AN ORDINANCE relating to lobbying regulations; expanding lobbying regulations to cover grassroots lobbying campaigns; correcting typographical errors, correcting section references, clarifying regulations, and making minor amendments; and amending Chapter 2.06 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
The bill passes. Metro will sign it. Will the clerk please affect my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Hey, colleagues. Item eight. Well, the clerk please read item eight into the record. Agenda item. Eight Council Bill 119968 Relating to. Lobby regulations, expanding lobby regulations to cover grassroot lobbying campaigns, correcting typographical errors, correcting section references, clarifying regulations. And making minor amendments, and amending Chapter 2.06 of the Settlements. Four Code. The committee recommends the bill passed Councilmembers Gonzalez, Suarez and Strauss in favor and with an abstention from council members together. Well, as chair of the committee, I will provide the committee report and then again open the floor to comments for folks on this particular bill in just a moment here. Sorry, I'm pulling up my notes here. Okay. Colleagues, this bill comes to us from the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission. It was transmitted to my office last December. That's December 2019. But between my maternity leave and responding to the multiple crises that is 2020, it has been some time before we could take this bill up. So this bill has been in the queue for approximately one year now. It had been the hope of the Senate Ethics and Elections Commission that this bill would have actually passed last year or early part of this year so that they could spend most of the year implementing and doing outreach on this bill. But be it as it may, we are here now and have an opportunity to take this bill up. I do take a lot of pride in our good governance and transparency measures of the city of Seattle. However, our lobbying regulations is one area where we can see some improvement. Chair Nicholas Brown of the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission noted at committee last week that absent these regulations, there has been a large amount of money being leveraged to lobby and influence legislation. On September 21st, at all times reported that there were groups planning thousands of dollars on targeted social media ads that reached nearly 500,000 users to influence the public about budget changes. And we still don't know who is behind this effort to influence city policy that is related to indirect lobbying in particular. If this were a traditional campaign or candidate, we would have transparency and disclosure requirements. So this has long been a gray area without any transparency, and I believe very strongly that it's time to bring transparency to that body of of that area of our lobbying regulation and work that happens. I believe this legislation is good for transparency of the WHO and the resources being used to influence policy and investments or diet or divestments across our city. It brings us into alignment with disclosure requirements at the state level. So are the three parts of this bill. And with my amendment, it will it would clarify membership communications to address any potential concerns related to how organizations communicate directly with their members. I want to thank the Ethics and Elections Commission and Wayne Barnett in particular, and all of his team for bringing this legislation forward for council's consideration before the end of this year. And again, this bill effectively does three things. The first thing is it would require disclosure of. Disclosure of lobbying communications between lobbyists and department directors and their deputy directors or their direct reports. It would also require that lobbyists disclose any any financial relationships or other kind of relationships they may have with political campaigns, whether it be for elected officials or ballot measures. And then lastly, the last piece is related to indirect lobbying, which would require sponsors, i.e., people who are organizations that are paying for the indirect lobbying, not the people who are actually engaging in the lobbying, not members of the public, but those sponsors who are effectively footing the bill to encourage members of the public to lobby council members for a particular position. It would require those sponsors who spend $750 in one month or 1500 dollars in a period of three months to file disclosures with Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission to disclose both those lobbying efforts and funding sources, and also the expenditures that they have made in that in that in that area. I'm happy to address my amendment in particular that would, again, make this council bill more consistent with the state's law on lobbying activities by exempting internal membership communications. So functionally, what that would mean is if you are a member of an organization sending an email about an issue or action to another member of your organization, that activity would not be counted as part of activities for that would that would require disclosure to the Ethics and Elections Commission. So similar to our state law. The amendment to that we will consider in a moment does not currently define what membership is by design, but its membership selects. An election commission intends to engage in a rulemaking process and it will include stakeholder ing and further community input to better define what membership means. So let's just end by saying that I want to thank some of the organizations that we've engaged in my office for giving us their input and asking lots of really good questions, including the Seattle Human Services Coalition, who flagged some concerns for us last week and gave us a very long list of questions to answer that we were able to answer. My understanding is that the membership exemption amendment that we will be discussing and considering later as part of this legislation does address the concerns by by organized by the Seattle Human Services Coalition at least. So I will end my remarks there and am happy to now call for any additional. Comment? Well, actually, I think what I have to do now is we have to consider the amendments first. According to my script. So we're gonna go ahead and do that. I move. I'm sorry. I'm now going to acknowledge Councilmember Swan, who I understand has an amendment as mercyone. Thank you. I move Amendment one of our email removing the restriction on grassroots organizing, which is removing the section of this bill regarding what the legislation calls, quote unquote, grassroots lobbying, which unfortunately some councilmembers are calling in direct lobbying. But make no mistake, this is about the grassroots, as I mentioned this morning. This bill makes three updates, the lobbying rules. Two I support. But the third regulates what the law calls grassroots lobbying. This is not lobbying. This is this is not professional lobbyists paid to talk to elected officials. This is grassroots campaigns that organized communities to make their voices heard. The rule requires any grassroots campaign that spends at least $750 in a month to have to disclose its expenditures, donors and aims. In my view, this stance transparency on its head. When I think of transparency, I think that elected officials need to be transparent to the public. This bill requires the opposite. It requires the public to give their information to elected officials. Essentially, this is the political establishment demanding to know all the organizing details of ordinary people or any small group of ordinary people or any movement making demands on elected officials in committee. Council members even complain that they get contacted by the public and they don't know how to blame. I Alice Lockhart of 350 Seattle said it correctly when she said that she and the Seattle leadership are all equally aghast at this attempt. And so I am also I share those concerns. I'm extremely concerned that this will create a truly chilling effect on genuine grassroots organizing. It will be easy for Astroturf organizations and corporate advertising campaigns to make these disclosures, but for genuine grassroots movements that may not have that will not have professional accountants or treasurers, this paperwork will become , frankly, impossible. Imagine if this legislation was on the books during the Justice for George Floyd protests. During those protests, hundreds or even thousands of people donated to many community organizations organizing marches and making demands like the city council should defund the police. Renting the sound system for a single rally can cost more than $250, depending on the size of the protest. Let's push the protest organizers in an impossible position. It is technically possible to track down the donor information of everyone who donates over $25 to the protest. But it requires that to become the major focus of the organizers who are generally volunteers and working people themselves, and who should be spending their energies on the rally itself. Of course, it's not the intention of the FCC to penalize genuine volunteer grassroots organizers who are unable to collect all the information required. But the enforcement of these regulations will largely be complaint based, just like other S.E.C. regulations. Now, I would guarantee that there are plenty of Trump supporters and right wing people across the country who would be ideologically motivated to file complaint after complaint against movements in Seattle. My office has talked about this legislation with Wayne Barnette, executive director of the FCC. I really appreciate his time walking us through it. But the reality is there are several questions that have no answer yet that are really fundamental to the impact of this legislation on genuine grassroots campaigns. If there's a if there's a protest on an issue, at what point does it meet the definition of grassroots lobbying? If it's all about a specific bill, that could be straightforward. But what if what if it's an issue like defund the police? What about Black Lives Matter generally? Unlike election campaigns, which have a clear start when campaign staff can be trained by the FCC movement grow organically. There's no clear start start moment for campaign staff to be trained by the FCC. So how will volunteer organizers be made aware of their responsibilities? How should volunteers track donations thrown in the buckets of protest, which is a common strategy for grassroots fundraising? There are no answers to any of these questions yet, and I understand the concept for these rules is more around corporate advertising campaigns, like when the soda industry runs ads against a sweetened beverage tax. But the sad reality is that it will have it will create a chilling effect on community organizing by burying them in red tape. And the disclosure will be easy for those for the corporations. They already have accountants and batteries of attorneys to make it trivial for them to complete the paperwork, and it will be the volunteer organizers that will be penalized. Finally, I also understand that this language has been taken word for word, almost word for word from the state laws regulating grassroots campaign targeting the state government. However, the state regulations are the last place I would look for advice on how to create a welcoming environment for grassroots organizing. Olympia is notoriously inaccessible to ordinary people, not necessarily because of this rule particularly, but I think the disregard this law will have for grassroots organizing is emblematic of that problem. The amendment. My office is prepared and I thank central staff. Send for getting it ready rapidly. What got from the billion dollar sexual and grassroots campaigns and would leave the other two issues taken up by the bill unchanged. If this amendment fails, I will be voting no on the bill as a whole, not because I object to those other two issues, but because, on balance, without this amendment, the bill would be an attack on grassroots organizing and would not, on balance, benefit ordinary people. And we need to be clear. Mass movements have been the source of every progressive change in the history of this country, including the recent developments like the $15 minimum wage and the Amazon tax. I'm not surprised that the political establishment is so eager to gather the information of grassroots organizers because movement building succeeds. I also reject the false dichotomy that has been presented that when governments are going to prison. Gonzalez spoke to this in the briefing this morning. She said that this does not affect people who call in or emailed the council. It only affects organizers. Well, because our movements are only successful when we get organized. It's as simple as that. So essentially, the council is saying that you're fine if you call or email as individuals, which often has zero impact on political outcomes unless you're a CEO or a wealthy person. But if you succeed in getting organized enough among yourselves to be effective as ordinary people, then the political establishment wants to know who you are and what you are doing. I think we need to understand that that's what's going on. Finally, socialists and rank and file labor should remember the McCarthy era, the Red Scare, the blacklist, the political establishment demanding the information of genuine grassroots organizing has throughout history been used again and again to attack the mass movements of regular people. And if the council approves this law, it will be just another step towards, you know, really creating hindrances to grassroots organizing during critical movements in future struggles. I urge council members to support this amendment. And as I said, if it fails, I will be voting no on the bill as a whole. Colleagues. Any additional comments on Amendment one? Well. I would just say really quickly that I do oppose Amendment One. And I think that it's unfortunate that there's been such a mischaracterization of what the indirect lobbying portion of the underlying bill actually does. There is nothing in the council bill that is before the city council that that would in any way, shape or form lead a reasonable person to conclude that folks who engage in protest movement, organizing protest movements or organizing work would suddenly become lobbyists. Under this particular legislation, I think the bill is pretty clear in defining who a lobbyist is. It talks about how a lobbying entity is a law firm, consulting firm, public relations firm, or other similar organization that engages in lobbying through its employees or agents. It defines a lobbyist as an any individual who lobbies for compensation except individuals who might be reimbursed for minor incidental personal expenses related to that lobbying. It defines a lobbyist employer as any person who employs or compensates a lobbyist or a lobbying entity for lobbying to promote the person's interests. So again, this particular legislation is specifically targeted towards those individuals who are professional lobbyists. There's nothing in this bill that targets organizers as we know them to be. In fact, this simply says that if if, if, if there is a lobbyist who is compensated for the lobbying activity and those lobbyists are sponsoring public campaigns to influence legislation at city council or at the city as a whole, whether through direct communication to council members, in direct communication to council members or the mayor's office or their directors, department directors or those deputy directors, then they are simply required to disclose that activity and their expenditures related to those activities. Again, we are taking a careful approach here through and through Amendment two, which we'll discuss if this amendment fails. If this amendment passes, the amendment to will not be on the table because amendment to would amend the indirect lobbying portion of the Council bill as passed out of committee. But amendment to makes very clear that this does not cover any communications from organizations to their members. And that was an important that's an important amendment to respond to concerns from nonprofit organizations and other small organizations who don't want to be put in a position and shouldn't be put in a position to have to communicate, to have to disclose every time they send out an email blast, for example, to their member list around a particular around a particular issue. So so I will go ahead and link up. Okay. Sorry. Go ahead. Councilman ROSQUETA, please. Thank you very much. Madam President. I did abstain on this vote in committee. And I think that the concerns that I had are addressed by the amendment that your office is bringing forward to address the underlying concern about engagement with various members and making sure that grassroots, grassroots lobbying and those organizations that provide that vital service can clearly see that that is not only prohibited, permitted activities, but encouraged as we want, as we seek to get information directly from individuals affected by policy decisions. So thank you, Madam President, for bringing forward your amendment, because that is being brought forward today. I am not going to be supporting this amendment that we're currently discussing, but we'll be supporting your amendment to your bill. And that addresses my concerns that I think you can sometimes get. And I appreciate the the back and forth we had in committee that was about about that particular issue and was happy that we were able to work with some organizing folks and organizations and community to make sure that we could bring forward that membership exemption, which does exist in state law, but unfortunately haven't made it into the base city bill. So I think this is an improvement on the original bill as it was introduced. So okay, right now we are considering Amendment One, which is the amendment as a sponsored and for. Hosted by council member the wants hearing no additional comments on Amendment one. We're going to go ahead and ask the clerk to please call the role on the adoption of Amendment one. So aren't. Yes. Strauss. No problem. No. Whereas now you talk at. Lewis. Oh. Morales. Well. No. ROSQUETA. Okay. No. PETERSON No. Council. President Gonzalez no. One in favor. Eight opposed. The motion fails. The amendment is not adopted and the bill is before the Council. I will now move to amend Council Bill 119968 as presented on Amendment two, which was recently distributed. Is there a second? Second. Thank you so much. It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment two as sponsor of this amendment. I'll go ahead and just recap really quickly, because I know we've been discussing it what it does. So Amendment two again would make council Bill 119968 more consistent with the state's law on lobbying activities by exempting internal membership communications . And again, this amendment would, with this amendment, the sale efforts and Elections Commission will be tasked with a public process in defining membership. This can look like a number of things like dues paying, being a voting member, electing leadership, and by not being prescriptive in the legislation. At this moment, we will allow CSC some flexibility in how they define this in their rulemaking process with the benefit of having public input. So again, colleagues, I think that this amendment, too, does address some of the concerns that we heard through additional engagement and conversation in committee around how excuse me, how organizations who have memberships are going to be able to continue to communicate with those members without without being subjected to cumbersome disclosure requirements in the new lobbying regulations. I do believe that this amendment does address those concerns with the understanding that there will be a period of six months in 2021 where the Senate Ethics and Elections Commission is going to engage in public education and additional community public input processes. And then they Director Burnet, indicated to us in committee that they are looking at taking a compliance first approach here. So they're not looking to have this be a gotcha kind of piece of legislation. They want they want to encourage compliance and they want to educate folks in in how to comply. And that's that's the approach they're going to take as they go through initially implementing this particular component of the bill. So with that being said, I would strongly encourage folks to support Amendment two as an improvement to the bill as introduced and discussed in committee. Are there any additional comments on Amendment two? Councilmember Morales, please. Thanks. I do have several questions. I'm going to try to lump them together and see if we can do this quickly. Mm hmm. So I have a question about, you know, we've been working lately, especially with a lot of coalitions and that are it's kind of a mix of organizations that are mostly volunteer based and some organizations that do have staff that have a paid staff to help with some of their work. And so I'm wondering what this means for coalitions. And I think this is related, but also trying to understand if there is a distinction between how nonprofit organizations would be impacted by this and for profit organizations that might be coming to council with things that they're trying to do. Mm hmm. That'll be a question. Yeah. On the one on the last point around for profit and nonprofit, the lobbying regulations as a whole don't distinguish between whether you're a for profit or a nonprofit. It's about the status of the person who is doing the the lobbying. So. So there's there are several triggers. If you look at the at the underlying bill that really sort of walk through what what the first threshold is, are you a lobbyist? If you're not a lobbyist, meaning that you're not paid to engage in lobbying behavior, then it that nothing else matters. It's a it's nothing is going to change for you. But if you meet the definition of lobbying and then and then and being a lobbyist, then you have to register as such. And if you engage in sponsoring campaigns for $750 a month or $1,500 over a period of three months, then that means that you would have to disclose your lobbying activity along with your expenditures related to whatever. Public campaign you launched to influence legislation. So. So there isn't a distinction in terms of if you're for profit, it's not about the issue or the content of your speech. It's about it's about whether or not you meet the definitional criteria of lobbyists and the expenditure requirement necessary to to to rise to the to to the next level. There is we did specifically because we were concerned about how coalitions work together. That's part of the reason why we reached out to to Julia from this get all human services coalition to to ask her specifically if she had any concerns around the the indirect lobbying portions of this bill. Understanding that that she has a very large coalition of organizations who come together to to request particular outcomes. And so so we did receive some responses from the Ethics and Elections Commission that were related to how do we how do we address some of those particular concerns? And I'm pulling it up now in just a minute. Okay. So some of the primary concerns really related to how they use their mailing list, which was a primary form of how coalitions engage with each other and how they activate people who are part of those mailing lists and so on. So with the exemption, with communications with members, which is this amendment, then people who have the capacity to, for example, vote for an organization's director or who pay dues, etc., would not be subjected to the indirect lobbying requirement. So without this amendment, it would trigger disclosure requirements for for even coalition organizations. So I'm happy to share this email with you. After the fact, there's a there are probably about a dozen questions that were posed by Julia that we had Wayne answered that we then shared the answers with Julia about. But but I think it also it also is important for us to remember that when we're talking about presenting a program, according to Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission, really traditionally what that means is using things like paid social media, paid billboards or other means of paid communication to encourage people to contact their elected officials and urge them to either support or oppose a piece of legislation. So, again, if a coalition is is is meeting the expenditure requirements, is communicating outside of their membership list and is and meets the definition of lobbyists, then they would they would be required to to file a disclosure that would include expenditure disclosures. Thank you. So that probably answers my next question, which is that we do hear often from, you know, some of our most marginalized communities, you know, formerly incarcerated sex workers, folks who are undocumented. And so in order to make sure that they are protected. Well, that was my concern. But it sounds like if they're not registered as a lobbyist or wouldn't fall under that definition, then that that's sort of a moot point anyway, right? Right. Yeah. The first threshold is, are you a lobbyist engaging in compensated lobbying work? And then are you expanding the required minimal amounts in order to trigger the disclosure? So even lobbyists who spend less than 750 a month or less than 1515 hundred dollars in a three month period, wouldn't be required to to do disclosures. And so, again, I think I think this is a new framework. It will be a new environment of disclosure, similar to the laws that we passed for the Clean Campaigns Act in early January of 2020. And SDC is committed to making sure that they engage in, in, in public education and in rulemaking to make sure that they are not that they are not creating a chilling effect for organizing work, that this is really about about who's paying for or public influence campaigns that that are at sort of a higher payment payment level. So this this legislation is not intended to, nor does it, I believe, prohibit ongoing efforts of people to continue to organize within community, to to do outreach, to either support or oppose legislation that the city council is considering. Thank you. Okay. Colleagues, any other comments or questions on Amendment two? Hearing no additional comments on Amendment two. Will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of amendment to Grant? Yes. Strauss. Yes. Herbal. Yes. Whereas. Hi, Louis. Yes. For hours, guests must go to. Yes. Yes. Council President Gonzalez? Yes. I'm in favor and unopposed. Thank you. The motion carries, the amendment is adopted, and another bill is now before the council. Are there any additional comments on the bill as amended? Councilmember So followed by Councilmember Mosqueda. Actually I need a minute to gather my thoughts or can I go right after? Sure. Because we're a mosquito. Thank you, Madam President. Just very briefly, I want to also thank Wayne Barnett. My understanding is that they are going to go through a pretty robust community engagement process. I think you mentioned that council president, we discussed it on Wednesday. And just to reiterate, you know, for ongoing concerns that individuals may have or organizations may have, there's going to be a six month process to fully have conversations with community. I started my line of questioning when the draft bill came over to ask, you know, how how has this been received by various stakeholders and community organizations, our grassroots partners? And I look forward to hearing more about how the upcoming, upcoming six months goes. And I know that folks are not shy about continuing to let us know how legislation that we've passed is being implemented and if there are unintended consequences. I think that we have shown time and time again a willingness to continue to make improvements. And and I'm really optimistic with the amended language that has been included today that some of those initial concerns that we heard have been addressed. Thank you, President, and your office, for the work that you did with immigrant rights groups, low wage worker organizations, environmental groups. I know you've reached out to a handful of folks, human service provider organizations, to make sure that you are getting some feedback. So thank you for that work. And it makes me optimistic about this six month conversation to come. And I'm looking forward to report back. Likewise. Kaspersky Lab. Thank you so much for those remarks. Councilmember Salant And then if anyone else wants to speak now and then comes the first one. Thank you. As I stated during the amendments, this bill, including the rest of this bill, with the restriction on quote, grassroots lobbying and quote, is not something I can support. I am disappointed that Council President Gonzalez continues to falsely claim that only paid lobbyists are affected. This is not true. The definition of quote unquote, grassroots lobbying states quote Any person who has made expenditures not otherwise reported by a registered lobbyist, unquote, and goes on. So it's not not not what the president is saying. I also want to point out that the council heard from grassroots campaigners in public comment stating that it will have a chilling effect on grassroots organizing. Why would council members pass a law and claim that it will not affect will not show grassroots organizers right after hearing from grassroots organizers that it will have a chilling effect. So I will be voting no. That was memorable. Please. Thank you. I just want to speak to my my belief in my hope. And as Councilman Ross mentioned, we can revisit this issue. But I really believe that the reporting requirements to register are not onerous and they should not result in the kinds of outcomes to true grassroots lobbying that some people might have some concerns about. And I think that the concerns are. Far, far. Outweighed by the harm that this bill seems to seeks to address. And from my perspective, that harm is the allowance of dark money to be used without any disclosure. Many of you remember that last year there was a paid lobbying campaign against the payroll tax legislation. It turns out that the Chamber had noted that they had funded it, but they were not required to disclose this. This, I think, is much more. This lack of disclosure is much more corrosive to our democratic values and our institutions than the burden that this disclosure requirement will place on sort of what we traditionally think of as grassroots lobbying. The term grassroots is used in Washington state law, and I don't think it's the clearest term for describing this activity for public understanding. But in practice, it has the same effect of disclosure requirements in in cities like Los Angeles, where they do they define lobbying activities to include seeking to influence the position of a third party on municipal legislation or an issue related to municipal legislation by any means, including but not limited to engaging in community, public or press relations activities. I think it's very important that our our regulations be contra content neutral. But in in being contract content neutral, I don't think the outcome is going to be a neutral outcome. I think the outcome is going to be a much more robust disclosure of of those in positions of power with access to great amounts of resources to our democratic decision making. And that's really why I appreciate the proposal of the the Ethics and Elections Commission bringing this forward and the work of Council President Gonzalez in bringing this forward. So thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Herbold, for those comments. Really, really appreciate that additional texture. Thanks a lot. Colleagues, any other comments on the bill as amended? Okay. Well, colleagues, I'm going to go ahead and close out debate. I want to thank you all for the consideration of this particular bill. I feel really strongly, as indicated by Councilmember Herbold, that the the the benefits of having this kind of lobbying regulation within the city of Seattle far outweighs the burden and the potential hardship of disclosure and and do trust that Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission will work very hard and diligently to make sure that folks understand what the . New. Framework and environment is and how to work with. Folks who. Are going to be potentially required to engage in this disclosure to actually successfully do so. I also don't want to lose over lose sight of the fact that this bill does have two other really important components to it, besides the the grass roots lobbying or indirect lobbying, I think is a much more appropriate term, which is which is additional disclosure for lobbyists who work on political campaigns, for elected officials or ballot measures, and requiring those disclosures to happen. In addition to that, and making sure that we are including disclosure requirements for lobbying that occurs directly to department directors or their deputy directors or their direct reports. We know that a lot of policy is driven at the department level, at the city of Seattle, and I think that's an important transparency requirement as well. So on balance, I think there's a lot of good things in this council bill that will increase good governance and transparency at the city. And really appreciate your consideration at this late hour of this bill as amended. So with that being said, will the Court please call the role on the adoption of the bill as amended? No. Council members saw? No. Stress? Yes. Her bold. Yes. Whereas. Yes. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. ROSQUETA. Yes. Peterson. Yes. Council President Gonzales. Yes. Eight in favor. One opposed. The bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it. Will the court please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Okay, folks, we are now at item nine. Will the clerk please read item nine into the record?