Lobbying clause slips in despite veto

• Associated Press (AP)
• Published: Jul 3, 2008 - Page: 4A - UPDATED: 9:30 a.m.

• Print
• Email
• Save
• Reprints
• Twitter
• Share

• Del.icio.us
• Digg
• Facebook
• Reddit
• 

Despite a veto from Gov. Bobby Jindal, a former Louisiana congressman who is the son-in-law of a state lawmaker will be able to lobby legislators.

Jindal appeared to have blocked former U.S. Rep. Chris John from the work by vetoing an ethics exception bill, but the governor already had signed into a law a separate measure that contained similar language to allow the lobbying.

It was unclear Wednesday whether Jindal realized the lobbying provision was contained in the bill he signed. His spokeswoman did not immediately return a request for comment about the legislation.

On Tuesday, Jindal vetoed three proposals involving ethics, including a bill by Rep. Jack Montoucet, D-Scott, that would have created new exceptions for lobbyists who are related to legislators.

The exception would allow John, D-Crowley, who now works for the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association, to lobby the Legislature despite restrictions on allowing lobbying by family members of sitting lawmakers.

John is the son-in-law of Sen. John Smith, D-Leesville.

Current law allows lobbyists to hold the positions as long as they registered at least one year before joining the sitting lawmaker’s family or one year before the official’s initial election to the Legislature. Montoucet’s bill would have grandfathered in everyone registered as a legislative lobbyist for the year prior to the effective date of his proposal.

Though Jindal jettisoned Montoucet’s bill, House Bill 1175, he earlier had signed a separate bill by Senate President Joel Chaisson, D-Destrehan, that contained a similar provision — so John will fall under the grandfather clause in Chaisson’s bill.

In the veto letter for Montoucet’s bill, Jindal said, “I do not see the need for this legislation,” without further explanation.

Jindal also vetoed bills that would have created exceptions to the ethics code, much of which was retooled in a February special session, including two measures he said would weaken ethics code enforcement by discouraging citizens from blowing the whistle on alleged misdeeds by public officials.

One bill would have prohibited the state Board of Ethics from considering anonymous tips. With the veto, the board will continue to be able to pursue any possible violation by a two-thirds vote of the board.

Another bill would have required the Board of Ethics to send a list of documents to any accused official. The list included the name of the complainant, who is not named in the current ethics investigation system.

Jindal said that could discourage “citizens from reporting misconduct for fear of reprisal.”