Hopefully this time the Senate will act. The House voted 411-8 to pass S.1, the ethics and lobbying reform bill that would increase disclosure requirements for lobbying activities and for earmarks. The next step is for the bill's passage in the Senate, which may prove a bit more difficult. Read previous reactions by OMB Watch below.

Today, the Democratic leadership in Congress released their long-awaited compromise lobbying and ethics bill - The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 (text of the legislation). The bill is 107 pages long, but already there has been some criticism of changes to the bill, particularly the earmark disclosure sections (see Mark Tapscott's reaction and the Porkbusters blog for a sampling). Two Senators, Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Jim DeMint (R-SC) - whose amendment to the bill earlier this year on earmark disclosure greatly strengthen the bill - have also posted disappointing reactions.

At first glance it does appear the final version of the bill is not as strong (i.e. transparent) as the original and it is unclear why those changes were adopted at this point in the debate. DeMint has announced he will offer an amendment during final consideration of the bill to "restore real earmark reform." It's yet to be seen whether that amendment will be adopted of if this version is the best the House and Senate will be able to do this year.

CQ ($$) reports that the lobby bill is almost complete and may be ready for a vote in the House Tuesday. And again the discussion focuses on how a new agreed upon bill may alter the bundling provision, shifting the reporting from lobbyists to lawmakers. This change would mean campaign committees would have to report on bundled campaign donations they receive. And sure enough Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) may object to the final changes if the Senate-passed earmark language is not included. Since the bill includes changes to Senate rules, the Senate would need 67 votes to overcome an objection and approve the package. To help overcome any objection, lawmakers will need to work hard to ensure support. RollCall ($$) reports on such rallying with the role Senator Feingold (D-WI) may be play in the bill's passage.

With conservative Republicans bracing for significant changes to the bill passed by the Senate in February, McCain could end up fighting his former ally in an effort to block a significantly weakened bill. According to sources close to the issue, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has called on Feingold to help push the bill over the goal line. Reid hopes Feingold's progressive street credentials and reputation as a reform-minded lawmaker will help keep the left flank from bolting, particularly if Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) make controversial changes to the bill.

CQ ($$) reports that the long overdue lobbying and ethics bill could clear Congress before the August recess begins. Staff has been working on an identical measure to be voted in both the House and Senate to replace the passed S.1 and H.R. 2316. In his fight to ensure that earmark language is included, Senate Jim DeMint (R-SC) has reportedly promised to filibuster any legislation that does not contain the precise earmark language in the original Senate bill passed in January. Hopefully though he will be outnumbered and enough members will want to complete a lobbying and ethics package before the recess to avoid bad publicity. DeMint and nine other Republican senators wrote a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) warning that any new version of legislation brought to the Senate should not be changed from S.1. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has predicted that the bill will probably pass without going to conference.

In efforts to get a final bill passed, Democratic leaders continue to work on language that would require lobbyists to detail their "bundling" of campaign donations. The original lobbying provision amended the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA), while a new approach that is being considered would amend campaign finance law, requiring disclosure also by bundlers who are not lobbyists.

BNA Money and Politics ($$) reported that a approach "to beef up bundling disclosure under FECA and drop the LDA bundling-disclosure requirement could get the measure back on track by addressing reformers' demands for greater transparency about influence-peddling while also responding to lobbyists' objections about being singled out under rules that would not apply to other types of political contributors. . . . Representatives of reform groups, on the other hand, want to make sure that any bundling disclosure system will reveal the activities of lobbyists, even if it also includes bundling by non-lobbyists."

Meanwhile, considering the "revolving door" provision, Democrats may go ahead with allowing each chamber to have different rules. The Senate would set a two-year lobbying ban on former senators becoming lobbyists, while the House would leave its one-year lobby ban. The House is expected to consider its replacement bill first next week with Democratic leaders limiting amendments for quick passage, and then the Senate would then take up identical legislation. See this article on the topic from the latest Watcher.

The Federal Election Commission's (FEC) rulemaking announcement followed a statement that attorney James Bopp, who represented Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL), filed a petition with the FEC for a rulemaking on behalf of the James Madison Center for Free Speech. The petition asks that the FEC apply the Court's decision in the WRTL case, that the prohibition on "electioneering communications" cannot be constitutionally applied to genuine issue ads. The petition suggests that the rulemaking should be done by directly taking language from the Court's majority opinion. It also asks that the FEC abolish a previous rule defining "express advocacy." Bopp would like the FEC to create some safe harbor examples of genuine issue ads along with a rule that not only addresses ads on pending votes, but also ones that urge candidates to take a position on an issue and ones that advise the public of the candidate's position. Bopp commented; "Groups should not have to hire a lawyer and go to court to get government permission to engage in speech that the Supreme Court has already held to be protected by the First Amendment." For more information, see the James Madison Center press release.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) announced that it will work on a rulemaking given the Supreme Court decision in Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC. The Court found that the ads in question were genuine issue ads, as opposed to electioneering ads that advocated for the election or defeat of candidates. The FEC plans to issue a proposed regulation in August and request comments with a public hearing in October, and a vote on a final rule by the end of November. If this timeline is kept, a rule will be set for the primaries in early 2008. The Court's majority opinion has made the FEC's job of drafting a rule pretty easy. For more information, see the FEC press release.

'The FEC intends to make clear how we are interpreting this exemption before mid-December, when the electioneering communication timeframes for the 2008 campaign will begin.' said FEC Chairman Robert Lenhard. 'We believe it is critical to have a clear rule in place in time for the Presidential primaries and caucuses in early 2008.'

After much frustration in trying to send the ethics and lobbying reform legislation to conference committee, RollCall ($$) reports that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) have decided to abandon the normal conference committee process and will use a parliamentary tactic rarely used to push the legislation. According to the article, the plan would be that the House and Senate votes on identical language without amendments attached to circumvent the conference process.

Once a deal is reached Democrats will bring a new version of the bill back to the House floor using a rule to limit amendments. Pelosi could then pass the measure somewhat quickly and send the new version to the Senate. Reid would then have to block any effort to change the bill. The decision was reached as Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) continues to refuse to let the bill move to conference without a promise from Reid that new earmark reform rules will be included.

Given the high profile of the ethics issue, supporters would gamble that any filibuster could be overcome. But according to Republican aides, DeMint and other conservatives who have been pushing ethics and earmark reforms in the Senate will likely be in no mood to simply accept a new bill, particularly if they feel any of the provisions have been changed or watered down.

Meanwhile, BNA Money and Politics ($$) reports that some who are working on easing disagreements between the two versions might be considering dropping the bundling provision.

Both the House and Senate version of the reform bill contain provisions to require lobbyists to include in reports filed under the Lobbying Disclosure Act the campaign money that they collect or arrange to have delivered to lawmakers and other candidates. A new proposal now reportedly being considered would require only candidates and other political committees, but not lobbyists, to report information on bundled contributions to the Federal Election Commission. . . . But, reformers suspect that others have privately supported DeMint's stance because of objections to provisions in the underlying lobbying legislation, such as the requirement to disclose bundling.

According to CongressDaily ($$), Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) will continue to block a conference on lobbying and ethics reform until he receives a guarantee that his earmark disclosure language will not be changed during conference committee. This promise remains despite Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) offer to put him on the conference committee. "The majority leader is trying to be clever, but I wasn't born yesterday," DeMint said. "Everybody knows Democrats are going to control the conference, 4 to 3, and they will vote 4 to 3 to kill earmark reform. Being on the conference won't do a thing to protect earmark reform." Many, including members of his own party, are noticing DeMint's stubborn behavior. A story in Roll Call ($$) addresses how DeMint's Republican colleagues are responding.

Roll Call ($$) reports that the Congressional Management Foundation (CMF) is working on a project to attempt to solve a problem facing Members and their staff, excessive amounts of e-mail that often causes their systems to crash. The article explains the many frustrations citizens and nonprofits are feeling in trying to carry out their advocacy work in encouraging people to contact Congress on important issues, and the frustration of those receiving the unmanageable number of messages.

After offices began receiving more email than they could handle, many offices switched to Web forms, requiring the public to send messages directly from Member Web sites. Then offices began putting logic puzzles on their Web sites, forcing e-mailers to decode a simple puzzle before sending their message. Last year OMB Watch was active in the fight against the use of such logic puzzles.

Grace Markarian, with The Humane Society of the United States was quoted in the Roll Call article; "many groups and constituents who have legitimate issues to bring to Members are frustrated because it is becoming exceedingly difficult to address such matters with their Representatives. She pointed out that while most Members have information on their Web sites about the big issues, it is sometimes difficult to find enough stuff on other matters — requiring correspondence."

And unfortunately many staffers who are frustrated with the amount of e-mail incorrectly stop considering the messages to be from actual constituents.

Some European bodies have tackled similar problems with e-mail overload by creating Internet forums for specific issues. One such Web site, mysociety.org, serves as an intermediary to help British subjects contact their member of Parliament. People can address a range of specific questions through the site or simply send an e-mail asking what their MP has done recently.

In a 2005 report CMF recommended a number of measures to deal with the problem of e-mail overload, including using the Internet as a response tool. CMF also advised advocacy groups to reduce the e-mail logjam. However, cutting down on these communications would only further disconnect the voices of constituents and the legislators who are supposed to represent them.

There is currently a push for an advocacy restriction in a proposed deal to allow public radio stations to broadcast over the internet without having to pay additional royalty fees. KCRW, Southern California's National Public Radio weekly music commentary, On The Beat, reported that "SoundExchange offered to music webcasters concerning internet music royalties includes quid pro quos that the organization did not disclose in its July 29 press release. KCRW commentator Celia Hirschman reports that webcasters would have to agree to cease their lobbying efforts on behalf of the Internet Radio Equality Act." For more information, listen to the report here or visit www.kcrw.com.

OMB Watch has released a press statement in response to recent actions that have blocked the Senate from going to conference on lobbying and ethics reform legislation. The latest Watcher has an article on the fruitless attempts to send the measure to conference.

We understand that at least one senator is blocking this bill from moving forward to ensure the senator's provision is part of the conference negotiation. OMB Watch concurs that both the House and Senate bills could be made stronger. But the best way to make that happen is to move to a conference where the better of the two bills can be approved by Congress and signed into law by the president.

An editorial in Roll Call ($$) calls on Senators to go along with Senator DeMint's (R-SC) request on earmarks "so disclosure of spending requests is not delayed until President Bush signs an ethics reform measure that still has not even gone to a House-Senate conference."

Congress has now returned from the July 4th recess and efforts to send lobbying and ethics legislation into conference committee were once again blocked. These events are a repeat of what occurred right before the recess. The Politico reports on the struggle Democratic leaders will face, especially from Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) who is insisting that the earmark disclosure provision is not altered during conference. However, Democrats simply see this as a means to block the ethics reform bill. DeMint says he supports the lobbying reform package, but he will not change his mind unless Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) promises that the Senate rules on earmarks will not be deleted or changed in the final bill. DeMint argues that a change in the Senate rules should not be included in any conference committee with the House.

The potential impasse could delay action further and threaten passage of one of the Democrats' most important campaign promises. Behind the scenes, it's clear many senators are unhappy with a separate proposed requirement that lobbyists disclose how much money they bundle in campaign donations for incumbents and candidates. Some lobbyists privately warn that they may limit their fundraising roles under such scrutiny.

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) objected to a unanimous consent request by DeMint to add the earmark language that passed in January as an amendment to the lobbying and ethics bill. DeMint's request also moved to send the lobbying bill to conference with the House. Senate Democratic leaders said they could not guarantee that DeMint's earmark language would survive negotiations.

The San Jose Mercury News reports that environmentalist Ted Smith, founder and senior strategist for Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition sued the city of San Jose, California charging that its expanded lobbying definition of who must register, pay fees and report activities is so broad it violates free-speech rights. As many other candidates nationwide, San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed's victory in November was in part due to an ethics reform agenda, and Reed commented on the importance of promoting a transparent government. "I don't see how it affects anybody's free speech. We're not stopping anybody from talking, just requiring them to tell the public who's paying them to talk."

The suit takes issue with the city's longstanding definition of an "expenditure lobbyist" as anyone who makes payments or incurs expenditures of $5,000 or more in a calendar year with the intent of influencing a city official's vote. The law requires those who meet that definition to pay an annual registration fee of $350 plus $60 for each client; to identify themselves and their clients to the city; and to file quarterly reports detailing their lobbying activity or campaign expenditures on behalf of city officials.

In the lawsuit Smith claims that anyone who spends $5,000 printing and distributing pamphlets criticizing the city government is subject to the ordinance and its requirements, which the suit says violates free speech rights. Sound familiar? The same information was wrought when federal legislation was considered. When the Senate Democrats proposed reforms regarding disclosure of lobbying, including frequency and content of reporting, one provision in particular to require disclosure of grassroots lobbying activities; (activities to encourage the public to lobby for or against particular legislation or public policies) caused the same firestorm of opposition. The San Jose complaint also attacks changes that expand the definition of "in-house lobbyist" to include anyone who spends 10 hours a year or more on "lobbying activity."

The suit is the second in the past year to challenge San Jose laws that seek to regulate efforts by developers, big businesses and other monied special interests to influence local political decisions. Last year, the San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce successfully challenged the city's efforts to restrict independent campaign expenditures as an infringement of free-speech rights.

A National Journal ($$) column explains how the prohibition on corporations paying for broadcasts that mention federal candidates 60 days before a general election or 30 days before a primary in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) sought to prevent business corporations from getting involved in election campaigns, but in turn censored nonprofit groups' criticism of the work of elected officials. "Because nearly all nonprofit advocacy groups are incorporated, the effect was to extend to such groups a ban ostensibly aimed at companies like General Electric and Dow Chemical. Indeed, it was the nonprofit citizens groups, not Big Business, that had bought many or most of the attack ads that legislators so resent."

However, the Court missed an opportunity to apply a "principled, pragmatic, nonideological solution," supported in the amicus brief filed on behalf of a group of charities, including OMB Watch.

The ideal solution would have been for the Supreme Court to uphold the ad ban as applied to business corporations and to carve out an exception for nonprofit advocacy groups. How many justices proposed doing that? Not one. Instead, in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life Inc., the five conservatives in the majority and the four liberal dissenters alike focused on all-or-nothing arguments treating all corporations as fungible.

One reason for taking this "all-or-nothing" approach is because the Court sees no difference between the speech rights of a business corporation and individuals and citizen groups. A blog from the Campaign Legal Center addresses this; "The lack of interest in the nonprofit tax exempt status of WRTL is consistent with a jurisprudence of political speech without reference to speakers." Chief Justice Roberts is not concerned about the context or who is speaking (a 501(c)(3) or not), but concerned about the content of the political speech itself.