- Email: [email protected]
The California Lobby Law Connection
the issues on which they lobbied also would have to be reported. Several controversial amendments were added to the bill once it reached the House floor. One, apparently aimed at consumerist Ralph Nader of Public Citizen, would require unpaid chief executives of lobbying groups to disclose their own activities. Another would require registered lobbyists to report the names of organiza tions that con tribu ted more than $3,000 to them. Getting Down to Grass Roots The most controversial amendmen t to the proposed House bill would require registered organizations to report grass roots lobbying efforts, a lobbying area that is growing in importance. Grass roots lobbying refers to attempts to contact citizens or business employeesthrough the mail for example-to
write members of Congress on a particular issue, such as the Panama Canal or national health insurance. As such, the grass roots amendment is seen by some as a slap at the little guy, an attempt to stop his voice while large influence-buying corporations can use loopholes to have their say on the Hill. Coletta Kemper, a Common Cause spokeswoman, said Common Cause had pushed for this amend men t, and originally had faulted the bill for lacking such a requirement. On the flip side, attorney Hope Eastman cited the lack of this requirement as a positive point of the unamended version of H.R. 8494. The grass roots amendment particularly raises the question of whether, if passed, the lobby registration bills would have a "chilling effect" on First Amendment rights, a question that will be addressed later.
The grass roots reporting requirement is also included in one of the two bills presently before the Senate. Under S. 1785, organizations would have to report solicitations that "reached or could be expected to reach" at least 500 persons, 100 or more employees, at least 25 officers or directors, or 12 or more organization affiliates. This bill would allow smaller organizations to file less detailed reports than larger organizations. Such abbreviated reports would apply to organizations that make at least 15 "oral lobbying communications" in a quarter. The abbreviated report would require a description of the 10 issues on which an organization spent the greatest time, and a general description of categories of other issues on which it lobbied. Both the abbreviated and "full" reports would require disclosure of
The California lobby law Connection While Congress considers the lobby ~egistration bills, it could look to California, where a lobby law was put into effect about four years ago. In an initiative known as Proposition 9, Californians enacted the Political Reform Act of 1974. The law has been declared unconstitutional because of a legal technicality related to the way the proposition appeared on the ballot, according to John Skhal, PharmD, vice president of professional affairs at the California Pharmacists Association. But since no provision within the bill itself was declared unconstitutional, California's experience with the law is still noteworthy. Under the California law, expenditures of $250 in one month would "trigger" the act's reporting requirement. The law, "like the bills before Congress ... defines lobbying broadly to include direct and indirect attempts to influence legislation," according to Lobbying: A Constitutionally Protected Right, a booklet by Washington, DC, attorney Hope Eastman. Eastman quotes a paper by Arthur Lipow of the Political Reform Project for Ethics and Social Policy in Berkeley, California, which states: "it would seem that the greatest burden of the law has fallen on the groups who were most adamant ih their support of the law-the so-called 'public interest' lobbyists and the representatives of the various nonprofit charitable groups."
48
In the same paper, Lipow quotes California secretary of state March Fong Eu, at the end of 1975, as saying: "With all due respect to the initiative's sponsors and proponents and with all due respect to the assumptions which have no doubt governed their thoughts, the bottom line to date is that the big fish are getting away and an awful lot of little fish are getting caught." While the California Pharmacists Association isn't a "little fish" getting caught by the law, the law did cause it some problems while it was in effect. For example, CPhA's John Skhal said the bill generated an "extraordinary amount of paperwork." He said the "burdensome paperwork requirement" was "plain ridiculous." A new federal law would also generate huge amounts of paperwork, and it is partly this paperwork burden Eastman has in mind when she questions whether the bill "will deter many groups and individuals from even entering the lobbying. process." Eastman, writing about the California law, states, "The California experience leaves no doubt that the fears of many that a comprehensive lobbying disclosure statute would fall most heavily on smaller, less well-financed groups and thus inhibit, impede, and indeed deter their participation in the legislation process were well-founded." -Barry MuroD
American Pharmacy Vol. NS18, No .10 Sept . 1978/ 568
write members of Congress on a particular issue, such as the Panama Canal or national health insurance. As such, the grass roots amendment is seen by some as a slap at the little guy, an attempt to stop his voice while large influence-buying corporations can use loopholes to have their say on the Hill. Coletta Kemper, a Common Cause spokeswoman, said Common Cause had pushed for this amend men t, and originally had faulted the bill for lacking such a requirement. On the flip side, attorney Hope Eastman cited the lack of this requirement as a positive point of the unamended version of H.R. 8494. The grass roots amendment particularly raises the question of whether, if passed, the lobby registration bills would have a "chilling effect" on First Amendment rights, a question that will be addressed later.
The grass roots reporting requirement is also included in one of the two bills presently before the Senate. Under S. 1785, organizations would have to report solicitations that "reached or could be expected to reach" at least 500 persons, 100 or more employees, at least 25 officers or directors, or 12 or more organization affiliates. This bill would allow smaller organizations to file less detailed reports than larger organizations. Such abbreviated reports would apply to organizations that make at least 15 "oral lobbying communications" in a quarter. The abbreviated report would require a description of the 10 issues on which an organization spent the greatest time, and a general description of categories of other issues on which it lobbied. Both the abbreviated and "full" reports would require disclosure of
The California lobby law Connection While Congress considers the lobby ~egistration bills, it could look to California, where a lobby law was put into effect about four years ago. In an initiative known as Proposition 9, Californians enacted the Political Reform Act of 1974. The law has been declared unconstitutional because of a legal technicality related to the way the proposition appeared on the ballot, according to John Skhal, PharmD, vice president of professional affairs at the California Pharmacists Association. But since no provision within the bill itself was declared unconstitutional, California's experience with the law is still noteworthy. Under the California law, expenditures of $250 in one month would "trigger" the act's reporting requirement. The law, "like the bills before Congress ... defines lobbying broadly to include direct and indirect attempts to influence legislation," according to Lobbying: A Constitutionally Protected Right, a booklet by Washington, DC, attorney Hope Eastman. Eastman quotes a paper by Arthur Lipow of the Political Reform Project for Ethics and Social Policy in Berkeley, California, which states: "it would seem that the greatest burden of the law has fallen on the groups who were most adamant ih their support of the law-the so-called 'public interest' lobbyists and the representatives of the various nonprofit charitable groups."
48
In the same paper, Lipow quotes California secretary of state March Fong Eu, at the end of 1975, as saying: "With all due respect to the initiative's sponsors and proponents and with all due respect to the assumptions which have no doubt governed their thoughts, the bottom line to date is that the big fish are getting away and an awful lot of little fish are getting caught." While the California Pharmacists Association isn't a "little fish" getting caught by the law, the law did cause it some problems while it was in effect. For example, CPhA's John Skhal said the bill generated an "extraordinary amount of paperwork." He said the "burdensome paperwork requirement" was "plain ridiculous." A new federal law would also generate huge amounts of paperwork, and it is partly this paperwork burden Eastman has in mind when she questions whether the bill "will deter many groups and individuals from even entering the lobbying. process." Eastman, writing about the California law, states, "The California experience leaves no doubt that the fears of many that a comprehensive lobbying disclosure statute would fall most heavily on smaller, less well-financed groups and thus inhibit, impede, and indeed deter their participation in the legislation process were well-founded." -Barry MuroD
American Pharmacy Vol. NS18, No .10 Sept . 1978/ 568