City to review proposals to toughen lobbying laws.

Lobbying Los Angeles City politicians and bureaucrats is a $6.5 million-a-year business, but the public-disclosure rules would be broadened widely under proposals that face their first City Council review this week.

For instance, spending $2,000 or more during a quarter on advertising or public relations to support a bill would for the first time have to be disclosed to the public.

Also, fundraising by lobbyists for political candidates would be forced into the public eye.

"This will make some important changes for the good," said Ethics Commissioner Edwin Guthman.

The City Council now must decide whether the controversial changes properly balance the interests of many business owners, who complain L.A. already has too much regulation, with concerns of political reformers, who say buying influence in city government is still often done in the shadows.

The council's Rules and Elections Committee has scheduled a public hearing Oct. 28 on the legal proposals, which were drawn up by the reform-minded City Ethics Commission.

Benjamin Bycel, executive director of the 2-year-old commission, said his panel's changes amount to a "streamlining and strengthening" of the city's 25-year-old lobbying law.

That law long has mandated that hired lobbyists disclose the money they earn from businesses and other special interests to influence the legislative process -- typically asking a council member or a top city manager for support on a bill.

The proposal, however, requires lobbyist firms to report just as individual lobbyists do so now.

That could capture untold dollars spent on political mailings, for instance.

The money behind recent big-time media campaigns has largely gone unreported, said ethics commission staff members.

Examples include the cable TV industry's campaign against Mayor Tom Bradley's user tax last year, and the tobacco industry's effort to defeat a smoking-in-restaurants ban.

Also, the date, cost and location of fundraisers held by lobbyists or their firms must be disclosed.

Currently lobbyists host events that raise $100,000 or more for candidates, often City Council incumbents, and don't have to report the expenditures because they are not technically lobbying.

"A firm might kick in lots of money for food, beverages and entertainment, and it may be at a time there's a volatile issue before the City Council," postulated Ethics Commission Associate Director LeeAnn Pelham.

Some of the highest-profile lobbyists, like Alma Fitch and Maureen Kindel, have hired a lobbyist of their own -- Jim Sutton -- to try to shape Bycel's bill to their liking.

Attorney Sutton, with law firm Nielsen, Merksamer in San Francisco, specifically criticized the provisions placed on businesses which require an employee to lobby on occasion. The burdens are overwhelming, he said.

"This is going to require all companies in the city to virtually audit their operations (and actions) of their government affairs people, their directors of marketing, VPs -- anyone who contacts a city official on anything," Sutton complained.

Sutton said a film company seeking a permit to shoot in a park, or a company asking approval to lay a sprinkler system, would be engaging in lobbying, under the proposal's new definitions.

Pelham denied those assertions. She said "frivolous, ministerial" actions like approving a street banner for a festival wouldn't be targeted.

A host of small-time lobbyists would be relieved of filing any disclosures, under the proposal. Only those who earn more than $1,000 a quarter, or those who are paid for more than four contacts with officials, would be governed.

Professional lobbyists are complaining that powerful homeowner-group leaders are totally exempted from disclosures, even though they can sway important votes, said Sutton.

Frequently cited is Laura Lake, president of Friends of Westwood and an ex-challenger to incumbent Councilman Zev

|Incomplete Text in Original Publication~