An article in BNA Money and Politics ($$) reports unsurprisingly that the House Judiciary Committee has put off the tentative plan to consider lobbying and ethics reform on May 11, stressing once again the struggle to reach an agreement in constructing language for the bill. Democratic leaders are reportedly continuing to work on the details of a bill. The article also extensively quotes a letter that OMB Watch sent to House offices urging their support of grassroots lobbying disclosure.

The liberal, nonprofit group OMBWatch, which is influential among some Democrats in Congress, is battling back with support for grass-roots lobbying disclosure. A May 8 letter sent to congressional lawmakers by OMBWatch Executive Director Gary Bass said disclosure of the funding sources behind expensive grass-roots lobbying campaigns "is a critical element in rooting out corruption and establishing a system that creates public trust." Bass's letter argued that the grass-roots lobbying disclosure proposal now being discussed in the House does not impose direct reporting requirements on individual citizens and is aimed only at entities spending significant amounts of money.

Meanwhile, opponents of grassroots lobbying disclosure came out today ready to debate. An opinion piece in Roll Call ($$) staunchly argues that such a provision would greatly hinder free speech. "But when constituents contact their elected Representatives, it is not really "lobbying." It is representative democracy in action. Is this now a suspect activity, demanding scrutiny and regulation by government agencies?" I question this; isn't constituent communication to elected officials a form of lobbying? The word "lobbying" does not need to be dirty.

A CQ ($$) article reports that the House Judiciary Committee is likely to mark up the legislation May 16, with passage by the full House expected the following week. If this all goes according to plan, a Memorial Day deadline will be met.

Grassroots Lobbying In Action: We hope and encourage you take action on this very important issue! OMB Watch supports citizen communication to lawmakers and the disclosure of who is behind big money lobbying campaigns. Click here to send your representative a letter in support of grassroots lobbying disclosure. Urge your representatives to pass a meaningful lobbying and ethics reform bill. Take Action Now!

BNA Money and Politics ($$) envisions an intense conflict over lobby reform, warning that a "battle is heating up in the House over disclosure requirements for paid grass-roots lobbying, with opponents criticizing a new proposal (H.R. 2093)." The article describes the outpouring of opposition to the bill (H.R. 2093), which would only require disclosure by grassroots lobbying firms that that receive more than $100,000 a quarter. The bill was introduced so that it could be offered as an amendment if such language is not included in the overall lobbying and ethics bill. And still we wait for the leadership to move forward.

A column in the National Journal ($$) expresses frustration with the House for taking this long to produce lobby reform legislation.

Amid all this whining and foot-dragging, it's time for House Democrats to take some substantive action on lobbying reform. Lawmakers may complain that the changes on the table go too far. Most voters, however, would probably argue that they don't go far enough.

Amidst such noise of opposition, we are reminded why grassroots lobbying disclosure is so important. Even though it may not seem related at first, consider the case of possible corruption within the Department of Justice in regards to rooting out voter fraud in Missouri. A posting at Brad Blog explains the case in great detail.

Filled with unsubstantiated claims and anecdotal reports of widespread Democratic "voter fraud", the GOP site for the tax-exempt Republican front [American Center for Voting Rights (ACVR)] served as a clearinghouse for their lengthy reports, slick spin and cherry-picked media headlines (often spurred by ACVR's own disinformation campaign) portending to support their charges.

ACVR pushed stories of voter fraud into the media, and yet very little was known about the group itself, where it got its information and funding. Even though the issue discussed in the above blog doesn't describe an effort of explicit grassroots lobbying, it highlights the importance of transparency. And many times the public does in fact need to know who is at the heart of a campaign, in this case a campaign to get voter identification laws in place.

OMB Watch has sent a letter to House members urging them to support disclosure of federal grassroots lobbying expenditures. Sensibly for-profit businesses should have to disclose their funding of lobbying campaigns, just as 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations must already disclose to the IRS.

Monday's news lent hope that House leaders planned to introduce their own version of the Senate's Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007 this week and move it quickly to the floor sometime during the first two weeks in May.

By Friday, that timetable was kicked aside:

Suggesting that they are still wrestling with contentious issues in major lobbying and ethics reform legislation, House Democratic leaders have put off plans to unveil a new bill and bring it to the House floor the week of May 7.

So we are left for now to wait (as pictured here) to see if we'll indeed see the House reform legislation next week.

According to CongressDaily, House Democratic leaders met yesterday to work on the stalled lobbying and disclosure bill. The Judiciary Committee held one hearing in March on the bill the Senate passed in January, but no legislation has yet to be introduced. Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) accurately commented; "It's a time crunch. No doubt about it. It's May 1 already," and he has expressed plans to mark up the bill as soon as possible. The contentious issues that have stalled the bill are whether to require lobbyists to disclose their activities in bundling contributions for candidates, whether to require disclosure for grassroots lobbying and whether to expand a one-year lobbying moratorium to two years and extend the ban to include all lobbying activity. Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen is hopeful bundling language will make it into the bill. He has also introduced a stand alone bundling measure, HR 633, to require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, and political party committees for whom they collect contributions.

An article in Roll Call ($$) describes how grassroots lobbying disclosure is giving Democrats a "storm of opposition." The strong force of opposition to grassroots lobbying disclosure that surfaced when the Senate was considering it was the reason behind such a scaled back version. For example, if only hired lobbying firms receiving over a certain amount of money to try and rouse public communication to Congress have to disclose, groups that originally opposed the measure wouldn't be affected such as the National Rifle Association and the National Right to Life Committee. Average citizens who want to voice opinions to Congress would not be affected; a small grassroots civic organization would not even be able to afford a lobbying firm that the bill targets.

To step up pressure on their colleagues to adopt the grass-roots provision, Reps. Marty Meehan (D-Mass.) and Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) this week introduced pared-down language as a stand-alone bill. If their proposal is not included in the broader overhaul, Meehan is likely to offer it as an amendment when the House Judiciary Committee marks up the overall lobby reform bill in the coming weeks. . . . The bill requires lobbying firms to register as grass-roots advocates if they receive more than $100,000 a quarter for stirring public communications with Congress. Firms that register must disclose individual clients paying more than $50,000 over that period

Act Now! Tell you're your representative to pass effective lobbying and ethics reform.