The Lobbying Scandal: Proposals for Reform
Revelations about lobbyist Jack Abramoff's audacious -- and by his own admission, illegal -- efforts to influence lawmakers may have at least one upside.
In the wake of Abramoff's January guilty plea on charges of conspiracy, mail fraud and tax evasion, lawmakers of both parties rushed forward a variety of proposals to end corruption and limit lobbyists' ability to curry favor with Congress.
A consortium of seven good-government groups offered a competing blueprint for reining in lobbyists' influence, including provisions to break the links between lobbying and campaign fundraising. The consortium includes Public Citizen, Common Cause and Democracy 21, among others.
The Senate passed its version of lobby reform March 29. Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT) said it puts "a sign up in front of the Capitol that says, 'Not for sale.'" But Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), an advocate of tougher restrictions, predicted that more legislation will be considered as the Justice Department task force starts obtaining indictments.
In the House, the Republican rank-and-file quickly rejected a reform package backed by Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL). Newly elected majority leader John Boehner (R-OH) said the existing rules "clearly… are working." Then he said he would schedule floor votes on reform measures before the spring recess -- a process that bogged down. The package is now under consideration by five different committees, and floor debate is likely to start after the recess, in mid-April.
The table below compares the bill passed by the Senate, the measures under consideration in the House, and the proposal from the good-government coalition:
Proposed Reforms
Senate Proposals*:
House Proposals:
Public Interest Groups' Proposal:
Travel restrictions on trips funded by private interests. (Current rules allow lobbyists to arrange trips, but others must pay the tab. Lawmakers can travel on corporate jets and reimburse only for first-class airfare.)
Advance approval from the ethics committee required for privately financed travel. Trips cannot include lobbyists. Senators would have to certify that a trip is mainly educational, and would have to post details on their Web sites within 30 days after return.
No privately financed travel through the end of 2006, while the ethics committee studies possible rule changes. When members travel on corporate jets, lobbyists could not accompany them.
Total ban on all private travel paid by lobbyists; lawmakers must pay charter rates if they fly on corporate jets.
Limits on private gifts and meals given to legislators. (Current limits are $50 per meal or gift, and $100 annually from any single donor.
No gifts or meals from lobbyists -- but senators could accept such items from anyone who is not a registered lobbyist.
Gift limit of $50 would be maintained. Sports and entertainment tickets with no marked price would be considered to cost as much as the most expensive seat available, effectively putting luxury-box seats beyond the $50 limit.
Total ban on all gifts from lobbyists, as well as parties thrown to "honor" lawmakers.
"Revolving door" restrictions on legislators and high-ranking aides taking lobbying jobs. (Current law sets a one-year "cooling off" period before former lawmakers and staff can lobby their former colleagues.)
Increase "cooling off" period to two years for former senators. Former staffers would continue to face a one-year wait. The Senate rejected an amendment that would have included "strategic adviser" jobs that don't come under the legal definition of lobbying. Former senators who become lobbyists would lose their floor privileges.
Members would have to disclose negotiations for future employment if there appeared to be a conflict of interest; they'd also be urged to avoid votes that would create a conflict. Lawmakers convicted of felonies related to their official duties would lose their pensions. The House passed a resolution Feb. 1 canceling floor and gym privileges for former members and wives who now lobby.
Increases "cooling off" period to two years.
Tracking and review of alleged ethics violations. (Both chambers currently have ethics committees, but the House panel was non-functional in 2005 and the Senate panel took no action on the Abramoff case.)
The Senate rejected a provision to create an independent Office of Public Integrity, which would have screened and referred cases to ethics committees.
The House auditor would randomly audit lobby disclosure reports.
An independent Office of Public Integrity in the legislative branch would monitor congressional ethics and lobbying activity. It could refer possible violations to the House or Senate ethics committee, or to the Justice Department.
Lobbying disclosure. (Currently, lobbyists file reports semi-annually. The reports lack many details, including names of lawmakers contacted by the lobbyist. There is no reporting for lobbying coalitions, in which interest groups pool their resources on a particular issue. Nor is there disclosure for grassroots lobbying, which includes TV ads, phone banks and other efforts to mobilize voters in support of an issue.)
Lobbyists would file quarterly, with such details as offices lobbied, fundraisers sponsored, campaign contributions made, congressional trips organized. Disclosure would include major grassroots lobbying. Reports would go online within 48 hours. Members of a senator's immediate family could not lobby his or her office.
Similar to Senate provisions, but no disclosure requirement for grassroots lobbying.
Lobbyists would report quarterly, with lists of lawmakers' office and committees they lobbied. Grassroot lobbying would be reportable. Lobbying coalitions would have to disclose their finances.
Restricting "earmark" amendments. (Some bills are passed with hundreds of small amendments targeting, or "earmarking" funds for specific projects. Former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham used this technique to steer millions of dollars to certain defense contractors. He pleaded guilty in December 2005 in the biggest bribery case in congressional history.)
Earmark provisions inserted after committee hearings had ended could be challenged on the Senate floor, and would need 60 votes to survive such a challenge.
All earmarks in appropriations bills, and their requestors, would have to be identified. But to kill an earmark, members would have to reject the entire bill.
Not addressed.
Restrictions on campaign contributions and fundraising by lobbyists. (Currently, there are no special restrictions and lobbyists commonly raise money and organize events for lawmakers.)
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Limit lobbyist contributions to $200 per campaign cycle (compared to $2,100 for ordinary citizens). Lobbyists would be banned from raising money for candidates or working on campaign committees.
