House Speaker John Perzel doesn't think anybody in Pennsylvania cares about lobbyists spending millions of dollars trying to influence legislation in Harrisburg. But Perzel could be wrong.

It's worth remembering that Perzel didn't think people cared about the $11,000 pay raise that legislators voted themselves at 2 a.m. on July 7, 2005. But people did care.

Once voters were struck with the arrogance of lawmakers defending the pay-raise vote, and once they learned more about how state legislators routinely violated the letter and spirit of the state constitution, the anger grew. It turns out the people of Pennsylvania

do

care about legislative abuses.

The same could be true of lobbying. Once voters begin to learn how much money is spent by lobbyists to influence legislation — and how much lawmakers themselves receive in terms of campaign contributions, free dinners at fancy restaurants, gifts or trips to resorts, voters' interest will grow.

A recent report released by the state Senate revealed that lobbyists spent $67.8 million in Harrisburg during the first six months of 2005. This record-setting level of lobbyist spending in the Senate is probably representative of what's happening in the House, but the House doesn't reveal that information. And Perzel thinks that nobody, outside the media, cares.

There is a good chance that Perzel is wrong in predicting zero interest on the part of the public in how much lobbyists spend in Harrisburg. Last summer, Perzel arrogantly suggested a similar voter disinterest after the controversial pay raise vote passed by responding to a reporter's question by saying "There's nothing to talk about. It passed on July 7." Apparently, there was something to talk about because a few months later, pressured by sustained voter outrage, the legislature repealed the pay raise.

Once voters learn more about the extent — and impact — of the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on lobbying in Harrisburg, lawmakers' attitudes, including Perzel's, could change. The pay-raise controversy raised citizen awareness and sensitivity to how business is done in Harrisburg. And lobbyist spending should be the next area to be exposed.

Proper lobbyist reporting would tell voters how much money that gambling interests, health care companies, real estate developers, entertainment companies, the telecommunication industry and other special interests spend in Harrisburg. Voters should know what each legislator receives from lobbyists. Once the details are made clear, voters can then "follow the money."

The fact that 49 other states have mandatory lobbyist reporting laws, suggests Pennsylvania is badly out of step with the rest of the nation on this issue. And at a time when increased scrutiny of lobbyist excesses is in the news following the Jack Abramoff scandal in Washigton, D.C., Pennsylvania should be instituting new, effective lobbying disclosure laws. To do nothing, and remain the only state without mandatory lobbyist reporting requirements and restrictions is not acceptable.

Perzel was wrong about the pay-raise. It wasn't settled and there was plenty that voters wanted to talk about.

And now, Perzel is wrong in suggesting that Pennsylvanians have no interest in knowing how much money, gifts, meals and travel are lavished on state lawmakers by lobbyists.

— J.L.W.III