Representatives Quigley and Polis took a significant step toward improving what we know about Washington power players by introducing the Lobbyist Disclosure Enhancement Act today. The bill would require lobbyists to disclose the names of the covered executive branch officials or Members of Congress lobbied (or the name of the employer if the lobbyist meets with staff), the dates of the meetings and the issues discussed. If enacted, speculation about what lobbyists are doing would be replaced with facts contained in databases of lobbying information. The public would have access to answers to questions about lobbying including: Who was the target of the lobbying? What did the lobbyists discuss? When did the lobbying contact take place?

The legislation also closes a gaping hole in who needs to report. Currently, some of the most powerful players inside the beltway are subject to zero disclosure. Former members of Congress such as Tom Daschle and Norm Colman, CEOs of major corporations like Jeffrey Kindler of Pfizer, and labor leaders such as SEIU’s Andy Stern have significantly more political and financial pull in Congress than many of the mom and pop lobby shops that must report. Yet, because the law says reporting is only necessary if a lobbyist spends more than 20 percent of her time lobbying for any particular client, the public is completely in the dark about many of these "stealth lobbyists" who wield tremendous influence.

The Quigley bill rightly eliminates that loophole. Bravely too, as many of the Congressman’s colleagues might decide to further their careers by becoming “policy advisors” in Washington law firms or lobby shops. Nearly 200 former members have chosen this lucrative path and many rely on the 20 percent loophole to avoid disclosure.

The bill also significantly speeds disclosure of new registrations and reduces delays in reporting of lobbyists’ contributions. Instead the current 45-day lag time for filing a registration when a lobbyist takes on a new client, the bill requires registration within 5 days. This nearly real time, online reporting will hasten public access of information that can be a vital clue as to what issues are trending in Congress and what companies or industries might be facing congressional scrutiny. Under the bill, reporting of contributions lobbyists make to candidates will occur quarterly instead of semi-annually. This aligns contribution reports with required quarterly reporting of lobbyists’ activities, improving the ability to track when lobbyists’ contributions amplify their requests for help from Members of Congress. (Sunlight would go even farther than the Quigley bill and require real time reporting of contributions and lobbying activity to eliminate the risk of the barn door being closed after the cows have escaped.)

Finally, the bill tries to impose some order on the wild west of lobbying disclosure by creating new enforcement mechanisms, including random audits and, eventually, an online whistleblower provision to ensure that lobbyists are accurately registering and reporting.

This is an important piece of legislation. Following the actions of lobbyists by making their work more transparent is one way to track influence and ensure accountability inside the beltway. Improved disclosures will also improve the dialogue in Congress by ensuring that voters can react and respond to the arguments their representatives are hearing from lobbyists. If a voter sees that her Congressman has met with a lobbyist whose views she opposes, she can contact the Congressman's office to make sure her viewpoints are heard, too.

Follow the progress of this bill as well as Sunlight’s work on it by checking in here or following the hashtag #openlobby on Twitter.

Lobbyist Disclosure Enhancement Act

In today's Politico, Chris Frates reports on how some lobbyists now apparently feel like they're being shuttled there instead of the White House complex itself in order to avoid their meetings showing up on the visitor logs.

They're probably right.

Without laws requiring real-time, online disclosure of lobbying activity, we're going to be left with piecemeal policies, and transparency rhetoric that reaches beyond reality.

And meetings with lobbyists will sometimes be scheduled to avoid disclosure.

Now, not all meetings are scheduled at these rooms in order to be hidden, of course. I've probably been to 10 meetings in the conference center in question (and I'm a lobbyist), and these of meetings are often meetings where the administration is trying to maximize disclosure.

But, of course, the White House plans some meetings in order to gain (or avoid) the public eye. Everything the White House does is done with public exposure as a primary consideration. As the article notes, the decision to have a phone call or have an email exchange is often done with an eye to FOIA laws -- emails create a record trail, and phone calls do not. As long as we don't ban phone calls, administration officials will continue to gravitate toward them for more sensitive, or frank communications. Given that context, I'd be shocked if administration officials weren't planning meetings' locations based on whether the meetings will be disclosed.

The problem, though, is that the White House has sold the visitor logs' release as an accountability mechanism.

Whenever the administration talks about taking on special interests, and taking on lobbying, they're giving one side of the story. Their comments should be annotated with the reality of Washington influence.

The visitor logs do provide an unprecedented view into the work and influence of the White House (as Paul Blumenthal's research shows), but it's also a system that's easily (and quite often) evaded. It wasn't designed as an accountability mechanism, but for managing White House security. And releasing the records wasn't designed to affirmatively take on lobbyists, but as a response to a CREW lawsuit.

Somehow, in time since the logs were first released, this has become a hallmark transparency achievement of the administration. It's certainly a transformative development, but Obama has started to hang his hat on it. He shouldn't. The visitor logs are a security system retooled as a disclosure system, and aren't a replacement for real lobbying laws.

As we get a clearer picture of what the visitor logs do, and what they don't do, we should focus harder on what we need to ask for: real-time, online disclosure of lobbying. And we should take the visitor logs for what they are, not what we're told they might be.

President Obama's mentioned several of Sunlight's core issues in his State of the Union Address issues last night. A closer look at what he said, and what he said last year, helps to sort out the rhetoric from the reality.

Earmarks

Here's President Obama, last night:

And because the American people deserve to know that special interests aren’t larding up legislation with pet projects, both parties in Congress should know this: if a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it... A 21st century government that’s open and competent.

This is a new development, and a departure from his request last year, in January of 2010:

I'm also calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform. Applause.) Democrats and Republicans. (Applause.) Democrats and Republicans. You've trimmed some of this spending, you've embraced some meaningful change. But restoring the public trust demands more. For example, some members of Congress post some earmark requests online. (Applause.) Tonight, I'm calling on Congress to publish all earmark requests on a single Web site before there's a vote, so that the American people can see how their money is being spent. (Applause.)

In 2010, Obama called for earmark transparency. In 2011, he issues an outright veto threat. What has changed?

After Obama's initial call for an earmarks database, lawmakers (and Sunlight) took his call seriously, crafting the Earmark Transparency Act in both the House and the Senate. They had broad bipartisan support, and the Senate bill even passed out of committee. The White House was silent, and uninvolved.

Unfortunately, a veto threat is an unlikely fix to our earmark issues. It's unclear how long it'll last, or whether it's a threat that Congress will accept. Even if they do, no one expects earmarks to end, but instead to continue under a different procedure -- phonemarking, lettermarking, and who knows what else. (We're calling those "nearmarks").  Members of Congress can still direct funds to pet projects; they'll just be harder to track, and further from the public eye.

The only ultimately reliable authority to appeal to on spending is public scrutiny. That's what Obama called for last year. Too bad he didn't follow through. It's difficult not to interpret the earmark veto threat with skepticism, as part of an escalating anti-washington political arms race, rather than a well-considered solution to a real problem.

Campaign Finance Disclosure

After the Citizens United decision, President Obama became a fierce ally for legislation to create disclosure in its wake. He made countless speeches and radio addresses, and the White House was heavily involved in trying to get the effort passed. Senate Republicans ultimately blocked the effort, even after an initiative to introduce a disclosure-only bill.

Given that history, it's surprising that this issue didn't show up at all in last night's speech. The cynical view is that Democrats are planning ways to benefit from campaign finance deregulation; perhaps Republican control of the House makes a disclosure bill less likely to pass. In any case, it's a huge reversal for the reform issue perhaps closest to Obama's heart to get a goose egg in the SOTU.

2011:

nothing

2010:

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.

Lobbying

Last night's speech saw one particular call for lobbying reform:

Because you deserve to know when your elected officials are meeting with lobbyists, I ask Congress to do what the White House has already done: put that information online.

That sounds like a good idea, but unfortuntely it's expressed in State of the Union shorthand, and glosses over a pile of complexity. There are two sets of policies that Obama could be referring to when he says that they've "already done" lobbying disclosure.

First is the visitor logs, which the White House released as a result of a CREW lawsuit. They allow anyone to see records of most visitors to the White House posted online four months after the visits occur. These are meaningful disclosures, and allowed Sunlight's Paul Blumenthal to reconstruct the lobbying and dealmaking that went into the healthcare bill.

But that doesn't mean that they're an effective lobbying disclosure system. The design of the WAVES system is an artifact of how security officers track who enters and leaves the White House system -- a far cry from the lobbying disclosure so necessary to holding officials accountable.

Secondly, Obama could be referring to the lobbying disclosures the Executive Branch is voluntarily making around focused issues. There are such policies now applied to TARP, the stimulus, and now to the Dodd-Frank bill. Again, these are meaningful policies, worthy of broad praise, and further analysis. But they're insufficient for the White House to say they're "already done." These policies are easy to evade, and often rely on the outdated and ineffective definitions from the Lobbyist Disclosure Act.

The real fix is the sort of fundamental reform to our lobbying disclosure system that we've described in our bill on PublicMarkup, and posted for public review and commentary.

Having the President push for such a measure would improve its prognosis significantly. Unfortunately, it's unclear whether the line in last night's speech was the opening salvo in a new lobbying reform initiative, or a temporary jab at the legislature intended to garner praise for existing White House initiatives.

If "we do big things" then real-time, online lobbying disclosure should be one of them.

Other

Obama also mentioned the following line:

Because you deserve to know exactly how and where your tax dollars are being spent, you will be able to go to a website and get that information for the very first time in history.

This is rather cryptic. It's possible that this refers to a proposal to create a digital receipt for after paying your taxes, which has been floating around in different versions for several years. But that's a guess.

The USASpending.gov site already provides details on how the government spends money on grants and contracts, although the data they're using is largely unreliable.  If the government is going to add to this accounting, they should fix those problems first.

Overall

Compared to last year's speech, 2011's ideas were derivative and rhetorical.  Since there is no dedicated staffer at the White House pursuing ethics and transparency, it looks like the Obama's leadership on this issue is slipping.

As the White House staff shakeup continues, and in the absence of the not-to-be-replaced Ethics Czar, we're left wondering whether we've already seen the best of the transparency of the Obama Administration.