"Yet, the congressional officials in charge of implementing the new disclosure system have provided no guidance, forms, or even computer passwords that thousands of lobbyists will need to comply with the new disclosure system required by the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007."

This reporting will apply not only to lobbying firms and organizations with in-house lobbyists; individual lobbyists also will have to report their campaign contributions and payments to charities linked to officials. Lobbying organizations and individual lobbyists will use the new forms to report their contributions, as well as payments for events honoring government officials, or charitable contributions to entities linked to members of Congress.

An article in the Washington Post shows an interesting connection; campaign spending and influence on policy. The National Association of Home Builders, one of the biggest corporate donors to politicians, stopped its campaign contributions "as a protest" until they considered that Congress was adequately regarding the weak housing market. "The decision showed how closely interest groups tie their donations to the actions they hope lawmakers will take on their behalf — a connection lobbyists do not want to flaunt for fear of legal and political repercussions."

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the top ten Political Action Committees' (PACs) campaign contributions increased 9.3% from the 2001-2002 cycle to the 2005-2006 cycle. Unfortunately, to get favorable legislative results, withholding campaign contributions could be an effective strategy for the privileged. If only the less wealthy or even groups that do not make contributions, and perhaps even voters, can have such an influence.

Despite their continued appeal, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) revealed the names of 65 members on its website. Originally NAM filed a lobbying report that cited the pending case. NAM is opposed to a provision in the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act that requires groups to disclose those that contributed at least $5,000 each during the first quarter of the year and actively participated "in the planning, supervision or control of such lobbying activities." NAM argues that the requirement violates their First Amendment rights.

NAM continues to challenge the requirement in a case pending at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. According to BNA Money and Politics ($$); "NAM said at that time that it would continue to pursue an appeal of the court decisions upholding HLOGA. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted April 28 NAM's request for an expedited appeal process . . . The move by the D.C. Circuit to allow an expedited appeal could permit a decision before the next lobbying-disclosure filing deadline date of July 21, according to a NAM lawyer."

For more background; from the latest OMB Watcher, "Court Upholds Stealth Lobbying Disclosure".

Yesterday, April 21, was the first filing deadline for lobbying reports under provisions of the new Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 (HLOGA). And unfortunately for the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), a federal district judge turned down their request for a delay of the April 11 decision upholding the member disclosure provision. In addition, NAM's "emergency appeal" with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was denied. NAM's last hope was the Supreme Court. However, Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts rejected an emergency request to delay the requirement.

And reportedly, NAM has "filed its lobbying report for the first quarter of the year without naming its members, citing its pending legal battle to overturn that requirement in the law."

The National Association of Manufacturers' (NAM) challenge to a new member disclosure law was dismissed on April 11. NAM was challenging a provision in the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (HLOGA) that requires coalitions and associations to reveal organization that contribute at least $5,000 per quarter and actively participates in the lobbying campaigns. The lawsuit attempted to block implementation of the new law, charging that the provision was too vague, and would interfere with their First Amendment right of free association. However, the judge found that the provision in question was "narrowly tailored to serve compelling government interests, and is neither vague on its face nor as applied to the NAM."

The Hill reports that NAM will ask for a stay and appeal the ruling. "We remain convinced that many of the law's burdensome and intrusive disclosure requirements will have a serious chilling effect on the constitutional rights of our members," NAM President John Engler said.

The Campaign Legal Center has updated its two page summary of the Honest Government and Open Leadership Act (HLOGA). The document is a great resource to have on hand with a clear outline of the different provisions of the law. Some of which have taken effect while others are still being interpreted and not yet implemented.

Attorneys for the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) have filed a brief asserting that those who support the member disclosure law "have put too much emphasis on a half-century-old Supreme Court decision." NAM is challenging a provision of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (HLOGA), Section 207, which requires coalitions and associations to reveal members involved in their lobbying.

BNA Money and Politics ($$) reports that "defenders have based their arguments largely on a 1954 Supreme Court ruling, U.S. v. Harriss, which upheld the constitutionality of an earlier disclosure law, the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act. But the brief filed March 17 on behalf of NAM said the Harriss decision was handed down 'before the current First Amendment standards were formulated,' which limit the government's ability to regulate free political expression."

The NAM brief also argued that Congress's goal in HLOGA was to provide greater transparency for "stealth coalitions"--shadowy groups that usually focus on a single issue and want to obscure who is providing the lobbying clout behind the effort. The agenda of traditional groups like the century-old NAM is already well known, the association indicated. Also, NAM said, the challenged HLOGA provision is a poorly drafted law, which cannot even guarantee it will expose what Congress wanted to shine a light on. The NAM brief suggested, for example, that stealth coalitions can avoid disclosure if they do not have their own lobbyists but instead use lobbyists hired by their members. Even when there is disclosure of members contributing to lobbying efforts, the lobbying issues of interest to these members may not be clear, the NAM brief said. Also, lobbying efforts funded by wealthy individuals, rather than companies, are exempted from the new disclosure requirements, NAM said.

With a vote of 229 to 182, the House passed H.Res. 895 to create a new independent panel, the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE). The new body will be able to initiate investigations of possible misconduct. Those who opposed creating the panel charged that it would encourage partisan complaints. After a proposal was pulled from the floor twice recently with clear bipartisan doubts, chairman of the ethics task force Representative Michael Capuano (D-MA) made changes to alleviate some concerns. For example, an investigation can only begin when one panel member appointed by the speaker and another by the minority leader agree.

The New York Times reports that "creating a panel of six people of 'exceptional public standing,' the House, for the first time, delegated the authority for regulating behavior in the House to nonlawmakers. Current members of the House, federal employees and anyone who has been a registered lobbyist in the past year would be ineligible."

Overall, the new Office of Congressional Ethics was sought to strengthen the internal ethics review process, and as a response to the voters' view of an unethical Congress. As Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) commented; "[During the last election] you know what the people thought about this, the People's House that we love. And that, my friends, is why we're in the majority. Because the people thought changes were necessary in this House. The people asked for change. They asked for accountability."

A measure to create a new Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), a panel of non-House members that would revise the House ethics process, has been delayed twice in a week. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) has told House Democrats to expect a vote next week, but CQ ($$) suggests that such a plan "might be an overly optimistic goal." Many members oppose turning over House ethics investigations to outsiders. Possibly, if there is no vote on the outside ethics panel next week, it could be held until early April.

Some Democrats support a bipartisan alternative (H Res 1018) instead of the one offered by Representative Michael Capuano (D-MA), Chairman of the Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement, H Res 895, and another suggestion would expand the current 10 member ethics committee by adding four former House members, two from each party (H Res 1003).

Campaign Legal Center, Democracy 21 and Public Citizen filed an amicus brief in support of the Justice Department to defend a member disclosure requirement in the new lobbying disclosure law. National Association of Manufacturers v. Taylor challenges Section 207 of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 (HLOGA). Under HLOGA, lobbyists and lobbyist employers are required to disclose the names of coalition and association members that contribute more than $5,000 to the lobbying of the organization and "actively participate" in the planning, supervision, or control of the lobbyist's activities.

Their amicus defends the disclosure requirement by citing the 1954 Supreme Court ruling, U.S. v. Harriss that upheld the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act, maintaining that "it was justified by Congress' interest in gathering information about 'those who for hire attempt to influence legislation or who collect or spend funds for that purpose.' Following this seminal decision, federal and state courts have been almost unanimous in upholding lobbying disclosure statutes based on the state interest in informing the public of the persons and groups that are attempting to sway the legislative process."

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) also filed a brief supporting the constitutionality of the disclosure requirement.

In The Hill, President and CEO of NAM defends the decision to go to court. "The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act also offers a classic example of legislators aiming at one target — 'stealth lobbying campaigns' — and hitting another. Does anyone really consider the NAM a 'stealth organization'? Everyone knows who we are and which industries we represent."

The House is expected to vote soon on the recommendation to create an independent office to consider ethics complaints made against lawmakers. The task force, led by Representative Michael Capuano (D-MA), was created last year as part of the House's overall effort to reform House ethics standards. Many expect passage of the measure that will set up the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), a panel of six board members appointed by the House speaker and the minority leader, with current members and lobbyists ineligible to serve. The body will review alleged ethics violations and then refer matters for further investigation or other action to the House ethics committee.

According to the New York Times; "Inquiries could be started by two members, and the panel would have up to 30 days to conduct a preliminary investigation. At the end of that time, the panel could vote to end the investigation. If a second phase is agreed upon, it could take up to 45 additional days before a required referral to the ethics committee. The report to the panel could recommend no further action, more inquiry or simply provide the facts of the case."

BNA Money and Politics ($$) reports that the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) lawsuit that is trying to block enforcement of a disclosure provision of the new lobbying and ethics law, has in fact been put on a fast-track schedule that could lead to a court decision before the first disclosure reports are due on April 21. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly said in a court order filed Feb. 8 that a briefing schedule was agreed on that ends in March. All parties agreed to convert the application for a preliminary injunction to a request for a decision on the merits. Therefore, if a ruling is in favor of the government on the merits, the case will be dismissed.

NAM officials have indicated that they do not know whether they will comply with the new law's disclosure requirement if the association does not get a court order blocking the provision. The association argues in its lawsuit that the provision violates the First Amendment rights of NAM and other trade groups to speak out on policy issues and lobby to protect their interests. . . . NAM announced Feb. 6 that it had filed the suit asking the federal district court in Washington to block enforcement of Section 207 of HLOGA, which requires increased disclosure by lobbying organizations of their members and affiliates. The organization said the requirement would lead businesses to curtail their membership in associations because of fear of possible economic retaliation for taking an unpopular stand on policy issues.

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) has filed a lawsuit, National Association of Manufacturers v. Taylor, in federal court challenging Section 207 of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, charging that the disclosure rules violate the First Amendment because they are "vague, overbroad and burdensome." The provision being challenged requires registered lobbying organizations and associations to disclose the names of any members that contribute more than $5,000 to the lobbying of the organization who "actively participate in the planning, supervision, or control of such lobbying activities." The provision was meant to disclose "stealth coalitions." NAM also requested a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the provision until the case is decided. A press release from NAM quotes President John Engler extensively ;

It would require associations like the NAM to release the names of many members who contribute more than $5,000 for lobbying activities, violating their right to privacy. The penalties for failure to disclose this information are severe. It is safe to assume that as businesses become aware of the serious implications of this law, many of them will curtail their membership in trade associations. The effect will be to compromise their First Amendment right to express their opinions in the legislative process, and also undermine trade associations which play a critical role in the development of public policy by government.

The Hill and the Washington Post report that Democrats on the House Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement support the creation of an independent panel to review ethics complaints and make recommendations to the House ethics committee. The "Office of Congressional Ethics" would consist of six members jointly appointed by the speaker and minority leader who would serve four-year terms and be served by a nonpartisan professional staff. Current lawmakers and lobbyists would not be able to be on the panel. The panel would first conduct preliminary reviews of complaints and then conduct a second phase review of the ones it finds most serious for referral to the House Ethics Committee. The cases referred to the Ethics Committee would have to be considered within 45 calendar or five legislative days followed by a public statement or finding of its verdict.

The Senate Ethics Committee has released new guidelines on Senate travel rules in accordance with the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. According to BNA Money and Politics ($$);

the Senate allows any charitable organization that is tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the tax code to offer to pay for fact-finding trips for senators and Senate staff, even if the organization has lobbyists. In the House, only educational institutions can sponsor trips regardless of whether they have lobbyists. For-profit companies and other organizations that hire lobbyists generally are banned from sponsoring long fact-finding trips under both the House's and Senate's new rules. These entities are allowed only to sponsor trips that include single-day, official events, such as a speech or conference, with a possible overnight stay of one or two nights before and after the event.

Both the House and Senate travel rules prohibit privately sponsored travel for recreational purposes, and lobbyists' participation in travel, and both also require pre-approval of privately sponsored travel from their ethics committee.