The lobbying flop

The responsibility for restraint when it comes to perks from lobbyists really lies with North Carolina lawmakers

North Carolina legislators could have avoided all this fussing about how to limit lobbyists' gifts and campaign fund-raising if they'd shown a little self-restraint a long time ago. They could have imposed upon themselves, without any problems at all, a promise not to accept campaign contributions from lobbyists, not to allow lobbyists to raise money for them, not to attend high-dollar functions sponsored by special-interest groups and, in short, to behave as servants of the people -- instead of acting like self-important big shots on the make.

Lobbyists are getting a little tired of being the poster children for all the problems with government, and they've got a point. The problem with all the wining and dining and campaign money and other things that have characterized North Carolina's ethically challenged legislative process isn't so much with lobbyists who provide those things. It's legislators who can't say no.

And even if they could, they've repeatedly shown signs of not wanting to. Not to mention that some lawmakers have solicited every lobbyist with a pulse for campaign donations.

So it's no surprise that every time lobbying regulation reform comes up on Jones Street, it sort of flops around until it dies, like a carp on a beach.

Why was it thought that this session would be different? Mainly because House Speaker Jim Black finds himself part of several investigations into campaign finance and the passage of the state lottery and has become a convert to reform, yes indeedy.

Ah, but don't hold your breath. For example: Part of reform in a state House bill was to bar lobbyists from campaign fund-raising and ban lobbyists from making direct contributions. Thanks to Rep. Paul Stam, an Apex Republican, it's adios to all that.

Stam is worried about constitutional free speech protections. Not that those protections aren't important, but the refrain has become all too familiar whenever any proposed limit on campaign fund-raising comes up, even though limits on individual contributions already are in effect. And the reform, absent Stam's amendment, could have been enacted with the attitude that if a legal challenge came along, then the courts could have decided the issue.

Don't be surprised if the General Assembly adjourns shortly without passing any ethics reforms, using the excuse of wanting to keep the short budget session truly short and vowing to return next year with meaningful changes. Or perhaps lawmakers will pass some weak-kneed reforms ensuring that special interest groups can continue to keep campaign coffers and legislative bellies full.

It's not too late for meaningful action, of course. But otherwise, the ballot offers the only hope. In that voting booth, the people can bring the big shots back down to earth. Let us hope they'll measure the quality of their representation by the strength of reform.