With the recent plea bargain made by high-powered lobbyist Jack Abramoff, federal lobbying reform bills have gained momentum in Congress, with Democrats and Republicans vying to lead the pack and shake the "Abramoff taint" in time for re-election. Republican and Democratic leaders in both chambers are preparing to introduce reforms. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) asked Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) just after last Thanksgiving to develop proposals for lobby reform. And House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) has asked his lieutenants, led by Rep. David Drier (R-CA), to develop similar legislation. Similarly, a number of lobbying reform bills had already been introduced at the end of last year. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)--in the Senate--and Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT)--in the House--have introduced a bill with a host of reforms. A similar, albeit even more detailed, bill was introduced by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI). Finally, Reps. Marty Meehan (D-MA) and Rahm Emmanuel (D-IL) introduced similar legislation in the House. Since January, House Democrats have widely backed a recent "good government" bill sponsored by Rep. David Obey (D-WI) that also makes changes to House lobbying rules. These bills generally address campaign contributions, travel, gifts, lobbyist disclosure, and the revolving door between K Street lobbying firms and Congress. On Dec. 16, McCain introduced S. 2128, the Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act of 2005. (Shays introduced the same bill in the House.) The legislation was crafted in the aftermath of Indian Affairs Committee hearings that revealed malfeasances by Abramoff in his dealings with Indian tribes, and means to address the problems brought to light by Abramoff's unethical actions: securing large campaign contributions from clients; arranging for and hosting fundraisers; paying for foreign travel; providing gifts through his restaurant's expensive meals; offering personal skyboxes at sporting events; offering lobbying jobs to officials and staff; employing politicians' spouses; setting up a grassroots lobbying operation to collect tens of millions in fees and kickbacks from Indian gaming tribes; and laundering money through a charity to pay lobbyists to influence policy. Lobby Disclosure: Current Law Currently, organizations are required to register, under the Lobby Disclosure Act, if its employee/lobbyists meet two conditions:

• The organization must have one or more compensated employee who engage in federal "lobbying." LDA defines "lobbying" as more than one "lobbying contact" by a person who spends at least 20 percent of her time on "lobbying activities" over a 6-month period. A "lobbying contact" is currently defined as an "oral or written communication to a covered official with respect to the formulation, modification or adoption of a law or regulation." The definition of a "lobbying activity" currently includes "lobbying contacts" and activities in support of lobbying contacts.
• An organization must spend, in total expenses for its lobbying activities, $24,500 in a 6-month period. This also includes money spent on outside lobbyists.

Organizations meeting the criteria above are required to file semi-annual reports identifying the lobbyist/s, clients and employers, and the issues discussed in "lobbying contacts." The provisions of the LDA currently cover only activities described as "direct lobbying," omitting any reference to "grassroots lobbying." Direct lobbying covers communication between the lobbyist and officials and their staff who are subject to the law. Grassroots lobbying is defined in tax law as a "call to action," such as an action alert sent to the general public. Organizations that only engages in grassroots lobbying are not covered by the LDA. Nonprofits that use the lobbying expenditure test under Section 501(h) of the Internal Revenue Code have the option, under the LDA, to use the IRS Form 990 definitions on their LDA reporting forms. This is because Form 990 requires charities to disclose direct and grassroots lobbying expenditures at the federal, state and local level under IRS definitions, which saves charities from needing to calculate under a different standard. The IRS definitions are far more extensive than LDA requirements. Proposals for Reform: Grassroots Lobbying Under McCain's legislation (S. 2128), the definition of lobbyist is altered to include grassroots lobbying, which the bill defines as any attempt to influence the general public, in order to encourage them to engage in lobbying contacts. It excludes any communications to organizations' members, employees, officers or shareholders, unless such grassroots lobbying is done by a paid outside lobbyist. However, neither the LDA nor S. 2128 defines who constitutes a "member." Form 990 filers could ostensibly continue to use the IRS definition of member. Under IRS regulation 56.4911-5, a member is defined as someone that contributes more than a nominal amount of time or money to the organization. Other nonprofits could possibly use their organizations' definition of membership, if membership has been so defined it in the organizational by-laws. For nonprofits using the IRS Form 990 definition on their LDA reporting forms, it would not make much difference, as communications with members are already treated as a direct lobby expense. H.R. 2412, the Special Interest Lobbying and Ethics Accountability Act (SILEA), introduced by Meehan last year, also includes a grassroots lobbying disclosure provision. The legislation would require lobbyists that meet the LDA threshold (based on direct lobbying expenses only) to disclose amounts spent on grassroots lobbying. Fewer nonprofits would, therefore, fall under the LDA because their grassroots lobbying expenses would not push them over the threshold amount. A similar provision was included in S. 1398, a lobby reform bill proposed by Feingold. McCain's legislation also increases the frequency of required reporting from semi-annual to quarterly. The bill also adjusts the reporting threshold accordingly, from $24, 500 for a six-month period to $10,000 for three months, which will be adjusted for inflation annually. This change could bring nonprofits not currently required to register over the LDA registration and reporting threshold if they have a quarter in which they are particularly active. Some nonprofits are concerned that the requirement would chill nonprofit speech, due to the increased financial burdens that come with increased reporting requirements. An increase in cost may preclude small nonprofits from engaging in federal lobbying activities. Proponents of grassroots disclosure argue increased disclosure will deter some lobbyists and clients from improper activities and expose sham nonprofits that operate as fronts for private corporate interests. Campaign Contributions After the Abramoff indictment, members of Congress rushed to give back campaign contributions linked to the fallen super-lobbyist or the Indian tribes he represented. Abramoff made or arranged about $4.5 million in campaign contributions to officeholders and party committees since 2000. McCain's bill would not prohibit campaign contributions from lobbyists, but require disclosure on lobbyists' LDA forms, as well as candidates' Federal Election Commission (FEC) forms. Currently, lobbyists are subject to the same $2,100 per election contribution limit as all other individuals. However, contributions are reported to the FEC, and are not part of disclosure reports filed by lobbyists with the Senate or House. Additionally, no restrictions are currently in place on organizing fundraising events. Under McCain's bill, lobbyists and lobbying firms would be required to report dates, total funds raised and recipients of funds at fundraising events, although there would not be an outright prohibition. Travel Currently, congressional rules prohibit lobbyists from paying for travel for members of Congress and their staff, although lobbyists may arrange travel and have their clients pay for it. Travel expenses for members of Congress and their staff can be paid for by corporations, and the sponsor and cost of travel must be reported shortly after the event on annual personal financial disclosure forms. All of the pending lobby reform bills have dealt with the issue of travel, a response, no doubt, to Abramoff's travel junkets with lavish accommodations and recreation for members of Congress and staff that have come to light. McCain's legislation does not prohibit paid travel outright, but instead requires disclosure of travel paid for by clients of, or arranged by, lobbyists--but does not require disclosure when the travel is paid for or arranged by corporate presidents or CEOs. Both the Meehan bill and the Feingold bills prohibit lobbyists from paying or arranging for travel, but again, do not ban travel paid for by presidents or CEOs of corporations. Feingold's bill is the only one that prohibits lobbyists from accompanying members on a trip. Additionally, the McCain, Feingold and Meehan bills all subject travel expenses of members and staff to the per diem rates that apply to all other government workers. Obey's reform legislation takes a harder stance on sponsored travel. It would require House members and staff to file a declaration stating that, among other things, the sponsor of the travel did not conduct lobbying activities as defined in section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code. Consequently, any charity that conducts any lobbying activities would be banned from sponsoring travel--such as travel to conferences or environmental and educational sites. While such nonprofits can legally pay for trips for members of Congress and staff, congressional rules forbid registered lobbyists or registered agents from paying for such travel themselves. Gifts Currently, congressional rules cap gifts at $50 per item and $100 per year from any individual to a member of Congress and her staff. The term "gift" covers any gratuity, favor, discount, entertainment, hospitality, loan, or other item having monetary value. In particular, the term includes 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. A member or employee of Congress may accept a gift only if it is unsolicited and there is no presumption that it is in exchange for influencing a member's governmental duties. Valuing gifts, such as tickets to sporting events, has become an art form to keep the price within the requirements on gift restrictions. Both Meehan's and Feingold's legislation ban gifts to members and staff outright, regardless of value. McCain's bill requires reporting any gift larger than $20 and valuing sports tickets, a common commodity for lobbyists, at their face value. Electronic Filing According to the LDA, lobby disclosure forms must be made available for public inspection and copying at reasonable times. Both the Senate and House Clerk's office accepts--and now the House requires--electronic forms. The McCain, Meehan and Feingold bills all require electronic filing. Currently, LDA reports have limited utility because of their lack of timeliness and searchability. The semi-annual reports are often filed after lobbying on a specific bill has been completed, limiting access to information on the amounts spent on specific legislative battles. Mandatory e-filing would eliminate the lag time in data entry for the House and Senate Clerk's office. In an effort to increase transparency, McCain's bill also requires the information be available not more than 48 hours after a report is filed. Enforcement Who will enforce these laws if passed? Currently, federal lobbyists that meet a set threshold must report their activities to the Clerk of the House and Senate Offices in the form of semi-annual reports. Neither the Senate nor House Clerk's Office has formal enforcement authority. They are required, under Sec. 10 of the LDA to review, verify, and request corrections in writing to ensure the accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of registrations filed under the Act. The office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia receives referrals from the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House of Representative's Office. The U.S. Attorney's Office then makes a determination to pursue the "most egregious" cases. Penalties are imposed on a person who "knowingly fails to (1) remedy a defective filing within 60 days after notice of such a defect by the [Senate Secretary or House Clerk's Office] or (2) comply with any other provision of the Act." Penalties involve a civil fine of not more than $50,000. McCain's legislation increases fine to not more than $100,000 and directs the Comptroller General to review the activities of the Senate and House Clerks' office and report twice yearly to Congress on the levels of compliance and whether the Clerks' office has enough resources. Similar provisions within the Meehan bill require the General Accounting Office to report twice annually to Congress on the effectiveness of the Clerk's office. Documents released by the Department of Justice (DOJ) provide a window into the world of LDA reporting. Reportedly, over the past two years, the U.S. Attorney's Office has received about 200 referrals of possible LDA violators and pursued 13 cases. What factors led the U.S. Attorney's Office to pursue these cases are unknown. Pam Gavin, superintendent of the Senate Office of Public Records, which oversees the LDA in the Secretary's Office, told Roll Call that, "[f]rom my perspective, I think it's working pretty well. Anybody in the world can go to our Web site and look at lobbying reports and see what's being done." However, details about enforcement activities can be difficult to track down. The LDA is mute on the issue of public disclosure of violations. Gavin's office has never made public the number of LDA-related referrals it has made to the U.S. attorney's office, much less any details about individual cases. Consequently, it would be difficult to make a clear determination of whether the current law is effective or if adequate enforcement exists. What's Next? Reportedly, despite the wide support of the Obey plan, House and Senate Democratic leaders plan to unveil additional extensive lobbying reform proposals later this month. Similar to the legislation discuss above, the proposals would extend the prohibition on lobbying of Congress by former lawmakers and staff members from one to two years, eliminate floor privileges for former members who are registered lobbyists, and place new limits on gifts and congressional travel. New approaches to penalties for violations are reportedly also being considered. The Republicans are also moving ahead with more lobby reform proposals. It is not clear what will be in the Senate GOP leadership plan. It has been reported that the plan will differ from the McCain bill, but it is unclear in what way. In the House, Hastert has said that he intends to move quickly and in a bipartisan manner on reform legislation. With Democrats seeking to capitalize on GOP ties to Abramoff, however, a bipartisan bill emerging quickly seems unlikely.