As special interests try to influence Kansas lawmakers, some want to loosen the rules
When the Kansas Legislature met last year, lobbyists spent more than $433,000 on food and beverages for legislators and other public officials.
Lobbyists aren’t limited in how often or how much they can spend wining and dining legislators in Kansas. Lobbyists often pay for the array of receptions, small group and one-on-one dinners that populate the Legislature’s social calendar.
On any given day of session, there’s almost certainly at least one free meal to be had by legislators. The arrangement is just one tool special interests deploy to build influence and, over time, steer the course of state government.
But some lawmakers have a bigger appetite.
In response to a sprawling campaign finance investigation by the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission, Republican lawmakers have developed legislation that would expand the ability of legislators to seek campaign contributions during the legislative session.
The measure would also loosen restrictions on donating in the name of another person, as well as prohibitions on candidates coordinating with PACs, which often operate as the political arm of business groups, trade associations and other organizations who also lobby the Legislature. One version of the bill would have effectively legalized coordination, the director of the Ethics Commission has said.
It would also raise the bar for special interest groups involved in politics to report their activity as a political action committee. And the bill would substantially weaken the commission’s investigatory powers, including its authority to issue subpoenas.
Collectively, the changes could shift the balance of power between legislators and special interests, campaign finance experts and other critics of the legislation argue. They say the measure risks tipping the scales in favor of those with money to spend as they seek to shape what happens at the Kansas Capitol.
“It increases the ability of special interests to curry favor with elected officials and to do so secretly,” said Derek Clinger, a senior staff attorney with the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School.
Lawmakers for years have been prohibited from accepting or soliciting campaign contributions from lobbyists during sessions, which typically run from January to May. They have only been allowed to ask for donations from individuals and post general requests for contributions on social media.
Lobbyists may provide up to $100 worth of gifts to each lawmaker per year. Some reach the limit by paying for officials to attend Chiefs games or other events.
However, lobbyists and lawmakers enjoy wide latitude in a crucial area: food and drink. Kansas law excludes food and beverages from limits on lobbyist gifts.
While lobbyists have to report their spending, there is no limit to how many times they – and, by extension, the often powerful companies and associations they represent – can take a legislator out to dinner or how much they can spend.
Kansas is one of only a few states with no meaningful restrictions on legislators accepting food and drink from lobbyists. At least 39 states prohibit or in some way limit the practice, according to a review of state laws compiled by the National Conference of State Legislatures.
A Republican-led proposal, House Bill 2391, would allow lawmakers to make any solicitation during session as long as it includes a disclaimer that says, in part, the solicitation is “not intended for lobbyists.”
In its current form, lawmakers would still not be allowed to knowingly accept contributions from lobbyists during session. But they would gain a free hand to ask for donations from whoever they want, so long as they included the disclaimer. The change would allow lawmakers to ask for donations from audiences that include both lobbyists and non-lobbyists.
Imagine a lawmaker at a celebratory dinner or reception with lobbyists, business leaders and others. Even if most of the people there are lobbyists, the lawmaker could ask for donations from the entire group as long as they included the disclaimer.
Supporters of the bill reject the idea that they are trying to weaken the state’s ethics laws. The intent of the solicitation provision is to ease the headache candidates currently go through trying to remove lobbyists from their email lists during session, they say. The goal is not to create a backdoor to asking lobbyists for donations during the session, said state Rep. Pat Proctor, a Fort Leavenworth Republican who chairs the House Elections Committee.
“That’s definitely not the legislative intent and I don’t read that it makes that legal,” Proctor said. “Honorable men and women could disagree.”
‘Less transparent process’
Proponents have instead framed the overall legislation as a response to a growing sense that the Ethics Commission does not provide due process when pursuing violations. But it comes as the commission is pursuing a wide reaching investigation involving Republican officials.
The inquiry appears focused in part on whether funds were improperly transferred between PACs and campaign committees in recent years. Dozens of Republican officials have received subpoenas.
PACs play a key role in the election ecosystem. In 2018, a year that included a governor’s election and the election of the entire Kansas House, the top 20 biggest PACs collectively donated more than $2 million to candidates and other committees, according to statistics compiled by the Ethics Commission. The commission hasn’t posted similar statistics for more recent years.
The proposed legislation would make it much easier for PACs to coordinate with candidates’ campaigns, an activity that’s largely prohibited now. The bill would prohibit agents of campaigns from coordinating with PACs, but it defines “agent” narrowly enough to allow sophisticated campaigns to likely bypass the ban, campaign finance experts said.
Mark Johnson, Kansas City attorney who specializes in campaign finance and election law, said the bill would significantly harm the Ethics Commission’s ability to investigate violations of the campaign finance law while opening up avenues for special interests to bankroll campaigns without public awareness.
“It would make it a far less transparent process than it is today,” Johnson said.
On Thursday, Ryan Krieghauser, an attorney for Jared Suhn, a political consultant who is the current subject of an Ethics Commission investigation, filed a complaint alleging the commission violated the state’s open meetings law. The complaint cites emails commission members sent last year while formulating a response to a legislative effort to oust Skoglund.
“The commission needs some adults in the room and we hope that judges can provide that,” Krieghauser said. Krieghauser and his partner Josh Ney helped write the legislation changing campaign finance rules and limiting the commission’s power.
Mark Skoglund, the executive director of the Ethics Commission, said Thursday the commission had reported the potential violation to the Shawnee County District Attorney’s Office when it occurred.
“It is unsurprising that Ney waited until now to attempt to dig up year-old entirely unrelated issues in a transparent attempt to rally support for an absurd bill that undermines all campaign finance law in this state and would unleash an endless stream of dark money into Kansas,” Skoglund told reporters in an email.
In advocating for the bill, Kreighauser has said Skoglund has used vague terms in campaign finance law to investigate consultants and candidates for practices common in both parties. The solution, he said, is to more clearly define what is and is not permissible.
Fears of a too-cozy relationship
Some legislators and good government advocates fear the bill would make it too easy for special interests to cozy up to lawmakers, especially given that lawmakers can already dine out on lobbyists’ dime.
State Rep. John Carmichael, a Wichita Democrat, said there is value to legislators having the opportunity to gather in informal settings and that it helps build consensus on issues. The current rules facilitate receptions “virtually every night,” he said, adding that many gatherings are bipartisan.
“So there is some value to it. However, of course it’s not good,” Carmichael said. “None of us will say it influences our vote, but subconsciously I can’t help but think it does influence people.”
In the first two months of the 2022 session, lobbyists purchased 164 dinners for legislators and other officials valued at more than $100, according to lobbyist expenditure reports published by the Ethics Commission. Lobbyists also paid for an additional 111 dinners costing between $80 and $100 during that same period.
Still, the largest lobbyist expenditures – which run several thousand dollars – aren’t linked to any specific legislator but are unitemized. That’s allowed if the entire Legislature is invited to an event, which is often the case for receptions.
For the current week, 12 dinners and receptions are listed in the Legislature’s official social calendar. Some of the events are regular occurrences.
The Kansas Beer Wholesalers Association maintains a reception suite at the Ramada Inn in downtown Topeka, where numerous legislators stay, for instance. And every Monday night the “Monday Night Reception” is held at the Kansas Association of Insurance Agents building a block away from the Capitol.
Eric Stafford, a lobbyist for the Kansas Chamber of Commerce, said dinners and lunches with lawmakers are a valuable opportunity to have longer conversations about issues and get to know members. Lobbyists for the chamber spent about $6,400 on food and beverages during the 2022 session.
“If somebody can be bought over a steak then they’re probably not a very effective legislator,” Stafford said. “To think that that has any impact on how somebody’s going to vote on an issue I think is short-sighted.”
John Federico, who runs one of the largest lobbying firms in Kansas, said his firm has a strict policy against talking policy with lawmakers at dinners and receptions.
“There’s an unfair perception that quotation ‘wining and dining’ is part of the process up here to get legislation through. Without hesitation and as firmly as I can state it, I will tell you that that is not the case,” he said. “You go to the Capitol, you make your best arguments based on the facts that you have and you hope you get their support.”
Though lobbyists often have close relationships with lawmakers forged over years working in the same building, Federico rejected the idea that lobbyists held additional influence because of the time spent with lawmakers at receptions and buying dinners. He pointed to the time lawmakers spend with constituents in their home districts throughout the year.
Several current and former lobbyists approached by The Star didn’t want to speak on the record, but described a mixed picture. Some emphasized the value of the connections that can come from interactions at dinner or a reception. Others acknowledged the state’s ethics rules aren’t especially stringent.
Only a fraction of Kansas lobbyists actually spend money. While more than 500 lobbyists were registered in 2022, fewer than 100 filed expenditure reports each month during the session, according to data compiled by the Ethics Commission.
Mike Taylor, a lobbyist who worked for the Unified Government of Wyandotte County and the City of Wichita for years before starting his own firm, said he seldom bought food for lawmakers and was prohibited from buying them alcohol when he worked for the cities.
On rare occasions, Taylor said, he would spend his own money. But more often than not, Taylor said, he had to find other ways to get face time with lawmakers in their offices or the hallways of the statehouse. Taylor said this put him at a disadvantage.
“I tend to look for other ways and make friendships in different ways than, ‘Oh, I’m gonna wine and dine you,’” Taylor said.
Campaign finance changes could create conflicts
Aaron McKean, an attorney with the Campaign Legal Center, a Washington-based group that advocates for more democratic participation in government, said loosened rules surrounding soliciting campaign contributions would increase the opportunity for conflicts of interest and backroom deals in government.
The proposed changes to the Kansas campaign finance law, he said, would break down existing barriers intended to ensure special interests don’t hold too much influence over politicians.
“Can you be sure they’re working on behalf of the public or are they working on behalf of the folks who lined their campaign projects and bankrolled the campaign process from the outside?” he said.
Proponents of the bill say the intent is not to alter Kansas’ campaign finance law but rather clarify it. And the details of the proposal are all but certain to change.
Proctor said negotiations are ongoing between Republicans and Democrats on the issue. Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly last week criticized any effort to criticize ethics laws, but said she was open to changes to make campaign finance rules clearer.
Proctor said some of the discussion is over the campaign finance elements. He said he does not believe the bill in its current form creates more permissive law for donating in the name of another and coordination with political action committees. But portions of the bill need change, he said, including a clause allowing candidates to donate to political action committees.
“I think we’re going to come out of the process with a bipartisan bill,” he said.
