Three years ago, a Lancaster Republican filed a civil complaint alleging then-Assemblyman Scott Wilk was ineligible to run for the state Senate because he had been a lobbyist who had not sat out a year before seeking another elective office.
That case remains on the books, with a hearing scheduled May 31. Star Moffatt said she had Wilk served a week ago. She continues to seek Wilk’s disqualification, albeit retroactively.
Wilk (R-Santa Clarita) defeated Democrat Johnathan Ervin 53 percent to 47 percent to win the 21st Senate district seat in 2016. Moffatt had run in the primary but got just 8 percent.
Moffatt expressed surprise when the Gazette contacted her because she thought the matter had been resolved. She had petitioned the county registrar-recorder’s office to join her suit and had received a response on Aug. 5, 2016 saying that while the office doesn’t usually do that, “(O)ur office has not taken a definitive position on the disqualification that is sought in your civil complaint. We have consulted with our County Counsel and will take a look at this again at a future time…”
At issue is Wilk’s lobbying career. He told the Gazette in 2016 that he had worked for Anchor Consulting, located in Alexandria, Va., from 2007-11 doing public affairs work for then-Congressman Howard P. “Buck” McKeon. He said he received his last payment from Anchor in 2012.
“I did not lobby,” he said.
Moffatt contends that doesn’t matter because Wilk never unregistered as a federal lobbyist. “He was still licensed to do federal lobbyist work,” she said, and her original 2016 complaint showed Wilk listed as a current Anchor employee.
An Anchor employee who answered the phone last week said his company’s records showed Wilk stopped actively lobbying in 2011 before he ran for the Assembly.
California’s Government Code Sec. 87406(b) says, “No Member of the Legislature, for a period of one year after leaving office, shall, for compensation, act as agent … by making any formal or informal appearance, or by making any oral or written communication, before the Legislature, any committee or subcommittee thereof, any present Member of the Legislature, or any officer or employee thereof, if the appearance or communication is made for the purpose of influencing legislative action.”
“Just like you and I, a politician is required to uphold both Federal and State laws,” Moffat emailed. “When politicians intentionally do not uphold our laws, it is up to the sovereign people (taxpayers) to hold a politician accountable for lacking transparency when they break law(s).”
Moffatt’s chances are unknown. There’s no indication anyone has ever been disqualified based on past lobbying. For those who have lobbied and then run, a 2014 Washington Post article found some win and some lose. It is more common for elected officials to turn to lobbying after they leave office.
“Society is taking a closer look at candidates and politicians who are not forthright. I think the chances in this case are very good,” she said, “and the thing is, even though he’s served almost half his time, if a person commits a crime and they’re later found that they committed it, should they be exonerated for it? No. You commit a crime, you do your time.”
And if Moffatt loses, she said she’d file in federal court, citing Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Section 207. It governs restrictions on former elected officials of the executive and legislative branches. It mostly deals with federal positions but mentions certain areas under which state lawmakers might be governed.