JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – While another major piece of ethics legislation will move onto the House chamber, albeit after much discussion about expensive orchids, another has been put on ice.
In the committee process, Rep. Gina Mitten, D-St. Louis, found enough problems in the language of Rep. Caleb Rowden’s HB 2165, that House Government Oversight and Accountability Chair Jay Barnes decided to halt any talk on the matter for the time being.
Barnes himself actually rewrote the bill’s language after tabling it from the ethics committee discussions last week.
“Any problems there are in the bill, and I think there are some, they’re my fault not his,” Barnes said.
The bill would require persons becoming lobbyists to dissolve their campaign committees before they take on any lobbyist duties. However, Mitten noted that this caused a paradox because filing as a lobbyist is a lobbyist duty. So, if a legislator with a campaign committee wished to become a lobbyist they would have time to transfer that campaign money into a separate continuing committee, like a political action committee. This potential avenue skirted the intended purpose of the legislation, which would still allow for that money to be transferred to a nonprofit organization or a party committee or returned back to those who donated.
“According to this I have to divest myself before I register,” Mitten said. “Before I’ve registered as a lobbyist, this law doesn’t apply to me.”
Barnes noted during the testimony that this was what the process was for – to make legislation better. Now that bill may enter limbo, though Barnes said he expected this bill with amendments or a similar bill that addresses these concerns to come before the committee again.
“There were enough questions raised that I think it’s wise to just hit the stop button and make sure we get this right,” he said.
However, possibly the most impactful bill on House’s ethics agenda did leave committee. Rep. Justin Alferman’s, R-Hermann, bill which bans all lobbyist gifts came out of the committee with even more stringent language than when it entered.
While Alferman allowed for some exceptions to the expenditure ban, which would have removed speaking arrangements, flowers, and personal gifts that were customary before legislators took office from the list of reportable expenditures, the amended bill struck down those provisions.
Mitten again led the charge on these changes, using the flower provision to argue that some could get creative at finding loopholes in existing law.
“Unfortunately, there are folks that follow the letter [of the law] and not the spirit,” Mitten said. “What different does it make if I get a $300 orchid or a $5 hamburger? The principle is the same. If we’re talking about undue influence, we’re talking about undue influence.”
Alferman himself noted during the hearing that those measures could stop an unseen problem before it begins.
“Sometimes we have the best intentions and we never know how that’s going to play out,” Alferman said. “Nothing on this bill is set in stone, I’m very open and willing to make changes.”
