Ohio Federal Decision Casts Doubt on Ethics Bill

Niki Kelly, reporting for the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, reports that an Ohio federal court ruling casts some doubt on the legality of an ethics provision making it’s way through the Indiana General Assembly that requires a one year cooling off period before a legislator can lobby the General Assembly.

The decision, Brinkman v. Budish (here pdf), was decided by Judge Dlott of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. It’s appealable to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. As such, it has no precedential value here in Indiana, but it does throw up a caution flag.

The challenged Ohio law is similar to the proposed Indiana law in that it also requires a one year cooling off period before a former legislator can lobby the legislature. Jim Siegel, writing for the Columbus Dispatch has a story on the Ohio court’s decision.

State officials “have not articulated or presented evidence to establish that the temporally limited restriction adequately addresses the concern against quid pro quo corruption,” wrote Chief Judge Susan J. Dlott.
. . .
Dlott went after the law from a number of angles.

She said it was not narrow enough, because it prohibited lobbying regardless of whether it was an issue the person had worked on while in the legislature. The law also iswas “over-inclusive” because it captured unpaid lobbying, which Brinkman wanted to do.

On the flip side, Dlott said, the law was under-inclusive because it did not restrict gifts, employment offers or other potential corruption-inducing activities of former members.

The judge also said the law “severely burdened plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.”

Dlott even cited the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that lifted the ban on corporate contributions in federal elections, saying the high court’s reasoning “refutes the premise (that Ohio’s revolving-door law) is necessary to prevent former General Assembly members from having special access to the legislative process.”