SF 49A and HB 22A began as reruns of the 1997 bills (HB 100 and SF 161)described above. SF 49A stayed that way and ultimately passed. HB 22A was transformed for a brief shining moment into a full reporting bill, but was then substantially weakened and finally killed.

HB 22A was referred to the House Corporations, Elections & Political Subdivisions Committee. As introduced, HB 22 required reporting only of "...each loan, gift, gratuity, special discount or hospitality paid or given...which exceeds $50 in value identified by date, amount and the name of the legislator, state elected official or state employee."

The members of House Corporations, Elections & Political Subdivisions Committee amended the bill substantially to require reporting of the total expenditures made by the lobbyist and the lobbyist’s employer on lobbying activities, including (but not limited to) salaries and benefits, fees for professional and consulting services, telephone, postage, printing, copies, travel expenses, meals, lodging, and advertising.

The House Corporations, Elections & Political Subdivisions Committee’s action marked the first time that the Legislature had a full reporting bill under consideration.

The full reporting concept was short-lived, however, as reporting of "salaries and benefits" was deleted on the House floor on a voice vote.

Proponents of reporting salaries and benefits pointed out that the part-time Legislature’s heavy reliance on lobbyists for information means that the presence of lobbyists -- not their presents -- is the key factor in influencing legislation, and that presence is measured by salaries and benefits (which could be reported in ranges or aggregated with other expenses to protect privacy).

Opponents argued that reporting salaries and benefits might reveal private information.

An attempt to restore reporting of salaries and benefits, specifically allowing all lobbying expenditures to be reported as an aggregate total, was defeated on a voice vote.

The House also adopted a vaguely worded amendment requiring reporting of receipts and expenditures by "...any group of persons which, through a private or public association, raises, collects or spends money for paid advertising in any communication medium or for printed literature to support, oppose or otherwise influence legislation..."

The tricky part, to be determined through rulemaking, will be to define what constitutes supporting, opposing, or otherwise influencing legislation.

The House also adopted an amendment to make HB 22A apply only to attempts to influence legislation, not to attempts to influence rules, regulations, or policies, as called for in the original bill.

After these weakening amendments, HB 22A passed third reading with only six dissenting votes. Representatives voting against HB 22A were: Rodney "Pete" Anderson (R-H10, Pine Bluffs), Jim Hageman (R-H5, Ft. Laramie), Bruce Hinchey (R-H36, Casper), Frank Philp (R-H34, Shoshoni), Marlene Simons (R-H1, Beulah), and Loren "Teense" Willford (R-H47, Saratoga).

HB 22A was referred to the Senate Education Committee, where it was approved 4-1, but the bill died on General File (was never brought up for debate), and SF 49A became the vehicle for lobbyist reporting.

The original version of SF 49A was referred to the Senate Education Committee, which deleted the exemption for reporting costs of events to which all members of the legislature, of either house of the legislature, or of any committee of the legislature are invited (e.g., receptions), so these would be reported in addition to the usual loans, gifts, gratuities, etc., exceeding $25 in value.

The Senate Education Committee, like the House with HB 22A, also adopted an amendment to make HB 49A apply only to attempts to influence legislation, not to attempts to influence rules, regulations, or policies.

On the Senate floor, SF 49A was greeted with a flurry of amendments. An amendment to raise the threshold for reporting loans, gifts, gratuities, etc. from $25 to $50 was adopted, and the requirement for reporting costs of events was broadened to include events to which members of the legislature or regional legislative delegations are invited.

A comprehensive amendment to turn SF 49A into a full reporting bill was defeated, but another amendment requiring disclosure of "...the lobbyist’s source of funding..." was adopted.

The same amendment also provided that failure to file a lobbyist report, or to file a report containing information known to be false, would be a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $750 for the first offense, with a loss of lobbying privileges for up to two years upon second or subsequent convictions.

Like the 1997 version of lobbyist disclosure, SF 49A those submitting lobbyist activity reports to first provide the report to each legislator, state official, or state employee named, to give them the opportunity to disagree and file an objection (if the disagreement could not be resolved).

The Senate amended this provision to eliminate the screening process and simply to allow the named individual to file an objection, to be attached as an addendum to the lobbyist activity report.

All of the above-described amendments were adopted or defeated on voice votes. The Senate finally passed SF 49A with only one dissenting vote (see below).

Once in the House, SF 49A was referred to the House Revenue Committee, not the House Corporations, Elections & Political Subdivisions Committee that had worked on HB 22A.

During floor debate, the House added the same amendment pertaining to reporting paid advertising which it had put on HB 22A, and defeated amendments to restore full lobbyist reporting and to delete the Senate’s "lobbyist’s sources of funding" amendment.

No recorded votes were taken on the above amendments.

SF 49A passed the House with only two dissenting votes.

The Senator voting against SF 49A was Gail Zimmerman (R-S27, Casper).

Representatives voting against SF 49A were: Jim Hageman (R-H5, Ft. Laramie), and Frank Philp (R-H34, Shoshoni). Reps. Pat Nagel (R-H56, Casper) and Peg Shreve (R-H24, Cody) were excused.

As finally enacted, the lobbyist disclosure bill will require reporting of:

• the lobbyist’s sources of funding;
• each loan, gift, gratuity, etc., over $50 in value given to a legislator, state elected official, or state employee acting in his/her official capacity;
• the cost of special events for legislators;
• the cost of paid advertising to support, oppose or otherwise influence state legislation.

The bill’s provisions will be interpreted by rulemaking beginning in May 1998.