한국의 로비활동 법제화 노력에 대한 입법학적 관점에서의 분석 ― “로비스트 등록 및 활동 공개에 관한 법률안”을 중심으로 ―

Abstract

In July 2005, ten members of the South Korean National Assembly introduced a bill to be promulgated as the “Lobbyist Registration and Lobbying Disclosure” Act (Bill No. 2231), which is currently pending at the National Assembly. The bill, with its thirty-one provisions and an addendum, if enacted, will be the first of the comprehensive legislation in South Korea directly applicable to lobbying that has been much discussed and debated from diverse standpoints in various relevant fields. At the same time, it will establish a statutory basis for the regulation of the lobbying activities and those who are involved therein. The legislative process functions to balance and harmonize diversified interests and viewpoints within a community, thereby determining the political will and forming the policy directions that in turn affect all within the community. The quintessential institutional mandate for the legislative process is, therefore, that it should serve as a forum, by its just and effective operation, through which a conclusion can be reached in the form of national policy by way of open deliberations to the best interest of the community and its members, especially when diverse and conflicting interests coexist within the community. Any legislative effort for lobbying reform, during the discussions over the pending bill at the National Assembly committees and sessions and beyond, should be directed toward an expansion of the opportunity for the members of the community to express diverse interests and to channel such interests to the policy-making process, and also an institutionally unhindered communication of information to and from the policy-making process that will enhance the expertise crucial in the policy-making process. Likewise, each provision of the pending bill should be assessed in terms of the public's accessibility to the policy-making process, including the legislative process, at the lowest possible cost, and a better flow of information, both inbound and outbound. While mandatory disclosure by way of registration of those who are engaged in certain activities to influence the policy-making process and also by way of reporting to the government of such activities may serve the above legislative purposes more effectively than the direct per se regulation of lobbying activities the bill as currently is should provide a clearer notice toward the lobbyists and the objects of lobbying activities, both actual and potential, as well as the general public, with respect to who is obligated to disclose which activities under the registration and reporting requirements. More specifically, for example, focusing on the concept of the actual and potential objects of the lobbying activities as opposed to the definition itself of the lobbyist as the standard for determining who is a lobbyist within the statutory meaning under the registration and reporting obligations will be a more productive and implementable way to achieve the stated purpose of the bill. Further, the clarity of the notice that the provisions of the bill provides in terms of who is obligated to do what should be closely examined in light of the types and degrees of sanctions the bill intends to impose in case of violations of the bill's requirements. In a larger perspective, as the standing committee review and its decisions upon pending bills assume an invariably significant function in the legislative process of South Korea's National Assembly both by design and in reality, the lobbying activities during the actual and potential legislative process have thus been and will continue to be concentrated on how to influence the standing committee procedures and the committee members. Therefore, the legislative efforts for lobby reform in South Korea should reflect such idiosyncrasies of the legislative and policy-making process of the nation. In the same vein, efforts in relevant areas of law and institutional designs pertaining to, for example, campaign financing and political parties and taxes, at all different levels, from, for example, strengthening ethics rules for public officials to providing further support for the legislators and policy-makers with expert personnel and information, and to institutionally activating the legislative hearing mechanisms, will be indispensable to an effective and readily applicable statutory lobby reform. Also, long-term efforts on the part of those who engage in lobbying activities for internal disciplines and heightened professionalism will be essential for the nation's lobby reform that is already long overdue. Whether or not the currently pending bill is promulgated into an act on the National Assembly floor this time, the key to the legislative effort for lobbying reform will lie in how to balance between the support for and the regulation of the lobbying activities under a workable statutory scheme, and how to have respective statutory provisions conform to the nature of lobbying as a mechanism for open access to the policy-making process and effective flow of information thereto.