Including Subcontract Lobbyists in a Lobbying Code

One of the areas where government ethics laws are weakest is the
indirect relationship, such as when a gift is given not to an
official, but to an official's spouse or child; an official's
business relationship is not with a developer, but with the owner of
the developer's parent; an official's aide participates on a recused
official's behalf; or an official participates in a contract matter
when she has a family relationship with the owner of a subcontractor
that is not directly involved in the bid. Simply adding the words
"directly or indirectly" can allow an ethics code to make it clear
that these are all conflict situations. But too many ethics codes do
not contain these words.<br>
<br>
This can also be the case with a lobbying code. Not all contract
lobbyists have a direct contract with their client. For example, a
public relations firm may be hired by a lobbyist as a subcontractor
to work on a campaign to get a development approved. Or a lobbyist
firm may hire an outside lobbyist who has an especially good
relationship with a mayor.<br>
<br>
It is important, therefore, to make it clear that such subcontractor
lobbyists must also register and be bound by the lobbying and ethics
codes of the jurisdiction. And it should be clear what
responsibility the client, the contract lobbyist, and the
subcontract lobbyist have with respect to the disclosure of
information.<br>
<br>

The occasion for raising this issue is a bill that has recently been
passed by the Colorado senate, SB 217 (attached; see below). The
bill would require contract lobbyists' annual disclosure to include
not only income from lobbying for a client, but also income from
lobbying for another lobbyist. In addition, the contract lobbyist
must report the same income, given to a subcontractor, in an
addendum to his annual disclosure, so that there is a check on the
disclosure. In other words, both lobbyists are responsible for
disclosure involving the paid work of a subcontractor lobbyist.<br>
<br>
The Colorado bill expressly states that a contract lobbyist is not a
"client." Los Angeles and other jurisdictions put this another way,
not expressly making an exception, but suggesting it instead. Los
Angeles defines "client" as:<blockquote>

the person on whose behalf a lobbyist or lobbying firm attempts to
influence such municipal legislation, even if the lobbyist or
lobbying firm is compensated by another person for such
representation.</blockquote>

This means that the contract lobbyist does not become a client just
because it is the one that compensates the subcontract lobbyist. The
ultimate client is the sole beneficiary of and is responsible for
the work of subcontractors. <br>
<br>
However, it is better to expressly require the disclosure of
a subcontract lobbyist's work, income, and expenditures, and to make
it clear who (subcontractor, contractor, and/or client) is
responsible for disclosure. It is also valuable to make it clear
that subcontract lobbyists are under the jurisdiction of the
lobbying or ethics program and must follow relevant laws.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---