Panel softens lobbying bill provisions

The House Judiciary Committee yesterday stripped from the lobbying reform bill a proposal to limit the lobbying activity of congressional officials once they enter the private sector and soundly defeated two other top priorities of government watchdog groups.

The broad bipartisan votes against lobbying limits for lawmakers and staff, against disclosure rules for lobbying firms conducting communications campaigns, and against limits on lavish parties at national conventions, underscores the opposition of many Democrats to reforms favored by left-leaning advocacy groups.

{mosads}Several of the reforms Democrats voted to kill were part of the 2006 Honest Leadership and Open Government Act that Democrats made a centerpiece of their campaign message last year.

Perhaps sensing the political danger posed to lawmakers who vote against high-profile lobbying reforms — especially after Democrats made ethics a major issue of the midterm elections — party leaders are trying to quell growing dissent in their caucus.  

Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), who last year chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), distributed a memo to colleagues listing subtle political rationales for supporting reform. The document linked various reform proposals to high-profile Republican scandals of the recent past.

Emanuel wrote that colleagues should support a measure requiring them to disclose job negotiations for post-congressional employment to avoid controversy such as the one that erupted around former Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La.), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, several years ago. Tauzin drew criticism by landing a job with PhRMA, the brand-name pharmaceutical industry’s trade association, shortly after he finished writing the Medicare prescription drug bill of 2003.

Leaders argued that Democrats should support disclosure of lobbyists’ contributions to lawmaker-linked charities by raising the specter of former Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas). DeLay attracted controversy by holding charity golf tournaments where companies seeking favors donated tens of thousands to his pet causes.

But farther-reaching reforms, which government watchdog groups have made their highest priorities, appeared doomed after action by the Judiciary panel yesterday.

The committee defeated a proposal contained in legislation drafted by Democratic leaders that would have extended the cooling-off period during which former lawmakers and aides could not lobby Congress. Leaders proposed extending the one-year ban to two years. A coalition of good government groups had pushed for the ban to include general lobbying activity but ended up falling fall short of their objective.

Democratic leaders disappointed outside advocates of stricter rules by limiting the ban to direct lobbying between new lobbyists and their former colleagues. Then yesterday, Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) finished off
the weakened reform proposal by shortening the ban to one year, which is the regulation now in effect.

“Given the intensity of the hatred for that provision on both sides of the aisle, I’m not surprised — disappointed, but not surprised,” the policy director of the Campaign Legal Center, Meredith McGehee, said of the death of the so-called revolving door provision.

Last year, nearly all Democrats voted for legislation sponsored by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that would have extended the lobby ban to two years. Now that Democrats are in the majority and their votes carry more weight, their support for it has waned.

In recent years, an increasing number of lawmakers have taken lucrative lobbying jobs, swelling the ranks of K Street. Behind the scenes lawmakers have complained that it would be difficult to hire talented staff if aides had to wait two years after leaving the Hill before becoming lobbyists.

A member of one government watchdog group speculated that Democratic leaders may have acquiesced to limiting the post-employment lobby ban to one year in order to build more support for a lobbyist bundling provision.

The bundling measure, which would require lobbyists to disclose the total amount of political contributions they raise for lawmakers, is now the holy grail of watchdogs such as Public Citizen, Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center.

Yesterday, legislation sponsored by DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.) requiring lobbyists to disclose their bundling activity easily passed through the Judiciary Committee. It will be offered as an amendment to the larger reform bill on the House floor.

The committee firmly defeated an amendment sponsored by Rep. Martin Meehan (D-Mass.) requiring lobbying firms to disclose their funding sources if hired to conduct public communications campaigns. The so-called grassroots lobbying provision is another top priority of government watchdog groups. It was part of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act Pelosi sponsored in 2006.

The third top priority of good government groups to draw broad Democratic opposition was a prohibition on lobbyists hosting lavish parties honoring lawmakers at party conventions.

Only four Democrats voted for the proposal: Meehan and Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Adam Schiff (Calif.) and Stephen Cohen (Tenn.). Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) was the only Republican to vote yes. The Senate, by contrast, has passed limits on these types of events.

The committee also rewrote a section in the lobbying bill that would have required non-profit advocacy groups, trade associations and unions to disclose donors who gave more than $500 in a quarter. The proposal threatened to spark a firestorm among an array of non-profit groups that guard their donor and membership lists closely. Conyers said the potential bombshell was the result of an “inadvertent drafting error.”

The committee adopted several Republican amendments. One offered by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) would require that lobbyists disclose contributions to soft money-funded advocacy groups classified under section 527 of the tax code.
An amendment by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) would require the House clerk to compile lawmakers’ travel and financial disclosure reports in a searchable public database.

Jonathan E. Kaplan contributed to this report.