Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the guest blogger and those providing comments are theirs alone and do not reflect the opinions of the Sunlight Foundation or any employee thereof. Sunlight Foundation is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information within the guest blog.

Today's guest blogger is another example of how all citizens regardless of their professions, can be players in participatory politics. Joining us from Arkansas is Paul J. Spencer. Paul has taught Political Science and History at Catholic High School for Boys for the last 13 years.  He is Chairman of the Regnat Populus 2012 Ballot Question Committee. You can follow him on Twitter @RegnatPopulusAR.

Teaching Government and Politics to high school seniors year after year begins to have a curious effect on the teacher.  I have known other teachers and professors before me that evolved to being confirmed Socialists upon their retirement.  Perhaps it is the youthful innocence of engaged students that begin to observe that money has a greater role in the political process than do actual people that causes this evolution of thought over time.  For myself, there came a time at which I felt that merely teaching my students the problems in our American political system was no longer enough.

I began to recognize a self-perpetuating cycle in American electoral politics today. This whirlpool consists of the following components:

• First, a lack of electoral and lobbying transparency that allows moneyed interests to have a greater voice in the electoral process than actual voters.
• Second, a lack of responsiveness of our elected officials to their constituents who have very little to do with the success of the politician’s reelection campaign.
• Third, a lack of true representation for the interests of citizens above those of money.
• Fourth, a creation of a culture of lack of accountability to voters within the body politic.
• Fifth, voter “disconnect” with their elected representatives.
• Sixth, voter apathy and disengagement with the political process in general.

The sixth component curtails citizens’ ability to properly channel their dissatisfaction with the political process towards a productive end, thusly enabling the cycle to begin anew.

I imagine I began to feel the need to free myself from Vicious Cycle Component #6 after the infamous Citizen’s United vs. FEC Supreme Court ruling  in 2010 which gave corporations unlimited spending ability in political campaigns.  This, coupled with the global financial meltdown of 2008 and the appalling lack of accountability our government placed on those responsible, compelled me to attempt to engage as best I could in fighting to at least expose these injustices as so many ordinary Americans have done before me.  My wife and I joined the Occupy movement in Little Rock, Arkansas last October.  We participated in marches and General Assemblies but over time felt a desire to engage IN the political process to try to effect some change through legislation.  We met at a downtown pizza joint and discussed various options that could be attempted with interested academics and activists.  It turned out that my wife’s brother’s best friend from high school had been working on campaign and lobbying reform (Little Rock is a small town) and we hooked up with him.  We envisioned using the Ballot Initiative process to craft a law to curb some of the worst ethics abuses in a state which had just received a D+ from the Center for Public Integrity on its "Corruption Risk Report Card". We formed a Ballot Question Committee whose name was derived from Arkansas’ State Motto: “Regnat Populus” or “The People Rule”.   To make a long story short, with much collaboration of generously donated legal talent, various Occupiers and also fellow teachers I work with, The Regnat Populus 2012 Ballot Question Committee finally birthed The Campaign Finance and Lobbying Act of 2012.  The components of the Act in brief are to:

• Disallow direct corporate contributions in Arkansas elections (as the law currently provides in Federal elections).
• Raise the “cooling-off period” for the revolving door from legislator to lobbyist from the current 1 year waiting period to 2 years.
• Disallow any gifts or meals whatsoever from lobbyists to legislators (not even a cup of coffee).

Because our movement arose spontaneously in response to real events in America today (namely, the Occupy Wall Street movement), we do not have the luxury of time and do not have large moneyed backers to accomplish our goal of 62,507 signatures by a July 6^th deadline.    However, we certainly do have public opinion on our side.  A recent Arkansas poll showed us to have a 69% voter approval rate for this initiative across all political demographics.  We envisioned a wide spread network of canvassers taking action as citizens to break the cycle of voter apathy and political unresponsiveness.   That is the challenge we now face.  Almost every one of us involved in this committee has full time jobs.  We are teachers, a Presbyterian minister, a nurse, an engineer, a non- profit staffer, retired military, and students combined with the generously donated talent of attorneys that want to work to have a system in which legislators are as accountable to the voters as they are to the influence peddlers in state government.

Thus far, we have garnered $2,525 from individuals that has covered printing and postage costs.  There has been slow response from progressive groups in Arkansas to back the measure as noted by Dr. Jay Barth, Political Science professor at Hendrix University in a recent article.  Some fear the measure may hurt the means that legislators gain information, namely from conferences sponsored by industry.  These travel expenses would be banned by the Act.  This point elucidates the game-changing nature of this Initiative.  Putting lobbyists for childrens’ and anti-poverty advocacy groups, and environmental groups on a level playing field with Koch brother funded lobbyists that want to develop around the lake that supplies Little Rock’s drinking water would completely change the way business is done at the Capitol.

We currently stand at a critical juncture.  We have approximately 100 volunteer canvassers working throughout the state.  We have been endorsed by the local and state chapters of the Sierra Club and have state citizen advocacy groups actively canvassing and working with us.  We have been encouraged by the response of Arkansans when asked if they would like to sign our petition, replying “HELL, yes” after hearing the components and then volunteering to canvass themselves.

Many political insiders have scoffed at our “naïve” attempts to face the odds that stand before us.  But I take comfort in the wisdom of the late historian, Howard Zinn, whose perspective over America’s long span of history is useful to contemplate today.

“TO BE HOPEFUL in bad times is not just foolishly romantic. It is based on the fact that human history is a history not only of cruelty, but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness. What we choose to emphasize in this complex history will determine our lives. If we see only the worst, it destroys our capacity to do something. If we remember those times and places—and there are so many—where people have behaved magnificently, this gives us the energy to act, and at least the possibility of sending this spinning top of a world in a different direction. And if we do act, in however small a way, we don’t have to wait for some grand utopian future. The future is an infinite succession of presents, and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a marvelous victory.”

We do still need more financial support to spread canvassing efforts to include supporting those that would like to canvass full time.  We do still have a great challenge before us.  But events related to this campaign are unfolding on a daily basis in new and encouraging ways.   We believe that the corrupting influence of money in our political system is the defining issue America faces today.  NOW is the time to act to allow the people to truly rule.

 

Please visit our website www.thepeoplerule2012.com for more information.  I’m just going to come right out and say it-any donations would be greatly appreciated.

             

Jack Abramoff left Washington to serve his prison sentence as a primary perpetrator and beneficiary of its culture of corruption. While his fall from influence prompted many reforms that we were eager to see, there is still a system riddled with loopholes and lacking the transparency we desperately need. Now, he's back. Shilling a book to pay off legal debts and line his pockets, Abramoff now wears the fresh cloak of a reformer who calls to clean the pigsty where he once rolled. We welcome him to the good fight, but honestly, it's hard to believe he's serious.

The master of rhetoric will be speaking at Public Citizen later today - we'll be in the audience and watching online. He frequently boasts he had "100 congressmen in his pocket" yet he has not released the documents or named the names.

After my questioning him on this point, Abramoff responded "Having been to prison personally -- hopefully, Ms. Miller hasn't been to prison and most of your readers haven't been and never will go -- but having been to prison, it's very hard for me to put anybody in harm's way, even people I don't like. And that's besides the point anyway. The point is to change the system." Just five days before his refusal to put anybody in harm's way he told TPM “The only thing I’m doing is trying to make available what I know from my experience so that we can fix this.” Unfortunately we continue to see hollow rhetoric. Instead of waiting until your book stops giving milk, why don't you spill some of those magic beans from the files you still have?

The Sunlight Foundation is committed to lobbying reform and exposure of the full system of influence. That's why we have an outstanding FOIA to see who visited Abramoff in prison, hold public meetings discussing the issue and, of course, encourage public markup of our recommendations for lobbying reform.

Today's event at Public Citizen is an opportunity for Abramoff to convince reformers that he's really serious; helping to fix the system by revealing more substantive information about those who participated in his activities. I don't care whether what he reveals is technically legal or not - decades of exposing K Street continues to prove that it's not always what is illegal that is most troubling, but rather what is completely legal.

Unless Abramoff starts answering these tough questions and open up his treasure trove of information anyone who calls themselves a reformer should be very skeptical of this reformer road show.

Make Abramoff prove himself as a reformer rather than just calling himself one.

Image via C-SPAN.

Recent calls for technologists to hire lobbyists to educate Washington on internet issues miss a significant part of the big picture. Congress makes bad technology decisions because it has dismantled its ability to evaluate policy issues. While public mobilization and lobbying efforts can affect decision-making through political pressure, lobbying to educate congress on technology issues is like trying to teach a fish to sing.

The congressional technology lobotomy arose from two fateful decisions. First, Congress closed down its specialized office of nonpartisan technology experts in 1995, which provided a comprehensive view of technology issues. Second, it systematically undermined its remaining staff by spreading them too thin, eroding Congress’s ability to dive deeply into an issue.

The Office of Technology Assessment was created in 1972 to equip Congress with “new and effective means for securing competent, unbiased information concerning the physical, biological, economic, social, and political effects” of technology. OTA “was intended to facilitate congressional access to expertise and permit legislators to consider objectively information presented by the executive branch, interest groups, and other stakeholders to controversial policy questions,” in the words of a CRS report. It was a runaway success.

OTA’s small staff of experts (around 140 at its maximum) generated hundreds of reports at the relatively modest cost of $20 million annually. Unfortunately, it was defunded in 1995 as part of a broader effort to make the Congress appear more efficient. Despite repeated calls for OTA’s reinstatement, nothing has filled the void, and policymaking has suffered.

OTA’s defunded left staffers for committees and individual members of Congress to shoulder the increasingly complicated burden of evaluating technology issues. They are ill-equipped for the challenge. Over the last 25 years, congressional staff salaries have remained flat, with staff spread thin over a wide range of issues. With an average House staffer in a policy-role earning between $40-60,000, attracting and retaining top talent is virtually impossible. With a 10.4% cut in Congress' budget over a two year period that's taking place now, prompting layoffs and pay freezes, the lifeblood of smart decision-making is being drained away.

Increasing lobbying on technology issues is an easy, but ultimately insufficient, response to this problem. $92 million was spent for lobbyists representing for tv/movie/music issues in 2011, which is the same amount spent by telecom services and equipment companies. This monetary arms race may level the playing field for the well-to-do, but it hasn’t created good results. And both sides have good reason to manipulate the law to keep out the next wave of entrepreneurs.

Getting citizens involved will make Congress pay attention, but not every issue is a SOPA, where the internet shuts down in protest. Most issues fly below the radar. Only an empowered, capable Congress can make decisions on the many issues that will never lead to a Google doodle or Wikipedia shut-down.

A smarter Congress requires an investment in its staff, which will save us grief in the long term. Funding for Congress, with all of its supporting agencies, will amount to 1/10 of 1% of federal spending projected for 2012. Current spending on Congress is also roughly the same order of magnitude of what will be spent on all lobbying efforts this year. While lobbyists are necessary for industries like technology and telecommunications to express their views, if we want good policymaking, we need to empower Congress to be able to make good decisions. Restoring funding to OTA and reexamining congressional staff pay is the most effective place to start.

Update: A just released analysis from the Center for Responsive Politics looking at SOPA and PIPA-related lobbying efforts in the 4th quarter. "Companies that lobbied on the two bills spent at least $104.6 million in the fourth quarter of 2011, more than double the $49.3 million they laid out in the previous quarter." The number of lobbyists doubled from 462 to 956.

How much money was directly connected to SOPA and PIPA? CRP says "It's impossible to say...  since the reporting forms don't require that level of detail." Overall, businesses identified as computers/internet spent $125 million on lobbying for 2011, compared to $122 million for tv/movies/internet.

While most of our lobbying reform efforts are targeted at the federal level, looking at different state lobbying regulations can help establish norms that inform our understanding of what works and what doesn’t.

I've taken an in-depth look at how states address questions regarding lobbyist registration thresholds and fees, reporting requirements and frequency, deadlines, and penalties. The research has culminated in a series of blog posts published over the last several weeks.

Registration Requirements and Fees

I first looked at state lobbyist registration requirements and fees. While the federal government has a relatively high registration threshold based on both time and contacts, the majority of states don’t have any at all. The states that do have registration thresholds base them on percentage of time spent lobbying, hours spent lobbying, amount of lobbying expenditures/compensation for lobbying activities, or a mix of the above.

The federal government does not impose registration fees for lobbyists, but most states do. They vary widely - from as low as $5 to $650 annually. Wisconsin and Texas top the list in terms of cost. The average fee is around $100, and about half of states charge $50 or less annually. These fees do everything from supporting state lobbying disclosure systems and ethics commissions to augmenting the general treasury. There was legislation introduced to establish a $50 annual registration fee on the federal level, but it didn’t end up going anywhere.

Registration Deadlines and Penalties

I then looked at registration deadlines and penalties. Fifteen days is the maximum leeway time any state gives a lobbyist to register, and most states have an even shorter grace period. By contrast, a person who has met the lobbyist threshold for registration has 45 days to actually register as a lobbyist on the federal level. However, legislation introduced in June seeks to reduce the federal grace period to 5 days, among other things.

Most states impose daily fees for late registration, although the federal system does not. Fees range from $5 with a cap of $100 in Minnesota, to $100 per day with a cap of $4,500 in Indiana. Each state has different costs and ways of calculating their late fees.

Lobbyist Activity Reports

I also looked at lobbyist disclosure reporting requirements and frequency, with the help of our policy intern Eric Dunn.

We collected copies of all of the state activity reports and analyzed them to identify common and uncommon reporting requirements. We found that most states require lobbyists to disclose the issue or government action they are trying to influence, as well as the name of legislators who receive or benefit from specific gifts. Most states allow lobbyists to file expenditure forms online and release these reports to the public. Nineteen states also publish searchable, sortable databases of registered lobbyists.

While all states require lobbyists to submit activity reports, the frequency with which these reports need to be filed varies. The federal government requires reports to be filed each quarter, and 26 states require reports at least as frequently. Eight states require activity reports only once a year. Seven states have stricter reporting requirements when the state legislature is in session.

More Resources

If you are interested in state level regulation and reform, the majority of our research on state level lobbying regulation is available on our OpenCongress wiki. Our Open States project is another good resource for state level data. My colleague Zubedah, a Grassroots Organizer here at Sunlight, also writes on state level topics frequently.

by Eric Dunn, Sunlight policy intern

All 50 states require lobbyists to disclose some information about their work. Some require detailed online reporting while others just ask lobbyists to check in every now and then. Previously, Sunlight has looked at who has to register as a lobbyist, when they have to register and how much it costs. In this post, we reviewed the forms lobbyists file with state governments to disclose their expenditures in order to see what lobbyists report and how they do so.

What they report

Thirty states require lobbyists to disclose the issue or government action they were trying to influence. The states that have this requirement usually have lobbyists note the “purpose” of any given transaction with a code that corresponds to a specific issue area. This makes them into easily searchable samples. New York’s lobbyist disclosure form is especially detailed - lobbyists are required to list any bills, issues, or agency actions lobbied in a bimonthly report.

In thirty-eight states, lobbyists must disclose the name of legislators who receive or benefit from specific gifts (often defined as items with value or honoraria). Almost three-fourths of state forms require lobbyists to disclose the date a specific gift was made (twenty-nine states require both pieces of information).

How they report

Forty states allow lobbyists to file expenditure forms online. Most states have a registration system that requires lobbyists to obtain a unique ID and password before submitting expenditure reports. Thirty-seven states release these expenditure reports online to the public.

In addition to online filing, nineteen states publish searchable, sortable databases of registered lobbyists. Tennessee, for example, allows you to search by issue area, lobbyist or employer name. You can see who hired the lobbyist and how much they were paid. Nevada even has a lobbyist facebook so you can pick out lobbyists from a crowd, which Sunlight has tried to do at the federal level.

Follow the money and actions

In the city of San Francisco, lobbyists are required to report significant contacts made with legislators. Currently, no state has a similar reporting mechanism in place. As Sunlight has highlighted, disclosing significant contacts made by lobbyists is vital to making government more transparent.

The Lobbyist Disclosure and Enhancement Act, introduced last month in Congress, is an opportunity for the federal government to implement some of Sunlight’s suggestions for lobbying reform at the federal level. Good reporting practices go deeper than financial disclosure. The public deserves to know what lobbyists are doing.

You can see a copy of many state lobbying report forms here. Some reports are not available because states have online systems instead of one page forms.

When it comes to tracking meetings between lobbyists and legislators, San Francisco has taken impressive steps toward online disclosure.

Lobbyists who are paid over $3,000 for lobbying activities during a three month period must register with the city within five business days. Once registered, they are required to file monthly activity reports. These reports contain the details of each lobbyist’s contacts with public officials, including listing meetings, emails, phone calls, and personal political contributions. The reports also include the amount of the lobbyist’s compensation and any expenditures such as transportation, hotels, and meals. By contrast, the activity reports mandated by many states only require the disclosure of lobbying expenditures. In both cases it is the lobbyist, not the public official, who is responsible for filing reports.

The San Francisco Ethics Commission maintains an online Directory of Contacted Public Officials. Each contact is tied to a public official and documented with the date, subject area, lobbyist, client, issue, and outcome sought.

San Francisco’s system is not without its limitations, however. Their biggest challenge is ensuring the accuracy of activity reports. While there are penalties for noncompliance, it is hard to determine whether lobbyists are fully disclosing their contacts. The Ethics Commission conducts periodic reviews and investigations, but the number of filings and resource limitations may leave a few stones unturned.

For information regarding lobbying disclosure on the federal level, see the Sunlight Foundation’s proposed “Real Time Online Lobbying Transparency Act.” Also, watch video of the Advisory Committee on Transparency’s March 14, 2011 event “Washington’s Lobbying Fix.”

Lobbyists, lobbying disclosure, and lobbying reform were the topics of an Advisory Committee on Transparency panel discussion this past Monday on Capitol Hill. Our panel of experts discussed the current state of lobbying disclosure, evaluated the need for lobbying reform, and considered proposals for real-time lobbying disclosure.

I was fortunate to be joined on the panel by Washington Post reporter Dan Eggen, Center for Responsive Politics executive director Sheila Krumholz, Sunlight government affairs consultant Lisa Rosenberg, American League of Lobbyists past-president Paul Miller, and American Bar Association director of government affairs Tom Susman.

We had a lively and informative discussion that was recorded by C-Span for your viewing pleasure.

Here are links to the recommendations for reform drafted by Sunlight, ABA's Lobbying Task Force, and the American League of Lobbyists. Photos from the event can be found on the Sunlight Foundation's flickr account. More resources are available after the jump.

• The Sunlight Foundation's draft “Real Time Online Lobbying Transparency Act” and short description
• The American Bar Association Lobbying Task Force's draft report “Lobbying Law in the Spotlight: Challenges and Proposed Improvements”
• American League of Lobbyists' “Statement of Principles on the 1995 Lobbying Disclosure Act”

Third-Party Websites

• OpenSecrets.org. A non-partisan guide to money's influence on U.S. Elections and public policy.
• TransparencyData.com. A central source for federal lobbying disclosure, federal grants and contracts, earmarks and federal and state campaign contributions.
• FollowTheMoney.org. The nation's most complete resource for information on money in state politics.

Government Websites

• Lobbying Disclosure Act Databases, Senate Office of Public Records.
• Post Employment Lobbying Restrictions, Secretary of the Senate.
• Post Employment Database, Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives.
• Office of Congressional Ethics, House of Representatives.
• House Committee on Ethics, Senate Select Committee on Ethics, Office of Government Ethics.
• House rules; Senate rules; Federal Election Commission.

Reports and Articles

• “The Lobbying Manual: A Complete Guide to Federal Lobbying Law and Practice” (4th Ed. 2009).
• “Lobbying Disclosure Act Guidance,” Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives.
• “Is it Whom You Know or What You Know? An Empirical Assessment of the Lobbying Process,” Bertrand, Bombardini and Trebbi.
• “'Revolving Door Lobbyists,” Centre for Economic Performance.
• “The Deregistration Dilemma: Are Lobbyists Quitting the Business as Federal Disclosure Rules Tighten?” Center for Responsive Politics.

Legislation

• Legislation introduced in the 111th Congress.

The committee room before the full crowd arrived.

The Advisory Committee on Transparency's event earlier today was a huge success and we thank everyone who was able to join us. It was certainly a lively discussion and we will be following up on the many topics discussed. I hope our panelists enjoyed themselves and the audience found the 'Washington's Lobbying Fix' illuminating.

The full video of the event will be on our site shortly or, for those who have some nostalgia for the electronic fireplace, you can watch the event on CSPAN2 tonight at 8:30-10:00. Below are more photos from the event.

Photos by Nicko Margolies

Improving federal lobbying laws is the focus of a new report released by a task force of the American Bar Association’s Section on Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice. The Task Force on Federal Lobbying Laws, on which I served,* recommended [PDF] more comprehensive disclosure by lobbyists and those who support their efforts as well as strengthened enforcement of current law. To become ABA policy, the report must be reviewed by the ABA’s governing bodies.

Here are highlights from the report's recommendations:

• End a major loophole as to who counts as a registered lobbyist. The law would be changed so that a person need only spend 12 hours/quarter to be required to register as a lobbyist; current law requires a person to spend 20% of their time engaging in lobbying activities before having to register. It would also simplify the monetary trigger that requires registration.
• Disclose more lobbying information. Lobbying firms and organizations would be required to disclose more information about their activities, including contacts with all congressional offices, committees, and federal agencies; provide a list of all bills and topics regarding which lobbying activity was conducted; and identify all persons who engaged in “lobbying activities” or “lobbying support.”
• Better track lobbyists and lobbying. The publicly-accessible lobbying disclosure database should be improved; lobbyists would now be able to be tracked individually through the use of unique identifiers; and a new form for lobbyists to deregister would be employed.
• Require reporting for those involved in professional lobbying campaigns. Clients would be required to disclose the lobbying and lobbying support activities of firms hired to assist in a lobbying campaigns -- whether they are engaged in polling, public relations, coalition building, strategic planning, or providing assistance from high-profile public figures. All of these disclosures would be available online. Most people doing this work would be officially deemed “lobbying supporters.”
• Focus special attention on big money and big wigs. Anyone who is a “lobbying supporter” must file regularly if he or she has bundled money; given more than $10,000 in federal donations w/in a year of providing lobbying support; spent more than 10% of his/her time providing advice on lobbying strategy; or served as a Member of Congress, Senate-confirmed political appointee, or within the last 5 years as a Congressional staffer or within the Executive Office of the President.
• Separate lobbyists and fundraising. Individual lobbyists cannot engage in certain fundraising activities to support a campaign for a Member of Congress -- or a candidate for Congress -- with whom that lobbyist has had a “lobbying contact” within two years. Similarly, an individual lobbyist cannot make a “lobbying contact” if he or she has engaged in a covered fundraising activity within the past two years. (Note that candidates for Congress are not covered under current law.) Also, this prohibition on fundraising would be applied to other registered lobbyists at the same firm where a lobbyists has made a lobbying contact, and would require the firm as an entity to abstain from raising funds for that Member/candidate or directing money to that political figure.
• Clear up Earmarks. Although the report doesn’t take a specific position, it generally recommends that the House and Senate consider making earmark disclosure more timely and meaningful, perhaps in the ways described in the Earmark Transparency Act of 2010. Similarly, lobbyists who seek earmarks (and their employers) would be required to file a form stating they have neither contributed to nor sought individual or PAC contributions for the Members they lobbied for earmarks during the current session of congress. Also, lobbyists who are paid on a contingent fee basis would need to publicly file that contact if they lobby for earmarks, tax relief, or targeted loans, grants, contracts, or guarantees.
• Fix the Byrd Amendment. The Byrd Amendment, which (generally speaking) bans those who receive government contracts from using government money to hire lobbyists to lobby Congress or the executive branch, is badly worded and needs to be clarified. The report calls on OMB to issue final rules interpreting the statute.
• Improve enforcement. The Task Force noted the lackluster enforcement of the Lobbying Disclosure Act, and recommended that Civil Division of the Department of Justice may be a reasonable candidate to be assigned the duty of interpreting and enforcing compliance with the LDA.

* Note: I served on the Task Force as a liaison, which means that I participated in all the deliberations but did not vote on any issue.