Lobbying reform is worth a look

Gov. Brian Schweitzer wasn't just whistlin' Dixie when he said last year that if legislators didn't pass an ethics bill, he'd take one to the voters.

Schweitzer is doing just that, announcing last week a ballot initiative that would require all state lawmakers and top executive branch officials and appointees to wait two years before becoming lobbyists. And as a follow-up, he intends to once again propose a bill for the 2007 legislative session that would require more detailed and more frequent reporting of how lobbyists spend money.

Both are admirable goals, and the first should get serious consideration from voters this fall. The governor clearly wants to reduce the potential for improper conflicts, or the appearance of impropriety, and to bring more transparency to the influence lobbyists have on state government.

But considering the tenor of the times, you have to question whether even these proposals go far enough.

The Center for Public Integrity, an investigative journalism think tank, lists 19 states that have in the past year approved or considered ethics reforms for public officials. Looking at some of those innovative approaches, there is no doubt that more can be done.

In Colorado, for instance, a legislative committee took a look at state employees whose sole function is to lobby the legislature on behalf of their government offices. In particular, lawmakers were curious about the propriety of spending approximately $1.8 million a year to pay those salaries.

Other states proposed "cooling off" periods just as Schweitzer did, although most involved a one-year period in which lawmakers or state officials were banned from taking lobbying jobs. As a matter of fact, Montana already has a one-year ban in place, but the governor says it has no teeth.

Reform legislation in North Carolina established a "cooling off" period as well as limits on contributions, but it specifically did not apply to gifts provided to lawmakers by non-profit organizations such as state colleges.

There was a simple reason for that, and it isn't limited to North Carolina either. In Montana, for instance, it is no secret that lawmakers and state officials have often been guests at University of Montana or Montana State University sporting events.

And, meanwhile, it shouldn't be surprising that state officials often have influential access to lawmakers, allowing them to pursue the interests of the agencies they work for.

These kinds of practical considerations make the reform process more complicated than it appears at first.

House Republican Leader Roy Brown of Billings recently pointed out that there are plenty of lobbyists who go to work for state government, including the Schweitzer administration, without any "cooling off" period at all. Should the revolving door be closed in both directions?

While Schweitzer is sure to sell his proposed changes as steps in the right direction, he should examine other aspects of government influence that have the appearance of impropriety, or possibly a need for more transparency as well. The public would probably like to see a comprehensive solution instead of a piecemeal one.