PSoTD

You have to wonder how different that number would be if Tennessee had a two-year moratorium on lobbying the state government after they left public office.

85 of the 99 biggest lobbyists working the state government of Tennessee previously worked in, or have relatives working in government.

Getting back to defining the venues in which lobbying is defined, Alaska seems to cover it on the state level:

Sec. 24.45.171. Definitions (effective prior to September 15, 2003):

(1) “Administrative action” means the proposal, drafting, development, consideration, amendment, adoption, approval, promulgation, issuance, modification, rejection or postponement by any state agency of any rule, regulation, order, decision, determination, or any other quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial action or proceeding whether or not governed by AS 44.62 (Administrative Procedure Act).

(6) "Influencing legislative or administrative action" means promoting, advocating, supporting, modifying, opposing, or delaying or seeking to do the same with respect to any legislative or administrative action by means including but not limited to the provision or use of information, statistics, studies, or analyses in written or oral form or format.

(8) “Lobbyist” means

(A) a person who is employed and receives payments . . . to communicate directly or through the person’s agents with any public official for the purpose of influencing legislative or administrative action if a substantial or regular portion of the activities for which the person receives consideration is for the purpose of influencing legislative or administrative action; or

(B) a person who represents oneself as engaging in the influencing of legislative or administrative action as a business, occupation, or profession.

And in a change, they also cover the individual, regardless of whether they are paid by others or not, that attempts to influence state government action - IF they represent themselves as trying to do so. It still seems vague. If Bill Gates lived in Alaska, and went to the Governor's office, he would receive access to the Governor. If he stated his position on a variety of government policies, but didn't state that he was attempting that he was trying to get that change - for example, if he complained about something vociferously but didn't say "I Am Here To Get You To Change This", would that be considered lobbying in the eyes of the law?

In order for there to be a successful effort to overhaul the industry of "lobbying", a whole picture review of the industry needs to take place, including goals for what the practice should include, and how it should balance interests in society or have those interested balanced for it, just as every other profession does.

This goes all the way back to the basics, such as what the definition of "lobbyist" actually is. In fact, the definition of "lobbyist", from state to state, ought to be methodically reviewed by someone - ANYONE - since there's a disparity of what it means from state to state. I'm sorta volunteering - I'm willing to review until I conglomerate enough that looks like it covers the waterfront for defining lobbyists. Today, I'll review North Dakota's definition of a lobbyist, which is a small and relatively general definition:

What is a Lobbyist?

North Dakota Century Code, Section 54-05.1-01, defines a lobbyist as "Any person who, in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, performs any of the following activities:

1. Attempts to secure the passage, amendment, or defeat of any legislation by the legislative assembly or the approval or veto of any legislation by the governor of the state.

2. Attempts to influence decisions made by the legislative council or by an interim committee of the legislative council."

Chapter NDCC 54-05.1-02 does not apply to any person who is:

1. A legislator

2. A private citizen appearing on his own behalf

3. An employee, officer, board member, volunteer, or agent of the state or its political subdivisions whether elected or appointed and whether or not compensated, who is acting in that person’s official capacity.

4. Invited by the chairman of the legislative council, an interim committee of the legislative council, or a standing committee of the legislative assembly to appear before the council, interim committee, or standing committee for the purpose of providing information.

5. An individual who appears before a legislative committee for the sole purpose of presenting testimony on behalf of a trade, or professional organization, or a business or industry if the individual is introduced to the committee by the registered lobbyist for the trade, or professional organization or the business, or industry.

Obviously, there are some loose ends there. Supposedly, North Dakota has the highest number of millionaires per capita than any other state. Regardless of whether it holds that status, does the loose definition of a "private citizen appearing on his own behalf" give these folks a lobbying benefit not available to more traditional contract and employed lobbyists, with opportunity to operate under the radar? There needs to be protection for individual citizen access to legislators. However, there's a major difference for a grandmother contacting her state representative and a major party donor contacting all legislators about their pleasure or displeasure over a certain item. Should campaign contribution history be part of a parameter in determining whether someone is really "appearing on his own behalf"?

There's no language to the effect of trying to impact activity by executive branch organizations at all. Shouldn't that be included in any definition of a lobbyist?

Then there's the question of defining the profession for purposes of lobbying other levels of government. What about lobbying local or North Dakota regional government? Should that be part of a professional definition at the state level? It depends, I suppose, on the goals of codification of the definition, but does it, really? Other professions are specifically defined by the State for its citizens regardless of where they work and what they work on... so why should lobbying be different?

Again, this goes back to purpose - whether the goal is to establish standards of practice or if the goal is to simply provide some sort of vague measurement of activity. I'll eventually get to purpose, but for the next few lobbyblogging posts, I'll try to take a look at how other states deal with the above questions.