PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

The headline in this blog means at least one thing: I am getting older.

Because, when you look back at how a profession in which you were involved for 25 years is changing, you have to be old to do so.

Two major changes are occurring.

• The first is lobbying in a virtual sense.

Lobbyists these days are reporting that it is far more difficult than in the past to make contact with individual legislators.  Instead of meeting them – even briefly – at the Capitol, in their offices or on the way to committee hearings, lobbyists are reduced to trying to book Zoom appointments.

For me, that would be tough because, to convey perspectives from my clients when I was working, I would rely on individual contact with lawmakers.  Often, that involved meeting legislators in their offices or waiting for them to leave for committee hearings because you knew the route they would take on a walk.

Remember that lobbyists like me were not out to convey their own viewpoints.  They were representing those with an interest in the prospect of new laws in Oregon.  Such viewpoints ought at least to be pointed out to legislators and, like attorneys in court, lobbyists work the process in Capitol hallways, offices and hearings – in other words, “their court.”

I have been retired for a few years, but, if I was back at the Capitol, not sure I’d be effective.

• The second change for lobbying is that at least some legislators are reconsidering tough-to-enforce rules on what could be labeled “gifts” from lobbyists to legislators.

This is occurring about a decade after new gift rules were imposed.

Here is the way the Oregonian newspaper wrote about the development:

“Oregon lawmakers are considering whether to allow lobbyists to wine and dine them without limits, more than a decade after they clamped down on the practice with a broad ethics law.

“The Legislature passed Senate Bill 10 in 2007 after members were embarrassed by reports in The Oregonian/OregonLive on how beer and wine distributors paid for legislators to travel to Hawaii.

“Currently, Oregon law bars legislators and other public officials from accepting more than $50 per year from any entity that wants to influence a government decision.  The limit applies to ‘any single source,’ which means a lobbyist who represents multiple clients could have each of those clients pay for up to $50 of food and beverages for a single lawmaker, according to Ron Bersin, executive director of the Oregon Government Ethics Commission.”

The change is being proposed by Stayton Senator Fred Girod and has been referred to the Senate Rules Committee, one of the most reasonable committees in Salem.

At a February 23 public hearing, Girod’s proposal got a warm welcome from his Democrat colleagues on the committee.  For one, Senator Ginny Burdick thanked Girod for bringing the idea forward, noting “it’s not always a popular matter to bring forward bills like this but it’s really important.”  Burdick noted that “draconian changes” in Senate Bill 10, the 2007 ethics law, were unpopular with many local public officials at the time.

To the Oregonian, Burdick said:  “There were some egregious circumstances we were trying to address with Senate Bill 10 but it went too far.  We are a culture of relationships.  We achieve what we achieve by reaching out to people who are not like us and finding common ground and finding policies that work for all Oregonians. And if there is food and drink involved in some of those interactions, we shouldn’t be interfering with that.”

I suspect the new legislation won’t pass in Salem, or at least, if a change is made, limits won’t be “unlimited.”

It is likely the Oregonian’s headline – using the term “wining and dining” – will illustrate arguments against the bill.  When I engaged in “wining and dining” as a lobbyist – I didn’t call it that – I never expected anything specific in return from a legislator. 

Not a vote.  Not assurance of support.

What I did hope for was consideration of the perspectives I offered on behalf of clients.

Further, back in 2007 when the limits were first proposed, some organizations raised questions about how the limits would affect trade missions when the method of doing business in a foreign country often involves the exchange of gifts. 

Those who raised questions included my client, the Port of Portland, which sponsored and organized overseas trade missions.

The concern didn’t matter back in 2007 and I don’t know that it would matter much if it were to be raised today, though there is a case to be made that trade missions deserve individual treatment when it comes to “gifts.”

Still, there might be room for middle ground here.

Senate Majority Leader Rob Wagner told the Oregonian “sometimes very unintended consequences result from broad legislation.  I think it might be … time to look at all these laws with a little bit more of a fine-tooth comb and see what’s working and what’s not.”

Good point. 

Draconian limits don’t work well. 

Well-designed limits would work.