Lobbying hits $33 million
Colorado special interest groups, businesses and government agencies spent more than $33 million to lobby state lawmakers in 2018 — more than all General Assembly candidates and their biggest allies raised in their election campaigns last fall, an exclusive Denver Post analysis of lobbying records has found.
That means more money was spent to influence policy than was spent on electing the lawmakers who write it.
With 100 state House and Senate members, it averages out to a third of a million dollars spent on each lawmaker, persuading them to make, change or oppose bills on issues ranging from who can sell beer to who gets to use the state’s water.
“It’s a startling figure,” said state Rep. Chris Kennedy, a Lakewood Democrat who would like to see lobbying reform. “It’s a challenge for us who are really committed to public service to overcome every day.”
The money spent on lobbying doesn’t go directly to lawmakers’ pocketbooks or campaigns. Colorado law forbids lobbyists from lavishing lawmakers with gifts.
Instead, the millions bought the time of the state’s 700-plus registered lobbyists, who spend their days persuading lawmakers to introduce legislation, propose amendments or oppose a bill that would harm their clients’ interests.
Expertise that lawmakers don’t have
The Denver Post’s findings, based on multiple requests of state data, illuminate an aspect of government with little accountability and oversight. The spending on lobbying is rarely scrutinized in public because it’s hard to find and understand.
Even lawmakers may not know the complete picture until legislation is already law.
Companies, interest groups and even government agencies hire lobbyists to represent their interests at the Capitol. Lawmakers sometimes rely on them for expertise and resources that the politicians don’t have.
They fill a knowledge gap for state lawmakers, who have slim staffs to help research and write legislation. Also, because they can only serve eight years in each chamber, legislators are limited in the institutional knowledge they can build.
“There is a positive view of lobbying in that it provides information to part-time legislators who might not be experts on school finances or access to health care,” said Paul Teske, dean of the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver.
The danger is that gives lobbyists access and influence that the general public doesn’t always have.
“They obviously provide information that is favorable to their clients and not the whole picture,” Teske said.
An example of how lobbying works
Here’s one example of how lobbying works: The Colorado Medical Society, which represents doctors, spent more than $200,000 on lobbyists in 2018, records show.
Among the many different bills the organization took a position on was one that would have required doctors to use e-prescriptions for some drugs, including opioids.
The society opposed the bill, arguing in part that rural doctors did not have the necessary infrastructure to comply with such a law, which is growing in popularity across the United States as one way to fight the opioid crisis. Despite having bipartisan support, a Republican-controlled committee killed the bill.
This year, the bill is back, and the society is supporting it after some of their concerns were met, including language that would allow doctors more time if they can prove they can’t afford the technology needed to comply.
“Because of our open dialogue with the senators, pharmacists and others since last session, I think we’re going to have a bill this session that takes into account the resources available to small and rural physician practices while still reducing fraudulent prescriptions,” Dr. Debra Parsons, the society’s president, said in a statement.
The six-figure sum spent by the society was just a fraction of the $6.5 million total that health care providers, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and other for-profit and nonprofit health care groups spent last year. That’s more than any other industry spent lobbying Colorado lawmakers.
“They were effective last year; they got a lot of our bills killed,” Kennedy said of the health care lobby. “It’s important that whatever group out there has an ability to comment. But legislators need to be able to stay focused on their own priorities rather than fall down every rabbit hole lobbyists want us to go down.”
The six million-dollar firms
Based on The Denver Post’s analysis, six firms reported more than $1 million in contracts in 2018, including Brandeberry Mckenna Public Affairs, Colorado Legislative Services and Axiom Strategies.
Together, the million-dollar firms represent some of the state’s and nation’s largest interest groups, including Pharmaceutical Research Manufacturers of America, the Colorado Bankers Association, and Wine & Spirit Wholesalers of Colorado.
Headwaters Strategies, another million-dollar firm, netted the single largest contract from the Trial Lawyers Association: $215,640.
The other million-dollar firms are Politicalworks and The Capstone Group.
Among the biggest spenders on lobbying are school districts and education advocacy groups. Coupled with universities, the entire education sector spent more than $3.3 million in 2018.
Colorado’s legislature holds the purse strings when it comes to education funding. And next to school boards, they’re the only state body that can shape education policy such as setting standards, testing requirements and the parameters of districts’ sexual education curricula.
Like school districts, local governments also ponied up more than $3 million to ensure favorable laws.
Despite oil and gas companies and their associations spending more than $30 million on the election, during the legislative session, they and other energy companies and interests together spent just under $1.7 million.
Oregon seeking reform
Despite its well-documented problems, state officials, political observers and lobbyists say the
state’s system for collecting lobbying records is better than many other states. In fact, Oregon has in the last year sought the counsel of the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office and lobbyists here in reforming their own system.
However, there are few rules that lobbyists must comply with, and only one person at the Department of State is responsible for compliance. All the data the state collects is self-reported and difficult for the public to access in a meaningful way. Contributing to the confusion over the total sum spent on lobbying is a lack of consistency among lobbyists. Some firms report the total cost of a contract, while others only report what they bill for direct contact with lawmakers.
The Denver Post identified nearly $9.6 million in lobbying records — not part of the $33 million total — in which one lobbyist or lobbying firm listed another as a client. It could be subcontracting work in which the actual client’s spending has been noted with the original firm, an individual lobbyist listing their own firm as a client — or bookkeeping meant to shield the name of the actual client. The murkiness makes it nearly impossible to know how much some interests are paying to have face time with lawmakers.
Similarly, there are no regulations on how much in-house lobbyists — those who are employed by a single organization and often have titles such as vice president for government affairs — are required to report of their income.
Several firms double-report their contracts, making the sum look much larger than it is at first glance, although The Post has removed the duplicates in our dataset. And the public website for searching lobbying records is cumbersome and grossly out of date.
“Leading on what’s right”
Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat, and her predecessor Wayne Williams, a Republican, recognized these faults.
Before leaving office, Williams formed a group to develop recommendations to improve the system.
“I don’t know a single lobbyist who has anything to hide — who they do it for, or why they do it,” said lobbyist Mike Beasley, who participated in Williams’ group. “That’s why it’s incumbent for the next secretary of state to continue to modernize the system.”
Griswold, who ran on a platform of making political spending more transparent, agrees and wants to act on the multiple recommendations and then some. Her ultimate goal is to marry the parts of the state’s website that track campaign finance information and lobbying records. However, given staffing and financial limitations, it won’t happen overnight, she said.
“We’re at a time when people’s confidence in government across the country is at an all-time low,” Griswold said. “We have to be leading on what’s right.”