Sunlight Foundation

Do certain provisions in the health care bill violate disclosure requirements?

Earlier this week, Sen. Tom Coburn and a group of Republican senators sent a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid stating that certain provisions in the health care reform bill violated disclosure requirements created in the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. Here's a snippet of the letter (Full letter):

"It is clear that the Manager’s Amendment, in addition to the underlying bill, includes specific provisions which benefit some states and not others. We therefore ask you, as the sponsor of the Manager’s Amendment and underlying bill, to provide a list of all earmarks and congressional directed spending as required by The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.”
This is a bit perplexing for a couple of reasons. First, the letter does not provide a list of the provisions that may be in violation of disclosure requirements. In the past, Coburn has been excellent at naming and providing lists of earmarks and other questionable provisions in bills, so this strikes me as a bit odd. Second, and most important, the provisions that I can only assume that Coburn is referring to would not fall under the disclosure requirements laid out in the 2007 ethics law. The provisions most likely being referred to are the Louisiana Medicaid deal made by Sen. Mary Landrieu and the Nebraska Medicaid deal made by Sen. Ben Nelson. Increases or changes in Medicaid or Medicare spending are not "directed spending items" as defined by the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act and would not be subject to disclosure requirements. Here's the relevant legislative language:
5 "(a) the term 'congressionally directed spending item' means a provision or report language included primarily at the request of a Senator providing, authorizing, or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or Congressional district, other than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive process"
Emphasis added. Medicaid and Medicare funding are statutory and administrative formula-driven processes and thus the disclosure requirement does not apply.

Now there could very well be other items in the Senate manager's amendment to the health care bill that would be subject to these disclosure requirements. I don't know. It would be useful to see Coburn's list of "over a half dozen" such provisions to gauge whether they should be subject to the relevant disclosure requirements. Furthermore, if Coburn believes that the requirements under the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act do not go far enough in requiring the disclosure of spending targeted towards the interests of particular members it would be interesting and useful to see statutory or rules changes that he thinks are appropriate. That's a conversation I'd like to have.

Appetite for Disclosure

Not everyone has that kind of appetite apparently. Businesses and lobbying firms are still complaining about the disclosure of contributions - both campaign and honorary - required in the new lobbying disclosure forms (LD-203). "This is insanity. It is grossly overreacting on the part of the Hill," says one senior vice president of government relations.

The new lobbying reports are available online (you can search them here) and CQ Politics went through and picked out some of the contributions:

Chevron gave $1.2 million to an education program in Africa and South America that has a congressman on its board.

Wal-Mart Stores gave $200,000 to the Cancer Research and Prevention Foundation for a dinner honoring three lawmakers.

Coca-Cola Co., AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals and Anheuser-Busch Companies each chipped in six-figure contributions to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation.

...

• The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights spent $240,000 on its annual dinner, which honored Rep. John Conyers Jr. , D-Mich., at the Hilton Washington and Towers.

• Wal-Mart contributed $200,000 to the cancer foundation’s spring fundraiser March 14 at the National Building Museum. Sen. Tom Harkin , D-Iowa, and Reps. Norm Dicks , D-Wash., and Edward Whitfield , R-Ky, were honored as co-chairmen.

• The American Medical Association gave Harkin and House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer , D-Md., awards for outstanding government service at a dinner April 1 that cost $155,224.

• Pfizer Inc. gave Research! America $100,000 for a dinner March 18 at the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium that honored Sen. Edward M. Kennedy , D-Mass., with an award for advocating medical research.

There's way more available at both the Senate Office of Public Records site and the Clerk of the House's Lobbying Disclosure site. So, good hunting.

I'm sure the I'll have some time to go through these soon, so check back here too.

Wynn Tests New Transparency Laws

Lame duck Rep. Al Wynn, recently defeated in a Democratic primary, announced that he would be retiring from Congress early to take a lobbying job with the law firm Dickstein Shapiro this June. Unlike previous members who have announced their retirement through the revolving door Wynn will remain in Congress, with a fully negotiated and signed contract to work at the firm, until June, giving him unparralleled access for a newly minted lobbyist. Dickstein Shapiro has already released a press release announcing the hire. Unlike Wynn, Trent Lott, Richard Baker, and Billy Tauzin all retired quickly upon announcing their completed lobbying job negotiations. This poses serious conflict of interest questions for Wynn but also serves as a true test of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act and its provisions governing member job negotiations (a provision already filled with loopholes). The Point of Order blog explains:

Read more

New Lobbyist Disclosure Rules Under Attack

Last Friday, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed an amicus brief in support of the disclosure requirements of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 (HLOGA), joining the Campaign Legal Center, Democracy 21 and Public Citizen in defending the disclosure provisions. All were in response to the National Association of Manufacturers who earlier in February had filed suit in federal court challenging the disclosure provisions and saying they are "vague, overbroad and burdensome" and were in violation of the First Amendment.

HLOGA requires any organization actively participating "in the planning, supervision, or control" of lobbying efforts that ponies up more than $5,000 in a quarter to disclose their activities and expenditures. The law's purpose is to shine a light on stealth lobbying and sham coalitions, pushing legislation such as those that are often promoted by groups like NAM. The law's criminal penalties on groups that fail to accurately disclose their lobby efforts succeeded at getting their attention. NAM says that the clause in question is imprecise and impacts groups that it is not intended to target. They fear the law will also require it to disclose the names of its members. NAM has requested the court issue a preliminary injunction on the disclosure rules until the court decides the case.

Read more

New Filing Requirements Will Reveal New Information

Here's a pleasant surprise in the just passed Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (HLOGA). One of the law's new filing requirements is that individual lobbyists have to report all "covered official positions" held for 20 years prior to their current filing period. This could provide an amazing amount of new information about where people have lobbied in the past -- information that we've never seen before.

The new provision will be quite significant for lobbying firms. For them, the 20-year lookback applies to all lobbyists listed on any new registration filed for any client with an effective date of Jan. 1, 2008 or later. For most lobbying firms, this means that eventually all lobbyist employees will need to disclose their prior employment under the 20-year lookback.

Read more