Since resigning from Congress two years ago as a result of some seriously icky tweets, Anthony Weiner has cashed in on his congressional contacts to become another “stealth lobbyist,” earning enough from his corporate clients to move on up to a deluxe Park Avenue Apartment from more humble digs in Queens, all without registering and reporting who he is working for and what he is working on.

Shock and outrage (and some really amusing if not-ready-for-prime-time bits on the Daily Show) accompanied the former representative’s slimy use of social media. But there’s no shock or outrage accompanying his even slimier use of his former position for profit. Indeed, the New York Times seems to think Weiner’s secret lobbying on behalf of corporate clients somehow serves “as a compelling campaign credential” as he considers a run for mayor.

Rather than touting it as a career booster, Weiner’s stealth lobbying should be seen as still more evidence for the need to strengthen current lobbying disclosure laws. The only people in Washington who seem to support secret lobbying are the members of Congress who want to keep that lucrative career path open to themselves when they leave government service. For the rest, closing the 20 percent loophole that allows people like Tom Daschle, Newt Gingrich and now, Anthony Weiner to lobby without registering and reporting makes perfect sense from a transparency and accountability perspective. It is good policy for a junior lobbyist for a nonprofit organization, a mid-level associate for law firm and a named partner in a major lobbying outfit to register and report their lobbying activities. So why aren’t former members of Congress—some of the most powerful influence peddlers inside the Beltway—subject to the same disclosure requirements?

Only a few weeks after Weiner left Congress, he opened up his stealth lobbying shop. But the public became aware of his clients only after they signed waivers, at a time when the former Congressman decided to flaunt his assets (a recurring theme in his life?) declaring himself “a good capitalist.”

His prior “disclosures” on Twitter notwithstanding, Weiner’s most valuable asset may be his easy access to his former congressional colleagues. And although in some respects we have waaay too much information about the former congressman, we don’t know nearly enough about his work as a stealth lobbyist.

While the word "lobbyist" might evoke images of power brokers in Washington, D.C., lobbyists are also influential at the local level of policy and there are plenty of individuals and firms working to sway local government officials to act on behalf of certain interests. Some municipalities are making an effort to bring transparency to this local-level lobbying. As we explore municipal open data policies, we wanted to look at how many municipalities already release lobbying data, in particular, and what it looks like.

BASIC ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ACTIVITY

The most basic kind of municipal lobbying disclosure is simply acknowledging which laws and codes govern the process. This is seen on the websites of cities like Atlanta, Georgia, which notes that local lobbyists are required to register with the State Ethics Commission under state law, though there are no local laws regulating lobbyists. Baltimore County, Maryland, notes on its website that it has a code that requires lobbyist registration and reporting. These reports are not shared online, however. Henderson, Nevada, details its lobbyist requirements on its website with links to the relevant city ordinance and documents. It, too, does not post the completed documents online.

MINIMAL PROACTIVE DISCLOSURE

Other municipalities are proactively disclosing at least some of the completed documents that lobbyists are required to file. Albuquerque, New Mexico, provides PDFs of lobbyist registration statements dating back to 2009. These scanned versions of handwritten documents are not searchable or sortable, but releasing these documents at all is one step toward disclosure about who is trying to influence local government.

Some municipalities have attempted to provide greater access to their lobbying information, with mixed results. Tamarac, Florida, has a searchable list of lobbyists and of commission visitors, but it does not appear to provide a full list for either (let alone a bulk download option), so users have to know what they're looking for in the data. Denver, Colorado, doesn't have a search portal, but it provides a downloadable list of currently registered lobbyists in the City and County of Denver. Austin, Texas, meanwhile, makes it clear to users that they can search its lobbyist database or browse complete lists.

LOOKING FORWARD

A few municipalities across the country have gone beyond most others in making lobbying information accessible. Chicago appears to release some of the most detailed and interactive lobbyist data among U.S. cities. The city's data portal contains information about registered lobbyists, compensation, gifts, expenditures, and termination. The data is searchable, sortable, and downloadable and made available in open formats. In part, this data exists (and its upkeep will be made easier) because Chicago also has an electronic filing system that lets lobbyists register online.

New York City’s transparency portal also includes a high density of lobbying information, including its lobbying ordinance, annual reports, reporting periods and more. It has a lobbyist database that is searchable and browsable. However, the data is not downloadable and the platform restricts your ability to compare data side-by-side by forcing you to select one category of information (i.e. lobbyists, lobbyist organizations, or clients) at a time. Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, and San Jose have lobbying disclosure portals with comparable amounts of information and accessibility -- and problems.

***

Local government policy on lobbying and lobbying disclosure can be heavily impacted by the relationships municipalities have with their states -- relationships that we know can be quite complicated. To better understand the influence of state lobbying laws on local lobbying disclosure, there are helpful guides like the National Conference of State Legislatures' list of state definitions of "lobbying" and "lobbyist" complete with legal citations. FollowtheMoney.org has a report on state lobbying that can help illustrate how state regulations might impact any lobbying data collected at the local level.

Lobbying isn't a one-way effort, of course. Many local units of government hire lobbyists to represent their interests at the state or federal level. They might do this directly or by being part of an association that serves as a group lobbyist. The Center for Responsive Politics tracks the annual spending by municipalities on federal-level lobbying using information from the Senate Office of Public Records. Some municipalities acknowledge on their websites that they belong to organizations advocating on their behalf: Tulsa, Naperville, and Sandy City are just a few examples.

Lobbying data -- whether it's about those who lobby local government or how local governments lobby others -- is already being put to good use. Journalists and other watchdogs use this information to learn about connections between the influence lobby and the shape that government policies take, and quality disclosure of this data can make other datasets, such as zoning or procurement data, more valuable and informative by adding traceable context. Still, we found that only about 50 cities release any kind of lobbying data, with only a few disclosing data about the details of lobbying, such as reports on meetings, gifts, or termination.

The question is what guidance is needed to help municipalities release more of this information, what should be included in the broad category of “lobbying data,” and what’s the best technical way to release it? We’re exploring the best practices related to this data and would love your input.

Photo by Flickr user buddawiggi

Today NPR's Planet Money team aired a story about disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s legal lobbying activities (as few of those as there may have been), highlighting how problematic even currently legal lobbying practices are. Also today, the New York Times pointed out some of the huge loopholes in current lobbying law -- Newt Gingrich, for example, isn’t actually a lobbyist, he just spends lots of his time talking to lawmakers about how policy should be made. Y’know, as a historian.

The powerful (and corrupting, as we saw with Abramoff) influence of special interest money in politics can be extremely hard to follow, but better lobbying laws could change that. Lobbying activity is the most tangible means to measure the money and effort that powerful interests are spending to influence lawmakers.

Closing the loopholes that let “historians” like Newt Gingrich act as stealth lobbyists and creating real-time, online disclosure about just who lobbyists are meeting with and what they’re talking about would be a powerful first step to shining a light on who’s actually influencing our lawmakers.

How do we fix it? A good first step, as Daniel wrote the other day, is the Lobbying Disclosure Enhancement Act, introduced by Rep. Quigley. The bill needs your help to get more support in Congress. You can write to your rep right from OpenCongress.org to ask them to co-sponsor the bill. You can also read more about Sunlight’s lobbying recommendations and sign up to get updates on lobbying reform here.

Bill Clinton famously tried to claim he hadn’t lied about his relationship Monica Lewinsky by saying, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.” Newt Gingrich similarly contorts the English language by claiming “I was never a lobbyist.” Perhaps Gingrich’s claim depends on what the meaning of the word “lobbyist” is. If it is the loophole ridden, easily evaded legal definition in the Lobbying Disclosure Act that allows power brokers to avoid registering as lobbyists if they spend less than 20 percent of their time lobbying, then maybe, maybe, Gingrich can claim with a straight face that he was not a lobbyist. But if common sense and Miriam Webster are applied, to lobby means, “to conduct activities aimed at influencing public officials and especially members of a legislative body on legislation.” Under that definition, there can be no doubt that Gingrich was a lobbyist, even if he didn’t fill out the paperwork.

The New York Times today correctly notes that people of Gingrich’s stature never register as lobbyists. It’s time to change that. Former members of Congress who trade their political connections for paychecks must be required register and report as lobbyists so that the public knows who is paying them and what positions they are advocating. Sunlight has long supported legislation that would strengthen the definition of lobbyist by eliminating the 20 percent loophole. The law should be clear. Former members of Congress should not be able to call themselves “consultants,” “strategic advisors,” or “historians,” while taking money from corporate clients to advance their causes on Capitol Hill. They are lobbyists.

Anti-lobbyist barbs will continue to fly this election season because they win easy political points. But instead of accusations and denials, name calling and obfuscation, it’s time for real reform that will capture all who lobby and impose much needed accountability on the system.

Here’s a riddle: What do you call it when someone earns millions of dollars from corporate clients, uses his relationships with the most influential officials in government to pursue those clients’ interests, and even has offices on K Street?

Answer: If you are Newt Gingrich, not a lobbyist.

The Washington Post reports that corporate clients paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to the current leader in the Republican primary in exchange for him providing “access to top transformational leadership across industry and government” through his for-profit “think tank.” Apparently they got what they paid for. According to the Post, “Gingrich also bragged about his success in pushing conservative policies and legislation in Washington during his political exile.”

We’ve written many times before about stealth lobbyists, often former Members of Congress who crawl around Capitol Hill and the White House advocating on behalf of fat cat clients, but who skirt disclosure under the lobby laws by claiming they only provide “strategic advice” or spend less than 20% of their time lobbying.

And we’ve advocated—dare I say lobbied—to change all of that.

The specter of Newt Gingrich, former non-lobbyist lobbyist, occupying the White House should galvanize calls for lobbying reform. It’s problematic enough when a former Member of Congress provides his clients with access to his friends and colleagues in the House or the Senate. But if Washington’s revolving door should swing that person into the White House, corporate interests who once paid handsomely for strategic advice will have a direct line to the leader of the country.

The Gingrich example is at the top of the list of why we need a new approach to lobbying disclosure. The most influential people in Washington can easily skirt the rules currently in place. Everyone who is not in that top tier of influence peddlers—including all of the registered lobbyists who follow the rules—should recognize the failure of the current system and work to change it by ensuring that if someone is paid to lobby, they register and report as a lobbyist.

Earlier today, protestors from OccupyDC headed over to the offices of the Podesta Group, a high profile lobbying firm, before joining hundreds (possibly thousands) of other Occupy protesters from across the U.S. in shutting down K Street. There's another #occupy protest planned at the Supreme Court, highlighting the January 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision.

As we’ve written before, we’re excited to see a grassroots movement forming that addresses such wonky issues as campaign finance and lobbying reform. We hope that the Occupy protesters’ concerns on those issues don’t get lost in the coverage of the more colorful aspects of today’s actions. While the Occupy movement has become famous in part for its alleged lack of clear demands, we hope that the media coverage of the protests today highlights the need for real reform to bring transparency to lobbying and campaign finance.

K Street is (in)famous for being the epicenter of lobbying in Washington. In fact, the #OccupyDC group in McPherson Square also calls themselves @OccupyKSt, because ‘the money from Wall Street flows to K Street,’ disproportionately influencing the government. It’s no secret that there’s quite a bit of money around K Street -- we actually mapped the top lobbying firms when we did a teach-in at OccupyDC a while back.

The reality, though, is that we don’t even know where all the money is. For example, loopholes in lobbying registration rules mean that unless you spend 20% or more of your time lobbying, you don’t have to register. So powerful figures, including former congressmen -- like former Senator Dodd who now heads the movie industry’s lobby, or "historians" like former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich -- do not have to register as lobbyists. Which means we can't track their activity. It also means that, in effect, we rely on lobbyists to uphold an honor code of registering when appropriate. That's not a good recipe for public oversight. Sunlight’s been advocating for serious lobbying reform for years -- you can learn more (and join us!) here: http://sunlightfoundation.com/policy/lobbying/

Lobbying disclosure, of course, has been a problem since long before Occupy. The public has a right to know how special interests and lobbying help shape public policy—for better or worse. But it’s getting harder for us to get that information.

Last January, the Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission drastically changed the landscape of our election system by allowing corporations to make unlimited campaign ads—often without disclosing the donors who funded the ads. In the wake of that decision, the FEC has done next to nothing to create transparency, and the DISCLOSE Act, a piece of legislation intended to create disclosure in the wake of Citizens United, failed in the last Congress.

If Congress, the Supreme Court and the FEC are going to make it difficult to follow the money, then it’s imperative for watchdogs and journalists to follow the action. When it comes to knowing who's wielding influence in Washington, that action is lobbying. After last year’s Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission ruling, campaign finance and lobbying disclosure became even more closely linked. How? Lobbyists can—without ever saying a word—threaten that their clients will spend millions on ads if senators or representatives do not do what the lobbyist wants.

Imagine you’re a member of Congress. A lobbyist comes to you representing a powerful corporation and asks for your help on a bill provision. You’re not sure that bill provision best represents the interests of the people in your district, but the lobbyist points out that their client has a Super PAC that is willing to spend millions of dollars running ads in your district -- money that you can’t match. What’s more, because of how weak campaign finance disclosure laws are, that lobbyist might have an army of other corporations or wealthy individuals who also support the bill who could secretly funnel unlimited amounts of money to that Super PAC. What would you do?

Occupy Wall Street got the country talking about economic disparities and corporate accountability. We hope that today’s actions -- the Occupation of K Street -- fuels the conversation about money in politics and the need for reform.