The Nonprofit Times highlighted the OMB Watch survey on grassroots lobbying disclosure. The article discusses the survey results and responses in some detail. For example, many who took the survey commented that disclosure would help distinguish "between genuine grassroots activism, which tends to be money-poor but people-rich, and 'Astroturf' lobbying, which tends to be money-rich."

In most cases, those at nonprofits supported exclusions from disclosure more than those not working at nonprofits. Nonprofit employees were almost twice as supportive of having $50,000 per quarter spent on grassroots lobbying be a trigger for disclosure as those not in nonprofits, along with excluding communications with members from disclosure requirements.

In case anyone is perplexed about the details surrounding the complex debate on grassroots lobbying disclosure, be sure to read this op-ed in The Hill written by OMB Watch Executive Director Gary Bass. The piece points out one fact often missed by opponents, that unions and charities have both disclosed their grassroots activity for years without any chilling effect. "A better way to approach grassroots lobbying disclosure is to require all actors who meet defined thresholds to disclose their grassroots lobbying activity. This can be done without burdening small groups."

Increasing public access to lobbying information won't trample the First Amendment. Indeed, a constitutional scholar at the Congressional Research Service recently determined that grassroots lobbying disclosure is constitutional. History shows that disclosure does not become a foot in the door for regulating speech. At the same time, a number of liberal and good-government organizations only want hired firms to be on the hook for disclosure of grassroots lobbying activity. However, disclosure requirements should not and cannot single out particular groups of people, even if a specific segment of people has been the most heavily involved in phony grassroots lobbying campaigns.

The Hill reports how strongly the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) opposes H.R.984, the Executive Branch Lobby Reform Act. The organization views the measure as a threat to a citizen's right to petition the government. The bill would require agency officials to document all communications from any private party that sought to influence a public policy issue. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee unanimously passed the bill, and now NRLC is engaging in a full blown campaign warning that the public's ability to weigh in on public policy will be jeopardized. NRLC's Legislative Director Douglas Johnson argued "that the categories of covered officials, the forms of communication and the sources of the communications as defined by the bill are overly broad and that such requirements would discourage officials from interacting with the public." Opposition to disclosure of legitimate activity invokes a reaction of suspicion that lends the memory to why such measures are needed:

As examples of the alleged secrecy he sought to uncover, [Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA)] cited Vice President Cheney's refusal to disclose details about the activities of his energy policy task force and the White House's reluctance to reveal information about meetings between President Bush's aides and the disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Yesterday the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties held a hearing on the lobby reform measures included in S.1. The heated discussion on the issue of grassroots lobbying disclosure has not gone unnoticed. A BNA Money and Politics ($$) points out the undeniable prominence the issue had during the session. The hearing was intended to focus on the ethics and lobby changes passed in S.1, but instead focused mostly on a measure that was voted out of the bill. Republican members present were clearly opposed to grassroots lobbying disclosure and repeatedly expressed concern that it will hurt homegrown citizen to lawmaker communication and have a chilling effect on speech. Yet these remarks missed the point some witnesses were making; that grassroots lobbying disclosure will not impact homegrown campaigns, it is meant to target the major lobbyists. For example, when a firm is hired to generate communications to Congress, often the public has no idea who is paying for the campaign.

Roll Call ($$) reported that Representative Martin Meehan (D-MA) is planning on introducing a scaled back version of the grassroots lobbying disclosure provision. "As opposed to the Senate measure, the Meehan version would not require organizations that hire firms to help stimulate grass-roots activity to disclose those efforts. Instead, the measure focuses on the firms themselves." At the hearing yesterday Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) had planned on Rep. Meehan's presence to ask questions considering that he is working on the related proposal. However, the ranking member Trent Franks (R-AZ) objected, and a few minutes later Meehan left the room.