Florida lobbyists sue for ‘right’ to bribe government officials
Here’s the first paragraph from a Feb. 17, 2006, AP story in my local newspaper: “Lobbyists plan to sue presiding officers of the Florida Legislature on Friday to block enforcement of a new law that prohibits them from giving gifts, including food and drink, to lawmakers.” In other words, Florida lobbyists are suing legislative leaders to keep on bribing legislators even though the legislature passed — and Governor Bush signed — a law that says they can no longer give money, food, and booze to state officials in exchange for chances to influence legislation and purchasing decisions. The law has some other pretty good provisions, too, that also have lobbyists upset.
If you read the article I linked to above, and you aren’t a lobbyist or someone who employs lobbyists to get legislators to pass legislation favorable to you or to influence state purchasing decisions, you are no doubt shaking your head and wondering, “What’s wrong with these people?”
I particularly love the line in the Florida Association of Professional Lobbyists‘ (draft) filing that says the new law will expose lobbyists “to ridicule, scorn or shame from those who regard the compensation that they earn as unwarranted.”
Well, duh!
I mean, isn’t this the point of this law? Isn’t it supposed to shame those who take money in return for bribing and otherwise influencing our officeholders?
The law requires lobbyists to disclose how much they get paid and to list expenses they run up while working on behalf of their clients. This is the part of the new law that irritates lobbyists most, even though you’d think this is information we citizens should have had all along.
I suspect that only a lobbyist (or a bribe-taking legislator) would agree with this statement from the lobbyists’ spokesthing, as quoted in the AP article, talking about how the law does more than just prohibiting direct bribes in the form of meals and gifts:
“The Legislature simply went far beyond this prohibition, though, cutting deeply into our ability to communicate for our clients and invading the privacy of people who simply want their representatives to listen to them,” said association spokesman Ken Plante, a former state senator.
Plante said lobbyists should not have to disclose fees paid by clients.
“It’s a repulsive intrusion on our constitutionally guaranteed right of privacy,” he said.
A couple of years ago, I wrote these lines:
I accept the fact that our legislature (and governor, and many local officeholders) are beholden to industry groups and lobbyists more than they are to actual voters. This is the Florida Way.All I ask is that our officeholders tell us who owns them so that we can make more informed choices at the polls.
Think NASCAR!
I should think companies that sponsor Florida lawmakers would be proud to see them wearing logos on their jackets, and I think officeholders and candidates should be just as proud to show pride in their backers. NASCAR drivers plaster corporate symbols all over their cars and uniforms and seem none the worse for it.
This would have been much less restrictive than the anti-lobbying law the Florida legislature surprised us by passing in December, 2005. All I was looking for was disclosure, so we voters could see who was buying our legislators — and vote accordingly.
In any case, despite new restrictions on their activities, I’m sure Florida lobbyists will still figure out ways to buy decisions from state officials, and our state officials will go on claiming that they never allow their decisions to be influenced by “donations” from lobbyists.
One way or another, I am sure we Floridians will continue to enjoy “the best goverment money can buy,” and hardly any of our state’s fine lobbyists — who reportedly outnumber our legistors 13:1 — will lose their jobs and be forced to resort to Honest Labor.