Lobbying law passes IRRC after November rejection
By Peter L. DeCoursey
Bureau Chief Capitolwire
HARRISBURG (Feb. 26) – After Attorney General Tom Corbett today asked the state’s top regulatory review body to ignore its staff, reverse its November decision and approve Pennsylvania’s lobbying expenditure disclosure law, the panel did just that.
In November, the Independent Regulatory Review Commission rejected the proposed enabling regulations by a vote of three against, one in favor and 1 abstention on the five-member panel. Some amendments were made, and the commission approved the regulations by a vote of 3-1-1. Two of the commissioners who voted to reject in November voted for the regulations: John Mizner of Erie and former Reading Mayor Karen Miller.
The goals of the law were to make lobbyists and the companies or groups or individuals who hire them disclose their activities and register once they were paid more than $2,500 in a three-month period.
IRRC’s staff recommendation was that the amended regulations still went beyond what the law authorized, by forcing disclosure beyond the statute’s requirements. That position was also taken by the Pennsylvania Bar Association.
Attorneys, lobbyists and others also objected to having to include the costs of monitoring legislation in their lobbying expenditure disclosure reports if they lobbied. They noted they don’t have to do so if they don’t end up meeting the definition of lobbying.
Corbett said the lawmaker-official panel has been writing these regulations for “two-plus years, to require public disclosure of lobbying expenditures. Pennsylvanians deserve a clear accounting of lobbying expenditures.”
Corbett said he was pleading with IRRC to not reject the regulations and allow the state to “be the only one in the nation without lobbying law reform.”
Corbett’s last-minute and dramatic appearance was “very helpful” in persuading IRRC, said Drew Crompton, general counsel to Senate President Pro Tem Joe Scarnati, R-Jefferson, and a member of the group of legislators, officials and staffers that drafted the proposals.
They will now take effect unless House or Senate committees take the unusual step of disapproving them within 14 days of being formally notified of them.
Mizner, who voted against the regulations in November, cited two reasons for changing his vote. The first, he noted, was that the regulations to implement the lobbying expenditure disclosure law were drawn up by a committee created by the law, composed of legislators, a lobbyist, and state officials. Since that group unanimously voted to approve the regulations, that meant the board members who are lawmakers were not fearful that the regulations exceeded the scope of the law.
Corbett was pressed by Mizner as to whether he felt he, as the state’s chief law enforcement officer, could enforce the law, and defend it successfully against lawsuits despite the concerns raised again by lobbyist associations, IRRC staff and the bar association.
Corbett said he could and would.
Mizner said in his summation that those assertions by Corbett were key.
Mizner and Miller were joined in approving the regulations by new IRRC appointee George Bedwick, appointed by House Speaker Keith McCall, D-Carbon.
Chairman Arthur Coccodrilli, who voted for the regulations in November, had second thoughts since then, he said, and voted no. Nancy Sabol Frantz again abstained.
The IRRC commissioners in November voted 3-1-1 that the proposed regulations exceeded the letter of the law because they required lobbyists and their employers to report once the lobbyist was paid any sum. Led by Mizner, they ruled that was premature: that lobbying did not occur upon payment, but later, when the lobbyist contacted policy-makers or committed other acts defined as lobbying within the legislation.
That IRRC definition “would create a loophole large enough to drive a truck through,” said Robert Mulle, who chaired the regulation-drafting committee on behalf of Corbett.
Since that November rejection, led Crompton, the regulation-drafting committee amended that proposal.
They proposed instead of dating lobbying from initial payment, to, Corbett said, when a “contract,” written or verbal, is made for “lobbying purposes, then I have to register. That is the bright line, and people will know where that is!”
On Nov. 25, according to a meeting transcript of the Mulle group, Nevin Mindlin, legislative director of the Pennsylvania Bar Association, said: “I think it was a creative proposal by Drew on this. I think it was well-crafted and I think it gets us to the issue of what we understood it to be.”
The meeting transcript also shows that after raising one question, Mindlin said if it cannot be resolved, “I don’t think it makes huge amounts of difference.” He also called the compromise proposal “an exceedingly good job” during that meeting.
But on Wednesday at 4 p.m., the day before the final vote by the IRRC on the matter, Mindlin and another state bar association official wrote to IRRC saying that if contracts were unwritten, “the regulations terms would be legally untenable” under the terms of the lobbying law.
That letter also stated that the PBA should not be considered in “agreement with the Committee’s underlying legal position that mere contracting for lobbying can constitute ‘lobbying’ under Act 134 absent direct or indirect communication (or the provision of gifts, hospitality, etc.)”
The letter also says the regulations require registration by “lobbyists” in excess of what the law requires.
Corbett, making an unscheduled appearance before the IRRC board, told them of the letter from the bar association: “It is disheartening to me, designed in my opinion to sidetrack this legislation. … If their efforts are successful, we will retain our distinction as the only state without lobbying reform.”
Mulle said of the letter from the bar association: “When we adopted the compromise the bar is now rejecting, after they accepted it,” at the November meeting, “that vote was unanimous.”
Proposed regulations
Bureau Chief Capitolwire
HARRISBURG (Feb. 26) – After Attorney General Tom Corbett today asked the state’s top regulatory review body to ignore its staff, reverse its November decision and approve Pennsylvania’s lobbying expenditure disclosure law, the panel did just that.
In November, the Independent Regulatory Review Commission rejected the proposed enabling regulations by a vote of three against, one in favor and 1 abstention on the five-member panel. Some amendments were made, and the commission approved the regulations by a vote of 3-1-1. Two of the commissioners who voted to reject in November voted for the regulations: John Mizner of Erie and former Reading Mayor Karen Miller.
The goals of the law were to make lobbyists and the companies or groups or individuals who hire them disclose their activities and register once they were paid more than $2,500 in a three-month period.
IRRC’s staff recommendation was that the amended regulations still went beyond what the law authorized, by forcing disclosure beyond the statute’s requirements. That position was also taken by the Pennsylvania Bar Association.
Attorneys, lobbyists and others also objected to having to include the costs of monitoring legislation in their lobbying expenditure disclosure reports if they lobbied. They noted they don’t have to do so if they don’t end up meeting the definition of lobbying.
Corbett said the lawmaker-official panel has been writing these regulations for “two-plus years, to require public disclosure of lobbying expenditures. Pennsylvanians deserve a clear accounting of lobbying expenditures.”
Corbett said he was pleading with IRRC to not reject the regulations and allow the state to “be the only one in the nation without lobbying law reform.”
Corbett’s last-minute and dramatic appearance was “very helpful” in persuading IRRC, said Drew Crompton, general counsel to Senate President Pro Tem Joe Scarnati, R-Jefferson, and a member of the group of legislators, officials and staffers that drafted the proposals.
They will now take effect unless House or Senate committees take the unusual step of disapproving them within 14 days of being formally notified of them.
Mizner, who voted against the regulations in November, cited two reasons for changing his vote. The first, he noted, was that the regulations to implement the lobbying expenditure disclosure law were drawn up by a committee created by the law, composed of legislators, a lobbyist, and state officials. Since that group unanimously voted to approve the regulations, that meant the board members who are lawmakers were not fearful that the regulations exceeded the scope of the law.
Corbett was pressed by Mizner as to whether he felt he, as the state’s chief law enforcement officer, could enforce the law, and defend it successfully against lawsuits despite the concerns raised again by lobbyist associations, IRRC staff and the bar association.
Corbett said he could and would.
Mizner said in his summation that those assertions by Corbett were key.
Mizner and Miller were joined in approving the regulations by new IRRC appointee George Bedwick, appointed by House Speaker Keith McCall, D-Carbon.
Chairman Arthur Coccodrilli, who voted for the regulations in November, had second thoughts since then, he said, and voted no. Nancy Sabol Frantz again abstained.
The IRRC commissioners in November voted 3-1-1 that the proposed regulations exceeded the letter of the law because they required lobbyists and their employers to report once the lobbyist was paid any sum. Led by Mizner, they ruled that was premature: that lobbying did not occur upon payment, but later, when the lobbyist contacted policy-makers or committed other acts defined as lobbying within the legislation.
That IRRC definition “would create a loophole large enough to drive a truck through,” said Robert Mulle, who chaired the regulation-drafting committee on behalf of Corbett.
Since that November rejection, led Crompton, the regulation-drafting committee amended that proposal.
They proposed instead of dating lobbying from initial payment, to, Corbett said, when a “contract,” written or verbal, is made for “lobbying purposes, then I have to register. That is the bright line, and people will know where that is!”
On Nov. 25, according to a meeting transcript of the Mulle group, Nevin Mindlin, legislative director of the Pennsylvania Bar Association, said: “I think it was a creative proposal by Drew on this. I think it was well-crafted and I think it gets us to the issue of what we understood it to be.”
The meeting transcript also shows that after raising one question, Mindlin said if it cannot be resolved, “I don’t think it makes huge amounts of difference.” He also called the compromise proposal “an exceedingly good job” during that meeting.
But on Wednesday at 4 p.m., the day before the final vote by the IRRC on the matter, Mindlin and another state bar association official wrote to IRRC saying that if contracts were unwritten, “the regulations terms would be legally untenable” under the terms of the lobbying law.
That letter also stated that the PBA should not be considered in “agreement with the Committee’s underlying legal position that mere contracting for lobbying can constitute ‘lobbying’ under Act 134 absent direct or indirect communication (or the provision of gifts, hospitality, etc.)”
The letter also says the regulations require registration by “lobbyists” in excess of what the law requires.
Corbett, making an unscheduled appearance before the IRRC board, told them of the letter from the bar association: “It is disheartening to me, designed in my opinion to sidetrack this legislation. … If their efforts are successful, we will retain our distinction as the only state without lobbying reform.”
Mulle said of the letter from the bar association: “When we adopted the compromise the bar is now rejecting, after they accepted it,” at the November meeting, “that vote was unanimous.”
Proposed regulations
