Roll Call ($$) chronicles Representative Lloyd Doggett's (D-TX) long running fight to require that coalitions must disclose its members, providing that the coalition employs other persons to conduct its lobbying activities. Coalitions have become a viable way for corporate interests to engage in single-issue campaigns, and sometimes avoiding transparency rules.

Rep. Doggett (D-Texas) was new to the Ways and Means Committee in 2000 when he began to notice a pattern that troubled him: Many of the groups lobbying the panel for tax breaks had seemingly innocuous names but would not disclose who was funding them. Over the next two years, one such group, the Section 877 Coalition, shelled out $940,000 to protect tax breaks for wealthy people who give up their U.S. citizenship. Another, the Council for Energy Independence, worked to preserve a synthetic fuel credit worth billions of dollars to a select group of manufacturers

The article reports that full membership was not made public of the most expensive lobbying campaigns during the last Congress. Doggett has introduced versions of the Stealth Lobbyist Disclosure Act of 2007 (HR 804), in the last three congresses. The bill is expected to be apart of a larger legislative measure. Such legislation would enhance lobbying disclosure.

The House has begun working on its own piece of lobby reform legislation, and on Thursday the House Judiciary Committee will begin with a hearing focused on the provisions passed by the Senate in S. 1. Hopefully the lobby law changes approved in the Senate will remain intact in the House, along with some important measures left out of the Senate version such as grassroots lobbying disclosure. Other possible issues that could arise are disclosure requirements of bundled campaign contributions, or changes to the reporting requirements for lobbying contacts under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (LDA). The House lobby reform bill is not expected to be introduced until later in March. Read the BNA Money and Politics ($$) article here.

This noteworthy blog posting at "The Questionable Authority," addresses the notion that the grassroots lobbying provision stripped from S.1 would have included bloggers. It clarifies that any blogger advocating federal legislation would not have to register and report under the Lobby Disclosure Act (LDA). One might not expect a blog written by a graduate student studying Zoology to cover such an issue, but these postings are definitely worth reading. Why bloggers would not be affected by such legislation is explained along with why the issue is worth discussing.

At a time when we are faced with increasingly complex issues that we must deal with, and that can only be successfully managed through open and honest discourse, these groups move in like a squid, darkening the waters and providing concealment. These groups are the tools that interest groups - some for profit, some not-for-profit - use to influence the public to support or oppose specific positions on specific issues, while hiding their own involvement in the effort.

The Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) references the above blog as "nasty" to those that oppose grassroots lobbying disclosure. CCP charges that proponents of grassroots lobbying disclosure are simply pessimistic of American voters as incapable of differentiating the anonymous messages between either genuine or fraudulent advocacy. However such a distinction is particularly hard when groups have such names that begin with "Citizens for" or "Seniors for". As is commented here;

They will consist of a small number of paid employees (who are or have been paid employees of an amazing number of other issue advocacy groups). They will have a lot of money, most of which will come from the pharmaceutical industry in one form or another. We won't know this for sure for a while, though, because the issue will be over with long before any IRS filings are due.

Although federal law prohibits former members of Congress from lobbying former colleagues for a year from when they leave office, that hasn't stopped a number of members who lost their elections last November from joining lobbying firms, today's lead USA Today story reports.

Nothing in the law prohibits former Congress members from advising lobbyists and clients, lobbying executive branch officials or directing a firm's congressional lobbying efforts.

Last month, the Senate passed, S.1, a bill with a provision (Sec. 241) sponsored by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI) that would extend the lobbying ban to two years and prohibit ex-lawmakers from all lobbying-related activities during that time. A similar bill will be introduced in the House next week, a House Democratic spokesman says.

This week the House ethics committee issued guidelines concerning the process to obtain pre-approval of privately sponsored travel. Forms will have to be filled out explaining how each trip is considered to be official business. The sponsor paying for the trip will have to confirm that expenses are not related to personal activities. The new rules touted as strict, are now expanded once more in these new guidelines. A second night's stay is allowed in some cases if found necessary depending on practicality or transportation availability. A lobbyist can also be involved in a trip if it is "a one-day event trip and the involvement of a lobbyist in planning, organizing, requesting, or arranging the trip is de minimis, meaning only negligible or otherwise inconsequential in terms of time and expense to the overall planning and purpose of the trip." The new guidelines take effect March 1. The article in The Hill can be read here

Posted by Amanda Adams, 12:00:16 PM

Wednesday, February 14, 2007