A push for a partial ban on lobbyists in Parliament initially appeared capable of winning a majority. But the tide has changed since then. The responsible parliamentary commission has now unanimously decided to bury the proposed law.
Dealing with the lobbyists occupies Parliament.
Are parliamentarians for sale? Such a suspicion can never be completely eradicated. The following scenario sometimes causes people to wrinkle their noses: National Councilor X is a new member of the Health Commission. Three months later, health insurance company Y made him a member of the board of directors for a fee of CHF 50,000 a year. Or a member of the Council of States is new to the Energy Commission – and shortly thereafter he becomes a paid member of the board of directors of an electricity company.
The Valais Central Council of States Beat Rieder wanted such a “parliamentarian shopping” of interest groups with a parliamentary initiative ban from 2019. The idea was initially well received. The responsible national political committees of the National Council and the Council of States supported the initiative in principle, each with a clear majority. The lead committee of the Council of States then drew up a concrete legislative project. But then the problems started.
The wind has now turned completely. This week, the State Political Commission (SPK) of the Council of States approved the proposed legislation unanimously rejected. She is now asking the Council to bury the initiative. Did the evil lobbyists fight back? The 13 members of this commission have more than 70 paid mandates – with the individual members ranging from zero to over ten mandates. But in view of the unanimity, you don’t have to use a conspiracy theory to explain the about-face. Rather, what often happened happened: a well-sounding idea suddenly turned out to be problematic in the lowlands of concrete implementation and therefore shattered in the end. According to the SPK, practical and legal hurdles were decisive.
stab of the lawyers
According to the proposed law, members of most parliamentary commissions would not be allowed to take up paid work in companies or other organizations whose main field of activity could be directly affected by the legislative work of the relevant commission. Excluded from this ban would be activities with compensation of up to 10,000 francs per year and the full-time work of the committee members. The full-time exception was intended to ensure that Parliament formally retained its militia character. But in practice, according to commission members, it is often difficult to distinguish between parliamentarians’ main and part-time jobs. And in terms of content, the distinction seems rather oblique: Political venality because of the main job would not be a problem, but venality because of a part-time job would not work.
The decisive stab in the back, however, came from the lawyers and from one in particular legal opinion of the Federal Office of Justice from the end of May this year. According to the report, the legislative project does not conform with the Federal Constitution. Above all, the federal lawyers criticized various unequal treatment: the distinction between main and secondary employment, the distinction between activities with pay of more than or less than 10,000 francs a year and the distinction between parliamentarians who hold relevant external mandates before or only after joining a parliamentary commission .
The federal lawyers found no convincing justification for this unequal treatment. A key point of the report: Conflicts of interest could arise in the still permitted constellations as well as in the prohibited constellations. As a milder alternative that conforms to the constitution, the federal lawyers are proposing an extension of the transparency obligation – so that parliamentarians would not only have to publish paid and unpaid mandates, but also the amount of the payment.
Amount should remain confidential
The criticism of the federal lawyers seems to have convinced all SPK members. This also applies to the Zurich SP Council of States and law professor Daniel Jositsch, as he confirmed on Wednesday. However, the initiator Beat Rieder is not on the commission. He was still reluctant to give his verdict on Wednesday when asked.
The Commission also discussed proposals to extend the transparency obligation. The publication of the amount of remuneration from external posts and the disclosure of the time at which such mandates were assumed were specifically up for debate, as the green Glarner Council of States and SPK President Mathias Zopfi said. However, a majority (7 to 4 votes) came to the conclusion that this would not bring any additional benefit. The publication of the emoluments of the elected representatives “would not solve the problem of the conflict of interest, but would only satisfy the curiosity of the public,” explained Zopfi. In other words: In this reading, the existence of conflicts of interest does not depend on the amount of money paid. From the perspective of a minority, however, it makes a difference whether you get 5,000 or 50,000 francs a year for an office, for example.
Even apart from the discussion of the amount, there are still gaps in the transparency requirements for the external posts of parliamentarians. According to the applicable Parliament Act, professional activities as employees, activities in management, supervisory and advisory bodies, consulting and expert activities for federal agencies as well as permanent management or consulting activities for interest groups are subject to disclosure. The relevant article of the law does not mention temporary consulting, expert and lobbying activities, for example by lawyers and consultants, without connection to an employment or a managerial mandate. “We discussed this topic, but there was no motion for it,” says SPK President Zopfi.
How many militia is left?
The controversy also called for the old basic question: militia parliament or professional parliament? The main advantage of the militia system is that it is more practical. Its main potential disadvantage lies in the greater risk of institutional corruption; all parliamentarians are, almost by definition, vested interests.
“The clear majority is in principle for the militia system,” says SPK President Zopfi. He illustrates the matter with his own example: “It makes perfect sense for me to sit on the transport commission (of the Council of States) as a board member of a bus company and to be able to contribute my specialist knowledge. If you were on commissions whose business you understand less, you would be more dependent on lobbies.” Disclosure and restraint on certain issues are required of parliamentarians, however.
Parliament’s militia character needs to be put into perspective. According to one elevation From 2017, the time spent by parliamentarians on politics averaged 80 to 85 percent based on a 42-hour week. Based on a more realistic 60 to 70-hour week, the parliamentary mandate takes up an average of 50 to 60 percent. According to one conducted by the University of Lausanne analysis of the parliament elected in 2019, around 30 percent are political professionals. Almost a quarter are employees; some are teachers, other public employees or association representatives. The largest group, at 45 percent, is made up of “independents”: entrepreneurs and representatives of freelance professions such as lawyers and consultants. Some in this group are limited to certain mandates and may come close to the model of political professionals.