The challenges of monitoring lobbying were the subject of an event hosted by the Advisory Committee on Transparency in March 2011, entitled Washington's Lobbying Fix.
Dan Eggen, a staff writer at the Washington Post, kicked off the discussion by expressing his desire to see stronger lobbying disclosure rules. He argued that greater transparency would help the majority of lobbyists who are honest and apt to follow the rules by making it easier to identify those who aren't. He closed his comments by suggesting that reform advocates could look to the Foreign Agents Registration Act for inspiration. The act requires detailed reports about who people are meeting with, what kind of money they are spending, and what kind of work is being done.
Shelia Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, spoke of four key areas ripe for reform. First, she was concerned that new regulations had led to an increase in lobbyists deregistering. While some of these lobbyists likely left the profession, many more simply went “under the radar” to hide their lobbying activities and avoid registration by taking advantage of loopholes. Second, she argued that requiring specific records of lobbying visits would allow observers to know whether lobbying relationships exist, and make connections between these relationships and possible campaign donations. This led her to advocate for unique lobbyist ID cards or numbers. This would make tracking and collecting lobbyist data easier. Finally, she insisted that the House and Senate follow the same rules and organize their data in the same ways.
Lisa Rosenberg, a government affairs consultant for the Sunlight Foundation, argued that increased disclosure would be good for the public, elected officials, and lobbyists. She said that everyone paid to lobby should be required to report, that lobbyists should report who they meet with and what topics they discuss, and that anyone bundling money for campaigns should also disclose their lobbying activities. She also stressed that real time-online reporting would be convenient and effective, and noted that the Sunlight Foundation has designed a smart phone application to make this possible, thereby minimizing reporting burdens.
Paul Miller, former president of the American League of Lobbyists, approached the discussion with a different perspective. He was not against the concept of lobbying reform, but was wary of reform proposals that were, in his view, constitutionally questionable, full of loopholes, or would not gain support in congress. He stressed that lobbyists were already the most heavily regulated profession and further reform should be focused on ending “carve outs” to ensure that everyone who participating in lobbying activities actually discloses that fact.
Tom Susman, director of government affairs at the American Bar Association, expounded on a number of reform proposals recommended by an ABA administrative law task force. First, he argued that expanded disclosure should cover more individuals and entities, and have additional requirements. Second, new rules should prohibit lobbyists from participating in serious campaign fundraising activities, although they would still be allowed to give individually. He also proposed stricter fundraising regulations on those who lobbied for specific earmarks. Finally, he proposed a more serious enforcement regime that would give power to the Department of Justice's Civil Division.
The event was moderated by Daniel Schuman, director of the Advisory Committee on Transparency. Check out the Sunlight Foundation's lobbying reform page for more information.
Photos from the event are available from the Sunlight Foundation's flickr account. If you could not attend the event, a video is available for your convenience.