Time to Shine More Light on Lobbyists : County Should Require Disclosure of Their Clients, How Much They Are Paying

It’s difficult to see what possible objection the Orange County Board of Supervisors could have to a recent proposal that lobbyists more fully disclose their activities on behalf of companies seeking business with the county. The city of Los Angeles has been requiring such disclosure for 25 years, and even now is studying ways to make the public more aware of the influence lobbyists have on city officials. The board should quickly adopt a similar policy that would require all professional lobbyists to put on the public record exactly who their clients are and how much they are being paid to lobby.

Orange County law requires lobbyists to register and disclose client lists only if they make significant campaign contributions to candidates for the board. That means that many of the county’s most influential lobbyists need only limit their total contributions to less than the threshold amount--currently, it’s $486 per year--in order to escape the disclosure requirement. That also means that many lobbyists who exert great influence on county agencies behind the scenes remain mostly a mystery to the public.

Recently, for example, Ralph B. Clark, a former county supervisor, was revealed to be the behind-the-scenes lobbyist for a firm that was eventually hired by the Orange County Transportation Authority to provide 10 tractor-trailer style buses to the county at a cost of $4 million. But Clark’s activities were not generally known until questions were raised by the Times Orange County Edition about the fiscal viability of the firm, SuperBus Inc. In light of the disclosures, the OCTA is reviewing the bus contract.

Triggered by this incident, Shirley L. Grindle, a local campaign reform advocate, last week urged board Chairman Roger A. Stanton to author an ordinance that would require full public disclosure of lobbying. Grindle had advanced the same idea several years ago to Supervisor Gaddi H. Vasquez, who never followed through.

Now it is up to Stanton, who has long backed strict disclosure and campaign fund-raising laws. Stanton should draft an ordinance promptly and use his influence to obtain approval.

It is hard to imagine what argument the board members could make against such a proposal. Who does it benefit when lobbying activities are not subjected to careful public scrutiny? Additional information about lobbyists is essential so that citizens can keep an watchful eye out for influence peddling.