LINCOLN, Neb. -- A new Common Cause Nebraska report showed last year, more than $18 million was invested in lobbying efforts in Nebraska. By comparison, in 2000, just over $3 million was spent lobbying.

Jack Gould, issues chairman for the group, said high levels of spending to influence public policy can have an erosive impact on the democratic system. He is especially worried about senators who lean on lobbying firms to finance their election campaigns.

"We feel that the lobby should operate on the same level playing field as the public," Gould asserted. "Which means that they shouldn't be involved in campaign finance. We find the lobby making direct payments from lobbying firms, and we find them hosting fundraisers for candidates."

Overall spending was down almost a million dollars from 2019 numbers, likely because of pandemic-related public health precautions that impacted restaurants and in-person events. Still, compensation was up for more than half of the state's top ten lobbying firms.

Lobbyists have enjoyed few limits in Nebraska and nationwide after the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 ruling money was a form of protected speech in its landmark Citizens United decision.

Gould argued money can drown out the voices of everyday Nebraskans, and has become a troubling barrier to getting laws passed that benefit the public. He added far too often, good policy proposals stall in the Legislature, and only gain traction when nonprofits and community organizations can afford to hire a lobbying firm.

"Well, is that the way democracy is supposed to work?" Gould questioned. "That's not democracy the way I think of it, and I think most Americans think of it. The Legislature is supposed to react to the public, not to paid people."

Altria, formerly known as Phillip Morris, invested more than $1 million in lobbying over five years. The Nebraska Chamber of Commerce came in second, spending some $800,000 over the same time period.

The top-earning lobbying firm was Mueller/Robak, which pulled in $7.2 million dollars for their efforts to get cozy with state lawmakers.

A new report recommends changes to the way political campaigns are paid for, analyzing contributions to local sheriffs' races in 11 states, including Massachusetts.

The report from the group Common Cause found many potential conflicts of interest among sheriffs and their political donors, such as those seeking contracts with the sheriffs' departments.

Max Rose, founder and exexutive director of the advocacy group Sheriffs for Trusting Communities, noted that sheriffs have a wide range of powers, particularly in rural and suburban areas; they make arrests, control county jail facilities and play a lead role in civil enforcements.

"The private sector is touching the sheriff's role at every point," he said. "In the policing role, companies sell body armor, and increasingly powerful weapons to sheriffs. They sell the cars that leads to increased patrol and policing. In the jail role, the private-sector companies are designing and building new jails."

In Bristol County, according to the report, CPS Healthcare donated more than $20,000 to the local sheriff and has received almost $10 million in contracts from the county.

Beth Rotman, director of Common Cause's money in politics and ethics program, said some states such as New York and Connecticut have passed laws limiting contributions from individuals or entities seeking to do business with the state or city. She said she thinks Massachusetts and other states should follow that example, and also consider boosting the role of small-dollar donations.

"Small-donor democracy, also called public financing, can come in different forms - where individuals running for office raise small-dollar contributions, and then there's a government match," she said. "Or sometimes, there's a voucher program where they're actually even given the initial funding from the government itself."

Rotman said the report also urges Congress to strengthen transparency and disclosure laws, so the public gets greater access to information on who is funding political campaigns.

A legislative panel has been discussing the possibility of impeachment proceedings against South Dakota's attorney general. A statewide government observer says the meetings themselves reveal transparency problems that, in his view, are too common in Pierre.

The agenda of the House committee considering the removal of Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg includes several executive sessions closed to the media and public. Given the magnitude of the situation, said John Tsitrian, co-publisher of the nonpartisan blog South Dakota Standard, these groups shouldn't be left in the dark.

"We just have to accept what's going on behind closed doors," he said, "without getting the kind of information that would help us make decisions about whether these people are doing the right thing, the wrong thing, the political thing."

He also expressed nepotism concerns surrounding Gov. Kristi Noem, and the recent handling of her daughter's application for a real-estate appraiser's license. Noem has denied any wrongdoing in the matter. In recent years, South Dakota has gotten low marks in national rankings for state government accountability and transparency.

When voters head to the polls in 2022, Tsitrian said, they should do their best to research candidates and strongly consider those who detail plans for a more open government.

"That's probably the most practical way for the public to approach it right now," he said, "and then, at some point, there probably could be a process where some entity takes a look at our existing transparency laws."

He argued that vetting of candidates would be an important step, and noted that the current administration made similar promises.

Noem also has faced backlash over access to travel expenses for appearances in other states.

Calls for Ravnsborg's removal began after he fatally struck a pedestrian in 2020, avoiding jail time through a plea deal. He contended that the news media reported false claims about the incident, but Noem and others have criticized the deal and demanded his removal.

Gov. Kim Reynolds is accused of violating Iowa's open-records laws in a lawsuit filed this week.

The suit, filed by the ACLU, includes watchdog and media organizations as plaintiffs. In the past year-and-a-half, they say, Reynolds' office has either ignored or refused to comply with their requests surrounding COVID-19 actions and other public-record matters.

Rita Bettis Austen, ACLU Iowa legal director, said the need for elected officials to honor these requests is a core function of democracy.

"Without access to information about what the government is doing on behalf of the people who put those elected officials in place," she said, "we really don't have the system of checks and balances in place that we need to, in order to maintain our democratic system of governance."

One of the records being sought involves videos Reynolds possibly recorded for meatpacking plant workers as COVID-19 spread through those facilities. Another plaintiff wants information about Iowa State Patrol members being sent to the U.S. border with Mexico. Reynolds' office did not respond to a request for comment before deadline.

Randy Evans, executive director of the Iowa Freedom of Information Council, said Reynolds' failure to comply is a break from past governors of the Hawkeye State.

"This has been one of the most consequential time periods in Iowa history," he said, "but the governor and her staff have deprived the citizens of Iowa of documents and information they are entitled to receive."

He said those records are crucial in helping voters evaluate the governor's performance in leading the state through a public-health crisis and heightened political tensions. The suit, filed Thursday in Polk County District Court, seeks an order finding that Reynolds violated state law, in hopes of compelling her to turn over the requested information.