Law & Ethics

JOU/PRE 304
JCOPE Controversy
Position Brief
March 31, 2016

Freddy Appau, Patrice Grande, Kenny Bates

Angela Lince, Kavita Singh
 New York State adopted two advisory opinions from the Joint Commission on Public
Ethics (JCOPE) in an effort to curb statewide corruption and tighten restriction on fundraising
and lobbying. Further analysis of the bill reveals the disastrous effects it will have on the public
relations and journalism industries. The legislation requires any representatives for a company,
organization, or charity to register, and pay appropriate fees, when speaking to media or making
preliminary contact with officials. If Bernie Sanders came to Plattsburgh, discussed Jon Pierce
and a panel of professionals in Plattsburgh, hed have to register.[2] As a group, we have
decided to take a deeper look into the negative side of this legislation.
Andrew Celli, a lawyer representing the team behind the lawsuit, spoke out about the
constitutionality of the bill for PR Week. This was unconstitutional and a big mistake he said,
and is a misguided and unconstitutional reaction.[1] The first amendment protects the peoples
freedom of speech and press. The JCOPE legislation is in direct violation to these rights granted
to us by requiring a vast majority of Public Relations practitioners to register as lobbyists, and
pay required fees, even when theyre engaging in activities not under the umbrella of traditional
lobbying, such as press releases or any interaction with journalists or media representatives.
Public Relations practitioners and journalists alike are justifiably outraged by the legislation.
The JCOPE legislation has already brought about so much discussion within those
involved in the government, but also public relations practitioners as well. The negatives of this
bill can be listed on and on. A specific negative that plays a role within the PR practitioner
themselves as well as those in the government is that this could be dangerous in some ways when
asking PR practitioners to speak to the government before going to the newspaper. The thought
that comes to mind when this aspect is brought up is that everything is going to be monitored
way more intently, not that it wasnt being monitored by the PR professional, but this will make
everything have to be written a certain way and every rule must be followed. The New York
Civil Liberties Union agrees with the PR firms, saying that conversations with the press fall
outside the legal definition of lobbying(1). According to the National Conference of State
Legislatures, lobbying and lobbying activities for New York shall mean and include any attempt
to influence the passage or defeat of any legislation or resolution by either house of the state
legislature including but not limited to the introduction or intended introduction of such
legislation or resolution or approval or disapproval of any legislation by the governor(2). Yes,
this is only the beginning part of the rule but it clearly has much more governmental objectives
to it than most PR practitioners even deal with it.
The aspect of this law is focused on allowing the government to have quite some
involvement on what is going on in the job of a PR practitioner. The First Amendment, freedom
of speech. Why all of a sudden would the state of New York feel that they should now have
involvement on what PR people can and cannot say and write down in their reports for either
magazines or other written pieces? There are many aspects of the legislation that JCOPE has
tried to pass, which is confusing many when trying to understand the basis of it because there are
certain parts of the law that do not apply to what the actual meaning of lobbying is. Writing an
op-ed, opinion editorial, piece urging law reform cannot be regarded as lobbying unless it further
urges individuals to contact public officials, New York Civil Liberties Union legal director
Arthur Eisenberg said. When we read most op-eds, we understand that thats not lobbying,
thats public education and entitled to free speech protections of the First Amendment. (1) This
entire ruling brings up the point that not everything that is said or written by PR professionals
has to do with the government, there are different angles that are taken on each piece of work
that is done so why would the government need them to file as a lobbyist if that is not the work
they are doing?
JCOPE is criticized by many practitioners for having a vague definition for how Public
Relations practitioners should lobby. The question on everyones mind is what exactly does the
JCOP bill consider as lobbying? It fails to give citizens and Public Relations practitioners a
reasonable notice of what is and isnt now a form of lobbying activity. It not only carries out
unreasonable burdens on PR firms that do nothing more than engaging in core First Amendment
activity, but it puts an entire industry into a dangerous, potentially criminal predicament, where
no one knows what is and is not lobbying, what the Commission will or will not penalize, or
what the Commission will or will not refer to as criminal prosecution.
Its really a pretty breathtaking expansion in terms of indirect political activity, said
Center for Competitive Politics lawyer Allen Dickerson, and also, this effort to dragoon the
press as part of the lobbying apparatus I think is very dangerous.

So therefore are private conversations considered lobbying as long as it is initiated by a

Public Relations practitioner?

PR and media consultants often speak with editors and reporters anonymously, or on
background, for any number of reasons, the suit says. Those private conversations are vital to
raise and share important information and views with the press. Yet under the Opinion, those
conversations will no longer be private, and therefore will no longer occur.

Mahoney, Bill. "PR Firms File Suit over 'hopelessly Vague' JCOPE Lobbying Definition." PR Firms File
Suit over 'hopelessly Vague' JCOPE Lobbying Definition. POLITICO NEW YORK, 8 Mar. 2016. Web. 27 Mar.
2016.

Jon Pierce, of Pierce Communications, believes that the state of New York is using PR as
a scapegoat. In essence this is extremely true because basically everything that PR
practitioners will do can be blamed for something that was said that could potentially bring
negativity to the state. If PR people have to report and let the government know exactly what
they are doing whenever they decide to get information, if there is something negative that they
feel they should report the state could potentially ask them to not report that. This would change
the entire thinking behind what PR is.
[1] Renfrow, Jacqueline Whats Next in the Legal Fight Between the PR Industry and New York State.
PR Week 11 March 2016
 [2] J Pierce, J LeSage Nelson, and Lois Clermont. Panel Discussion. Plattsburgh, NY, 2016. Notes.
With JCOPEs statement being passed, the definition of public relations is being
redefined by the nation. Just because a PR professional might be representing a company, he or
she isnt a lobbyist. This would greatly limit the definition of public relations. JCOPEs new
interpretation of what it considers to be lobbying will do nothing to further the publics trust in
government, is ambiguous, and could require a whole group of professionals who have no
contact with lawmakers to register as lobbyists, said Mark McClennan, 2016 PRSA National
Chair(1). He said this in response to the JCOPEs new interpretation. JCOPEs opinion sets out
an overbroad standard for when certain communications activities are considered to be lobbying.
It demeans people of both public relations and journalism.
The Lobbying Act has stated that the term lobbyist is someone who receives $5,000 or
more in expenses for lobbying activity. However, lobbying can also be defined as "any attempt
to influence a government action," such as grassroots lobbying, which is conveying legislators to
contact rather than directly addressing an issue.(1) McClennan also said many smaller firms
whose focus on products or corporate reputation may need to hire a lawyer in order to register or
decline to speak to the press about the issue. This makes practitioners have to go through a
complex system even if theyre part of a smaller firm or a non-profit organization.(1)
Additionally, PR firms received an adjudication and many are suing. Adjudication is the act of
court making a law or making a judicial decision. Many firms have sued, including the
November Team, Anat Gerstein and BerlinRosen Public Affairs with the support of the PR
council (1). The fact that this bill was issued in January, and the problem is continuous not only
shows the efforts from PR firms, but it clearly shows there is a problem with the ruling.
[1] Renfrow, Jacqueline Whats Next in the Legal Fight Between the PR Industry and New York State.
PR Week 11 March 2016
As mentioned previously, the JCOPE bills efforts have created a strain on the jobs of
many, in which, are involved in the communications area. Not only have Public Relation
practitioners bursted out with anger, but so have journalists. If this bill is officially passed,
journalists will be very limited to what they can say to the public. Journalists find this to be
insulting, since, they report the truth.
According to Bill Mahoney, a reporter at POLITICO New York's Albany bureau, Five
public relations firms have brought a federal suit seeking to block the Joint Commission on
Public Ethics from enforcing the portion of a recent advisory opinion that would treat people
paid to discuss legislation with editorial writers as lobbyists. [1] The ruling also outraged civil
rights groups and New York State newspapers. Journalists were upset at the idea that
government officials would be able to see their communications, although PR firms would be not
be asked to disclose names of journalists or publications or the content of those communications,
according to the Times .
Ronn Torossian, who is the CEO of 5WPR, interviewed Katherine Heaviside, the
President of Epoch 5 Public Relations, about the effects the JCOPE bill has on herself as well as
others. Heaviside stated that, This is overreaching and a direct interference with my First
Amendment rights And these actions will interfere with the operation of yet another New
York State business. She pointed out that when registered as a lobbyist, professionals must
operate under greater restrictions limiting fundraising abilities and spike operating costs.[2] The
outrageous restrictions are adding up.
Recently, in Rachael Jureks Public Relations Principles course, two successful
journalists discussed the interdependence of Public Relations practitioners and journalists. One
speaker, Jane Hooper, who is the Community Relations Director of the Elizabethtown
Community Hospital, found herself questioning the JCOPE bill. When the student asked for her
opinion on the topic, Hooper stood still, in awe. Never before, has she heard of this non-sense
bill. Michelle Ouellette attended the gathering and noted to Hooper that in her case, Hooper
would have to register as a lobbyist (due to her career). The other professional, George Mallet,
who is the current WPTZ Anchor, was also flustered by the bills qualifications. Mallet stood still
alongside Hooper- clueless.
Not to mention, at Public Relations day, which was scheduled for, March 25, 2016, Lois
Clermont, who is the editor of the Press Republican, questioned the bills existence, just like
Hooper and Mallet did. Why isnt this threatening bill becoming more active, and exposed to
most Public Relations people of New York? Why isnt thenews spreading?
[1] Mahoney, B. (2016, March 8). PR firms file suit over 'hopelessly vague' JCOPE lobbying definition.
Retrieved March 31, 2016, from
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/albany/2016/03/8593108/pr-firms-file-suit-over-hopelessly-vague-j
cope-lobbying-definition

[2] Torossian, R. (2016, January 19). JCOPE Seeks to Regulate Ethics for Lobbyists and Political
Consultants - CommPRO.biz. Retrieved March 31, 2016, from
http://www.commpro.biz/public-relations/jcope-seeks-to-regulate-ethics-for-lobbyists-and-political-consult
ants/