Senate committee hears testimony on bill narrowing definition of lobbyist and lobbying

The Senate committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 286, a measure that would revise definitions in Kansas's governmental ethics law to narrow who is considered a lobbyist and what constitutes lobbying.

Charles (committee counsel) summarized the bill to the committee: "Senate Bill 286 makes a number of changes to the definitions in the state governmental ethics law pertaining to lobbying," he said, adding the bill adds a definition of "lobbying client" and revises thresholds and language used to define a lobbyist and the act of lobbying.

Under the bill as explained by counsel, a person would be a lobbyist in one circumstance only if they are a primary representative compensated at least at the annual level of an elected legislator; another change would remove the $1,000 expenditure trigger and instead classify someone as a lobbyist only if they are retained and receive at least $5,000 in compensation from a lobbying client for lobbying activities. The bill also narrows the definition of lobbying to focus on oral or written communications "on behalf of a lobbying client" to legislators, legislative staff or agency heads for the purpose of influencing formulation, modification or adoption of legislation or administrative action. Charles noted the bill would become effective July 1, 2025 if enacted.

David Keating, president of the Institute for Free Speech, testified in support and argued the current law is overbroad and vulnerable to First Amendment challenges. "We believe the current lobbying law, many provisions in it are likely unconstitutional," Keating said, adding the bill largely tracks the federal statute in focusing on compensated representation and recognized exemptions. He said the current $1,000 expenditure threshold is low and could unintentionally sweep in small organizations or informal advocacy.

Josh Krickhauser, a private attorney who has litigated state and federal cases on similar statutes, also supported the bill, saying clearer, narrower definitions would reduce litigation risk and better target the government's anti-corruption interest: "What we're concerned about is when people are paid to cozy up to legislators or to Executive Branch officials ... That idea of official communications with these persons, rather than just focusing on the act of advocating, will tie it a lot more closely to what I think the governmental interest here is, which is preventing governmental corruption," Krickhauser said.

Representatives from local government and the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission testified as neutrals, raising enforceability and scope concerns. Jay Hall, deputy director and general counsel for the Kansas Association of Counties, said the bill's language could sweep in county commissioners and clerks who contact legislators on behalf of their county because those officials are compensated by a public body. "I don't think that's the intent," Hall said, but testified KAC was neutral because the statute's language could be read to require registration by local officials who routinely contact lawmakers.

Caitlin Bull Stewart, interim executive director and general counsel of the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission, described practical enforcement issues. Under SB 286, whether someone must register would depend on compensation to determine lobbyist status, she said, and the commission would have little means to detect compensation-based thresholds absent voluntary disclosure. "The issue with that is the commission has no way to know that information ... there's no way for the commission to be able to tell if someone should or should not register as a lobbyist," Caitlin said. She suggested the committee consider raising the expenditure threshold as an enforceable alternative.

Committee members asked questions about the distinction between paid lobbyists and unpaid activists, the mechanics of the compensation tests, the registration process and day-pass fees. No committee vote on SB 286 was recorded in the transcript; the committee closed the hearing on the bill and moved on.

Ending: Committee closed the SB 286 hearing after questions for proponents and neutrals and did not record votes on the measure during the session captured in the transcript.