A proposal to shine a light on the cozy relationships between lobbyists and state legislators, with hundreds of thousands of dollars spent annually on wining and dining, was introduced today as a new petition drive was launched.

The lobbying reform plan would ban gifts from lobbyists to lawmakers and require public documentation of each interaction between a lobbying firm and state officials.

“What we’re proposing will provide more transparency for the public, so they can see how lobbyists are trying to influence their elected officials, while taking other steps to create a more accountable government for the people,” said Lonnie Scott, executive director of Progress Michigan, a left-leaning group that is spearheading the campaign.

“This is not about one political party or one issue area. We need to hold lawmakers and lobbyists, on both sides of the aisle and across the state, to a high standard of trust and transparency.”

The largely unregulated connections between public officials and the Lansing lobbying corps has been a concern for decades, but the call for reform took on greater prominence in 2015 when a state-by-state report by the Washington-based Center for Public Integrity concluded that Michigan ranks last in transparency and ethics in state government.

The proposed state constitutional amendment, authored by a group called the Coalition to Close Lansing Loopholes, must collect at least 425,059 valid petition signatures by July 6 in order to win a spot on the November ballot.

Many states ban gifts from lobbyists but the provision that would require Michigan lobbyists and officials to keep a log of their phone calls, meetings and communications with each other would be a first in the nation.

Other reforms in the lengthy proposal would:

  • End the “revolving door” that leads to a legion of ex-legislator lobbyists by mandating a 2-year cooling off period before elected officials can become lobbyists after leaving office
  • Define a lobbyist who must register with the state as anyone paid more than $1,000 a year to lobby, plus onetime public officials who serve as “consultants” who influence their former colleagues on legislation and regulations.
  • Prohibit “contingency pay” for lobbyists – an arrangement in which the size of their paycheck depends on the success or failure of their lobbying efforts.
  • Require lobbyists and their clients to register and report all lobbying expenditures in detail.
  • Put the Secretary of State in charge of enforcing the new provisions and overseeing the collection of documents such as the registration forms and the meeting logs.

While the Lansing culture of lawmakers and lobbyists discussing issues over plentiful food and drink is decades in the making, the nonpartisan Michigan Campaign Finance Network found last year that lobbyists spent a record amount, more than $540,000, wining and dining officials in the first seven months of 2019 alone.

Officials who would be covered under the proposal include the governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general, state senators and representatives, justices of the Supreme Court and judges of the Court of Appeals. The rules would also apply to members of the State Board of Education, board members at public universities, and university presidents.

In addition, the far-reaching restrictions would impact state government department heads, most executive branch staff, the top-ranking aides in the House and Senate, and members of state boards and commissions.

The Center for Public Integrity report that found dozens of weaknesses in Michigan government specifically gave the state a grade of “F” for disclosure rules on lobbying activities.

Here’s how that 2015 report described the situation:

In Michigan, the cozy relationships between well-heeled lobbyists and pliable lawmakers also remain largely in the dark. Under the weak disclosure rules, lawmakers can accept nominal gifts. But it is the duty of the lobbyist, not the lawmaker, to report these gifts.

In addition, state law requires those in the lobbying business to report their activities in such a vague format that the public cannot determine who is influencing whom. Lobbyists do not have to report which legislator or executive branch official they wined and dined unless they spent more than ($62) in a month, or $375 in the calendar year, on that individual. Advocates of greater transparency say the top recipients of a lobbyist’s largesse benefit from considerably more than what’s disclosed.

Worse yet, lobbying firms also do not reveal which issues and legislation they advocated for or against.

Robert LaBrant, a veteran business lobbyist, concedes that the disclosure reports essentially “have no meaning.”