Limits on Lobbying by Ex-Officials Gain

State legislators and top officials of the executive branch would be prohibited from lobbying the Legislature, or any government agency, for one year after leaving office under a plan approved Wednesday by an Assembly committee.

The Select Committee on Ethics, rounding out a package of proposals, also voted to allow prosecution of legislators by an independent counsel in certain cases and to prohibit lawmakers and their staff members from accepting most gifts.

If approved by the Assembly and Senate, the recommendations could help remove the cloud of scandal hanging over the Legislature and result in new sanctions for lawmakers and other government officials who use their positions for personal gain.

Reducing Influence a Goal

The proposal to prohibit lobbying by legislators and administration officials for a year after leaving office is designed to reduce undue influence that ex-government leaders may have over their former colleagues and subordinates.

Approved by the panel with little discussion, the proposal would mean a significant change for top decision-makers who quit state service in the future. Today, the ranks of top state lobbyists are filled with dozens of former legislators, Cabinet officers and other government officials.

In a move that could cost many legislators thousands of dollars in trips and merchandise, the panel unexpectedly agreed to place strict limits on gifts.

Under the committee proposal, legislators would be allowed to accept only informational materials, such as books and periodicals, gifts from family members, inheritances, personalized plaques worth less than $250, gifts of hospitality in another person’s home and gifts from friends who have no connection to matters pending before state government.

“This is a significant departure from the way business has been done around here,” said Assemblyman Richard Katz (D-Sylmar), a committee member. Honorariums for speaking appearances would be limited to $1,000, but members would have to report their planned speeches in advance and afterward provide a transcript under the proposal.

Several members of the panel balked at the restrictions that would be placed on free travel, including a prohibition on travel outside the country unless it is paid for by government agencies or academic institutions.

Assemblyman Stan Statham (R-Oak Run) argued that private companies, not the taxpayers, should pay for the travel of legislators if it helps promote the state’s business interests.

“If it’s of great benefit to California’s business community, it’s automatically of benefit to California’s government,” he contended.

But Katz argued that the state should pick up the tab for any legitimate trip that legislators make.

“If it’s not a benefit to the government, it’s probably a benefit to some private corporation and we ought not to do it,” he said.

Attempting to resolve the question of who should take action against legislators suspected of violating the law, the committee agreed to allow for the use of an independent counsel for the first time in California.

Under the proposal, either the attorney general or a legislator under investigation for a criminal offense could request that an independent prosecutor be appointed to take over the case.

Supporters of the idea argued that investigations of political corruption can sometimes be influenced by the political agenda of the prosecutorial agency involved.