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.

The congressional debt committee, commonly referred to as the super committee, has been a popular topic in the news since it was created by the Budget Control Act of 2011. We have been tracking lobbyist ties and campaign contributions to members of the committee since August. The Washington Post did an interesting report in early September that many of the super committee members had ties to lobbyists.

The Washington Post article uses GE as a case study to discuss the almost 100 registered lobbyists who are former employees of super committee members and are now "representing defense companies, health-care conglomerates, Wall Street banks and others with a vested interest in the outcome of the panel's work."

While this article involved some heavy duty investigative journalism, many of its major claims can be substantiated by publicly available data.

The article states that Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) "has employed more than a dozen currently registered lobbyists." The Center for Responsive Politics' "Revolving Door" tool allows investigators to search for individuals by former employee or by former employer. A search for "Murray, Patty" as "employment" returns 18 people who have formerly worked for the senator. Clicking on an individual record shows the individual's former position as well as their new employer and title. Digging into the 18 people returned by the initial search gives us 16 former Murray staffers who may currently be working as lobbyists. (See the end of this post for a full breakdown of the 16.)

1. Douglas Clapp, a former Aide to Murray, now works as the director of Washington state's Washington, DC office.
2. Rick Desimone, Murray's former Chief of Staff and former Vice Chair and Chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, is now an Executive Vice President at McBee Strategic Consulting.
3. Carrie Desmond, a former Legislative Assistant to Murray, now works at Lockheed Martin's Washington Operations organization.
4. Christy Gullion, a former Northwestern Regional Director for Murray, now works as chief federal lobbyist for the University of Washington.
5. Shay Michael Hancock, a former Legislative Assistant to Murray, is now a Senior Vice President at the lobbying firm Denny Miller Associates.
6. James Jones, Murray's former Speechwriter (as well as Sen. John Kerry's former Communications Director), now works as a Manager of Integrated Communications at Exxon Mobil.
7. Joy Langley, a former Legislative Assistant to Murray, now works as the Assistant Director of Government Affairs at J Street.
8. Dale Learn, a former Senior Legislative Assistant to Murray, is now the President of Gordon Thomas Honeywell's Governmental Affairs.
9. Justin LeBlanc, former Senior Staffer to Murray, is now the President of LeBlanc Government Relations.
10. Eric Masten, former Legislative Assistant to Murray, now works as a Public Policy Associate at the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network.
11. Ben Lee McMakin, former Legislative Director to Murray, is now the Managing Director of Government Issues at Van Ness Feldman.
12. Heather Meade, former Deputy Scheduler/Assistant to the Chief of Staff for Murray, is now the Senior Manager at Washington Council Ernst & Young.
13. Nate Potter, former LA to Murray, is now a Federal Affairs Consultant for Gordon Thomas Honeywell.
14. Casey Sixkiller, former Policy Advisor to Murray, is now a Senior Advisor at SNR Denton's Indian Law and Tribal Representation practice.
15. Karen Waters, Murray's former Deputy State Director, is now a Senior Vice President at Strategies 360.
16. Todd Webster, Murray's former Communications Director, launched his own strategic communications firm, Webster Strategies.

It seems the Obama administration has decided the time has come to once again flex its ethics muscles. The Office of Government Ethics announced rules that would extend a lobbyist gift ban to all government employees. The Office of Management and Budget issued guidelines to executive branch agencies to prohibit them from allowing lobbyists to sit on federal boards and commissions.

Generally, we like to applaud the administration for making strides to address influence peddling in Washington, but there comes a point where baby steps simply aren’t big enough to reach the heights necessary to really clean up Washington.

It is long past time for this administration to stop focusing on the low-hanging fruit and take the initiative to address the real and dangerous avenues of influence in our political system. Where should they start? How about with a long dormant executive order that would disclose hidden money given by federal contractors to influence elections? The administration has had ready, since at least April, an executive order that would require disclosure of dark money contributions funneled through shadow campaign organizations. The Chamber of Commerce and its allies in Congress objected to the draft executive order when it was leaked and the administration seems to have given up on it.

And where is the president on the opaque Super Committee? When he signed the law (negotiated in secret) creating the powerful deficit cutting committee, he failed at the time to insist that the bill include a single provision requiring the committee to operate in the sunlight. Now that there are legislative proposals that would correct that omission by requiring disclosure of campaign contributions and special interest lobbying meetings, the administration has remained silent rather than encouraging speedy passage of the law by Congress.

Finally, there is the whole new specter of unlimited secret corporate money infiltrating elections as a result of the Citizens United. The president came out forcefully against the decision. But when the DISCLOSE Act died in Congress, the administration did not come out in support of a streamlined disclosure-only bill. In fact, just the opposite. Administration cohorts and allies started up their own super PAC to solicit funds from the deepest pockets to pay for ads designed to help with the president’s re-election.

That’s what the administration hasn’t done to address dark money in politics. So what about what it is doing? Are the baby steps going to make a difference? Maybe. But we have to ask whether transparency wouldn’t be a less draconian, more effective way of addressing potential avenues of influence in the executive branch. For example, rather than banning lobbyists from federal boards and commissions, while still permitting bank CEOs, oil executives and labor bosses to sit on those boards, wouldn’t it be better if there were more disclosure of myriad financial interests of everyone on a federal advisory board? And on that OGE gift ban, will non-lobbyist lobbyists be able to make their case while nibbling finger food at conferences with executive branch employees, while lobbyists who register and report are shut out of the process? And while we are at it, does the administration think so little of its executive branch employees that it believes they can be bought for the price of a cheese square on a toothpick and a glass of cheap chardonnay?

The administration’s baby steps would look less like cynical ploy to appear strong on ethics if they were coupled with at least some effort to acknowledge the big picture and the big money that is infecting our political process. It’s time for the administration to grow up.

Like many organizers, I’ve been following the #occupywallstreet movement for a while. Last weekend, I was planning to head up to New York to see what it was all about when I learned that it was spreading and had already arrived in Washington. #OccupyDC started sometime Friday night with around six people. When I showed up on Saturday morning to check it out, there were over a hundred people there, and I’ve been back every day since to watch it grow.

As an organizer, this has been an incredibly cool movement to watch. As a transparency advocate, it’s been even better: Occupy DC, also known as @occupykst, is a grassroots movement that is seriously talking about the overwhelming power of powerful special interests, lobbyists, and money in our political system. In fact, they’re occupying McPherson square -- on K Street and only steps from some of the most powerful lobbying firms in the country.

So this weekend, Sunlight’s going to be heading over to the Occupation to do a teach-in on following the money in politics. We’ll be talking about lobbying firms, banks and investment banks data, Super PACs and how money works in the post-Citizens United world, and the nonstop party of political fundraising.

Want to join us? We’ll be there at 3pm on Sunday, October 9th.

What: Teach in at #occupydc on following the money in politics Where: McPherson Square When: Sunday, 3pm

Part of #OccupyDC and want us to cover anything in particular at the teach-in? Leave it in the comments.

Just a quick note for those who might be confused: While they have, for the last few days, shared a hashtag on twitter, the #Occupy group I'm referring to is not the same as the group currently occupying Freedom Plaza. That was a separately organized event that's been in the planning for months, and while there's many activists that have been trying to show support for both, the Freedom Plaza "Stop the Machine" rally appears to be focused on issues a bit different from the K Street group or Sunlight.

The drumbeat continues for the twelve members of the Committee on Deficit Reduction to step up and match their newly acquired power with a new-found commitment to transparency. Today, more than a dozen organizations joined Sunlight on a letter to Super Committee members, urging them to voluntarily disclose the campaign contributions they receive from now until the committee completes its work. Just as important, the groups call for members to disclose information about the special interest meetings Super Committee members take while serving on the committee.

The letter noted that failure to ensure transparency of these fundamental avenues of influence will reinforce the public’s mistrust of the deficit reduction process and risk delegitimizing the Committee’s work.

The Committee’s efforts to make its work transparent by creating a website and making some meetings public only go so far. Real access and influence come from large campaign contributions and when special interests meet with members to plead their case. Yet nothing will be disclosed about either lobbying or campaign contributions until well after the committee makes its recommendations. Too late, in other words, for the public to understand or respond to money and access--factors that may play an oversized role in the decision making process of super committee members.

Already the public, as well as members of Congress who do not serve on the Super Committee, are at a disadvantage. The committee has begun working to find ways to make enormous cuts to defense and social spending—cuts that will affect every one of us. Yet there is no disclosure of who is asking the committee members for help or who is writing large checks to committee members. The Committee’s work is too important for secrecy to be an option.

14 Groups Call for Super Committee Transparency

Yesterday it was reported that a former Member of Congress, Ernest Istook, was seen on the House floor asking his colleagues to oppose the Boehner debt ceiling legislation. It seems that Istook, though clearly “lobbying” by anyone’s sense of the word, did not violate a House Rule that prohibits former members who are lobbyists from access to the floor.

The reason Istook can use his clout, his friendships with current House members, and the resources of the Heritage Foundation—where he is currently employed—to sidle up to lawmakers and ask for their support, is because he is not a registered lobbyist. A current gaping loophole in the law provides that anyone who spends less than 20 percent of his time lobbying does not need to register and report his activities. In the case if former members, the loophole also allows them to continue to access their colleagues on the floor of the House, the House gym and other exclusive venues limited to current and former lawmakers.

On a day when average citizens couldn’t reach their members of Congress because phone lines were overwhelmed and web sites crashed, it is particularly galling that former members, the ultimate Washington insiders, have such direct and immediate access.

Sunlight supports legislation, HR 2339, the Lobbying Disclosure Enhancement Act, that would end stealth lobbying by closing the 20 percent loophole. In addition, the bill would require that all lobbyists report the names of the individual members with whom they are meeting so that we know who our elected officials are talking to, and about what.

Is the federal government getting biased advice from its advisory committees? Concerns about skewed advice and conflicts-of-interest prompted President Obama's September 2009 order banning lobbyists from executive-branch federal advisory committees and remedial legislation last Congress. No legislation was ultimately enacted, and the president's order barely scratched the surface of the issue.

A recent CRS report explains how advisory committees give advice to the government on a wide variety of issues and often help the government manage and solve complex or divisive issues. During FY 2010 there were 1,004 active committees with a total of 74,336 members, with total operating costs of around $400m. The committees are intended to gather and explore viewpoints from business, academic, governmental, and other interests.

Concerns about skewed advice led to the introduction of the Federal Advisory Committee Act Amendments of 2010, which passed the House unanimously but was not considered by the Senate. That bill was reintroduced this Congress by Rep. Cummings as part of the Transparency and Openness in Government Act, and appears to be co-sponsored by all the democratic members of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Committee Chairman Issa has already publicly stated his willingness to hold a hearing on that bill -- the part of it that concern Federal Advisory Committees -- although a date has not yet been announced.

The proposed legislation has a number of good ideas.

• It significantly increases transparency about committee activities. As a general, 15 days prior to each meeting -- but no later than 48 hours in advance -- information about committee activities must be posted online, including how members are chosen, a list of current members, any member recusal agreements, a summary of how the committee makes decisions, notices of upcoming meetings, and a statement indicating when a meeting is closed to the public and the reason why. Transcripts or recordings of committee proceedings must be published online within 30 days of the meeting.
• It extends all advisory committee disclosure rules to subcommittees (and privately contracted committees) with the same force that they apply to the full committee. This way, committee work won't be shunted to subcommittees in an effort to avoid disclosure requirements.
• It allows the public to suggest who should serve as a committee member, so that the usual suspects aren't named to the board again and again.
• It closes a loophole that allowed government officials serving on the board to avoid making ethics disclosures.
• It requires people who regularly attend, participate, and otherwise act like committee members (except that they do not vote) be considered as committee members, and thus subject to committee disclosure rules.
• It provides for oversight of the committees by the Comptroller General, who must publish annual reports on the committees.
• It requires committee members to be selected without regard to partisan affiliation

These improvements go a long way towards making the advisory committee more open. We have additional suggestions.

• All information made available on the Internet shall be done so by state-of-the-art methods and in open formats. Information published online should be in user-friendly formats that machines can automatically gather for analysis.
• There should be a publicly-available online calendar that identifies all upcoming advisory committee meetings, and contains basic information about those meetings. The calendar should link to each committee's agenda.
• All information made available to the public (whether on the internet or otherwise) should be at no cost. Committees should not be able to charge for transcripts or other documents.
• Documents submitted to the Advisory Committee shall be made publicly available unless the Advisory Committee determines that those materials would disclose matters described in the FOIA exemptions listed in section 552(b) of title 5, United States Code. That determination should be appealable, and there should be a publicly-available summary of the contents at the time the materials are submitted.
• In addition to listing the names of its committee members, each committee should also make available brief biographies of its members.
• All members of each advisory committee shall file financial disclosure forms, which shall be made available on the committee website after redactions to remove personally identifiable information, such as social security numbers. This will help determine if there is a conflict of (financial) interest.
• All members of the Advisory Committee should declare and publicly disclose conflicts of interest. These statements must be updated whenever new conflicts arise or on an annual basis, whichever is more frequent. These disclosures shall be placed on the Internet. There should be random reviews to ensure that all proper disclosures are filed.
• The FACA main website should be updated and reworked. It's design is pretty bad.
• The underlying data behind the FACA database should continue to be made publicly available in a bulk format. For example, here's the raw file of members through 2008.

Federal advisory committees are a major way that the government gets advice from members of the public, especially expert advice. We need to make sure that the advice is not tainted by hidden agendas and reflects the best analysis available.