When it comes to lobbying disclosure, local government agencies
should lead the way. According to <a href="http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2015/aug/27/ticker-free-airport-poli…; target="_blank">an
article in the San Diego <i>Reader</i>,</a> this is not the case
with the San Diego Airport Authority, whose lobbying firm did not
disclose any of the lobbying it did for the Authority in the first half of 2015.<br>
<br>
According to the article, this summer the Authority put out an RFP
for a three-year "State Legislative Consulting Services" contract.
The successful bidder would be required to "assist [the Authority]
by advising and advocating on public policy issues under
consideration by State elected officials and State agencies [and to]
pro-actively promote the Authority's position on policy matters to
elected officials, their staffs, and other decision makers through
personal contact, written correspondence, and/or testimony [and]
proactively identify opportunities and assist the Authority in
obtaining grants for capital projects, environmental initiatives and
other airport-related programs."<br>
<br>
This sounds a lot like lobbying and should be expressly called
"lobbying." There is no excuse for any public agency to play the
language game with lobbying. It should contract for "lobbying" and
require the successful bidder to go beyond legal requirements in
disclosing all possible lobbying activities and payments.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br />
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br />