AB1560 amends the Political Reform Act to prevent anyone convicted of a “crime of public corruption” from acting as a lobbyist in California. The bill requires lobbyist certifications to include a declaration that the registrant has not been convicted of such an offense, directs the Secretary of State to refuse certifications from convicted persons, and voids any existing certification upon conviction.
The change is procedural and substantive: it creates an explicit statutory bar tied to a specified class of offenses (defined by reference to Elections Code section 20), and it shifts practical compliance burdens onto individual registrants, their employers, and the Secretary of State’s registration process. Compliance officers and lobbying firms will need new vetting steps and recordkeeping to avoid voided certifications and potential criminal penalties under the Political Reform Act.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends the Government Code to add a prohibition on serving as a lobbyist after a conviction for a crime of public corruption, requires certifications to include a statement denying such a conviction, and instructs the Secretary of State to refuse or void certifications tied to those convictions.
Who It Affects
Individual lobbyists, lobbying firms, in‑house lobbyist employers, and the Secretary of State’s registration office will be directly affected; clients and public agencies that interact with lobbyists will see indirect effects through stricter vetting and possible turnover of lobbyist personnel.
Why It Matters
This is a legal and compliance inflection point: it ties licensure to criminal history for a defined class of offenses, creates an administrative rejection/voiding mechanism, and raises questions about notification, record‑checking, and the interplay with existing bans under the Political Reform Act.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB1560 changes how California treats lobbyist registrations when a registrant has been convicted of public corruption. At the core, the bill adds a new statutory bar: anyone convicted of a “crime of public corruption” (the bill defines that term by pointing to Elections Code section 20) may not act as a lobbyist.
The Secretary of State must refuse to accept a lobbyist certification submitted by such a person, and if someone who is already certified is convicted, the bill says that certification becomes void on conviction.
Operationally, the bill modifies the lobbyist certification form and the registration flow. The certification must now include an explicit statement by the applicant that they have not been convicted of a crime of public corruption.
The bill’s text also includes more routine updates to the certification form — contact information fields and online payment mechanics — that affect how applicants submit and activate registrations. Where the bill treats conditional certifications tied to required ethics training, those pathways remain: conditional certifications can be filed, but will be void if the training requirement is not met within the deadline.The legal definition of who is excluded relies on a cross‑reference to Elections Code section 20 rather than listing offenses in the Government Code.
That means practitioners must look to that external provision to determine precisely which convictions trigger the bar. The bill does not set out notice or reporting mechanics for how the Secretary of State will learn of convictions, nor does it specify whether a conviction is final (for example, after appeals) before the certification is voided; those procedural details will matter for implementation and for compliance risk management.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a new Section 86207 that prohibits any person convicted of a “crime of public corruption” from acting as a lobbyist under the Political Reform Act.
The Secretary of State must refuse to accept a lobbyist certification submitted by a person convicted of a crime of public corruption.
If a registered lobbyist is convicted of a crime of public corruption, the lobbyist’s certification becomes void upon conviction.
The lobbyist certification form must include a written statement that the applicant has not been convicted of a crime of public corruption.
The bill defines “crime of public corruption” by reference to Elections Code section 20 rather than enumerating offenses within the Government Code.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Who must register and a new acceptance bar
This section keeps existing registration categories (lobbying firms, certain in‑house lobbyist employers, and coalitions) but inserts a nonacceptance rule: the Secretary of State may not accept a lobbyist certification from someone convicted of a crime of public corruption. That shifts part of the vetting obligation away from employers and onto the filing process itself — if the Secretary of State implements automated screening or relies on applicant attestations, those are choices the office will have to make. The provision also preserves the mixed online/physical filing requirement until the Secretary of State certifies an online system.
New certification contents and filing mechanics
The bill revises the lobbyist certification form language. It requires a recent photograph, contact information (including email), a statement acknowledging relevant statutory prohibitions, and the ethics‑course completion language already used for conditional certifications. Importantly, it adds the declaration that the applicant has not been convicted of a crime of public corruption and confirms that registration fees are paid online at submission. Practically, this creates an affirmative attestation requirement for registrants and a record point the Secretary of State can use to refuse filings or pursue enforcement when false.
Substantive ban and voiding on conviction
This new section does the heavy lifting: it says a person convicted of a crime of public corruption shall not act as a lobbyist and that any existing certification is void upon the conviction. The text places the bar and the voiding effect in the statute, but it leaves out enforcement mechanics — it does not define the advance notice, appeals handling, or how long the bar lasts (it appears categorical and indefinite). It also ties the definition of the triggering crimes to Elections Code section 20 rather than creating a separate list.
Legislative finding and fiscal note carve‑outs
Section 5 states that the bill furthers the Political Reform Act’s purposes, a procedural finding needed for amending the initiative statute. Section 6 declares that no state reimbursement to local agencies is required because the bill creates or changes a crime definition; this is a standard constitutional compliance statement but signals that enforcement will likely rely on existing criminal and administrative channels rather than new funded programs.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Public integrity advocates and ethics watchdogs — they gain a clear statutory mechanism to keep individuals with specified corruption convictions out of lobbying roles and a formal attestation on certification forms to hold registrants accountable.
- Clients and public officials — they receive an extra assurance that people lobbying on their issues are not persons with recorded public corruption convictions, potentially reducing reputational and policy risks.
- Secretary of State and enforcement bodies — the bill centralizes a refusal/voiding mechanism at the registration point, giving the Secretary of State statutory authority to bar certifications tied to corruption convictions.
Who Bears the Cost
- Individuals convicted of public corruption — they face a statutory, likely indefinite bar to serving as lobbyists, removing a post‑conviction occupational option and increasing collateral employment consequences.
- Lobbying firms and in‑house employer organizations — they must institute additional vetting, add recordkeeping to check certifications, and potentially replace lobbyists whose certifications are voided, creating recruitment and compliance costs.
- Secretary of State’s registration office — the office will need processes, staff time, or automated checks to detect convictions and refuse or void filings; absent new funding, this increases administrative burden and litigation risk if the office acts without clear procedures.
- Clients and contracting employers — they may lose access to lobbyist personnel unexpectedly if convictions surface or if attestations are contested, disrupting client representation and contractual commitments.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate goals against each other: strengthening public confidence and preventing corrupt actors from influencing policy versus protecting post‑conviction employment opportunities and ensuring fair procedural protections. It prevents person(s) with certain convictions from lobbying — a clear integrity gain — but does so without specified procedures for notification, appeal, or reinstatement, creating a difficult trade‑off between quick exclusion and due‑process, proportionality, and administrative feasibility.
Two implementation gaps stand out. First, the bill defines the disqualifying offenses by cross‑reference to Elections Code section 20, which imports whatever list or definition exists there.
That approach keeps the Government Code short, but it forces compliance officers to parse an external statute to identify disqualifying convictions; it also raises maintenance questions if Elections Code section 20 is later amended. Second, the bill leaves procedural mechanics underspecified: it does not say how the Secretary of State will be notified of convictions, whether a conviction must be final on appeal before the certification is voided, or what interim status applies while a conviction is being litigated.
Those omissions create real risk for registrants (who may be deprived of their ability to work while an appeal is pending) and for the Secretary of State (which could face due‑process litigation if it voids certifications prematurely).
There are also practical enforcement and equity tensions. The bill relies on an affirmative attestation by applicants, which is inexpensive to implement but creates perverse incentives: it encourages superficial self‑certification rather than documentary checks, shifting the burden to third parties to challenge false statements.
Requiring the Secretary of State to refuse or void certifications without allocating resources for monitoring convictions or building matching systems could produce inconsistent enforcement, delayed discovery, and litigation over when a conviction should trigger voiding. Finally, the statutory bar amplifies collateral employment penalties for corruption convictions, raising questions about proportionality and whether the statute should include rehabilitation pathways, time limits, or a mechanism for reinstatement.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.