AUGUSTA – While it’s not exactly open season on lobbyists at the State House, still another bill aimed at curbing the power of Maine’s paid influence peddlers received a public hearing Monday before the Legislature’s Legal and Veterans Affairs Committee.

Armed with LD 1993, Rep. Sean Faircloth, D-Bangor, said he hoped to close a “legal loophole” in Maine law that allows paid consultants to testify on bills before legislative committees without disclosing their financial interests. The bill also would direct lobbyists to disclose the name of the organization or person they represent when appearing before a committee.

Current Maine law does not address consultants and requires lobbyists to register and file regular reports with the state Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices. It does not specifically require lobbyists to disclose information about themselves to legislative committees although nearly all do so voluntarily.

Faircloth’s bill would remove all doubt over a lobbyist’s representation and would require a lobbyist who employs a consultant to make that disclosure to a legislative policy committee before any testimony would be offered. Failure to adhere to the provision could result in a fine of up to $5,000.

“That’s not to say that we would be casting aspersions with regard to that information, but it is information that should be disclosed right upfront by the lobbyist and by the consultant to committees of the Legislature,” Faircloth said. “It’s not our job as legislators to be cross-examiners or act as witnesses for the prosecution against people who come before committees.”

As early as this week, the Legislature could take initial votes on two other bills that place lobbyists’ activities under greater scrutiny. Rep. Marilyn Canavan, D-Waterville, wants to create an online register listing the names of lobbyists, the organizations they represent, and the subjects of bills in which they have an interest that could be easily cross-referenced on the Internet.

Her second bill would require lobbyists to report on their activities when lobbying state agencies. Lobbyists now must report activity dealing with the Legislature and the governor’s office directly, but not any other executive branch office or department. No major changes have been made to Maine’s Lobbyist Disclosure Laws since 1976.

“We have an excellent track record on ethics in Maine, but the recent scandals and growing culture of corruption in Washington are good reason for all of us to put our ethics laws under the microscope,” Canavan said in a prepared statement.

While the public has viewed the relationships between legislators and lobbyists suspiciously in the past, many lawmakers give credit to representatives of special interests for quickly bringing them up to speed on complicated issues even if the information contains an inherent bias. Other lawmakers, particularly those who oppose the state’s legislative term limits law, view the State House lobby with a degree of measured tolerance. They worry that term limits have diminished the sway of legislative leadership and increased lobbyists’ power to influence rookie lawmakers.

Dan Riley, a lobbyist and lawyer with the firm Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer and Nelson of Augusta, said he had some concerns about the proposal but “generally” agreed with LD 1993. He said he could attest to recent situations in which registered lobbyists failed to disclose who their clients were even after legislative committee members queried them.

“There is absolutely no excuse for that in my mind,” he said. “I’m very much in support of the idea of pulling someone’s ticket, so to speak, if they refuse to live up to their obligations under the public disclosure requirements of the statute.”

Riley said any expert should disclose whom he’s representing, but questioned whether the obligation of disclosure should be placed solely on the lobbyist since the lobbyist who hired the consultant may have no intention of testifying.

Several lawmakers on the panel thought there was a need for LD 1993 while others said Faircloth’s concerns might be better resolved through formal rulemaking by the ethics commission. At least one Republican member questioned whether there was even a need for the bill, since he believed lawmakers were generally savvy enough to recognize a hired gun when they see one.

“[Don’t these] type of disclosures inject a sort of courtroom drama or unnecessary paranoia or skepticism into the hearing process?” asked Rep. Gary Moore, R-Standish. “I like the idea of a Maine citizen Legislature. I think we’re relatively intelligent – for the most part – and give people credibility where credibility is due.”

Rep. John L. Patrick, D-Rumford and chairman of the Legal and Veterans Affairs Committee, said Faircloth had raised some issues that were perceived as valid by lawmakers.

“I think there is somewhat of a need, whether it is through legislation or rulemaking,” he said. “There are some small tweaks we can do.”

A work session on LD 1993 is scheduled for March 8.