Rep. Jim Merrill, who has been pushing the ban for three years, saw legislative interest increase when Gov. Mark Sanford gave the bill his support early this year. Rep. Merrill, R-Daniel Island, says that lobbyists previously were able to kill the bill. In doing so, they provided a demonstration of why the ban is needed.

Gov. Sanford already has prohibited Cabinet agencies from using lobbyists. Contract lobbyists representing state agencies cost state taxpayers an estimated $400,000 a year. And that doesn't count the extra dollars that lobbyists have convinced legislators to steer toward their agency clients.

Legislative advocates of state lobbyists cite the quick availability of information that they can produce for lawmakers who are considering policy matters affecting agencies. "I have no problem with an agency presenting information to me," said Rep. Jim Harrison, R-Columbia.

But providing an agency's point of view shouldn't require the expense of a state-paid influence peddler. While the House proposal outlaws contract lobbyists for agencies, it allows agencies to designate a state employee to provide information. Those contacts presumably can perform other agency duties when not answering legislative queries. There certainly is no need for them to take up residence in the Statehouse.

Considering the stakes, agency heads should be willing to make themselves available to respond to the questions of lawmakers who control their budgets, write the laws that govern their operations and approve the regulations they enforce.

Sen. Larry Grooms, R-Berkeley, who supports the bill, says that the lateness of the session may preclude Senate approval. It shouldn't. The necessity of this legislation should be apparent, particularly in a difficult budget year that has seen revenues diminish and every state agency sustain substantial cuts.