Oregon's weak disclosure rules let lobbyists play both sides

As the Trump administration has gutted federal support for the fight against cancer over the past six months, the disruptions in federal funding have forced states to make impossible choices about life-saving research amid severe budget shortfalls.

With the highest cancer death rate of any western state, Oregon will face disproportionate pressure to mitigate the impacts to research - and the scientific expertise it attracts. But as lawmakers work to compensate for the federal damage, lobbyists play a decisive role behind the scenes, sometimes on both sides of an issue.

On issues like cancer, lobbyists work both for groups treating cancer patients and for groups producing carcinogens at industrial scale. Many of Oregon's largest providers of health care or health insurance - from Oregon Health & Science University to Moda Health to PacificSource - share lobbyists with fossil fuel corporations and their trade associations. US Oncology and the Willamette Valley Cancer Institute share a lobbyist with Big Tobacco conglomerates and utilities such as PacifiCorp, whose coal-heavy power supply is the dirtiest in Oregon, spewing carcinogens across the state.

These double-agent lobbyists don't just play both sides of cancer. In conservation, the Deschutes River Alliance shares a lobbyist with Cascade Natural Gas, whose leaky gas pipelines run across the Deschutes watershed. National environmental organizations such as the Nature Conservancy share lobbyists with Oregon's largest fossil fuel polluters like Portland General Electric, which also shares its lobbyist with Renewable Northwest and other clean energy groups. Oregon housing authorities, working hard to provide affordable housing across the state, have the same lobbyist as Airbnb.

Because Oregon has weak lobbying disclosure and transparency rules, lobbyists are not required to inform clients nor obtain their consent before representing adverse interests. Lobbyists also need not disclose when they take a position on legislation on behalf of a client, leaving voters in the dark about which moneyed interests may be pushing their desired legislation.

Sometimes, corporate clients lobby in public. Earlier this year, for instance, Pacific Power openly advocated for House Bill 3917, which could have shielded utilities from liability in wildfire victims' lawsuits, potentially saving utilities billions. More often, lobbyists advise lawmakers behind closed doors with no obligation to report the meeting, disclose their position, or inform any of their clients whose interests might be harmed.

Does the lobbying firm Miller Public Affairs tell clients US Oncology and Willamette Valley Cancer Institute that its client Altria, a tobacco giant, pays three to six times more than they do for the firm's services? Does Lane Transit District know that its climate goals may be undermined by its lobbyist, Oxley & Associates, working for the Western States Petroleum Association? Has NW Public Affairs told its client the Wild Salmon Center that it also lobbies on behalf of Oregon's largest gas utility, NW Natural, whose facilities have allegedly contaminated the waterways where salmon return to spawn? Oregon law allows lobbyists to have such conflicts of interest with total impunity.

From cancer to conservation to utilities, lobbyists' conflicts of interest also work to the advantage of unpopular clients. By meeting with legislators about sympathetic clients like providers of health care and affordable housing, lobbyists can easily bring up the interests of a tobacco or fossil fuel client on another issue. Conflicts of interest help launder the lobbyist's reputation on certain issues while getting access for clients whose talking points lawmakers might not otherwise hear.

Oregon is not alone in its dangerously permissive system. In California, lobbyists have cashed in on simultaneously supporting and opposing forever chemicals. But states like Washington and Colorado have strengthened disclosure rules and transparency with clients while Oregon lags behind. In an era of reform on issues like Oregon's campaign finance laws, it's time for lawmakers to deliver by addressing all aspects of money in politics. If voters get to know what corporations donate to campaigns, why don't they get to know who's introducing those corporations' preferred legislation once in office?

To improve public confidence in ethical government, Oregon could make two key reforms. First, lobbyists could be required to disclose every position they take for a client on a piece of legislation. Second, lobbyists could be obligated to inform their clients before undertaking any advocacy adverse to their interests and obtain their consent to do so. Together, these reforms would make corporations' extensive influence in lawmaking more transparent, and they would thwart lobbyists' ability to use conflicts of interest to benefit clients such as tobacco and fossil fuel companies.

Aidan Bassett is the Oregon Director of F Minus, a nonprofit dedicated to transparency and ethics in lobbying. An attorney and an avid reader, he lives in Eugene.

oregoncapitalchronicle.com

Kate Titus serves as Common Cause's state director in Oregon, where she leads the organization's work to fight fascism and realize the unfinished promise of democracy. Titus is an expert in democracy, campaign finance reform and grassroots organizing and stands as a leading voice in Oregon's voting rights space.