Happyland for lobbyists

MASSACHUSETTS ethics laws are supposedly among the nation's toughest and best, but Governor Patrick's task force on public integrity needs to put that oft-repeated claim to the test. The state's lobbying and conflict-of-interest laws may stack up well against others on paper, but they are still easily shredded in the hands of grasping lobbyists.

Lobbyists in Massachusetts racked up more than $76 million in lobbying fees between July 2007 and July 2008. And that's just what they reported. Some recent sleuthing by state Inspector General Gregory Sullivan yielded what he said was $1.8 million in unreported lobbying fees on behalf of a software vendor by three close friends and associates of House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi. How much more money may be landing in the hands of ersatz "consultants" and "strategists" is anyone's guess.

The task force must first determine why Massachusetts is such fertile ground for those seeking to influence legislation. Is it simply the volume of bills that go through Beacon Hill? Or is it more a matter of conflicting lobbying laws and the mishmash of regulatory and enforcement agencies that can lead to buck-passing? And what about the logjams that develop when trying to uncover influence-peddling through public-records requests?

Agencies and committees involved in tracking, regulating, and enforcing public integrity laws in Massachusetts include the State Ethics Commission, the inspector general, the Office of Campaign and Political Finance, the attorney general, the secretary of state, and the House and Senate ethics committees. The responsibilities of these agencies and how they interact need careful review from the task force.

'Flying blind'

The Ethics Commission, for example, enforces the state's conflict-of-interest and financial disclosure laws. Yet, its ability to issue regulations and clearly define prohibitions is narrower than its counterparts in other states. The secretary of state's office, on the other hand, regulates lobbyists but lacks the subpoena power necessary to enforce its own regulations.

"We're flying blind with an honor system for a profession that is not that honorable," warns Secretary of State William Galvin.

Some states, including Wisconsin, are consolidating the agencies responsible for government transparency and accountability. It makes sense to place responsibility for enforcing conflict-of-interest laws under the same roof as the agency that conducts legal reviews of campaign finance activity. Regulation and enforcement of lobbying functions might belong there, too. That, at least, would be one way around a Legislature that refuses to grant subpoena power to the secretary of state.

The public believes that the Legislature's ethical water level has dropped below the danger mark. Some House members, at least, recognize this and are linking a package of ethics reforms to their efforts to replace DiMasi as speaker. A more efficient approach would be to revive an existing bill that would better define lobbying practices, expand financial reporting requirements, and give the secretary of state's office the power it needs to pursue violators. But that bill is stalled in the Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight, chaired until recently by state Senator Dianne Wilkerson, who resigned last week after being arrested on federal bribery charges.

When rules aren't clear

The governor's task force should focus as tightly on conflicting lobbying laws as it does on overlapping agencies. One section of state law, for example, prohibits lobbyists from providing "any gift" to public officials or their family members. Yet other laws set the value limits at $50 or $100. Such unclear rules - and the insufficient fines for violating them - smooth the way for lobbyists. And even the most ethical lawmaker can grow cynical and confused when faced with disclosure guidelines for gifts that shouldn't have been accepted in the first place.

The host of exemptions to the state's public-records laws almost guarantees that too little light will shine into the chambers of Beacon Hill lawmakers and executive offices. And even the most persistent reporter or concerned citizen can be denied documents because the secretary of state's office, which oversees the public-records laws, and the state attorney general's office, which has the power to force the release of documents, often do not agree about what even constitutes a public record.

Even the work of the governor's task force on public integrity can be part of the problem. Its working meetings are closed to the public because the deliberations of an advisory body, voluntarily assembled by the governor, are not subject to the state's open meeting law.

Massachusetts is a long way from transparency.