When is a paid advocate a lobbyist? And, more importantly, when and how much information should paid advocates be asked to disclose publicly about their lobbying efforts?

For years, Los Angeles rules regulating lobbying have been lenient, and many would-be lobbyists have been able to avoid registering with the Ethics Commission and revealing their efforts to influence policy. The city council is now considering tightening those rules in a long-awaited update to the city’s municipal lobbying ordinance, and most of the changes are major improvements that will increase transparency.

But there are still concerns, including a last-minute amendment proposed by Council President Paul Krekorian that would for the first time explicitly exempt union workers from the obligation to register as lobbyists. Currently, union workers are expected to register as lobbyists if they spend 30 hours in three months advocating city employees and elected officials on issues other than collective bargaining agreements with the city. Workers from unions representing construction workers, carpenters and hotel workers have registered as lobbyists this year.

Instead, the proposal would place union workers in a new category of paid attorney called a nonprofit filer, which would have fewer restrictions and disclosure requirements than a lobbyist or lobbying firm.

Under the proposal, any nonprofit organization or union with an employee who pays at least $5,000 a year to lobby city officials or departments would be required to file quarterly reports with the Ethics Committee, detailing the name of the employee he or she advocated for. and the officer or department are disclosed. lobby. That is comparable to what lobbyists have to report.

But there are big differences when it comes to restrictions. Lobbyists may not give gifts or make campaign contributions to a city candidate (although they may make client contributions, which they must report). However, nonprofit petitioners may offer gifts and campaign contributions and are not required to file reports detailing gifts to city employees, political contributions, or

fundraising

on behalf of city candidates.

Perhaps that’s not a problem for most nonprofits. Under Internal Revenue Services rules, 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations are prohibited from contributing to or supporting political candidates, although their employees are allowed to do so. But labor organizations are 501(c)(5) non-profit organizations. They may support candidates and make campaign contributions. Classifying unions as non-profit petitioners rather than lobbyists creates a major loophole in a city where unions are key players in elections.

Another difference: Registered lobbyists may not be city commissioners to reduce potential conflicts of interest. But not-for-profit petitioners would be allowed to serve on such committees.

Krekorian said he tries to distinguish between professional lobbyists hired to advocate a point of view and employees who advocate on behalf of their organization. His proposal for the nonprofit category came after nonprofits protested that an earlier proposal lumped them in with lobbyists and would subject them to heavy registration and reporting.

But his proposal would allow major political players to avoid having to register their employees as lobbyists and follow key rules designed to curb or disclose their influence and spending. Powerhouse organizations, such as the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, are not required to register as a lobbyist employer. Nor should large non-profit organizations, such as AIDS Healthcare Foundation or USC.

The Municipal Lobbying Ordinance was passed in 1994 to ensure that city officials and the public know who is being paid by whom to influence government decisions, but it has not been updated since. Previous city councils ignored the Ethics Committee’s recommendations to modernize the law. It is therefore important that this council finally implements reforms in response to recent scandals.

The proposed update would overturn an ill-considered 2006 ballot measure developed by the city council without input from the ethics committee, creating a hard-to-enforce definition of a lobbyist, someone who spends 30 hours lobbying within three months. Since no one shadows lobbyists and keeps track of their minutes of persuasion, some were able to bypass registration.

The proposed standard requires registration if an individual is entitled to at least $5,000 a year for lobbying, which is clearer, easier to enforce and will attract more paid attorneys. The updated law also requires lobbyists to make verbal disclosures to neighborhood councils and state in public documents the position they advocate.

These are all good changes, but not enough. Angelenos should know who is being paid to influence the city’s decision makers. By closing some loopholes, the city shouldn’t have to open new ones, especially for some of the city’s largest and most influential labor unions and nonprofits.