Home>Articles>On Neutering Lobbyists

California State Capitol - Sign. (Photo: Kevin Sanders for California Globe)

On Neutering Lobbyists

Former lawmakers have betrayed the people of California while betraying their party

By Thomas Buckley, January 15, 2024 2:55 am

“It takes two to lie – one to lie and one to listen.”

There is more truth in this Homer Simpson quote than most of us would like to admit.

There is also a kernel of an idea as to how to address Sacramento’s lobbyblob.

The Globe noted in a recent piece that the forthcoming departure from the Legislature of one Assemblyman Devon Mathis (R- The Bureaucracy) may not be so much in the mold of a Cincinnatus –  “The enemy has been defeated, my work here is done, I’m going back to my farm” – or even a dreaded “I want to spend more time with my family” (translate: something very bad about me is about to come out) situation.

It is more likely that Mathis will join the umpteen and three-quarters of other ex-legislators who literally walk across the street to cash in on their connections.

It’s gross, it’s wrong, it’s very common and occasionally gets so bad people notice and try to do something about the revolving door between the government and the lobbying community and private industry and “apolitical” non-profits and unions and, well, anything group that has even a tangential relationship to the power that is the Sacramento Blob:

One of the core reasons for California’s problem is the comparatively tiny state legislature which hyper-concentrates power, a concentration of power that may in fact be wielded in large part by those who control the legislators.  In Sacramento, the actual wielding of power for benefit is not done by the two houses – the Assembly and the Senate –  but by the “third house:”  the permanent lobbyist/consultant/bureaucrat/political action committee/donor/interest group conglomeration, a.k.a the Blob.

The Blob is where the power is but still the Blob needs to keep as many fingers as possible in the legislative pie, hence the auto-hiring of ex-leges (or not-quite-ex leges) to do some water carrying.

And as the most successful pilferers of the public trust – oozers like Chad Mayes (R-I-?-Self-Service) of Cap and Betrade fame – tend to have, through their typically amoral actions as an elected, proven they will fit it perfectly with the Blob, one can expect that Mathis – who, very unRepublican like, supports extending Medi-Cal coverage to illegals – has a wonderfully remunerative career ahead of him.

Democrat legislators do the slip-and-slide as well, but since they were openly and publicly in favor of whatever the Blob wanted while they were in office it’s a bit less of a betrayal, a bit more expected.

So how can this be stopped?  

Like campaign finance laws, new regulations and rules will not matter.  Look at any such law and wait a day and you will find lawyers all over DC and Sacramento telling electeds exactly how to get around it.

For example, there is now a one-year “cooling off” period during which an ex-lege cannot directly chat with their former fellows in an effort to influence their vote.  How to get around that?  Don’t hire them as lobbyists so they have to register as such, hire them as consultants or strategists or whatever and let other lobbyists on staff take the actual meetings.

“Hey – we’re going to see Assemblywoman X about this bill – what can you tell us about her?”

“She likes her men young and hunky, so send Tony, not Jim, to meet her and do it over drinks.”

In the real world, that kind of inside info has actual value.

One very easy way would be to reduce the size and scope of the government.  The amount of money sloshing around Sacramento at any given time is enormous, therefore justifying the investment in a lobbyist.  The only way to get big money out of politics is to get big money out of government – until then, it’s mostly just deck chair arranging.

But there is one thing that might just work: don’t be the second person in the lie.

Take the Mathis situation – the moment they figure out where he ends up, every Republican legislator and their staff should simply refuse to talk to him and/or his firm or advocacy group.

Period.

Forever.

And do the same retroactively to the firms of Mayes and GOP party-killer Jim Brulte and on and on.

They betrayed the people of California while betraying their party so they should – ethically and morally – be considered dead to fellow GOPers.

Democrats can do the same with formers wo go work for industries the party thinks are evil.  Of course, Democrats think any industry outside of Green free trans health care is evil, but it’s a could be a start (you’d be surprised how many work in the world-ending fossil fuel industry.)

Lobbyists are valued for their ability to connect and deliver and if they cannot connect they cannot deliver – therefore they become valueless and the problem withers away.

The same goes for legislative staff and other appointed officials – PG&E hires yet another PUC board member? Tell PG&E you won’t talk to them – if enough people do that, then real change can occur.

Admittedly, the odds of it being widely adopted are not terribly good, in part because its risky and in part because it runs exactly counter to Sacramento social code.

It would be impolite, it would gum up the works, it runs counter to the ‘if you don’t go along, you got it wrong’ mentality.

Ask any Blob-adjacent why they don’t tell the truth, why they don’t take a stand why they don’t demand better and over and over again you will hear “yeah, but, I gotta work with the people.”

Actually, no.

No, you really don’t.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Spread the news:

 RELATED ARTICLES

5 thoughts on “On Neutering Lobbyists

  1. It would be WONDERFUL if what you suggest would happen. What would be the best incentive for those elected Repubs to make it happen? Given this entire of situation —- and that means dirty elections, corrupt state officeholders, lack of responsiveness to constituencies about what actually matters, insulated, know-nothing and cynical vote-buying legislators —– anything we would offer out here, such as “those Repubs should shun the legislators-turned-lobbyists/consultants and then tell their constituents that they are shunning them and why, which would build trust and thus support” ends up sounding horribly naive because most of us are not able to see with our own eyes what goes on. We can only generalize from seeing it first hand from involvement in our local politics — e.g., the jaw-dropping stuff that happens at our city council and school board and other meetings. I’ve learned NOTHING of value from my local city newspaper and everything I really need to know from attending and watching the local clowns who have been elected.

    1. I think it would take a party edict…bwaahhhhahahahh – or a decision by the assembly/senate gop leadership on their own – slim chance on that unless someone actually mounts a bid for the leadership based on that idea
      another idea is to expand both houses – it’s easy to get 21 people to agree on something, it’s harder if that number 121
      check out this piece from last year on that idea…it’s not as crazy as it seems
      https://thomas699.substack.com/p/permanence-is-power-rotation-is-castration

      1. Appreciate your comments and your substack post (linked above), which explains extremely well the finer points and the bigger picture of “the Blob,” of lobbyists as the real power. Katy Grimes has also been writing and talking quite clearly and repeatedly, for years and years, about the mess of who-really-holds-the-power, who is actually writing the legislation, etc., which she most recently referred to as the “Sacramento Deep State.”

        I like the idea that a legislative Repub shooting for a leadership position might use the “shun-the-politician-turned-consultant/lobbyist” as being the most practicable or possible, if any breakout IS possible now with our present suffocating Dem majority. Rather dramatically increasing the size of both houses of the legislature is intriguing food for thought and one can see how it could work to unglue what is stuck. A good argument. There would no doubt be unintended consequences, a thought exercise I’m way too tired to indulge in tonight, but will be thinking about. Ultimately we can only dream about such a reform, however, even if we were entirely on fire about the idea, what with the Dems in power, yes?

        Agree with you about term limits, which at first sounds good on the surface to most frustrated voters, but as a practical matter turns out to be a very bad idea. (Unintended consequences.) And then there is the joke of redistricting; another topic for another day. Aaahhh!
        I recommend the substack post to readers.

  2. Spay and Neuter your lobbyists before they breed. Tell them they are transitioning and they will be all for it. 😉

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *