced total spending by 12.5 percent to $30,975. The total number of expenditures would have fallen 5.8 percent to 358.
Ralston’s plan would have reduced lobbyists’ gifts to $18,646 — a 47.3 percent drop — while cutting the number of expenditures 72.4 percent to 105.
“The gift ban proposed in Speaker Ralston’s legislation responds directly to what the people have demanded and is a very strong statement on the issues of ethics and public trust,” said Rep. Rich Golick, R-Smyrna, who chairs the House subcommittee handling the legislation.
Moreover, Ralston’s proposed gift ban would change the law. The Senate measure is a change in the Senate’s own rules. Golick made that point in the House bill’s first hearing last week.
“It’s the only measure that has been introduced so far that the force of law,” he said. “Anything else is inadequate.”
Both plans contain similar loopholes that would allow much of the current lobbyist spending to continue. For instance, lobbyists can continue to entertain groups of legislators down to the subcommittee level as long as all members of the group are invited. There also are exemptions in both plans for lobbyist-funded trips, as long as the trip falls within a legislator’s official duties.
Those loopholes preserve some of the more popular forms of spending and would allow lobbyists to continue ferrying senior lawmakers to conventions at beach resorts, catering dinners for entire committees ahead of important votes and staging large events like the annual Wild Hog Supper.
Largely the plans take singular aim at the most common expense: One-on-one dining or entertaining between a lawmaker and a registered lobbyist.
The largest difference is that the Senate rule does not touch the dozens of meals lawmakers and legislators have that cost under $100.
That week, there were about 10 meals and three concert tickets that exceeded $100 in value, but there were dozens of dinners, lunches and the occasional breakfast or low-value trinket that would have been unaffected by the Senate rule. Theoretically, Ralston’s ban captured them all.
Neither scheme would have prohibited the $2,719 dinner for the House Rules Committee thrown the day before crossover day and paid for by lobbyists representing Georgia Power, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, AFLAC, Sprint and other powerful interests.
Both ban and cap would also have spared the more than $7,600 spent in group meals for the General Assembly or various party caucuses throughout crossover day by lobbyists representing everything from poultry farmers to satellite television providers.
The analysis may understate the actual effects of either the cap or the ban since it does not take into account what effect either scenario might have on the overall culture of the Capitol.
Last year when advocates began to gain traction in their calls for reform, lobbyist spending dropped 24 percent — the first decline in five years — without any change in the law. Other states that have enacted caps or bans with exceptions have seen lobbyist spending virtually dry up even where spending was allowed.
The analysis also does not take into account possible workarounds that lobbyists could exploit to keep on spending. It is tough to say which plan has more of these loopholes, but some people are trying.
“This is not the Senate rule, so fraught with loopholes … that it really doesn’t pass the laugh test,” Rep. Matt Ramsey, R-Peachtree City, said in defense of the House bill.
League of Women Voters Program Director Kelli Persons, a member of the bipartisan alliance backing a $100 cap, said the opposite is true.
“The legislation currently written has more exceptions and loopholes than the Senate rule that was passed,” said Kelli Persons, program manager for the League of Women Voters.
That’s what has Common Cause Georgia Executive Director William Perry concerned about Ralston’s plan. Ralston’s bill is longer and more detailed than the Senate rule, and Perry said it may give lobbyists more wiggle room.
Perry said he hopes House members are willing to work on tightening the language to prevent abuse.
“I don’t think those are intentional carve-outs. They are not trying to be that sneaky,” he said.
Support for either path may come down to how “reform” is defined. For members of the alliance, the cap accomplishes that, even if it would allow most of the spending to continue as before.
“We think $100 is reasonable. You can buy a member a cup of coffee or go out and have that dinner,” Persons said. “It’s getting rid of the over-the-top, that excessive spending.”
About the Author
