Note: Due to the evolving nature of this legislation, readers are encouraged to check for updates on our Lobbying and Ethics Reform Blog.

The leadership in the House has been working on its legislation to reform lobbying disclosure and ethics practices and is expected to unveil the plan today, May 15, or tomorrow, May 16, with a mark-up of the bill in the Judiciary Committee expected May 17. Despite repeated statements that a bill will be filed soon, controversy over grassroots lobbying disclosure, limits on bundling of campaign contributions by registered lobbyists and expansion of the cooling off period before ex-members of Congress can lobby have stalled progress. Rumors abound that the Democratic leadership bill will address the revolving door issue by doubling the cooling off period to two years. But the other two issues — grassroots lobbying disclosure and bundling of campaign contributions — are not likely to be addressed, although the leadership seems willing to have them offered as amendments or separate bills.

On May 1, Reps. Martin Meehan (D-MA) and Christopher Shays (R-CT) stepped up the pressure on the grassroots lobbying disclosure issue by filing H.R. 2093, a bill designed to amend the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) by requiring firms that spend more than $100,000 on grassroots lobbying campaigns in a quarter on behalf of another entity to register and disclose their clients' identity, along with how much they are spending. The bill has been referred to the Judiciary Committee, which is expected to consider the leadership's bill on May 17. Meehan and Shays are likely to offer H.R. 2093 as an amendment to the leadership bill in committee and again on the floor if it is not accepted in committee.

The Meehan-Shays bill significantly scales back the proposal that was defeated in the Senate earlier this year by not requiring disclosure of grassroots lobbying activities by registered lobbyists or organizations and individuals acting on their own behalf. Instead, it applies only to lobbying firms, defined as "a person or entity that is retained by 1 or more paid clients (other than that person or entity) to engage in paid communications campaigns to influence the general public to lobby Congress, and receives income of or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate of $100,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period." (emphasis added) Paid communications to influence the general public to lobby Congress are defined as a lobbying firm's efforts on behalf of a client to "influence the general public or segments thereof to contact 1 or more covered legislative or executive branch official" to take specific action.

The Meehan-Shays bill exempts communications to members of the lobbying firm's clients (since members are not the "general public") and direct mail campaigns that are "primarily for the purpose of recruiting membership to join the [client] organization."

H.R. 2093 is significantly narrower than the Senate provision that was stripped from S. 1, the Senate lobbying reform bill, earlier this year. That provision would have required lobbyists that meet the LDA registration threshold to also report grassroots lobbying expenditures. Under H.R. 2093, a group that files LDA reports on direct lobbying activities will not have to report grassroots lobbying unless it hires outside consultants or firms to carry out the work, and those consultants or firms accept more than $100,000 per quarter in fees for such activities. In that case, the outside firms would report the identity of the client but would not report information on the client's donors or members.

The sponsors of the Senate proposal said their language would not have triggered registration and reporting based on grassroots lobbying expenditures. Opponents of S. 1 argued that it would have done so, and rather than clarify the provision, they successfully worked to defeat it. Similar arguments are now being advanced by the same groups, including the National Right to Life Committee and the American Civil Liberties Union, in opposition to H.R. 2093. They claim it would require citizens or their organizations to register and report, despite the explicit statement in the bill that "No person or entity other than a lobbying firm is required to register or file a report under the amendments made by this section." A National Right to Life Committee letter sent to the House on May 4 opposing the Meehan-Shays bill says the legislation would "force countless individual Americans and groups to register and report", ignoring the definitions and threshold specified in the bill. Another opposition letter signed by 39 groups argues that grassroots lobbying should not be referred to as "lobbying" but as "democracy", since "lobbying has a different connotation, and is regulated because of the possibility of corrupting influence." This semantic argument ignores the fact that charities have been reporting "grassroots lobbying" to the Internal Revenue Service for over 30 years, without claims that this advocacy corrupts government. Additionally, labor unions have been required to report such information to the government, and their grassroots lobbying activities are no more corrupt than, say, a corporate grassroots lobbying effort.

Supporters of grassroots lobbing disclosure are also being heard in Congress. OMB Watch's May 8 letter to House members pointed out that "Disclosure of the funding sources, particularly behind big money grassroots lobbying campaigns, is a critical element in rooting out corruption and establishing a system that creates public trust." Urging members not to be fooled by misinformation, the letter said disclosure by for-hire firms will not silence citizen organizations and notes that "23 states empower their citizens with information about the entities funding grassroots lobbying campaigns."

On May 2, a letter to Congress from several organizations often identified as government reform groups addressed constitutional concerns expressed by disclosure opponents. It cites U.S. v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612 (1954), where the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a disclosure requirement for "artificially stimulated letter campaigns to influence Congress." The Court stated, "Present day legislative complexities are such that individual members of Congress cannot be expected to explore the myriad pressures to which they are subjected. Yet full realization of the American ideal of government by elected representatives depends to no small extent on their ability to properly evaluate such pressures….Toward that end, Congress has not sought to prohibit these pressures. It has merely provided for a modicum of information from those who for hire attempt to influence legislation…" 347 U.S. at 645. The process is no less complex in 2007 than it was in 1954.