Two years ago, when then Assemblywoman Sally Lieber introduced a
bill to prohibit the spanking of children, she was ridiculed for
what many Californians considered to be frivolous legislation. In
light of recent revelations of the “S & M” tinged escapades of a
married, middle-aged lawmaker and one or more lobbyists, some
capitol observers are wondering if Lieber should have targeted an
older demographic.
Although the just-resigned legislator, who described his conduct to
a colleague unaware that he was also sitting before an open
microphone, now says he made it up, it calls into question just what
services and gifts are provided by lobbyists in an effort to
influence legislation. After all, the lobbyist with whom the
official claimed to have this special relationship had business
before a committee on which he served as vice-chair.
The Sacramento Bee recently completed an analysis of gifts, over and
above campaign contributions, that are provided to California
lawmakers. The Bee found that between January 2008 and June 2009
lobbyists gave legislators, their staffs and relatives about
$610,000 in gifts.
While interest groups are limited to $420 annually in gifts to an
individual lawmaker, loopholes allow unlimited gifts directly to
their relatives and friends. The more than 2,700 registered lobbyist
employers are eligible to give the $420 maximum to each leader and
to most staffers.
In addition to fine dining, popular gifts are tickets to sporting
events and concerts ranging from Billy Joel to Britney Spears and
free travel to destinations from Hawaii to Hungary — free travel
and expenses can be provided to exotic locals so long as the
lawmakers participate in a conference or gathering.
While 30 lawmakers accepted gifts totaling over $5,000, and some
much more in the period examined by the Bee, 30 offices, to their
credit, accepted less than $100 per month.
While average taxpayers, those lucky enough to still have jobs, may
be brown bagging it for lunch, it is more than ironic to find that
on the list of restaurants at which lawmakers had dined on someone
else’s dime was the Humuhumunukunukuapa’a Restaurant in Hawaii.
Lawmakers accepting these gifts insist that these gratuities have no
influence on their legislative activities. Really? Then why do
lobbyists bestow them? This is what causes many critics to call it
legalized bribery.
Former Sen. Sheila Kuehl told the Bee that she sees gifts as a
problem, not because they influence votes, but because they cause
the public to lose confidence in the politician who accepts them.
While her point about public confidence is correct, it is more than
likely that some legislators will tilt toward those who have made
them feel important with gifts of travel, fine dining and concert
tickets. If the gifts do nothing else, they buy access so that
lobbyists can make a pitch for the interests of their clients. This
is access to lawmaking that is not available to average
Californians.
Also of interest are those who gave the most. These include
lobbyists representing utilities, alcoholic beverage distributors,
entertainment companies and unions representing state employees.
Considering the latter, how can anyone argue with a straight face
that accepting gifts from state labor groups, on whose pay and
benefits a lawmaker will decide, doesn’t create a clear conflict of
interest?
Of course, these are only the gifts that are reported. There can be
no doubt that there are other services provided to lawmakers by
lobbyists that slip under the radar — unless, of course, someone is
foolish enough to brag in front of an open mic.
While it may be impossible to completely root out influence peddling
and bribery in the halls of the Capital, if the highest paid
legislators in the nation, who receive an additional $173 per day in
expense money, want to wine and dine with lobbyists, let them go
dutch. However, since the Legislature sets its own rules on what
gifts can be accepted, don’t expect members to adopt vows of poverty
or chastity anytime soon.