House Speaker David Osborne, R-Prospect, is congratulated by U.S. District Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove after his swearing in. The speaker’s wife, Loren Hebel Osborne, looks on, Jan. 7, 2025. (LRC Public Information)
House Speaker David Osborne, intentionally or not, set a new precedent for the Kentucky legislature and lobbyists last week.
On March 5, Democratic Whip Lindsey Burke stood and called for a point of order, alleging Democrats had evidence that a lobbyist was communicating with Rep. Jennifer Decker via text message while she was on the floor, a violation of House rules.
In dramatic fashion — dramatic enough that friends were texting me to ask if I was watching — discussion of this year’s anti-DEI bill, Decker’s House Bill 4, screeched to a halt and Speaker Osborne, as well as Decker and other GOP leaders, scurried off the floor and out the side door.
They did not return for almost half an hour, leaving lawmakers to mill nervously about the floor.
The allegation was that Decker had violated House Rule 72, which reads: “No person shall engage in lobbying for or against any measure while the House is in session, or in recess, in any of the corridors or passages or in any of the rooms in that part of the Capitol or Capitol Annex assigned to the use of the House, and no registered lobbyist shall enter that part of the Capitol or the member’s offices on the third and fourth floor of the Capitol Annex while the House is in session.”
Kentucky House passes bill to eliminate DEI in state’s public universities, colleges
So what was taking so long in the speaker’s office?
If Decker was not communicating with a lobbyist and showed the speaker her electronic devices to prove it, this would be a quick meeting, would it not?
If Decker had been communicating with a lobbyist and receiving answers to questions from fellow lawmakers, was Osborne crafting a response to Burke’s allegation? What would that response be?
And yet, when they finally returned to the chamber, Osborne quickly ruled, without explanation, that Rule 72 states no lobbyists can be physically present, no rule violation had occurred, and they carried on with discussion of Decker’s bill as if nothing had happened.
But something did happen. And the speaker owes the public an explanation.
If Decker was not communicating with a lobbyist while presenting HB 4, he needs to say so.
If House leaders have determined that electronic communications between lawmakers and lobbyists during floor debates do not violate House rules, he needs to say that — and the House needs to consider updating its rules for the online world we all now live in.
Did our representatives, who had been waiting to proceed for a substantial period of time, not deserve an explanation of what occurred? Or guidance in how to proceed?
Had Decker been answering the questions about her anti-DEI bill, or was someone else — a paid lobbyist perhaps? — putting answers in her mouth, like an invisible puppet master with a marionette?
If Burke’s allegation was untrue, why did the speaker not specifically address her allegations on the floor? And if she was in the wrong, why was Burke not censured?
In not providing an explanation, in scurrying back into the chamber as quickly as they left and pretending nothing had happened, the speaker left lawmakers and the public to presume the worst: that Decker was unable to answer questions about her own bill, and that she was being coached, directly influenced by a lobbyist while on the floor of the House.
Influenced while making laws.
In 1993 the legislature adopted a code of ethics that limited the influence of lobbyists on lawmaking in response to BOPTROT — the scandal that exposed the outsized influence of paid lobbyists corrupting the legislative process.
If you need a quick refresher courtesy of the Kentucky Open Government Coalition, BOPTROT “was an undercover sting operation conducted by the FBI that began in September 1990. BOP refers to the legislature’s Business, Occupations and Professions Committee (which was responsible for state law governing horse racing) and TROT to harness racing. The operation netted 12 Kentucky legislators, including then-Speaker of the House Don Blandford, and others, including then-Governor Wallace Wilkinson’s nephew and appointment secretary, Bruce, all of whom accepted bribes ‘and other inducements’ for influencing racing legislation. Most of the convicted were fined or imprisoned or both. Blandford, for example, was fined $10,000 and sentenced to 64 months in prison. The public was surprised to learn that a legislator could be ‘bought’ for as little as a $400 bribe. One attorney was prompted to comment, ‘That’s not a bribe. That’s a tip.’”
Do the words “outside influence” no longer strike fear in the hearts of our elected officials?
The speaker owes the public a detailed explanation of what happened on the House floor on March 5, and the rules need modernizing to catch up with the massive technological changes since 1993.
The ethics code that lawmakers imposed on themselves prohibits lobbyists from being on the floor while a chamber is in session.
Thirty-two years later, we have virtual workplaces (which, it should be noted, the legislature is attempting to eliminate for state employees) and virtual school and virtual meetings. What is the difference between being physically present and communicating online?
Is physical presence required to exert influence?
The rules by which our legislature operates in 2025 need updating to address these questions including, but not limited to, Rule 72. Otherwise, lobbyists will now feel free to participate in floor debates by coaching lawmakers and providing them with answers to questions from other lawmakers. And lawmakers will feel free to use those answers.
Is this not the very definition of corruption? Of undue influence? Of cheating?
The intent of lobbying rules is to create a space free from efforts to influence legislative decision-making by prohibiting the presence of lobbyists. Allowing the virtual presence of lobbyists defeats the intent of the rule.
Speaker Osborne’s decision or lack thereof re: Rule 72 essentially makes lobbyists our virtual, unelected lawmakers.
If the rules are not updated to address the virtual presence of lobbyists on the floor of the Kentucky legislature, can we say there is no corruption? That there are only 138 people representing the public, making our laws?
No. We cannot.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.