[EL] Legislative ethics probe of non-legislator for stating an intent to criticize a legislator?

[Steve Klein]

Mark,

Wyoming has a similar punishment for lobbying violations, but no history of
enforcement (that I was able to find briefly researching the issue a few
months ago). From what I gather, the penalty would have greatest import
with regards to speaking at committee meetings and the like: although in my
limited experience state legislative committees usually open up testimony
to anyone and everyone, especially for controversial bills (such as, I
believe, such committees are doing in Colorado over their gun bills), they
don't have to do this. The Supreme Court case law I've read makes it clear
that committees don't have to take testimony from anyone, can limit who
speaks and for how long, and all without First Amendment problems. The
reasoning makes sense: government has to do business, and while there is a
right to free speech there is no right to a citizen filibuster.

So, some committee chairs can and do limit testimony to registered
lobbyists, meaning the penalty could certainly hurt.




On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Scarberry, Mark <
Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu> wrote:

> From the linked Denver Post article:****
>
> “If[,] after the ethics committee probe[,] legislative leaders believe an
> ethics violation occurred, they can suspend lobbying privileges, issue a
> letter of admonition or recommend lawmakers censure Neville.”****
>
> A legislative committee can suspend the right of a citizen – lobbyist or
> not – to communicate with legislators? Can withdraw that right because of a
> statement of intention to criticize a legislator? Or what else would be the
> effect of “suspend[ing] lobbying privileges? Prohibition on using the
> legislators’ restrooms? J (I realize that the lobbyist didn’t say he
> would criticize the legislator directly, but that should be irrelevant.)**
> **
>
> ** **
>
> Mark****
>
> ** **
>
> Mark S. Scarberry****
>
> Pepperdine Univ. School of Law****
>
> Malibu, CA 90263****
>
> (310)506-4667****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Rick Hasen
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 05, 2013 8:08 AM
> *To:* law-election at UCI.edu
> *Subject:* [EL] ELB News and Commentary 3/5/13****
>
> ** **
> “Colorado gun lobbyist faces ethics probe by lawmakers”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48046>
> ****
>
> Posted on March 5, 2013 8:06 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48046> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Free speech or an inappropriate threat from a lobbyist?  This is one<http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22697222/colorado-gun-lobbyist-faces-ethics-probe-by-lawmakers>to watch (via Steve
> Klein <https://twitter.com/SteveRKlein/status/308946572291485696>). ****
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>



-- 
Steve Klein
Staff Attorney & Research Counsel*
Wyoming Liberty Group
www.wyliberty.org

**Licensed to practice law in Illinois. Counsel to the Wyoming Liberty
Group pursuant to Rule 5.5(d) of the Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130305/2a0860ea/attachment.html>