Lanny Davis, Washington attorney and former Clinton White House counsel, wrote an very interesting editorial that was published earlier this week in The Washington Times. In it he advocates for “total transparency” lobbying reform.

Here’s his proposal:

Every lobbyist visiting a member of Congress or the executive branch to influence official action (the definition of lobbying) should first be required to sign in on an online, real-time computer (and thus, immediately accessible to all).

Information to be disclosed before the meeting should include the lobbyist’s name, the client represented, the amount paid by month or year for lobbying, the specific purpose of the meeting, the position to be taken by the lobbyist, the legislation to be discussed, the action to be requested (the “ask” or “asks,” to be updated after meeting), and the amount of current and prior campaign donations made by the client, the lobbyist and relatives associated with both.

Every time, every meeting. It’s as simple as that.

He says that total transparency would level the playing field. Both the lobbyist and the legislator or executive branch official would realize that the public would soon know everything that they discussed and pitched. “With total transparency, lobbyists and the officials they try to influence will have to ask themselves the question ‘would I mind if this lobbying meeting is fully reported in all respects in tomorrow’s newspaper?’” Davis writes that if the answer is “yes” then the meeting is cancelled. This is a good thing, he adds, “for the public - and certainly for the lobbyist and the legislator as well, who probably do not want to risk going to jail.”

Sounds great to me!

Hat tip: OMB Watch.

Update: For more information, check out what Sunlight researcher Paul Blumenthal wrote on Monday.

0 Comments

Ted Stevens is toast; Hawaii is the Big Kahuna; and K Street says hello and goodbye. Today’s news round-up below:

Down the tubes. Sen. Ted Stevens did not become the first convicted felon to win election to the Senate, as was previously thought. After counting all the votes (that’s always a good idea), Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich became the first Democrat to win election to the United States Senate in 30 years (the previous Democrat being Mike Gravel). Stevens was the longest serving Republican in Senate history and not only shaped modern Alaska, but helped it to win statehood when he worked in the Eisenhower administration. The Alaska Daily News has an article on “The rise and fall of Sen. Ted Stevens.” I suggest you read it.

With Stevens out and Sen. Robert Byrd stepping down as Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Hawaii is poised to become the Big Kahuna in Washington. Chief among the reasons that Hawaii is set to high-jump over the competition is that the frail 90 year old Byrd is being replaced as Appropriations Chair by the spry 84 year old Hawaii Sen. Daniel Inouye. Hawaii already gets its fair share of federal money, including huge sums from earmarks.

With Democrats ascendent in Washington, K Street is kicking their GOP lobbyists to the curb or leaving them lonely in their offices with little to do. Meanwhile, frosh Democratic lawmakers are being introduced to business lobbyists in process not too different from an arranged marriage. Two young calves for a vote on the farm bill. “‘Introductions are being made to the business community of key moderates coming into Congress, so we can get an early start building relationships,’ one Democratic lobbyist said.”

0 Comments

My colleague Anupama Naranswamy writes at the Real Time Investigations blog about the lobbying campaign waged by Dubai businesses in their efforts in 2006 to both purchase the operations of numerous ports and fight off a wave of public anger against the foreign ownership of those ports. Most illuminating in the story is how Foreign Agent Registration Agency (FARA) reports, the lobbying disclosure forms required for all foreign lobbyists, allow for a muckraker to follow the lobbying trail.

By using disclosures required under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which require firms lobbying for foreign political parties, governments and government owned organizations—including for-profit companies—to list their meetings with government officials, it is possible to trace part of the campaign to win approval for the deal. The Sunlight Foundation released a prototype database with records from lobbyists for 15 countries, which was used in this report.

FARA records show that Glover Park Group was active early. Lobbyists from the firm first met with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s national security adviser, then with staffers from the House Intelligence Committee. Lobbyists working on behalf of DAE also made early contacts with Rep. Peter King, R-NY. Both Pelosi and King had opposed the Dubai Ports deal.

At least another seven contacts were made during March with the offices of Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., both of whom questioned the DP World ports deal. In all, the Glover Park Group made contacts at least 18 times during the month of March.

Lobbyists for DAE began seeking the support of members of Congress in March 2007—before a formal deal to purchase the two aviation firms hammered out. The company was joined in its efforts by the Carlyle Group and trade groups including the U.S.-U.A.E. Business Council and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Overall, DAE spent $780,000 on lobbyists between February 2007 and August 2008.

Read the whole article here.

0 Comments

The idea of far greater transparency in government affairs is spreading fast. How can you tell? Today’s Washington Times carries an op-ed by one of Washington’s top lawyers, Lanny Davis, that includes both a full-throated defense of the lobbying profession and an endorsement for “total transparency.”

Here’s a simple proposal:

Every lobbyist visiting a member of Congress or the executive branch to influence official action (the definition of lobbying) should first be required to sign in on an online, real-time computer (and thus, immediately accessible to all).

Information to be disclosed before the meeting should include the lobbyist’s name, the client represented, the amount paid by month or year for lobbying, the specific purpose of the meeting, the position to be taken by the lobbyist, the legislation to be discussed, the action to be requested (the “ask” or “asks,” to be updated after meeting), and the amount of current and prior campaign donations made by the client, the lobbyist and relatives associated with both.

Every time, every meeting. It’s as simple as that.

One of the biggest failures in lobbying transparency is the absence of any disclosure of actual meetings. The current state of transparency for lobbyists is poor. Lobbyists only have to file quarterly reports that do not detail with whom they are meeting, what they are meeting about, and what their client is seeking. Lobbyists are also only required to file semiannual reports detailing their contributions to lawmakers. All of this amounts to a less-than-satisfactory system of disclosure providing the public with an incredibly limited view into the workings of their government.

It’s heartening to see that some who travel in the highest circles of Washington lawyers and lobbyists, like Lanny Davis, are backing a more robust version of transparency. For another take on real lobbyist disclosure see Sunlight’s Transparency in Government Act.

2 Comments

In what may be considered one of the greatest feeding frenzies since the Night of Living Dead, lobbyists are working hand-in-foot to get their clients, even if they do not fit the profile, a piece of the $700 billion bank bailout pie. From plumbers to boat dealers, automakers to credit card companies, the type of companies applying for bailout bucks expands by the day.

On Monday, American Express, a credit card company, was approved to receive bailout money. You may ask yourself, “Why American Express? They don’t fit the profile required under the TARP law.” The New York Times, in an article detailing the lobbyist frenzy, explains the logistics of who is able to receive funds under TARP authorization:

Under the terms of the $250 billion capital purchase program announced last month, cash infusions are available to “qualifying U.S. banks, savings associations, and certain bank and savings and loan holding companies, engaged only in financial activities.”

The massive lobbying effort put forth by corporations and industry groups has led to an expansion of those included in the bailout. For others, including American Express, the best option was to have the Treasury Department reclassify them as a bank holding company, thus making them eligible. According to the New York Times, both GE Capital and GMAC, the financial arm of General Motors, are also attempting to reclassify as “a bank or savings and loan holding company.”

The lobbying is intense, putting Treasury Department staffers at the front lines under extreme pressure. Some are even receiving calls from lobbyists representing clients with no interest in receiving funds, like hedge funds, who are trying to gather intelligence for trading in markets. Other companies are hiring lobbyists for the first time to get a piece of the pie.

At this moment there is no way to gauge lobbyist activity outside of the reporting of some journalists. In this “ocean of money” lobbyists operate at depths not viewable by the public. The public will not get to see how much money is being spent until the next quarterly reports are released. Even then, lobbyists are not required to list their contacts with government officials and do not need to list the specifics of what they are lobbying for. In the quest for bailout bucks, the public will never truly be able to know what is going on as more and more companies try and get a piece of the pie.

If we are going to dole out $700 billion in taxpayer money the government ought to mandate real disclosure for lobbyists.  Just as important as how the bailout bucks are spent is how the bailout bucks are acquired. Lobbyists are playing a vital role in helping all sort of corporations and organizations gain access to the bailout pie. They must disclose their activities fully if there is to be real transparency in the bailout give away.

Here’s a good place to start.

0 Comments

The 2008 presidential campaign featured blistering attacks, particularly from the eventual victor Sen. Barack Obama, on Washington’s chief money-making industry. Lobbyists are now trying to assess where they stand in Washington with a reformer in the White House and an economic downturn that is now actually stretching onto K Street.

Most of the change that will occur on K Street relates to the partisan makeup of firms. With Republicans falling further into the minority, lobby firms will need fewer GOP lobbyists and more Democratic ones. Some changes are already underway with Comcast replacing a Republican as chief lobbyist with a former staffer of prominent Obama supporter Tom Daschle.

Despite the Politico’s suggestion that, “The repositioning highlights how little Washington is likely to change, despite all the anti-lobbyist rhetoric tossed around in the campaign,” lobby firms certainly fear what kind of access and what new reforms they could face under President Obama’s administration. If we had the sense of smell of a lion, we could smell the fear emanating from the monitor when reading this Congressional Quarterly article from today. This article is ridden with quotes from lobbyists not only attempting to sell themselves and their business to a new administration, but also trying to prebut the coming reforms and changes.

I sincerely hope that the promises of reform do not end at the ballot box as so many on K Street seem to be projecting. Further transparency requirements are needed to reel in the influence industry. A good place to start would be to enact the reforms contained in the Transparency in Government Act, available at PublicMarkup.org.

0 Comments

An investigation begins into the Friends of Angelo. Stevens’ conviction prompts reform group push. Some people don’t like transparency. That and more in today’s news:

“Friends of Angelo” beware! The FBI is investigating the “VIP” home loan program for public officials operated by Countrywide. Countrywide chief Angelo Mozilo made sure that public officials who could be influential in matters relating to his business received “VIP” rates on interest rates and loan fees. Sen. Chris Dodd and Sen. Kent Conrad both received “VIP” loans from Mozilo’s Countrywide. They are currently both cooperating with a Senate Ethics Committee investigation. The operator of the “VIP” program Robert Feinberg spoke to federal investigators noting, “he’s not aware of any discounts linked to favors, but he did see e-mails noting the potential value of the relationships to Countrywide’s political and business interests.” Both Conrad and Dodd stated that they did not know that a “VIP” program would provide them with special perks and savings. Feinberg, however, responds, “nine times out of ten, once you mention ‘V.I.P’ the person’s gonna ask you ‘what am i getting for being in this V.I.P department?’ Or ‘what am I getting because I know Angelo?’ Or ‘I talked to Angelo and he said I’m getting this.’”

Sen. Ted Stevens faced a welcome reception among fellow Republicans in Alaska as he denounced the “corrupt prosecutors” who successfully won seven convictions against the seven-term senator. Back in Washington, reform groups are organizing to pressure the Senate to create an independent body, working in conjunction with the Senate Ethics Committee, to oversee ethics complaints. The House approved an independent oversight board this year. The ethics committees in both chambers have taken flack for failing to properly police their members. While the ethics process has, since the eighties, primarily been used as a partisan tool, the system completely shut down after former Majority Leader Tom DeLay was reprimanded multiple times for various abuses of House rules.

Some dare call it transparency. The Aspen Times reports on local political donors who are uneasy about the availability of campaign contribution information online. Most of these individuals did not know that their contributions would be part of the public record and are upset that Google searches for their name turn up their political contributions. Involvement in the activities of public figures, particularly the financing of them, requires disclosure to ensure an open and honest system of governance. There is no reason to fear Big Transparency.

If you’re paying attention to the presidential campaign and checking polls every half-hour you may want to check a decent predictor of the outcome, lobbyist shuffling on K Street. Comcast recently fired their Republican lobbyist Kerry Knott, a former Dick Armey aide, and replaced him with Melissa Maxfield, a former aide to former Sen. Tom Daschle. Daschle is, of course, a top aide to Sen. Barack Obama and noted as a potential White House Chief of Staff or cabinet secretary, in the case that Obama wins the Nov. 4 election. Companies are already girding up for future battles by taking on lobbyists who would have influence in a potential Obama administration.

0 Comments

Update: Please see Ellen’s comment in the comment thread for a clarification of these numbers.

MAPLight.org’s excellent study on in-state vs. out-of-state contributions to congressional candidates provides so many great points of data. The Blog of the Legal Times (BLT) looks at the zip codes with the highest amount of giving to political candidates. No surprise here:

1. Washington, D.C. 20005, with $28.9 million raised (map)
2. Washington, D.C. 20001, with $27.5 million raised (map)
3. Washington, D.C. 20036, with $27.5 million raised (map)
4. Washington, D.C. 20006, with $21.8 million raised (map)
5. Washington, D.C. 20004, with $17.8 million raised (map)
6. Alexandria, Va. 22314, with $12.2 million raised
7. Washington, D.C. 20007 with $5.8 million raised (map)
8. Chicago, Ill. 60611 with $5.3 million raised
9. McLean, Va. 22102 with $5.2 million raised
10. Arlington, Va. 22209 with $5.2 million raised

All but one of these Washington, D.C. zip codes include parts of K Street, the chief lobbying corridor in the capital city. Arlington and McLean are part of a few of the richest counties in the entire country (McLean is in Fairfax County, the absolute richest county in the U.S.) These two Virginia locales are populated with pundits, lobbyists, defense contractors, lobbyists, and lobbyists.

And just in case there were any illusions left about campaign contributions and influence in Congress, take a look at this post from the blog of the law firm Womble Carlyle:

In the October 1 Political GPS we discussed the brave new world of regulation that has been ushered in by the current economic crisis. And from what we can see, “Joe the Hedge Fund Manager” should have as many concerns as “Joe the Plumber.” In short, the financial services industry will need to shift its government relations and PAC efforts into overdrive in order to outrun the regulatory tsunami headed its way.

Which plays nicely into the Washingtonian’s list of winners and losers in Washington over the collapse of the financial industry. Guess who the number one winners are: lobbyists and law firms!

2 Comments

After a year of operating under the new reforms Congress enacted after a series of lobbyist-related scandals, lobbyists are reporting little disruption in most of their activities. The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act was the major piece of legislation embodying Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s effort to lead the “most honest and open” Congress. The biggest impact of the law appears to be on the hosting of parties by lobbyists.

A recently released study from Lobbyists.info shows that forty percent of lobbyists report less involvement  in “hosting events at their offices where a covered official may attend, and 28 percent reported less participation in fund-raising events.” There are a variety of reasons for this, including reluctance among members of Congress to accept invitations and a lack of clarity among lobbyists regarding reporting requirements for event on the new contribution disclosure forms (LD-203).

The study also reports little disruption in lobbyist day-to-day activities. Seventy-five percent of respondents said that they have had no change in the number of face-to-face meetings with members of Congress or staff. A larger number, eighty-five percent, reports no reduction in phone or email contact.

Grassroots activities do not seem to be effected much by the new disclosure requirements. This is despite claims by the National Association of Manufacturers claiming that the disclosure rules would silence organizations and keep them from joining coalitions and engaging in grassroots engagement. NAM filed a lawsuit against the disclosure rules, eventually losing in the Supreme Court.

An oft repeated complaint about the reform before it was passed involved the amount of time spent on record keeping. Lobbyists feared that this would impede their ability to do their jobs. While more than eighty-five percent of respondents reported a heavy impact on record keeping, as indicated by the lack of impact on ordinary lobbying practices, the new disclosure requirements have not impacted their ability to do their job. Also, the new disclosure requirements have led to seventy-eight percent of respondents to have a tracking system for both lobbying activities and contributions, up from forty-three percent prior to the reforms.

This record keeping data holds a lot of promise for future, more detailed disclosure reforms. If nearly all lobbying operations have a record keeping system in place for lobbying activities and contributions it will be much easier to increase the amount of disclosure as recommended in the Transparency in Government Act.

0 Comments

There is only one lobbying game in town: grabbing for bailout bucks. Changes at the Stevens trial, while more stories unfold regarding the Alaska senator’s earmarking. Earmark disclosure in the Senate is still woefully inadequate. All of that in today’s news:

What’s bad for the goose, is good for the gander. Crisis in business tends to mean profits for lobbyists, especially when the private sector is seeking direct payments from the government. The AP reports that the quest for a piece of the $700 billion bailout pie is currently the only lobbying game in town. I can see the scene now, blue power suits swarming past Albert Gallatin as they enter the Treasury Department building on Pennsylvania Ave. to beg for their clients like so many street corner hobos. I can’t wait for those 4th quarter lobbying disclosures.

The judge hearing the charges against Sen. Ted Stevens replaced a juror after attempts to contact a juror on leave for the death of her father failed. The judge instructed the jury to begin deliberations anew today. Meanwhile, the AP reports on another questionable earmark Sen. Stevens sought and received for a campaign contributor Bob Persons. Persons, an Alaska restauranteur, is also the provider of the nearly $3,000 massage chair that is at the center of one of the seven charges filed against the senator. The new earmark revelations show that after seeking $10 million for road projects in Girdwood, Alaska, Sen. Stevens pushed hard for the state transportation agency to use $2.7 million in funds to pave a road connecting directly to the Double Musky Inn, a Cajun restaurant owned by Persons. Stevens insisted that the road paving project be priority number one, despite it ranking sixth in importance on a list of road projects.

The Salt Lake Tribune reports that Sen. Bob Bennett finally released a list of his defense earmark recipients, but only due to confusion between his office and the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. Unlike in the House, senators are not required to reveal the recipients of earmarks. Instead, they operate on a voluntary disclosure agreement, with 50% of senators revealing who they earmark funds to. Sen. Bennett has not been one of those 50% until now after the subcommittee told his staff that they were going to make the information public also. The subcommittee never did release the earmark information, but Bennett did. The Senate should scrap voluntary disclosure and institute mandatory earmark disclosure requirements as the House has done.

0 Comments