The fact that highly paid lobbyists represent deep-pocket special interests in the state Capitol is widely known. But lobbying also involves government agencies battling one another - often on the public's dime.
"In an ideal world, representatives of local and state governments ought to be able to talk to each other without paying a lobbyist, but this is another example of the distance between the state Capitol and the ideal world," said Dan Schnur, a former head of the Fair Political Practices Commission and a candidate for secretary of state.
Local, regional and tribal governments spent $42 million during 2013 lobbying the state, according to financial disclosure records filed with the secretary of state.
North Coast and Northern California governmental interests spent at least $640,000 on lobbying through the end of January.
Sonoma County spent $230,060 on lobbying, the Sonoma County Water Agency an additional $110,964 and the Sonoma County Agricultural and Open Space District, $60,000. The entities lobbied the governor, the Legislature and state regulators on scores of bills.
The Sonoma County Superintendent of Schools spent $12,794, and the county Office of Education another $900, mainly for budget-related lobbying through the first half of last year. The superintendent's lobbying was directed at the state Board of Education, the governor - who appoints members of the board - and the Legislature. The education offices in Mendocino, Lake and Humboldt counties spent $900 each.
The Santa Rosa City Employees Association spent $5,570.
The Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation in Brooks, which is in the 3rd Senate District represented by Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, spent $140,565.
The overall $42 million on state lobbying during 2013 was eclipsed only by the state's "miscellaneous" category of corporate, pressure groups and other interests, which spent $47.4 million, a group that includes AT&T and its affiliates ($2.32 million), the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association ($1.7 million) and the National Federation of Independent Business ($941,000).
The Wine Institute paid some $567,000 to lobby the governor, Environmental Protection Agency and lawmakers on behalf of wineries and growers. The Wine and Spirits Wholesalers spent some $140,000, which includes payments to a major lobbying firm of Lang Hansen O'Malley & Miller. The company's principals include Bev Hansen, a former Santa Rosa assemblywoman.
The government payments from a single entity ranged from $180 spent by the North Tahoe Fire Protection District to $1.48 million by Los Angeles County. Los Angeles County's tally was second only to the $1.49 million spent by the California State Association of Counties, which represents all 58 counties.
Not far behind were the cities: The League of California Cities, which represents hundreds of cities across the state, spent some $1.33 million. And just behind the cities was the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which spent $1.24 million.
Of the top 10 government employers of lobbyists, five are individual counties. Those include bankrupt San Bernardino, which spent $1.02 million, and Los Angeles, Alameda, Orange and San Diego. The city of Los Angeles reported $1.07 million in payments.
The figures were contained in financial disclosure documents from lobbyists' employers filed quarter by quarter with the Secretary of State's office through Dec. 31
, 2013
. They do not include contributions to candidates.
"Unfortunately, the smaller communities are hurt worst by the way the system operates. If you're San Francisco or Los Angeles, the odds are that someone from your community is part of the legislative leadership," Schnur said.
"But a smaller community like those in the North Bay don't get those opportunities because their legislators can't raise enough money to become part of the leadership. The way you become a leader is not by being the most effective legislator but by being the most prolific fundraiser, and those members who come from large cities tend to raise the most money."
UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy: