By Andy Brack

Not too many years ago, some state and local government meetings really were conducted in smoke-filled rooms.

Sunshine laws and the open-government movement created more transparency and accountability, but a modern-day equivalent of the smoke-filled room still exists: big money that pays to influence legislation.

Current state campaign law requires lobbyists and their employers to disclose a lot of information about contributions paid to political candidates to influence the outcome of elections. But when it comes to the next step, influencing the outcome of matters before lawmakers, there’s virtually no disclosure required in South Carolina or any other state, according to state ethics officials.

At first glance, it might not seem too important. But when you consider the thousands of dollars some entities appear to be spending to get lawmakers to change how things are done that affect everyone in the state, it begs the question: Who is paying?

A case in point revolves around the so-called Put Parents in Charge proposal urged by Gov. Mark Sanford.

In ads reminiscent of those used by Sanford in his 2002 campaign ads, the S.C. Policy Council reportedly has paid at least $217,000 for television air time of Sanford promoting the proposal, which would siphon public school money to help parents pay for private education.

Putting aside the ethical question of Sanford receiving a political benefit for free by appearing in the ad, it makes one wonder, who is really paying to push the Put Parents in Charge ad?

S.C. Policy Council President Ed McMullen refused to answer questions about the ad and its funders.

“That’s none of your business,” he said, adding that he wouldn’t be interviewed because he was irritated about descriptions of the bill as a voucher proposal, instead of a tax credit measure.

(In reality, the objection is pure semantics because bill proponents want to control the language of the debate. But the practical effect is the same, it’s a subsidy of private education using public school dollars. Vouchers, or government grants, do it directly; tax credits have the same purpose, but do it indirectly.)

Voters deserve to know the people and money behind efforts to influence lawmakers’ votes because policies that are passed will impact people across the state. Similarly, state lawmakers deserve to know who is behind efforts to persuade them to vote.

More accountability is needed. State lawmakers should consider beefing up campaign disclosure laws to cover efforts to influence legislation. Here are two ideas:

Tax forms. Taxpayers would know more about how lobbyist principals, those who pay lobbying salaries, fund public relations efforts if they were required to make their federal tax returns public when they provide other campaign disclosure paperwork. Such a requirement wouldn’t cost anything to the companies, trade associations or nonprofit organizations because they have to fill out the forms anyway.

Disclose media budgets. A tougher measure would be for lawmakers to require entities trying to influence public opinion on legislation to disclose their contributors when media advertising budgets exceed $5,000 per year. On a parallel track, lawmakers may want to consider requiring media outlets to disclose media purchases of more than $5,000 by interest groups when advertising seeks to influence the outcome of legislation.

Some may cry that such disclosure would be bad for the process. Hogwash. Disclosure doesn’t prohibit any body or group from doing exactly what they are doing now.

But disclosure increases transparency so voters have a better idea what’s going on. In the long run, that could help modern-day, smoke-filled rooms become a thing of the past.

Andy Brack publishes the South Carolina Statehouse Report (www.statehousereport.com), a business forecast of developments in the South Carolina Legislature and state government. He can be reached at brack@statehousereport.com.

SUBSCRIBE | REPRINTS | CONTACT US

Phone: 843-849-3100    Fax: 843-849-3122