A Tale of Two Lobbying Efforts

The term lobbying, especially when used in conjunction with Sacramento, often has a negative, dare we say sleazy, public image. But advancing one’s cause in the state Capitol is necessary in order to compete with the cacophony aimed at getting legislators’ attention. Thus, when the county and city of Los Angeles both faced budget cuts of Gargantuan proportion, they sent in their top guns. But what a difference in the outcome. These days the city is patting itself on the back for holding on to millions of dollars, while the county, lamenting its loss of millions, is brooding and filing lawsuits.

The city’s celebratory spirit is perhaps premature, and the county’s glum mood is not entirely the result of self-inflicted wounds. Counties throughout the state were set up as cash cows in order to guarantee funding for education. Nevertheless, there’s hardly a doubt that the city did a better job in flexing its political muscle in Sacramento than did a flaccid L.A. County.

Even the Board of Supervisors is now asking whether the county’s lobbyists were ineffective. Despite having spent more than $313,000 on lobbyists--one of largest such expenditures in the state--Los Angeles County was devastated by $299 million in cuts, about half of what will be taken from all 58 counties.

Said Supervisor Mike Antonovich of the county’s in-house lobbying team: “Their efforts appear to be a case of too much fat and too little muscle. The return on our investment is very poor compared to others who contracted out for lobbying services. We should look into that option.” Given the results, it’s indeed hard to argue against considering that course.

Board Chairman Ed Edelman pointed out that the county’s biggest trouble stemmed from Los Angeles having no local Democrat on the powerful Senate-Assembly Conference Committee on the budget. True, that was a key weakness out of the county’s control. But it didn’t help that the county was apparently not well-versed on the ways of Sacramento, as revealed by Edelman’s mistaken assumption that the property-tax shift was dead just because the Senate had, in a symbolic move, voted against it the week before. The shift was very much alive.

The city, on the other hand, did a good job of working with local legislators to minimize any financial hits. City officials, including Controller Rick Tuttle and Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky, and Assemblymen Richard Katz (D-Sylmar) and Terry B. Friedman (D-Brentwood) and Sen. Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Van Nuys), put aside their differences on other issues long enough to help the city get by with as few cuts as possible. That’s the way it’s supposed to work, for L.A. city and county.