Shining the Light On Campaign Consultants

By Chris Heagarty
Published: Nov. 28, 2005

RALEIGH - The State Fair's packed up and gone home, but there's another sideshow in town.

It started as a story about whether the volunteer campaign director for the North Carolina Speaker of the House was inappropriately using her position of influence to lobby him and his staff on behalf of corporations seeking to shape legislation. It then grew to include a campaign consultant run amok, with no one quite sure exactly whom he did or did not work for.

While it may not be the same level of spectacle as the fair's midway shows, this one's got all sorts of intrigue – with possible connections to the new lottery, to tobacco, to big utilities – but, so far, it's not been established that any laws have even been broken.

At issue is that the North Carolina Speaker of the House had an unpaid campaign director, who was also a lobbyist. As a lobbyist she was paid to influence legislation and as a campaign director she had access to one of the state's most powerful legislators. Essentially clients were paying for her help with legislation but also for her influence, as campaign director, with the Speaker. And that, by itself, is 100 percent legal.

But like the State Fair's display of the world's oldest quintuplets, there are a couple of wrinkles.

A lobbyist would have to register all of the clients who hire her to influence legislation. But it has been discovered that this lobbyist was also paid by some non-registered clients for assistance with the legislature. That help was not called “lobbying”, it was called “monitoring”.

While there is a very specific definition for lobbying, there is no real definition of monitoring. Supposedly it is hiring someone to “look after” legislation and report on it, without actually talking to legislators about it.

This gray area is addressed in a new state law (enacted with the help of the now-besieged Speaker) that makes it clear that a lot of business activity involving wining and dining and spending money on legislators, that does not fall under the current definition of lobbying, would need to be reported in the future. However, that law doesn't go into effect until 2007, and under the current law it is much tougher to prove whether “monitoring” really is “lobbying”.

What makes this case unique is that it also raises questions about the appropriate role of political consultants as lobbyists and whether such a dual role presents a potential for conflict of interest.

Whereas you can argue that a trusted aide may not try to abuse this relationship, we've seen some consultants with no such qualms. Witness the recent revelation that someone else the Speaker trusted, and named to represent him on the new state Lottery Commission, was revealed to be secretly on the payroll of the lottery company. If for no other reason than to protect themselves, legislators need to act.

The N.C. Center for Voter Education, back in 2000, saw the potential problem of campaign staff becoming too involved with public policy. Should one person be responsible with soliciting money from special interest groups to help fund a campaign, and then turn around and accept money from the same interest groups to advise and influence the winning candidate?

It looks like it's appropriate to revisit our proposal for two major reforms, neither of which would be very expensive to implement.

First, political campaign consultants should have to disclose their economic interests, with at least as much detail as candidates are currently required to provide. This simple step will help avoid the political version of insider trading, where the consultant advises a candidate to take a specific position on an issue in which the consultant may have an economic interest.

Second, campaign consultants should also be required to disclose their clients and expenses the same way that lobbyists must disclose them to the Secretary of State's office.

With an active press corps, this disclosure would alert the public to potential conflicts stemming from the consultant's clients. Knowing the basic fact that a consultant represents, for example, a lottery company at the same time he is advising a particular candidate about lottery issues should send some immediate warning signs about how genuine that advice really is.

This type of disclosure is required of candidates and of lobbyists. It does not restrict or prohibit anyone from making a living engaging in these activities. They simply have to take responsibility for their actions. By requiring honest disclosure by campaign consultants, we could help clear up potential conflicts of interest and bring a lot more accountability to the process of influencing legislative behavior.

Even the state fair “psychic” who claims to guess your age and weight can see that these simple reforms might have a hard time becoming law. I'd bet my last fried Snickers that consultants around the state are already advising clients that this would be a bad idea.

However, our free advice may be more valuable than what some legislators are paying for.