Individuals or entities hired to influence how California awards state contracts could soon be required to register as a lobbyist, bringing greater scrutiny to government spending on goods and services.
The requirement is the centerpiece of a bill awaiting a final Assembly vote before heading to Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk. AB 1200 would require consultants, including those hired to help technology companies win major bids, to register with the state.
The measure by Assemblyman Rich Gordon, D-Menlo Park, would close what supporters say is a glaring loophole in the law, and allow the public to see who is attempting to influence California’s state procurement process and expenditure of taxpayer dollars.
“The whole goal of these ethics laws is we want to make sure people are acting in the public’s interest and not their own,” said Gary Winuck, an ethics attorney and former chief of enforcement at the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC).
Current law requires individuals and entities to report lobbying of the Legislature or state regulations under the Political Reform Act. Gordon’s bill would expand the definition of lobbying to government procurement of $250,000 or more.
The idea isn’t new. Eighteen other states, the federal government, Los Angeles and other cities require similar disclosure of procurement lobbying.
“This is not cutting-edge stuff. California is behind on this,” said Jim Heerwagen, who two weeks ago dropped his drive for signatures of a ballot initiative that would have required the lobbying disclosure.
Heerwagen‘s initiative, the Voters’ Right to Know Act, also would have required the state to rebuild its outdated campaign and lobbying database known as Cal-Access. Both issues have been incorporated into legislation.
Gordon’s bill would not apply to in-house lobbyists, a compromise added last month to the bill after it failed to win the needed votes last year in the Senate. Instead, only consultants paid more than $2,000 a month to influence a procurement would be required to register.
Activities considered lobbying would be the preparing of terms, specifications, bid documents, request for proposals, or evaluation criteria for a procurement contract, according to a Senate analysis of the bill. And soliciting for evaluating, awarding, approving, denying, disapproving, or scoring criteria for the procurement contract would also be covered.
What would not be considered lobbying is the basic process of applying for a procurement contract, said Winuck, who helped draft the bill with Gordon.
“If you apply for a bid, fill out a form, ask questions, none of that is lobbying,” he added.
Under the bill, procurement lobbying must be reported beginning Jan. 1, 2017. The Senate passed the bill on a 38-1 vote earlier this month, and it is awaiting a vote in the Assembly. It must win the support of at least two-thirds of lawmakers because it would change the Political Reform Act.
It is unclear whether Brown will sign the bill. The Department of Finance opposes the measure, citing the additional cost that would be required to implement and administer the bill. Specifically, the Secretary of State’s office would need three additional employees to manage the increased workload associated with lobbyist and lobbying firm registrations and report filings, and the FPPC would need 11 positions for a total annual cost of roughly $1.3 million, according to a summary prepared last year by the Department of Finance.
Supporters dismiss the cost concerns, noting a system and the forms already exist for lobbyists to report and disclose their activities.
“In the case of procurement lobbying, most of it is done by firms that are already registered as lobbyists for other purposes in the state,” Heerwagen said.
