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 House has passed a bill today that would strip pensions from any member of Congress "who is convicted of any of certain offenses committed by that individual while serving as a member of Congress, and for other purposes." No one voted against HR 476, especially after the scandals of the previous Congress. A similar measure is included in the Senate ethics and lobbying reform bill that passed late last week. According to CQ($$), such crimes include the conviction of certain felonies, including bribery, defrauding the government and perjury involving "falsely denying commission of an act." Pensions would also be denied to members found to have coerced others to lie on their behalf. "The bill, however, will not be retroactive, meaning that some former members — including Bob Ney, R-Ohio, who was recently sentenced to 30 months on bribery related charges — will still be eligible for their pensions."

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.

Late last night, the Senate passed S. 1 by a 96-2 vote, after a deal was struck between Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) and Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) to allow Gregg's non-germane presidential line-item or 'enhanced recission' authority amendment to be brought up next week during the Senate debate on the minimum wage. Sen. Robert C. Byrd, who appeared willing to hold S. 1 hostage so long as any accommodation of Gregg's amendment was made, dropped his objections and permitted a vote on S. 1.

This bill is both a significant institutional reform, affecting Senate procedure, as well as a major expansion of lobbying restrictions. Reid -- waxing proud after amendments he had resisted were adopted, adding teeth to his bill, and the Gregg/Byrd impasse that threatened to kill it had been resolved -- said:

This is the toughest reform bill in the history of this body as relates to ethics and lobbying, so everyone here tonight, when they vote on this, should vote proudly. This is historic.

The bill as introduced and amended includes a diversity of provisions.

Key earmarks provisions:

• requires disclosure of earmarks once those earmarks are adopted into a bill at the committee level (the committee is required to disclose the sponsoring lawmaker, the intended recipient, the earmark’s purpose, and include a certification that it will not yield a financial benefit to the sponsor or that lawmaker’s family; this information must be made available online in a searchable format)
• creates a point of order against bills that do not identify the sponsors of earmarks as required
• requires disclosure of earmarks contained in the reports accompanying bills and conference agreements and those, such as purchases of defense systems, that would pass through private entities before benefiting the federal government
• creates a point of order against bills that do not identify the sponsors of earmarks
• earmark definition includes any tax expenditure that provides a tax deduction, credit, exclusion, or preference to 10 or fewer beneficiaries
• prevents lawmakers’ families from being the beneficiaries of earmarks
• requires disclosure of earmarks again, 48 hours before the bill is brought to the floor

Key Senate ethics provisions:

• bans senators and their staff from accepting meals, gifts and trips from lobbyists
• prohibits senators from negotiating for private-sector jobs while still in office
• allows Section 501c(3) charitable organizations to have wider latitude in sponsoring trips, if the trips are approved by the Senate Ethics Committee privately sponsored travel

Key lobbying provisions:

• establishes a database of lobbyists’ contacts and activities
• forces lobbyists to certify that they have complied with the gift ban
• clamps down on parties funded by lobbyists at the national political conventions to "honor" lawmakers
• prohibits the husbands and wives of senators from lobbying the Senate unless they were employed as lobbyists for at least one year before their spouse’s election

The House has not passed any changes to lobbying law, so a conference committee is unlikely to convene any time soon.

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!

S. 1 (text), the Senate ethics and lobbying bill (now in its second week on the floor), lies in a state of legislative limbo following the failure of a cloture vote, 51-46, late last night. Because S. 1 contains Senate rules changes, a two-thirds vote is required for cloture, rather than the usual 60 votes.

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), on behalf of 30 co-sponsors, has filed an amendment to S. 1 that would grant limited line-item recission authority to the president. Unlike Congress' last bill giving the president line-item authority -- struck down by the Supreme Court in 1998 as unconstitutional -- the Gregg amendment provides that any rescissions of congressional spending would have to be approved by both houses of Congress.

But Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-WV), a jealous guardian of the prerogatives of the legislative branch, says that he will object to a vote on S. 1 if it includes the Gregg amendment.

Some of the meritorious parts of the baby that would go out with the bath water if S. 1 goes down: here.

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.

Debate on S. 1 has resumed on the Senate floor, with votes today expected on:

• a technical correction, to be offered by Sen. Durbin, to last week's DeMint amendment
• the DeMint amendment itself, as corrected
• a Reid amendment to require senators to pay charter rates to fly on private jets (Reid is said to be trying to address the issues of senators who have their own planes and those who live in rural states with limited air service)

All three items are expected to pass with overwhelming majorities.

Following a cloture vote, non-germane amendments will fall away, with debate and votes on some of the remaining amendments before a vote on the bill's passage by week's end.

Among these is DeMint Amendment No. 12, Sen. DeMint's resuscitation of a far-reaching Lott-Feinstein amendment in last year's lobbying and ethics bill, which would:

• require 60 Senators to waive a point of order against earmarks in conference reports that were not included in either the House or Senate versions of the underlying legislation, and
• thereupon, send the revised legislation back to the House, rather than killing it

While it raises questions about how the conference would proceed from that point, this amendment would end the pernicious practice of “air-dropping” items into legislation on the verge of being cleared for the president’s signature.

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.

Within minutes of our blog below on the earmark disclosure debate in the Senate, word issues that Majority Leader Harry Reid will support the DeMint amendment in most particulars and move as early as next Tuesday to a cloture vote on S. 1, with a vote on the bill expected later in the week.

Per a CQ article ($$) and a call with a senior Reid staffer, the new compromise amendment will:

• require disclosure of earmarks on the internet 48 hours before a floor vote
• define specific projects within federal agencies as earmarks
• require inclusion of items in report language accompanying bills and conference reports

It will also apply to any provision offering a "limited group" more favorable tax treatment than "similarly situated taxpayers."

Senate consideration of S. 1, the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007 (discussed here), veered off course of plans carefully plotted by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) yesterday, when Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) introduced an amendment that would greatly expand the scope of earmarks covered under S. 1. DeMint says that S. 1 would not require the disclosure of about 95 percent of all actual earmarks. Yesterday, the Senate rejected a motion to table (i.e., to kill) the DeMint amendment by a 51-46 vote.

The DeMint amendment basically reprises the Pelosi earmarks disclosure requirement, adopted last Friday as part of the new U.S. House internal rules package.

The DeMint amendment also requires that information filed by the chairman of the committee or any subcommittee must be published in a searchable format on the committee's or subcommittee's website not later than 48 hours after receipt on such information. Neither S. 1 nor the Pelosi rule contain any such requirement.

There are, however, three key differences between the earmarks provisions in S. 1 and the Pelosi rules:

• federal agency spending -- under S. 1, only funds directed to non-federal entities are considered earmarks. The Pelosi earmarks rule includes specific projects within federal agencies -- such as Pentagon weapons systems
• report vs. legislative language -- the Pelosi rules include earmarks found in report language accompanying bills and conference reports, rather than merely in the legisltive language of spending bills, as S. 1 does
• publication of earmarks prior to a vote -- S. 1 would make any earmark available on the Internet to the general public for at least 48 hours before its consideration, while the Pelosi rules provide only that to be printed in the Congressional Record prior to its consideration

Pelosi and DeMint appear to be improvements in earmark transparency over S. 1 on all grounds except perhaps one. S. 1 provides a time certain for debate and consideration for earmarks; the Pelosi requirement is merely that an earmark be printed in the Congressional Record sometime before a vote. We assume that instantaneous pre-vote internet publication of earmarks in the Congressional Record is not contemplated here. We would prefer to see 72 hours provided in any case.

We also applaud the provision in the DeMint amendment for searchable-format, internet-accessible information about earmark requests sent to committees and subcommittees on a timely basis and would like to see this requirement extended to the point where all earmarks are trackable throughout the legislative -- and especially the conference committee -- process.

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.

While still debating and crafting amendments to S.1, some lawmakers are trying to use the opportunity to attach campaign finance issues to the ethics and lobbying bill. However, Democratic leaders have decided in order to pass the strongest bill as quickly as possible, campaign finance matters must be delayed. One such attempt was Senator Feingold's introduction of S.223, for mandatory electronic campaign filing. Despite being a necessary and seemingly uncontroversial item, it remains to be ungermane. Hopefully, if not included as an amendement to the ethics bill, it will be dealt with again soon. This DailyKos blog is rallying support for the provision. Meanwhile, Senator Vitter introduced two campaign finance amendments, both voted down. From BNA Money and Politics (subscription required):

Later, the Senate voted to table, or kill, amendments offered by Vitter to restrict campaign contributions from Indian tribes and to prohibit a lawmaker's family members from being employed by the lawmaker's "leadership" political action committee. Little substantive debate occurred on the measures. Feinstein said she would opposed the measures simply to keep "extraneous matters" from burdening legislation aimed at dealing with lobbying and ethics rules.

The House adopted its earmarks and ethics rules last week. This week, the Senate is struggling with its own rules package, S. 1, based on a bill that the Senate passed easily last year, with the expectation of considering several amendments and completing it next week. Regardless of the outcome, S. 1, "will be a tremendously important piece of legislation in the annals of history of this country," Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) said yesterday, per CQ($$).

Let's see how it turns out.

The ethics part of S. 1 tracks the equivalent provisions of the House rules. But regarding earmarks, the paths are diverging in one noteworthy respect thus far.

Like the House package, S. 1 would require disclosure of all spending earmarks, targeted tax benefits, or targeted tariff benefits, the identity of members requesting them, and an explanation of their "essential governmental purpose." Similarly, those seeking earmarks would have to certify that neither they nor their spouses had a financial interest in the item.

But the House version defined "targeted tax benefit" a federal deduction, credit, exclusion, or preference "to 10 or fewer beneficiaries," while S. 1, BNA ($$) reports, limits applicable tax benefits to those involving "a particular taxpayer or limited group of taxpayers." Budget Committee ranking member Judd Gregg (R-NH), author of the Senate provision, may withdraw it and replace it with the House version under pressure from reformers.

Stay tuned.

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.

In the first legislative act of the 110th Congress, the House adopted an initial set of "honest leadership" rules changes yesterday by a vote of 430-1. A floor vote on a second set of rules changes, covering "civility and fiscal responsibility," is expected today.

Yesterday's package of rules changes provides the following:

• Ban on Gifts from Lobbyists: House members, delegates and staff are now prohibited from accepting gifts or meals from lobbyists or private organizations that have lobbyists. Beginning March 1, House members may not participate in travel financed, planned or arranged by lobbyists or organizations that employ lobbyists. Travel financed by colleges will not be covered. And the ethics committee will write firm guidelines allowing for 'de minimis' lobbyist involvement in lawmakers’ one-day, one-night trips to visit specific sites, attend forums or participate in panel discussions or to give speeches.

• Ban on Trips Paid by Lobbyists: Trips financed by private organizations not connected with lobbying will require pre-approval from the ethics committee, and disclosure reports would have to be filed within 15 days after any travel.

• Ban on Use of Company Planes: House members may not use their office allowances, personal funds or campaign funds to pay for travel on non-commercial corporate aircraft other than charter planes.

• End of K-Street Project: House members may not use their influence to coerce a private organization to make employment decisions on the basis of political affiliation.

• Ethics Training Mandated: House employees will have to participate in annual ethics training.

Over in the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), said he would begin by bringing up ethics legislation that passed last year when Republicans were in control. That legislation is a good deal weaker than what the House is adopting this week. Expect a difficult (but, alas, private) conference committee debate on this one.

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