The nature of lobbying has changed dramatically in the last two decades or so, making it far less prone to corruption than it used to be and far more commercial than it ever was. Yet even with the more timely and vast corruption uncovered during the Watergate scandal I Washington in the mid-1970's, so many legislatures have moved in the direction of reform only in the wake of a scandal or two. It seems like it has always taken something bad to happen to get he lawmakers enthused enough to do something good. The results of such legislation, however, have been a mixed bag of new rules, restrictions and prohibitions that have met with varying degrees of success. In New Mexico, after a state representative was convicted of taking a bribe from a lobbyist in 1992, the Legislature passed a measure in 1994 requiring the full disclosure by lobbyists of all gifts and expenditures.
Reports have to be filed twice a year.
We've opted, instead, for a full disclosure of everything and anything dealing with the relationships between lobbyists and legislators. But in New Mexico, Speaker Raymond G. Sanchez, among other lawmakers, has complained that the politics of lobbying reform have made it unseemly for elected officials to maintain even a minimal social relationship with a lobbyist, a situation he has called unfair and restrictive. Minnesota's new lobbying legislation now prohibits lawmakers from accepting any gifts at all from lobbyists. Since the new law has been in effect, which has been for the past year, both the members and the lobbyists have told me it has made their lives easier, says Minnesota Senate Counsel Peter Wattson. But the Minnesota legislation is not without its critics.