Sunlight’s new Lobbyist Registration Tracker is a great new tool to let users track who is lobbying about what issues. It’s a valuable resource for anyone who wants to detect what trends are hot in Congress. But, it could be even more useful if it weren’t for the yawning gaps in the law about who is required to register as a lobbyist.

Right now, the oft-cited “20 percent exemption” lets some of the most influential players in Washington—the former politicians, the labor leaders and the corporate CEOs—wield their influence in the White House and the halls of Congress on behalf of clients, without registering their activities. So long as their lobbying activities take up less than 20 percent of their time on behalf of any one client, they don’t have to make their influence peddling public. It’s no secret that in Washington that a few well-placed phone calls to Members of Congress or their most senior staff by a power player like Tom Daschle, Bill Thomas or Andy Stern can yield significantly more results than dozens of meetings by the majority of registered lobbyists. But until the law is changed to close the 20 percent loophole, those meetings won’t end up in Sunlight’s lobbyist tracker, and the public will be prevented from having a complete picture of who is helping to shape our laws and policy.

One of Sunlight’s policy goals is to amend the Lobbyist Disclosure Act to create real-time, online disclosure about lobbying, including changing the definition of lobbyist to ensure there is disclosure by everyone who lobbies. Interested in helping make this sensible change happen? Sign up here and we’ll keep you informed on ways to get involved.

Yesterday, John Wonderlich wrote an important post here about Sunlight's meeting with the White House (with a bunch of other organizations) regarding the stimulus lobbying rules. The most important thing that John wrote is this:

To me, this looks like an imperfect law (the Lobbying Disclosure Act) being used as a foundation for imperfect lobbying restrictions, in the face of enormous and unprecedented stimulus spending. Whether the restrictions are proportional to the sudden need for competent spending is certainly up for debate. There seems to be little debate, however over whether the LDA is a sufficient vehicle for lobbying regulation. It isn’t. The LDA requirements are easily skirted, enforcement is lax, and many terms are insufficiently defined. (It’s probably fair to say that position was the consensus of the groups present, but certainly not presented as administration policy.)

The justification being given by the administration for these rules is that they do not want the stimulus funding process to be mucked up by lobbyists seeking bits and pieces of the $700+ billion bill for unworthy projects. However, as John notes, we are seeing unregistered influencers go to lobby for stimulus funds. We are also seeing this happen in other large pots of money. Take for example the $700+ billion bailout handled by the Treasury Department:

Stress-test results showing major banks need to raise new capital were finalized after intense negotiation between the government and the banks, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner told Charlie Rose in an interview taped on Wednesday.

Despite the Treasury Department's rules prohibiting lobbyist influence in the awarding and distribution of bailout funds, bank executives and lawyers can still meet with an influence Treasury's decision as it relates to their bailout status. This similarly highlights what John says above: the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) is a poor measure by which to grade and regulate influence.

The LDA does not cover many paid influencers that go to executive branch agencies or Capitol Hill, does not require the disclosure of contacts, and has loose and diffuse enforcement mechanisms. As the debate over influence increases in Washington, there will likely be a need to revisit this Act and consider many of the proposals that were left on the cutting room floor when the bill was adopted in 1995. Proposals that were dropped included disclosure of contacts, widened registration net, and better, more professional enforcement and oversight. It's about time to consider these ideas, as they appear to be the real meat for real reform.

The Associated Press reports today that lobbyists engaged on stimulus projects may channel their outrage at the new lobbying rules imposed by President Obama on recovery funds by pull their registrations from the Lobbyist Disclosure Act:

Since the prohibition applies to registered lobbyists, some firms are thinking about having some of their lobbyists rescind their registrations, which could let them pitch stimulus projects to government officials. That, though, would severely limit the time they could spend lobbying each year while undermining disclosure laws requiring registered lobbyists to publicly report their activities.

The administration really touched a nerve by requiring that lobbyist meetings actually be disclosed to the public. It looks like lobbyists are declaring war on any expansion of lobbyist disclosure laws

This action by the lobbying community also provides more grease for the gears to expand the definition of registered lobbyists in Washington. There are far too many non-lobbyist lobbyists in this city.