Legislation with Benefits
Californians have supported ballot propositions to fix the state legislature, most notably with term limits. These efforts are as popular as they are ineffective. Now concerns center around bills sponsored by lobbyists and their slick ilk.
Most citizens contemn the legislature for rarely passing a budget on time, then passing on difficult choices with fake balancing acts. A recent Mercury News study uncovered the sad truth that roughly 39% of the bills introduced are sponsored by lobbyists.
Feel-good reforms emanate from Sacramento, the latest being a proposal to limit the number of bills a legislator can introduce during a two-year session. Don't get me wrong, government limits are great. However, the plan fails to address special-interest sponsorship of bills. Identical attempts have failed in the past [see chart below].
Common Cause's regional director, Derek Cressman, agrees that limiting the number of bills is unlikely to result in significant change. The percentage of sponsored bills has increased, despite tighter limits on the number of bills each lawmaker can introduce.
| Senate | Assembly | ||
| YEAR | BILL LIMIT |
YEAR | BILL LIMIT |
| 1991 | 65 | 1993 | 50 |
| 2004 | 50 | 1996 | 30 |
| 2009 | 40 | 2003 | 40 |
| 2011* | 30 | 2011* | 27 |
Some politicians argue that voters demand their representatives introduce successful (passed) bills, so the lawmakers turn to experienced lobbyists to push through laws with the proper loopholes. Like most abuses, this has been blamed on term limits, so one proposal by Senator Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) would change the term limit to 12 years per person, with time spent in the Assembly, Senate or some combination of each. The Santa Cruz Sentinel endorses this proposal. I say "Balderdash!", almost as rare an occurrence as a timely California budget.
First, most voters have no idea who their assembly member or senator is, much less that person's voting record. Second, gerrymandered districts assure Democrats and Republicans of reelection until they "term out." If they sponsor bills to raise campaign funds, it isn't to protect their current jobs.
"If you can't get a bill signed in the first two years, |
According to Karen de Sá, reporting on the study, sponsorship is nothing new. Only now lobbyists have "taken center stage in lawmaking."
She continues,
| Although lawmakers in recent years have routinely
failed to grapple with health care, the state budget and other matters
of public interest, they've managed to do the bidding of private
interests who tout sponsored bills at an impressive clip. source: Contra Costa Times |
Whether growers, manufacturers, trade unions, trade associations, government agencies, or other special interests, all are welcome to promote self-serving bills. Often, they work with lawyers in the Legislative Counsel's office to write the text, then testify for it and, of course, throw money around to grease the wheels. Bay Area News Group discovered $1.2 million in the last session contributed by sponsors to legislators who introduced their bills.
Sponsored bills are more successful. Nearly half of 1,883 sponsored bills passed in the last session. Only about 20% of the 2,982 bills with no listed sponsor became law. Not surprisingly, requirements to disclose when a private company or group is sponsoring legislation are murky and inconsistent, with some committees not listing sponsors at all.
One question the Mercury failed to raise is why so many bills are introduced (4,865 by my count). Business in California is discouraged by the labyrinth of laws regulating nearly everything. Lawmakers seem to subscribe to the notion that, "There is no such thing as too many laws." What happened to, "That government is best which governs least."?
Not every legislator introduced sponsored bills in the past session. Senator Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks) refused to follow the pack, proving there's always one good apple. The current congressman said, "It's a general rule that sponsors are bureaucracies seeking more money."
When Assemblyman Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo) arrived in Sacramento, he was struck by the "influence and prevalence of the Third House people," as lobbyists are affectionately called. [Full disclosure: I am running opposite Mr Hill on the Libertarian ticket.]
You may wonder if any of this lobbyist participation is illegal. So long as there is no quid pro quo, it is perfectly acceptable. Legal at least.
Some argue that California's legislature meets too often. They used to meet for a few months. In the twenty-first century, some state bodies meet every other year. The Texas legislature gathers in odd-numbered years only, for a maximum session of 140 days (20 weeks), giving them and lobbyists much less time for meddling.
Here is my modest proposal. For every law that is introduced, two existing laws must be repealed. It is time for Sacramento to clean up their past handiwork so California can return to prosperity. Until then, more laws will lead to more problems.
©2010 gt
Handy Links
Find your legislator
Contra
Costa Times article
A slightly different version of this essay appeared in my Nolan Chart column, "Let Freedom Sing."
If you enjoyed this paper, please follow the link to give us a thumbs up.
