On Political Parties as Lobbyists
by Tom Shanahan

Carried to its logical conclusion, a new regulation being considered by the state lobbying commission would require state Democratic Chairman Herman "Denny" Farrell to register as a lobbyist for expressing a political opinion - to himself. That's because he is also state Assemblyman Herman "Denny" Farrell.

Under the latest in a series of new interpretations of the meaning of the state's lobbying law, Commission staff are considering whether political parties should be forced to register as lobbyists. Because parties advocate political positions, including what legislation is required to implement those positions, the staff now appears ready to conclude that this makes political parties lobbyists.

Please don't laugh, this is serious.

Our system of democracy depends on contending political parties that take different, often opposing positions, on issues they believe will appeal to the public. Active and vocal political parties drive the competing ideas that make democracy work.

In short, the Commission is now proposing that it might be empowered to oversee the very institutions that are fundamental to our democratic system of government. That's an awful lot of power for six unelected commissioners and their staff.

This proposal is just the most recent in a series of decisions that have vastly expanded the scope of what the lobbying commission regulates. In the past year, we have witnessed two confirmation hearings for U.S. Supreme Court Justices, and been regularly reminded of the vital legal principle "stare decisis," which means precedent rules. This principle is vital because it's the only way we, as citizens, can be certain if the way we plan to conduct our affairs - business, personal, and even public, will continue to be acceptable in the future.

A few months ago, the Lobbying Commission changed the rules of the "gift" provision of the lobbying statute, at the recommendation of Executive Director David Grandeau. What had been legal for years was suddenly illegal, without any new action having been taken by the Legislature and Governor, who are supposed to make our laws.

Even more disturbing, it was Grandeau's own original interpretation of the lobbying law, which created the rules that lobbyists had abided by for years. Once Grandeau changed his mind, about how the Commission should measure whether a lobbyist has exceeded gift limits, the Commission suddenly adopted a far more restrictive standard. Being bound to the vacillating judgement of one appointed official is a bad way to govern.

As for this new proposal to reinterpret the scope of the lobbying act, it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what political parties do, and how they behave.

The purpose of the lobbying act, according to the Legislature's statement of intent, is to ensure that lobbying activities "be publicly and regularly disclosed." Does the Lobbying Commission seriously think political parties don't disclose their positions on public policy? Does it really believe that party leaders aren't vocal enough about what they want government to do? Perhaps, in the mind of Commission staff, party officials don't hold enough press conferences, or issue enough press releases about what's on their mind.

In reality, political parties don't hide what they want government to do, their leaders will bray it from the rooftops if that's what it takes to get their message across. The amounts of money they spend to do this are already reported to the public, through the campaign finance reports filed with the state Board of Elections. Put bluntly, the Lobbying Act was never intended to apply to political parties. If the Legislature and Governor think that needs to change, they are perfectly capable of doing so. But too much is at stake for the decision to be left to the latest whim of an unelected commission.

If the Lobbying Commission pursues the course being considered by its staff, we will no longer be certain of what constitutes lobbying. More importantly, we can no longer be certain of what limits there are on the power of the Commission to intrude on some of the most fundamental and well-understood institutions of American democracy.

There's one other thing being lost here besides certainty, and that's credibility. If we are uncertain about when the Executive Director will next ask the Commission to change its mind, or make some novel new interpretation of what the law means, then all its rulings will lack credibility. Credibility, that's the real issue here, and the Commission is about to lose it.

If the Lobbying Commission follows the course it has taken in other recent decisions, poor Denny Farrell had better be prepared to file an awful lot of paperwork - especially if he's one of those people who talks to himself.