SB 131: Republicans Pass Lobbying Restrictions to Assuage Voter (Mis)Perceptions
Published 2017-03-01 by
Cory Allen Heidelberger
After repealing the voter-approved Initiated Measure 22, the Legislature has thrown voters a bone in the form of Senate Bill 131, which mostly restores the two-year revolving-door lobbying ban in Section 65 of IM 22. Current law restricts only elected officials from leaving office to lobby, and that ban lasts only one year. SB 131 adds department or agency heads, division directors, and the highest paid employee reporting to each of those people to the ban and makes them sit out for two years. SB 131, like IM 22, clarifies that restriction only applies to taking pay for such lobbying… since, as I think about it, it’s probably a violation of the First Amendment to ban any private citizen, no matter what job she was doing yesterday, from going to Pierre and jawboning legislators.
“Perception is reality to the citizens of this state,” [Rep. Larry] Rhoden [R-29/Union Center] said. “It provides assurances to the people of this state that we are listening, that we abide by their wishes.”
…Rep. Thomas Brunner, R-Nisland, asked what the problem has been. Rhoden said he could think of one or two examples in the 16 years he’s served in the Legislature.
Rhoden said the main point is that the two-year ban reflects the perceptions of voters on IM 22.
Brunner said it really hasn’t been a problem. He said many legislators came back after one year to lobby.
“I don’t think it’s been a problem for anybody,” Brunner said. “I submit to you the one year is plenty.”
…Rep. Tim Rounds, R-Pierre, called it “a solution looking for a problem.” Rep. Larry Zikmund, R-Sioux Falls, said in his 27 years of involvement in state government he’s never seen a problem [Bob Mercer, “Legislature Expands Lobbying Ban to More Officials and Doubles Length,” Aberdeen American News, 2017.02.28].
Senator Bob Ewing (R-31/Spearfish), who voted for SB 131 a couple weeks ago, insists that lobbyists don’t influence votes, anyway:
As far as lobbyists go … they have a large base of knowledge. I try to listen to what constituents want on a bill, but what I ask is, ‘Is it legal? Is it good for Lawrence County? Is it good for the state?’ I have voted against things that are good for the state, but are bad for Lawrence County. I try to do what’s best for the community where I live. As far as influence, I don’t let them (lobbyists) influence my votes [Sen. Bob Ewing, in Jaci Conrad Pearson, “Cracker Barrel Attendees Talk SB 176,” Black Hills Pioneer, 2017.02.27].
So one could conclude that in restoring Section 65 of IM 22, Republicans are just messing with voters’ heads. They still think we voters are wrong. They don’t think recent government officials or any other lobbyists have any undue influence on their decisions. They’re just passing this particular IM 22 “replacement” bill to assuage our incorrect perceptions.
Sen. Ewing uses, ‘is it legal’ to decide if a new law is good, well that is the tail waging the dog. The government should decide what should or should not be legal, not just pass laws that are already passed. If it should or should not be legal is the question, not is it legal. This sounds like Kirby saying it is ethical if it is legal. They should ask, is it ethical and if not, write a law against it. That would be progress tward a good fair system. But if that is not their goal, then they will continue on with this nonsense that laws are perception and not for the real world. No wonder the legislature had not clue that an ethics law would be necessary and appropriate.
Donald Pay
Rhoden is b.s.ing. Lobbyist provide a valuable information to legislators, and many legislators pay a lot of attention. If the Chamber of the Municipal League or the Farm Bureau comes to lobby you, you are going to pay attentional to their arguments, because you know there are people in your district who are members of those organizations. It’s not usually about changing votes of lunkheads and ciphers, like Rhoden. He’s a known quantity. You are more likely to approach people with open minds by providing research, deeper understanding, talking points, etc., on various issues.
The issue here is vote buying. If you are angling for a lobbying job while in the legislature you are likely to throw your vote for the lobbying gig, rather than for your constituents. I’d make the lobbying ban more like five years.
Sen. Ewing uses, ‘is it legal’ to decide if a new law is good, well that is the tail waging the dog. The government should decide what should or should not be legal, not just pass laws that are already passed. If it should or should not be legal is the question, not is it legal. This sounds like Kirby saying it is ethical if it is legal. They should ask, is it ethical and if not, write a law against it. That would be progress tward a good fair system. But if that is not their goal, then they will continue on with this nonsense that laws are perception and not for the real world. No wonder the legislature had not clue that an ethics law would be necessary and appropriate.
Rhoden is b.s.ing. Lobbyist provide a valuable information to legislators, and many legislators pay a lot of attention. If the Chamber of the Municipal League or the Farm Bureau comes to lobby you, you are going to pay attentional to their arguments, because you know there are people in your district who are members of those organizations. It’s not usually about changing votes of lunkheads and ciphers, like Rhoden. He’s a known quantity. You are more likely to approach people with open minds by providing research, deeper understanding, talking points, etc., on various issues.
The issue here is vote buying. If you are angling for a lobbying job while in the legislature you are likely to throw your vote for the lobbying gig, rather than for your constituents. I’d make the lobbying ban more like five years.