Government lobbyists fill a need

On the surface, it sounds appealing.

Iowans for Tax Relief is pushing for legislation that would ban state agencies from lobbying the Iowa Legislature. The group's president, Ed Failor Jr., contends the move would save $4 million annually. And he argues it would stop agencies from trying to convince lawmakers to increase government spending.

But once you dig below the surface and consider the real impact, the idea is less appealing. We're skeptical such a change would save much taxpayer money or have a positive impact on lawmaking.

Numerous executive branch agencies have lobbyists, or “legislative liaisons.” They track legislative actions, monitor the committee process and advocate for policy changes favored by the department they serve. In essence, we pay them to push for policy that's in the broader public interest, unlike private lobbyists who work for a specific group or client.

It's true they weigh in on budget issues, but that's not the only reason agencies lobby. The Attorney General's office might push for tougher criminal penalties or consumer protections. The Department of Public Health may seek to have input on a pandemic preparedness bill. The Department of Natural Resources weighs in on changes to environmental regulations.

Lawmakers constantly turn to agency liaisons for information and perspective as they craft legislation. Seeking to remove government lobbyists and their expertise from the Statehouse would probably do little more than throw yet another wrench in an already glacial legislative process.

Left untouched would be legions of private lobbyists, such as Failor, who work for companies and groups, including Iowans for Tax Relief. Private lobbyists, who would remain free to buttonhole lawmakers, would be the big winners if agency lobbyists are banned.

But what about taxpayers?

Much of the Savings Failor projects would come from eliminating the salaries of agency lobbyists. But most liaisons have other duties during the eight or nine months lawmakers are not in session. So it's unlikely many of those staff would lose their jobs even if agency lobbying was banned. Savings would be minimal.

It's also unlikely that government growth will be slowed by banishing agencies from the rotunda. State departments will still have ample opportunities to make their case for spending during the lengthy budget process, whether they lobby or not. Private lobbyists may not work for government, but many of them are still in the hunt for state bucks.

In reality, we can tinker with lobbying, but the buck stops with lawmakers. No lobbyist can pass a bill, file an amendment or stuff a budget bill with unnecessary pork. It's who we elect, not who lobbies them, that's important.