Roll Call ($$) is reporting on some of the troubles the House is having in crafting a lobbying reform bill. There is some question on whether or not the legislation should include a requirement that lobbyists disclose the amount of donations that they "bundle" together and then give to candidates. A staffer was quoted in the article that they are hoping to have a draft within the next two weeks. Representatives Van Hollen and Meehan introduced this bundling proposal as a separate bill, H.R.633.

"To amend the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, and political party committees for whom they collect or arrange contributions, and for other purposes."

Such a measure was a part of the Senate ethics and lobbying bill. This technique of gathering donations began in response to the ban on soft money contributions, and as a way to make it easier to collect smaller checks. Under this measure, lobbyists would have to file reports every three months on their own political contributions, the amount raised by fundraising events, and the total amount of checks they collect and then give to campaigns. The article ends with a comment on the status of a grassroots lobbying disclosure piece in the House version.

And they are trying to narrow a provision, stripped from the Senate bill in the face of intense outside pressure, to require lobbyists to disclose what they are paid to stimulate grass-roots activity.

An article in the National Journal ($$), "A Two-Front War Over Lobbying", makes the very interesting point that lobbyists are pleased in light of grassroots lobbying disclosure falling from the Senate ethics and lobbying reform bill. The article pairs the loss of grassroots lobbying disclosure and the Supreme Court's decision to take up the Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) case as both key victories for lobbyists. Thematically the two issues concentrate on the regulation of political speech and advocacy. "But both matters turn on the same thorny question, one that complicates all efforts to regulate political and policy activity. That is, how can the rules best foster transparency and accountability while protecting the First Amendment?"

First with grassroots lobbying, the article makes clear the point OMB Watch has been emphasizing, that the intent of disclosure is not meant to target the average citizen activist. Lobbyists do not simply contact and network with lawmakers, "interest groups also launch what critics call "Astroturf" lobbying drives that dump millions into ads, phone banks and direct mail, all aimed at ginning up a blitz of "grassroots" e-mails and phone calls to Congress." Registration or reporting of this activity is not legally required. Again as OMB Watch has asserted, the provision ultimately failed to be a part of the Senate bill because of its unclear language and has offered revisions.

Reform advocates will now push for better disclosure rules when the House takes up lobbying legislation -- but only after tightening up the language. They will need to make crystal clear that the rules apply only to five-figure lobbying campaigns, not to low-budget petitions from average citizens."

Connecting grassroots lobbying disclosure to the WRTL case that challenges the ban on "electioneering communications" is positioned within an outcry of free speech. In both cases, the distinction needs to be made between something genuine (an actual grassroots campaign or issue advocacy) versus simulated (campaign or ad with other intentions). The article makes an excellent connection, and shows how the two can influence the other:

But the Senate's rejection of new disclosure rules comes at a bad time. The lobbying industry has redefined itself, and much activity now goes unreported. If the Supreme Court rolls back restrictions on election-time issue ads, the need for better disclosure will only grow.

This Roll Call ($$) opinion piece explains why some lobbyists are pleased that grassroots lobbying disclosure is absent from the Senate bill. Grassroots lobbying actually weakens the link between lobbyist and lawmakers. "Requiring grass-roots organizations to register or compelling lobbyists to disclose when they assist groups in contacting fellow citizens would strip consultants of constitutionally guaranteed anonymity and would deprive organizations championing unpopular causes of skilled representation."

An editorial in this weekend's LA Times also describes some regret that the grassroots lobbying measure was not included. The piece asserts that lawmakers have a right to know if a campaign is orchestrated by a professional lobbyist.

It's a minimal burden on free speech in the cause of making the legislative process transparent and accountable. "AstroTurf" lobbying shouldn't be illegal, but neither should it be disguised as coming from the grass roots.

The report, Grassroots Lobbying: Constitutionality of Disclosure Requirements by CRS legislative attorney Jack Maskell, provides a detailed history of legal protections for grassroots advocacy and the government's interest in disclosure. The summary says:

The courts have noted that the Supreme Court in 1954 expressly upheld required lobbying disclosures relating to "direct" pressures on legislators by lobbying groups....In addition, the courts have seemed to recognize the growth of importance of such "grassroots" lobbying efforts in the legislative process, and the increased need for legislators and otheres to be able to identify and assess the pressures on legislators being stimulated (and financed) by interest groups by such methods.

Under the analysis applied in these cases, it would appear that a federal statute that requires only disclosure and reporting, and does not prohibit any activity, and that reaches only those that are compensated to engage in a certain amount of the covered activity, would appear to fit within those types of provisions that have been upheld in judicial decisions when the statute is drafted in such a manner so as not to include groups, organizations, and other citizens who do no more than advocate, analyze and discuss public policy issues and legislation.

This morning on National Public Radio (NPR), OMB Watch executive director Gary Bass commented on the grassroots lobbying disclosure provision that the Senate voted against last week. The radio clip discussed how "even" Senator John McCain (R-AZ) voted against it, despite sponsoring legislation in the 109th Congress that called for disclosure of grassroots activities by paid lobbyists. Yet he now voted to strip it out of the ethics and lobbying reform bill, and as insinuated on NPR this morning, this was after conservative groups lobbied him. Such groups mistook the intent of the bill, which was not to silence citizen groups, but to let citizens know who is paying for large, expensive advocacy campaigns. Nevertheless, as commented during the NPR show, "a spokesman for McCain said the Senator didn't want genuine citizens' groups to get caught in the same net as actors such as Abramoff and Scanlon."

Wendy Wright is president of Concerned Women for America and another critic of the grassroots provision. "One thing I love about this is that grassroots activism helped to kill a threat to grassroots activism," said Wright. And Wright says she knows why McCain sided with the conservative groups: "...because he is running for president."

The OMB Watch Executive Director participated in the conversation as a voice representing those who lobbied for the measure. "Gary Bass says his side lost because the bill's sponsors had to defend other provisions while McCain gave cover to the conservative groups."

Read the transcript of the NPR story here.

After removal of the grassroots lobbying disclosure provision from S.1 (see more here) and the widespread confusion and misinformation about the measure, OMB Watch has proposed revisions meant to clarify the impact of the proposal. Now that the issue of lobbying disclosure has moved to the House, we hope this revision clarifies the intent of grassroots lobbying disclosure proposal. For example we proposed the term "paid grassroots lobbying" as opposed to "paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying." The issue of what constitutes a "grassroots lobbying firm" is also addressed in these suggested revisions.

We hope this proposal makes it clear that a nonprofit would not have to register and report its grassroots lobbying expenditures just because it makes two lobbying contacts and communicates with more than 500 people who are not members, employees, oficers or shareholders. The group would only have to register if:

• one or more of its employees spends more than 20 percent of his or her time on direct lobbying in a six month period and
• it spends $$10,000 per quarter on direct lobbying.

Read the OMB Watch Proposal: Revise Grassroots Disclosure Amendment to the LDA for more information.

The Democrats were under great pressure to complete their ethics and lobbying reform bill. The comprehensive bill approved last night unfortunately did not include Sec.220 for grassroots lobbying disclosure, after Senator Bennett's amendment was passed calling for the removal of the measure. As the Washington Post reports; "One provision that was stricken from the bill last night would have forced interest groups to disclose funds spent on grass-roots campaigns that implore the public to contact their representatives about legislation." The amendment was passed by a vote of 43-55. We are disappointed that a majority of Senators voted to eliminate disclosure of "Astroturf" lobbying which would let the public know who is behind big money spending on grassroots campaigns. The next step is ensuring this measure is in the House lobbying reform bill, and thus brought to conference. We applaud those Senators who voted against the amendment and in favor of keeping the provision. As Senator Levin commented during debate last night;

I would also like to clarify just who is required to disclose as a lobbyist under this provision, as there seems to be confusion over this point. Paragraph (b) of section 220 clearly states that individuals who are not registered lobbyists now would not have to register as a lobbyist under this provision so long as their expenditures are only directed at grassroots lobbying. This provision is intended to shed light on the dollars being spent by lobbyists. It in no way affects individuals who want to call or write their Member of Congress.

The Senate also voted by 27-71 against creating a proposed Office of Public Integrity.

A proposal to make big money grassroots lobbying campaigns on federal legislation more transparent is under fire from opponents that have exaggerated the impact it will have on nonprofits.

Sen. Bennett has proposed an amendment to strip the provision (Sec. 220) from S. 1, the Senate ethics and lobby reform bill. THE VOTE ON THE BENNETT AMENDMENT IS LIKELY TO TAKE PLACE IN THE NEXT FEW HOURS.

To support transparency and expose "Astroturf" campaigns please contact your Senators and ask them to VOTE NO on the Bennett Amendment.

To take action click here

More information on this provision and other reforms can be found at our Lobby Reform and Government Ethics Resource Center

Posted by Kay Guinane, 06:52:57 PM



McCain to Vote in Favor of Removing Grassroots Lobbying Disclosure

The Hill reports that Senator McCain plans on supporting Senator Bennett's amendment that would remove the grassroots lobbying provision from S.1, despite previous support of such a measure. "McCain sponsored legislation last Congress that included an even broader requirement for grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. But now he will vote to defeat a similar measure." This amendment could still be voted on. Opponents argue that the provision will directly affect the level of activism by citizen groups. On the contrary, it will protect nonprofits and their right to contact their government leaders. The intention of the bill is to limit the impact to big dollar advertising and lobby firms. As Senator Lieberman commented yesterday on the Senate floor;

This grassroots lobbying provision would do nothing to stop, deter or interfere with individuals exercising their constitutional rights to petition our Government for redress. We are talking about disclosure, not censorship, not limits in any way on lobbying. We are talking about disclosure of large sums of money spent by professional organizations. We are not talking about barring any organization from conducting a grassroots lobbying campaign. And we are not talking about small grassroots lobbying efforts.

After last night's GOP filibuster, Senator Reid plans on trying to get cloture again today, but if not, he plans on pulling the measure from the floor. If not, consideration of S.1 will most likely go into the weekend.

Take Action and Support Grassroots Lobbying Disclosure!

As work on S.1 continues on, Senators Lott and Bennett have offered changes to a Reid amendment that would allow nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations to pay for congressional travel if the trips are pre-approved by the Senate Ethics Committee. And as reported in BNA($$); "Another key cloture vote, expected to come Jan. 17, will be on a larger amendment offered by Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), as a substitute for the underlying reform bill. The Reid-McConnell substitute includes broad changes in ethics rules and lobbying disclosure laws." If cloture is adopted, the Reid-McConnell substitute includes the grassroots lobbying provision, and will preclude the numerous amendments ruled non-germane.

In addition, if senators are serious about banning gifts, they should include the high-priced parties thrown at conventions to "honor" lawmakers, as Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) has proposed. They should resist a push to strip from the package a requirement that groups disclose how much they spend on "Astroturf" lobbying, or efforts to get the folks back home to contact lawmakers.

On Friday January 12, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and four members of Congress asked the Supreme Court to uphold the ban on the specific broadcast advertisements that Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) prepared to air. Yesterday, in response WRTL appealed to the Supreme Court to consider the case and rule this Term. It will not be determined until this Friday if the Supreme Court will hear the case during this Term. Bob Bauer has a blog today relating this case with the Washington Education Association case. Here he makes an interesting point, that to "support the state in these cases is to further the ongoing attack on the political power of unions, one of the bitter fruits of the progressive infatuation with the regulation of campaign finance."

Senator Bennett (R-Utah), the ranking Republican on the Senate Rules Committee, introduced an amendment yesterday to remove the grassroots lobbying disclosure provision from S.1. Bennett is worried about the constitutionality of the provision, which is perplexing considering it would not restrict direct or grassroots lobbying by an organization. Numerous amendments to the Senate lobbying bill have been offered, and formal debate on grassroots lobbying has yet to occur. Senator Bennett also opposes the creation of an independent congressional office that would enforce lobbying and ethics rules. From BNA Money and Politics (subscription required):

Supporters of the new disclosure requirement, including the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, pushed back against efforts to strike the provision. A letter from U.S. PIRG's Gary Kalman to all senators Jan. 11 said Bennett's amendment would prevent the public from knowing who is sponsoring ads and phone calls about policy matters and directly addressing abuses uncovered in last year's scandals involving lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Today the Senate began the debate on lobbying legislation. As noted previously, S.1 will be based off S.2349 passed last March which includes a grassroots lobbying disclosure provision already causing controversy. The press has picked up on the likelihood of opposition and efforts to have the measure stripped from the bill. As reported in today's Roll Call; "As Senators take up the bill this week, public interest groups are preparing for fights over grass-roots lobbying disclosure and reimbursement rates for lawmakers taking rides on corporate jets."

Public Citizen has released this press release and list of phony organizations that would have to disclose under the grassroots lobbying provision currently set to be in S.1, the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007. OMB Watch has put out an analysis of the debate, Grassroots Lobbying Disclosure: A Requirement that Makes Sense, detailing our support. Because of the far reaching components and controversial topics of S.1, there will most likely be lengthy debate in its consideration.

The House and Senate have recently convened, and as promised, the next two days will involve the adoption of new House rules that address ethics, lobbying, budget enforcement, and the disclosure of earmark sponsors. The text of the House rule changes can be read here. These new House rules include:

• prohibiting members and staff from accepting gifts or meals from lobbyists or private organizations that have lobbyists.
• Starting March 1, members would have to be approved by the Ethics Committee for privately funded travel, eliminating access to corporate jets, and requiring that those financing the trip confirm that lobbyists are not involved. This pre-approval could allow for the exception of legitimate nonprofits and foundations to provide educational trips.
• The ethics committee would also write guidelines allowing for lawmakers to attend forums, one-day trips to visit specific sites, or participate in panel discussions and to give speeches.
• House members could not use their influence persuade a private institution to make employment decisions based on political affiliation (responding to the K Street Project.)
• And all House employees would have to participate in ethics training.

Meanwhile in the Senate, Senators Reid and McConnell plan to introduce a lobbying and ethics bill on Monday based on S. 2349 passed last March. In March Senators Lieberman and Levin introduced an amendment to change requirements under the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) to include grassroots lobbying disclosure, which will most likely appear in legislation this year as well. The Free Speech Coalition is fighting against the provision, and directly targeting Public Citizen for its support. They are asserting that the provision will create a loophole for corporations that confine their grassroots communications to their employees and shareholders. Here is Public Citizen's response. OMB Watch is in support of the grassroots lobbying disclosure provisions and will come out with an analysis of the changes to the LDA. The issue of grassroots lobbying disclosure will probably come up later on in the House.

The New York Times and Washington Post both have articles on ethics and lobbying reform.

Posted by Amanda Adams, 05:57:14 PM