Each question provoked by the ongoing “lawyer, lobbyist, or both” imbroglio forces an answer touching a different part of the proverbial elephant. After speaking with folks involved in the issue, there is also that familiar smell.

This issue is complicated for hard-working taxpayers to grasp. Not because they can’t, but because it’s the type of issue that encourages sophistry and slippery-slope analysis. Participants on both sides of the issue make arcane references to a litany of governmental agencies, existing rules, and historical practices.

We hope to distill the issue into the single most important question for average citizens: Do you want to know who is doing what to whom in the legislative process?

Here’s the starting point.

Currently, some lobbyists are lawyers; some lawyers are lobbyists. Some individuals function as both lawyer and lobbyist for the same client.

Here’s what changed.

Lawmakers passed a lobbying reform bill they told The Patriot News’ Peter L. Decoursey was the most “significant government reform law in recent years.” Requirements under which lobbyists report activity are often referred to as the weakest in the nation.

Here’s what happened.

Late in May, Harrisburg-based lawyer/lobbyists Richard Gmerek and Charles Artz filed suit in Commonwealth Court to prevent the new law’s August 1 enactment. They asked the court to delay, then void, the new law’s start-up. They claim that the new law’s disclosure and reporting requirements conflict with current rules already established by the state Supreme Court.

Artz explained to MODE that the state’s highest court, according to the State Constitution, has sole authority to establish rules under which lawyers practice law. Further, there is a Code of Professional Conduct set by the state Supreme Court. The code itself and a heap of decisions made by the court over time draw lines of acceptable practice.

We do not know what Gmerek would have offered regarding his position.

After not responding to several requests for comments over a two-week period of time, he directed his secretary to apologize for taking so long to respond and to inform MODE that his attorney advised him against taking any media interviews now. We can call back in a few months. We do know that, in general, such practiced unaccountability has drawn raspberries from the public’s mouth.

One insider offered his own view. Calling himself a good friend, state Senate General Counsel Stephen C. MacNett said, “…you can’t regulate lobbying if you can’t regulate a lobbyist like Dick.”

Here’s what was intended.

A clear separation of lobbying activity from lawyering activity is what the lawmakers had in mind. Artz points out that many lawyers provide both legal advice and lobbying services for legal clients. Drawing the line between the two activities by the same individual is what MacNett says the law does. If implemented, the new law would simply define “lobbying” as representing a client in front of the legislature or an agency of government — no matter what else you are, lawyers included. It’s the activity, stupid, not the degree.

Here’s what others say.

Other sources said that the current law is “deficient,” making reform necessary. Specifically, they cite the minimum reporting requirements for lobbying activity as “see-through.” Largely voluntary, some veteran Hill observers describe the current rules as having huge holes through which one could easily drive truckloads of access and influence.

Are we having fun yet?

For some, like Artz and AWOL Gmerek, the argument is over who controls the practice of law. For others, the issue is accountability in a state noted for weak lobbying reporting standards. Common Cause’s Barry Kauffman reports those colleagues on both sides of the issue in other states “howled” when they heard of the suit. “Brazen was the word they used,” Kauffman said of other’s reaction to the suit. “Absurd” was the word used in the local daily’s editorial on the notion of exempting lawyers from the new lobbying rules. He did cite what he thought was one potential value of the suit: “The court can draw a bright line for all to see between lawyering and lobbying.”

“Not what we worked on for two years” was the description given by veteran lobbyist Ted Mowatt. He reports that a group of interested parties, including the Pennsylvania Association for Government Relations, spent two years crafting legislation which would have reformed both lobbying and campaign finance reform.

Mowatt doesn’t agree with the legislature that the new law is the most “significant government reform law in recent years.” He points out that “campaign finance reform is a bigger problem than lobbying rules.” He cites the high number of fundraisers as bleeding elected officials away from traditional restaurant dinners. “They’re just not available.” Like Willie Sutton, they must know where the money is kept.

To further complicate matters, Mowatt says that the State Ethics Commission, responsible for writing the regulations that will interpret the new law, “thinks we’re all bad guys. They’re not up on what we actually do.” For a different reason than Kauffman, Mowatt would like to see the suit successful so that all interested parties can return to the drawing board “for a second shot at meaningful reform.”

Regarding the court challenge, one source said that Senate leaders intentionally crafted a bill that could withstand a legal challenge. Another source requesting anonymity would only whisper in hushed tones that the measure was intentionally crafted to provoke a court challenge, thereby further delaying any meaningful reform one more time.

If the challenge is successful, then losing parties can load their cannons with another lawsuit claiming that the “brazen and the absurd are now law.”

If the lawsuit isn’t successful, then the State Ethics Commission continues with the laborious process of writing day-to-day rules under which the new law will be enacted upon a group some think the commission doesn’t understand.