Records fail to show full extent of lobbyist, lawmaker relationships

A week into last year's General Assembly session, lobbyist Ray LaMura of the Virginia Cable Telecommunications Association organized a dinner for black legislators at Old Original Bookbinder's, a clubby downtown Richmond surf-and-turf spot.

It was after-hours face time, an opportunity for representatives of a financially and politically powerful industry to schmooze nearly a dozen African-American lawmakers. Among them, according to a compulsory disclosure report: Del. Kenneth C. Alexander, D-Norfolk, currently chairman of the legislative black caucus.

Problem is, Alexander said last week, he doesn't remember attending the dinner and has no record that he did -- not even a reminder from LaMura's office that the meal should be disclosed, having exceeded the $50 threshold to report a gift or other goodies from a lobbyist.

The soiree, one of hundreds routinely thrown by lobbyists, is illustrative of gaps in a reporting system that relies almost entirely on voluntary disclosure and of which there is little enforcement.

Official vetting of reports for accuracy is almost nonexistent. And there is little risk of punishment for rules-breakers. Lobbyists, for example, face an initial penalty of only $50 for filing late. As for lawmakers, it's up to their colleagues to mete out punishment, if any, for spotty or erroneous reports.

The resulting records -- they're available to the public through the secretary of the commonwealth and the House and Senate clerks, and online at the Virginia Public Access Project -- provide an incomplete accounting of the impact of interest-group money on elective officials. Last year, more than $20 million was spent influencing the assembly.

Disclosure standards vary from state to state, and no matter how tight the rules may be, watchdog groups worry they're ultimately insufficient to diminish the influence of gifts, trips, tickets to sports events, and other freebies. The solution, these organizations say, is a ban similar to one enacted by Congress in 2007 that prohibits lobbyists from buying even a sandwich for a member.

"Whether it's $50, $500 or $5,000, it's still a lobbyist giving a gift to a lawmaker -- and it doesn't look good," said Massie Ritsch of the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics.

Because the Jan. 16, 2008, event fell on a Wednesday night, Alexander said he was probably back in his district for his weekly evening at home with his family.

LaMura has a different recollection. He said an e-mail went to Alexander's office, saying the meal cost $144 per person. The amount was disclosed by seven other lawmakers. Two others did not list the meal.

"They may have missed it," LaMura said of Alexander and his staff. "I don't know."

Adding to the mystery that surrounds reporting: Legislators and lobbyists are on different timetables.

Every January, lawmakers catalogue for the House and Senate clerks the gifts, meals, trips and speaking fees -- anything valued at $50 or more -- that they received in the previous calendar year. The governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general also make such reports.

Lobbyists disclose to the secretary of the commonwealth in July, and their reporting period runs from May 1 to April 30, allowing the state to provide a same-year snapshot of lobbyist largesse during a just-past assembly session.

Also, the reporting form for delegates and senators is not the same as the one used by lobbyists. Lobbyists are required to report the date and location of an event, but the legislators are not required to do so.

Lobbyists are not required to provide the state with, for example, the cost per legislator of meals and entertainment, only total spending.

And because of the manner in which a dinner may be billed to his or her client, if a lobbyist determines spending per lawmaker falls below the $50 level, the legislator may be told not to bother reporting the meal.

As Alexander put it, "If they did not send me a disclosure statement, stating that my meal was over $50, I would not have disclosed it."

The lobbyist and legislator forms, however, are similar in two respects: Both require listing the names of givers and a description of the gift.

Some lobbyists and open-government advocates say Virginians might get a fuller picture of the intersection of money and politics if lobbyists and lawmakers were on similar reporting schedules and held to uniform disclosure standards.

"At a minimum the public needs timely, consistent, online and regulated disclosure of this gift-giving and these favors," said Ritsch of the Center for Responsive Politics.

Also mentioned as a potential remedy: multiple reports, perhaps quarterly, to capture in a more timely manner spending when the part-time assembly is not at work.

"The public should know everything -- gifts, meals, trips," said Donald L. Hall, president of the Virginia Automobile Dealers Association, an umbrella group for an industry that has pumped nearly $499,000 into candidate treasuries since 2008.

"Both my report and a legislator's report should synch up. We should not be afraid that people know what we're doing, and in a reasonable time, what we've done, where and how much."

Any changes, however, would be left to legislators.

Chris Frink, who compiles about 2,300 lobbyist-disclosure reports a year for Secretary of the Commonwealth Katherine K. Hanley, was asked whether the required paperwork could be made more user-friendly for those who complete it as well as the public.

"The statement is what it is, and until the General Assembly wants to change it, it is what it is," Frink said.

Not that lawmakers don't believe there's room for improvement. But they caution that disclosure doesn't tell the full story of their relationships with lobbyists, who -- beyond their check-writing and gift-giving -- are troves of intelligence on issues, politics and personalities.

"It doesn't reflect the relationship or the contacts we have with a lobbyist throughout the session or throughout the year," Alexander said.

The last time the legislature considered revising disclosure requirements for lawmakers was before the 2005 election, when it launched a study headed by then-Del. Bob McDonnell, R-Virginia Beach. McDonnell recently resigned as attorney general to run full time for governor.

Among those serving on the panel were two lobbyists: Hall and David L. Bailey Jr., whose clients aren't among the wealthiest -- public broadcasters, firefighters, the Richmond public school system and Girl Scouts.

One recommendation potentially allowed even more lobbyist spending to go unreported by raising the threshold on gifts and entertainment to $100 -- twice the current level.

But the idea fell prey to events 100 miles away, in Washington, where once-influential lobbyist Jack Abramoff was ensnared, and later pleaded guilty, in a sweeping federal criminal investigation for lavishing members of Congress with trips, gifts for their spouses and meals at his restaurant.

Contact Jeff E. Schapiro at (804) 649-6814 or jschapiro@timesdispatch.com.