MICHIGAN’S EX-LAWMAKERS DON’T NEED TO BECOME LOBBYISTS.
THERE IS ANOTHER PATH TO PROSPERITY
The Michigan Legislature is looking once again at instituting a ‘reform’ that has never seen the light of day — ending the ‘revolving door.’ The state House of Representatives has sent to the state Senate a bill to prohibit state legislators and state department heads from being eligible to register as ‘lobbyist agents’ (lobbyists, in everyday parlance) for a two-year period after leaving office.
But it’s too late. Half a century ago — even two or three decades ago — it might have made a difference. Now, it won’t change the culture at the capitol. In fact, it might make it worse.
That’s because of the rise and proliferation of an entity that once was known as public relations firms but now might be called ‘public affairs’ or ‘strategic communications’ organizations. They have metastasized, surpassing multi-client lobbying firms in the speed and size of their growth. Multi-client outfits such as Karoub and Public Affairs Associates may have been born a decade earlier, but strategic communications operations such as Byrum Fisk, Kolt, Bellwether, Harbor Strategic, Resch Strategies, Bright Sparks, Marketing Resource Group (MRG), and Grassroots Midwest have surged to prominence over the past 30 years.
The pioneers– if anyone deserves the credit– were probably Publicom and Marketing Resource Group (MRG). Publicom was founded by Dave Hayhow and Rick Cole. The former was the chief aide to former Republican Lt. Gov. James Damman, and the latter became the communications czar for Democratic Gov. James Blanchard before going on to be an insurance executive and MSU professor.
Tom Shields, now retired, was also one of the pioneers in issue management. Shields and his two partners, Kevin Cleary and Al Mann, formed MRG in 1979 as a political consulting firm. In the 1980s, Shields had the vision to transfer the skills of political campaign management to influencing the public and the media to secure successful public policy outcomes. MRG used polling, focus groups, created broadcast ads, held news conferences, spoke on talk shows, did media coaching, and built grassroots and top roots networks. Corporate and association clients soon followed.
But what does this have to do with Michigan’s Lobby Law and the ongoing attempts to give it some teeth by stopping state lawmakers from taking advantage of it?
Michigan’s Lobby Law requires a person to register as a ‘lobbyist agent’ (lobbyist), if compensated $800 or more in a 12-month period, if they “engage in direct communication with a state public official for the purpose of influencing legislative or administrative action.”
Direct communication occurs in face-to-face meetings, by letter, email, over the telephone, fax, or zoom.
However, paying for newspaper ads, purchasing radio or TV spots, building a grassroots network, maintaining a website on an issue, sending out blast emails encouraging constituents to contact a public official asking for the official’s vote for or against a bill has been interpreted by the Department of State, in its rulings, to be indirect communication that falls outside the regulation of the Michigan Lobby Law.
Staff members working for a legislator or a department director are not considered “lobbyable” unless they are designated, as such, by a legislator or department director.
Therefore, former lawmakers will find they do not have to be a lobbyist agent to have value to a future employer or client.
Here are rules for ex-legislators to follow in the coming era of “revolving door” restrictions:
- Restrict your in-person communications at the Capitol to staffers.
- Do not call yourself a lobbyist. Call yourself a public relations or public affairs or strategic communications consultant. Under this arrangement, you do not lobby — you engage in issue management.
Of course, these rules require adherence to an honor system not to engage in direct communication. The temptation will be great to go over the line.
As noted, this cottage industry has been evolving over more than four decades of the Michigan Lobby Law.
These public relations or public affairs consultants and the firms they work for ordinarily do not register as lobbyists or lobbyist agents because they maintain they fall outside any lobbying regulation because of the direct communication requirement.
A review of the Secretary of State website of lobbyist and lobbyist agent registration shows only one public relations firm currently registered as a lobbyist agent, Truscott Rossman, which was founded and then merged by John Truscott, a former communications maven for Gov. John Engler.
Otherwise, leading issue management or ‘strategic communications’ firms like those mentioned above are not listed on the SOS website as lobbyist agents.
Many of these public relations practitioners also engage in political consulting. This gives them an entree to talk with lawmakers, not as a lobbyist, but as a campaign or fundraising consultant.
If these public relations firms do not hold themselves out as lobbyists, they can have a symbiotic relationship with multi-client lobby firms. Both can receive retainers; nobody is interested in stealing each other’s clients. Under this division of labor, the multi-clients are the ones who go into the Capitol, stand in the chamber’s lobby to call legislators off the floor to talk with them or in a legislator’s office about pending legislation.
Since ex-lawmakers cannot be lobbyist agents under this proposed two-years of statutory exile, the extension of term limits in 2022 to 12 years (14 years for incumbent senators who ran for reelection in 2022) has an immediate consequence. Do not expect many ex-legislators to go back home and pick up their plough like Cincinnatus.
Expect many to begin their next career chapter initially as public relations practitioners. As such, they will fall outside lobby law restrictions. Those ex-legislators turning to PR have certain advantages. They are not prohibited from giving lawmakers gifts. They face no gift limits because they are not lobbyists. They are free to distribute tickets to sporting events and concerts to public officials, go golfing with them, and even travel to out-of-state conferences with lawmakers if they do not cross the line and engage in direct communication with a lawmaker for the purpose of influencing legislative or administrative action. Perhaps conversations will be limited to the weather and sports during these interactions.
It can be argued that being a public relations practitioner is an even better job than being a lobby agent. Unlike lobbyists, they do not have to file any disclosure reports of the food and beverages, gifts, and travel they provide to lawmakers.
Retired attorney Bob LaBrant, an expert in Michigan’s Lobby Law, contends that the real loophole for the Legislature to consider closing, if it is truly serious about reform and transparency, would be to expand the coverage of the Michigan Lobby Law to include compensation paid while producing indirect communication and its placement. In addition, LaBrant says that the lobby law should be amended to expand the disclosure of gifts, travel, and food and beverages provided to legislative and departmental staff as is currently required for legislators and department directors.
But don’t expect that to ever happen.
**********************************************
[Editor’s Note: Inside Michigan Politics, the bi-weekly hard copy newsletter founded in 1987 and published for 27 years by William S. (Bill) Ballenger before he sold it, has been returned to him, facilitated by Mark Grebner. Bill Ballenger once again owns the rights and the name. Such interest includes the name “Inside Michigan Politics” in print, on the internet, or in any other forum. What’s next for IMP?]
**********************************************
“………..[p]erhaps conversations will be limited to weather and sports during these transactions.”
LOL
It is hard to see how this law can be enforced without tape recorders and bodycams like police are forced to wear today.
Then you have First Amendment issues that could be argued in a court.
I was in Lansing during the 1980s and 1990s and remember some of the controversies. Recall when the Michigan State Police tried to prove a bribery case against lobbyist Judy Augenstein and she was acquitted by a jury.
Its a culture that is hard to rein in. Most good legislators hated the lobbying and wanted nothing to do with them, contending that their constituents were their residents of their district.
The real reform should be directed at campaign finance and the influence of political action committees. The insurance industry gives massive contributions to legislators campaign committees. It’s a running joke in Lansing political circles.
Get a real job in the Private Sector. Try Self-employment and live on straight commission. I’ve done it for 40 years .
Yeah, you do have a law office on Main St. in Plymouth right down the street from me.
Hey Bill, an amusing topic this week.
It’s almost laughable thinking companies/organizations/government would even consider imposing these kinds of restrictions. Admittedly, I’ve never worked for government or a public relations type outfit. But there are many attempts at this type of thing in automotive and defense industry. Called non-compete agreements. I’ve seen plenty of folks let go from automotive OEMs and forced to sign non-competes, then come right back in less than a week later doing the same job they were let go from only now being employed by a job shop, or sister company. There are hundreds of ways around this type of thing. I’ve interviewed hundreds of times and frankly never been asked if I had ever signed one of those things. Yeah, yeah, I know, we’re supposed to volunteer this type of info, sheeesh. Personally, I signed one the day I retired for a second time, then promptly went out and got a job offer at a similar OEM, a definite prohibition from what I had signed. I turned the job down but amuse myself if anyone would have ever bothered to follow up if I had taken the position.
On another amusing note, has anyone noticed how cordially Mr. Hertel and Mr. Runestad appear to be getting along? re last OTR and recent Michigan Matters . . .?
Peace bro’
Mark Koroi says
(Edit)No surprise with Jim Runestad.
A consummate professional and gentleman. Why delegates voted him to be the new MIGOP chairman.
The GOP faithful does not want MAGA madness to rule the MIGOP organization. The last thing you will see is Runestad blathering on about how the 2020 election was hijacked from a MAGA victory by Venezuelan agents accessing voting machines.
How does registering, taxing, and regulating people or corporations who “engage in direct communication with a state public official for the purpose of influencing legislative or administrative action” pass constitutional scrutiny?
The SCOTUS ‘Citizens United v. FEC’ held that corporations have constitutional protections, the same as living people, under the First Amendment. The SCOTUS ‘Grosjean v. American Press Co.’ decision in 1936 struck down taxes on First Amendment protected activities.
The First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance.”
Buttonholing a politician is both a very basic act of assembly, and an act of petitioning the government for redress of grievances.
You and Leanne have both cited the First Amendment issue.
I believe that it is a key issue that needs to be examined by a court.
It is a good question. The distinction from a free speech violation where recent former legislators are barred from lobbying could be this: The former legislator is free to lobby and communicate on their own behalf, but not for someone else. A lobbying organization, or potential client, is free to lobby and communicate, simply not with a recent member of the legislature. Accordingly, there is no improper limitation of speech. I don’t know what the outcome would be, but that is what i would argue in support of the limitation.
So ex legislators are denied First Amendment protections at the whim of the state government?
What other constitutional protections for difa ored classes are granted only at the mercy of the state?
…disfavored…
What is the inherent danger in hiring a recently-retired legislator to lobby a former colleague on a public issue?
It is a restraint of the Free Speech Clause, Freedom of Assembly and Redress of Grievance provisions of the First Amendment that legally requires some extraordinary danger – such as yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theatre.
“Of course, these rules require adherence to an honor system not to engage in direct communication. The temptation will be great to go over the line.”
“Perhaps conversations will be limited to the weather and sports during these interactions.”
ROTFLMAO!!!
There is simply no way that any type of influence over any legislator will ever be curtailed, reformed, modified, altered, or (place your favorite synonym here). Human nature makes it impossible.
The formation of legislation occurs after ideas are communicated from the party who wants legislation passed to those who actually vote to pass said legislation. (or not pass it, depending on the circumstances) So communication is essential in order to accomplish this task, if only for the legislator to fully understand what it is that they are being asked to introduce and then vote on.
A large problem occurs when the Big Money crowd has oversized influence over the legislature. Look at the utility companies. When Gary Glenn attempted to interject some competition into the market, they ganged up on him. Later, they did the same to his wife. A quick perusal of those getting MEGA tax credits is another nightmare. If this continues, multi-million-dollar corporations won’t be paying any taxes; that burden will be shouldered by the guy working as an assistant manager at Dollar General.
Several years ago, I stopped by a half-dozen representative’s offices with an idea for some legislation involving easier access to already public records. After leaving a card for them to contact me, no calls were received. Of course not, a $5,000 check wasn’t attached to the card! One representative (a conservative Republican) was actually hostile to my proposal.
Personal contacts and disclosure are really not the problem. Getting our elected officials to comprehend the practical effects of the legislation they pass is. No amount of lobbyist regulation is going to change that.
You are correct about NOT having any ability to reach your elected representative.
I had been unable to reach my state representative or county commissioner.
It is a horrendous system.
Whuffagowie says
(Edit)Influence peddling, by any other name, still stinks.
I just saw where Speaker Hall has come out in favor of increasing budget revenue (to appease Gov Whitmer) by putting a tax on EVs. Fine, I’ll go along to an extent. But not by taxing by miles driven. That would be an invasion of privacy which ought to be illegal. If they want an EV tax, and to make it equivalent to a gasoline fuel tax, it should be based on Watt-hours (Wh), which is a unit of battery energy capacity. This value can be easily measured/calculated by either metering an energy charge at the charging station, or, by a battery label rating should a replaceable battery cartridge be used. Any other way is NOT FAIR.