Recently I asked some questions of William Sargent, who is a Democrat running for the Pennsylvania House 42nd District this year. His campaign site is here.
Dave from Fester's Place had suggested that Sargent had some interesting views on the lobbying laws in Pennsylvania, which is sort of a general political interest for this blog. I asked Mr. Sargent if he'd answer some questions, and below are the questions and his responses. I'm hoping to follow up in the next week with a few other questions. This seems to me to be a worthwhile project this year - to ask Pennsylvania General Assembly candidates - not incumbents - on their views concerning lobbying law in the Commonwealth during the campaign, and see if there are some details - and perhaps some consensus - reported. If you have any suggested questions for me to ask Mr. Sargent for next week, feel free to drop them in comments or in email.
Question 1: What should be the goals of any lobbying laws or reform in Pennsylvania?
William Sargent: The goals of meaningfully lobbying reform and the purpose of reforming the laws in Pennsylvania are to minimize corruption at all levels of government, ensure equal access for every citizen, corporation and interest group by setting uniform standards of reporting monies or gifts given to public officials and providing for oversight and accountability.
Pennsylvania is the only state without a lobbyist disclosure law to control influence peddling by special interests. The article in the PG today was only made possible by a Senate Rule not a Pennsylvania Law.
Question 2: What entity or entities should be responsible for administering these laws?
William Sargent: Previously the courts have struck down a lobbyist disclosure law because the courts felt that it was within the purview of the judicial branch to provide the sole ability to oversee officers of the court (attorneys) and because lobbyists are sometime attorneys then the PA House and Senate cannot regulate them.
I disagree. According to that logic, then only the courts can have oversight into the House and Senate because the vast majority of its members are attorneys.
The PA House and Senate should provide its own oversight in a bi partisan fashion over its members.
Question 3: Are there any other states that could or should serve as a model for lobbying regulation?
William Sargent: In light of the activities of certain members of the congress and lobbyists working within the beltway there way been several bills proposed by both senators and congressmen about lobbying reform.
John McCain has introduced a good bill and Russ Feingold has introduced a piece of legislation that is even more restrictive. (Interesting on how these two gentlemen could come to terms on campaign finance but have different bills for this topic but yet I digress.)
To answer your questions I am inclined to say that the more restrictive, the better off you are.
(1) If you leave government service, there must be a period of time to elapse before you may return as a private citizen lobbying your former employer/ colleagues.
(2) No gifts/trips/rides.
(3) You must disclose how your money is spent if you spend more than $2,500 a quarter.