Legislative leaders called the lobbying reforms passed Thursday night “historic,” but questions were being raised about loopholes even before the final gavel fell on the 2013 session.
One of the most talked-about is whether the bill allows at least some state employees and lawyers to avoid having to register as lobbyists and disclose what they spend on lawmakers.
That’s no small matter at the statehouse. More than 200 state employees lobby each session and lobbyists for the University System are among the biggest spenders at the Capitol. And some of the most prominent private-industry lobbyists, such as Pete Robinson of Troutman Sanders Strategies, Robert Highsmith of Holland & Knight and Skin Edge and Boyd Pettit of GeorgiaLink, are also lawyers.
“The whole thing is a mess,” said William Perry, executive director of Common Cause Georgia, which pushed for limits on lobbyist gifts.
State agency officials were reviewing the bill Friday to see whether they have to register and report expenses under the bill. Lobbyists for the University System and World Congress Center spent $110,728 on lawmakers last year, mostly for ballgame tickets, large receptions, committee dinners and fact-finding trips.
House Bill 142 says an attorney representing a client does not have to register as a lobbyist if the attorney “is not compensated for the specific purpose of lobbying.” But some ethics experts and lobbyists say that could be interpreted to allow some lobbyist/lawyers to avoid registering and disclosing what they spend if they argue that they are “advising” a special interest, rather than lobbying on their behalf.
“It sure sounds like if you are a lawyer down there on behalf of a client, you don’t have to register,” said Rick Thompson, an ethics and campaign finance compliance expert and former executive secretary of the state ethics commission.
Senate Rules Chairman Jeff Mullis, R-Chickamauga, acknowledged that there is a fine line in how the new rules could be interpreted. In essence, he said, lawyers who also lobby would be on the honor system.
“Our intent is they’re a lobbyist, they have to register,” Mullis said. “The intention is there, and hopefully they will adhere to that.”
House Bill 142, the gift limit bill, was passed in the waning hours of the 2013 session. The governor and Senate and House leaders negotiated on the bill well past midnight Wednesday, and news of their breakthrough came early on Thursday. But it took more than 10 hours for the proposal to show up on the desks of lawmakers, and by then, they had little time to read and interpret the measure. Even so, both houses passed the bill unanimously.
Lobbyists who register will be free to continue spending money on lawmakers and lawmakers will be free to keep on accepting those perks. The bill does put the first-ever limits on spending, but it doesn’t touch most ordinary spending.
The limit is $75 per lawmaker, per lobbyist, per occurrence.
For instance, on March 4, a lobbyist representing clients ranging from satellite TV providers to the Georgia Recyclers Association went to the downtown Italian eatery Ecco and spent $69.49 apiece feeding Reps. Ben Harbin and Brett Harrell and Labor Commissioner Mark Butler. Since that falls under the $75 cap, that meal would be OK under the bill.
Other examples of spending allowed under the bill include $5,028 spent on food and drinks for the entire General Assembly on March 5 by the lobbyist for a management consulting company and $548 spent by the Georgia Credit Union League to feed the Senate Democratic Caucus on March 7.
House Speaker David Ralston, R-Blue Ridge, acknowledged the bill was not “perfect,” but added, “this measure does, for the first time, put limitations on spending by registered lobbyists on public officials.”
The question is, who will have to register.
Jet Toney, chairman of the Georgia Professional Lobbyists Association, said the Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission, and possibly the courts, will have to decide whether lawyer-lobbyists have to register and report what they spend.
“If lawyers are allowed to not register, it gives lawyers and law firms an advantage in obtaining those clients whose desire is to stay outside of disclosure,” Toney said.
Toney said his organization will meet next month to discuss the bill. It will make recommendations to and seek guidance from the Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission.
Commission chairman Kevin Abernethy said commissioners are pleased that their ability to help interpret the law would be restored under the bill, and he said the panel stands ready to fulfill that responsibility.
Highsmith, a lawyer, chuckled and took off his lobbyist badge after reading the language in the bill before it passed Thursday night. But he suspects the language excluding lawyers from registering may only affect lawyers who work in offices and write bills or advise clients but never come down to the Capitol. Those lawyers already don’t necessarily register. Or it could help lawyers who come to the Capitol for a day to testify on a specific bill.
“I am not turning in my badge,” Highsmith said. “The Pete Robinson, Robert Highsmith, Skin Edge …. it would shock me if the crowd that is down there a lot would fail to register.”
Doug Chalmers, a managing member of the Political Law Group and an expert in state ethics law, said HB 142 could create circumstances in which lawyers could lobby and not get paid, such as if they were doing pro bono work. Other lawyers who structure their client agreement in an obvious attempt to skirt the law could also do that, but, Chalmers said, that has always been true.
“Knowing how lawyers operate they’re not going to want to be down there not getting paid or leave themselves open for the argument that they structured their engagement to avoid registration,” he said.
Thompson expects the transparency commission to be forced to rule on the issue.
Legislative leaders emphasized that the “intent” of the legislation was to not exempt lawyer who spend their days lobbying at the Capitol.
“I know that’s the intent. I understand you have to look at the intent,” said Thompson, the former ethics commission director. “But you have to look at what the legislation says.”
About the Author
