ployment or render any such service for a
fee, salary, or other compensation, con-
tingent upon such adoption or defeat."
Delegate Morgan called attention to the
fact that it was too limited, and we looked
at it again. Actually the statutory provi-
sions which regulate lobbying in the legis-
lature of this State are broader; not only
whether proposals are adopted or defeated
but whether or not the compensation is con-
tingent in any way upon the partial or
complete success of the outcome. Therefore,
the amendment I will move in a little while
will strike the last line on page 4, to sub-
stitute therefor, or other compensation that
is determined "in whole or in part with
reference to the result accomplished."
I think in that respect we are more har-
monious with the present statutory provi-
sion, and it represents a little broader cover-
age. Of course, again, there is no way of
enforcing it except to say, as Mr. Bam-
berger's research revealed, that there is no
question that a contingent fee contract for
lobbying before a legislative body, and I
believe a Constitutional Convention, is
either a void or voidable contract, and to
that extent any person that entered into
such a contract, if he was not sure the
client would pay him, would perhaps think
twice about it. Then the Morgan amend-
ment is a little broader than we had it
originally, but the committee unanimously
agreed to that.
Now, finally, there is a category of ex-
ception in which the regulation is not to be
construed in covering professional services
in drafting a proposed constitutional
amendment or advising clients or rendering
opinions as construction in effect of any
constitutional amendment which may be
considered at the Convention, where such
professional services are not otherwise con-
nected with Constitutional Convention ac-
tion, et cetera.
This clears up a point that is not clear
in the statutes. I do not believe that there
has been a square determination under the
Maryland Lobbying Act, whether a lawyer
sitting back in his office and advising a
client with respect to proposed legislation
coming up before the General Assembly
could be covered by that statute or not. In
any event, we want to make it perfectly
clear that this proposed regulation does not
apply to a lawyer, or other person, giving
people advice for compensation with respect
to matters pending before this Convention
who did not appear or contact a delegate or
take the other action under which regis-
tration is required. If he merely advised, |
drafted, suggested, and took none of the
other actions covered in the earlier sections
of section 1, especially I (a) [Appendix A]
of the proposed regulation then he would
not be required to register.
Mr. President, I would like to move—
THE PRESIDENT: Before you make the
motion, let me inquire whether there are
any questions to be asked of the chairmen
of the committee for clarification. Delegate
Gallagher?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Mr. Scan-
lan, do you propose that the adoption of
this rule will be retroactive? Will it have
any effect or impose duties upon those who
have already testified before the various
committees, or have in any way fallen un-
der the purview of this statute once it is
adopted?
DELEGATE SCANLAN: I am sorry to
say, Delegate Gallagher, the answer to that
is no, and I suppose if the Committee had
been any more delinquent about getting this
proposed regulation to you for your ap-
proval, that not only would it be toothless,
but it would be faceless.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Koss.
DELEGATE KOSS: I would like to ad-
dress this to Mr. Scanlan.
It is my understanding that he specifically
referred to the individual who would testify
once and then not appear before the Con-
vention or the Committee again and that
person would have to file only one report.
As I read section 5 [Appendix A], it does
not seem to say that. It seems to me to say
that every month he would have to file a
report.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: Actually, that
question was precisely put to the committee
by Delegate Burdette in his appearance
yesterday, and the unanimous feeling and
interpretation of the committee was that
the phrase that appears on the top of page
4, "Itemize cumulative statement" would
mean that if there was nothing to add then
it was not covered. However, maybe some
clarification of language might be justified
there.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Bard.
DELEGATE BARD: Mr. President,
when would this go into effect? There are
the matter of forms and other matters
which I would think would keep it from
going into effect immediately. Is there any-
thing within this resolution itself that indi-
cates the effective date? |
