Return this book on or before the 
 Latest Date stamped below. 
 
 University of Illinois Library 
 
 
 
 L161—H41 
 

 

 

 
a LOBBYING 
 
 MARGARET A. SCHAFFNER 
 
 COMPARATIVE LEGISLATION BULLETIN—NO 2—JANUARY, 1906 
 
 Compiled with the co-operation of the Political Science De- 
 partment of the University of Wisconsin 
 
 WISCONSIN FREE LIBRARY COMMISSION 
 LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DEPARTMENT 
 MADISON WIS 
 1906 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 REE MRE NCES © os vais s.08 65 ose eine staan 
 
 KINDS OF LOBBYING 
 Definitions Wo sieks one sree eee 
 
 Legaleversus dllegaloservices ivan cans cto lives crete stars 
 Methods of influencing legislation 
 
 oeeeree eee eee e ee eee 
 
 Doctrine of our courts 
 
 eoceeeceeeee eee eee er esesees eee eve 
 
 The real issue 
 
 RULES, LAWS, AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS 
 Foreign countries 
 
 United States 
 
 Coben se 6 © 8 #10 2 0-€ 
 a 6 fe. 10. -0 a) G0 90 a 0/50) €) 0 60 6,6 0 Bane 0.6 9 8 6 6 
 
 Ce a i 
 
 REMEDIES® a... «5 Bee ganar sane 
 
 2 le © ee © 0 6 @ 046 06 6 0.9 @ © 6.6 a 6 6 6 
 
 Restrictions on legislators 
 
 Ce 
 
 Limitations upon legislative procedure 
 
 ews 60) eo 4 U Sie aie « 
 
 Restraining devices 
 
 2 elie 0 © ‘we 6 0) ee le 0 6 6 6:0)» 8) 4 6.0.16 © See, 0] Se, 6 
 
 Positive remedies 
 
 =O Ae TF 6s Se we 6 ee eC 8 ee 6 8 ee 
 
; 
 
 GR bebe 
 
 . 
 
 re) 
 
 bf. 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 REFERENCES 
 
 American digest. Century ed. St. Paul, 1897. 
 
 See title Constitutional Law, subtitle Distribution of Gov- 
 ernmental Powers and Functions; also see subtitle Contracts 
 to Influence Legislation. 
 
 American and English encyclopaedia of law. 2nd ed. 
 Northport, 1896-1905. 
 
 See title JZilegal Contracts, subtitle Contracts to Influence 
 Legislation. 
 
 ANSON, WILLIAM R. The law and custom of the constitu- 
 tion. Oxford, 1892. 2 vols. 
 
 Private bill legislation, vol. 1, p. 262-267. <A brief histori- 
 eal outline for England. 
 
 AUSTRALIA. The annotated constitution of the Australian 
 Commonwealth by Quick & Garran. Sydney, 1901. 
 
 Const. sec. 50. Annotations relate to Standing Orders for 
 private bill procedure. 
 
 Bourinot, G. S. Parliamentary procedure and practice with 
 an introductory account of the origin and growth of 
 parliamentary institutions in Canada. Montreal, 1884. 
 
 Describes private bill practice in Canada, p. 584-680. 
 
 Cootey, THomas M. A treatise on constitutional limita- 
 tions which rest upon the legislative power of the 
 states of the American Union. 7th ed. Boston, 1908.. 
 
 Gives judicial decisions on lobbying contracts, p. 196-199; 
 
 and constitutional provisions to prevent log-rolling legisla- 
 ieetion. p. 202-217. 
 
 E2NTSG 
 
4 LOBBYING 
 
 Storey, Moorrietp. ‘The American legislature. Albany 
 law journal, Sept. 22, 1894, vol. 50, p. 187-197. 
 
 Considers remedies for evils of lobbying. 
 
 WHEELER, G. J. The practice of private bills with she 
 standing orders of the House of Lords and House of 
 Commons and rules as to the provisional orders. Lion- 
 don, 1900. 
 
 Appendix gives text of Standing Orders. | 
 ‘WHITNEY, TRAVIS H. The need of legislative experts. 
 Green bag, Sept. 1905. vol. 17, p. 78-82. . 
 
 Shows need of counteracting the influence of private in- 
 terests on legislation. 
 
LOBBYING 5 
 
 KINDS OF LOBBYING 
 
 A general uniformity of opinion prevails in English 
 and American jurisdictions on the subject of lobbying. 
 
 Definitions 
 
 it he tollowmg definitions are typical: 
 Oi isconsin. Y* Ura lobby is for a person not belong- 
 uf to the eae to address or solicit members of 
 the legislative body, in the lobby or elsewhere, away 
 from the house, with a view to influencing their votes.” } 
 
 C4 eee CO, Coot. PLM. & -O. Ro Co, 1889; 
 75 Wis. 224. | 
 
 United States. “Lobby services are personal solici- 
 tations by persons supposed to have personal influence 
 with members of Congress to procure the passage of a 
 bill.” Trist v. Child, 1874, 88 U. S. 441. 
 
 ‘New York. “ ‘Lobby services’ are generally defined 
 to.mean the use of personal solicitation, the exercise of 
 personal influence, and improper or corrupt methods, 
 
 whereby legislative or official action is to be the prod-_ 
 uct” Dunhanmy. H. RP. Co. 1900, 56 N. Y. App. Div. | 
 
 2014. 
 
6 LOBBYING | 
 
 } 
 
 Legal versus illegal services 
 ed 
 
 United States. Numerous decisions of the Unit 
 States supreme court point out the distinction between 
 legal and illegal attempts to influence legislation. 
 
 In Trist v. Child, decided in 1874, Justice Swayne 
 said: “Services which are intended to reach only the. 
 reason of those sought to be influenced rest on the sarne 
 principles of-ethics as professional services and are no 
 more exceptionable. They include drafting the petition 
 which sets forth the claim, attending to the taking of 
 testimony, collecting facts, preparing arguments and 
 submitting them orally or in writing to a committee, 
 and other services of a like character; but such sei y- 
 ices are Separated by a broad line of demarcation from 
 personal solicitation, and though compensation can be 
 recovered for them when they stand alone, yet when 
 they are blended and confused with those which % 
 
 ‘ forbidden, the whole is a unit and indivisible, and ti 
 which is bad destroys the good.” 88 U. S. 441. aes 
 
 In another leading case the same court held “It is, | 
 however, the right of every citizen who is interested 
 in any proposed legislation to employ a paid agent to 
 collect evidence and facts to draft his bill and explain 
 it to any committee or to any member thereof or of — 
 the legislature fairly and openly and ask to have it in- 
 troduced ; and contracts which do not provide for mote 
 and services which do not go farther, violate no prin- 
 ciple of law or rule of public policy... But it is neceh- 
 sary to disclose agency to prevent the contract from 
 being illegal’ Marshall v. .B. & O} 2Resazomames £3: 
 57 U. S. 314; and “contracts providing for coma- | 
 pensation contingent upon success are void as against 
 public policy,” Trist v. Child, 1874, 88 U. S. 441. 
 
LOBBYING T 
 
 Methods of influencing legislation 
 
 ‘The methods of lobbying are as various as are the 
 iaterests represented. /The courts distinguish between 
 secret lobbying and open advocacy but it is not always 
 easy to place the ban upon illegitimate methods with- 
 out interfering with those which result in improved 
 legislation. It has been urged that forbidding lobby- 
 ists to.discuss measures with members of the legisla- 
 ture will merely deter the better class of lobbyists and 
 champions of worthy measures, while unprincipled 
 ones would not be prosecuted for violating the law 
 Among laws recently secured through organized in- 
 ‘ fluence brought to bear upon legislators are those 
 establishing juvenile courts, compulsory education, and 
 similar measures. Again in some states where corrup- 
 -vion has been most flagrant the visible lobby has 
 , largely disappeared, in one well known case the gover- 
 ‘nor,of the state acting as go-between for private in- 
 terests demanding special privileges and legislators 
 whose seats were controlled by means of campaign 
 contributions. Another state illustrates the capacity of 
 a United States senator acting as boss for his state to 
 so control matters that a wink or a nod from one of 
 his sub-lieutenants would secure any legislative favors 
 desired by those supplying campaign funds. /Inade- 
 quate as these illustrations are they suffice to show 
 that the lobbying question involves more than mere 
 prohibition of personal solicitation of legislators. 
 Thien again the influence of some of the most power- 
 ful lobbies for private as opposed to public interests is 
 exercised along legitimate lines at least so far as to 
 seprn bribery or other corrupting influences. The su- 
 perior information and skill of many legislative agents 
 and counsel enables them to convince by array of facts 
 and figures so arranged as to seem to prove their case. 
 
} 
 i 
 
 8 LOBBYING 
 
 A half-truth is difficult to combat. It is this ane : 
 of lobbying which is proving a real menace to publi 
 interests. | 
 
 | 
 Doctrine of our courts | 
 
 In holding a contract for secret lobbying and 
 
 sonal solicitation illegal the United States supreme 
 court declared that it was “aware of no case in Eng 
 lish or American jurisprudence where such an agree- 
 ment was not held to be illegal and void.” Trist v. 
 Child, 1874, 88 U. S. 441. | 
 
 The real issue 
 
 But the evils of lobbying are little affected by eae 
 ing lobby contracts illegal and void. Such contracts 
 become subjects of litigation only where the system of 
 lobbying is imperfectly organized. The real menace 
 arises when principal and agent work harmoniously! 
 together against public interests for private ends. 
 
LOBBYING 9 
 
 RULES, LAWS, AND JUDICIAL 
 DECISIONS 
 
 Foreign countries 
 
 England. .The evils of lobbying have been largely 
 eliminated by the system of private bill practice devel- 
 eped in Parliament. The Standing Orders of the 
 \House of Commons and the House of Lords prescribe 
 strict regulations for parliamentary agents and counsel 
 representing private or local interests and subject 
 private bills to a quasi-judicial procedure as follows: 
 
 All bills granting any corporate privileges or affect- 
 iug’ private rights as those conferring powers on rail- 
 ways, tramways, electric lighting, gas, and water 
 conipanies, etc. must be introduced on petition and not 
 on motion. Notice of such bills must be given nearly 
 three months before the meeting of parliament and 
 copies must be deposited in the Private Bill Office of 
 the Commons. Memorials from opponents are also 
 deposited and after preliminary investigation to insure ~ 
 conformity to the Standing Orders and to secure full 
 notice by advertisement to all persons interested, the 
 petition is presented to the Commons. 
 
 After the second reading the bill is referred to a 
 committee: if a railway or canal bill, to a standing 
 
10 LOBBYING 
 
 committee for those matters, otherwise to a committee 
 of four members eree. 
 he committee grant hearings and take evidence 
 
 from promoters and opponents. Witnesses are exam- 
 ined under oath and every clause of the bill is given a 
 quasi-judicial consideration. 
 
 After the return of the bill to the house its subse- 
 quent stages are similar to those of a public bill. 
 
 Every private bill must be in charge of some recog- 
 nized parliamentary agent and no written or printed 
 statement regarding any bill may be circulated in the 
 house of Commons unless signed by some such agent 
 who holds himself responsible for its accuracy. 
 
 Every agent must be registered, must-give bond, and 
 agree to abide by the Standing Orders of Parliament. 
 He must also have a certificate from some member of 
 parliament or of the bar and for any breach of require- 
 mints he may be suspended or prohibited from further 
 practice.’ 
 
 British Colonies. With certain modifications, the 
 English system of private bill practice in parliament is_ 
 followed in Canada? and in the Australian Conn Ore 
 wealth.® 
 
 The Continent. On the continent the question pf 
 lobbying has not as yet become so serious a matter as 
 in England and in the United States. The reasons for 
 this differ for the various countries. A partial ex- 
 planation may be found in the fact that in some states 
 
 ‘See Standing Orders House of Commons relative to private 
 business 1—249, and Standing Orders House of Lords 69—148. 
 London, 1900. 
 
 ?See Bourinot, Parliamentary procedure and practice .... in 
 Canada. 
 
 3See Australia. The annotated constitution of the Australian 
 commonwealth by Quick and Garran. 
 
 f 
 | 
 | 
 
LOBBYING 11 
 
 the government has a dominant influence in legislation 
 and privileges are still distributed as favors; in others 
 the legislative bodies and the government combined 
 carefully investigate all applications for special privi- 
 leges affecting private interests and subject franchises 
 and grants to careful scrutiny and regulation; in still 
 others quasi-public utilities are owned by the state and 
 the rental of public property does not yield great 
 private incomes. 
 
 | 
 
 United States 
 
 In Marshall v. B. & O. R. Co. decided in 1853, the 
 supreme court held that all persons whose interests 
 may in any way be affected by any public or private 
 act of a legislature have an undoubted right to urge 
 their claims and argument either in person or by coun- 
 
 sel professing to act for them before legislative com-_ 
 
 mittees as well as in courts of justice, but a hired agent 
 
 assuming to act in a different character is practicing | 
 
 deceit on the legislature...and services involving the 
 use of secret means or the exercise of sinister or per- 
 sonal influences upon legislators are illegal. 57 U. S. 
 314. 
 
 Act of Congress, June 11, 1864, prohibits members 
 of Congress from receiving compensation for services 
 before a department. 
 rm ~. 
 : Alabama, Const. 4875, art. 4, sec. 42. Corrupt 
 ‘solicitation of legislators punished by fine and impris- 
 jonment. 
 
 Apmongs= en, Cade, 1901, sec. 93. Obtaining or 
 seeking to obtain money upon a representation of im- 
 
 properly influencing legislative action made a felony. 
 
 ee 
 : 
 
12 LOBBYING 
 
 In such cases no person is excused from testifying on 
 ground of self incrimination, but testimony not used 
 against such person except for perjury. 
 
 Arkansas. 
 
 California. Const. 1879, art. 4, sec. 35. Lobbying 
 is declared a felony. 
 
 The term “lobbying” signifies to address or solicit mem- 
 bers of a legislative body with the purpose of influencing 
 their votes. Colusa Cu. v. Welch, 1898, 122 Cal. 428. 
 
 Though the contract contemplates the use of personal 
 solicitation, yet if no personal influence is brought to bear 
 upon the members, and no dishonest, secret, or unfair 
 means employed, to accomplish the object, it is not illegal. 
 Foltz v. Cogswell, 1890, 86 Cal. 542. 
 
 The board of supervisors of a county have no authority 
 to employ special counsel for the purpose of influencing 
 members of the legislature with respect to pending legis- 
 lation affecting the county. Colusa Co. v. Welch, 1898, 122 
 Cal. 428. 
 
 Colorado. Rules of Legislature, 1905. Senate Rule 
 31 and House Ruce 27. Privileges of floor extended 
 only to state, legislative, and judicial officers, con- 
 gressmen, ex-members, reporters, and other persons 
 specially invited. In the Senate the president or any 
 senator may invite. In the House notice of desired 
 privilege must be in writing and consent of house had: 
 no suspension of this rule. While either house is in 
 committee of the whole privileges of floor extend only 
 to state officers; others admitted within the bar; in the 
 senate, employees are not to carry the card or name o7 
 any person to any senator. \Attempting to influence 
 the vote of any member during a session shall subject 
 the offender, if an officer, to removal from office, if a _ 
 visitor to forfeiture of all privileges) 
 
 1See Arkansas under Prior notice of bills, p. 27. 
 
LOBBYING 13 
 
 | Connecticut, Gen. St. 1902, sec. 1261. Attempt to 
 Nxproperly influence legislation punished with fine or 
 »‘prisonment or both. Entertainment of legislators, 
 Mproper influence. 
 
 . Delaware. 
 
 | District of Columbia. 
 (| All contracts for services in procuring legislation are 
 [void from public policy.) Weed v. Black, 1875, 2 McArth. 
 268. J 
 
 Florida.? - 
 
 acd 
 
 Georgia. Const. 1877, art. I, sec. 2, par. 5. Lobby- 
 ing is declared to be a crime. 
 
 Code, 1895, sec. 3668. Lobby contracts void, as 
 against pub.ic policy. . 
 
 Idaho.?. 
 
 Illinois. Rules of Legislature, 1905. Senate-Rule’_ 
 60 and House Rule 5. Admission to floor, unless by 
 ‘special permission, granted only to state, legislative, 
 
 jand judicial officers, ex-members, ex-state officers, and 
 ‘reporters. The House rule also includes members of 
 constitutional convention and congressmen, while 
 the Senate specifically excludes ex-members interested 
 
 in pending legislation, 
 > S 
 
 Indiana. Rules of Legislature, 1905. Senate Rule 
 38. Exclude all but members, officers, and ticket 
 holders. House Rule 77. No person except state, 
 
 1See Delaware under Subject and title of laws, p. 26. 
 2See Florida under Prior notice of bills, p. 27. 
 ~*8See Idaho under Subject and title of laws, p, 26. 
 
 | 
 
14 LOBBYING 
 
 legislative, and judicial officers admitted unless by com- 
 sent of speaker. } 
 
 Towa. Rules of Legislature, 1906, Senate Rule Js, 
 Admission to floor granted only to state, legis.ati’™, 
 and judicial officers, ex-members and ex-state officers, 
 Exceptions made upon special permission of the Presi- 
 dent or of a member. No person is permitted to come 
 upon the floor of the Senate or into cloak rooms to 
 solicit or influence senators in their official action. Of- 
 ficers or emp.oyees soliciting or endeavoring to influ- 
 ence members of the legislature are to be dismissec, 
 House Rule 66. Also permits admission to the floor 
 for the families of members and gives each member 
 the right to admit a friend. 
 
 Kansas. 
 
 A. contract for services as an attorney before a legisla- 
 tive body is valid, put for lobby services is void, as against 
 publis policy. McBratrney v. Chandler, 1879, 22 Kan. 69% 
 
 Kentucky. St. 1899, sec. 1993: Any person whe 
 attempts by corrupt means to influence the vote of a 
 legislator, to be guilty of a misdemeanor: fine or im 
 
 -prisonment or both. | 
 
 | 
 Louisiana, 
 
 Any agreement which contemplates the use of private 
 influence to secure legislation is void. Burney’s Heirs yv 
 Ludeling, 1894, 47 La. Ann. 73. 
 
 Maine. Rules of Legislature, 1905. Senate Rule, 
 34 and House Rule 16. Prohibit members of legis’a-| 
 ture from acting as counsel before committees. House’ 
 Rule 24. Persons not members, except state officers,, 
 etc. are admitted within hall only upon invitation by 
 
 some member. 
 
LOBBYING 15 
 
 Maryland. Laws, 1900, c. 328. Requires legisia- 
 tive counsel or agents to register and to file written 
 authorization from persons for whom thcy are to act, 
 persons employing counse, to make sworn statement 
 of expenses ; legislative dockets to be kept by secretary 
 of state. The governor may require sworn statement 
 of expenses for any particular bill. The law does not 
 apply to municipalities. Penalty for violating provi- 
 sions of law, fine or fine and disbarment from acting 
 as legis.ative counsel or agent, for three years. 
 
 Rulcs of Legislature, 1905. Senate Rule 55 and 
 House Rule 5.. Persons not members adm-tted within 
 the bar of the two houses only upon invitation. Ex- 
 ception made for executive and judicial officers, ex- 
 members, ctc. 
 
 Massachusetts. Rev. Laws, 1902, c. 3, secs. 23-32. 
 The main provisions are as follows: Any person, cor- 
 poration, or association employing legislative agents 
 or counse, are to enter the names of such counscl or 
 agents upon dockets kept by the sergeant-at-arms. 
 Employer and employee are both made rcsponsible for 
 entering names within one week after agreement but 
 either party may cnter fact of termination of employ- 
 ment. Two dockets are to be kept: the one for coun- 
 sel, employed to appear at public hearings of commit- 
 tees or to advise in relation to Icgislation; the other for 
 agents acting to influence legislation. The dockets 
 are to contain the name and business address of the 
 emp!oyer, the name, residence, and occupation of the 
 person employed, the date and length of employment, 
 and the special subjects of legislation to which the em- 
 ployment relates. Additional entries are to be made 
 
16 LOBBYING 
 
 as new subjects arise, so that the entries shall show al 
 subjects of legislation in relation to which agents or 
 counsel are employed. No legislative committee is 70 
 allow any person to appear before it as counse: who is 
 not duly registered. Legislative counsel shall not act 
 as agent unless also entered upon the agent’s docket. 
 Written authorization to act is to be filed, and compen- 
 sation for services is not to be contingent upon stc- 
 cess. Within thirty days after final adjournment 
 of the legislature the sergeant-at-arms is to deposit 
 dockets, with the secretary of the commonwealth and 
 employers are to file sworn statements of expenses in 
 such form as the secretary may prescribe; such state- 
 ments to be open to public inspection. Penalty for 
 violation of act on part of employer, not less than one 
 hundred nor more than one thousand dollars; on part 
 of agent, in addition to fine, disbarment from acting 
 for three years. Act does not apply to city or town 
 so-icitors. 
 
 Michigan. 
 
 Keeping open house for the entertainment of legislators 
 does not constitute bribery. Randall v. E. N. A. 1893, 97 
 Mich. 136. ' 
 
 Minnesota. Rev. Laws, 1905, c. 99, sec. 2. Cor- 
 rupt solicitation of legislators made punishable by fine 
 imprisonment or both. 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 1See Mississippi under Prohibition of log-rolling, p. 26. 
 
LOBBYING 1% 
 
 Missouri.* Rules of Legislature, 1905. Senate 
 Rule 53, and House Rule 86. Unless invited by the 
 Senate or the House, no persons except state, legisla- 
 tive, and judicial officers, and congressmen are per-. 
 mitted upon the floor. House a.so admits ex-members 
 of legislature. 
 
 Montana. Pen. Code, 1895, sec. 172. Any person 
 obtaining or seeking to obtain anything of value on 
 representation of influencing legislation improperly, 
 guilty of felony. Not excused from testifying on 
 ground of self incrimination. ‘Festimony not used 
 against such person except for perjury. 
 
 Nebraska. Rules of Legislature, 1905. Senate Rule 
 43. No person admitted to floor except state, legisla- 
 tive, and judicial officers, and congressman. House 
 “Rule 11. Privileges of floor extended to state officers, 
 etc. and such other persons as the House may admit. 
 
 Nevada. Rules of Legislature, 1905. Senate Rule 
 *49 and House Rule 57. Admission to floor, except on 
 invitation by some member, granted only to legisla- 
 tors, state officers, and in the House, ladies. A major- 
 ity in either house may authorize the presiding officer 
 _ to clear the floor of all such persons. 
 
 New Hampshire. Const..1792, part 2, art. 7. Mem- 
 bers of legislature not to take fees or act as counsel in 
 any cause before legislature. 
 
 1At the last legislative session Governor Folk issued an order. 
 requiring lobbyists to register at the executive office upon com- 
 ing to the capitol and also on leaving; to state the object of 
 their visit to the governor and to the press: and to leave the 
 eitvy within a limit of thirty hours. Fear of inquiry into their 
 methods led to compliance. 
 
18 LOBBYING 
 
 New Jersey. Legislature of 1905 adopted an antt- 
 lobby resolution and appointed a special committee to 
 investigate lobbying. 
 
 New Merico. 
 
 New York. 
 
 It is allowable to employ counsel to appear before a 
 legislative committee or the legislature itself to advocate or 
 oppose a measure in which the individual has an interest. 
 Lyon v. Mitchell, 1867, 36 N. Y. 241. 
 
 But a contract for Iecbby services, for personal influence 
 with members of the legislature is illegal and void. Mc- 
 Kee v. Cheney, 1876, 52 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 144. 
 
 Rules of Legis ature, 1906, Senate Rule 49 and 
 House Rule 30. Admission to the floor granted only 
 to legislators, and state officers, their clerks, deputies. 
 etc. and reporters. The Senate also grants admission 
 by card to ladies or to members of families of senators 
 and of presiding officer; while the House grants 
 further admission either upon the pcrmission of the 
 speaker or by vote of the House. The House excludes 
 reporters interested in Icgislation, or receiving com- 
 pensation from any corporation for influencing ‘egisla- 
 tion. 
 
 North Carolina.* 
 
 North Dakota. Rules of Legislature, 1905. Sen- 
 ate Rule 37 and House Rule 44. Admission within 
 the bar permitted only for state, legislative, and judi- 
 cial officers, congressmen, ex-members of congress or 
 legislature, members of the constitutional convention 
 
 1See territories of the United States under Special legislation, 
 
 Dek 
 2See North Carolina under Prior notice of bills, p. 27. 
 
LOBBYING 19 
 
 and federal officers of the state. Exceptions made in 
 the Senate by vote and in the House on permission of 
 speaker. Any person lobbying in the House, to forfeit 
 privileges of floor. 
 
 Ohio. 
 
 Asking other members of the legislature to support bills, 
 collecting and presenting facts and reasons to them, and 
 making arguments to induce them to support the bills, 
 constitute ‘official duty’’ and ‘‘action” within the statute 
 making it a crime for a legislator to solicit from any per- 
 son any valuable or beneficial thing to influence him with 
 respect to his official duty or to influence his action in a 
 matter pending before him. State v. Geyer, 1896, 3 Ohio 
 N. (P2242. 
 
 Rules of Legislature, 1904, Joint Rule 23. Visitors 
 admitted may include: ex-members, state, legislative, 
 and judicial officers, congressmen, governors of other 
 states, clergymen by invitation of presiding officer, and 
 pcrsons invited by any member of the general assem- 
 bly. Reporters may be admitted within the bar. 
 
 Oklahoma. 
 
 A contract contingent upon legislative action but not 
 stipulating for any act by either party other than a presen- 
 tation of an ordinance to the city council containing the 
 provisions desired, is not void. as against public policy. 
 Baumhoff v. Okla. City Elec. & Gas & P. Co. 1904, 14 Okla. 
 127. 
 
 Oregon. Cr. Code, 1902, sec. 1894. Lobbying with 
 members of legis!ature, without disclosing interest, de- 
 
 clared to be a crime. 
 
 The sole purpose and effect of this section was to make 
 lobbying under the ci:cumstances herein described criminal. 
 It does not render contracts valid made to secure lobbying 
 services if they: were made under such circumstances that 
 the lobbyist could rot be punished criminally. Sweeney 
 v. McLeod, 1887, 15 Ore. 330. 
 
20 LOBBYING 
 
 Pennsylvania. Const. 1873, sec. 78. Corrupt so- 
 licitation of legislators punished by fine and imprison- 
 ment. 
 
 sec. 79. Person charged with corrupt solicitation 
 not excused from testifying on ground of self incrim- 
 ination ; such testimony not to be used against person 
 except for perjury. 
 
 Rules of Legislature, 1905. Senate Rule 28. No 
 person admitted to floor during sessions, unless invited 
 by a member, except state and legis ative officers, ex- 
 members, and stenographers. House Rule 43. Per- 
 sons admitted to floor include state officers, etc. and 
 others specially introduced by a member by permission 
 of the Speaker. 
 
 Rhode Island. Const. 1842, art. 4, sec. 4. Legisla- 
 tors shall not take fees or be of counsel in any case 
 before either house, under pcnalty of forfeiting seat. 
 
 South Carolina. 
 
 South Dakota. Ru'es of Legislature, 1905. Senate 
 Rule 8, and House Rule 47. Admission within the. bar 
 permitted only to state, legislative, and judicial officers, 
 ex-members, etc. and reporters. Exceptions made in 
 the Senate on permission of the President and in the 
 House by vote. 
 
 Tennessee. Acts, 1897, c. 117. Declares lobbying 
 to be a felony. 
 
 Texas: 
 
 1See South Carolina under Prior notice of bills, p, 27. 
 2See Texas under Prior notice of bills, p. 27. 
 
LOBBYING 21 
 
 Utah. Rev. St. 1898, sec. 4102. Any person hiring 
 to influence legislation improperly, guilty of felony. 
 
 Vermont. Const. 1793, c. 2, sec. 19. Prohibits rep- 
 resentatives from acting as counsel or taking fee for 
 
 advocating bill. 
 
 A contract for the employment of personal influence 
 or solicitation to procure the passage of a public or private 
 law is void. Powers v. Skinner, 1861, 34 Vt. 274. 
 
 Virgima.~. Code, 1904, sec. 3746. Paying or receiv- 
 ing compensation for securing legislation punished 
 
 with imprisonment and fine. 
 
 This section intended to apply in the line of bribery and 
 corruption and not for professional services, such as draft- 
 ing petitions, setting forth client’s claim, taking testimony, 
 collecting facts, preparing arguments, oral or written, ad- 
 dresses to the legislature or its committee, with intention 
 to reach its reason by argument. Yates v. Robertson, 1885, 
 80 Va. 475. 
 
 sec. 3748. Not to apply to any person having per- 
 mission of legislative committee to appear before it. 
 
 Washington. Const. 1889, sec. 62. Corrupt solici- 
 tation of legislators punished by fine and imprison- 
 ment. Testimony may not be withheld on ground of 
 self incrimination, but not used against person testify- 
 ing except for perjury. 
 
 West Virginia. Acts, 1897, c. 14. Provides for the 
 exclusion of lobbyists from the floor of either house 
 of the legislature while in session. 
 
 Wisconsin. Rev. St. 1898, sec. 4482. Giving or 
 receiving, or offering to give or receive services to in- 
 fluence legislation for compensation contingent upon 
 success; or failing to disclose interest in bill when 
 
22 LOBBYING 
 
 seeking to influence legislative action made punishable 
 by fine or imprisonment. (Laws of Wisconsin, 1858, 
 CeclA Sy Sets ile y 
 
 Laws, 1899, c. 243. The main provisions of the 
 law are as follows: 
 
 ‘sec. I. Persons employed to act as counsel or agent 
 to promote or oppose any legislation affecting the pe- 
 cumiary interests of any individual, association, or cor- 
 poration as distinct from those of the whole people of 
 the state are to be registered within one week after 
 employment. Employer and employee both respons- 
 ib e for entering name of counsel or agent upon legisla- 
 tive docket; either may enter fact of termination of 
 employment. | 
 
 sec. 2, The secretary of state is to keep two 
 dockets: the one for legislative counsel before commit- 
 tees, to contain the names of counsel or persons em- 
 ployed to appear at public hearings before committees 
 of the legislature for the purpose of making arguments 
 or examining witnesses and also the names of any reg- 
 ular legal counse; who act or advise in relation to legis- 
 lation; the other for legislative agents employed in 
 connection with any legislation included within the 
 terms of sec. 1. The dockets are to be public records, 
 open to the inspection of any citizen, and are to contain 
 the names of employers and of counsel and agents, 
 with addresses, occupation, date and length of employ- 
 ment, and the subjects of legislation to which the em- 
 ployment relates. ? 
 
 sec. 3. It is the duty of persons employing counsel 
 or agents to make additional entries whenever further 
 subjects of legislation arise, specifically referring to 
 
LOBBYING 23 
 
 the petitions, orders, bi.ls, etc. so that the dockets 
 sha.l shory all the subjects of legislation in relation to 
 which any counsel or agent is employed. All agents 
 and counsel are to be registered before acting. Em- 
 ployment ‘for compensation contingent upon success 
 not permitted. Legislative counsel not also entered on 
 the agents’ docket are limited to appearing before 
 committees and to giving legal advice. 
 
 sec. 4. Counsel and agents are to file written au- 
 thorization to act. 
 
 sec. 5. Within thirty days after final adjournment 
 of the leg:slature, every person, corporat.on, or asso- 
 ciation employing legislative agents or counsel shall 
 file a sworn statement of expcnses with the secretary 
 of state. 
 
 sec. 6. Penalty for violation by employers, not less 
 than two hundred nor more than five thousand dollars ; 
 for violation by agents or counsel not less than one 
 hundred nor more than one thousand dollars and dis- 
 barment from acting for three years. 
 
 sec. 7. Municipalities and other public corporations, 
 exempt. 
 
 Laws, 1905, c. 472. Makes it unlawful for any 
 legislative counsel or agent to attempt to influence any 
 Icgislator personally and directly otherwise than by 
 appearing before the regular committees, or by news- 
 paper publications, or by public addresses, or by writ- 
 ten or printed statements, arguments, or briefs deliv- 
 ered to each member of the legislature; provided that 
 twenty-five copies be first deposited with the secretary 
 of state. State and federal officers and employees, 
 having pectiniary interests in any measure are likewise 
 
24 LOBBYING 
 
 prohibited from attempting to influence legislators 
 otherwise than is permitted to legislative counsel and 
 agents. Admission to floor of either house prohibited 
 for legislative counsel or agents except upon invitation 
 of such house. Penalty for violation of act, fine and 
 imprisonment. Counsel or agents of municipalities, 
 exempt. 
 
 Rules of Legis:ature for 1907. Admission to floor 
 of the two houses granted only to state, legislative, and 
 judicial officers, regents of educational institutions, 
 congressmen, ex-members of the legislature, not en- 
 gaged in defeating or promoting any pending legisla- 
 tion, all editors of newspapers within the state, and 
 reporters for the press, who confine thémselves to their 
 professional duties, and such other persons as the pre- 
 siding officer upon the order of the house may invite. 
 
 Wyonmmne. Const 1880, art. =3) seca,.A5, \ Corrupt 
 solicitation of legislators made punishable by )fine and 
 imprisonment. it 
 
 r% 
 ail 
 
LOBBYING 25 
 
 REMEDIES 
 
 The leading provisions so far enacted may be 
 roughly grouped under: 1. restrictions on legislators ; 
 2. limitations upon legislative procedure; 3. restrain- 
 ing devices; 4. positive remedies. 
 
 Restrictions on legislators 
 
 Bribery. Under the common law bribery was al- 
 ways acrime. In certain jurisdictions it has been 
 
 made a felony. 
 
 Compare laws of Ala. Ark. Col. Fla. La. Md. N. Y. 
 Pa. We Vas 
 
 Acceptance of railway passes and similar favors by 
 
 legislators is unlawful in a number of states. 
 Compare laws of Fla. Ky. Mo. Wash. Wis. 
 
 Acting as counsel. Provisions prohibiting legisla- 
 tors from acting as counsel in any cause before the 
 legislature were embodied in constitutions of Ameri- 
 
 can states before the end of the 18th century. 
 
 See N. H. Const. 1872, part 2, art. 7, and Vt. Const. 1793, c. 
 2, sec. 19. 
 
 Not to vote, if interested. Requiring legislators to 
 abstain from voting upon bills in which they have a 
 
26 LOBBYING 
 
 private interest was early an acknowledged principle 
 
 of parliamentary usage. 
 
 For constitutional provisions compare Pa. Const. 1875, 
 sec. 80, and Tex. Const. 1875, art. 3, sec. 22. 
 
 Prohibition of log-rolling. Constitutional and statu- 
 tory provisions against log-rolling have been adopted 
 in a number of states. The following illustrations are 
 typical: 
 
 Arizona. Pen. Code, 1901, sec. 92. Makes log-rolling 
 punishable with imprisonment, forfeiture of office and dis- 
 franchisement. 
 
 Minnesota. Rev. Laws, 1905, ch. 99, sec. 3. Makes log- 
 rolling punishable with imprisonment or fine or both. 
 
 Mississippi. Const. 1890, sec. 40. Requires legislators 
 to take oath not to eugage in log-rolling. 
 
 Utah. Rey. St. 1598, sec. 4096. Declares log-rolling a 
 felony. 
 
 Also compare constitutional provisions of Col. Mont. 
 N. D. and Wy. declaring log-rolling to be bribery. 
 
 Limitations upon legislative procedure 
 
 Subject and title of laws. The provisions found in 
 a majority of our states that each law shall embrace 
 but one subject to be expressed in the title points to a 
 time, not yet entirely passed, when special privileges 
 and franchises were smuggled through legislatures un- 
 der cover of innocent titles and when log- See was 
 
 more openly practiced than at present. 
 
 Purpose of this provision, to prevent log-rolling. People 
 v. Collins, 1854, 3 Mich. 348. 
 
 And. to prevent surprise and fraud upon legislature. 
 State ex rel. v. Ranson, 1880, 73 Mo. 78. 
 
 Design was to prevent the uniting of various objects in 
 one bill for the purpose of combining various pecuniary in- 
 terests in support of the whole. Conner v. Mayor, etc. 1851, 
 5 N. Y. 285. 
 
 Purpose is to prevent fraud and deception by conceal: 
 ment. Astor v. A. Ry. Co. 1889, 113 N. Y. 93. 
 
 - Also compare constitutional provisions of Del. Const. 
 1897, art. 6, sec. 16; and Id. Const. 1889, art. 3. y 
 
 ey 
 
LOBBYING 27 
 
 Special legislation. Provisions prohibiting special 
 legislation where general law is applicable have been 
 adopted “with few exceptions by our states. 
 
 The purpose was to exclude corruption and favoritism. 
 Nelson v. McArthur, 1878, 38 Mich. 204. 
 
 Compare constitutional provisions of the several states; 
 and act of Congress, July 30, 1886, prohibiting the passage 
 of local or special laws in territories of the U. S. 
 
 Appropriation bills. Several states require that ap- 
 propriation biuls be passed a stated number of days be- 
 fore the close of the session. | 
 
 The power to veto separate items of such bills was 
 conferred on the governors of many of our states to 
 
 arrest log-rolling. 
 
 Compare constitutional provisions of Ala. Ill. Lr. Mo. 
 Neb. Nene Pa. Tex.’ Wash. Wy: 
 
 Holding up appropriation bills still offers a strong 
 means of offense for professional lobbyists. 
 
 Prior notice of bills. Requiring public notice prior 
 to the introduction of private bills is a further limita- 
 tion on legislative procedure at least partially effective 
 against lobbying. 
 
 Compare Constitutional provisions of Ala. Ark. Fla. La. 
 N. C. Pa. S. C. Tex. Va. also the opinion of the supreme 
 court of New Hampshire to House of Representatives, 1885, 
 63 N. H. 625, holding c. 2, sec. 1, N. H. Gen Laws, requiring 
 a term. of notice for private bills, unconstitutional. 
 
 For prohibitions against introducing new bills during 
 the last days of the session see constitutional provisions 
 of La. Mich.1 Wash. and the following decisions: 
 
 The people in a tree country have a right to notice of 
 proposed legislation and an opportunity to express their 
 assent or dissent. Att’y Gen. v. Rice, 1887, 64 Mich. 385. 
 
 When the journal shows that the original bill was used 
 for purposes of substitution and that the substitute was for 
 
 1The Michigan provision, Const. 1850, art. 4, sec. 28, limiting 
 the introduction of rew bills to the first fifty days of session was 
 repealed in 1904. 
 
28 LOBBYING 
 
 ( 
 
 a different purpose, the act is void. Att’y Gen. v. P. R. Co. 
 1893, 97 Mich. 589. 
 
 Effect of \amitations. As to how far these limita- 
 tions have served to regulate lobbying is a mooted 
 question. As a general thing they have been effective 
 to some degree, but certain authorities hold that the 
 restrictions on special and local legislation have merely 
 resulted in an undesirable modification of our general 
 Jaws for special ends, and that requirements for pub- 
 lished notice have been of little avail against secret 
 manipulation of bills serving private ends. 
 
 Legislative power. he legislature has no power to 
 bind a future legislature as to the mode in which it 
 
 shall exercise its constitutional rights. 
 
 See De Bolt v._0. L. I. T. Co. 1853, 1 Ohio St. 563; Bright- 
 man v. Kirner, 1867, 22 Wis. 54; and Mix v. I. C. R. Co: 
 1886, 116 Ill. 502. 
 
 Since each legislature may determine its own rules 
 of procedure, restrictions imposed by one may be re- 
 pealed by the next. To preclude the possibility of easy 
 repeal many of the restrictions enumerated have been 
 embodied as constitutional provisions. 
 
 In the absence of constitutional restrictions, it re- 
 mains with each legislative body to determine the 
 limits of its own regulation. 
 
 \ Restraining devices 
 
 Registration. The provisions for registration in 
 Massachusetts, Maryland and Wisconsin are somewhat 
 similar. They include: registration of legislative coun- 
 sel and agents, the keeping of dockets by the secretary 
 of state, the requirement to register for each particu- 
 
LOBBYING 29 
 
 lar measure, the filing of written authorization to act 
 and the statement of expenses. Municipalities and 
 minor political units are exempt. Penalties for vioia- 
 tion vary but include fine or disbarment from acting 
 
 or both. 
 Compare Mass. Rev. Laws, 1902, c. 3, sec. 28-32; Md. 
 
 Laws, 1900, c. 328; Wis. Laws, 1899, c. 243. 
 
 Prohibition of secret lobbying. Attempting to influ- 
 ence members of the legislature other than by appear- 
 ance before committees is forbidden by c. 472, Laws of 
 Wisconsin, 1905. 
 
 Exclusion from floor. Provisions excluding legisla- 
 tive agents and counsel from the privileges of the floor 
 except under certain conditions have in some cases 
 been enacted into iaw, but more generally they form 
 
 part of the rules of legislatures. 
 
 Compare Wis. Laws, 1905, c. 472; Rules of Legislature 
 of Col. Ill. Ind. Me. Md. and Neb. for 1905; N. Y. and 
 Ohio, 1906; and proposed rules for Wis. 1907. 
 
 -Positive remedies 
 ' Methods employed by some of our states to enable 
 legislators to get at the facts of any question with dis- 
 
 ‘patch include the following provisions : 
 Sot 
 
 Publicity of committee proceedings. The develop- 
 ment of the committee system resulted in the with- 
 drawal of many important phases of legislative action 
 from direct public scrutiny. Among the measures em- 
 ployed to overcome this disadvantage are: publicity in 
 the proceedings of committees with publication of all 
 hearings granted to private parties, prior notice of such 
 hearings to give all interested an opportunity to hear 
 
30 LOBBYING 
 
 or be heard either in person or by counsel, publication 
 in permanent form of the evidence and findings. 
 
 ~ Evidence as to facts. A quasi-judicial procedure 
 thrown about private bill legislation in England has 
 enabled parliament to secure accurate information on 
 bills affecting private interests. Evidence is taken 
 from promoters and opponents, witnesses are examined 
 under oath, and careful consideration given every point 
 
 brought before the private bill committees. 
 
 Compare Va. Const. 1902, sec. 51, providing for a joint 
 legislative committee on special, private, and local legis- 
 lation. 
 
 Agencies for securing information. The average 
 legislator is a busy man. Intent upon doing his pub- 
 lic duty he is often confronted with hundreds of bills. 
 during a single session. He must vote yes or no with 
 little time for consideration. His greatest demand is 
 
 for accurate impartial data giving all the facts in the. 
 
 case. The lobbyist gives him but one side. The pub- 
 lic whose interests are at stake are too frequently in- 
 different a) 
 Various agencies for getting at the facts are being 
 developed by different legislatures. In some states the 
 permanent state commissions, bureaus, and depart- 
 ments collect valuable data in convenient form for 
 legislative reference: in others special investigating 
 committees such as the Armstrong insurance commit- 
 tee of New York have secured valuable evidence as a 
 basis for legislative action: in New York, Wisconsin, 
 and California legislative reference departments have 
 been established for the collection of data bearing on 
 
 he 
 
 “i 
 
 * 
 
LOBBYING 31 
 the legislation of other states; for the compilation of / 
 laws on particular subjects; and for securing knowl- 
 edge of the results of laws along lines upon which the | 
 
 a 
 
 legislature must pass judgment. ie 
 
eh eee ee? eae 
 ~ar. Soy ee fea Sy) a 
 
 
 

 

 

 
0112 115530