Order Code RL33234
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Lobbying Disclosure and Ethics Proposals
Related to Lobbying Introduced in the 109th
Congress: A Comparative Analysis
January 13, 2006
R. Eric Petersen
Analyst in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Lobbying Disclosure and Ethics Proposals Related to
Lobbying Introduced in the 109th Congress: A
Comparative Analysis
Summary
The regulation of lobbying activities by lobbyists, and the actions that certain
members of the executive branch and legislative branch may take in their interactions
with lobbyists, are governed by laws and congressional Rules. Several proposals to
revise these laws and congressional Rules with regard to lobbying activities and the
disclosure of such activities by lobbyists and Members of Congress have been
introduced in the 109th Congress.
Measures introduced include H.Res. 81, introduced by Representative Mark
Green, directing the Clerk of the House to post on the Internet all lobbying
registrations and reports; H.R. 1302 and H.R. 1304, both entitled the Stealth Lobbyist
Disclosure Act of 2005, introduced by Representative Lloyd Doggett; H.R. 2412, the
Special Interest Lobbying and Ethics Accountability Act of 2005, introduced by
Representative Martin Meehan; S. 1398, the Lobbying and Ethics Reform Act of
2005, introduced by Senator Russell Feingold; S. 2128, the Lobbying Transparency
and Accountability Act of 2005, introduced by Senator John McCain; H.R. 4575, the
Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act of 2005, introduced by
Representative Christopher Shays; H.R. 3177, the Lobby Gift Ban Act of 2005,
introduced by Representative George Miller; H.R. 3623, introduced by
Representative Robert Andrews to amend 18 U.S.C. 207, to increase the period
during which former Members of Congress may not engage in certain lobbying
activities; and S. 1972, the Terrorist Lobby Disclosure Act of 2005, introduced by
Senator Rick Santorum.
It has been reported that other measures may be introduced when Congress
reconvenes later in January, including proposals by the majority and minority
leadership in the House and Senate.
This report, which will be updated as events warrant, provides context,
comparison, and discussion of the issues addressed in the various legislative
proposals addressing lobbying and lobbying-related laws and congressional Rules
introduced thus far in the 109th Congress. For further background and discussion of
the current proposals, please consult CRS Report RL33065, Lobbying Disclosure
Reform: Background and Legislative Proposals, 109th Congress, by R. Eric
Petersen; CRS Report RS22317, Congressional Gifts and Travel, Legislative
Proposals for the 109th Congress, by Mildred Amer; and CRS Report RS22226,
Summary and Analysis of Provisions of H.R. 2412, the Special Interest Lobbying and
Ethics Accountability Act of 2005, by Jack Maskell.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Issues that Could be Addressed Under Current Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Definition of Client . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Tax Treatment of Lobbying Coalitions and Associations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Broader and More Frequent Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Grassroots Lobbying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Timing of Registration and Frequency of Disclosure Reports . . . . . . . . 6
Lobbying Disclosure Expense Thresholds and Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Contact with a Covered Official . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Electronic Filing of Lobbying Registration and Disclosure Reports . . . 7
Making LDA Disclosure Information Available Via the Internet . . . . . 7
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Linking Lobbying Disclosure Information with Federal Election
Commission Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Disclosure of Past Executive Branch or Legislative Branch Employment,
“Cooling Off” Periods and Employment Negotiations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Penalties for LDA Noncompliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Disclosure of Contact with Lobbyists Representing State Sponsors of
Terrorism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Disclosure of Lobbyist Contributions and Payments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Campaigns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Travel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Honors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Gifts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Other Employment Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Oversight of Ethics and Lobbying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Further Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

---

Lobbying Disclosure and Ethics Proposals
Related to Lobbying Introduced in the 109th
Congress: A Comparative Analysis
Introduction
The regulation of lobbying activities by lobbyists, and the actions that certain
members of the executive and legislative branches may take in their interactions with
lobbyists, are governed by laws and congressional Rules. These include
! the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (LDA),1 as amended by the
Lobbying Disclosure Technical Amendments Act of 1998.2 LDA
requires lobbyists who are compensated for their actions, whether an
individual or firm, to register and to file with the Clerk of the House
and the Secretary of the Senate semiannual reports of their activities.
! House Rule XXV, Limitations on Outside Earned Income and
Acceptance of Gifts. Sections of the Rule govern the acceptance of
gifts by Representatives, Delegates, the Resident Commissioner of
Puerto Rico, their staffs, and other employees of the House.
! Senate Rule XXXV, Gifts. The Rule governs acceptance of gifts by
Senators, their staffs and Senate employees.
! 18 U.S.C. 207, which specifies limitations on lobbying activities by
former executive branch officials, Members of Congress, and
congressional staff.
Several proposals have been introduced in the 109th Congress to revise these
laws and congressional Rules regarding lobbying activities and the disclosure of
those activities by lobbyists and Members of Congress. These measures include
! H.Res. 81, introduced by Representative Mark Green;
! H.R. 1302 and H.R. 1304, both entitled the Stealth Lobbyist
Disclosure Act of 2005, introduced by Representative Lloyd
Doggett;
1 P.L. 104-65, Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (109 Stat. 691, 2 U.S.C. 1601).
2 P.L. 105-166, Lobbying Disclosure Technical Amendments Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 38, 2
U.S.C. 1601 note).

---

CRS-2
! H.R. 2412, the Special Interest Lobbying and Ethics Accountability
Act of 2005, introduced by Representative Martin Meehan;
! S. 1398, the Lobbying and Ethics Reform Act of 2005, introduced
by Senator Russell Feingold;
! S. 2128, the Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act of 2005,
introduced by Senator John McCain;
! H.R. 4575, the Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act of
2005, introduced by Representative Christopher Shays;
! H.R. 3177, the Lobby Gift Ban Act of 2005, introduced by
Representative George Miller;
! H.R. 3623, introduced by Representative Robert Andrews; and
! S. 1972, the Terrorist Lobby Disclosure Act of 2005, introduced by
Senator Rick Santorum.
It has been reported that other measures may be introduced when the second
session of the 109th Congress convenes at the end of January, including proposals by
the respective majority and minority leadership of the House and Senate.3
This report provides context, comparison, and discussion of the proposals
contained in the various legislative proposals introduced thus far in the 109th
Congress. For further background and discussion of the current proposals, please
consult CRS Report RL33065, Lobbying Disclosure Reform: Background and
Legislative Proposals, 109th Congress, by R. Eric Petersen; CRS Report RS22317,
Congressional Gifts and Travel, Legislative Proposals for the 109th Congress, by
Mildred Amer; and CRS Report RS22226, Summary and Analysis of Provisions of
H.R. 2412, the Special Interest Lobbying and Ethics Accountability Act of 2005, by
Jack Maskell.
Issues that Could be Addressed
Under Current Proposals
In the 109th Congress, legislative proposals related to lobbying disclosure and
related ethics rules focus on external and internal participants in the public policy-
making process. External groups include lobbyists, their clients, and affiliated
3 Paul Kane, “Democrats’ Plan Could Ban All Gifts,” Roll Call, Jan. 12, 2006, available at
[http://www.rollcall.com/issues/1_1/breakingnews/11730-1.html]; Jeffrey H. Birnbaum,
“Hill Weighs Curbs on Lobbying; More Disclosure, Ban on Sponsored Trips Under
Consideration,” Washington Post, Jan 12, 2006, p. A4; Carl Hulse, “House G.O.P.
Considers Ban on Lobby-Paid Travel,” New York Times Jan. 11, 2006, p. A19, and Kenneth
P. Doyle and Nancy Ognanovich, “Hastert Pushes for New Lobbying Reform to Cope With
Fallout From Abramoff Plea,” BNA Daily Report for Executives, Jan. 10, 2006, p. A-18.

---

CRS-3
political committees that might have a peripheral role in lobbying activities through
campaign finance activities. Legislative approaches to address external groups
include proposals to amend lobbying disclosure laws to require lobbyists to identify
themselves, their clients, and activities on behalf of those clients in a more
comprehensive manner than currently required by LDA. Internal groups include
executive branch officials, Members of Congress, their staffs, and other legislative
branch officials who might interact with lobbyists in the course of their official
duties. Legislative proposals addressing internal groups include amendment of
House and Senate Rules regarding interactions with lobbyists by Members and
congressional staff, as well as increased waiting periods on certain types of
employment these officials may undertake after they leave office or public service.
Legislation affecting current law or congressional Rules have been proposed to
address the following issues:
! specification of lobbying participants and certain lobbying activities
subject to disclosure law and rules;
! lower thresholds at which lobbying activities or the receipt of
contributions or other considerations must be disclosed;
! increased disclosure requirements, requiring more frequent reports
and more detailed information; and
! increased oversight of lobbying activities.
Specific details of current laws or rules, and legislative proposals addressing
underlying lobbying and ethics issues are provided in subsequent sections of this
report. The issues described are based on at least one pending legislative proposal,
as described in each section.
Definition of Client
Under LDA, a “client” is defined as any person or entity that employs and
compensates another person to conduct lobbying activities on their behalf. The law
also requires that groups that carry out lobbying activities on their own behalf must
also register with the Clerk of the House (the Clerk) and the Secretary of the Senate
(the Secretary).
H.R. 1302 would amend LDA to redefine the term “client” as any person or
entity that employs a lobbyist on behalf of that person or entity. The measure would
require members of coalitions or associations that employ a lobbyist, and not the
coalition or association, to be listed as the clients of the registrant lobbyist. H.R.
1302 would provide an exception for tax-exempt associations and for some members
of a coalition or association if those members expect to contribute less than $1,000
per any semiannual period to the lobbying activities of the coalition.
H.R. 2412 and S. 1398 would amend LDA to redefine the term “client” as any
person or entity that employs a lobbyist on behalf of that person or entity. The
measures would require that firms and other entities that are members of coalitions

---

CRS-4
or associations that employ a lobbyist are to be considered clients, along with the
coalition or association, if their total contribution related to lobbying activities is
greater than $10,000. The proposals would treat nonprofit entities that are tax
exempt under Section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code as clients. Entities that
contribute less than $500 to the coalition would be exempt from disclosure.
S. 2128 and H.R. 4575 would amend LDA to redefine the term “client” as any
person or entity that employs a lobbyist on behalf of that person or entity. The
measures would require that firms and other entities that are members of coalitions
or associations that employ a lobbyist are to be considered clients, along with the
coalition or association, if their total contribution related to lobbying activities is
greater than $10,000. Finally, the proposals would treat nonprofit entities that are tax
exempt under Section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code as clients.
Discussion. Concern has been expressed that entities that use anonymous
lobbying activities and public relations campaigns might circumvent the process of
public consideration of lawmaking and regulatory activities. Observers suggest that
the current LDA definition of a client might allow interested entities to shield their
lobbying activities through the use of ostensibly separate, independent coalitions and
associations.4 Clarifying the responsibilities of coalition participants as lobbying
clients could afford greater transparency of government activity and greater
accountability in the political system. Others have noted that anonymous or indirect
lobbying efforts are not new, and that expanding disclosure could have a potential
adverse impact on constitutionally protected rights of assembly, association, and to
petition the government, particularly the longstanding tradition of carrying out these
activities without the necessity of self-identification. Moreover, under guidance
issued by the Clerk of the House and Secretary of the Senate, members of informal
coalitions who each pay at least $5,000 in lobbying or membership fees to be a part
of a coalition or association may be viewed as separate clients for disclosure
purposes.5
Tax Treatment of Lobbying Coalitions and Associations
The treatment of lobbying coalitions and associations is not specified or
considered in LDA.
H.R. 1304 would amend the Internal Revenue Code to treat any coalition or
association that is identified as a client on an LDA registration as a tax-exempt
political organization. Any such coalition or association would be required to notify
the Secretary of the Treasury of its existence within 72 hours after one of its lobbyists
makes an initial contact, and to report any change in its membership within 72 hours.
Reports to the Secretary of the Treasury would include a general description of the
business or activities of each member of the coalition or association, and the amount
4 Josephine Hearn, “Dems Want to Change Congressional Rules,” The Hill, July 14, 2004,
p.3; and Alison Mitchell, “Loophole Lets Lobbyists Hide Clients’ Identity,” New York
Times, July 4, 2002, p. A1.
5 Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives and Office of the Secretary of the
Senate, Lobbying Disclosure Act Guidance and Instructions, undated, p.11.

---

CRS-5
each coalition member is expected to contribute to influencing legislation. H.R. 1304
would exempt from the disclosure requirements public charities and other tax-exempt
organizations which have substantial exempt activities other than lobbying, and
coalition or association members who contribute less than $2,000 per year for
lobbying activities. Finally, the measure would impose a penalty tax for failure to
give the required notices.
Broader and More Frequent Disclosure
Grassroots Lobbying. Grassroots lobbying, lobbyists, firms, or activities
are not specified or considered in LDA.
Under S. 2128 and H.R. 4575, LDA would be amended to define the term
“grassroots lobbying” as any attempt to influence the general public to engage in
lobbying contacts, whether or not those contacts were made on behalf of a client.
The measure would exclude any lobbying effort directed to its members, employees,
officers or shareholders, unless such attempt is financed with funds received from by
a retained registrant.
The measures also propose that
! the term “grassroots lobbyist” would mean any individual who is
retained by a client for financial or other compensation for services
to engage in grassroots lobbying;
! the term “grassroots lobbying firm” would mean a person or entity
with one or more employees who are grassroots lobbyists on behalf
of a client, or a self-employed individual who is a grassroots
lobbyist; and
! the term “grassroots lobbying activities” would mean grassroots
lobbying and related support efforts, including preparation and
planning activities, and coordination with the lobbying activities or
grassroots lobbying activities of others.
S. 2128 and H.R. 4575 would require good faith estimates of the proportion of
the total amount spent on grassroots lobbying activities, and within that amount, an
estimate of the total amount specifically relating to grassroots lobbying through paid
advertising. When a grassroots lobbying firm receives income of, or spends an
aggregate amount of, $250,000 or more on grassroots lobbying activities for a client
or group of clients, it would be required to file a report within 20 days; and additional
reports within 20 days after each subsequent time an aggregate amount of $250,000
is spent on grassroots lobbying activities.
In the disclosure of a grassroots lobbying firm, S. 2128 and H.R. 4575 would
require
! a list of the specific issues upon which the registrant engaged in
grassroots lobbying activities, including, to the maximum extent

---

CRS-6
practicable, a list of bill numbers and references to specific
executive branch activities;
! the total disbursements made for grassroots lobbying activities, and
a subtotal for disbursements made for grassroots lobbying through
paid advertising;
! identification of each person or entity who received a disbursement
of funds for grassroots lobbying activities of $10,000 or more during
the period and the total amount each person or entity received; and
! if such disbursements are made through a person or entity who
serves as an intermediary, identification of each such intermediary,
identification of the person or entity who receives the funds, and the
total amount each received.
H.R. 2412 and S. 1398, which do not define grassroots activities, would require
the disclosure of grassroots lobbying communications by paid lobbyists and itemized
disclosure of expenditures on grassroots lobbying activities.
Timing of Registration and Frequency of Disclosure Reports. LDA
requires lobbyists to register with the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House
within 45 days of an initial lobbying contact with a covered official,6 to make
semiannual reports of their activities until that registration is terminated. S. 2128 and
H.R. 4575 would reduce the registration period to 20 days following an initial
lobbying contact. H.R. 1304 would require any coalition or association identified as
an LDA client to notify the Secretary of the Treasury of its existence within 72 hours
after its lobbyists make an initial lobbying contact. H.R. 2412, S. 1398, S. 2128 and
H.R. 4575 would amend LDA to require quarterly disclosure.
Lobbying Disclosure Expense Thresholds and Estimates. If the total
income for matters related to lobbying activities on behalf of a client represented by
a lobbying firm exceeds $5,000, or total expenses in connection with the lobbying
6 Legislative branch officials covered under LDA include Members of Congress; elected
officers of either chamber; any employee of a Member, committee, leader or working group
organized to provide assistance to Members; and any other legislative branch employee
serving in a position that is compensated at a rate of 120% of the basic pay for GS 15 of the
General Schedule.
Executive branch covered officials include the President; the Vice President; any
officer or employee in the Executive Office of the President; any officer or employee
serving in a position compensated through the Executive Schedule; any member of the
uniformed military services whose pay grade is at or above O-7 under 37 U.S.C. 201 (In the
United States Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps, this is a brigadier general. In the United
States Navy and Coast Guard the equivalent rank is rear admiral.); and any officer or
employee serving in a position of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or
policy advocating character that the Office of Personnel Management has excepted from the
competitive service under 5 U.S.C. 7511(b)(2)(b).

---

CRS-7
activities by an organization whose employees engage in lobbying activities on its
own behalf exceeds $20,000, then LDA registration and disclosure are required.
S. 2128 and H.R. 4575 would reduce expense thresholds requiring LDA
registration and disclosure to $2,500 for a lobbying firm and $10,000 for an
organization that lobbies in its own behalf.
In semiannual disclosure reports, LDA requires a good faith estimate, by broad
category, of the total amount of lobbying-related income from the client, or
expenditures by an organization lobbying in its own behalf. Expenditures may be
estimated at less than $10,000 or in increments of $20,000.
H.R. 2412, S. 1398, S. 2128 and H.R. 4575 would amend LDA to reduce
estimated expense increments to less than $5,000 and $10,000, respectively.
Contact with a Covered Official. LDA requires the identification of each
executive branch official, Member of Congress, and other covered legislative branch
official with whom lobbying contacts are made.
H.R. 2412 and S. 1398 would require identification of each executive branch
official and Member of Congress with whom lobbying contacts are made, on an issue
by issue basis, for each covered official contacted.
Electronic Filing of Lobbying Registration and Disclosure Reports.
LDA does not require electronic filing of registration and disclosure reports. In the
House, the Office of the Clerk in December 2004 inaugurated a voluntary electronic
filing system for those required to file under LDA. Pursuant to a directive issued by
Representative Bob Ney, chairman of the Committee on House Administration, the
Clerk required all registrants to file LDA materials electronically after January 1,
2006.7 For some time, the Senate Office of Public Records has maintained a
voluntary program of electronic filing “for the purpose of minimizing the burden of
filing” LDA materials.8
H.R. 2412, S. 1398, S. 2128 and H.R. 4575 would amend LDA to require
electronic filing.
Making LDA Disclosure Information Available Via the Internet.
Neither LDA nor chamber rules require the provision of LDA disclosure information
via the Internet.
H.Res. 81would require the Clerk of the House to post on the Internet lobbying
registration and reports filed with the Clerk under LDA. The Senate makes LDA
7 Bob Ney, chairman, Committee on House Administration, “Electronic Filing of Disclosure
R e p o r t s , ” d e a r c o l l e a g u e l e t t e r , J u n e 2 9 , 2 0 0 5 , a t
[http://www.house.gov/cha/dearcolleaguejune29-05.htm]; see also the Clerk’s website at
[http://clerk.house.gov/pd/index.html].
8 Senate Office of Public Records, “Frequently Asked Questions,” at
[https://opr.senate.gov/faq.html].

---

CRS-8
registration and disclosure reports available through the Internet at
[http://sopr.senate.gov/].
Discussion. For many years, observers have noted a steady increase in the
number of interest groups using direct mail, public relations, newspaper
advertisement, and other marketing techniques to generate public interest. These
activities can include engaging citizens to lobby on their behalf to persuade a
government official regarding legislation or executive agency action. Some of these
organized efforts, which are not currently subject to disclosure under LDA, are also
accompanied by sophisticated media campaigns to advance the causes of a group.9
Widespread lobbying campaigns may be targeted to citizens, journalists, lawmakers,
executive agency personnel, and other groups with interests similar to those of the
organization on whose behalf the campaign is mounted.10 This practice is sometimes
referred to as “grassroots” advocacy to identify its appeal to the general public. Some
observers, noting the use of marketing techniques and alleging that a bona fide
connection to the general public is lacking, sometimes refer to such efforts as
“astroturf” lobbying.11
Those supporting more detailed disclosure through more frequent or detailed
disclosure, or the inclusion of grassroots lobbying efforts under LDA might argue
that such efforts could afford greater transparency and a broader understanding of the
effects of private interests in the public policy making process. From their
perspective, such a change might also instill greater accountability. Those opposing
changes to current lobbying disclosure practices might maintain that expanding
disclosure could have a potential adverse impact on constitutionally protected rights
of assembly, association, and to petition the government. Additionally, opponents
might assert that such a change could increase the administrative burden associated
with reporting on their lobbying efforts under LDA, or lead to imposition of greater
penalties for noncompliance should registrants fail to disclose every contact on every
issue.
Linking Lobbying Disclosure Information with
Federal Election Commission Reports
Neither LDA nor the Federal Election Campaign Act of 197112 (FECA) requires
the linking of information collected under either law.
9 Darrell M. West and Burdett A. Loomis, The Sound of Money: How Political Interests Get
What They Want (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1998), pp. 16-20; and R.
Kenneth Godwin, “Money Technology and Political Interests: The Direct Marketing of
Politics,” in Mark P. Petracca, ed., The Politics of Interests: Interest Groups Transformed
(Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1992), pp. 308-325.
10 West and Loomis, The Sound of Money, pp. 45-64.
11 Nicholas Confessore, “Meet the Press,” Washington Monthly, Dec. 2003, available at
[http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.confessore.html].
12 2 U.S.C. 431.

---

CRS-9
H.R. 2412, S. 1398, S. 2128 and H.R. 4575 would require the Secretary of the
Senate and Clerk of the House to establish and maintain lobbying disclosure
information in an electronic data base which directly links that information to the
information disclosed in reports filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC)
under FECA. The measures would also require that the linked information be made
available to the public free of charge through the Internet. Finally the measures
authorize appropriations to cover the expenses of these activities.
Discussion. Under LDA, registrants must register and files reports with the
Secretary and the Clerk, maintain independent, parallel intake procedures, and
separate electronic databases. The linking of information maintained by FEC, and
the Clerk and Secretary, could raise data administrative, and data management
concerns. These concerns might include consideration of the relative costs and
benefits of linking parallel databases containing essentially similar information with
another database system, or the technical challenges of linking potentially
incompatible datasets.
Disclosure of Past Executive Branch or Legislative
Branch Employment, “Cooling Off” Periods and
Employment Negotiations
LDA requires registrants to disclose whether they have served as a covered
legislative branch or executive branch official in the two years preceding their
registration. Relatedly, 18 U.S.C. 207 requires that a Member of Congress may not
communicate with or appear before a Member, officer or employee of either
chamber, or any legislative branch office, with intent to influence official action on
behalf of anyone else for a period of one year after leaving office. Similarly a “very
senior staff member” of the legislative branch13 may not communicate with or appear
before the individual’s former employer or office with intent to influence official
action on behalf of anyone else for a period of one year after terminating
13 “Very senior staff member,” or “highly paid staff” appear to be generic terms that are
sometimes used by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to identify
individual congressional and legislative branch staff who are subject to outside income
limitations, required to file under financial disclosure regulations, or subject to post
employment restrictions due to their level of compensation. According to guidance issued
in 2005 by the committee, an employee is subject to post employment restrictions if, for at
least 60 days during the one-year period preceding the termination of employment, a staffer
was paid at a rate equal to or greater than 75% of the basic rate of pay for Members. The
basic rate of pay for Members is $162,100. They are scheduled to receive a 1.9% increase
in January 2006, to $165,200. The 2005 post-employment threshold for employees who
leave their congressional jobs is $121,575. See Joel Hefley, Chairman, and Alan B.
Mollohan, Ranking Minority Member, “The 2005 Outside Earned Income Limit, and the
Salary Levels at which the Outside Earned Income and Employment Limits, the Financial
Disclosure Requirement, and the Post-Employment Restrictions Apply in 2005,”
memorandum issued by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Feb. 10,
2005, available at [http://www.house.gov/ethics/m_salary05.htm].

---

CRS-10
congressional employment. Similar prohibitions apply to officials and senior level
employees of the executive branch.14
LDA and House and Senate Rules are silent on the discussion of employment
negotiations by Members of Congress.
H.R. 2412, S. 1398, S. 2128 and H.R. 4575 would require registered lobbyists
to disclose all of their past executive branch and congressional employment. The
measures would also require a Member of Congress to file with the Clerk of the
House or Secretary of the Senate, as appropriate, a statement for public disclosure
that he or she is negotiating or has any arrangement concerning prospective
employment if a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest may
exist. The disclosure would be required to file a disclosure within three days of
commencing such negotiation or arrangement.
H.R. 2412, S. 1398, S. 2128 and H.R. 4575 would increase the cooling off
period during which former senior executive personnel, former Members of
Congress, and legislative branch personnel, would be prevented from lobbying the
entity in which they previously served to two years. H.R. 3623 would prohibit
Members of Congress and chamber officers15 from engaging in currently proscribed
lobbying activities for a period five years after they leave office.
Discussion. LDA disclosure requirements and 18 U.S.C. 207 “cooling off”
prohibitions were designed to bring attention to, and reduce the effect of, what some
called the “revolving door,” through which legislators and public officials could
leave positions of authority and influence in government only to return immediately
to the same circles as lobbyists or other representatives seeking favorable action on
behalf of private interests.
Efforts to curb the effects of lobbying by former public officials appear to grow
out of a widespread belief that lobbying activities advance special interests at the
expense of a more general public interest. Lobbying activities carried out by
individuals with special access to government decision makers due to previous
professional interaction, are sometimes said to exacerbate this perceived problem.
Proponents of lobbying activities counter that lobbying is “a legitimate activity
protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution,” and that all interests are
represented.16 Some maintain that further efforts to extend the duration of the
lobbying ban could have the effect of keeping individuals who might wish to pursue
lobbying as a career from entering public service, and may deprive the public (as well
14 Similar prohibitions apply to officials and senior level employees of the executive branch.
See CRS Report 97-875, “Revolving Door,” Post-Employment Laws for Federal Personnel,
by Jack Maskell.
15 Officers in the House are the Clerk, Sergeant at Arms, Chief Administrative Officer and
Chaplain. In the Senate the Sergeant at Arms and Secretary are officers. Each officer is
elected by the respective chamber.
16 Web site of the American League of Lobbyists, “Resources,” at
[http://www.alldc.org/resources.htm], visited Jan. 13, 2006.

---

CRS-11
as Congress) of access to and the availability of the particular expertise of former
legislators and staff.
Penalties for LDA Noncompliance
Whoever knowingly fails to rectify an incomplete disclosure report following
notification of the error by the Clerk of the House or Secretary of the Senate, or who
otherwise does comply with the requirements of LDA, may be liable for a civil fine
of up to $50,000.17
H.R. 2412, S. 1398, S. 2128 and H.R. 4575 would increase the maximum
penalty to a $100,000 civil penalty.
Discussion. The increase in potential penalties for noncompliance with LDA
could increase the level of compliance. Those supporting the approach might argue
that a more comprehensive and detailed disclosure process could afford more
openness of government activity and greater accountability. Due in part to the lack
of publicly available information regarding the number of penalties assessed since
LDA became effective on January 1, 1996, however,18 it may not be possible to
assess the benefits of increasing the penalty. Those opposing changes to the current
statute might maintain that there would be a negative impact on constitutionally
protected rights of assembly, association, and petition of the government, particularly
the longstanding tradition of carrying out these activities without the necessity of
self-identification. Additionally, opponents might assert that if other changes to LDA
relating to clients are enacted, increasing the potential penalties for noncompliance
could potentially subject registrants to liability in the event that the client association
or coalition withholds complete membership information.
Disclosure of Contact with Lobbyists Representing
State Sponsors of Terrorism
Contact with lobbyists representing any client are subject to the same disclosure
requirements under LDA or the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as
amended,19 as appropriate.
S. 1972 would amend LDA to require to require Members of Congress and
legislative branch employees to disclose to the Secretary of State any contacts with
representatives or officials of governments that have been designated as state
sponsors of terrorism by the Department of State. S. 1972 would require the
17 For further discussion of LDA and other laws, rules, and regulations affecting those who
lobby Congress, see CRS Report RL31126, Lobbying Congress: An Overview of Legal
Provisions and Congressional Ethics Rules, by Jack Maskell.
18 Kenneth P. Doyle, “DOJ Refuses to Disclose Settlements With Those Who Violate
Lobbying Law,” BNA Daily Report for Executives, June 20, 2005; and Kenneth P. Doyle,
“Justice Department Reveals First Cases Settled Under Lobbying Disclosure Statute,”BNA
Daily Report for Executives, Aug. 16, 2005, retrieved from the BNA website.
19 22 U.S.C. 611.

---

CRS-12
Secretary to issue a report listing those who have had such contacts to the Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations, the Senate Subcommittee on State, Foreign
Operations, and Related Programs of the Committee on Appropriations, the House
Committee on International Affairs, and the House Subcommittee on Foreign
Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Disclosure of Lobbyist Contributions and Payments
The disclosure of campaign contributions is governed by FECA. The
acceptance of gifts, travel, or other considerations by Members of Congress are
governed by House Rule XXV, Limitations on Outside Earned Income and
Acceptance of Gifts, and Senate Rule XXXV, Gifts.
Campaigns. S 2128 and H.R. 4575 would require each LDA registrant, their
employees, and any affiliated political committee, as defined in FECA,20 to disclose
the name of each federal candidate, officeholder, leadership PAC, or political party
committee to whom a contribution was made, or for whom fund raising event was
held, including the date and amount of such contribution.
Travel.21 H.R. 2412 and S. 1398 would require that congressional travel be
certified as not having been planned, organized, arranged, or financed by a registered
lobbyist or foreign agent. The measure would impose a series of escalating civil
fines for first and subsequent offenses. Finally, the measures would require the ethics
committees of the respective chambers to establish guidelines regarding reasonable
travel expenses.
S. 2128 and H.R. 4575 would require each LDA registrant, its employees, and
any affiliated political committee, as defined in FECA, to disclose the name of each
covered legislative branch official or covered executive branch official for whom the
registrant provided any payment or reimbursements for travel and related expenses
in connection with the covered official’s duties. For each covered official the
registrant would be required to disclose
! an itemization of the payments or reimbursements provided to
finance the travel and related expenses for the covered official, and
to whom the payments or reimbursements were made;
! the purpose and final itinerary of the trip, including a description of
all meetings, tours, events, and outings attended;
! the names of any registrant or individual employed by the registrant
who traveled on any such trip;
20 2 U.S.C. 431(4). FECA defines political committee. FECA, LDA, S. 2128, and H.R.
4575 do not specify or define “affiliated.”
21 See CRS Report RL33047, Restrictions on the Acceptance of “Officially Connected”
Travel Expenses From Private Sources Under House and Senate Ethics Rules, by Jack
Maskell.

---

CRS-13
! the identity of official or listed sponsor of travel; and
! the identity of any person or entity, other than the listed sponsor of
the travel, which directly or indirectly provided for payment of travel
and related expenses at the request or suggestion of the registrant or
the employee.
The measures would also amend House Rule XXV and Senate Rule XXXV to
require Members and congressional staff to disclose such travel, including the date,
destination, passenger manifest, and purpose of the trip, and would require
reimbursement of the full cost of such air travel. Finally, like H.R. 2412 and S. 1398,
S. 2128 and H.R. 4575 would also require the ethics committees of the respective
chambers to establish guidelines regarding reasonable travel expenses.
Honors. S. 2128 and H.R. 4575 would require each LDA registrant, its
employees, and any affiliated political committee, as defined in FECA, to disclosure
of the date, recipient, and amount of funds contributed or arranged to pay the costs
of an event to
! honor or recognize a covered legislative branch official or covered
executive branch official;
! contribute to any entity that is named for a covered legislative
branch official or covered executive branch official, or to a person
or entity in recognition of such an official;
! contribute to any entity established, financed, maintained, or
controlled by a covered legislative branch official or covered
executive branch official, or an entity designated by such official; or
! pay the costs of a meeting, retreat, conference or other similar event
held by, or for the benefit of, one or more covered legislative branch
officials or covered executive branch officials.
Gifts.22 S. 2128 and H.R. 4575 would require each LDA registrant, its
employees, and any affiliated political committee, as defined in FECA, the disclosure
of the date, recipient, and amount of any gift,23 that, under the rules of the House of
Representatives or Senate counts towards the $100 cumulative annual limit
prescribed in each chamber, is valued in excess of $20 given by a registrant to a
covered legislative branch official or covered executive branch official. The
22 See CRS Report RS22231, The Acceptance of Gifts of Free Meals by Members of
Congress, by Jack Maskell.
23 S. 2128 and H.R. 4575 would define gift would include a gratuity, favor, discount,
entertainment, hospitality, loan, forbearance, or other item having monetary value. The term
would also encompass gifts of services, training, transportation, lodging, and meals, whether
provided in kind, by purchase of a ticket, payment in advance, or reimbursement after the
expense has been incurred.

---

CRS-14
measures would require tickets for sporting and entertainment events that are given
as gifts to covered officials to be valued at face value. Tickets without a face value
would be valued at the highest published rate.
S. 1398 and H.R. 3177 would prohibit lobbyists from giving gifts to Members
of Congress with certain exemptions, and would amend the Rules regarding the
acceptance of gifts in the chambers in which the measures originated. S. 1398 would
also impose a civil penalty of up to $50,000 for noncompliance.
Discussion. Proposals to link campaign finance and lobbying activities, and
to enhance current Rules regarding the interactions between Members of Congress
and lobbyists could serve to provide a clearer picture of who participates in public
affairs and the scope of the activities that characterize that participation. Proponents
of such efforts might argue that such efforts could afford greater transparency and a
broader understanding of the effects of private interests in the public policy making
process. From their perspective, such a change might also instill greater government
accountability, and help to maintain the integrity and legitimacy of the broader
political system. Those opposing changes to current lobbying disclosure practices
might maintain that expanding lobbying disclosure to include those who make
campaign contributions, but who may not have any direct participation in lobbying
activities, could have a an adverse affect on the accuracy of LDA disclosure data due
to a potential increase in registrants who conduct no lobbying but who must register
due to affiliations with entities that retain lobbying services. Additionally, opponents
might assert that such a change could increase the administrative burden associated
with reporting on their activities under LDA, or curb rights of participation through
giving campaign donations, or the right of association, due to the increased burden
of LDA disclosure.
Other issues that Congress might address include consideration of the meaning
of “affiliated” in the context of FECA political committees and their interactions with
entities that secure lobbying services that must be disclosed under LDA.
Other Employment Rights
LDA and Chamber Rules confer no employment rights.
S. 2128 and H.R. 4575 would amend the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act24 to ensure that an individual who was formerly a
government official and who is an employee of an Indian tribe employed to perform
services formerly performed for the United States, may communicate with and appear
before any department, agency, court, or commission on behalf of the Indian tribe
with respect to any matter, upon providing notification to the head of the appropriate
entity of the extent of their previous involvement with the matter as a government
official.
24 25 U.S.C. 450i.

---

CRS-15
Oversight of Ethics and Lobbying
There are no explicit oversight requirements in LDA. Ethics in Congress are
overseen by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and the Senate
Committee on Ethics.
H.R. 2412, S. 1398, S. 2128 and H.R. 4575 would require the Comptroller
General to review semiannually the activities of the Clerk and Secretary under
Section 6 of LDA, emphasizing their effectiveness in securing compliance by
lobbyists with the requirements of LDA and whether the Clerk and the Secretary have
the resources and authorities needed for effective oversight and enforcement of the
act. H.R. 2412 would also authorize and direct the Committee on House
Administration and the House Committee on the Judiciary to conduct hearings on
each semiannual report.
H.R. 2412 would create in the House a bipartisan ethics task force with equal
representation of the majority and minority parties. The panel would make
recommendations on strengthening ethics oversight and enforcement in the House,
and on providing the resources necessary to accomplish that goal.
Further Reading
CRS Report RL33065. Lobbying Disclosure Reform: Background and Legislative
Proposals, 109th Congress, by R. Eric Petersen.
CRS Report RS22317. Congressional Gifts and Travel, Legislative Proposals for
the 109th Congress, by Mildred Amer.
CRS Report RS22226. Summary and Analysis of Provisions of H.R. 2412, the
Special Interest Lobbying and Ethics Accountability Act of 2005, by Jack Maskell.
CRS Report RS22231. The Acceptance of Gifts of Free Meals by Members of
Congress, by Jack Maskell.
CRS Report RS22209. Executive Lobbying: Statutory Controls, by Louis Fisher.
CRS Report RL31126. Lobbying Congress: An Overview of Legal Provisions and
Congressional Ethics Rules, by Jack Maskell.
CRS Report 96-809. Lobbying Regulations on Non-Profit Organizations, by Jack
H. Maskell.
CRS Report RS20725. Lobbyists and Interest Groups: Sources of Information, by
Mari-Jana “M-J” Oboroceanu.
CRS Report 97-875. “Revolving Door,” Post-Employment Laws for Federal
Personnel, by Jack Maskell

---