S.B. 145 Lobbying Amendments

What this bill does

The bill tightens rules on lobbying contingency-fee agreements, including requiring disclosure when a lobbyist has an interest in an entity that would gain value from a policy, appropriation, or veto, and adds efforts to veto a bill to the definition of lobbying. It also raises the lobbying gift limit from $10 to $25 and the book limit from $30 to $50, and lets nonprofit universities such as BYU host legislators at events the same way public state universities can.

Plain-English summary written by AI from the sponsor’s presentation in committee and on the floor. Check the official text below.

Your legislators on this bill

Enter your address to see what your own representative and senator did on this bill.

Quotes come from the official recordings' automatic captions, which can mishear words. Speakers and summaries are identified by AI and can be wrong. Use the ▶ links to check the recording.

Take action

This bill's session is over, but your legislators still want to hear from you. Ideas that died often come back next year.

Enter your address to get your legislators' contact information and a ready-to-send message about this bill.

Every vote

• 4 yes, 0 no, 4 absentSenate Business and Labor Committee: Amendment Recommendation · Jan 26, 2026Who voted how
• 4 yes, 0 no, 4 absentSenate Business and Labor Committee: vote to approve it · Jan 26, 2026Who voted how
• 25 yes, 0 no, 4 absentFirst of two Senate votes · Feb 9, 2026Who voted how
• 27 yes, 0 no, 2 absentFinal Senate vote · Feb 13, 2026Who voted how
• 14 yes, 0 no, 2 absentHouse Business, Labor, and Commerce Committee: vote to approve it · Feb 24, 2026Who voted how
• 74 yes, 0 no, 1 absentFinal House vote · Feb 26, 2026Who voted how

Hearings and debates

• Jan 26, 2026 Senate Business and Labor Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (25 turns)

  1. Sen. Brady Brammer39:14

     maybe I shouldn't have asked to go first, 'cause I've got the room full of lobbyists behind me on a bill regulating lobbyists. So, um, so this one is a bill that should be familiar to everyone. I've run it two years. This is the third year. Uh, it's gotten through, uh, both bodies, but not all the way through both times. And so, um, I think we've got it narrowed in and what the primary issue of the bill that we're trying to address. And then there's a few cleanups that whenever you open this section of code, uh, the, whenever you open this section of code, there's probably a few cleanups that need to happen because it doesn't happen all that often because it's a pain to deal with the lobbying amendments. Um, so the main thing that this does is it, it adds some more restrictive language with regards to contingency lobbying to make sure that people aren't up here saying, if I get this done or if I, if I get this to not happen, then I get an, an additional payment. Uh, additionally it provides disclosures, uh, and, and some regulation around when a lobbyist has a, an interest in an entity that if the entity were to get an RFP or a change in policy, the entity would be worth a lot more money. And so it, it's trying to clamp that down. It does. The other things that it does is, um, and I do have one amendment to it that just takes out something that was an attempt to amend in a previous year that snuck in, and that's Senate amendment one. So that, you know, when we're ready, we can move that. Let's move that. If Senator McKay would you, so Senator McKay moved senate Amendment number one to Senate Bill 1 45. You want to tell us what that does? Yeah.

  2. Sen. Daniel McCay40:57

     Uh, essentially what it, what it said before was, um, it allowed, it, it was the, it was related to legislators and their ability to lobby once they leave and it allowed them to leave outside the branch of government. This removes that so that for the same cool down period, they can't lobby outside of their branch of government, uh, as well. And so it's, uh, it's to try to keep the cool down period as strong as possible for legislators.

  3. Committee chair (presiding)41:30

     Okay. Any discussion to the amendment? I see none. I'll place it. All those in favor of amendment number one, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Your bill has been amended.

  4. Sen. Brady Brammer41:46

     Thank you. And then the other things that it does is it increases some of the, uh, limits on, uh, on gifting, uh, to, from like $10 to 25 and from 30 to 50 just marks those to, you know, rate of inflation. And then it treats our nonprofit universities the same way as our general public universities for purposes of, um, how they can interact with legislators. And we've had a problem with that in Utah County because we have this big university BYU, that doesn't know how to interact with the legislators in, in the same way that the University of Utah does, or UVU or others. So this puts them on the same playing field as far as that goes. So those are the, the nuts and bolts of the bill. And I'm open to any questions.

  5. Committee chair (presiding)42:34

     Senator Cullimore picture. Thank you.

  6. Sen. Kirk A. Cullimore42:37

     Quick question on the rate of, um, the rate on the gifts. You said that it's consistent with inflation. Do you have data on the last time that we updated those by any chance?

  7. Sen. Brady Brammer42:47

     I did, like two years ago when I first ran it. Um, I know that it was, it was like in the eighties that we did the $10 amount and it raised it from $10 to 25. The thing That we worked on that in 2010 or 11 about the same time too. Yeah. Yeah. So it, it was somewhere in there.

  8. Sen. Kirk A. Cullimore43:07

     Got it. Thanks. Yeah.

  9. Unknown speaker43:11speaker not certain

     Any other, I'll say this snake is not my favorite thing. I don't need more tchotchkes from, you know, from people don't really care that much, but it's worth adjusting. I'm, I'm gotta look up the definition of chotsky, so I'll figure that out. Um, help me, um, I'm just looking through this. Uh, are, are there problems with this now? Do we have folks that are abusing the statute for, you know, one purpose or another? That's what I'm trying to figure out.

  10. Sen. Brady Brammer43:48

      I think that there's fear that there is, but I don't know that there are specific instances that, that I can point to. Mm-hmm. And so there's, there's just a, a concern that this happens or it could happen and we're trying to get out ahead of it before it became an issue.

  11. Unknown speaker44:02speaker not certain

      So, 'cause I, I'm looking at this, this committee, uh, last committee meeting we talked about non-competes, right? And said, you know, from a non-compete standpoint, should they be narrow? How do you make them narrow? What, what are their purposes and how do you, you know, address those types of issues? And I feel pretty strongly that non-competes themselves. Um, you know, were anti-competitive in the marketplace right now. I'm looking at this from that lens, and I'm saying this feels like a non-compete in some ways. And I'm trying to figure out what the harm, uh, that we're getting from executive branch folks that are, you know, for, as one of the, one of the policies in the bill. What harm are we getting as a state for having, you know, them, the ability to leave and then I guess work at McDonald's for a year. Uh, and then, you know, at once that year is completed, they can then, you know, go take a job at, you know, or start lobbying or whatever it may be. How is that any different from the non-compete side of things? I think it's public trust. That's, that's the primary difference. I don't think there's anything other than public trust. When you serve in a position of public trust, you want to have some time to cool off before those contacts. Those relationships are, you know, for lack of a better term, monetized mm-hmm. You know, at, at the risk of the public. And so I think there is a distinct difference there.

  12. Unknown speaker45:29speaker not certain

      I'm no fan of non-competes. I think you and I have talked about this, but I do think that when, you know, and that's because that is your profession. I do not believe that what we do as legislators is our profession. Mm-hmm. And it shouldn't be. And we wanna make sure that it's not, and we wanna make sure that the public perceives that it is not

  13. Sen. Brady Brammer45:48speaker not certain

      Right.

  14. Unknown speaker45:49speaker not certain

      That's for legislators, which I, I appreciate that. I'm, I'm, um, you know, the executive branch was the, was the question. Yeah. Do, do you feel like by having this in place, the public is now going to trust lobbyists?

  15. Sen. Brady Brammer46:02

      I don't think that it's for the, the trusting of lobbyists. Lobbyists are like attorneys where it's kind of, they get cursed and, and as an attorney, I get to say this, um, you know, where, uh, you know, they're not always, always trusted and people oftentimes don't understand their role, uh, totally. And, and what the benefits are until they need one. Um, but even in the executive branch, that's still different because you, um, you know, I, I don't think that it, it prevents someone who's working in the executive branch from getting another job in the executive branch. But in that lobbying field, what you want to make sure is, because not all the lobbying is just happening in the legislative branch. A lot of it is happening in the executive branch, and there's a crossover between the two, between executive and legislative quite a bit. Mm-hmm. Actually, you know, if I, if I go to, um, if there's someone who's been a transportation director, they have a, they probably have a really good relationship, uh, with, uh, Senator Ipson. And if they leave and then become a lobbyist, you know, that's, that's a relationship that they could try to play on when they, when they know that just to, just 'cause there's a familiarity. And they've, and, and they've worked, uh, you know, our executive branch does a good job and they build relationships of trust with legislators, and that can have an impact on the lobbying effort. And so, you know, I what the, what the amendment does is just says we're not touching our time limits. That's all that it does. Um, you know, and, and, uh, you know, a couple of years ago what had happened was the bill had come over to the Senate and that was attempted to be changed. And I let the bill die rather than change that it got into this first draft and I didn't catch it, and so I amended it back out. Mm-hmm. So that was, that was the amendment. And so, um, but uh, I'm not trying to, I'm not trying to touch the cooling off period. I'm just leaving it as is. Yeah.

  16. Unknown speaker48:03speaker not certain

      Well, I'm, uh, I appreciate that. I'm, I guess my wrestling match with this one is trying to find, uh, the, the right balance in some of this. I think we tend to blame lobbyists, uh, for things that it's the elected officials job to handle and deal with. Yeah. Um, and so there are convenient pinata for all of us, uh, you know, politically, I'm just trying to figure out, you know, do we have the right balance in here? That's my private

  17. Sen. Brady Brammer48:31speaker not certain

      Question. Yeah, no problem.

  18. Committee chair (presiding)48:34

      Senator Musselman.

  19. Sen. Calvin R. Musselman48:38

      So it seems on its surface reasonable guardrails and exceptions that you've put in here, and it seems like you've thought through this fairly well, but there may be some, some concerns on the, the, we could, might fe her out. Um, but I, I may talk with you online on that, 'cause we're just talking really not conceptual, not conceptual problems, but more details. Especially, I, I, I think the, maybe the most meaty portion is the enforcement of contingent fee prohibition. That's, would you agree that's probably the most meaty portion of this, or the significant, most significant policy reach? That's the primary point of the bill. There's a lot of definitional cleanups that was requested by staff, you know, just to clean. You know, there's little things like, uh, you know, you know, rather than it takes out some of the older language that refers to as he or himself. And just as the former state official, the former state official, like, there's a lot of definitional cleanup. Um, but, but that is the meat of this. That's the genesis for the bill. Uh, you know, Conceptually, I think I'm, I'm with you, but I'm just wondering, you may have some fairly, and, uh, this is gonna reveal my ignorance of the lobbying world in their contracts with their, their clients, but you may have some, some maybe more sophisticated contracts that would have bonuses and maybe these restriction on, on the contingent fee could, could affect some of those bonus con, I don't know. But that representative, I think generally speaking, I'm with you on con concept and guidelines, but maybe it'd be worthwhile if we sat down and just to see have we nailed the perfect language for that.

  20. Sen. Brady Brammer50:14

      So, to be clear, I have worked for three years with the lobbyists lobbyist Okay. To work Through the language, didn't state Whatsoever, Which apparently the lobbyists have their own lobbyists that they hire to come and talk to me and lobby me about the lobbying for the lobbyists. So, um, you know, we have worked through a lot of that and we, we have smithed the, you know, works workshoped this language quite a bit. So I'm not sure that it captures, they've everything, but Am I raising concerns They've already Raised Yes. And fed it out. We, we've, we've worked through a lot of concerns back and forth for several years, and that's, you know, in some of the years it's, it's been going back and forth with the lobbyists to, you know, get the language just right. That's why it would go pretty late into the session. Okay. So I basically took what we've already negotiated and put it in this year, um, you know, in this version of the bill, other than that one section that got in from someone else amending it in a year.

  21. Committee chair (presiding)51:14

      Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I don't see any other questions. Does that conclude your presentation? It

  22. Sen. Brady Brammer51:25speaker not certain

      Does. Is

  23. Committee chair (presiding)51:26

      there anyone to the public that would like to speak to this? Come on. All your lobbyists speak up. I seeing none. I'll bring it back to the Committee for action. Senator McKay.

  24. Sen. Daniel McCay51:43

      Thank you. Um, I, I'll make a motion for us to favorably recommend Senate Bill 1 45 lobbying amendments.

  25. Committee chair (presiding)51:52

      Okay. Any discussion to that motion? Back to you for some I'll waive. Thank you. Thank you for your consideration, Senator McKay. I'll waive all those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair rules? That passes unanimously. Thank you. Your bills.

• Feb 9, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (7 turns)

  1. Presiding officer44:49

     The bill is encircle. Senator Brammer.

  2. Sen. Brady Brammer44:52

     Thank you. So the main thrust of this bill is we wanna make sure that lobbyists aren't lobbying for contingency. One of the things that this does is it tries to restrict or at least provide transparency when a lobbyist has an interest in an entity that if the policy passes or an RFA request for appropriation passes, that we know that that lobbyist is involved in that entity because that operates in the same way as a contingency. The other things that this does is, uh, in dealing with universities, currently universities can, uh, bring legislators to events on universities. This allows nonprofit universities to do the same. Additionally, this suggests the monetary amounts, uh, for purposes of lobbying, uh, just brings it to, uh, it's a little below the CPI since it was passed, but it brings it up from $10 to $25 on, on gifts and, uh, and books goes from 30 to 50. Uh, just because mo a lot of the books are slightly over $30 and most of the gifts, they try to give us a pair of socks and they tend to be about $12 or so. And so anyways, those are the, those are the main changes, but really what we're trying to get at is that contingency component. And then the other things we're little cleanups because nobody likes dealing with the lobbying bill. So with that, I'll open it up to any questions.

  3. Presiding officer46:09

     You're right. See, no questions on, uh, this bill Surprised looking around. So I'm going to you for a motion.

  4. Unknown speaker46:18speaker not certain

     I would move that we, uh, pass the second reading calendar, SB 1 48 to the third.

  5. Presiding officer46:24

     Thank you. And the question is, shall Senate bill 1 45 be read a third time Roll call vote.

  6. Senate clerk (roll call)46:29

     Senator Vickers Baldie Lewin Brammer Aye. Bus Comore Escamilla Fillmore Grover Harper Kins Ipson Johnson. Juab McKay. Mikel Milner Musselman Owens Pitcher Lum Sandal Stevenson Stratton Aye. Vickers Weiler Aye. Wilson Winterton. President Adams Aye. Senate

  7. Presiding officer47:28

     Bill 1 45, having received 25 yay votes to zero na votes, four being absent shall be read A third

• Feb 13, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (6 turns)

  1. Sen. Brady Brammer27:27

     Alright, thank you. So this is, uh, this is the bill that, uh, the main point of the bill is to, uh, make sure that, uh, we already outlaw contingency lobbying. What this does is it, it requires disclosure if somebody has an interest in an entity, that if the policy were to be passed or a request for appropriation were to be approved, that the entity's value would go up significantly, which is really a contingency by another name. And so we want to increase that transparency. This also amends with regards to higher education and what they can do in interacting with the legislature. And specifically it puts nonprofit higher education on the same grounds in turn on the same rule set as our public universities. And then it also allows for plays and other events like that instead of just sporting events. And then it adjusts some of the definitions just to, it doesn't decrease them. It adds some, some detail. Um, and then the last thing that it does is it adjusts the, uh, limitations on any type of gift or other thing like, or, you know, books to, it adjusts for inflation. Those haven't been adjusted for for about 20 years. And so it changes it from $10 to $25, uh, for gifts and from $30 to $50 for books. And so with that, I'm open to any questions.

  2. President (presiding)28:50

     Senator, thank you for the presentation. Looking for discussion on the bill. Say no discussion. I'll go to you for a motion.

  3. Sen. Brady Brammer28:59

     Uh, I would move that SB 1 45 pass.

  4. President (presiding)29:02

     Thank you. And the question is, shall Senate bill one forty five pass Roll call vote.

  5. Senate reading clerk29:05

     Senator Spery Lewin Brammer Bus Cullimore Escamilla Fillmore Grover Harper Kins Aye. Ipson Johnson Quan McKay. Mikel Milner Musselman Owens Pitcher Aye. Plum Rebe Aye. Sandal Aye. Stevenson Stratton pickers. Er Wilson Winterton, president Adams Aye.

  6. President (presiding)30:09

     Aye. Senate Bill 1 45, having received 27 yay votes, zero nay votes, two being absent passes this body and will be sent to the house for their consideration. Senator Johnson,

• Feb 24, 2026 House Business, Labor, and Commerce Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (13 turns)

  1. Committee chair1:33:51

     Okay, we'll take this to, uh, agenda item number five, Senate bill 1 45 lobbying amendment. Senator Brammer.

  2. Sen. Brady Brammer1:34:04

     Thank you. Um, this is a bill specifically targeting ga Ika and no, I'm just, I apologize. Right before, she's like, does this affect me? And so this was my answer to her question. Now, um, what this bill does, uh, specifically, a couple of years ago, I was, uh, asked to help close some loopholes related to contingency fee agreements, uh, uh, that were suspected in the lobbying space. Um, specifically a a couple of things. If, if there was an interest in an entity that it's value would jump on the outcome of a bill or an RFA or some, or a veto or some kind of lobbying issue, that can be a contingency agreement even if it's not in by words. And so this closes that loophole it, once we opened it up, there were some tightening of the definitions. So for example, uh, we didn't include, um, efforts to get something vetoed previously. This now includes that, uh, that, that the lobbying efforts to veto something, uh, would be included in lobbying. So it does a few things that, that tighten things up. And then, uh, it is not fun to work on the, in the lobbying part of the code because the lobbyists have a lobbyist that lobbies you about the lobbying bill. And so, um, so what this, uh, so while we're in it, there were a couple of other changes that were requested. So one was can we update to the, um, just do a cost of living adjustment. It's not cost of living, but just the inflation adjustment with regards to the, uh, the $10 gift and the $30 book goes up to 25 and 50, largely because most books are now over $30, and most socks cost more than $10 now. And that's largely what we get are free socks. Um, and so, um, so those are adjusted. And then this also, uh, puts BYU and Utah on the same foot, BYU and other state universities on the same footing with regards to lobbying. And that's become an issue, at least in Utah County. Sometimes it's been difficult to work with BYU in that regard. They'll, they'll occasionally try to invite us to something and we'd say no, or, you know, can't do it, that kind of thing. Um, a few years ago there was a scholarship that we changed to say that it only could be used in public universities, and then we had to come back the next year and change it because so many of our high school students go to BYU and would've used that scholarship, and, and they couldn't that year. And so we changed it the next year, but we weren't getting any feedback in communication, uh, with regards to the university. And so, you know, we're trying to build that relationship a little bit better. Uh, but with that, those are the main elements of the bill, and I'm open to any questions on it?

  3. Committee chair1:36:54

     Okay. Thank you, Senator. We'll, uh, take it to the committee for clarifying questions. It appears there are none. We'll take it to, uh, who here from the, uh, to public. We will open up public comment. Who here would like to speak to this bill? Okay. Anyone online. All right. Well then we will take you to the committee for further action Representative Wilcox

  4. Rep. Ryan D. Wilcox1:37:28

     Move that we pass out Senate Bill 1 45.

  5. Committee chair1:37:30

     Would you like to speak to that?

  6. Rep. Ryan D. Wilcox1:37:33

     No, I'll waive. Okay.

  7. Committee chair1:37:34

     We'll take the committee for further discussion to the motion. Okay. Uh, to the sponsor.

  8. Sen. Brady Brammer1:37:42

     I'll waive. Thank you. Okay.

  9. Committee chair1:37:44

     We'll take it back to the maker of the motion

  10. Rep. Ryan D. Wilcox1:37:46

      Waive. Thanks.

  11. Committee chair1:37:47

      Okay. The motion is that we recommend favorably Senate Bill 1 45 lobbying amendments. All in favor say aye. Aye. Those against. Alright, PA unanimously. Thank you, Senator.

  12. Sen. Brady Brammer1:37:58

      It's great to be back in front of this committee. I miss it.

  13. Committee chair1:38:04

      Okay. Uh, we're going to move

• Feb 26, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (3 turns)

  1. Speaker (presiding)1:28:20

     Senate Bill 1 45 Lobbying amendments by Senator Brammer. This bill was heard in Business and Labor with a vote of 14 0 2. The House sponsors Representative Teuscher.

  2. Rep. Bridger Bolinder1:28:32

     Representative Bollinger. Motion to circle

  3. Speaker (presiding)1:28:36

     Motion is to circle All, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say No. Motion carries a bill as circled matter. Remain Clerk

• Feb 26, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch