IE11 Not Supported

For optimal browsing, we recommend Chrome, Firefox or Safari browsers.

Measure to Register Consultants as Lobbyists Goes to Governor’s Desk

Consultants, including those advising tech companies, would have to register with the state. Whether AB 1200 will provide the transparency envisioned by its backers is now a question before Gov. Jerry Brown, who will be urged to vote against the measure by the Fair Political Practices Commission and his Department of Finance.

Tech consultants advising companies to help win state contracts are among those who would have to register. 

California lawmakers on Monday unanimously approved new disclosure rules intended to shed light on billions of dollars in state spending and the entities that pay to win lucrative government contracts.

Whether AB 1200 will provide the transparency envisioned by its backers is now a question before Gov. Jerry Brown, who will be urged to vote against the measure by the Fair Political Practices Commission and his Department of Finance.

The bill by Assemblyman Rich Gordon, D-Menlo Park, would require individuals or entities to register as a lobbyist if they have been hired to influence how California awards state contracts.

“Californians have a right to see who is trying to influence these massive purchasing contracts – and how,” Gordon said in a statement. “This legislation will help prevent backroom deal-making and shine light on the state procurement process that’s been too dark for too long.”

Lawmakers voted 72-0 for the bill. No lawmaker spoke against the measure.

In March, the FPPC voted to oppose the bill and sent a letter to lawmakers urging them to reject it. It was a tough position for a commission entrusted with bringing disclosure to state government, but it was a vote commissioners said was necessary given the many problems with the bill.

Specifically, FPPC chair Jodi Remke raised concerns about expanding the commission’s mission to the “highly specialized area” of state contracts best overseen by the Department of General Services, the Department of Technology and other state agencies.

She also questioned whether the disclosure requirements would be effective, noting that lobbyists aren’t required to report their “contacts” or specific communications with government agencies.

“This bill will not accomplish what the proponents are promising the public,” FPPC spokesman Jay Wierenga said after the floor vote. “Rather, it will increase the cost of doing business in California without any increase in meaningful disclosure.”

He said the commission would communicate its concerns to Brown.

In addition to the FPPC’s opposition, the Department of Finance has said the bill would cost the state roughly $1.3 million to manage the increased workload associated with lobbyist and lobbying firm registrations and report filings at both the Secretary of State’s office and the FPPC.

Brown has vetoed a series of bills over the last few years intended to make campaign finance disclosures and government data more accessible. He has not taken a position on Gordon’s bill.

Eighteen other states, the federal government, Los Angeles and other cities require similar disclosure of procurement lobbying, and advocates say such reporting at the state level would be easy to incorporate into existing lobbying forms.

Currently, lobbyists must register with the state if they seek to influence legislation or state regulations. Gordon’s bill would expand state ethics law to include efforts undertaken by individuals and entities to win state contracts.

Contract consultants paid more than $2,000 a month to influence a procurement would be required to register. In-house lobbyists would be exempt from disclosure, a provision the FPPC has criticized.