Lobbying and ethics rules changes are rapidly becoming a focal point of the 110th Congress. Since the Senate passed the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007, the action has moved to the House, where a bill on executive branch lobbying recently passed the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and a Judiciary subcommittee addressed possible changes to the Senate bill.

On Feb. 14, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee approved 29-0 H.R. 984, the Executive Branch Lobby Reform Act of 2007. The bill attempts to put an end to secret meetings between lobbyists and executive branch officials by requiring senior officials to report on a quarterly basis the contacts that relate to official government action. This includes each party's name, the date of the meeting, subject matter discussed, and the name of any client on whose behalf the contact was made. During the markup, the committee approved an amendment offered by Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) that requires that the reports of these contacts be publicly searchable in a computerized database. The Office of Government Ethics would also have to develop rules for implementing the reporting system and to check for accuracy. The bill also increases the waiting period from one year to two years before a former federal employee can lobby or influence grants and contracts. It also requires the government to develop standards for designating information as "sensitive but unclassified." (See more information here.)

H.R. 984 could be included as a part of the House's broad lobby reform legislation, which has not yet been filed. However, the House has started considering reform issues, even though no specific proposals have been made. It will likely use the Senate version, S. 1, the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007, as a starting point. New versions of proposals that were rejected by the Senate, including grassroots lobbying disclosure, now have an on opportunity to be considered as part of the House bill.

On Mar. 1, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties held a hearing on the lobby reform measures included in S. 1. The agenda was centered on ethics and lobby changes passed in S. 1, but discussion instead focused mostly on grassroots lobbying disclosure, which was stripped from the Senate bill. Republican members opposed any grassroots lobbying disclosure requirements, fearing that the burden of disclosure and potential for penalties for failure to comply would stifle the average American's voice. However, witnesses explained that the "average Joe" referenced would not have to disclose, but would in fact benefit by knowing who is behind a large communications campaign and whose interests are being represented when confronted with such information.

Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) commented during his opening remarks that the "core issue is the pervasive influence of money in politics." In that context, disclosure of grassroots lobbying would help address the imbalance of power in the lobbying process and shine a light on campaigns lead by phony front groups. Opponents of grassroots lobbying disclosure referenced the Federalist Papers as a grassroots effort that would have been harmed if such disclosure existed at the time. However, even the rejected Senate version of disclosure would not have required disclosure by the Founding Fathers. And the legislative process has drastically changed since the 18th century, as budgets for grassroots lobbying campaigns have grown enormously. As Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution noted during his testimony, disclosure would level the playing field. "Huge sums are spent on paid media, computerized phone banks, direct mail, and other forms of public communications to stimulate lobbying of Congress by citizens. Yet professional grassroots ("Astroturf") lobbying organizations and lobbying firms are not required to report on the sums they spend on these campaigns. It makes little sense to exclude these activities whose costs may well exceed expenditures for direct lobbying."

The heated debate over grassroots lobbying disclosure reflects concerns over constitutional issues. However, disclosure would not restrict speech because, as witnesses pointed out, only massively funded campaigns will be affected and would only be required to report, not restrict or alter their speech in any way. Additionally, there is a governmental interest in such disclosure. As a recent Congressional Research Service (CRS) report details; "…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 others to be able to identify and assess the pressures on legislators being stimulated (and financed) by interest groups by such methods."

There are signs that the Senate language on grassroots disclosure is being revised to narrow the impact and more clearly define the goals and objectives of the measure. As reported in Roll Call, Rep. Martin Meehan's (D-MA) version "would not require organizations that hire firms to help stimulate grass-roots activity to disclose those efforts. Instead, the measure focuses on the firms themselves."

Other reform items were also discussed during the hearing, such as reporting campaign contribution bundling and extending the "cooling off" period before former lawmakers can actively lobby. It remains uncertain how these controversial measures will be finalized in the House lobby reform bill.