The Thicket at State Legislatures

ROI of Government Relations

by Tim Storey

Most large companies have a government relations unit to coordinate lobbying efforts with state and federal government.  Those government relations staff often have to fight internally for limited corporate resources.  They now have some new information to bolster their argument with CEOs and CFOs--investing in lobbying boosts the bottom line.  A new study by three academics from business schools at the University of Colorado, Vanderbilt University and the University of Miami finds that companies that invest in lobbying have an average annual rate of return that is 8 percent higher than comparable companies that do not lobby significantly.  This research confirms numerous other studies as well as boundless anecdotal evidence.  Like most studies in this vein, the researchers used data for federal activity, but the principles apply to state lobbying as well.  That might explain why the numbers of lobbyists in state capitols have grown dramatically in the past decade or two. 

People who work in legislatures know that lobbyists represent a broad set of opinions and interests ranging from the far right to the far left ideologically.  They are a critical part of a well functioning democracy and legislature.  This study underscores the value of having "boots on the ground" at the capitol to make your case whether you are advocating for corporate tax incentives, funding for environmental protection or any other issue where legislatures set policy.   

Initiative Fun in Michigan

by Brian Weberg

Michigan voters are going to have some fun this fall if sponsors are able to get a raft of government reform proposals certified in time for the ballot.  In addition to the proposed measures to create a part-time legislature with reduced pay and to elect state senators statewide on a proportional basis that we reported here a few months ago, recent news from the Wolverine State highlights what some are suggesting is a stealth campaign to shift the state's political balance of power under the guise of government reform. 

Proponents argue that the measure brings long-needed change to state government.  The lengthy amendment includes reductions in the number of members in the legislature, pay cuts to the governor, legislators and judges, new financial disclosure rules, lobbying restrictions and reform of the redistricting process. 

Michigan Republican Party chairman Saul Anuzis, comically struggling with a fold out copy of the initiative in a video on YouTube, commented "I've seen Michelin maps of Europe that were smaller and easier to read."  Republicans have come out strongly against the proposal, while the spokesperson for the measure is Dianne Byrum, a termed-out state legislator who completed her legislative career as leader of the House Democrats in Lansing.  However one judges the merits of the reform, it's clear that it is adding fuel to the already scorched political landscape in Michigan.   

A Punching Bag Punches Back

by Karl Kurtz

"The lobbyist may be a convenient punching bag in an election year, but lobbying is a fundamental right guaranteed by our Constitution," said Brian Pallasch, president of the American League of Lobbyists, yesterday on the radio program "Marketplace."  In a pithy commentary entitled "Lobbyists are important for democracy,"  he defends lobbyists from the now-ritual attacks by the presidential candidates of both parties, saying in part:

The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances," and lobbyists help people accomplish that....

Critics like to slam lobbyists as stand-ins for special interests. That's the funny thing about special interests. They're easily dismissed as "special," until they're yours. Lobbyists represent all points of view on issues confronting the country: environment, labor, the elderly, veterans, but also privacy advocates, pet owners and even online poker players. That's the great thing about America. Everyone has a voice, and lobbyists are an effective way to get those voices heard.

The entire commentary is well worth listening to (or reading).  It agrees with the view that NCSL's Trust for Representative Democracy takes of the role of lobbying in American democracy.  See also a previous post in The Thicket, "Cynicism about Lobbying--in Argentina and the U.S."

Under Review: The Role of the Legislature

by Gene Rose

Candidates often say they run for the state legislature so they can make a difference. After being elected though, they quickly find out that events shape agendas for them and they must take positions on issues they never contemplated.

Take, for example, the headline "NFL takes cable fight to Texas lawmakers" in the Houston Chronicle today. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones headed up a star-studded panel testifying to the Texas House Committee on Regulated Industries because of a spat between cable companies and the football league's NFL Network.

House Chairman Phil King says its a brand new issue for the Texas legislature, but it's one that has played out in other cities where the NFL has been broadcasting Thursday night games on its own network. (The debate loomed large in Green Bay recently.) The league has a vested interest in getting the games in as many households as possible and the cable networks want to be able to charge a premium.

King wonders if it is even an issue the legislature should get involved with. He is quoted in the article, "Assuming we do, and I'm not sure that we do, from a policy perspective should the state intervene in programming issues?"

Jones summed up why he thought the legislature should be involved. "This thing does have the interest of hundreds of thousands of your constituents."

New Study of the Effects of Term Limits Published

by Karl Kurtz

Department of shameless self-congratulation and -promotion: The 23 academic political scientists and staffers for NCSL, the Council of State Governments and the State Legislative Leaders Foundation who participated in the four-year Joint Project on Term Limits are pleased that our book, Institutional Change in American Politics: The Case of Term Limits, reporting the results of our research has now been published by University of Michigan Press.  The book was edited by Bruce Cain of University of California, Berkeley, Richard G. Niemi of University of Rochester and myself.

You can find a summary and table of contents for the book here and nice blurbs about it here (we especially liked the one by Bernard Grofman). And if you prefer, you can read Coping with Term Limits: A Practical Guide, a 30-pp. condensed version of the book (which is 230 pp.) aimed at practitioners rather than academics.  We blogged about the release of Coping with Term Limits a year ago.

Institutional Change in American Politics is #436,005 on Amazon.com's best-seller list.  Don't look for an authors' tour at a bookstore near you anytime soon.

Stick to Information Technology, David Pogue!

by Karl Kurtz

First it was a Foreign Service officer in Buenos Aires presenting an uninformed view of lobbying in America, now it's a New York Times information technology columnist spouting off in his blog about how votes are bought and sold in Congress and state legislatures.  I'm a big fan of David Pogue's clever and witty commentaries in the Times about electronic tools and gadgets that make our lives better and more fun but also sometimes drive us nuts. 

But in today's blog post, "Following the Money Trail Online," Pogue has gone far beyond his area of expertise based on his reading of a web site, maplight.org, which attempts to correlate votes by members of Congress and the California Legislature with campaign contributions received.  Many people have commented on his post and taken him to task for his assumptions about causality, in effect arguing that it is just as likely that money follows votes as it is that votes follow money.  One of the most sophisticated (and accurate) of these comments is #9 by political scientist Matthew Jarvis.

In his own responses to the comments, though, Pogue remains unconvinced, saying, "You guys are killin’ me!  You are telling me that a legislator can accept $2.2 million and NOT BE INFLUENCED IN ANY WAY?"  I'm sure I can't change Pogue's mind on this (especially if he lumps contributions from thousands of often competing sources together into a single total), but I want to weigh in on the subject of money and politics in more depth than is possible in a comment on his blog site.

One specific example that Pogue brings up is California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, whom he chastizes for receiving substantial contributions from labor unions and voting with them 94 percent of the time.  Neither the web site that produces this information nor Pogue notes that Speaker Nunez was a labor union official before he was elected to the legislature. That was his background and experience in life.  The voters in his district knew that and elected him to office, as did the members of the Assembly who selected him to be speaker.  Even if there were no money in politics, we would expect someone with this background and experience to vote with labor.  (I'm wondering more about the six percent of the time that he voted against the unions!)

Let's take a more high profile example on the other side of the political aisle.  Both President Bush and Vice President Cheney spent large portions of their life outside of politics working as executives in the oil industry.  The states that they come from are major energy producers.  Is it any wonder that they received major contributions from the oil industry in their campaigns and that, once elected by voters who knew their backgrounds, they made decisions that favor more energy production?

I'm not arguing that campaign contributions have no influence on political decisions, only that their influence is greatly overdrawn and not taken in the context of all of the other factors that affect legislators' actions.  Here is a list of several other key factors that influence lawmakers' decisions:

Cynicism about Lobbying--In Argentina and the United States

by Karl Kurtz

At the end of my visit to Buenos Aires for the World Congress on Civic Education, I went with NCSL’s key contact in Argentina, Alejandra Svetaz, to meet with an official at the United States Embassy.  Alejandra, who works for a member of the Argentina National Congress and runs an NGO supporting legislative strengthening in Argentina, is organizing a delegation of provincial legislative officials to attend our NCSL annual meeting in Boston this summer and is seeking support from our Embassy for this purpose.  She asked me to go along to meet with the Foreign Service officer to whom she has submitted a proposal and to support her case.

In the course of our conversation with the State Department official, Alejandra, who has attended NCSL annual meetings in the past, mentioned that one of the most valuable things that Argentinean legislative officials could learn from attending our meeting is how lobbying in the United States is vital to the legislative process and conducted in a transparent fashion.  She said that lobbying in Argentina takes place but that it is very secretive.  “Everyone knows who the lobbyists are, but in public we are supposed to act as if they don’t exist,” she said.

I was taken aback when the Foreign Service officer responded by saying, “Oh, I would never hold up lobbying in the U.S. as a model!  We have lots of problems with lobbying.  Congress passes laws to control their activities and all the lobbyists do is figure out ways to evade them.”  She went on to cast aspersions on what she viewed as the pervasive power of certain lobbying groups that she disagrees with. (The “special interests” are always the other guy’s, not our own preferred interests, which we think of as the “public” interest.)

Cynicism about the policy process is so pervasive in American life that I probably shouldn’t have been surprised to hear it from a Foreign Service officer.  But I would hope that those who represent us in our foreign embassies might offer a more informed and positive view of representative democracy in America.

The fact is that lobbying in the United States is conducted in a remarkably open manner.  In the Congress and virtually all state legislatures lobbyists have to register their interests publicly and report (often in great detail depending on the jurisdiction) their expenditures on elected officials.  They testify publicly before legislative committees about their positions.  They provide valuable information to legislators about the impacts of proposed legislation.  To be successful, they must be truthful and honorable with elected officials. 

Russian Reflections on a Labor Caucus Lunch

by Dmitry Polyakov

[Ed. note: Guest author Dmitry Polyakov, from St. Petersburg, Russia, is a Legislative Education and Practice Program Fellow who splits time as an intern between the National Conference of State Legislatures and the Colorado Legislature.  He comments occasionally on American politics from a Russian perspective for The Thicket .]

Every other Thursday during the Sixty-Sixth Colorado General Assembly a bi-partisan Labor Caucus serves lunch to discuss current bills affecting labor and to present labor lobbyists' take on them to state lawmakers.

It was one of those busy Thursdays in the beginning of the legislative session when my supervisor, House Majority Policy Director Terry Whitney, sent me to the Labor Caucus lunch to observe what was on the labor lobbyists' agenda on that day.

The lunch started at noon, bringing together lobbyists and a legislative crowd: state representatives, senators and their staffers, along with always-desperate-for-some-free-meals legislative interns—like me.  The overall atmosphere was calm and friendly.  It didn't matter if you were just a legislative intern or a member of the house or committee chair—everyone was treated equally.  Labor representatives spoke on issues of concern to them; legislators, staffers and interns digested information and food.  The lunch took only an hour: in that time everybody was up-to-speed on labor-related legislative issues, fed and (therefore) happy.  That was the Labor Caucus lunch paid for by working class Americans who want to defend their interests using democratic and constitutional methods.  Everyone at the lunch was respected for doing his or her job and not for having a longer title on a business card.

The Labor Caucus lunch was a very interesting experience for me--something we Russians don't have a habit of doing.  The whole concept of having serious labor policy dialogues over a slice of pizza and a glass of soda seemed strange and new to me. But, I figured, some pizza and face-to-face honest conversations are way better than cash kickbacks, champagne and caviar dinners, and paid-for cruises that lobbyist often supply legislators with in my part of the world…  Now such lunches appear to me to be very simple, but transparent and truly democratic instruments, that people in Russia should also consider using their attempts to influence legislative decision making.

Poll Results: Electronic Communication and Women Legislators

by Karl Kurtz

With our new polling feature in The Thicket, it occurs to me that we should record for posterity the results of each poll that we run.  After all, this is highly scientific public opinion research, and the world will want to know the results!  Well, OK, perhaps the best that we can claim is that the results of these polls might be mildly interesting to at least a few legislative junkies.  Unfortunately, though, this idea didn't occurred to me until I had erased the results of the first two polls.  But I have a pretty good memory of the results and can provide estimated numbers.

Our first poll, which was up online for about two weeks, related to postings on "Electronic Lobbying During Session--You Make the Call" and "Blackberries--For Communicating or Eating?".  We asked you to vote on whether electronic communication between lobbyists and legislators should be banned during legislative sessions, during sessions and committee meetings, or not at all.  My recollection is that 67 people voted on this question and that you were just about equally divided on the issue.  Responses of those who favored either the session ban or the session/committee ban totaled approximately 34, while 33 of you favored no prohibition on electronic communication with legislators.

The second poll was up for only three or four days and asked you to predict how the number of women serving in state legislatures will change over the next decade.  My memory is that 20 of you (74%) thought that the number would increase a lot, six (22%) said that it would increase somewhat, only one thought that it would stay about the same, and no one said that the number of women would decrease.

Electronic Lobbying during Session--You Make the Call

by Karl Kurtz

About a month ago in "Blackberries--For Communicating or Eating?" in The Thicket, we reported on efforts in Maine to ban electronic communication between lobbyists and legislators during legislative sessions.  Today, Stateline.org has a followup story, "Legislators barring electronic distractions," that summarizes recent actions in the states on this issue.

We would like to use the question of the appropriateness of lobbyists sending electronic messages to legislators on the floor or in committee to launch a new feature of The Thicket: an opportunity for you to take a few seconds to register your opinion on this issue in a poll in the top righthand column of The Thicket.  Cast your vote, then compare how everyone else has voted.

The Buzz: What the First 100 Hours Means to States

By Bill Wyatt

The buzz in Washington this month has been all about the first 100 hours - the Democrats' first 100 hours in control of the U.S. House of Representatives.  The new speaker and her leadership team set an ambitious agenda which included ethics reform, homeland security, the minimum wage, higher education costs and much more.

Perhaps to no one's surprise, they used their 'honeymoon period' effectively and enacted all they set out to accomplish (within 100 legislative hours NOT real hours).  Bills on the minimum wage, student loans, energy alternatives and prescription drug pricing among now await the Senate's action.  But what should states expect from this 100 hour flurry of activity?

NCSL's chief congressional lobbyist Michael Bird says Congress' ambitious agenda may have broad implications for states.  Some implications may be a bit tough for state legislators to swallow.  Listen to Michael's insight on the latest episode of the Buzz.

Blackberries--For Communicating or Eating?

by Karl Kurtz

A story in the Portland (Maine) Press Herald two days ago, "House members urged to ban laptop lobbying," reports on efforts by some legislators to ban electronic communication between lobbyists and legislators out of concern for undue influence by lobbyists on the legislative process.

"We're seeing entire speeches, sometimes, e-mailed (to representatives) during session," said House Speaker Glenn Cummings, D-Portland, who supports the proposed ban. That "raises a question of legislative autonomy and independence."

The article caused me to try to sort out my own thoughts on the propriety of lobbyists emailing or text messaging questions for legislators to ask in committee or points to make on the floor.  As with so many areas of legislative practice and procedure, there are lots of shades of gray, and the answers are not always clear.  Here are some of the questions that occur to me: 

[Continue reading after the jump.]

New Podcast: Ethics Reform Is on States' Agendas

by Nicole Moore

Congress isn't the only legislature looking at ethics reform this session.  States will be examining their ethics laws too, predicts Director of NCSL's Center for Ethics in Government Peggy Kerns. She's seen movement on this issue already. Governors in Ohio, Florida and New York have ethics reform on their agendas, and many state legislatures are considering new laws as well.

Kerns expects gift and lobbying restrictions to be big this year. Tennessee, Florida and Colorado are three states that adjusted such laws since last year.

Hear about ethics reform in the states (8:33) on the latest edition of The Buzz @ State Legislatures, NCSL's podcast.

Ratings of California Legislators--and Staffers and Lobbyists

by Karl Kurtz

Capitol Weekly, "the newspaper of California government and politics," has recently issued its ratings of California legislators in Around the Capitol Awards.  Lots of states have magazines, newspapers or newsletters that issue such ratings.  Perhaps most well-known are those issued by Texas Monthly, which has been bestowing "best and brightest," "least effective" and "furniture" ratings on Texas legislators for as long as I can remember.  Often these awards take themselves very seriously and are more than a little snarky and sometimes downright mean. 

The California ratings, though, are mostly lighthearted and funny, don't attempt to go into any depth and are based on readers' votes.  It's also rare for such accolades to include legislative staff and lobbyists with the legislators.  In addition to the usual "most effective" legislator award, there are also ones for "legislator you would most like to have a drink with," a "sartorially challenged" staffer," and the lobbyist with the "best rolodex."

Sine Die and Other Vulgarities

by Karl Kurtz

In almost every legislature in the United States, to "adjourn sine die" marks the formal ending of a biennial legislative session.  In common legislative parlance the word "adjourn" is often left out, and the Latin phrase, which literally means without a day, is turned into a verb, as in "We will probably sine die on Friday."  It is almost always pronounced SIGH-nee dye, which Wikipedia refers to as a "vulgar but accepted" pronunciation, as opposed to the more proper SIN-nay DEE-ay.

Now comes an AP story, Reform advocates criticize lame-duck session for Pa. lawmakers, that brings to light a new, and as far as I know unique, meaning of the term.  In Pennsylvania, the session that regularly occurs after elections in November but before the new legislature is seated on December 1 every other year is referred to as the sine die session.

This adds to my collection of legislative localisms--phrases that are used in only one or two states but not universally.  Here are a few more of them: