State Legislative Process 
Episode 10

>>Welcome to State Legislative Process. I’m Rick Griffin and today’s episode is political interest groups and lobbyists. Our lesson points are history of interest groups and lobbyists, roles of interest groups and lobbyists, and prominent types of Utah lobbyists.
>>[graphic]
>>We begin by discussing the history of political interest groups in the United States.
>>[graphic]
>>From the early days of our nation, Americans have embraced freedom of association and have created political interests groups. A political interest group is:
>>[graphic]
>>Although political interest groups are democratic in nature, some political theorists are leery of their tremendous influence on the democratic process. For example, in Federalist No.10, James Madison referred to such groups as factions, and warned against the ill effects of their unchecked self-interest.
>>[graphic]
>>Although Madison noted that it was impossible to eliminate factions in a free society, he argued
that good government should control factions by employing representative democracy in the form of a well-structured, large republic, where no one self-interested faction could control all of government. Over four decades later, political interest groups were not only still involved in American politics, they were driving it. In 1831, a young nobleman by the name of Alexis de Tocqueville traveled the United States studying America Democracy, and commented on this phenomenon.
>>[graphic]
>>Today, political interest groups continue to impact American politics. Under our Federal system, Americans have tremendous access to government, and political interest groups lobby all three branches of government at the Federal, state, and local levels. Of the three branches, however, it is the legislative branch where lobbyists are found in abundance. Speaking of what draws political interest groups to the legislature, William Keefe and Morris Ogul state:
>>[graphic]
>>To better influence government policymakers, interests groups hire or have on staff, lobbyists. Lobbyists are professional legislative agents who represent the views of others before government. The term lobbyist dates back to at least the early 19th Century, and was used in England and the United States to describe representatives of interest groups who would wait in the lobbies, halls, and corridors of government, in hopes of persuading government officials to support their particular agenda. 
>>[graphic]
>>From James Madison’s day to our day, reformers have sought to keep government free from the control of special interests. The recent Abramoff scandal fueled this movement as Jack Abramoff, a powerful D.C. lobbyist, pled guilty to federal charges of conspiracy, fraud, and tax evasion.
>>[graphic]
>>Is such corruption common in the state legislatures? State legislative expert, Alan Rosenthal notes that although there are occasional corruption scandals at the state level, it’s more the exception than the rule. Moreover, political scientists Kenneth Janda, Jeffrey Berry, and Jerry Goldman note that interest groups and lobbyists play several important roles in our democratic republic. The first role is one of representation.  Interest groups represent their members’ views on specific policy issues.
>>[graphic]
>>National and state farming associations and groups are going to represent the views of farmers; labor unions promote the views of their workers; the medical associations represent the views of the medical community; senior citizen groups promote the issues important to senior citizens; and so on and so on. The second role is participation. As interest groups coordinate activities, many citizens who would never participate in the process individually, participate collectively. The third role is education. To promote their interests, political interest groups will educate party members, the public at large, and government legislators and other officials about the facts related to their agenda. Interest groups have learned that the most effective way to influence legislators is to provide them with accurate and clear information about a given bill’s subject matter. To learn more about this important role of interest groups, we turn to Representative Stephen Clark of the Utah House of Representatives.
>>Lobbyists take a lot of heat and are looked upon as maybe an evil thing, but they are not. They are very, very helpful. And some of the best institutions and organizations in the world have lobbyists that come and tell us about the issues. That is the only way we will know. We certainly have to base our decision on what we think is right and what our constituents tell us is right. But information is so valuable up there, and the more information we can get, regardless of the source, the better off we are going to be.
>>The fourth role of interest groups and lobbyists is agenda building. Interest groups can bring sufficient attention to concerns of their members, until government leaders are obliged to make them part of their agenda.  The last role is program monitoring. This involves interest groups watching current government programs to make sure that they are effectively meeting the needs of their members. It’s now time for lesson point three. During this portion of the lecture, we take a closer look at the lobbyists of Utah. For our purposes, we will examine three prominent types of lobbyists in Utah. We begin with institutional lobbyists. Institutional lobbyists are individuals who represent a particular association or institution within a particular field of business or industry. These lobbyists usually only concentrate on issues relating to their particular business or industry. Often such lobbyists are part of their company’s managerial team, concentrating on company–government relations. To learn more about institutional lobbyists, we turn to Stan Lockhart, Government Affairs Manager for IM Flash Technologies.
>>We are sitting here in a House Committee Room in the Utah State Capitol Building. And we are chatting with Stan Lockhart, who is the Government Affairs Manager for IM Flash Technologies. Now IM Flash Technologies, Stan, correct me if I am wrong, is a partnership between Intel and Micron, and they produce these flash drives for computers. And it is a very large operation in Lehi. And very successful, I understand. You are Governmental Relations Manager for that group. You are very active in the Utah Technology Council. Let’s start with the Utah Technology Council. You chair this public policy committee. How do these groups get organized and combine to start getting agendas together and then come to the Capitol and lobby for your interest?
>>Well, I think that first thing you need to understand is that most businesses are just trying to meet payroll. I mean, the idea that they can affect the laws of the state is not something they think about when they get out of bed each morning.
>>They are really driven primarily by the bottom line? 
>>Yes. Most of the companies, let’s say the majority of the companies, are small. And I think there really is a focus on the bottom line as they try to produce products, sell the products, and make a profit. And so for all intents and purposes, these associations are created so that they can have some representation in other areas of the business where they don’t have to do all the work. 
>>So what would be the agenda now for this public policy committee? You are chairing it. You bring in representatives from a variety of industries.
>>Yes.
>>And you are sitting around the table, and how do you formulate an agenda to come here to the Capitol Building??
>>The first thing we do is we ask one of the people who work for the association to kind of monitor the legislative website and the bills that are being filed. And if there is a short title that deals with technology issues, their taxation or regulation, then they are asked to flag those. And then during the course of our meetings, and we meet once a week during the legislative session, we go through as many of those bills as possible and try to assign out…
>>So some of that is just defensive work.
>>Oh, yes.
>>So if a legislator has a bright idea some day that would cost your industry a lot of money, you want to be on top of that and come to the Capitol. How about a more aggressive stance? I know a couple of years ago there was a fund of funds for investing in technology companies.
>>Sure.
>>Does the committee say, “Well, what can we do in a positive light, not just a defensive light”?
>>Absolutely. Every once in a while there is a big priority that just kind of rises from the grass roots of the organization. And they get energized about it, and the next thing you know, CEOs are coming here to the Capitol to testify and to talk to legislators. And it is amazing what the power of grass roots is. When people get energized on something, when just the average person gets energized, it has more impact than all the lobbyists in the world. 
>>How do you do this? The CEOs aren’t really the grass roots, it seems to me.
>>Of the industry they are.
>>Ok. Grass roots of the industry. So the grass roots CEO types are sitting around the table, and they say, “Look, get some more investments going in technology firms.” How do you start the process of translating that wish into a legislative act?
>>First you have to define what it is you want. And normally you have to have a pretty good case of what is the problem that makes this necessary. Once you define that, and you define specifically what you want to do, then it is a matter of finding a legislator who is willing to file a bill. And then the legislative research, they will write the bill up, many times in conjunction with those that are interested in it.
>>And is that the role of a governmental affairs manager, to be that link between the CEO, and the company, and the legislature?
>>Absolutely. 
>>What do you find enjoyable about that? I mean, I watch you in action here at the Capitol, and you just seen to enjoy this so much. 
>>I do.
>>I don’t think everybody would enjoy your job. So what is it that you find stimulating about taking those ideas and bringing them here to the Capitol?
>>First of all, the idea that you really can affect the laws of the state is an interesting proposition. In general, most of us, I think, try to figure out what the laws are. That is hard enough. And then we try to obey them, just as good, law-abiding citizens do. I have the opportunity to actually change laws.
>>And what are you trying to change right now?
>>[laughter]
>>You were working out here in the lobby a minute ago, right outside this door. You had two Senators with you. You had a Representative waiting to talk to you. What were you trying to change?
>>There is nothing more important to me this session than getting university status for UVSC.
>>Oh, now there is a smooth operator right here. That is a very successful technique. But other than that, maybe the second tier of issues, what would you be working on?
>>You know, there are several things. This year for the first time the technology, community and others, the chamber of commerce, has gotten involved in health care. The rising cost of health care every year is just killing businesses in this country and in this state. And we are trying to find ways that we can reduce the rising cost of health care. And we have got four or five bills up here this year that we are running that we believe can have a significant impact.
>>We won’t get into the details of the bills, but you have an idea, you get a bill sponsor. Is that the idea? 
>>That is correct.
>>How do you pick you bill sponsor?
>>There are a whole bunch of ways to pick a bill sponsor.
>>Do you always in Utah seek the Democrat to introduce the bill?
>>Sometimes. But you want to find the person who knows the subject you are talking about. And there are people that have expertise in a variety of areas. For interest, there are some police officers that serve in the legislature. If you had an issue dealing with the way the police operate in the state, city by city, or even at the county level, then you would want one of them to run your bill. If it is health care related, there are four or five legislators who are viewed as the health care experts.
>>So expertise. How about the trust factor?
>>Yes. Well, more important, even—well, maybe this is part of the trust factor. You want someone who really knows how to get a bill passed. There are some legislators that are better at getting bills passed than others. For instance, there are some legislators that lobby their own bills. They will go to their colleagues and say, “I have a bill coming up before our committee tomorrow, and I need you to vote for it for these reasons.” Other legislators are more hands off. They are there to look at all the other bills that they are voting on, and they are less involved in their own bills. 
>>It was interesting when I was in the legislature, at some point it suddenly hit me that I had to be a lobbyist as well as a legislator.
>>You do.
>>To be really effective, you had to take a colleague out to lunch or something and talk to him about the bill. You had to answer all the questions. So you find a good bill sponsor. You find somebody that is trustworthy. You find somebody that is knowledgeable. You find somebody that is effective. Then how do you try and get the thing moving? 
>>Well, the easiest thing to do in this process is kill a bill. So it can be killed at any of twenty-five or more processes. 
>>Have to ever been tempted to talk a legislator into introducing a really bad bill that would be easily killed, so that you could go back to your boss and say “Hey, I succeeded in killing a bill?
>>No, but it is an interesting idea. 
>>I always thought the whole group of lobbyists could make a lot of money this way. You just talk people into introduce bad bills, getting them killed right away, and then you could be very effective.
>>I haven’t.
>>You haven’t done that strategy. So getting a bill through from an outsiders perspective—how many people do you have to talk to in that process? Do you try and hit every legislator?
>>No, it is almost impossible to talk to every Senator and every House member during the course of the session. So what you want to do is get to know them outside of the session, so that when you get into the session, you don’t have to spend as much time with them. E-mail is very effective in this process. You can send out an e-mail and touch a whole bunch of people in a very short period of time. It is important to talk to leadership early on about the bills that you are interested in so that they don’t go and try to kill it for you. There are committees that, if a bill gets sent to a certain committee, you almost know by the committee it gets sent to if it has a chance of passing.
>>One of the things that our author talks about is the recruitment of candidates. And he talks about agency candidates, where special interest will go out and recruit somebody to represent their issue, or be an agent. As the technology companies sit around the table, do you think, “We had better go out and recruit come people that think like we think?”
>>We have had those discussions. We have never done it.
>>You have never done it.
>>There are special interest groups that do all the time. For instance, in this voucher debate that we just had recently, clearly the education spending lobby will be out recruiting candidates for those who voted in favor of vouchers. And the school choice…
>>Probably just reversed. The teacher industry probably would be those opposed to vouchers.
>>Opposed to them. And anyway, that fight is going to happen right through the next election.
>>Which of the Utah legislators would you say are agency recruited? Like single issue, recruited for that one purpose. 
>>Very small percentage. 
>>Small percentage.
>>Maybe ten percent.
>>I find it very fascinating, and you are a fascinating person, but another aspect to your life is that you are married to a state representative, State Representative Becky Lockhart, who is one of the most powerful women in the Utah Legislature, one of those stars that is slowly moving up in power and reputation. What is it like to be married to a state legislator, and what kind of demands does that place on your life as a spouse of a legislator?
>>I think in my family it has allowed my wife to develop talents and abilities that she has always had, but might not have had a chance to fully develop without this opportunity to be in the legislature. So it is a great privilege for our family to have her serve. 
>>Is it all consuming?
>>Yes. People say, “Stan, what hobbies do you have?” Well, so I coach youth basketball and youth baseball. But for the most part, it is politics. When we go on a long drive somewhere, we can go on a three hour drive and start talking politics at the beginning of the drive, and still be in a discussion about it at the end of the drive, and we are ready for more.
>>Does she usually vote the way you want her to vote?
>>Most of the time. Although her first session up here I was sitting in the gallery, and there was an issue that suddenly caught my interest. Nothing to do with my job or anything, but I was just very interested in the topic. And by the time the discussion was over, I knew how to vote on that subject. The bill passed by one vote, and I was on the opposite side, and my wife was a part of the majority vote. And I didn’t speak to her for three weeks. And finally she came to me one day and said, “Stan, what is going on? Why aren’t you speaking to me?” “You didn’t vote the way I wanted you to on that vote!”  And she was baffled. She said, “I don’t even know what you are talking about.” 
>>So something that you kind of internalized. I have noticed in Utah as you look out in the hallways, there are a lot of spouses of legislators that are involved in the Utah Legislature. Do you find because you are so involved politically that you hang out with social events that are organized for spouses? You don’t seem like the kind of person that would jump on the bus and go to some event that is organized with your spouse.
>>I go to the majority of those events. 
>>You do.
>>I don’t make it to every one. But there is a great deal of sacrifice that goes into this on the part of each family. They get paid virtually nothing. And my children and I get to see very little of Becky during the session. She leaves on Sunday night. She stays up here all week. She comes home on Friday night. Then Saturday is spent visiting constituents and others. Sunday is time for church, and we don’t see much of each other then. 
>>So for this legislative session, it is really a very stressful time in the Lockhart family. If you were to walk up to a state representative and you wanted him or her to vote a certain way, what would be your techniques that you might use?
>>Well, first of all, if they are your state legislator, which is the first one that you should be talking to, it is really just a matter of introducing yourself to them, and telling them where you are from so they know you are their constituent. As soon as that happens, they will be very attentive. The opinion of a constituent is worth infinitely more than the opinion of every single lobbyist on Capitol Hill. So that is the number one thing that you do. Let’s say that…
>>The average citizen watching this would not believe that.
>>It is true.
>>You are absolutely convinced of that.
>>There is not question in my mind. 
>>You represent the coalition of technology companies, and you think your opinion is going to be overruled by Joe Blow who is sitting out there as a constituent?
>>If they get one phone call, it is better than mine. If they get a handful of phone calls from constituents, it doesn’t matter what my opinion is.
>>That is very interesting. Is that reassuring to you, or does it just change your strategy that you have to get into the really grass roots political organizing?
>>No, there is a perception of lobbyists that somehow that we run things up here. And we have some influence because we are education legislators. We are here, and we can say, “Can I tell you my opinion on this subject?” But rarely to you persuade or sway someone to do a certain thing. Most legislators are already predisposed to do certain things and vote certain ways on issues.
>>So is part of your job then to play to those predispositions?
>>Yes, and to educate.
>>To educate. So how powerful are private interests in the Utah Legislature? On a scale of one to five, on sheer power?
>>I have never thought of that before. They are an important part of the process, because they allow legislators to get all sides of an issue.
>>That sounds nice. Could I just push you a little bit on that?
>>The worst kind of a system that we could have would be some sort of a vacuum where they would go in and read a bill, and have no context of what the pros and cons were of that particular issue. The media would like to do away with all lobbyists so that they can be the only lobbyists on Capitol Hill, for the most part. 
>>So part of your job is to define the context.
>>We have to define the context.
>>And how much of your time is spent wining and dining legislators? I guess in Utah you don’t wine very much, but the dining and the schmoozing
>>I don’t know. During the course of the year I try to meet legislators, and I don’t worry too much what kind of meeting that is. Many times the best time to reach them is when there is an eating opportunity, because I am not taking them away from their families.
>>How about the Jazz games. Is that a good time?
>>Yes, we have a great time at Jazz games.
>>How important it that? I think our author says that type or relationship building is a lot less than it used to be. Would you concur with that?
>>One of our challenges at Micron, before IM Flash it was Micron, was the public perception that somehow we had gone away from the state. And I found that every opportunity to talk to a legislator I talked to them about what we were doing, and how there really were several hundred people working at our plant up in Lehi, and here is what we are doing up there, and here is what we are contributing to the economy. That education was of infinite value to my company, because it changed a misperception that was pretty widespread. Those types of educational opportunities make it important for me to spend time with those legislators. And if it is at a Jazz game, then I try to use Jazz games. If it is a dinner at Wendy’s or MacDonald’s, we try to so that. 
>>It sounds like after the legislature yesterday, we will be able to go to soccer games.
>>Maybe we can do soccer games together.
>>Stan Lockhart, thank you so much for your time and being so insightful on your role as representing private industry.
>>You’re welcome.
>>The next type of Utah lobbyist is multi-client lobbyists. Multi-client lobbyists, sometimes called hired guns, typically promote a variety of issues and represent a variety of clients. Often multi-client lobbyists are former legislators themselves who know the ins and outs of the state legislature. The business of lobbying is indeed a business to multi-client lobbyists. Their allegiance is typically more to the process than the issues that are being promoted. One of the most successful multi-client lobbyists in Utah is former legislator, and proud father of a Utah Valley State student, Paul Rogers. 
>>Talk about hired gun. Now you don’t have to answer this. It is kind of an intriguing question. What does it cost to hire multi-client lobbyists these days? If I am a corporate entity and I want to hire somebody? We won’t use you, but somebody in your role. What is kind of the cost of this?
>>Well, you know again that may depend on how much of what it is you do is reliant on the decisions that the government makes. So the swing might be somewhere between forty or a hundred thousand dollars a year, or more. 
>>So that is kind of the range? Between forty thousand and hundred some thousand dollars a year? 
>>I would think so.
>>Is there a lot of money spent in Utah by groups in that range to impact the legislative process?
>>Well, in spite of the turnover, the halls continue to be filled, so I suspect that over time, Utah’s perceived need for lobbyists has grown. 
>>Are multi-client lobbyists more effective than single client lobbyists because you are balancing a multitude of different issues, and you can talk to legislators, and kind of maneuver them a little bit?
>>Well, I think that is a very interesting discussion, and I think that you can point to single issue lobbyists who are highly effective. And you can point to multi-client lobbyists who are highly effective, and those who are less effective on both.
>>So you are kind of dodging that question. 
>>Well, I think that a lot of it simply comes down to the quality of the person himself.
>>When I was in the Legislature, I always found it easier to say no to a multi-client lobbyist than to a single issue client lobbyist. 
>>That’s interesting.
>>The reason why is I knew that the multi-client lobbyist would be back the next day representing someone else.
>>And maybe you would be saying yes to him on that.
>>I might be saying yes to him on that. Whereas if it is a single issue person and organization, then you just have to be a little bit more cautious.
>>I don’t know that I would agree with the cautious, because I want you and I want the legislators I talk to to make the best decision, always. Sure I would like or appreciate it if it were one that was in my favor and in my client’s favor, but if I have done my job right, what I said at the outset was I have got to have that client’s attention such that they are going to agree to some appropriate outcome that is good public policy.
>>Boy, that is a pretty loose definition. What is good public policy? I mean, how do you…
>>I disagree with you.
>>You do, huh?
>>If policy is this, good public policy might be there.
>>Ok.
>>So I have got to bring them from here to there, President. And I think your own intuition would tell you that is true from your own experience, as well. 
>>Well, one person’s good public policy—let’s say that I might argue that a tax break is great public policy. If you are on the receiving end from the school districts, you would say that is bad public policy, because we don’t spend enough. So it is kind of a little bit murky in the middle.
>>Certainly.
>>Do you even say no to clients? If somebody came in and said, “I represent the tobacco industry,” or somebody that is kind of on the down side these days, do you ever say, ”No, I am not going to represent you”?
>>You know, that is interesting. Myself, I have made—you brought up tobacco. I have made a decision, that I would never represent tobacco because I think that the overall, whether you chew it or smoke it… 
>>It is not a very productive product.
>>It is a harmful product. And yet, as you pose that question, there was one year in which we did represent a cigar manufacturer. But it didn’t relate to the use or non-use of the product. And I guess that is why it was an intriguing issue for me.
>>And did you just justify that in your mind, as far as thinking about this?
>>You know, I think it is a fair question for you to pose, because if I am being paid to do something, doesn’t that have an influence? And for me to pretend that it didn’t in the process…
>>I mean, you would not have picked it up an average citizen, and said, “Oh, by golly, I have to write a letter,” or something like that.
>>Well, I think that in this particular issue I was more impressed with the validity of their criticism.
>>That was a tax issue, if I remember correctly. 
>>No, it was not a tax issue. It was a regulatory issue as it related to what I thought was a highly ineffective and avaricious regulation framework that was inherently unconstitutional. And members of the technology community that I respected visiting with me said the same. They said, “That is not an effective way to try to regulate.” 
>>In that case you felt within a good public policy.
>>Yes. 
>>Let’s shift gears a little bit to talk about techniques. And that is where the public gets fascinated with this. And our author has talked a lot about techniques. And there are kind of two levels. There is kind of the society one of getting public opinion on your side, so running TV ads, getting public opinion leaders speaking out on issues, kind of structuring the public conversation. And then there is the inside action of one on one type lobbying. Have you done much of the communication strategies of attempting to affect public opinion?
>>I don’t think that is what I do best.
>>Do you ever contract that out to somebody?
>>We often have. Of the three partners of my firm, one of them has a breadth of experience in the advertising and in the public information and political campaign process. So I tend to lean quite heavily on his opinions and hope that the client does, as well. But I am quite willing to understand that that may not be something that I do best. 
>>Have you seen it effective? Some examples, maybe in Utah where it has been effective? For example, in the last legislative session, I would often turn on the TV and I would see the Education Association talking about pay for teachers. Was that an effective strategy on their part?
>>No. 
>>And why not?
>>Well, I think it was effective in helping that union, from my perspective. And this can be essential, to persuade its own members that it was up and about, and doing something. And maybe a few members of the general public, certain PTA participants that perhaps thought that was very valuable. But the general public? And this may vary from one state to another, but in this state, I think there is a general perception of, yes, education is something that is probably our highest governmental objective, but everybody who runs for office would claim the same. 
>>It fits within a good policy.
>>That’s right.
>>Is it effective here in Utah because there are only forty-five day sessions? If you are going to affect public opinion, you had better be working on that before the Legislature goes into session, because during the session there is such a mish-mash of messages going around. So would your recommendation be to work on public opinion prior to the session? 
>>Yes. And with our clients with whom we have the greatest success, we try to get them to articulate even maybe more than a year out what it is that they want, and refine that. But certainly if we were working for the ’08 legislative session, we would want to be well engaged in terms of our strategy.
>>You have probably gone to work already for that.
>>We are. 
>>So you are getting it all established.
>>That is correct.
>>Let’s talk about the internal side as opposed to the external side of lobbying. And that falls into what our author talks about as social lobbying. I woke up one morning, and in the paper there was a picture of a group of legislators at the Jazz game sitting in the front row, not up in the bleacher section somewhere, but right there on the court. How effective is this socializing function, and taking legislators to a Jazz game, or to a UVSC basketball game, or something?
>>Well, I don’t know. Has it been effective for you?
>>[laughter] At the basketball game. We haven’t tried the Jazz game.
>>But having been a guest of yours at a UVSC ball game, I think it is effective in the sense that what you are really after is talk time. Isn’t it?
>>Yes.
>>If I can get you on my campus, you are going to begin to identify with the institution, maybe even with the team or with some faction, of what a university or a college is about. 
>>So whatever it takes to get face time is the key decision.
>>That’s right.
>>So do you like to play golf? I mean, that is the classic thing to take four hours.
>>I do. 
>>Do you use that effectively?
>>I hope so.
>>How do you do that? Could you identify all the legislators that like to play golf?
>>Probably.
>>And do you call them up periodically? Do you have a little schedule?
>>Well yes, but again, we are client or campaign driven. So if I know what my objectives are, I know that…
>>Which legislators are more interested in golf than others? Not that you are interested in playing.
>>That’s right. I think it is telling, though, that in the most recent past legislative session that the one area that seemed to be the most unregulated was food. And so I think the Jazz is important to a few legislators, going to that kind of ball game. And I suppose most of them would like to do it at least once in a while.
>>So food is an unregulated activity here in Utah?
>>It is lesser, isn’t it, under the new $50.00 guideline, or $10.00 guideline.
>>I found when I was in the Legislature that I went to so many receptions that food to me was not a bonus whatsoever.
>>Yes.
>>Because all those little weenies that you had to eat and stuff like that was just…
>>I always just stayed away from them.
>>Oh, you did? Well, good for you, I did not. But it just seems weird to me that the average public would say, “Oh, these legislators get invited to fancy meals at nice restaurants,” as if that is a big plus. But it really wears thin very quickly. 
>>Absolutely. That is the most misunderstood, and if I chastise the media in any aspect of their campaign of public disclosure, it would be failure to understand that the legislator would just as soon be home with his or her family, or if they were on the golf course, they would probably rather be on the golf course with their buddies or with their family members.
>>That ties back into being friendly…
>>That’s correct.
>>Because if you are not friendly nobody is going to want spend four hours golfing with you, just for fun.
>>Absolutely. That’s correct.
>>The last type of lobbyist we’d like to highlight today is higher education liaisons. These individuals are not technically lobbyists, but are liaisons for their schools, colleges, and universities. However, similar to institutional lobbyists, they concentrate on issues directly relating to their industry—in this case, higher education. To learn more about lobbying efforts for higher education, we turn to a familiar face, Utah Valley State’s own Val Peterson. Val is Vice President of Administration and Legislative Affairs for our college, and you might recognize him from earlier episodes where we had him do some interviews for us. Today we turn the tables on Val and interview him to find out more about what it’s really like to represent Utah Valley State’s interests. Particularly, we wanted to find out more about Senate Bill 70 and his efforts to move the college towards university status.
>>We’ve had a lot of players involved in this particular bill, no doubt about it. But I have to tell you, Val, recently I have heard, of all these players—and we could add Senate President Valentine, we could add Majority Leader Bramble, Speaker of the House Curtis, President Sederburg of course, the regents, and many others—just this afternoon I heard, “Val Peterson was the quarterback.” Tell us a little bit more about how you put everything together.   
>>I mean one of the key things you have got to answer is who is going to carry the bill. And you want to try to get a very influential legislator that is going to carry it. Traditionally, if you can get a member of leadership to carry a bill, that even adds a little bit more prestige and the ability to persuade other legislators that this is an important issue that they ought to be looking at. And so you know, we were asking President Valentine to carry that bill long before we got to the session. And we had already discussed what kind of strategies to take, introduction of that bill, how we would handle the bill, what would happen if there was a lot of opposition, if there wasn't a lot of opposition, is this the right year to try to run the bill all the way through the session. So those questions you have to discuss with your bill sponsor prior to getting there. And actually the filing deadline on bills is clear back in December, and so when you start talking about creating a bill, you are really talking about in the fall or in the summer. That is when you are taking to your bill sponsor about getting this drafted by legislative research and having it ready so it can be introduced in the session at the beginning of the session. So that bill file is actually opened early in December, creating that bill. And then of course you have got all the process. And there are a lot of different entry points into the process where people can question whether a bill ought to go on. And so after you get that bill introduced, obviously there could be more opposition or not, at different points. 
>>Well let’s talk about a couple of those stages. First of all, you have the bill introduced by Senate President Valentine. Now you are off to committee. What were some of your strategies for committee?
>>Well, this bill was introduced before the Senate Standing Committee, even though it had a fiscal note attached to it. Now most fiscal note bills would generally be introduced to the Higher Ed Executive Appropriations Subcommittee. 
>>Why was that different?
>>Well, this committee is in control of Senator Valentine.  Being the Senate President, everybody that sits on that committee is there because he has appointed them to that committee. There were a number of Utah County legislators who sat on that committee. The Chair is Senator Margaret Dayton, whose district the college sits in. So this is a fairly friendly committee towards issues that would come out of Utah County. And so the bill went to that committee first to be heard. A number of questions ensued there. One of the first things we had to decide was who was going to be the person who would be at the committee hearing to testify to the committee. And that is when we discussed with Dr. Kendall and the president that maybe Dr. Kendall would take the lead in testifying and the president would be at the table with him. So Richard Kendall actually went through his list of things that he thought needed to happen in order for Utah Valley to be a university. Then President Sederburg was able then to concentrate more on questions and things that were coming from the committee, instead of having to worry about presenting.
>>I was at the meeting as well. And I have to tell you, I think that was a wonderful strategy. As you pointed out before, having Commissioner Kendall there.  What a tremendous support for this particular bill for university status. Also, President Sederburg—twelve years in Michigan State Legislature. Not a bad second chair, as well.
>>Well obviously he is very familiar with the issue and the institution, and I think it really gave him a chance to be able to see where members of the committee were, to be able to address their concerns, and really at that meeting I think a lot of issues were put aside. We identified a couple of issues that different Senators were concerned with, and we were able to talk to different Senators after we got out of that committee hearing coming out with a favorable pass vote from that committee. So it went back to the Senate for second reading.
>>Now we are in second reading in the Senate. As you know, in the Senate, second and third reading, you are going to have a debate and you are going to have a vote. What were your feelings going into the second reading? 
>>Well, second reading, we knew we were in pretty good shape. We had twenty-seven co-sponsors, and that was really a key thing, I thought. The Senate Majority Leader, Senator Curt Bramble, had gone around and talked to all of his colleagues and had gotten co-sponsorships. So anytime a bill has got twenty-seven co-sponsors, you are feeling pretty comfortable when you are coning in for that Senate vote. And with that, I thought as we came to that vote we had Ira Fulton there to announce that he had a challenge for ten million dollars in fundraising. I just can’t tell you how key that was for legislators to understand that we really were at a level where we could raise money and funds for the institution as well. So really a lot of concerns in the Senate were alleviated at that point. And we came out of that with a very strong vote of twenty-nine to zero.
>>Absolutely. And then of course you went on the third reading and had a unanimous vote of Senators present. I think there was one Senator who was absent. Again, a tremendous amount of support. Off to the House we go. Now the House can be dramatically different. The other chamber could have totally different ideas for this bill. What do you do behind the scenes in that preparation you were talking about before to make sure that you have that support in the House?
>>Well, I think there are a couple of things for the House. First off, who is going to be your floor sponsor? We were very fortunate in that Dave Clark, Majority Leader out of Washington County, accepted to be co-sponsor for this bill. And so we had an excellent floor sponsor. We had tremendous buy in on the issue. And other thing is making sure that the Utah County delegation felt comfortable with the issue, felt like they could answer questions, because never underestimate the ability of those eleven legislators to go out and influence their colleagues on the floor of the House. And so they are talking to their colleagues and talking about why this is an important issue, and why they ought to vote for it. In fact, one day after we had finished lunch, there were two Utah County legislators who were talking to two other legislators, and they called me over because they had a series of questions that they wanted to ask about university status and why it was important for Utah Valley State College to become Utah Valley University. And so those ten legislators out of Utah County become very important as they work the floor on their issues. And then of course the other thing in the House is that they knew this was a number one priority of the Senate President.
>>Who publicly said so.
>>Right. And so they wanted to get their priorities, too. The House had a different set of priorities. And so this in a lot of ways became a negotiated bill.
>>Some bargaining.
>>A little bargaining going on between the two bodies as they both tried to work to get their priorities through this session. And so that bill went to Rules Committee and actually sat in Rules Committee for several weeks not really going anywhere.
>>What were you thinking?
>>Well, I knew it was a negotiated bill. The biggest thing is you have a lot of people questioning, “Well, you know, where is the bill?” And you say, “Well, it is in Rules.” “Well, why is it still in Rules?” and “What is going on with it?” And it was a fiscal note bill, as well. And so nothing is going to happen with it until they figured out the budget. 
>>We are in the third reading in the House. We have just had the amendment. It is from ten to eight million. Does it still feel to you like it is going to happen, or are you sensing that there is going to be some kind of opposition at that point? Before the vote. Before you know.
>>Yes, you know, we discussed a lot of things. Before our vote there had been a couple of other fiscal note bills which had been passed, and they had passed by resounding large majorities. And so at that point people were feeling pretty good, there was a pretty good feeling on the floor, so you know it is going to pass resoundingly. And actually, I was very fortunate in the fact that Representative Clark took me out on the floor to sit through the vote on the bill. So as we were sitting there, that was actually one of the questions a couple of the legislators around me were asking. “Well, do you think anybody will vote no?” or “How many people are going to vote no?” and “Will it stick?” And we saw a couple of red lights go on, and then we saw all the green lights start to hit, and I think that as people realized how resoundingly it was going to pass, people started asking themselves, “Well, why would I vote no against this? What am I really going to achieve by doing that?” And so in the end, it ended up being a seventy-two to zero vote. And so it was really just a tremendous consensus issue, I think, as we ended the legislative session. And there is a lot of credit to go around for that. I mean tremendous support from Utah County legislators, from the regents’ office, from leadership in both bodies, and of course President Valentine as the bill sponsor, Curt Bramble as the Majority Leader—all these people have been working to make sure this bill passed. And when you have that many people working to create that type of consensus, I think there is just a really good feeling about being able to see the institution move forward on that kind of a note.
>>Absolutely. And I think you are right on with the momentum that bill had at the State Legislature. It was amazing. To start out with a twenty-nine to zero, to go to twenty-eight to zero and one, really another unanimous vote of Senators present, and then to have a unanimous vote of Representatives present was quite remarkable, and quite an achievement for you and for President Sederburg and the whole team of folks that you just mentioned.
>>Well, you know, one of the things I think that really propelled it is just the view that this is something that really helps the region, that helps the state, and when you have an issue that really also helps students, one of the things that I think people realize is that education really does make a difference for people. It changes their economic status. It changes their earning ability, and really contributes back to the state. So this is the type of issue that is easy to go out and advocate for. It is something that people can really grasp on and hold onto as an issue that really made a difference for them. And it is one of the things that they will look back on in their career as a legislator and say, “You know, I was a part of that. I was a part of making that change at Utah Valley.” 
>>It is good for Utah County; it is good for the state of Utah.
>>Absolutely.
>>Thank you so much, Val, for taking a couple of moments to talk with us today.
>>Thanks, Rick. 
>>That concludes our program today on political interest groups and lobbyist. In behalf of Bill Sederburg, I’m Rick Griffin, and we hope to see you next time on State Legislative Process.