Kansas Government Ethics Commission raises concerns over new lobbying bill

During a recent meeting of the Senate Committee on Local Government, Transparency, and Ethics, significant concerns were raised regarding proposed changes to lobbying regulations in Kansas. The discussions centered on the implications of new language that could potentially classify county officials, such as commissioners and clerks, as lobbyists, requiring them to register and disclose their activities.

One committee member expressed uncertainty about whether the proposed legislation would inadvertently sweep local elected officials into the lobbying category. This concern highlights the potential for confusion among county representatives who engage with state legislators on behalf of their communities. The member emphasized that while the intent of the bill may not be to include these officials, the language could lead to unintended consequences, prompting the committee to take a neutral stance on the bill.

Caitlin Bull Stewart, the interim executive director and general counsel of the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission, provided clarity on the distinction between lobbying and lobbyists. She explained that while anyone can engage in lobbying activities, not everyone is required to register as a lobbyist. The current definition necessitates a formal appointment and a significant degree of compensation for lobbying activities, which raises enforcement challenges under the proposed changes.

Stewart pointed out that the new bill alters the criteria for registration, shifting the focus from expenditures to compensation. This change could complicate enforcement, as the commission would lack the means to verify whether individuals should register based on their pay. She urged committee members to consider the enforcement implications of the proposed definitions, noting that if the law cannot be effectively enforced, it undermines the government's ability to uphold its interests.

The committee also discussed concerns regarding the exemption of certain types of testimony from the definition of lobbying. This could allow individuals who are compensated to provide testimony without the need for registration, raising questions about transparency and accountability.

As the committee continues to evaluate the proposed legislation, the discussions underscore the importance of clear definitions and enforceable regulations in maintaining transparency in government interactions. The outcomes of these deliberations will have lasting implications for how local officials engage with state lawmakers and advocate for their communities.