Benefits of refusing lobbyist funding

I took a pledge in 2006 to refuse personal gifts and campaign contributions from lobbyists and their employees. When I took that pledge, I knew it was the right thing for me to do, but I didn’t envision the various impacts of the pledge in the long term.

For example, in the past few years, I have been asked to share my honest feedback and insights with other legislators. I can do so for three primary reasons.

Over the years, I have specialized in shared central service policies that touch different areas of government. This gives me a policy knowledge about the checks and balances that keep out corruption and slash duplicative costs which have long haunted state government. This experience allows me to provide advice to other legislators regarding proposal which act for or contrary to good government.

Secondly, I have no allegiance to any lobbyist. When a legislator asks for my feedback, I can give it objectively and without hesitation. I don’t care if the lobbyist knows I am opposed to his proposal. It won’t affect me in any substantial way. I don’t take money from him anyway.

Of course, I am not going to advise against the proposal if it is a good idea. Once again, it doesn’t matter to me either way. I care about the quality of the proposal; not the politics. That’s what allows me to provide honest, objective input based on my experiences.

Thirdly, I never follow up on my feedback. I don’t go back to the legislator and ask, “Are you going to vote like I am?” In fact, I try to avoid looking at the final vote. I don’t want to know if the legislator acted on my advice. For all I know, he was trying to find out how I was going to vote so that he could vote the other way.

These three characteristics have allowed me to provide a service to other legislators. They know they can ask for my feedback and they will receive an unfiltered take on the proposal. In a very small way, I feel that it allows me to make a positive difference.

The decision to reject funding also helps me communicate with constituency. From time to time, I have to explain to a constituent the reason for why I am not voting the way that they request.

It’s never pleasant to tell someone that you disagree with them.

Fortunately the constituent is more likely to take my word for the reason why I didn’t do what they wanted. They know that my reasoning is based on principle and don’t have to worry that my real reason is related to campaign funding from a special interest group. This allows me to have an honest dialog without the smoke and mirrors of special interest influence undermining the credibility of my response.

Finally, the pledge also enables an honest dialog with the lobbyist.

A lobbyist can ask me to vote a certain way and know that I will make my decision based on principle. They never have to worry: “is he going to vote against me because I didn’t give to his last campaign?”

This makes my vote easy to predict and puts all lobbyists on the same standing regardless of their financial wherewithal.

With the advantage of hindsight, I have become more convinced than ever before that the 2006 pledge was absolutely the right thing to do.

Thank you for reading this article. Your interest and input are much appreciated. Please do not hesitate to email Jason.Murphey@hd31.org with your thoughts and suggestions.

Sincerely,