Skip to main content Skip to office menu Skip to footer
Capital IconMinnesota Legislature

Lobbyist disclosure requirements

Published (4/20/2012)
By Nick Busse
Share on: 



The House voted April 17 to tighten disclosure requirements for lobbyists, but rejected a measure that would have impacted groups that disseminate “model legislation” to state lawmakers.

Sponsored by Rep. Joyce Peppin (R-Rogers) and Sen. Ray Vandeveer (R-Forest Lake), HF2684/ SF2334* would clarify reporting requirements for public utility companies. It would require that lobbying disclosures be itemized rather than reported as one total number.

On the House floor, DFLers successfully offered several amendments to add to the list of types of spending lobbyists in the state must publicly disclose, including:

• spending related to efforts to influence recommendations of a legislative council or commission;

• spending on industry conventions, facility tours, travel arrangements, private jets and other hospitality-related expenses; and

• spending on efforts to promote or defeat a ballot question or a candidate for public office.

Peppin said she would accept the DFL amendments as “friendly” because she believed they are already covered by current law.

The bill was passed 131-0. The Senate, which passed its version 64-0 on March 27, refused to accept the changes. A conference committee has been requested to work out the differences.

Rep. Ryan Winkler (DFL-Golden Valley) unsuccessfully offered an amendment that would have expanded the definition of lobbying to include groups that disseminate “model legislation” for state legislatures to adopt. It would have forced disclosure of spending on things like hotel or travel accommodations for lawmakers to attend conferences where model legislation is promoted.

Supporters said the amendment would bring greater transparency to the activities of groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council, which many Democrats allege has greatly influenced Republican legislative priorities.

“People who want to influence legislation are paying a lot of money to bring legislators to nice locations to influence them, and the public is not being told,” said Rep. Tina Liebling (DFL-Rochester).

Opponents said the amendment could have unintended consequences, such as impacting nonpartisan organizations like the National Conference of State Legislatures. Rep. Sondra Erickson (R-Princeton) said she regularly attends a variety of conferences around the country to learn from colleagues and discuss new ideas.

“I go to those conferences to glean ideas from other states … this is what we’re supposed to do,” she said.

The amendment failed on a vote of 60-72.

Session Weekly More...


Session Weekly Home



Related Stories


Voters to decide on photo ID
Fate of constitutional question now rests in the people’s hands
(view full story) Published 4/6/2012

Proving who you say you are
House votes to approve ballot question on photo ID for voters
(view full story) Published 3/23/2012

Where the people are
Population growth varies across state but has big redistricting impact
(view full story) Published 5/6/2011

Drawing the lines
Redistricting plan is far from bipartisan acceptance
(view full story) Published 5/6/2011

First Reading: Identification, please?
Lawmakers weigh photo ID requirement for voters
(view full story) Published 2/11/2011

At Issue: A push here, a bubble there
State redistricting is a balancing act that’s not often easy
(view full story) Published 1/21/2011