Nonprofits Nervous about Lobbying Law’s Wide Net
Boston Business Journal by Mary Moore
Nonprofit leaders are scrambling to figure out what to do in light of a new state law that so tightly restricts lobbying that many organizations may be forced to register more staff as lobbyists — or get out of politics altogether.
Most troubling, they said, is the expanded definition of lobbying, which now includes strategizing and planning if it is done as part of communicating with a government employee. The new law also lowers thresholds on how many hours someone can spend on lobbying activities and how much money he or she can earn before being required to register as a lobbyist.
Nonprofit leaders said they expected thresholds, but they did not expect them to be so low and coupled with such an expanded definition of lobbying that even dropping off a letter in the office of an elected official might be considered a lobbying activity.
Moving forward, nonprofit leaders may seek new legislation to loosen the hold on nonprofits or seek a regulatory remedy, said David Magnani, executive director of the Massachusetts Nonprofit Network.
“This bill creates a chilling effect on nonprofits in an effort to regulate for-profit lobbyists,” said George Bachrach, president of the Environmental League of Massachusetts.
He added that the registration fee, set at $1,000, and filing requirements would be too much for most nonprofits. “It’s catching nonprofits, charitable organizations, that are simply advocating for public policy on health care, the environment or a range of other civic enterprises.”
The details of the new law appear to have caught nonprofit leaders off guard, though they have been concerned from the start about any definition of lobbying that would include strategizing, planning, research and other background work.
They had made their concerns clear to members of the state House of Representatives and Senate, pointing out that legislation — if not carefully crafted — could have a “chilling effect” on the civic engagement of nonprofits and stifle efforts to educate elected officials about the benefits nonprofits provide to the community.
Though leaders of nonprofits tend to be careful about politicking — because they’re concerned about the potential impact on their organizations’ nonprofit status — staffers often engage in the full spectrum of the legislative process, from meeting with elected officials at Beacon Hill offices for budget and policy discussions to bringing them in for site visits.
Further, many umbrella organizations that represent nonprofits have been encouraging their members to become more active.
In March, a coalition of nonprofits sent a letter to Rep. Peter Kocot, D-Northampton, chairman of the House Ethics Committee. The letter, signed by the leaders of roughly 40 organizations, urged Kocot and his House colleagues to consider the potential negative impact on the nonprofit sector of lobbying reform.
The House amended its version of the bill before voting on it in late March, sending it on to the Senate for consideration, and Kocot said the amendments were made in direct response to the concerns raised by the nonprofit sector.
Signed by Gov. Deval Patrick on July 1, the new lobbying rules are part of a package of ethics reforms proposed by House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo in response to several scandals involving state officials, including former House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi and former state Sen. Dianne Wilkerson. The House and Senate passed separate versions of the legislation and sent the bill to a conference committee for a compromise vote before it went to the governor.
Rep. Jeffrey Perry, R-Barnstable, a minority member of the conference committee, said the bill was a political rush job, moved along without thorough deliberation or a vote of conference committee members. Senate Majority Leader Frederick Berry, D-Peabody, could not be reached by deadline, and House Majority Leader James Vallee, D-Franklin, declined to comment.
“When law is made in such an imprudent fashion, there will be unintended consequences. So I’m not surprised the nonprofits are concerned about the final product,” said Perry, who refused to sign the final bill. “I think we’ll see more unintended consequences.”
