Editorial: Labor unions in LA are major political influencers. Why should they not be considered lobbyists?

When is a paid lawyer a lobbyist? And, more importantly, when and how much information should paid advocates disclose about their lobbying efforts?

For years, lobbying rules in Los Angeles have been lax, and many would-be lobbyists have avoided registering with the ethics committee and not publicly disclosing 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 change proposed by CEO Paul Krekorian that would specifically exempt union workers from registering as lobbyists for the first time. Currently, union employees are expected to register as a lobbyist if they spend 30 hours in three months lobbying city employees and elected officials on issues other than city agreements. 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 attorneys called a “non-profit organization,” which would be subject to fewer restrictions and disclosure requirements than a lobbyist or lobbying firm.

Under the proposal, any nonprofit charity 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 its name, endorsement and lobbying of the employee to be disclosed to officials or department. This is similar to what lobbyists have to report.

But there are big differences when it comes to restrictions. Lobbyists are prohibited from giving gifts to a city’s candidate or making campaign contributions (although they are allowed to make donations from clients who must report it). However, nonprofits may offer gifts and campaign contributions, and they are not required to file reports that include 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 Service rules, 501(c)(3) are charities prohibited from endorsing or endorsing political candidates, although their employees can. But labor organizations are 501(c)(5) Nonprofit Organizations. You can support candidates and make campaign donations. The classification of unions as non-profit applicants rather than lobbyists creates a major loophole in a city where unions are major players in elections.

Another difference: Registered lobbyists are not allowed to act as city officials to reduce potential conflicts of interest. But not-for-profit petitioners are allowed to take on such commissions.

Krekorian said he tries to distinguish between professional lobbyists, who are hired to lobby for a position, and employees, who lobby on behalf of their organization. His proposal for the nonprofit category came after charities protested that an earlier proposal would pit them against lobbyists and subject them to tedious registration and reporting.

But his proposal would ensure that key political actors would not have to register their staff as lobbyists and would allow them to abide by important rules designed to limit or disclose their influence and spending. Powerhouses like the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor are not required to register as lobbyists. Even large nonprofits like the AIDS Healthcare Foundation or USC wouldn’t do this.

The Municipal Fee Ordinance was passed in 1994 to ensure that city officials and the public knew who was being paid by whom to influence government decisions, but it has not been updated since. Past council members have ignored the ethics committee’s recommendations to modernize the law. That is why it is important that this city council – in response to the recent scandals – finally continues with reforms.

The proposed update would overturn an ill-considered ballot measure developed by the city council in 2006 without input from the ethics committee that created an unenforceable definition of a lobbyist — someone who spends 30 hours lobbying in three months. Since no one follows lobbyists and counts their minutes of persuasion, this has enabled some to register.

The proposed standard requires registration if an individual is eligible to receive at least $5,000 a year for lobbying, which is clearer and easier to enforce – and would attract more paid advocates. The updated law also requires lobbyists to make oral statements to neighborhood councils and make their position clear in public documents.

These are all good changes, but not enough. Angelenos need to know who is being paid to influence the city’s decision makers. In order to close some loopholes, the municipality is not allowed to open new loopholes, especially for some of the city’s largest and most influential labor unions and non-profit organizations.