01:00 AM EST on Sunday, February 6, 2005

A very commendable new lobbying law requires increased public disclosure of spending by those who have interests before the Rhode Island General Assembly. And it raises an important question: Are some legislators working more for special interests than for the public interest?

Recent filings show that several high-ranking House and Senate Democrats not only are labor boosters in their votes and activities, which is fine in itself, but also receive piles of money from labor unions. (And that does not include contributions to political campaigns that help put them in power and keep them there.)

Senate Whip Dominick Ruggerio got $163,717 in pay and benefits last year as an administrator with the Laborers' International Union. Deputy House Whip Paul Moura got $91,663 in pay and benefits as a field representative with the Laborers'. John Tassoni, a deputy Senate majority leader, got $79,060 in pay alone from Council 94 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees -- the giant of state-employee unions in Rhode Island. Council 94 hired him after his election to the Senate.

This, of course, scratches the surface. Of 113 legislators, it appears that about 27 -- or 24 percent -- work for organized labor or are current or former public employees. Another 33 legislators (29 percent) are lawyers. Thus, labor representatives, public employees and lawyers -- all members of powerful special-interest groups in Rhode Island -- make up at least 53 percent of the legislature.

Of course, legislative conflicts of interest can develop with companies, too. Take Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island, which has acknowledged paying $77,047 in "broker commissions" last year to former Senate President William Irons.

Legislative pay, $12,285 a year, obviously pales beside such money. And just as obviously, tens of thousands of dollars from special interests can influence a person. Needless to say, the labor unions have a direct stake in much State House legislation, involving such matters as co-pays for medical insurance by public employees and reform of schools and the pension system. The narrow interests of labor and individual businesses, clearly, do not always represent the broader interests of the public.

The new lobbying law appears to raise some questions: How would lawyers reveal their interests and conflicts of interest while protecting lawyer-client confidentiality? Does the law apply to people who work for companies that do not lobby but belong to associations that do -- such as the Chamber of Commerce?

Sen. Michael Lenihan (D.-East Greenwich), chief author of the law, has filed new legislation that should lead to hearings answering some of these questions.

Meanwhile, it should also be said that the legislature would serve the public better if it included a much wider range of occupations. For instance, it could use far more business people, physicians, scientists and blue-collar workers. People from all walks of life should be encouraged to run for the legislature -- not just people who benefit most directly from government programs.

Still, it is good news that, thanks to the new law, the public now has access to additional lobbying information. Voters should consider very carefully when they go to the polls whether their would-be representatives truly represent them -- or whether they really will work for someone else.

* * *

In other musings on the legislature, we were somewhat mystified by the House leadership's proposals to bar the public from photographing or videotaping its sessions; to reduce the time available to scrutinize bills before a final vote; and to drop the requirement that lawmakers reveal on whose behalf they are sponsoring measures.

There has been the inevitable outcry from Republicans, Democrats who opposed the continued speakership of William Murphy, and good-government types. We now need to hear from Speaker Murphy and his associates what their rationale is for these proposals -- which some see as restricting First Amendment rights to news coverage and unfairly suppressing minority-party rights in the chamber.

Mr. Murphy will, we assume, speak to all these concerns, and to the timing of these moves by him and his fellow House leaders. Are these moves, for example, meant simply to improve the efficiency and decorum of the House -- or to cement the power of Speaker Murphy and his associates? Inquiring minds want to know!