California governments spend millions lobbying Sacramento

Most California taxpayers would tell you they hate that special interests spend so much money lobbying government officials in Sacramento. But what about when the special interest is their own local government?

Nearly one out of five of the special interests currently registered to lobby in the state of California (at least 16 percent) are themselves California government entities. That includes at least 170 cities, 42 counties, 24 community college districts, 63 school districts and 204 local agencies, like joint-powers authorities or special districts.

In just the first three months of 2023, these entities spent more than $10.8 million lobbying officials in Sacramento, both state lawmakers and the executive branch. On average, the governments spent nearly $20,000 each on lobbying in the first quarter of the year.

This isn’t exactly how representative democracy is depicted in your high school textbook.

As Golden State students learn in civics class, each lawmaker in the state legislature represents a particular geographic piece of California. Once elected, they’re supposed to represent the interests of those locations in Sacramento – and, in theory at least, those interests include not just the voters who live there, but the governments that exist there, too.

Nearly one out of five of the special interests currently registered to lobby in the state of California (at least 16 percent) are themselves California government entities.

But as the legislature has become more professionalized, with more and more interests vying for lawmakers’ attention and the stakes growing ever higher, local governments and other governmental entities that should have a direct line to legislators get lost behind powerful and deep-pocketed special interests.

Today, often the only way for a humble Central Valley city to get time and attention from a state legislator – or for a major city like Los Angeles to get the time and attention their leaders feel they need – is to pay for an outside lobbying firm or for an in-house lobbyist (or lobbyists).

That might not be what the founding fathers had in mind. But at the end of the day, lawmakers get elected by the voters in their districts, not governments. And local governments need money from the state. Desperately.

“While in a perfect world, representative bodies would take all stakeholders in their district into account and there would be no role for lobbyists, in reality, legislators represent voters, not cities or counties, or special districts,” said Dr. Kim Nalder, Sacramento State professor of political science, in an email to Capitol Weekly. “Certainly, Californians might be taken aback by the idea of taxpayer money being spent on lobbyists, when it’s all being spent by and on ‘government’. But local government entities are often beholden to state policymakers for funding and policy.

“For example, school districts have much of their funding run through the state since Prop. 13 passed in 1978. It makes sense for local government entities to want to reach out beyond the state legislators from their own region. It takes large coalitions to get legislation passed, so lobbying widely is wise. Realistically, unless the courts drastically refigure the rules of lobbying, any entity that needs the legislature to smile upon it will hire lobbyists. Private industry and wealthy interests do it. Would we really want governments left out of the mix?”

In just the first three months of 2023, these entities spent more than $10.8 million lobbying officials in Sacramento, both state lawmakers and the executive branch.

The overwhelming majority of the governments registered to lobby in Sacramento contract out with one private lobbying firm to handle their lobbying. But many governments contract with multiple lobbying firms.

Six governments (the Irvine Ranch Water District, the Los Angeles Community College District, the Orange County Department of Education, Sacramento County, the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the Tahoe City Public Utilities District) contracted with three lobbying firms. Two governments (the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California) contracted with four. Los Angeles County contracted with five.

“The South Coast Air Quality Management District is a multi-county, multi-jurisdictional agency that covers over 10,000 square miles and is responsible for the health of more than 17 million residents, which is about 40% of the state’s population. It also has some of the worst air pollution in the nation,” said Connie Mejia, spokeswoman for the district, in an email. “Having said that, our Governing Board has decided to secure the services of three lobbying firms to assist our small in-house legislative staff with our efforts to meet federal air quality standards and help protect the agency against legislative efforts that threaten our jurisdictional authority.  Each firm has its own unique area of expertise (state/federal), relationships and constituencies that strengthen our profile in Sacramento in a way that would not be possible with just one firm.”

The in-house legislative staff Mejia mentioned in her email are not registered as lobbyists on Cal-Access.

“Due to the large volume of legislation introduced, our lobbying firms keep us informed about any legislation that may impact the agency and ensure that we are at the table lobbying for our positions on bills,” Mejia said. “The firms are also in the Capital every day when we cannot be, acting as our eyes and ears on legislative issues that can have an impact on our work.”

Kimberly Nava, Public Information Director for Sacramento County, said the county’s four lobbying firms specialize in different matters – from general state issues to water issues.

“These specialized lobbyists are vital to protect county resources,” she said in an email. “Lobbyists serve as advocates for the County, ensuring our concerns are heard and considered.”

Ian Hanigan, spokesman for the Orange County Department of Education, said OCDE contracts with one of its lobbying firms, Ball/Frost Group, for advocacy and updates on developing legislation and budget proposals in Sacramento. Hanigan said the department also contracts with its two other firms, School Services of California and Capital Advisors Group, “to receive state budget updates and timely information about other fiscal developments.”

“While these firms do not advocate specifically for OCDE,” Hanigan said, “the expert information they provide is indispensable to our long-term budgeting and planning processes, as well as our statutory efforts to support 28 local school districts [in Orange County] as they draft their own spending plans.”

Los Angeles County and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California were also two of several government entities (including the Regional Water Authority, the Rural County Representatives of California, Santa Clara County, the Santa Clara County Office of Education, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the San Diego Superintendent of Schools and the San Diego Unified School District) to contract with lobbying firms and employ in-house lobbyists.

Los Angeles County far and away spent the most – in raw dollars – on lobbying among all governments in the first quarter of 2023, more than $316,000 between its lobbying firms and in-house lobbyists. The second highest was the Rural County Representatives of California, a JPA of 40 of California’s rural counties, with more than $216,000. All of the other governments spent less than $200,000. Dozens of governments spent no money at all.

“These specialized lobbyists are vital to protect county resources…Lobbyists serve as advocates for the County, ensuring our concerns are heard and considered.”

“As the nation’s most populous county—representing a quarter of California’s population – Los Angeles County has a duty to make sure our constituents’ interests are represented in Sacramento, and to advocate for a fair share of state funding to meet our extensive safety net responsibilities to those we serve,” said Los Angeles County spokesman Jesus Ruiz in an email to Capitol Weekly. “Our in-house and contracted lobbyists work hard to protect our residents’ interests and to shape policies that align with the priorities of the County and our Board of Supervisors.

“With an ever-changing legislative and regulatory landscape, our lobbyists also ensure that the County stays informed and help us to anticipate any potential impacts to our residents, our programs and our budget. In short, they give our residents a seat at the table and a voice in the conversation.

“Finally, we would urge you to consider counties’ lobbying expenditures in the context of the size of the populations they represent. On a per capita basis, LA County’s average spending on lobbying is lower than that of other comparable California counties.”

The lobbying firm with the most government contracts was the Capitol Advisors Group, whose partners include former State Superintendent Jack O’Connell, representing more than 70. The firm with the next highest number of government contracts was Townsend Public Affairs, with more than 65.

Susan Shelley, spokeswoman for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, said the use of taxpayer dollars to lobby other government officials deserves scrutiny. She said given the amount of money the state disburses to local governments, city councils and county commissions can reasonably argue that they need lobbyists in Sacramento to help secure those funds.

But she said it’s also reasonable to question whether local governments need to pay for professional lobbyists to handle those tasks.

“The government spends too much money,” Shelley said, echoing a common refrain from the association.

She also noted that legislators and local elected officials often are looking out first for their own political careers, which can lead to wasteful spending or policies that aren’t in the public’s best interest.

Capitol Weekly asked representatives of several government entities about the money their organizations spend on lobbying. Their perspectives painted a little-seen picture of the practical mechanics of governing in California.

For example, Mary-Ann Warmerdam, senior vice president of government affairs for the Rural County Representatives of California, said their member governments face unique pressures, as they represent roughly 63 percent of the land in California, but only 12 percent of the population.

Thus, when the member counties of the Rural County Representatives of California have to engage in infrastructure issues, like broadband access or electric vehicle charging stations, they have a lot a needs – literally, a lot of ground to cover – but they don’t possess a lot of voters in their areas to attract lawmakers’ attention.

Therefore, they’ve realized lobbying gives them the best edge in getting the help they need from the state, even if, as Warmerdam acknowledged, the money spent on lobbying could, in theory, go to other rural county needs.

“I don’t think it’s a frustration,” Warmerdam said of the predicament their members county face. “It’s just a recognition that it’s in our best interest” to spend on lobbying.

Compare that to what Andrea Pook said. She’s a spokeswoman for the East Bay Municipal Utility District, which spent $62,420 on three in-house lobbyists during the first quarter of 2023.

While East Bay MUD reported lobbying on more than two dozen bills in the first three months of the year, Pook said a major function of the district’s in-house lobbying crew is simply educating the state legislators who represent the district’s geographic about its issues and needs.

Today, often the only way for a humble Central Valley city to get time and attention from a state legislator – or for a major city like Los Angeles to get the time and attention their leaders feel they need – is to pay for an outside lobbying firm or for an in-house lobbyist (or lobbyists).

Just the very act of informing those lawmakers about what the district is doing or needs counts as lobbying under state law.

Juliet Hidalgo, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles Community College District, said her district contracts with three separate lobbying firms as a way to cut costs.

“It’s a ‘bench’ approach,” she said, explaining that whenever the community college district has a lobbying need, it seeks cost estimates from its three firms and then chooses the proposal that is the most cost-effective. “It keeps the costs down,” Hidalgo said, noting that the district’s three firms are never working simultaneously on the same thing.

John Fabris, spokesman for the Irvine Ranch Water District, said in an email that his employer “actively works to promote legislation and policy initiatives that allow us to protect our customers’ interests, keep their rates low, secure funding for water-infrastructure projects, and enhance the quality and reliability of water supplies locally and throughout the state. Often these efforts are done in collaboration with other California water agencies and associations.

“To help achieve those objectives, IRWD retains separate lobbyists to address regulatory issues and legislative issues:

• “The Oñate Group and Resolute work as one to advocate for IRWD on legislative matters. The two individuals who work on IRWD’s legislative issues happen to work for two different firms, so there are two contracts.
• “Cliff Moriyama Consulting lobbies for IRWD on regulatory matters, which have become more complex in recent years.”

Music Watson, chief of staff for the San Diego County Office of Education, said that her office has contracted with an outside lobbying firm as well as employed an in-house lobbyist, but, as of the end of June, the in-house lobbyist retired. Going forward, her office will just rely on its outside lobbying firm, the Capitol Advisors Group.

“State leaders consider and debate a complex array of issues every day and cannot be expected to be deep policy experts on every issue,” Watson told Capitol Weekly in an email. “Education leaders across San Diego County have recognized for years the important value of engaging state leaders, including the governor and both parties of the state legislature, on the budget and policy decisions they make that impact public school students. Our legislative advocates work to provide decision makers a local perspective on issues, help avert unintended consequences in legislation, and to make things better for the nearly 1,000 schools and 500,000 public school students in the region.”