Sen. Morales Rodríguez files bill to regulate lobbying.

Sen. Juan Oscar Morales Rodríguez

Critics say SB 1190 has constitutional flaws

By THE STAR STAFF

District I (San Juan, Guaynabo and Aguas Buenas) Sen. Juan Oscar Morales Rodríguez has introduced Senate Bill (SB) 1190, a measure aimed at establishing the “Law for a Strict Regulatory Framework for Lobbying in Puerto Rico,” which critics view as problematic. 

The measure comes amid allegations that La Fortaleza Chief of Staff Francisco Domenech Fernández, the former owner of lobbying firm Politank, may be using his position to benefit former clients of the company.

The proposed legislation is intended to strengthen government transparency and prevent corruption. Furthermore, it aims to ensure that decision-making processes within the commonwealth respond exclusively to the public interest, rather than to undue influences that could undermine institutional integrity. According to the bill’s preamble, lobbying is a legitimate exercise of the fundamental right to petition the government. However, the absence of rigorous controls can lead to conflicts of interest and public corruption.

Morales Rodríguez emphasized that Puerto Rico’s historical experience has been marked by cases of bribery and influence peddling, such that public trust in government institutions has been eroded. He argued that this aspect of the island’s political reality justifies a more robust regulatory regime than the one currently in place.

“With this legislation, we seek to raise the ethical standards of our governmental management to levels comparable to the strictest jurisdictions in the world,” Morales Rodríguez said. “Access to power cannot depend on the economic capacity of a few, but on the well-being of all Puerto Ricans. It is time to close the door on excessive influence and ensure that every interaction between the private and public sectors is transparent and subject to oversight.”

To frame the proposal, SB 1190 draws on successful U.S. regulatory models, including the Federal Lobbying Disclosure Act and the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. The measure also aligns with state laws such as those in New York, requiring detailed lobbying disclosures, and in California, enforcing strict conflict of interest rules.

Internationally, the bill mirrors structured systems in Canada and the United Kingdom. Both countries require public registries and broad oversight to prevent abuses.

One of the bill’s most innovative components is a four-year cooling-off period applicable to anyone who has served in Puerto Rico’s executive, legislative or judicial branches, as well as in municipal governments or federal agencies operating on the island. The provision would bar former officials from engaging in lobbying activities immediately after leaving public service, directly targeting the “revolving door” phenomenon in which privileged information is leveraged for private gain. Notably, the restriction would also extend to the spouses of former officials, recognizing that close familial ties have historically been exploited as indirect means of circumventing ethical limitations.

The measure also would transform the current Lobbyist Registry, granting it stronger regulatory authority. The enhanced registry could rigorously verify eligibility and disclosure requirements before granting registration. Violations would carry severe penalties: fines up to $100,000, permanent disqualification from lobbying, and potential criminal liability. 

Critics of the bill have several concerns. One of the most significant is the possible tension with constitutional rights, particularly the right to petition the government. While lobbying can be regulated, courts have consistently held that it is a protected form of political expression. A framework that is perceived as overly restrictive, punitive, or deterrent in scope could face legal challenges on the grounds that it chills legitimate advocacy, especially for civil society groups, small nonprofits, or individuals without large compliance budgets.

The four-year “cooling-off” period is another area that could be controversial. Cooling-off periods are common, but four years is unusually long compared to many jurisdictions. Critics could argue that such a prolonged ban unreasonably restricts former public servants’ right to work in their field of expertise.

The extension of the lobbying prohibition to spouses of former officials could also raise constitutional and legal concerns. While the bill is designed to prevent indirect influence, applying restrictions based solely on marital status may be challenged as overbroad or as violating principles of individual responsibility and equal protection. Opponents could argue that it penalizes individuals who never held public office and have committed no wrongdoing.

Another potential issue lies in enforcement capacity. Transforming the lobbyist registry into a stricter regulatory instrument with enhanced investigative and verification powers requires significant administrative resources, trained personnel, and clear procedural safeguards.