forgotston.com

Governor Jindal has made a strong case in favor of requiring lobbyists to disclose the amount of money spent wining and dining leges. Apparently, knowing how much is spent on lunch or dinner is important to keeping the law-making process transparent and honest.

Friday we read in the Daily Monopoly that Gov. Jindal regularly hosts members of the lege for lunch at the Governor’s Mansion “to discuss his agenda.” (emphasis mine)

Unlike restaurants where lobbyists entertain, the Governor’s Mansion is not open to just any member of the public (or the media) to observe the meetings.

Circumventing the law

Additionally, Jindal circumvents the Public Meeting Law by inviting fewer than a majority of each house of the lege to these meetings.

I repeat. JINDAL CIRCUMVENTS THE PUBLIC MEETING LAW.

Is that transparency? Is that good government? Is that better than the status quo?

Disclosure

As I understand the current and proposed lobbying laws, there is no required disclosure of the cost to the taxpayers for the lunches for Jindal “to discuss his agenda.” That is, assuming no registered lobbyist is paying for the meals.

If the amount of spending by private individuals (lobbyists and employers of lobbyists) on meals for leges is important to having a transparent and honest law-making process, shouldn’t we also know how much the governor and his staff spend of our hard-earned tax dollars on influencing leges.

In some cases, the governor may actually be working against the interest of the taxpayers. For example when a governor lobbies leges to impose a tax or fee on the people.

Influencing the process

If we follow the logic of Gov. Jindal’s argument for disclosure of spending by lobbyists on meals purchased for leges, shouldn’t Jindal disclose the amount he spends on influencing leges?

Does a steak at the Governor’s Mansion have less influence than at steak at Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse?

To the contrary, I suggest that a lunch with the governor is more influencing on a lege than having lunch with a private citizen who may happen to be representing someone else.

Shouldn’t Jindal disclose the cost of wining and dining leges to pass “his agenda”?

Can we get an amendment for the sake of transparency?

C.B.