Explaining the Differences in State Lobby Regulation

Opheim, Cynthia

doi:10.2307/448785

Cited by 42 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This index also is validated by comparison to another measure of lobbying regulation that was developed for a single period of time. My index at the earliest time period (1990-91) correlates with Opheim's (1991) measure at 0.84 (p < 0.01). 3 The correlation between my index in 1990-91 and in 2003 is 0.46 (p < 0.01), suggesting that my index reflects the changes in regulation between these periods.…”

Section: Measuring Lobbying Regulationmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…2 Some states have broader statutory definitions of what constitutes lobbying than others and this reflects stricter regulation. Similar to Opheim's (1991) measure, the definitions component includes how many of the following seven criteria are defined as lobbying in a state's statute: legislative lobbying, administrative agency lobbying, elected officials as lobbyists, public employees as lobbyists, and whether there is a compensation standard, expenditure standard, and time standard in the definition of lobbying. Each of these components is coded 1 if the state considers a given behavior as lobbying and 0 otherwise.…”

Section: Measuring Lobbying Regulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Opheim (1991) assessed the variability of state lobbying regulation in the late 1980s with an index based on the definition of the term "lobbyist," the extent of disclosure required, and the oversight and enforcement of regulations. Other researchers have since expanded our understanding of lobbying regulation, both the factors affecting it and how these influence lobbying communities, using ad hoc measures (Brinig, Holsummer 2005 / state politics and policy quarterly 183 combe, and Schwartzstein 1993; Gray and Lowery 1998;Rosenson 2003).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Measuring State Legislative Lobbying Regulation, 1990-2003

Newmark¹

2005

State Politics Policy Q.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since 1990, the American states have adopted a variety of reforms to regulate lobbying in an attempt to address a host of ethical issues. Such regulation can have important impacts on a variety of aspects of the legislative process because it typically impacts the relationships between legislators and lobbyists. How does such lobbying regulation vary across the states and over time? I have developed a measure of state lobbying regulation from 1990-2003. This measure validly captures the laws that limit relationships between lobbyists and legislators and, as such, can be used to help assess a variety of hypotheses about the legislative process.States have long sought to govern the relationship between legislators and lobbyists through ethics laws, lobbyist registration, and reporting requirements (Rosenthal 2001). Lobbying regulations are designed to curtail outright bribery and vote-buying but also to reduce the appearance of impropriety that reduces public trust in government. These regulations vary across states and time and may influence a variety of aspects of the legislative process. For example, South Carolina and Kentucky used to have lenient lobbying regulations but, following scandals over the past 10 years, these states now have extensive limitations on the relationship between lobbyists and legislators (Goodman, Holp, and Ludwig 1996;Ensign 1997).Scholars' ability to assess the impact of these laws has been hindered by the lack of a measure of lobbying regulation that is comparable across states and over time. Opheim (1991) assessed the variability of state lobbying regulation in the late 1980s with an index based on the definition of the term "lobbyist," the extent of disclosure required, and the oversight and enforcement of regulations. Other researchers have since expanded our understanding of lobbying regulation, both the factors affecting it and how these influence lobbying communities, using ad hoc measures (Brinig, Holat SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on June 1, 2015 spa.sagepub.com Downloaded from

show abstract

Section: Measuring Lobbying Regulationmentioning

confidence: 75%

Section: Measuring Lobbying Regulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Measuring State Legislative Lobbying Regulation, 1990-2003

Newmark¹

2005

State Politics Policy Q.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The ®rst is Opheim's rating of the stringency of lobbying regulation in 47 states. 13 Opheim's index consists of 22 separately scored items drawn from three dierent dimensions of lobbying regulation requirements. The dimensions were: (1) statutory de®nitions of a lobbyist (seven items); (2) frequency and quality of disclosure (eight items); and (3) oversight and enforcement of regulations (seven items).…”

Section: Rating Regulationðregulatory Environment Ideal Typesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regulating Lobbyists: A Comparative Analysis of the United States, Canada, Germany and the European Union

Chari

Murphy

Hogan

2007

Political Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lobbying is central to the democratic process. Yet, only four political systems have lobbying regulations: the United States, Canada, Germany and the EU (most particularly, the European Parliament). Despite the many works offering individual country analysis of lobbying legislation, a twofold void exists in the literature. Firstly, no study has offered a comparative analysis classifying the laws in these four political systems, which would improve understanding of the different regulatory environments. Secondly, few studies have analysed the views of key agents—politicians, lobbyists and regulators—and how these compare and contrast across regulatory environments. We firstly utilise an index measuring how strong the regulations are in each of the systems, and develop a classification scheme for the different ‘ideal’ types of regulatory environment. Secondly, we measure the opinions of political actors, interest groups and regulators in all four systems (through questionnaires and elite interviews) and see what correlations, if any, exist between the different ideal types of system and their opinions. The conclusion highlights our findings, and the lessons that can be used by policy‐makers in systems without lobbying legislation.

show abstract

“…There are various approaches for how to regulate and classify lobbying rules (see Kalninš (2005), Griffith (2008) and others). The first contribution in this area is the work of Opheim (1991), who created the measures of the rigor of lobbying laws at the US state level. This measurement indicates the legislative independence and accountability from interest group pressure (Opheim, 1991: 405).…”

Section: Recent Approaches and Research On Lobbying Transparencymentioning

confidence: 99%

Transparency in Economic and Political Decision-Making: The Identification of Sunshine Rules for Transparent Lobbying

Laboutková

Vymětal

2017

DANUBE: Law and Economics Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lobbying transparency seems to have been a challenging topic for nearly a decade. For the purposes of the article, the authors focus on a contextual analysis of rules and measures that offers both a broad as well as comprehensive view of the required transparency of lobbying activities and the environment in which decisions are made. In this regard, focusing on the sunshine principles/sunshine rules (not purely limited to laws) provides a grasp of the whole issue in a broader context. From a methodological point of view, the exploratory approach was chosen and the coding procedure is mostly dichotomous. As a result, seven key areas with 70 indicators have been identified in terms of transparency of lobbying and decision-making.

show abstract

Explaining the Differences in State Lobby Regulation

Cited by 42 publications

References 0 publications

Measuring State Legislative Lobbying Regulation, 1990-2003

Measuring State Legislative Lobbying Regulation, 1990-2003

Regulating Lobbyists: A Comparative Analysis of the United States, Canada, Germany and the European Union

Transparency in Economic and Political Decision-Making: The Identification of Sunshine Rules for Transparent Lobbying

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About