When the Senate passed S. 1, the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007, on Jan. 18, it left out a provision that would have required big dollar federal grassroots lobbying campaigns to disclose their spending and the identity of their clients. The provision was taken out after an intensive campaign by opponents that was primarily based on inaccurate information or interpretations that were at odds with the stated intentions of the sponsors. Supporters of the provision, including OMB Watch, have promised to pursue it when the House considers its amendments to the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA). OMB Watch has proposed clarifications to the language that are intended to eliminate contradictory interpretations and ensure that the disclosure requirements are limited to big dollar campaigns. In the meantime, misinformation spread by some conservative groups and advertising firms have scuttled an effort to prevent corruption in Congress by bringing greater transparency to the lawmaking process. Sec. 220, the grassroots disclosure provision of S. 1, would have required organizations that are required to register under the LDA - those that have an employee who spends more than 20 percent of his or her time on direct lobbying and spend $10,000 or more per quarter on direct lobbying - and spend over $25,000 per quarter on grassroots lobbying to disclose information about their grassroots lobbying activities. In addition, it would require entities that accept fees for grassroots lobbying on behalf of another to register and report if their grassroots lobbying fees exceed $25,000 per quarter. The complex language in the bill, coupled with the complexity of the LDA, created substantial confusion and led to widely differing interpretations of who would be required to report federal grassroots lobbying. For example, despite the stated intent of the sponsors, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on identical language in last year's ethics bill interpreted Sec. 220 of S. 1 to say it "Excludes paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying from the exemption from the registration requirement (thus, requiring LDA registration for such activities, regardless of low income or expenses)." However, a spokeswoman for Sen. Joseph Lieberman (ID-CT), a sponsor of the provision, told the Congressional Quarterly on Jan. 17, "There's nothing in this measure that will stop, deter or inhibit anyone from petitioning the government. We're talking about disclosure...when large sums of money are spent by professional organizations." This did not stop conservative groups from attacking the bill with wildly misleading rhetoric. For example, direct mail guru Richard Viguerie at GrassrootsFreedom.com said, "The Senate would make exercising your First Amendment rights a crime." As a result, groups like Concerned Women of America lobbied against Sec. 220, calling it "a very real and serious threat that would restrict Americans’ constitutional right to learn about pending bills and contact their congressmen about them." Statements from supporters such as the Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest pointed out that Sec. 220 would create a more level political playing field, since "Under current tax law, public charities and other nonprofit organizations are required to file reports on their grassroots lobbying with the Internal Revenue Service. Private sector groups and their lobbyists are not." The Alliance for Justice also urged the Senate to support Sec. 220, noting that the language had been revised from earlier versions so that it "dramatically lessened the impact on nonprofit organizations" and noted that "the addition of the grassroots lobbying provision will not change the registration thresholds under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act." In a Jan. 12 statement, OMB Watch said, "Disclosure of big dollar grassroots campaigns will bring transparency to the process, so the public will know who speakers are and whose interests they represent." On Jan. 11, Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) and 13 co-sponsors introduced an amendment to strip the grassroots lobbying disclosure provision from S. 1. Support came from a surprising source - Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who had proposed a similar grassroots lobbying disclosure provision in December 2005. In his announcement of Sec. 105 of the Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act of 2005, McCain explained how the abuses uncovered by the Senate Indian Affairs subcommittee demonstrated the need for disclosure of big grassroots spending on federal legislation, saying, "It requires greater disclosure of the activities of lobbyists, including for the first time, grassroots lobbying firms....During its investigation, the Committee also learned about unscrupulous tactics employed to lobby Members and to shape public opinion. We found a sham international think tank in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, established, in part, to disguise the true identity of clients. We saw phony Christian grassroots organizations consisting of a box of cell phones in a desk drawer. I would submit that in the great marketplace of ideas we call public discourse, truth is a premium that we cannot sacrifice. Through these practices, the lobbyists distorted the truth, not only with false messages, but also with fake messengers. I hope by having, for the first time, disclosure of grassroots activities and the financial interests behind misleading front groups, that such a fraud on Members and voters can be avoided." Despite opposition to the Bennett amendment from government reform groups and many nonprofits, it was approved by a 55-43 vote, with all Republicans and eight Democrats supporting it. The House could take up LDA amendments in February or March, and any grassroots lobbying disclosure provision should be clarified to ensure that only large-scale grassroots campaigns are affected. That way, the debate can be about the merits of grassroots lobbying disclosure.