Overreach a concern with lobbying proposal
BY its own admission, the Oklahoma Ethics Commission has more on its plate than it can handle, so one wonders why it would consider rules potentially impacting thousands of Oklahomans and dramatically increasing the agency’s workload. Worse, the proposed rules may infringe on basic First Amendment rights.
Under a proposed rule amendment that could be considered next month, the agency would create a new category of people subject to state regulation and reporting requirements: those involved in “indirect lobbying.”
The proposed rules define “indirect lobbying” to include citizens who communicate “support or opposition of pending legislation” to influence “a vote on pending legislation.” This seems to include activity for which a person isn’t financially compensated. The rules apply to communications made on the internet, among other venues.
Put simply, if someone sets up a Facebook group and encourages other people to contact legislators to oppose a specific bill, it appears the organizer and group members could be considered “indirect” lobbyists subject to various reporting requirements.
The rules include provisions that verge on selfcontradiction. The proposal exempts “communications made exclusively to one or more legislators, the governor, or the staff of the legislature or governor.” So one could directly urge lawmakers to oppose a bill and face little red tape, but urging one’s neighbors to contact lawmakers and express the exact same message could subject you to new reporting requirements.
The rule wouldn’t apply to an opinion column in a newspaper, but if the author posts that same commentary on social media or emails it to associates, along with a call to action, then the author could suddenly be an indirect lobbyist.
The executive director of the Ethics Commission told The Frontier, an online news outlet, that the proposal was sought by a lawmaker who wants greater disclosure for organized lobbying efforts. This year’s “Wind Waste” campaign, funded by The Oklahoma Property Rights Association, was cited as an example of the type of activity officials are trying to target. Among its activities, the “Wind Waste” campaign sent out emails and engaged in social media campaigns to encourage passage of a bill ending refundability for wind tax credits.
Perhaps one can understand that motivation, but the rules are written so broadly they appear to apply to routine activity. People constantly post political opinions on social media and encourage associates to act, and mass emails are not rare. Even individuals who copy a homemade flyer and distribute it in their neighborhood might be impacted.
Had this rule been in place this year, one wonders how many striking teachers would have qualified as “indirect lobbyists” subject to reporting requirements. The proposal’s broad reach makes consistent enforcement all but impossible.
Most importantly, the proposed rules appear to impose burdens on Oklahomans engaged in standard political speech, which is among the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
Thus, the “indirect lobbying” rules appear impractical, unenforceable and constitutionally dubious. The Ethics Commission would do well to shelve this idea and stay focused on its current mission.