Bring on the lobbyists!

With the vote on amending the city's anti-smoking ordinance put off for a week, it's time for the lobbyists who represent the interested parties in the debate to get to work.

The American Cancer Society hired Sue Walden, a consultant and political fundraiser. Mark Clark, executive director of the Houston Police Officers' Union and a police officer, was hired by a company that owns pool halls. And Al Luna, a lawyer and lobbyist, is working for the Greater Houston Hospitality Association.

Perhaps the more significant factor, though, is the citizens who have showed up at City Hall for public comment in the past few months. Hundreds of restaurant and bar owners and health advocates have spoken before the council.

Generally, the city requires that anyone who expects to spend money or be paid to directly influence city ordinances register as a lobbyist. City rules don't require that lobbyists disclose how much their clients are paying for the service.

"Organizations frequently hire people who have good relationships with legislators so that their issue is heard, and that legislators get relevant information to help them make their decision," Walden said.

Clark said he's primarily concerned about the stricter ban because he thinks it could cause bar owners to lose revenue, putting the off-duty security jobs held by about 400 fellow officers at risk. He said that could lead to increased criminal incidents in bars.

But he also represents ROI Entertainment, a pool hall operator, in a separate capacity from his union job. He hasn't yet been paid for the work, and said he hasn't met with council members on behalf of the company.

[...]

Luna said his client - a consortium of bar owners - was concerned about the ordinance's effect on business.

"I've been over there lobbying and helping bar owners meet with council members to express their concerns," Luna said.

It's unclear what effect such lobbying efforts might have on the outcome. [Mayor Bill] White, whose legal department crafted the ordinance, and whose administration sets the council agenda, has said he resists overtures from lobbyists.

I guess we'll know if the lobbyists had an effect if someone on Council changes position on the issue. Beyond that, it's hard to say.

I did get a call back from Council Member Jarvis Johnson yesterday, and we discussed the recent action by Council on the smoking ban. He stressed the need for a "level playing field", which meant treating all bars the same instead of fashioning a bunch of narrow exceptions. He expressed concern about bars near the city's borders, and agreed with Council Member Toni Lawrence's statement that they stood to lose a significant amount of business under the proposed ordinance. He thought that the issue would have to be dealt with at the state level to ameliorate that situation. Finally, he suggested that it might be best if the decision were ultimately made by the citizens via a referendum. I did not ask him how likely he thought that was to happen; my guess is he'd agree that it was unlikely, given the timing of the vote and the presence of other ballot propositions this year.

Posted by Charles Kuffner on October 12, 2006 to Local politics | TrackBack