San Jose Shows the Importance of Ongoing Lobbying Disclosure

In my chapter on local lobbying, I argue that even quarterly disclosure of lobbying activities is not sufficiently timely and that lobbyists' disclosures should be supplemented by the disclosures of high-level officials. According to an article in Sunday's San Jose Mercury News, in San Jose, CA lobbyists are required to disclose their contacts with officials on a quarterly basis and officials are required to put their calendars online, updated on a weekly basis. This disclosure is frequent as you'll find in just about any American city. But the article shows how it is insufficient, especially if officials' calendars include only in-person contacts.

On June 23, the San Jose council voted to allow ride-booking companies such as Uber and Lyft to pick up passengers at the San Jose airport. However, lobbyist disclosures for the quarter April 1 to June 30 did not go online until July 15, three weeks after the vote.

In addition, although lobbyists reported heavy lobbying on the issue, council members' calendars showed almost no sign of this lobbying. One council member is quoted as saying that he encourages lobbyists to contact him via e-mail (which he does not have to disclose) rather than in person. He doesn't say that this is the cause, but it is likely a contributing factor.

There are three issues here. One is timeliness. Quarterly disclosure of important matters is often too late. Online disclosure should be ongoing, something that can be done through a fairly simple app that could be developed jointly by lobbying oversight programs.

The second issue is the extent of disclosure. High-level officials (going beyond council members to include members of important boards, and their staff, as well as department and agency heads and their staff) should not only disclose their in-person contacts. They should disclose all contacts with lobbyists, and lobbyists should be required to identify themselves to officials in each contact they make. When in doubt, disclosure should be the default. When both sides are required to provide the same information, they provide a check on each other, to ensure accuracy, completeness, and timeliness.

The third issue is penalties. In San Jose there are penalties for lobbyists who failure to disclose, but not for council members. This isn't fair and does not provide sufficient transparency.

Due to concerns expressed on disclosure involving this matter, the San Jose council is now considering a weekly instead of quarterly disclosure requirement from lobbyists.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics