RALEIGH – Tuesday was a hot one in North Carolina’s capital city. Meteorologists predicted that the high might reach 100 degrees. Throughout the day, motorists and pedestrians sweltered as they traveled where they needed to go. Folks working outdoors found themselves moving past the “swelter” category towards the “melter” category.
And yet, it didn’t end up being quite as hot as predicted. Which is, if I may stretch for the analogy a bit, what key members of the North Carolina Senate seem to be counting on Tuesday as they moved towards a vote on an omnibus ethics and lobbying bill as soon as Wednesday. They hoped the public spotlight on the inner workings of state government would also burn a bit less intensely than forecast.
Here’s hoping they are wrong. While lawmakers have already approved several useful pieces of reform legislation – an end to the practice of political contributions sent in without specified candidate recipients, a requirement that campaign treasurers receive compliance training, and increased disclosure of political donors who give cash – the major issues identified at the start of the session by the North Carolina Coalition for Lobbying Reform remain unaddressed.
In particular, the omnibus bill approved by a Senate Judiciary Committee lacks some critical provisions. While it does include a ban on lobbyists giving personal contributions to state candidates, it does not include a more important – and less constitutionally questionable – ban on registered lobbyists serving as fundraisers or campaign treasurers for state candidates.
I’m virtually a First Amendment absolutist, but I think it is defensible to require those who voluntarily decide to enter the lobbying profession to give up the ability to engage in certain kinds of political activity. They should retain their ability to express their own political views, including the First Amendment right either to speak or print their own opinions or provide resources to others to speak or print on their behalf, though there is a case for a cumulative cap on lobbyists’ individual giving per election cycle (the Senate bill provides for a complete ban on personal giving, which may be hard to sustain if challenged on constitutional grounds). However, it makes sense to preclude registered lobbyists, whose job it is to influence the votes of state lawmakers or the decisions of administration officials, from helping to run official campaigns. Obviously, people who work in industries that retain lobbyists would retain their own rights to engage in political speech and activism. Like it or not, that is the nature of politics is a free society. The limitation I’m talking about, which will apparently be proposed on the Senate floor Wednesday as an amendment, would simply recognize that registered lobbyists have chosen a profession that should properly be subject to public scrutiny and reasonable limitations.
Also problematic is the Senate’s version of the gift ban. Too many loopholes remain for state lawmakers to receive free food and drink if it can be construed as part of an “educational meeting.” Again, policymaking ought to be about fact and argument, not about parties and chit-chat. Simplicity will be the fount of wisdom in this matter, as in so many others.
Do legislative leaders feel enough heat to get this important issue right? We’ll know soon enough.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.