Secretary of State Michael Watson issued the following statement.
In response to inaccurate statements circulating on social media regarding lobbyist registration, it is imperative Mississippians are provided with accurate information.
Miss. Code Ann. Section 5-8-3 defines a “Lobbyist” as:
(i) An individual who is employed and receives payments, or who contracts for economic consideration, including reimbursement for reasonable travel and living expenses, for the purpose of lobbying;
(ii) An individual who represents a legislative or public official or public employee, or who represents a person, organization, association or other group, for the purpose of lobbying;
(iii) A sole proprietor, owner, part owner or shareholder in a business who has a pecuniary interest in legislative or executive action, who engages in lobbying activities; or
(iv) Any individual described in subparagraphs (i), (ii) or (iii) of this paragraph (l) who is employed by or has contracted with any agency, legislative or public official or public employee, or any other public entity for the purpose of providing any type of consulting or other similar service but also engages in any type of lobbying activities. Such individual shall not qualify for any exemption under Section 5-8-7.
Miss. Code Ann. Section 5-8-7 does provide exceptions to those who must register as a lobbyist, but there are no uniform exceptions for someone who gives or promises less than $200.00 or more to public officials. Each exemption is nuanced and deals with factual scenarios.
Undoubtedly, lobbyists are not limited to those who receive compensation and give or promise $200.00 or more to public officials, as externally stated. Only two definitions of lobbyist used in Miss. Code Ann. Section 5-8-3 reference employment or payment and each exemption requires specific application of fact.
If you have questions about your responsibilities under Mississippi’s lobbying laws, please reach out to our office to get trusted sources of information. If you have questions, please contact Debra Monroe at 601-359-9412 or email lobbying@sos.ms.gov.
17 comments:
the lobbyists....the 4th branch of government.
they operate under no rules
as for their fees.....................
well, i once asked a lobbyist what he charged to take up a cause before the congress and his answer was''whats it worth to you?''
lobbying is legalized bribery , pure and simple.
hit up ticos on any night during the legislative session and watch em at work.
Why did we need this definition?
Chucky Lumbanda and his folks must didn't get that Memo! Stuff getting ready to come down the pipe
Because the MS Secretary of State is illegally trying to curtail First Amendment Rights by issuing social media releases stating that asking others to contact their Legislators, etc. is "lobbying," and as such, they must be registered as lobbyists. He is wrong.
Watson also took money from draft kings...
Detest lobbying. Wink, nudge, gift, under the table crap.
It should be illegal for any legislator, city counsel, anyone in public office to receive anything.
What if I’m a lobbyist hobbyist?
The way all of these high-profile politicians in our state are vehemently fighting everyone who is outspoken on the school choice issue makes it look like there's a lot of lobbyist money being thrown at the politicians. When an overwhelmingly number or people are outspoken and against it, where there's smoke, there's fire. There is not one person I know who is in favor of it, that I know of. I have not seen very many people on social media that are outspoken in favor of it, sans the politicians or people tied to politicians. Something is amiss here.....The politicians have pissed in their cheerios with the teachers and many others. Even the majority of private school parents are against it, and people are saying that is who it benefits the most.
If lobbyists couldn't pay pols no one would run for office. It's like their 13th check. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
School choice is like the 21st century version of "busing."
@1246, evidently you missed the lecture; nobody said anything about you or someone else "saying" to contact your legislator made one a lobbyist.
But spending the money to promote getting you or me or anybody who reads the message is lobbying. If you wanted to walk up to each and every person you saw and asked them to contact their legislator - and nobody was paying you to do it and you were not spending any money in the effort; no harm no foul.
But when you spend over $200 on the effort - the purchasing of a mass text, whereby you 'told' thousands of people with the one written message - you have now triggered the statute. Same could be said if you ran the ad on television and radio (kinda like Mississippi Voter Alliance has been doing with their ad promoting their position on enaction of a new, legal statute allowing ballot initiatives has been doing now for months), that triggers the statute. But there is no Mississippi Voter Alliance registered as a lobbyist with the SOS! Another one that the SOS should be after as well - wonder why that clear expenditure of thousands of dollars has not raised his skirts yet.
Damn 2:44, maybe we should meet, except I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like to spend much time with you or your circle of friends. I''m not a high-profile politician, or a politician of any stripe for that matter and I'm big time in favor of it. I could be your first! Imagine that; busting your cherry that easily. Yes, there are a number of people outspoken against it - many of whom have their livelihood dependent on maintaining the status quo whether it is working for the good of all or only for their personal good. No doubt about it, many many of those folks very loud in their speaking out
Funny though, I know many many other folks who are also outspoken in favor for it, and they are not the high-profile or any other profile politician you seem to think are the only ones in that category. Yes, some teachers are against this, but there are many teachers that are for it as well. Yes, some private school parents are against this (because they are afraid, well well kinda gotta be quiet here because it might sound a little racist but lets go ahead and say it, they are afraid their private school might end up accepting a black person or someone else that they don't think is up to their status) and I'm sure plenty of private school parents are also for it; don't know how you made your calculation that "a majority" of these parents are against it since you don't know ANYBODY that is for it, or else so you claim.
And your basic premise is wrong as you state who 'benefits the most' - its not the private schools that will benefit. Its the poor kid who lives in a ghetto and is stuck in a failing school and can't get out because the mail that comes to his or her house has a certain zip code on the envelope. That's the person that benefits the most, the one that wants a good education, who's parents want their kids to have a good education but can't afford to move, and you and the government tell them tough titty, you are stuck because the government says so; you must go to 'their' school and put up with 'their' administration of that school whether it is working or not.
Sorry you don't have a circle of friends that can discuss this with you - or even know anybody be they friend or not - because your life must be very dull or your education level be very low. Recognizing that others, not just high-profile politicians, might have a different opinion than one's on must be a very lonely life to have to live.
Lobbyist money thrown at politicians? Tell me it's not so. Shocked I say, shocked.
Watson should shut his mouth because proper conduct fears no exposure - and guilty dogs bark the loudest. What an idiot.
I don't know that Watson is a drinker, but he must be if he believes a social media post asking voters to respond is lobbying.
Were the people riding up and down the streets with loud speakers mounted on top of their cars, 60 years ago, lobbyists?
I think the argument boils down to education vs culture. We can all agree education is a gateway to a better life. However, forcing this policy will certainly result in an artificial blending of cultures and backgrounds that will not likely go well for the greater good. I think this policy will harm more students than it will help due to a cultural imbalance, but it will make for interesting sociological and educational research.
Post a Comment