When gifts from lobbyists to government officials are discussed, what they consist of is usually money (including campaign contributions), meals, trips, and services. A pending Missouri House bill (2059; attached, see below) seeks to extend the definition of reportable "gift" from lobbyists in this context to include:
sexual relations between a registered lobbyist and a member of the general assembly or his or her staff. Relations between married persons or between persons who entered into a relationship prior to the registration of the lobbyist, the election of the member to the general assembly, or the employment of the staff person shall not be reportable under this subdivision.
Fortunately, there is an additional sentence in this paragraph that makes it clear that reporting such a gift does not require "a dollar valuation." On the other hand, that sort of self-rating system might make a lobbyist gift register so popular, the lobbying oversight office could sell advertising sufficient to fund its program.
Of course, because there is no definition of "sexual relations," Bill Clintonian lobbyists would be free to engage in many acts that some would consider "sex," but they could argue fall short of it.
For those of you who take this lightly or think this is a bill without an issue, think again. In fact, just last year the North Carolina Secretary of State's office asked the state ethics commission for a formal advisory opinion on the subject of whether sex between a lobbyist and a government official is a "gift." The EC opinion (attached; see below) was that "Consensual sexual relationships do not have monetary value and therefore are not reportable." Of course, the opinion continues, if the gift involves paid prostitution, it is a gift, albeit an illegal one.
The Missouri bill recognizes that there are important gifts that have no monetary value. Not only sex, but helping someone get a job or a college acceptance, for example, each is a valuable, and especially personal, gift that leads to a feeling of personal obligation. Limiting "gifts" to things with a monetary value, just as limiting only direct and definite gifts, as opposed to indirect and indefinite gifts (putting a word in with an employer or admissions officer is not definite) shows a lack of imagination, at the very least.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research, City Ethics