After making a lot of noise about reform, lawmakers finally move to wade through the mountain of lobby and ethics reform bills and begin marking up legislation.

In the Senate, two committees are scheduled to mark up lobby reform bills the week of Feb. 27. Senate Rules and Administration Chairman Trent Lott (R-MS) has said his panel would likely mark up a lobbying reform bill on Feb. 28. Lott said the goal is to have the full Senate begin debate on the bill, which is still being written, the week of March 6.

Lott's markup will be followed on March 2 by a markup in the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The Committee is currently crafting a bill based on an earlier bill sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). The McCain bill (S. 2128) increases lobbyist reporting and disclosure requirements under the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA). For more information on the McCain bill, see Abramoff Plea Brings New Lobby Reform Bills (OMB Watcher, Jan. 10, 2005).

The Senate Finance Committee is also putting a finger in the pie. The Senate Indian Affairs Subcommittee agreed on Feb. 10 to send nearly 100 pages of documents regarding lobbyist Jack Abramoff's use of nonprofit groups to the Finance Committee. A joint statement issued by Committee Chair Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Ranking Member Max Baucus (D-MT) said the documents are part of an ongoing probe into whether "tax-exempt groups are misused for financial and political gain."

In the House, Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) has asked for new restrictions that would increase lobbyist's reporting and disclosure requirements, impose tighter limits on gifts, and ban privately sponsored travel. He would like votes on the House floor by the end of March. This has led to conflict with newly elected Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), who has backed more disclosure for lobbyists, but has publicly opposed restrictive gift and travel proposals, calling any ban on private travel "childish." Boehner's statements are largely seen as representative of the views of rank-and-file members who do not want to give up their travel and gifts. Because of differences among House Republicans, the chamber may not bring up lobbying reform by Hastert's deadline, instead possibly opting to follow the Senate's lead on legislation.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are facing conflicting pressures, particularly from outside groups. Reform advocates are pushing changes beyond current proposals, such as bans on lobbyist-hosted fundraisers and a severe cap on lobbyist campaign donations. Conversely, many groups are quietly (and some not so quietly) fighting grassroots lobbying disclosure and bans on travel. Some nonprofits are concerned that a requirement to disclose their grassroots lobbying amounts would be burdensome. Charities currently disclose grassroots lobbying - state and federal - on IRS Form 990, and legislation that mimics the IRS definitions as closely as possible should ease the burden of additional reporting.

Some in the nonprofit sector are also seeking language that would allow nonprofit groups to continue paying for educational travel. A number of groups sent a letter this week to Hastert, authored by the Institute on Religion and Public Policy, opposing the travel ban. "If NGOs are barred from funding educational travel by members and staff, such travel will only be feasible with taxpayer funds or at personal expense," said the letter. "If members must travel only at their own expense, the toll of the traveling cost will inevitably lead to minimal travel."

Nonprofits are also watching closely a provision in Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick's (R-PA) H.R. 4667, the Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act. While largely similar to legislation introduced by McCain, the bill contains a provision that could have serious repercussions for nonprofits. The provision, similar to legislation introduced in 1995 by Rep. Earnest Istook (R-OK) and former Reps. David McIntosh (R-IN) and Robert Ehrlich (R-MD), limits the amount of privately raised funds that can be used by federal grantees for advocacy purposes; creates expansive definition of advocacy; and constructs new, burdensome regulatory and paperwork requirements for charities. Experts are currently examining the language, although it is unlikely that the Fitzpatrick bill will move through committee.