NCCLGR

Senate 1
Marc Basnight
Incumbent- yes

Thank you for your letter and for the candidate questionnaire from the North Carolina Coalition for Lobbying and Government Reform. As you know, serving with integrity is tremendously important to me and something I take seriously. I was proud to help pass the toughest ethics reforms in the country and I truly appreciate your efforts in ensuring good government. However for the reasons outlined below, I must decline your invitation to participate.

It has been my long-practice while serving in the North Carolina Senate to not sign pledges or fill out questionnaires committing myself to be either for or against a specific issue on a wholesale basis. I believe that these pledges and questionnaires impede officials’ abilities to use their best judgment when dire situations arise or to change their minds as new information becomes available – these impediments are not in the best interests of our state. When I consider any matter that may come before the Senate, I want to be free to hear the debate, to consider all information available, and - if my previous position is wrong – I want to be free to change my mind so I can make the right decisions for our people and our state. That is my job as a representative of the people.

This is not to say hat public servants should not make promises – all of us should make a promise to represent our constituents and our state to the best of our abilities, and to use good judgment, compassion and common sense in our decisions. But to do that, we need the freedom to respond to new information and changing circumstances in a manner this is in the best interest of our state. That is why I refuse to sign any pledge or questionnaire from any groups because, in restricting my freedom, I believe I weaken my ability to effectively represent my district and my state, and worse t limit myself to a position that may not ultimately be in the best interest of those whom I have been elected to serve.

The freedom to listen, to debate, and to make decisions is at the very crux of my duties as a public servant- and the duties of the 169 other lawmakers who serve our people. As you can imagine, with 170 people in the legislature it can often be challenging to come to agreement- yet another reason freedom and flexibility are critical for legislators.

Senate 7

Charles Stires
Incumbent –no

1. I support prohibiting lobbyists from raising money for candidates and their committees. I support banning all contributions, gifts, trips from lobbyists to candidates and their committees.
2. I support the same reporting requirements for all candidates, lobbyists, committees, PAC’s, etc. Complete transparency is the goal.
3. Yes
4. Yes. Make the transactions transparent
5. yes. Full disclosure of PAC membership is required.

Senate 8

Bettie Fennell
Incumbent: No

1. Yes, I would support prohibiting lobbyists from raising money for candidates. I would support any effort to bring the cost of campaigns down. I also support any effort to put candidates on a level playing field. Incumbents whether good or bad legislations, often have an advantage over political newcomers.
2. Yes. In fact, I would prefer that the amount be lowered to $5,000. The public has a right to know who is working behind the scene to get candidates elected-and what the fund-raises except in return.
3. No. Campaigns are becoming so expensive that only the wealthy and well connected can afford to run for public office. The effect is that well qualified people are unable to mount effective campaigns.
4. Absolutely not! I believe that is a way to secretly funnel money to legislators and their families out of the watchful eyes of the public. I am reminded of the block causes setting up a foundation that gave scholarships to legislator’s children.
5. No. At first blush, I believe there should be at least an arms length relationship between legislators and lobbyists when campaign contributions are involved.

Senate 10
Charles Albertson
Incumbent- yes

Thank you for your recent questionnaire. For some time now, because of time constraints and the large number of questionnaires received, I have been declining to complete such forms.
It has always been my policy to carefully study the issues at hand and try to make the best decision possible for the good of the people. I will continue to make education a top priority.
I think my record speaks for itself in as much as I work hard to serve not only my constituents, but all of NC citizens.

Senate 12
Kay Carroll

1. yes
2. yes
3. No
4. No
4. No

Senate 13

David Weinstein

Senator Weinstein does not respond to surveys

Senate 15

Neal Hunt
Incumbent: Yes

1. I do not support allowing lobbyists to raise money for candidates or their committees.
2. Absolutely
3. Not! This is the biggest travesty still allowed under the previously approved ethics reform rules. It is ridiculous to allow contributions of hundreds of thousands of dollars to a political party who then dole it out to candidates of their choice.
4. As evidence by recent examples of abuse, it is a bad idea for politicians to solicit money for charities or nonprofits. I would support a complete ban on this practice.
5. I am undecided on this issue

Senate 16

John M. Alexander
Incumbent: No

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No
4. No. Zero dollars should be solicited from lobbyists.
5. No

Josh Stein
1. Yes

2. Yes
3. No

4. No

5. No

SEnate 17

Brian Irving

1.This is a clear example of why lobbying reform will always fail. Legislators will always find loopholes to circumvent the law, either those deliberately written into the law, or those invented by creative interpretation.

Even lobbyists have the same rights as other citizens. An individual’s right to support the candidate of their choice in any way they can should never be restricted. Simple stated, laws restricting campaign contributions are abridgments of the right to free speech.

The intent of lobbying reform is noble. Yet, good intentions do not address the actual issue. It is not that money is used to influence how legislators use their power, it is the fact that legislators have the power in the first place. Our nation was founded on the fundamental principal of limited government. Yet government, at all levels, has grown exponentially to envelope every aspect of our lives. Until and unless we reduce the size, scope and power of State government, the problem will remain and no legislation will fix it.

An alternative solution is for legislators to pledge — as I do — to never to accept money from any group, to only accept money directly from individuals, and to make public a list of all donations and donors.

Finally, no lobbying or government reform is possible as long as the Democratic-Republican duopoly is allowed to maintain a closed election system. North Carolina has arguably the most restrictive ballot access laws in the nation. People deserve at least as many choices when voting as they do when buying bottled water.

2. The U.S. Constitution does not give the Federal government any authority for such legislation. A similar law in North Carolina would be unnecessary if legislators made and keep the “full disclosure” pledge I have made.

3.Yes. I only wish it had not been necessary for the North Carolina Libertarian Party to spend $130,000 just to get on the ballot, so that we could have used that money to help candidates.

4. If by “allowed” you mean “should it be legal” my answer is: Yes. It is their right. The question should be: is it proper or appropriate, to which I answer: absolutely not.

5. Again, my answer is yes, they should be allowed — as individuals exercising their right to free speech. Here again, the connection between lobbyists and PACS is not the problem. The problem is that the primary purpose lobbyists and PACs exist is to influence legislators who wield way too much power over everything.
Senate 19

Anthony (Tony) Rand
Incumbent: Yes

“Thank you for sending me your questionnaire for state legislative candidates. It is my policy not to respond to this type of survey.

As a state legislator, I must consider a multitude of variables when making public policy decisions. It is impossible to mark a yes or no answer on many of your questions for these actions.

In the 20 years that I have been privileged to serve in the General Assembly, I have voted on thousands of issues concerning almost every imaginable subject matter. I find this a much better indicator of my position than a questionnaire. Suffice it to say, I consider myself fiscally conservative, socially moderate and pro-choice.

In addition, I approach the representation of my district with an open mind. I welcome the lively discussion and debate that occurs in committee and on the Senate floor. As a result, I may be persuaded to change my mind on an issue that I previously thought I had resolved. It is the nature of my service to the State of North Carolina to listen to all sides of an issue before casting my vote.

Thank you again for contacting me, I look forward to working with you during session.

Senate 20

Floyd McKissick
told us on phone tht he does not answer surveys

Senate 23
Eleanor Kinnard

1. Yes. Although it would be difficult to discover, I would ban all soliciting and collecting from lobbyists to candidates.

2. Yes.

3. If it would slow down the war of fundraising, I would agree we should limit the amount a party can give to candidates.

4. No. This is a major loophole of influence.

5. I don’t know that this makes much difference. They are all political and the PACs are identified by their interest anyway.

Senate 24

Richard Gunn

1. Yes
2. I am not opposed to thsi concept/idea . If it is appropriately drafted it would be a good idea.
3. I beleive tahis is a good idea and would support legislation to limit the contribution amounts.
4. No;unless well documented, fully disclosed, and with strict dollar limits. Allowing solicitation open the door to abuse.
5. I see where lobbyist could give valuable input to PAC’s about state lawmakers; however full disclosure should be required if they are allowed to serve. I would consider legislation that prohibits lobbyists from being involved in contribution allocations to cnadidtes or lawmakers.

Senate 29

Ronald Franklin
Incumbent: No

1. So long as incumbents remain the focus of lobbying efforts, I support prohibiting raising money for candidates. Lobbyists can play an important role in government, but the playing field should be level and fair. Our currents system is blatantly unfair for non-incumbents.
2. North Carolina currently limits individual contributions for candidates to 4,000 with the exception of the candidate and selects immediate family members. I support limiting contributions from any single donor to this limit. With regards to individuals who bundle donations of others, disclosure of the name of those individuals bundling in excess of 4,000 would be advised as well
3. Yes. Provides they remain with the guidelines described above.
4. No legislators and members of the council of state are there to look after affairs of state of state, not charities. Lobbyists wishing to donate funds to charities or not for profit organizations should do so directly with a donative intent.
5. So long as the playing field is level where donations are concerned, the participation of lobbyists in PAC decision making may be helpful to committee members who are less familiar with legislative issues. Lobbyists and PACS can serve an important Role in the government process but their financial involvement must be balanced, fair and open for public oversight.

Jerry Tillman
Incumbent: Yes

1. Lobbyists should not be allowed to solicit contributions for candidates/legislators and their centers. Yes, I would support legislation to prohibit this practice.
2. Yes, I will support sunshine legislation in N.C similar to the passed in U.S Senate.
3. There should be a limit on the amount of money political parties can give to candidates.
4. Legislators should not be allowed to solicit money for charities or not for profit organizations from lobbyists. There should be an o limit.
5. Lobbyists should be prohibited from sewing on PACS and should not be a part of the decision-making process relative to which candidates receive money and how much they receive.

Senate 34

William Barnette
Incumbent: No

1. No
It would depend on whether it is a local election or statewide.
2. I need more data.
3. Yes
4. Such solicitations must be reasonable guidelines should be established.
5. Yes

Andrew Brock
Incumbent- yes
1.No see question below.
I support full disclosure. However, I question the limiting of one’s freedom of speech.

2. Yes

3. No

4. No

5. No

Senate 36
Mike Helms
Incumbent: No
:
1. Yes

2. Yes

3. No

4. No

5. No

Senate 37

Vince Coscia

1. No. No Limit
2. Yes
3.No a restriction should be imposed
4. No
5. I have no problem with this

Senate 38

Charlie S. Dannelyy

As a legislator, I am concerned to serving the best intersts of the constituents of my district and the citizens of this state. In doing so,I must view every issue from all sides. Consequently, I stopped completing surveys and questionnaires years ago. Surveys and questionnaires tend to limit my response in certain situations rendering me unabel to make approp[riate decisions for changing conditions that occur in the unknown future and ultimately affect the wellbeing of this state.

Additioanlly, my record as to where on stand, presently, on various issues, is availabel to the public on the Internet.
Senate 40

Ed Milheren
Incumbent: No

1. Yes

2. Yes but would lower to 1,000

3. No

4. No

5.No, would not allow

Senate 42

Austin Allran
Incumbent: Yes

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. No

4. This sounds like there should be more restrictions. I’ve never done this* so I don’t know much about it. I’d like more information before making suggestions. (* solicit for charities or non for profits from lobbyists)

5. no

Senate 43

Kathy Harrington

1. Lobbyists are currently limited in their fundraising activites. All contributions made by lobbyists , or groups they represent, to Legitslative or Statewide Candiates should be fully disclosed and reported.
2. All contributions directly to Candidtes should be fully disclosed regrdless of the amount or source.
3. North Carolina has limits on wht political parties can do and how they spend funds for candidates. Ful disclosure is mandatory.
4. Legislators and COuncil of state memebrs should not be allowed to head or be directly affilaites with Non-Profits or Charities.
5. Full disclosure is the important factor. All groups giving money through PACs should disclose who is on their committees and to whom they contributed.

Senate 44

Jim Jacumin
Incumbent: Yes

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. No

4. No

5. No

Senate 45

Steven Goss
Incumbent: Yes

1. Yes, I believe lobbyists should not be involved in the fundraising process.

2. Yes, absolutely

3. No, I prefer public financing of all campaigns

4. No the not for profit itself can solicit the contribution, but council of state and legislators should not.

5. No there should be a complete separation of the activities.

Senate 46

Debbie Clary
Incumbent: No (currently a member of the North Carolina House of Representatives)
Responses:
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No
4. No, simply not do so if they are connected to the not for profit in any way.

5. Provide voting records and allow PAC to make decisions on voting records and surveys.

Senate 49

RL Clark

1. Article I the Bill of Rights must be preserved. In my opinion your proposal is unconstitutional. Honesty and Morality cannot be legislated.

Again this is a free speech issue

2. Free speech

3. Again free speech

4. Free speech

5. Free speech

To provide some clarity I don’t accept campaign contributions from lobbyists or PAC’s. I am not for sale.

Senate 50

John Snow

1. I would support prohibiting lobbyists from raising money for legislator and statewide candidates and their committees for public office. Lobbyists should also be restricted from being involved and contributing to independent 527 groups; because these groups are or could be very influential in a political campaign.

2. I would support this type of “sunshine ” legislation.

3.I think it is important tht not just retired, or rich people be the legislators in our state. A school teacher would have a hard time financially winning a Senate seat in North Carolina without having party support. It is doubtful, that without that support, a teacher could be elected. SOmething needs to be done to make a more level playing field. Until all elections are publically financed, I believe the political parties should not be restricted on donations.

4. No

5.Lobbyists should not be allowed to serve on PAC committees or be part of deciding which candidates receive money and how much money they receive.

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Roy Cooper
Incumbent
no response as of 23 October,2008

Bob Crumley
no response as of 23 October, 2008

AUDITOR

Les Merritt
Incumbent -yes

1.Yes, I support any effort to prohibit lobbyists from raising money for legislative and statewide candidates and their committees. Our government was established on the principle that people have the control and can make a difference by working together on issues to find common solutions. Political campaigns and issue campaigns should not be run by how much money can be raised and spent.

2.Yes, I support legislation that will require the name, occupation and the amount raised by any specific person for any legislative or statewide candidate. Personally, I think this information should be collected on any individual that raises over $4,000 for any specific candidate.

3.No, state political parties and organizations should not be permitted to give unlimited amounts of money to legislative candidates. North Carolina’s General Assembly was established as a citizen’s legislature and we must maintain that tradition and not allow limitless amounts of money to dictate elections in North Carolina.

4.No. Members of the North Carolina General Assembly and the Council of State should not be allowed to solicit contributions from lobbyists for charities and non-profit groups under any circumstances. If a member of the General Assembly or the Council of State wishes to raise money for any of the worthwhile causes in North Carolina he or she should do that on their own time.

5 No. Lobbyists registered in North Carolina should not be allowed to be part of the decision making process on how PAC money is distributed to candidates. If a lobbyist wishes to sit in an advisory capacity for a PAC that should be permissible; however, any further involvement on how funds are spent over the course of a campaign should be limited to those not registered as lobbyists.

Beth Wood<

1.Yes I would whole-heartedly support legislation that prohibits, lobbyists from raising money for legislative and statewide candidates in any capacity. Legislators and Council of State members should not be “beholding” to anyone when they take office and should not be in a position to owe favors to those supporting/working for special interest groups.

2.Absolutely

3.No for the most part. I do think that if one candidate has unlimited funds to use to get their message out, then the Party of the opponent should be able to aid the opponent to get their message out also if the opponent funds are limited. It should not be about whose name is heard the most, it should be about the voters having the information they need to make an informed decision.

4. No, we should not create even the perception that there is some sort of bond/relationship between lobbyists and Council of State members.

5. Absolutely not.

COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE

Ronnie Ansley
1.I would support prohibiting and/or limiting lobbyists from raising money for s=legislative and statewide candidates.

2. Yes, I would.

3. Political parties should be allowed to provide money and support to candidates as long as it does not violate any existing laws nor ethics.

4. No.I would limit any solicitation by elected officials and candidates from lobbyists.

5. Lobbyists should not serve on PAC committees nor be a part of deciding which candidates recieve money or how much money they recieve.

Steve Troxler
Incumbent
no response as of 23 October, 2008

COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE

Wayne Goodwin

1.Given my strong support during my past legislative service and as a member of the campaign finance/election reform community for many years, I am much inclined to support such a prohibition or limitation.

Notwithstanding my answer, above, please consider this: If the proposed prohibition does not become law, then I would propose an alternative: Any and all lobbyists who solicit contributions must identify on their reports (1) those candidates for whom they solicited campaign contributions, and (2) those persons or PACs to whom the solicitation was made on behalf of such candidates.

2. Yes. This not only comports with my past legislative record and on-going activities in the reform community, but it also mirrors – in part – what I proposed in the previous answer.

3.In this instance, I must say “yes.” If we are going to have stringent limitations like those mentioned in questions 1 and 2 (and other limitations), then we do not want to take any actions which will harm the political party construct. Political parties are creatures of the First Amendment, relying heavily upon freedom of association and freedom to petition the government for one’s grievances, etc. My concern is that if we allow the restriction proposed in this question then it may seriously harm a system where the two major political parties already face growing numbers of unaffiliated voters who vote in the primaries of the political parties. As my record and public actions reflect, I am a stalwart proponent of campaign finance reforms; however, I am not persuaded as to the necessity of the reform proposed by this question. … Of course, I am willing to listen to counterarguments and re-assess, and would appreciate learning more about the details of statutes in those States that have imposed such limits.

4. No. I have concerns about the appearance of a conflict.

In terms of restrictions, I suggest either a complete ban … or, barring passage of this reform measure, a “sunshine law” like that described in Question 2, above.

5. I’m undecided about this one. The reason: I can foresee circumstances where a small organization has a part-time lobbyist who serves various other administrative, etc., functions with the PAC or the parent organization, and how such a prohibition may be unnecessary. The question in my mind is: How does one get at the concern suggested by the question .

John Odom

1.YES

2.YES

3. NO

4. NO

5. NO

Mark McMains
no response as of 23 October, 2008

Nathaniel Cooper
no response as of 23 October, 2008

COMMISSIONER OF LABOR

Cherie Berry
Incumbent
no response as of 23 October, 2008

Mary Fant Donnan
no response as of 23 October, 2008

SECRETARY OF STATE

Elaine Marshall

Incumbent

I am pleased you are raising these issues during the campaign of 2008. Thank you for your assistance in the past biennium with enactment of North Carolina’s current lobbying laws. Your support was a vital compliment to the initiative I began in late 2003. Thanks for your help.
My replies and insights to your questions are possibly different from other candidates and are based upon my personal experiences as a former State Senator and now the Lobbyist Compliance Administrator.
North Carolina is not yet achieving everything possible under our current reform legislation. I am grateful that the State Budget Office has indicated an intention to conduct a study later this year to determine appropriate staffing levels. Your support in this regard would be appreciated. It is imperative that the state provide adequate funding to assure every lobbyist, lobbyist principal, government official, and media personnel is completely educated on the goals and requirements under the law. This would have the side benefit of taking an unfortunate workload off lobbying compliance staff and enable them to focus on those individuals that are resistant to complying with the reforms.
I can understand the desire to move the reform agenda forward while the public is interested in this issue. However, we haven’t harvested the fruits of the reforms that have recently been enacted. We need to make sure offices such as the Secretary of State, the Ethics Commission, State Board of Elections and the Legislative Ethics Committees have the tools and resources to do the work already assigned to them.
I have tried to answer your questions thoughtfully, rather than seemingly quick-fix responses. I would he doing the reform community a serious disservice by not pointing out that much remains to be done to implement current law. That having been said, we can still look at changes hut need to be mindful that prior efforts are not yet frilfilled.

1. I am unsure that your suggestions to ban or limit lobbyists from fundraising single contribution by single contribution will have a huge impact on funds raised. We are in the early stages of the current law and have yet to have a statewide election under the new legislation. The deeper the prohibitions on fundraising, the more diffuse the fundraising will be. Campaign fundraising is lawful and likely will remain lawful for some period of time. Even the pilot project publicly funded races require a certain level of fundraising for eligibility.
My concern is that your proposal will force this activity underground and over time, the net effect is less disclosure rather than more disclosure. I sympathize with your goal, but the goal needs to he achieved in a manner that will not result in litigation over constitutional rights for a protracted period of time. My personal philosophy in this area favors disclosure over prohibitions.

2. 1 favor disclosure measures as a whole believing that “sunshine” is the brightest element of transparency and good government. Since the U.S. Senate proposal is not yet law with an experience factor to evaluate, it is difficult to evaluate totally.
I believe contributions under $50 per donor each election cycle should not trigger a reporting requirement to parallel current campaign finance laws. Since cash is now prohibited, that loophole has been closed.
From practical experience, a number of issues would need to be considered, including thc qucstion of who has the reporting obligation — the candidate, the solicitor, or the donor. Any such disclosure requirement should be written so as not to chill civic participation as campaign giving is a constitutionally based lawful activity. I would not support criminal penalties for disclosure failures and I would not place the obligation on the candidate as it is difficult to know who did the solicitation, as surprising as that sounds. Any law that is written should he clear and easy to enforce and at the same time accomplish the intended goal.

3. Given the current state of our laws. I would not support this restriction as suggested. Currently there are no limits on candidate spending. including funds from their own pockets. The only way a candidate can fund a campaign is through individual contributions, PAC (Political Action Committee) contributions, party contributions and selGfunding. Independent expenditures by others are also currently unlimited.
North Carolina has no institutional, reliable statewide method in place to inform voters about candidates. Wide-distribution newspapers are either consolidating or reducing their coverage of government issues. Given all of the above, opportunities for serious distortion can occur with little opportunity for correction. One way to counteract misrepresentation and distortions is with party funded support. I would not restrict party resources to party nominees in the absence of any authoritative, comprehensive voter’s guide.

4. If the contribution appears to benefit the personal finances (earnings, contracts, sales, etc.) of a covered individual or their immediate family, I would support a prohibition.
All lobbyists are not the same, all non-profits are not the same, all requests are not the same. This proposal deserves more study. A fire department or church meal ticket is quite different from a check with many zeros in the amount. We would need to make sure that valuable charities, doing meaningful work, are not unnecessarily impacted by overly broad restrictions.

5. Prohibiting lobbyists from serving on PACs by itself will not bring about the change I believe you seek. A number of constitutional issues underlie the information flow in lobbying. Protected speech includes identifying favorable and unfavorable opinions regarding certain candidate stances. Even if lobbyist participation is denied, a candidate’s stance will already be known or can be ascertained. Once a candidatesposition is known, past voting performance by the district is known, the decision on a contribution is not especially difficult.

Jack Sawyer

1.I support prohibiting lobbyists from raising money for legislative and statewide candidates and their committees.

2.Yes, I would support similar “sunshine” legislation.

3.No

4. No

5. No

SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

June St. Clair Atkinson
Incumbent

no response as of 23 October, 2008

Richard Morgan

no response as of 1 October, 2008

TREASURER

Janet Cowell

1.Lobbyists play an important role in developing and advocating for either new legislation and administrative rules or changes to existing laws. The development of rules which prohibit lobbyists from contributing to campaigns was an important step in insuring that the people that are helping to influence the development of the law are not also the ones that are financing the law makers. I support changes which would prohibit lobbyists from raising money for candidates and their committees for public office. However, if this occurs we would need to take a look at how these lobbyists could affect elections by sending contributions to independent 527 groups. The power of these independent 527 groups could grow and influence elections by hijacking the ability of political campaigns to have their message heard. It is important as we go through the process of figuring out who can and cannot give money to a political campaign to determine what unintended consequences we expose ourselves and our representative government to.

2. I support this type of proposal.

3. Until North Carolina has public financing for all candidates for office, political parties should not be capped in providing resources to candidates. Capping resources to candidates for public office makes the political playing field unequal. Fundamentally, the legislature should be representative of the State and should include people from all walks of life who have the best ideas on how to carry the State’ business forward. To earn a seat in the legislature already costs over $100,000. The average income in North Carolina is around $38,000 annually. Without having party support there is no way that someone of average means but superior thoughts can be elected to the legislature – especially if they are running against someone who can write one or two checks and self finance their election. If we want to have a representative republic then we need to make sure that our elected officials come from all walks of life and for that to happen we need to make sure that everyone can afford to run for public office.

4.Legislators and members of the Council of State should not be allowed to solicit money for charities or not for profit organizations from lobbyists. However, lobbyists should not be prevented from giving to charities with which public officials are affiliated with.

5. Lobbyists should not be able to serve on a PAC committee and be a part of deciding which candidate receives money and how much money they do receive.

William Daughtridge

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No
4. No
5. The influence a lobbyist might have on a PAC’s contributions is not determined by whether or not the lobbyist is on the PAC’s committee. Lobbyists should not be made to forfeit their right to participate in the political process simply because they are lobbyists.