
OMB Watch Proposal: Revise Grassroots Disclosure Amendment to the LDA
by Kay Guinane, 1/23/2007
OMB Watch has proposed a revised version of the grassroots lobbying disclosure provision that was dropped from S. 1, the Senate's ethics and lobbying reform bill. The text of the proposed amendment to the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) follows a short explanation.
The most obvious change is re-naming the terms "grassroots lobbying" and "paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying." The terms in the S. 1 are so different from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and most state disclosure definitions confusion would be inevitable. Specifically, "paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying" is what the IRS considers to be grassroots lobbying (a message to the general public to take action on specific legislation), and "grassroots lobbying" is what the IRS would consider to be direct lobbying by grassroots people. To reduce confusion we propose the term "paid grassroots lobbying" to describe what would be covered by LDA, and what the bill described as "grassroots lobbying" to be exempted from that definition.
A great deal of misunderstanding stems from the language in Sec. 220 (b)(2), which is intended to ensure that paid grassroots lobbying does not count toward the threshold for LDA registration. But despite the stated intent of the sponsors, the Congressional Research Service has interpreted this to mean 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)." (emphasis added) (See the CRS document here.) We have attempted to clarify this by moving the language to LDA Sec. 1603(a)(1) the General Rule, rather than 1603(a)(3), which has the exemptions.
The next biggest source of confusion is the definition of "grassroots lobbying firm." S. 1 makes a major distinction between grassroots lobbying firms and an organization that lobbies on its own behalf. However, use of the word 'client' as defined in Sec. 1602(2) sweeps organizations using their own staff into the definition of grassroots lobbying firm. The consequences are significant. Note that the definition of a lobbying firm in 1602(9) is limited to entities that lobby "on behalf of a client other than that person or entity." (Emphasis added) Our proposed clarification inserts this language into the definition of a grassroots lobbying firm, thereby limiting its application to entities that accept fees to conduct grassroots lobbying activities on behalf of another. This means that only clients, not donors, would be disclosed.
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, officers 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.
