RESEARCH SKILLS FOR UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS’ UNDERGRADUATE SEMINAR SERIES Regulating Lobbying: Promoting Transparency or Straw Man Presented by: Professor Gary Murphy, Dublin City University TCD, 12 th March

Lobbying Lobbying activity - act of individuals/groups, with varying and specific interest, attempting to influence decisions at the political level Influencing by: o Direct communications with governmental officials, o Offering presentations, o Draft reports, o Telephone conversations etc.

Lobbying Regulation ‘Regulation of lobbyists’ – the idea that political systems have established ‘rules’ which lobby groups must follow when trying to influence government officials. Should not be a matter of voluntarily complying like current EU Commission Regulations - codified, formal rules passed by government and written in law that is enforced and must be respected. Noncompliance results in penalisation, fines or jail.

Examples of such rules: Register with the state before contact can be made with public officials, Indicate which public actors the lobbyist intends to influence, Provide state with individual/employer spending reports Have a publicly available list with lobbyists details available for citizens to scrutinize, Former legislators cannot immediately become lobbyists once they have left public office (‘cooling off’ period). Theoretical justification is based on ensuring transparency and accountability.

CountryRules Governing Lobbyists as of 2009 AustraliaAs of 1 July 2008 there are national rules in place and a register. Originally formulated and implemented in the 1980s, lobbying rules were then abandoned in Western Australia (2006), New South Wales (2009), Queensland (2009) AustriaNo statutory rules BelgiumNo statutory rules Bosnia and Herzegovina No statutory rules CanadaFederal Level: Rules and Register since the Lobbyists Registration Act of 1989, amended in 1995, 2003 and Provincial Level: Lobbying regulations exist in Ontario (1998); Nova Scotia (2001); British Columbia (2001); Quebec (2002); Newfoundland (2005) and Alberta (2007). CoratiaNo statutory rules DenmarkNo statutory rules EstoniaNo statutory rules EU: European Parliament Regulated by Rule 9(2) of the Rules of Procedure, EU: Commission Before 2008, ‘self-regulation’ was the model adopted by the Commission. However, as of 23 June, 2008, the Commission opened a voluntary register of interest representations. EU: CouncilNo statutory rules FranceIndicated its aim to introduce a voluntary parliamentary run register – July GermanyRegulation and registration through rules of procedure of the Bundestag in 1951; later amended in 1975 and 1980.

HungaryRegulation of Lobbying Activity since IcelandNo statutory rules JapanNo statutory rules LatviaNo statutory rules LithuaniaRegulation since LuxembourgNo statutory rules IndiaNo statutory rules IrelandNo statutory rules ItalyNo statutory rules at national level. Nevertheless, regional schemes have been introduced in the Consiglio regionale della Toscana in 2002 and Regione in JapanNo statutory rules MaltaNo statutory rules NetherlandNo statutory rules New ZealandNo statutory rules NorwayNo statutory rules PolandRegulations since PortugalNo statutory rules Rep KoreaNo statutory rules RomaniaNo statutory rules

SerbiaNo statutory rules SlovakiaNo statutory rules SloveniaNo statutory rules SpainNo statutory rules SwedenNo statutory rules TaiwanLobbying Act passed on 8/8/2007, came into force on 8/8/2008. TurkeyNo statutory rules United Kingdom No statutory rules in either Commons or House of Lords. United StatesFederal Level: The Lobbying Act 1946, amended in 1995 and State Level: All states have lobbying regulations.

Liberal democracies with lobbying regulations relatively rare Norm - no lobbying rules. Australia, Canada, EU, Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Taiwan and US. US (1946), Germany (1951), Canada (1989), EP (1996). US regulations in all states, Canada in six provinces. Hungary, Poland, and Lithuania, and Taiwan enacted lobbying laws post Australia introduced federal lobbying regulations 1983, abandoned 1996, reintroduced Countries with Lobbying Legislation

In EU-27, 4 states with regulations 3 former communist countries More established EU states (except Germany) have not enacted lobbying regulations Some parts of Italy have regulations at regional level. Large democracies - Japan and India - no lobbying laws. Taiwan only democracy in Asia with lobbying rules No lobbying regulations in Africa or South America Georgia passed a lobbying law (1998) – however ranked by Freedom House as only a ‘partly free.’

CPI Index for measuring lobbying regulation Centre for Public Integrity Analysed lobbying regulations in 51 jurisdictions in US Measures effectiveness of lobbying legislation in terms of transparency and accountability. Referred to as ‘Hired Guns’ method, Results in what we refer to as ‘CPI Scores.’

The Eight Key Areas The CPI created a ranking system that assigns a score to each state (with lobbying legislation) based on a survey containing a series of questions regarding state lobby disclosure. The questions addressed eight key areas of disclosure for state lobbyists and the organizations that put them to work Definition of Lobbyist Individual Registration Individual Spending Disclosure Employer Spending Disclosure Electronic Filing Public Access (to a registry of lobbyists) Enforcement Revolving Door Provisions (particular focus on ‘cooling off periods’)

Total of 48 questions Each question assigned a numerical (i.e. point) value. The more points, the stronger the legislation in terms of promoting full disclosure, public access, and transparency. The maximum score possible 100 According to the CPI, a score of 60 points + is a ‘pass’ The lower the CPI score, the less robust the lobbying regulation. We use this because we want a classification scheme to help conceptualise the common traits and rigour of different regulatory environments.

Applying the CPI Scoring System to Other Jurisdictions With Lobbying Laws Given its robustness, CPI’s framework should be applicable outside the US. CPI scores for US states - from CPI website, (apart from 2007 federal legislation, and 2007 Pennsylvania legislation) CPI scores from Canada, Europe, Australia and Asia calculated by research team. For Poland, Hungary, Lithuanian and Taiwan, English language versions of legislation analyzed with assistance of native speakers to ensure there were no translational errors between the original and English versions of legislation.

Jurisdiction Scor e Jurisdiction Scor e Jurisdiction Scor e Jurisdiction Scor e Washington 87 Georgia 63 Vermont 54 Ontario43 Kentucky 79 Minnesota 62 Hawaii 54 South Dakota42 Connecticut 75 US Federal Idaho 53 Quebec40 South Carolina 75 Missouri 61 Nevada 53 Queensland39 New York 74 Michigan 61 Alabama 52 Taiwan38 Massachusetts 73 Nebraska 61 West Virginia 52 Western Australia38 Wisconsin 73 Arizona 61 CAN Fed (2008) 50 New Hampshire36 California 71 Colorado 60 Pennsylvania 50 New South Wales36 Utah 70 Maine 59 Newfoundland 48 US Federal (1995)36 Maryland 68 North Carolina 58 Iowa 47 Nova Scotia36 Ohio 67 New Mexico 58 Oklahoma 47 Wyoming34 Indiana 66 Rhode Island 58 North Dakota 46 Australia33 Texas 66 Montana 56 Hungary 45 Alberta33 New Jersey 65 Delaware 56 CAN Fed (2003) 45 CAN Fed (1989)32 Mississippi 65 Arkansas 56 Illinois 45 Poland27 Alaska 64 Louisiana 55 Tennessee 45 EU Commission24 Virginia 64 Florida 55 Lithuania 44 Germany17 Kansas 63 Oregon 55 British Columbia 44 EU Parliament15

Over 50 per cent of US observations scored 60 + US federal legislation (1995) - below most states, US federal (2007) scored - above most Canadian observations Canadian federal legislation (2008) strongest iteration Central and Eastern European states (except Poland) within 40s range, Taiwan and Australian within 30s range. Lowest scoring jurisdictions/institutions Germany, EU Parliament, EU Commission and Poland.

Three Different Regulatory Systems Classification scheme as a basis for helping understand trends and differences. Three categories of lobbying regulatory systems: –lowly regulated systems, CPI scores from –medium regulated systems, –highly regulated systems, 60 +

Ranges selected for qualitative and quantitative reasons: o Qualitatively – legislation within each point range possessed similar characteristics. o Quantitatively – ranges represent similar distributions on the point scale. –Lowly regulated systems - point range 28 (CPI between 1 and 29). –Medium regulated systems - range 29 (i.e ). –Highly regulated systems – theoretical range 40 (i.e ); the highest ranking jurisdiction (Washington state) has 87 points, range effectively 27 points.

CPI scores 1 – 29, Germany, the EP, the EU Commission, and Poland. Characteristics: Individual registration, but little details given Does not recognize executive branch lobbyists. No rules on individual spending disclosure. Weak system for on-line registration Lobbyists lists are available to the public, but not all details collected/given No Cooling-Off period – exception Poland and EU Commission. Lowly Regulated Systems

CPI score 30 – 59 All Canadian jurisdictions, several US states, Lithuania, Hungary, all Australian jurisdictions and Taiwan. Characteristics: Individual registration more detailed Recognizes executive branch lobbyists - exception Hungary Some regulations on individual spending disclosures - exception Australia federal On-line registration (Ontario very efficient ) Public access to frequently updated lobbying register State agency conducts mandatory reviews/audits Cooling off period before former legislators can register as lobbyists - exception Hungary. Medium Regulated Systems

CPI score 60+ America federal and states. Characteristics: Rigorous rules on individual registration Recognizes executive branch lobbyists Strong regulations on individual spending disclosure Strong regulations on employer spending disclosure On-line registration Public access to frequently updated lobbying register State agency conducts mandatory reviews/audits – with statutory penalties for late/incomplete filing of registration form. Cooling off period before former legislators can register as lobbyists Highly Regulated Systems

Lowly Regulated Systems Medium Regulated Systems Highly Regulated Systems Registration regulations Rules on individual registration, but few details required Rules on individual registration, more details required Rules on individual registration are extremely rigorous Targets of Lobbyists Defined Only members of the legislature and staff Members of the legislature and staff; executive and staff; agency heads and public servants/officers Spending disclosure No rules on individual spending disclosure, or employer spending disclosure Some regulations on individual spending disclosure; none on employer spending disclosure Tight regulations on individual spending disclosure, and employer spending disclosure Electronic filingWeak on-line registration and paperwork required Robust system for on-line registration, no paperwork necessary Public accessList of lobbyists available, but not detailed, or updated frequently List of lobbyists available, detailed, and updated frequently List of lobbyists and their spending disclosures available, detailed, and updated frequently EnforcementLittle enforcement capabilities invested in state agency In theory state agency possesses enforcement capabilities, though infrequently used State agency can, and does, conduct mandatory reviews /audits Revolving door provision No cooling off period before former legislators can register as lobbyists There is a cooling off period before former legislators can register as lobbyists

US Most US jurisdictions highly/medium regulated, Many states on coasts and mid-west highly/medium regulated: WA, CT, NY, MA, CA, MD, VA, ME, and RI (coasts) and WI, OH, KS, MI, and NE (mid-west). Many states from south/west lower regulations: LA, FL, ID, NV, AL, OK, and ND. Significant outliers KY, AK, MS and GA (south/west ) high CPI scores. Lower scores IL and OR (coasts). Canada All Canadian jurisdictions medium regulated. Upper medium (Canadian federal 2008) Lower medium (Alberta) No discernable relationship to the province’s physical location. Understanding the Regulatory Environments

Europe European states medium and lowly regulated Middle medium (Hungary and Lithuania), Upper part of lowly regulated systems (Poland) and lower part (Germany) Both EU institutions lowly regulatory The Rest of the World Taiwan and Australia (federal) lower end of the medium regulated jurisdictions.

Goal of lobbying regulations - transparency and accountability in policy-making. Transparency International (TI) - Corrupt Perceptions Index. Measures perceived levels of public-sector corruption Composite index, drawing on different expert and business surveys Scale from zero (highly corrupt) to ten (completely clean). Is there a relationship between corruption and lobbying regulation?

TI’s Corrupt Perceptions Index (2008) and different regulatory environments found in the different states. Table 5: Perceptions of Corruption and Types of Regulatory Systems CountryTI’s Corrupt PI (2008) Confidence range of TIs scoring Overall Country Rank by TI CPI valuesLobbying regulatory system Aus 8, Medium Can 8, Medium Ger 7, Low US 7, High/Mediu m Tai 5, Medium Hung 5, Medium Lith 4, Medium Pol 4, Low System

No cogent relationship between perceptions of corruption and regulatory regimes. Australia, Canada, Germany US, top of TI index – three types of systems. Maybe robust regulations not needed in Aus – little corruption. Countries in middle of TI index – half-clean – Poland, Lithuania, Hungary and Taiwan - medium and low regulatory systems. Maybe Hungary and Lithuania set up medium regulatory systems to stamp out perceptions of corruption. But, why not implement high regulatory schemes? No discernable relationship between perceptions of corruption and regulatory systems. Maybe US and Canada established robust regulatory systems to increase awareness of links between policy makers and lobbyists – not simply to prevent corruption. Is there a relationship between corruption and lobbying regulation?

Importance of interest groups/civil society organizations o Long Established o Large role in policy process –environment, anti-tobacco etc. o Welcomed by government for expertise o Robust lobbying regulations prevent perception that groups exercise undue influence. o Regulations ensure public is aware of links between policy makes and specific interests. o Watchful press, and changing ethics laws, contributed to a professionalised lobbying industry. Historical importance of the visibility of scandals o Current lobbying regulations were produced in response to Watergate era scandals. o More recent scandals in various state led to ethics reforms in the early 1990s o Honest Leadership and Open Government Act adopted in wake of Abramoff scandal – highly regulated Why has the US more robust lobbying regulations?

In terms of Europe these two factors are not as significant In Central and Eastern Europe, and Taiwan, interest groups have only recently gained influence in policy making In corporatist Germany interest groups outside the main associations have fewer possibilities to access policy-making process. Have not seen US type scandals. ‘Europe is not America: we have never seen cases like Ambramoff here; we can have more trust in our lobbyists.’ - EU Official o All this means is that scandalous events have not been uncovered or achieved the same publicity in the European media as in the US.

What of Ireland Labour party legislation (1999, 2000, 2003, 2008) Registration of Lobbying Act scores 31 on the CPI index Cooling off period does not apply to legislators – at odds with international regulatory norms Green Party 2007 general election manifesto pledged to establish a national register of lobbyists detailing the company, clients and interests being represented Programme for Govt 2007 committed itself to ‘consider legislation to regulate lobbyists’- reiterated in revised programme in 2009

Ireland 2007, PRII call for establishment of a credible registration system under which lobbyists would regularly declare the clients on whose behalf they were working for. 2009, reports that it will be a criminal offence to lobby NAMA, what does this mean?

Recommendations for Ireland At a minimum a review group should be established to start considering implementation of lobbying regulation Include stakeholders of lobbyists and lobbied Register of lobbyists should be established immediately

Recommendations for Ireland Based on our report to the government in 2006 and subsequent research we recommend that some form of medium regulatory system be implemented This would provide public with access to a register of lobbyists, and those who are lobbied – otherwised lobbying regulation will just be a straw man Online registration There is a cooling off period before former legislators can register as lobbyists

Jurisdictions Found in Each Regulatory Environment Highly Regulated Jurisdiction CPI Score Medium Regulated Jurisdiction CPI Score Lowly Regulated Jurisdiction CPI Score US Federal62Canadian Federal 50Poland27 Hungary45Commission24 Lithuania44Germany17 Taiwan38EP15 Australia33

RESEARCH SKILLS FOR UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS’