TennesseeTicket.com

The consistent answer from the lobbyists, as to the citizens' need for them, was that our part-time legislature hasn't the time nor the staff to fully research every angle of the some 3,000 bills that are introduced in a session. "Lobbyists are people legislators can depend on to tell them the truth," Lyell said. Veronica Davis-Coleman asked at one point, "but aren't most of those 3,000 bills written by lobbyists?"

The biggest issue the two Lobbyist Association members had with proposed reforms is with disclosures of clients' spending and lobbyists' income. Mark Greene: "a lobbyist's salary isn't relevant to how a Member votes."

Former Chattanooga Times publisher Paul Neely made the issue more pointed. "Are you saying that the success of lobbying doesn't reflect the wealth of resources invested in it?" "No, it doesn't," said Lyell. Ms. Rush responded with a graph showing the relativity of lobbyist expenses to their salaries. Salaries apparently outweighed expenses 13:1. (I couldn't see the graph.) "But isn't it the lobbyist's job to persuade legislators to vote in favor of their clients?" continued Neely. Lyell: "You don't understand the technique. A good lobbyist presents both sides of the issue." Later, Senator Mike Williams stated his opinion that lobbyists actually tend to confound issues by not being forthcoming with all the pertinent information.

Bishop Joseph Walker of Mt. Zion church in Nashville opined that the "least, last, left-out" members of society need disclosure because it would "restore credibility." He echoed Justice Reid's earlier query as to who lobbies for the poor and uneducated by stating that these cannot get a "seat at the table."

Mark Greene took a sudden turn and lashed out at TIGER and similar grassroots organizations for raising the question of disclosure to begin with. He asked why no one was calling for financial disclosure from these groups, since "grassroots efforts are more effective than lobbyists" at influencing legislation. (I had to stop and scratch my head at that one.)

Lyle Reid countered that lobbyists are an integral part of state government in Tennessee -- he called them a "de facto third body of the legislature" -- and asked why the public doesn't have a right to know whom is getting paid, and how much, to influence the laws that affect them. (Side note: I have this habit of "pegging" people on some strange kind of morality/likeability scale within very short periods of exposure to them. I have to be in the same room; TV or telephone encounters, for example, yield nothing. It's probably not the wisest undertaking, but it's innate and automatic. FWIW, Lyle Reid (or "Mr. Lyle" as Senator Williams twice called him by honest mistake) was immediately "pegged" as downright heroic. Comment otherwise if you must.)

Tennessee Baptist Convention President James Porch asked about the process of, and qualifications for, becoming a lobbyist. "All someone needs...is a client," quipped Drew Rawlins. It is really that simple. I could be a lobbyist today, if someone will go with me to Nashville and sign a form saying that they're paying me to be one. This brought up the inevitable subject of the Tennessee Waltz sting, when Greene claimed that the two "bagmen" indicted along with five sitting (and one former) legislators "were not registered with any clients." I have to call that a lie, for I do not believe it was a mistake. Charles Love may not have been properly registered under E-Cycle, but he certainly was (is?) a registered lobbyist. How would Love top the list of lobbyists who have under-reported campaign contributions if the Chattanooga Times-Free Press didn't have reason to consider him a lobbyist? Yeah. (In case you're wondering, I "pegged" Greene and Lyell too, as soon as each of them spoke. I'll use a metaphor to describe my reaction to them: one had to be careful to avoid slipping in the oil that quickly pooled around their chairs. Especially Lyell's.)

Though a lot of talk was about how lobbyists work to get bills passed, there is the opposite aspect, wherein lobbyists block legislation (and thus often stand to receive a contingency fee* -- a payment that is outlawed in the Federal government and in all but 14 states). Several members of the Advisory Group stated something like "if the lobbyists oppose a piece of legislation, it has absolutely zero chance of passing." The somewhat melodramatic Representative Tommie Brown (D-28) said during the citizen-input session that she has left committee meetings many times "with tears streaming down" her cheeks after critical pieces of legislation were killed by lobbyist influence. (Brown was one of three members of the Hamilton County House delegation in attendance. The others were freshmen Gerald McCormick (R-26) and Bo Watson (R-31). Neither Senator was there -- not that I expected to see Ward Crutchfield.)

*Clarification: contingency fees are tied to specific bills, but not only to bills that are successfully opposed. They may be paid when a specific piece of legislation passes that benefits the lobbyist's client. "I'd prefer to call them bonuses," John Lyell stated. Not surprisingly, he doesn't want them disclosed (let alone banned).

Before I forget, I'd like to thank Emily Richard, media contact for the Citizen Advisory Group, for providing me with a press kit on my arrival at the event.

***