‘Revolving Door’ Law Impact Questioned

SACRAMENTO — Under the state’s “revolving door” law, Kevin Sloat is not allowed to lobby Gov. Pete Wilson’s office until next January, one year after he quit being the governor’s deputy chief of staff.

But is Sloat lobbying the governor if he writes him a letter on his firm’s stationery and it is signed by someone else? What if Sloat introduces one of his employees to the governor and then that person gives Wilson a pitch about a Sloat client?

Attorneys for the state Fair Political Practices Commission recently ruled that neither example would constitute lobbying by Sloat. And partly as a result, Sloat has developed a lucrative lobbying practice in less than six months.

But the FPPC opinion has also sparked a raging controversy about the integrity of the revolving door law just as it is being re-triggered by the departing staff of a lame duck governor.

*

“This so-called [FPPC] advice is absurd, ridiculous, confusing and embarrassing to the commission,” the Consumers Union wrote in a letter last week calling for withdrawal of the FPPC opinion.

“For almost a decade, the voters and the Legislature have clearly sought to end the indefensible practice of gubernatorial aides working on legislation, then switching sides and coming back and lobbying their former colleagues on the issue,” the letter said. “Few things in politics, government and state law are more clear.”

But that purported clarity is lost on many in the state Capitol. Instead, many government watchdogs consider the state’s revolving door law to be an example of the ambiguity, loopholes and toothless enforcement that sometimes result when lawmakers are asked to police themselves.

The law was adopted in 1990 when the Legislature was under intense public pressure to crack down on ethics violations after the convictions of about a dozen Capitol insiders in an FBI influence-peddling sting.

Even then, it was written so that it would not take effect until after Gov. George Deukmejian and his staff left office in 1991. It also did not place any restrictions on the staff of the Legislature--only on elected lawmakers and the employees in the governor’s administration.

Wilson signed a bill in 1993 that toughened the rules for his own administration’s staff. But he complained at the time that similar rules were not applied to the Legislature’s staff.

The governor said he would support legislation that imposed similar restrictions on legislative employees. But such a bill has never been produced.

Now, in the view of some watchdog groups, the only revolving door law has been gutted by the regulatory agency that is responsible for its enforcement.

“I think the clear intent of the law is for such employees to refrain from lobbying for the period of a year,” said Jim Knox, a director at Common Cause in Sacramento. “I think it should be cut and dried.”

*

Much of the controversy stems from an FPPC interpretation of the revolving door law that says restrictions apply only to an individual, not that person’s firm or associates.

In the case of Sloat, FPPC general counsel Steven G. Churchwell wrote in an April letter that Sloat was prohibited from receiving any compensation for lobbying the governor’s office for one year. But Churchwell said that did not apply to Sloat’s firm--which was named Kevin Sloat and Associates at the time.

Last month, Sloat hired two lobbyists and the firm is now called Sloat, Higgins and Associates.

Churchwell’s letter also outlined other behavior that allows delicate communication between Sloat and his former employer.

“Mr. Sloat may introduce his associates and clients to the governor’s immediate staff, but he may not elicit the administration’s viewpoint on a particular matter if the intent of the meeting is to influence administrative or legislative action,” the letter said. “Finally, Mr. Sloat may draft advocacy proposals on his firm’s letterhead but without his signature that are directed to the governor’s immediate staff provided he is not otherwise identified in the written communication.”

Sloat’s role has been spotlighted recently because he is representing a group of trade schools that are seeking legislation to scale back state regulation of their industry.

Consumers Union is opposing the legislation and it has launched a major effort to discredit Sloat.

The group complains that Sloat was a key advisor to Wilson last year when the governor vetoed a bill that would have extended current regulation of the trade schools. After he left the governor’s office in January, one of his first clients was an organization representing the trade schools.

Sloat acknowledges that he was involved in discussions with the governor last year about the trade school issue he is now lobbying. But he defended his role as being within the guidelines outlined by the FPPC opinion that he sought earlier this year.

“I went to them and I said, ‘Tell me what the rules are,’ and they told me and that’s what I’ve done,” Sloat said. “I am complying with the law.”

Sloat, who joined Wilson’s staff in 1991, said he now represents about 18 clients. For the first quarter of this year, he reported an income in excess of $40,000.

The clients include the CalState universities, Chevron Oil and the Metropolitan Water District.

Sloat and the governor’s office have complained that much of the recent controversy is a result of political strategy regarding the pending trade school legislation--not a sincere attempt to monitor the revolving door law.

“It is detrimental to the process for those who appear to seek publicity for themselves and their cause to throw around rhetorical mud balls,” said Wilson spokesman Sean Walsh. “The governor wants a bill that provides needed oversight, but he is not moved, intimidated or impacted by some of the political high jinks that are ongoing on this issue.”

Still, Consumers Union senior advocate Harry Snyder has demanded that the FPPC commissioners consider this issue at their next meeting, July 3. A spokesman for the commission said directors are still evaluating whether to put the issue on the meeting’s agenda.

Meanwhile, legislators from both parties said they are unlikely to get involved. Sen. Richard Polanco (D-Los Angeles), author of a revolving door bill, said he does not consider Sloat’s situation inappropriate. “My personal opinion is that people who have served in government services should not be penalized when they want to go out and earn a living,” he said.

Assembly Speaker Cruz Bustamante (D-Fresno) did not return a telephone call on the issue. And Senate President Pro Tem Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward) said it would be difficult to go beyond the FPPC’s ruling without violating individuals’ rights. He also downplayed the effectiveness of the restrictions on Sloat.

“I don’t think that the governor’s office is unduly influenced by the fact that a letter is on Sloat stationery,” he said. “Life around the Capitol is almost like living in a submarine. Everybody knows everybody. I suspect whatever barrier you tried to throw up, the people on the other side would know who is interested in a particular issue.”