Is Wearing Two Hats Wrongheaded?

Politics in this country commands the passions of professionals and bystanders alike. On behalf of the United Farm Workers, an organization with which I have a long personal history and which is a lobbying client I care passionately about, I recently got into a high-decibel argument with two legislative staffers. It was after a state Capitol vote on a UFW-sponsored bill to repeal a tax break for big growers and use the revenue to fund tax credits for employers who provide health benefits for their farm workers.

I lost my temper with a few heat-of-the-moment remarks for which I have apologized both publicly and privately.

Now some in the media and several lawmakers say this encounter is so sinister that it warrants a new law prohibiting political consultants from lobbying politicians they helped elect.

Media coverage on the issue has painted me as the poster child in the push for “reform” because I am the one campaign consultant who has also registered as a lobbyist. Am I the only campaign consultant who lobbies? Of course not. I’m just the only one who has registered as a lobbyist. In fact, other campaign consultants routinely lobby legislators on behalf of their non-campaign clients, but they do it on an “informal” basis. A proposed ban on campaign consultants serving as registered lobbyists would simply perpetuate an existing underground, off-the-public-record practice. It’s a wrongheaded approach.

Setting aside the question of whether such a prohibition would pass constitutional muster -- do they really have the right to tell me that I may not lobby on behalf of a cause I care about? -- the best approach to this situation and, indeed, to all instances of potential conflicts of interest is full disclosure in the public record. All political consultants who lobby should be pressured to register, as I do, rather than do their lobbying outside of public scrutiny.

Moreover, the willingness of some in the media to believe that men and women who hold public office are merely putty in the hands of political consultants is a blanket insult to the integrity of all those who navigate the shoals of public and private interests regularly and well.

Many California newspapers, including The Times, employ lobbyists in Sacramento. They appear in force whenever proposals are advanced that affect their clients’ interests, such as increases in the tax on publications.

The difference between a political consultant/lobbyist who can influence both an election and the legislative process and a newspaper that seeks to influence the electoral process with editorials and the legislative process through lobbyists is one of degree.

How is a newspaper’s right to use the 1st Amendment as a basis for its business greater or more public-spirited than mine? Hiram Johnson, the great Progressive reformer of California politics, denounced the then-publisher of The Times in the early 1900s for “grimacing at every reform and chattering in the impotent rage against decency and morality.”

Perhaps Fourth Estate observers of state Capitol affairs need to reflect on some jarring, though commonplace, distortions of perspective. Are all so-called special interests the same? For example, is the United Farm Workers on a par with the state’s agribusiness lobby when it comes to political influence and campaign contributions?

There were outraged calls for reform from some editorial writers and legislators after my remarks to the two legislative staff members. If we’re talking about reform, what about the Democratic lawmaker who had a fund-raiser at the home of an agribusiness lobbyist while the UFW health bill was pending before the Assembly?

During 30 years of involvement in hundreds of campaigns and issues, I have never been fined, cited or accused of wrongdoing by the Fair Political Practices Commission, the state political watchdog agency. I will continue to obey every law that is adopted.

The right to raise and spend funds in political campaigns, including the hiring of campaign consultants, is a form of political speech protected by the Constitution. So is the right of citizens, businesses, professional organizations and newspapers to hire lobbyists to promote their views.

The best legally sustainable defense against the potential for conflicts of interest and corruption inherent in this system lies in rigorous enforcement of disclosure laws covering campaign contributions, campaign spending and the activities of lobbyists.