Lobbying Regulation Will Be Heard Again By Council
Mary Jo Markle
On December 14, Commissioner Adams will reintroduce to Council an ordinance requiring city lobbying entities to register and report their activities. The lobbying regulation, co-sponsored by Commissioner Saltzman and Commissioner Sten, has benefited from from over 10 months of public input.
The disclosure required by the lobbying regulation asks business, groups and organizations that lobby the city to list the city officials they spoke with, the topics that were discussed, the dates of communication, and the amount of money spent to lobby.
Testimony will be heard on December 14. Come let Council know what you think and share your thoughts below.
Posted by Mary Jo Markle on December 9, 2005
(6) Comments | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Filed Under Front Page, Good Government, Our Initiatives
Comments by site visitors
Sam,
Inoticed some exceptions in one section (see below). Can you give us a few examples of who these exceptions might apply to?
------
2.12.050 Exemptions to . . .
..
C. Any lobbying entity that satisfies all three of the following requirements:
1. Complies with state public record and meeting laws or with the standards referenced in Section 3.96.020 G.;
2. Is an Internal Revenue Code Section 501 (c) 3 Organization; and
3. Is formally recognized or acknowledged by the City of
Portland through City Council resolution or ordinance.
Posted by: jim karlock | Dec 10, 2005 1:25:35 AM
Jim:
Thanks for the question. Lobbying entities can fall in and out of exemption status based on their compliance status. For example, if a neighborhood association adheres to all three criteria, it would be exempt. If a neighborhood business district decides to adhere to Section 3.96.020 G it would be exempt because it is a non-profit and is already recognized by City government. Compliance will be done a complaint driven basis.
Sam
Posted by: Sam Adams | Dec 10, 2005 5:30:24 PM
2.12.020(G)(5) is facially in conflict with state collective bargaining law demanding neutrality with regard to the employees choice of bargaining agent. This includes specific reference to the existence or formation of unions. See ORS 243.672(1)(b). You can't just exempt only those that are presently parties to collective bargaining contracts, or in the status quo period.
I surely would not leave in the little wiggle worm of a discretionary decision about whether it does or does not pertain to the collective bargaining process. As you should know the collective bargaining process routinely includes a vast array of permissive terms, sometimes inclusive of discussion (authorization) of public records requests.
2.12.050(A) I will demand no less than that which is accorded to newspapers. They are exempted, thus I am too.
How can I get standing? Normally government would fight tooth and nail to get a complainant to go away by objecting based on standing. Here it would be a breeze to get standing. You would, ironically, be trying to say, tactically, that I am NOT a lobbyist. Funny.
Posted by: pdxlawg | Dec 13, 2005 2:02:11 AM
Sam: has staff provided you with a low-ball, laugh out loud, nobody really believes it estimate on how much administration and enforcement are likely to cost the city in labor hours and start up dollars (I/T, legal, new forms/website). Any idea how accurate said estimate was on Voter Owned Elections? (a single half time position, and something like $10k for the new website).
Anybody have a wild-ass guess how much money the "lobbyists" may have to spend on compliance and legal costs?
My son typed the below: he is a fiscal conservative also! He told me it says, "spend more on public safety"...
3+++++++000++
0
+
Posted by: W. Bruce Anderholt II | Dec 17, 2005 7:23:23 AM
Bruce,
Every thing but for the sign up sheet, and speaking time, at a hearing or phone call can be severed. The only thing that remains is direct communications. Any councilor could just grunt, today, and send a speaker away, thus the ordinance is of no consequence, really.
United States v. Rumley would be a good case to read. But, it might be easier to read how the New York Civil Liberties Union articulated Rumley in response to lobbying legislation.
preska_lobbying_amicus
http://www.nyclu.org/preska_lobbying_amicus_100203.html
Wherein amicus argues:
"the Supreme Court essentially held that government investigations of lobbying and the imposition of disclosure obligations upon lobbyists can be found consistent with the First Amendment only if such investigations and disclosure obligations are limited to 'direct communication' with legislators and other public officials."
Sorry, your child's email (web post) prep time and that of my own prep time would not be proper to calculating the 16 hour time period. At least it would be contradictory for me to say that I racked up 16 hours in prep time in order to obtain standing and then to say that the 16 hours of non-direct communications time must not be included in the lobbying ordinance.
The only Lobbyist cost will be that of the city itself to a civil liberties advocate in court that gets the city to cover the cost of overturning the ordinance.
The City Attorney could tell Sam that he is on his own on this one and that he can get a separate outside council to defend the ordinance.
A more narrowly tailored law would hold only employees and public officials directly responsible for recording their own communications, as they would be a party to every single such communication. It seems weird that such employees and public officials would seek to get an exemption via the contorted method of having outside folks themselves seek to get an exemption on their behalf.
Posted by: pdxlawg | Dec 17, 2005 10:32:08 PM
Post your comment
Please note: your email address, although required to post, will not be visible. We remove inappropriate or offensive content, and content deemed improper by State and City election and ethics law. The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of the office or the City of Portland.
I know you and Ms. Markel have taken a lot of crap for this but thanks for not giving up on this.
Posted by: David | Dec 9, 2005 7:36:33 PM