I’m listening to the Belfrage show on KELO-AM radio as I usually do during my morning kid drops, and the issue of banning Lobbyists from certain areas came up, and arguing in favor of it, show producer Todd Epp was mentioning something that I’d also had noted to me by a lobbyist.
Todd noted that if they’re banned from the lobby area of the Senate Chamber, lobbyists still have plenty of access to legislators by going to dinner, etc. Which was interestingly enough, the same thing that an actual lobbyist noted to me as well.
Except they said it sounds like the proponents “want more lobbying done out of the capitol and out of the public view. More drinks and dinners a result of this action?”
Wait a minute… wasn’t there a campaign on all of that? It vaguely rings a bell…..
Aren’t we trying to pick up the pieces and fix a legal and political mess as a result of the unconstitutional Initiated Measure 22, whose proponents based their whole campaign on that premise – to stop private drinks and dinners between legislators and lobbyists?
I think if lobbyists are going to have discussions with legislators, having them in the light of day in their “areas” in full public view is probably the best venue.
Just my 2¢ worth.
You are right PP. The problem with banning lobbyists is that they speak for the people.
If they want to ban blue badges I guess that is fine but the blue badges have a lot of knowledge about a particular area of government because it is their specific topic that they work with on a daily basis.
The governor’s office does abuse the blue badge privilege. They do not do much other than lobby and party during session.
Does this mean unpaid lobbyists like concerned women of America are banned? They are definitely a threat to the state. Ha.
This is a bad idea . Some senate egos may think that they have a grasp on all issues , but lobbyists if used right are great sources of information . You can’t be lazy & must seek out the other side of the story . You still need to base your decision on who is bringing the bill , why they are bringing it , what will it cost , who it will help & most importantly who will it harm .
Isolate and conquer!
This is WAR!
Mad Dog Majority Leader Greenfield!
Pat,
I am going to assume you misunderstood Todd’s view because what you describe is fricking stupid.
Now that I am a private citizen, a want both blue and black badges in the Lobby so I have a chance to walk around my Capitol and talk to my legislators.
The view of lobbyists held by too many people has been shaped by the Progressive caricature of lobbyists as cigar-smoking, whiskey-swilling, lobster-eating, 300-lb. bankers with bags of cash on their table to give to the legislators who come crawling to the lobbyists on their hands and knees. The truth is, however, that most of the lobbyists in South Dakota are honest people who are protecting the interests of constituent groups who are too busy working to go to Pierre. With our extremely short legislative session, bills are often discussed, amended, and even passed very quickly, and that makes the lobbyists’ ready access to the legislators especially important.
I would be careful about banning the “white badges” because, as noted above, they represent the voice of citizen groups and interests. On the other hand I have no qualms with banning the “blue badges”. They are part of the executive branch and if the Senate does not want on the floor or in the lobby they have the right to create that separation.
The lobby also creates somewhat of a work space for the “white badges” who do not have offices in the Capitol.
I’m not sure where they would want the lobbyists to be, if they banned them from the Senate Lobby. That’s actually more of a place for them to listen to what’s going on during floor debate. Very little lobbying is actually done in that area.