The state of the State                                                   

Surprise! Stricter lobbying law for reporting influence in legislature and agencies By JENNIFER HALPERIN

Back in January, when dozens of then-new lawmakers were flush with intentions of "shaking things up" in the legislature, veteran Statehouse observers shrugged off those high hopes as the enthusiasm of innocents. Now, with the proverbial benefit of hindsight, it's easy to see why.

The General Assembly's large turnover didn't exactly spark a revolution in the way things are done in the Statehouse. There were few "renegade" newcomers, save perhaps a group of five Republican senators who took a stab at independence. So it was more or less business as usual in Springfield.

An example: Despite intense scrutiny by several newspapers in late 1992 and early 1993 of "pinstripe patronage" — including the awarding of no-bid state contracts to those with political connections — no measures passed this spring that would change this practice.

There was no shortage of proposals touching on the issue. One bill would have kept the state from awarding contracts to people or businesses that donate more than $1,000 to a state official. Another would have required state agencies to solicit competitive bids before leasing offices for state agencies.

Yet another would have required competitive bids for contracts over $5,000. Competitive bids now are solicited for contracts over $25,000 — a level hastily set during the busy closing hours of last year's spring session. Gov. Jim Edgar supported a measure calling for "professional or artistic" contracts over $10,000, such as those for legal services, to be competitively bid.

Edgar said he was disappointed that proposals to prevent abuse in the awarding of state contracts did not reach his desk, but added, "We will persist and ultimately prevail." Realistically, that's not likely to happen. If this type of reform wasn't successful this year — when press reports sparked high interest in the issue and Springfield was ripe with fresh faces calling for "change" — when will it be?

There was one breakthrough in the ethics department — at least by Illinois standards. In early August, Edgar signed a bill into law expanding the number of people who must register as lobbyists and the types of activities they must report. Among its champions was Secy. of State George H. Ryan.

This legislation was aimed at compiling a more accurate picture of who is lobbying Illinois' public officials and the amount of money they are spending. Earlier this year, the government watchdog group Common Cause reported that Illinois lobbyists had listed $396,014 in expenditures for 1992 — a bizarre figure, considering that lobbyists in other large states reported many times that amount during the same period. California lobbyists reported more than $90 million in the first three quarters of 1992.

The law expands the definition of lobbying to include efforts to influence state government decisions involving contracts and purchasing. Current law requires only those who lobby the governor and lawmakers on legislation to register as lobbyists with the secretary of state's office.

The new law also requires companies that hire contract lobbyists to register as lobbyists themselves and disclose lobbying expenses. Loopholes in the previous law allowed out-of-state interests to spend millions of dollars — in support of land-based casino gambling, for example — without reporting that they did so.

The law takes effect January 1, 1994 — too late to cover the fall veto session or any special session called this year

14/August & September 1993/Illinois Issues

(when riverboat gambling for Chicago likely will be discussed).

Lobbyists also will have to report such expenses as dinners and ball games even when no specific legislation was discussed. Expenses over $100 will have to be itemized, and lobbyists will have to name the officials on whom it was spent. (Many had advocated that even smaller expenses should be reported, such as those over $25.)

Ryan said the list of 850 lobbyists now registered with his office is expected to at least double when the law takes effect. Violation of the new law carries a maximum penalty of a three-year suspension of lobbying privileges in the state and a $10,000 fine.

Considering the fact that Illinois legislators passed only one ethics-related measure out of 81 introduced between 1982 and 1992, this year's feat is fairly significant. A concern, though, is that legislators will not use the new law as a launching pad for further ethics reform; instead, they may rest on its laurels and feel no pressure to go even further.

Of course, what was accomplished doesn't touch directly on the legislators themselves. Illinois, unlike most other states, has no limit on political contributions to state officials. It also has no limits on campaign spending.

Without limits on contributions — and there's been no strong surge to enact them — big money interests will continue to have hold of lawmakers' ears. Often that works in their favor, as in the case where the state's medical community opposed a parental notification measure (see Illinois Issues, July 1993, page 36). Other times it doesn't work as well; the tobacco lobby was dismayed by the inclusion of an increased tax on cigarettes and a new tax on other tobacco products in this year's budget as a way to raise money to replace the so-called "granny tax" on nursing home patients.

While some persist in voicing their desire for more significant ethics reform, it will be interesting to look back and evaluate the effect of this year's successes. Perhaps years from now — with the benefit of hindsight — expanded reporting by lobbyists will be viewed as one of the major changes decided by the 88th General Assembly. *

August & September 1993/Illinois Issues/15