Nametags and the Moneyed Lobbyists

nametag.jpgA while ago I wrote about the unexpected fresh breeze of transparency that has blown into NC’s General Assembly as a result of a section of the new lobbying law requiring lobbyists to identify themselves and their clients.  This particular section requires that:

Each lobbyist shall identify himself or herself as a lobbyist prior to engaging in lobbying communications or activities with a designated individual. The lobbyist shall also disclose the identity of the lobbyist's principal connected to that lobbying communication or activity.

 Most lobbyists have responded to this requirement by wearing a nametag listing their name and who they work for.  For lobbyists with multiple clients, the lobbyist’s name is listed along with the firm (or their own company) who they work for.  The lobbyist then has to orally specify which client he or she is speaking on behalf of when they communicate to legislators and other staff covered by the lobbying law.

As I said before, the appearance of nametags has had a great effect on the atmosphere at the General Assembly.  Suddenly, people who aren’t longtime or daily visitors to the legislative building could quickly identify who was working for which company or interest.  Even people who have worked in the legislature a long time would sometimes be surprised at the new organization represented by an acquaintance or finally identify that person who you were never really sure was truly interested in your issues.

Unfortunately, an increasing number of who I call the “moneyed lobbyists” – those people who represent well-heeled clients who give large campaign contributions – have taken to ignoring this new transparency.  Sure, the law doesn’t specifically require nametags.  Simply identifying yourself and who you work for each an every time you talked to a legislator, staff member, or other “covered person” under the law – and there are hundreds and hundreds – would suffice.  In reality however, how can anyone talk to a group and meet this requirement?  No one can know every single person covered by the law.

 I think the resistance to this requirement by the moneyed lobbyists is the realization that in clearly identifying who they are and who they represent to members of the general public they lose the anonymity they prize as one of their greatest assets.  For these lobbyists, the personal relationship and quiet backroom deal is all.  Identifying you represent an industry to everyone means that your actions and words are judged just as much in light of the company you represent – and can be judged by everyone – as they are judged by the long-term personal relationships you have fostered and your clients have greased by heavy campaign donations.

 The next version of the lobbying law should clearly require nametags for lobbyists – their surprising role in improving the legislative climate is too central to allow exceptions for the titans of special interests.


  1. gojohn_go

    May 3, 2007 at 6:14 pm

    Yes we should write into the law that nametags be required. And it should be specific as to size of the name tag, size of font, acceptable color combinations, information needed on the name tag (full name, nickname, all entities the wearer works for and what issues they are interested in). In fact, thinking about it, a nametag is not enough. We should legislate that sandwhich boards be required to be borne by all lobbyists at all times with all required information. We should require that the sandwich board also have braille on it for those of us who are visually impaired as well. Additionally since we don’t know who all the covered persons are, they should have the same requirements as lobbyists, It should be a felony for failure to comply.

    Don’t we have more important issues to be spending our time and our elected officials’ time on?

  2. gregflynn

    May 4, 2007 at 7:25 am

    Why does everything have to be a felony these days? Whatever happened to good old misdemeanors?

  3. Gerry

    May 4, 2007 at 7:51 am

    What about the people who thought Patrick McHenry was a page?

  4. wafranklin

    May 6, 2007 at 1:15 am

    Why not take photos of all the lobbyists and post them on the NC website and GA website, with lists of who they work for? And, for fun, hand out copies of those photos in booklets at the Legislature and around the state. Make “lobbyist” spotting a lot like train, plane and car spotting. As for felony or misdemeanor, what about plain old flogging, or public stocks, or tar and feathers?

  5. Adam Searing

    May 6, 2007 at 8:15 am

    If you spend any time down there you realize that some lobbyists have enormous conflicts of interest – like representing docs who want health programs to increase costs and keep people covered (and able to pay) while also representing drug companies who want health programs to refrain from implementing cost controls that might impact their profits.

    Simply saying who you are and who you work for isn’t such a big burden – at least in my view – and most lobbyists, regardless of who they represent, are wearing name tags.

  6. Jack Register

    May 12, 2007 at 8:45 am

    I agree Adam. As a lobbyist myself, for Social Workers, I find it tough when people have multiple clients they represent. Part of the parity delay came from this…in my personal opinion.

Check Also

Senator Richard Burr: Makes up his own facts about NC Medicaid in order to criticize it

North Carolina’s Senator Burr used to be a ...

Top Stories from NCPW

  • News
  • Commentary

ā€œI could choose to do anything else with $50.ā€ But Anca Stefan, a high school English teacher in a D [...]

The Cape Fear River is damaged, contaminated by decades of human malfeasance, negligence and ignoran [...]

Legislative Services Officer Paul Coble appears to be violating the state public records law and is [...]

This morning, the state Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the pivotal case of Silver, et al. [...]

The post Snail mail appeared first on NC Policy Watch. [...]

America is often touted as a nation of laws, and not of men. But it seems that today some lawmakers [...]

65 - number of days since the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Flo [...]

In Washington, legal and political walls may be closing in on the slow motion train wreck that is th [...]

Now hiring

NC Policy Watch is now hiring a Managing Editor – click here for more info.