Lobbyists spent a record $15.4 million attempting to sway members of the General Assembly between May 1, 2005, and April 30, 2006. According to records at the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s office reviewed by Tyler Whitley of the Richmond Times-Dispatch, the money went for everything from dinners out to golf trips to $650 for a piano player to entertain guests at a lobbyist’s house.
The state does not limit campaign contributions or lobbyists’ gifts, but it does require disclosure. At least in theory.
Unfortunately, many of the lobbyists’ disclosure reports are incomplete. As a practical matter they’re also inaccessible to most citizens — the paper reports are stuffed into cardboard boxes in the secretary’s office.
Even when examined by a reporter, many of the records will prove useless. Disclosure, it seems, is in the eye of the lobbyist.
Or, as The Washington Post noted in an editorial, “What may be more worrisome than what state records show . . . is what is missing from them.
“Instead of providing an account of whom the Virginia Sheriffs’ Association treated to dinner, the interest group claimed only that it spent $27,678 on entertainment and $555 on gifts.
“Instead of listing the legislation it fought for or against, Verizon reported that its lobbying activities consisted of . . .all aspects impacting Verizon.’
“Not every lobbyist’s report was that vague. (Dominion Resources provided names, locations and dates for its dinner appointments, Northrop Grumman specified exactly which bills it favored and which it opposed.)
“But the inconsistent quality of the lobbyist write-ups points to large problems in Virginia’s disclosure laws: It’s unclear just how detailed reports have to be, and the secretary of the commonwealth has no authority to audit the reports her office receives.”
Chris Frink, lobbying specialist for the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s office, said he has no powers to compel more information. It is up to media and citizens, he said, to find wrongdoing in the reporting process.
The Lynchburg News & Advance called that absurd. “Media and residents can serve as watchdogs, of course. But it is up to the General Assembly to police itself against excesses among the special interests.”
A Roanoke Times editorial urged legislators to require three things of lobbyists: (1) name names; (2) specify which bills are of interest; and (3) post the full reports online.