Ethics: 2007 NewsEthics Committee's Convention Party Travesty: Statement of Meredith McGehee, Campaign Legal Center Policy Director The "Ethics Committee" could not have sent a clearer message that it has no interest in repairing its tattered reputation or reigning in the pay-to-play excesses at Party conventions. Once again the Committee has chosen the path of least resistance, ignoring voter outrage and in essence saying, "Let the band play on."
The recent decision by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct ("Ethics Committee") to gut the rules stopping the lavish convention parties paid for by lobbyists to "honor" their favorite Members of Congress shows why the congressional ethics process has lost its credibility. For those who wonder why some of us are pushing for a more independent, outside voice in the process, this decision to allow these lobbyist-funded parties despite the clear intent and language of the rules should put an end to the protests by those who defend the current ethics process. This decision demonstrates that the public cynicism about the congressional ethics process is - unfortunately - well earned.
Leadership must step in at this juncture and correct this cynical and self-serving rule if the Ethics Committee does not quickly and drastically reverse itself. The Committee should withdraw the guidance on parties at the national conventions that it issued on December 11, 2007, and issue new guidance that properly implements, rather than destroys, the new House ethics rule. After all, the new House ethics rule was adopted to prevent lobbyists from throwing lavish parties for Representatives at the party conventions. There is simply no excuse for gutting that new rule.
To read the letter sent to the Ethics Committee today by the Legal Center and other members of a reform coalition, click here.
Reform Groups Send Letter to House Ethics Committee Regarding Convention Parties December 18, 2007
Dear Chairman Tubbs-Jones and Ranking Member Hastings,
We are writing to strongly object to the guidance recently issued by the House Ethics Committee to implement the new ethics rule to restrict House Members from participating in parties that take place at the national nominating convention to "honor" those Members. See sec. 305 of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, Pub. L. 110-81, 121 Stat. 735 (HLOGA).
The Committee's guidance opens gaping loopholes in the new ethics rule enacted just a few months ago to prevent lobbyists and lobbying organizations from gaining favor and influence with Representatives by paying for lavish parties to "honor" the Members. The guidance contravenes and emasculates the meaning, purpose and spirit of the new ethics rule. It is also in direct conflict with a proper interpretation of similar language in the new lobbying disclosure law that was recently issued by the House Clerk and Senate Secretary.
We believe it is incumbent on the Ethics Committee to immediately withdraw this guidance and to issue new guidance that properly reflects the meaning, purpose and spirit of the new ethics rule and of the broader reform effort that included the new rule.
The new ethics rule states that a Member "may not participate in an event honoring that Member…if such event is directly paid for by a registered lobbyist…or a private entity that retains or employs such a registered lobbyist." Rule XXV, cl. 8.
In a memorandum dated June 14, 2007, with reference to the new House ethics rules adopted last January, the House Ethics Committee set a high standard for Member compliance with, and for the Committee's enforcement of, the new rules, and specifically warns against circumvention:
Members and staff should keep in mind that the intent of the House gift rule is to protect the integrity of the House. The House Code of Official Conduct requires House Members and staff to adhere to the spirit as well as to the letter of the Rules of the House. Narrow, technical readings of the House gift rule should be avoided. Memo at 1 (emphasis added).
Instead of following its own warning to Members and staff, however, the Ethics Committee has issued an unjustifiable interpretation of the new ethics rule addressed to parties at the nominating conventions - one that renders the new rule meaningless for all practical purposes.
The Ethics Committee's guidance, issued on December 11, 2007, provides a clear roadmap for Members and lobbyists on how to circumvent and ignore the new rule at the party conventions next year. The door is opened wide by the Committee for lobbyists and lobbying organizations to continue their past practices at conventions of sponsoring and paying for lavish parties to "honor" Members - abusive practices that led to the adoption of the new rule.
The guidance, furthermore, raises basic concerns about what kind of additional damage the Ethics Committee may do to the landmark ethics reforms enacted by the House this year. A failure to properly interpret and enforce ethics rules means failed ethic rules.
The Committee's guidance interprets the rule on parties that "honor" Members at nominating conventions to apply only where a party is held to honor a specific Member, but not to honor a state delegation, a caucus or a congressional committee. The Committee states, "Thus, an event that is organized to honor a delegation or caucus, without naming any specific Member of the delegation or caucus…would be an event that Members may participate in under clause 8 of House Rule 25….There is no numerical requirement on the size of the delegation or caucus participating in the event."
This interpretation defies not just the new ethics rule but common sense.
Does the Committee really believe, for example, that the purpose of this rule was to stop lobbying groups such as the energy industry trade associations from paying for a six-figure party to "honor" a specific House member, but to allow these same trade associations to pay for such a party to honor all of the Members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee?
Does the Committee really believe that the purpose of this rule was to stop lobbying organizations from paying for a party to "honor" a specific Member of the Blue Dogs or of the Congressional Black Caucus, but to allow such lobbying organizations to finance a lavish party at the conventions for all Members of the Blue Dogs or all Members of the Congressional Black Caucus?
Just who do the members of the House Ethics Committee think they are fooling?
The only support cited by the Committee for this gutting interpretation of the rule is a statement inserted in the Extension of Remarks section of the Congressional Record by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) on August 4, 2007, 153 Cong. Rec. E1759 (Aug. 4, 2007), four days after the passage of the legislation by the House on July 31, 2007.
This effort to provide "retroactive legislative history" for the ethics rule four days after it passed the House directly conflicts with the meaning and purpose of the rule, and represents an attempt to redefine the rule after it had been passed by the House. It should receive no weight from the Committee.
In addition, the Ethics Committee's guidance stands in sharp contrast to the proper interpretation of analogous language made by the House Clerk and the Senate Secretary.
In construing a new reporting provision added by HLOGA to the Lobbying Disclosure Act, which requires lobbyists to report payments made to pay "the cost of an event to honor or recognize a covered legislative branch official," see sec. 212 of HLOGA, the Clerk and Secretary have made clear that the disclosure provision covers payments by lobbyists and lobbying organizations for events held for multiple honorees from Congress. See Office of the Clerk, Amended Guidance to the Lobbying Disclosure Act (Dec. 7, 2007) at 26 (Ex. 1).
The House Clerk and Senate Secretary explained the basis for their interpretation: "This section of the LDA has been written broadly…" Id. at 26.
The House ethics rule was also "written broadly," but instead of following its own admonition to Members that, "Narrow, technical readings of the House gift rule should be avoided," the Ethics Committee has chosen to issue an interpretation that makes a mockery of the new ethics rule.
Another wholly separate, basic problem with the Committee's guidance is that it authorizes lobbyists and lobbying organizations to finance lavish parties "to honor" a specific Representative simply by laundering their contributions through another entity, such as a shell entity set up for the purpose of circumventing the rule.
The Committee said, "The fact that a private organization received some of its funding for an event taking place during a national convention from a lobbyist or private entity that retains or employs lobbyists, by itself, would not disqualify a Member from participating in the organization's event."
The Committee relies on language in the rule which prohibits a Member from participating in an event if the event "is directly paid for" by a lobbyist. Yet this language does not mean, and the House could not have intended, that a lobbyist is permitted to blatantly circumvent and ignore the rule by laundering a payment through another entity.
If the Ethics Committee wants to give meaning to the words "directly paid," consistent with the Committee's warning to adhere to the spirit of the ethics rules and avoid narrow readings, the Committee can conclude that the words here are an effort to distinguish between lobbyists providing their own money to pay for an event, on the one hand, and suggesting to others to provide funds for the event, on the other.
But the interpretation provided by the Ethics Committee is nothing more than a license for lobbyists and Members to cheat and to simply ignore the new rule by doing exactly what this rule was passed to prevent. The interpretation means that lobbyists and lobbying groups could pay for a lavish party "to honor" a Member, the activity the rule was adopted to prevent, simply by laundering the money through another group or entity.
For example, under the Committee's interpretation, lobbyists or lobbying organizations could themselves set up a sham entity, make payments to that entity, and then have the entity pay for the convention party "to honor" a Member. The Member would be able to participate in this party in his honor and be fully aware of the lobbyists and lobbying organizations that provided large amounts to pay for the party through their sham front group.
This is totally inconsistent with the meaning, purpose and spirit of new ethics rule.
Finally, the Committee's guidance permits a Member to participate in an event if the Members' name "appears, for example, in a listing of the names of the honorary host committee members for the event" if that listing also includes some non-congressional host committee members as well.
This again opens the door to easy circumvention of the rule. By listing a Member in the "honorary" host committee, along with a few non-congressional individuals, a sponsor could make clear as a practical matter that the event is in "honor" of that Member. This would allow a Member to attend an event in "honor" of the Member that is funded by lobbyists or lobbying organization by just practicing a little subterfuge in how the event is announced.
We strongly urge the Ethics Committee to withdraw the guidance on parties at the national conventions that it issued on December 11, 2007, and to provide new guidance for Rule XXV, cl. 8, that properly implements, rather than destroys, the new House ethics rule adopted to prevent lobbyists from throwing lavish parties for Members at the party conventions.
Campaign Legal Center
League of Women Voters
Common Cause
Public Citizen
Democracy 21
Reform Groups Urge for Changes to the Presidential Public Financing System December 6, 2007
Dear Senator,
Our organizations strongly urge you to co-sponsor the bipartisan, bicameral legislation introduced yesterday to repair the presidential public financing system.
The principal Senate sponsors of the legislation are Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI) and Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), joined by Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D-IL), the four Democratic Senators who are running for president in 2008, Senators Barack Obama (D-IL), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Joe Biden (D-DE) and Christopher Dodd (D-CT) and the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, Senator John Kerry (D-MA).
The principal House sponsors of the legislation are Representatives David Price (D-NC) and Christopher Shays (R-CT), joined by Representatives Mike Castle (R-DE), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) and Todd Platts (R-PA).
Our organizations include Americans for Campaign Reform, Campaign Legal Center, Committee for Economic Development, Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters, Public Campaign, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG.
The presidential public financing system was established in the wake of the Watergate scandals to take the presidency off the auction block, to provide presidential candidates with the resources necessary to run financially competitive races, and to curb unlimited spending in presidential campaigns.
The presidential public financing system served the nation well for most of its existence. Almost all of the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates between 1976 and 2000 used the system to finance their presidential races in the primary and general elections. Importantly, the public financing system allowed for competitive races, with challengers winning three of the six races that involved incumbent presidents.
The presidential public financing system is now broken, however, and needs to be fixed. With Congress failing to make any significant adjustments in the presidential public financing system since it was enacted in 1974, the spending limits for the presidential primaries are far too low today to accommodate the costs of running a modern presidential primary campaign. Similarly, there are insufficient public funds available to presidential candidates to make the system the kind of attractive alternative for candidates to finance their races that it was for most of its existence.
As a result, we are facing a presidential election in 2008 where the two major party nominees alone are expected to spend a combined $1 billion in private campaign contributions for their primary and general election races.
The problems in the special interest financing of the 2008 presidential election, including the growing role being played by influence-seeking bundlers, only have served to reinforce the dangers of a privately-funded presidential campaign, driven by unlimited spending and increasingly dependent on bundlers to raise huge amounts of money.
It is essential to the health of our democracy and to the integrity of the presidency that we repair the presidential public financing system for future presidential races. It is imperative to avoid having the presidency on a permanent auction block and our presidential candidates engaged in a never-ending race to spend ever-growing massive amounts of money. As The New York Times stated in an editorial endorsing legislation to fix the presidential public financing system ( September 12, 2007):
For 30 years after the Watergate scandal, the nation did well by the public financing campaign system, which served as a cleaner alternative to private political money. Congress let that die on the vine, failing to raise subsidy levels to meet campaign inflation. The result is candidates' gratefully wooing bundlers and selling privileged access -- with far too few questions asked.
The legislation introduced yesterday would restore the viability of the presidential public financing system and again make the system advantageous for candidates to use.
The legislation would increase the overall spending limits and the amount of public funds available for candidates who opt into the presidential system. It would end the ineffective system of state-by-state spending limits. And the legislation would provide additional public funds and higher spending limits to allow candidates who use the system to compete financially with candidates who reject the system and choose instead to make expenditures that significantly exceed the spending limits.
Furthermore, the legislation would require presidential candidates to disclose the individuals who bundle contributions for them and the total amounts they bundle. The role and significance of bundlers, however, would be greatly reduced in a repaired public financing system where special interest money is no longer so important.
We strongly urge you to co-sponsor this legislation and to work for its enactment.
|
Americans for Campaign Reform |
Democracy 21 |
|
Campaign Legal Center |
League of Women Voters |
|
Committee for Economic Development |
Public Campaign |
|
Common Cause |
Public Citizen |
|
|
U.S. PIRG |
Nov. 26, 2007 - Reform Groups Call on House Clerk and Senate Secretary to Implement New Lobbying Law Consistent with the Language and Purpose of the Statute Reform groups sent a letter last week urging House Clerk Lorraine C. Miller and Secretary of the Senate Nancy Erickson to implement the new lobbying disclosure reforms in the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (HLOGA) "in a manner that is consistent with the language and purpose of the statute, and with the intent of Congress to provide the public with broad disclosure of the money being raised and spent by lobbyists to influence Congress."
To read the full press release, click here.
Reform Groups Call on House Clerk and Senate Secretary to Implement New Lobbying Law Consistent with the Language and Purpose of the Statute Reform groups sent a letter last week urging House Clerk Lorraine C. Miller and Secretary of the Senate Nancy Erickson to implement the new lobbying disclosure reforms in the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (HLOGA) "in a manner that is consistent with the language and purpose of the statute, and with the intent of Congress to provide the public with broad disclosure of the money being raised and spent by lobbyists to influence Congress."
The reform groups include the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG.
The House Clerk and Senate Secretary are expected to issue new rules and forms to implement the HLOGA in December.
The letter from the reform groups addresses a number of issues involved in properly interpreting and implementing the new law.
Disclosure Required of Both Direct and Indirect Spending on Financial Favors
According to the letter, "A key reform adopted in HLOGA amends the LDA [Lobbying Disclosure Act] to require lobbyists to disclose a broad range of financial benefits and favors that they provide to assist members of Congress."
The letter states, "The legislation recognizes that lobbyists influence Members of Congress not only through spending on 'lobbying activities,' which is already subject to disclosure, but also by providing financial benefits and favors to assist Members. As a result of the HLOGA, the LDA, for the first time, now requires public disclosure of these other ways in which lobbyists organize and spend money to assist Members."
According to the letter, disclosure is required "not only of contributions and disbursements directly made by a registrant to benefit a Member for these purposes, but also of contributions and disbursements indirectly made by a registrant through a third person to benefit a Member for such purposes."
Disclosure of Spending for Events and Entities Involving More than one Member
The letter states, "Subsection (i) of section 1604(d)(1)(E) requires lobbyists to disclose payments they make for 'the cost of an event to honor or recognize a covered legislative branch official' or executive branch official."
The letter continues, "Subsection (ii) requires disclosure of contributions or disbursements 'to an entity that is named for a covered legislative branch official 'or executive branch official,' or to a person or entity in recognition of such official."
The letter adds, "Subsection (iii) requires lobbyists to disclose funds contributed or disbursed to 'an entity established, financed, maintained or controlled by a covered legislative branch official' or executive branch official, or to 'an entity designated by such official.'"
According to the letter, "In each instance, this disclosure requirement applies with regard to any entity or event involving one Member, or two or more Members, and it is incumbent upon you to make this clear in the rules and forms you issue to ensure proper compliance with the new law."
The letter adds:
For example, with regard to subsection (i), which requires disclosure of money spent by a lobbyist for an event held to honor a covered legislative branch official, it is clear that disclosure is required if the event is held to honor two or more Members, or a state delegation of Members or Members who serve on a House Committee, or a group of Members (such as, for example, the "Blue Dogs"). No other interpretation of the statute makes any sense.
The letter continues, "A huge loophole and an easy path for circumventing and evading the new disclosure requirement would be created if lobbyists could avoid disclosure of payments made for an event to honor a Member simply by including a second Member in the event. There is no evidence and no reason to believe that Congress wrote this provision in a manner that would license wholesale evasion and circumvention of the new disclosure requirement."
The letter adds:
The same holds true in the case of payments made by lobbyists to an entity controlled or established by two or more Members (subsection iii) or for payments made by lobbyists to an entity that is named for two or more Members (subsection ii). Thus, for example, payments made by lobbyists to a foundation that is established, financed, maintained or controlled by two or more Members of a House caucus are required to be disclosed under this provision.
According to the letter:
Any effort to restrict these disclosure requirements to cases where only one Member is involved would be in direct conflict with the language, meaning and purpose of the statutory provision and with its goal of providing the public with broad disclosure of the financial benefits and favors provided by lobbyists to assist members of Congress. Such a restriction would open a massive loophole in the law and severely limit the scope of the disclosure to the public, thereby frustrating the purpose of Congress in enacting the provision.
Reporting Requirements
The letter notes that the new disclosure reports about the financial benefits provided by lobbyists to assist Members are required to be filed on a semi-annual basis.
According to the letter:
However, under section 203(c) of HLOGA, you are required to submit a report within one year "on the feasibility of requiring the reports to be made on a quarterly, rather than a semi-annual, basis." This reflects the "sense of Congress" set forth in section 203(d) that after the first two years of the section 1604(d)(1) semi-annual reports, those reports "should be made on a quarterly basis if it is practicably feasible to do so."
The letter states, "We strongly urge you to take all steps necessary to implement the goal of Congress and ensure that quarterly reporting can be instituted in the House and Senate after the two-year initial period for semi-annual reporting."
Adequate Resources to Implement HLOGA
The letter adds, "We also strongly urge you to take the steps necessary to ensure that your offices have adequate resources to fully and effectively implement the additional public disclosure obligations imposed on your offices by the HLOGA. If you do not currently have sufficient resources to carry out your new disclosure obligations under the statute in a timely manner, it is essential that you immediately request that such resources be provided by the House and Senate."
The letter states, "A principal goal of HLOGA, furthermore, is to make the information required to be disclosed by lobbyists available to the public on the Internet in an easily accessible and timely manner. The availability of this information to the public on the Internet in a 'searchable, sortable and downloadable manner' is a core provision of the new law."
The letter continues, "In order to provide assurances to the public that your offices have, or will have, adequate resources and funding to carry out your new responsibilities, we call on you to inform the public about whether you have adequate resources and funding to meet your new disclosure obligations under HLOGA. If you do not, we call on you to inform the public whether you have requested such resources and funding from the House and Senate."
Disclosure Requirements for Stealth Coalitions
The letter states, "Section 207, 'Disclosure of Lobbying Activities by Certain Coalitions and Associations,' is a simple and straightforward section to strength the disclosure requirements of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (LDA)."
According to the letter, "Originally, a number of organizations were able to evade the disclosure requirements by establishing a coalition in name only, and then exploiting a provision in the old LDA that required only the coalition - and none of the groups behind the coalition - to register and report its lobbying activities. As a result, the public was aware that a coalition named, for example, the Policy & Taxation Group, was making expenditures to influence legislation without knowing who the key players were in funding and running the coalition."
The letter adds:
Section 207 does not change the definition of who has to register as a lobbying entity ("client") with the House Clerk or Senate Secretary. Rather, it simply amends the disclosure requirements for groups that are already registered. So, under the section a coalition or trade association that is already registered must now disclose any organization that both contributes at least $5,000 toward the coalition or trade association's lobbying activities and "actively participates in the planning, supervision or control of such lobbying activities."
The letter further states:
The new provision exempts a registered coalition or trade association from reporting any individuals who are members of the coalition or trade association. Furthermore, organizational members of a registered coalition or trade association who pay membership dues to support the coalition's efforts, but who do not actively participate in the "planning, supervision or control" of the coalition's lobbying activities, also are exempt from the disclosure requirement.
The letter continues, "Section 207 of the new lobbying and ethics legislation has been carefully drafted to close a disclosure loophole in LDA involving stealth lobbying coalitions and impose limited new reporting burdens on registered coalitions and trade associations, while at the same time protecting the associational rights of individuals and organizations."
The letter concludes, "We strongly urge you to interpret and implement the HLOGA to carry out the intent and purpose of Congress to provide the public with timely and easily accessible broad new disclosures about the ways in which lobbyists and lobbying organizations spend money to influence members of Congress."
Aug. 30, 2007 -- Ethics Committee Silence Re: Sen. Craig: Statement of Meredith McGehee, Campaign Legal Center Policy Director Ethical lapses are neither a Democratic nor a Republican problem, nor are they a House or a Senate problem - they are a congressional problem.
To read the full press release, click here.
June 25, 2007 -- Reform Groups Oppose Ethics Enforcement Task Force Proposal as Not Effectively Addressing Ethics Enforcement Problems in House In a letter sent today to House members, reform groups expressed their opposition to a proposal reportedly being considered by the House special ethics enforcement task force, which the reform groups do not believe will effectively address the ethics enforcement problems in the House.
The organizations include the Campaign Legal Center, the Committee for Economic Development, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters and Public Citizen. To read the full letter, click here.
June 20, 2007 -- Reform Groups Urge Pelosi and Reid to Ensure Strong ''Bundling'' and Fundraising Disclosure Provisions Are Included in Conference Report Reform groups sent a letter today to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, which urged the Speaker to ''ensure that the final conference report on lobbying reform legislation includes strong and effective provisions to provide for the disclosure by lobbyists of the fundraising events they hold and the contributions they 'bundle' for Members.'' To read the full letter, click here.
May 24, 2007 -- Lobbying Reform Bill: Statement of Meredith McGehee, Campaign Legal Center Policy Director We are pleased to see that after getting bogged down in the swamp that is Washington both the lobbying reform bill and the bundling disclosure bill are moving forward. The question now is what will emerge from the House-Senate conference.
To read the full statement, click here.
May 24, 2007 -- Reform Groups Urge House Members to Vote for Van Hollen-Meehan Bundling Disclosure Bill Reform groups sent a letter today urging House members ''to vote for the legislation sponsored by Representatives Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Marty Meehan (D-MA) to require lobbyists to disclose the amount of bundled contributions they provide for Members and others.''
To read the full letter, click here.
May 22, 2007 -- Reform Groups and CED Urge House Members to Vote for Rule on Lobbying Reform Bill Reform groups and the Committee for Economic Development sent a letter today to House members urging them to ''to vote for the rule on lobbying disclosure reform legislation and for the amendment to the legislation to be offered by Representatives Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Marty Meehan (D-MA) to require lobbyists to disclose the amount of bundled contributions they provide for Members and others.''
To read the full letter, click here.
May 14, 2007 -- Reform Groups and CED Outline Essential Elements for Effective OPI Reform groups and the Committee for Economic Development sent a letter today to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), expressing support for the establishment of a nonpartisan and professional Office of Public Integrity (OPI) and outlining elements that the groups believe are absolutely essential for an effective and publicly credible OPI.
To read the full letter, click here.
May 2, 2007 -- Reform Groups and CED Urge House Members to Support Strong Lobbying Reform Legislation Reform groups and the Committee for Economic Development sent a letter today urging House members to support strong and effective lobbying reform legislation that includes the essential lobbying reform provisions set forth in the letter, when the House considers shortly its lobbying reform legislation. To view the letter, click here.
Apr. 24, 2007 -- House Freshman Call for Tougher Ethics Enforcement: Statement of Meredith McGehee, Campaign Legal Center Policy Director Recognizing the key role that congressional corruption played in the historic Democratic takeover in the November elections, 27 House freshmen wrote today to Chairman Michael Capuano (D-MA) and the Special Task Force on Ethics urging them to recommend changes that will build increased independence and professionalism into the ethics enforcement process.
To read the full letter, click here.
Apr. 19, 2007 -- Testimony of Meredith McGehee, Campaign Legal Center Policy Director, Before the House Special Task Force on Ethics Below is the full April 19th testimony of Campaign Legal Center Policy Director Meredith McGehee before the House Special Task Force on Ethics:
Mr. Chairman , Members of the Task Force, thank you for this opportunity to provide our views on the House ethics process. My name is Meredith McGehee and I am the Policy Director of the Campaign Legal Center. The Legal Center is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization founded in 2002 which works in the areas of campaign finance and elections, political communication and government ethics. The Legal Center offers nonpartisan analyses of issues and represents the public interest in administrative, legislative and legal proceedings.
To read the full testimony, click here.
Apr. 16, 2007 -- Reform Groups Oppose Boehner Proposal to Establish Task Force to Review New Ethics Rules Enclosed for your information is a letter reform groups sent today to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, urging the Speaker to oppose a call by House Minority Leader John Boehner to establish a bipartisan task force to review the new ethics rules, which the House adopted in January by a vote of 430 to 1.
The reform groups include the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG.
According to the letter, ''On March 29, 2007, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) reportedly sent you a letter calling for the creation of a bipartisan task force to review and clarify the House's 'hopelessly broken' ethics rules.''
To read the full letter, click here.
Mar. 7, 2007 -- Reform Groups Urge House Members to Support Essential Lobbying Reform Provisions Reform groups sent a letter today urging House members to support strong, comprehensive lobbying reform legislation and to vote for the essential lobbying reform provisions set forth in the letter, when the House considers its lobbying reform legislation.
The reform groups include the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG.
According to the letter, ''The House is expected shortly to consider lobbying reform legislation.''
The letter states, ''This is the next essential step the House needs to take to respond to the corruption, ethics and lobbying scandals in the last Congress that deeply concerned the American people. It follows the landmark ethics rules reforms passed by the House in January.''
The letter adds, ''In passing strong lobbying reform legislation earlier this year, the Senate has provided a minimum benchmark for the House to meet in acting on this important issue. There simply is no basis for the House to pass weaker lobbying reforms than the Senate has adopted. In addition, there are important areas where stronger reform measures than passed by the Senate are required.''
According to the reform groups, the lobbying legislation needs to include essential reform provisions to:
- Require disclosure by lobbyists and lobbying organizations of the total amount of contributions they ''bundle'' for a member of Congress or other recipient;
- Require disclosure by retained lobbying firms of the total amount they spend on behalf of a client on paid communications campaigns to influence the general public to lobby Congress;
- Strengthen the revolving door restrictions; and
- Prohibit lobbyists and lobbying organizations from funding parties at national conventions to ''honor'' Members.
According to the letter, ''The disclosure by lobbyists and lobbying organizations of the amount of contributions they collect or arrange ('bundle') for a candidate is a defining issue for lobbying reform. The House action on this critical issue will tell the country whether Members are serious about reforming the nation's lobbying laws.''
The letter states, ''Requiring lobbyists to disclose these 'bundled' contributions goes to the heart of the public's right to know about the efforts being made by lobbyists and lobbying organizations to influence congressional decisions. Absent such disclosure, a huge loophole exists in the lobbying disclosure laws.''
The letter adds, ''The Senate-passed lobbying reform bill contains a strong and effective 'bundling' disclosure provision that is also contained in companion legislation introduced in the House by Representatives Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Marty Meehan (D-MA).''
The letter continues, ''Our organizations urge you to support and vote for this provision and to oppose any efforts to weaken or undermine the provision.''
The letter further states, ''Our organizations also urge you to support a critical provision that would require lobbying firms to disclose the total amount they spend on behalf of a client to conduct paid communication campaigns to influence the general public to lobby Congress.''
According to the letter, ''This new provision being proposed in the House is fundamentally different and far narrower than the 'Astroturf' lobbying disclosure provision rejected in the Senate earlier this year by a vote of 55 to 43.''
The letter adds, '' The House provision only applies to lobbying firms retained by a client, and only covers paid communications campaigns by the lobbying firms to influence the general public to lobby Congress. The provision expressly states that it does not apply to any person or entity other than a retained lobbying firm. ''
The letter continues, ''Lobbying firms currently report the total amounts they receive from clients to conduct direct lobbying campaigns on Capitol Hill. The new provision would require lobbying firms also to disclose the total amounts they receive from clients to conduct expensive media and other paid communications campaigns to influence the general public to lobby Congress.''
According to the letter, ''Former members of Congress working as Washington lobbyists used to be the exception. Now it is a regular practice, with some 200 former Members reportedly lobbying Congress.''
The letter adds, ''According to a report by Public Citizen, during the period from 1998 to 2004, 86 of 198 members of Congress who left Congress, or 43 percent of the Members, became lobbyists.''
The letter states, ''The current rules establish a one-year period in which former Members, senior executive branch officials and senior congressional staff cannot lobby their former colleagues. The breadth of former colleagues who cannot be lobbied during this period varies depending on the group of former officials involved.''
The letter adds, ''Our organizations urge you to support increasing the one-year revolving door ban to two years for all officials covered by the restriction, as the Senate-passed bill does.''
The letter also points out that while current revolving door restrictions prohibit former members of Congress ''from having direct lobbying contacts with Congress for pay for one year after they leave their jobs, they allow Members to engage in other lobbying activities to influence Congress for pay during this period, including planning and directing lobbying campaigns, and participating in lobbying strategy sessions.''
The letter states, ''Our organizations urge you to support a provision to close this serious loophole by extending the revolving door ban to cover lobbying activities, not just lobbying contacts, by former Members to influence Congress, as the Senate-passed bill does.''
According to the letter, ''Lobbyists and lobbying organizations are paying for lavish parties at the national conventions to 'honor' a Member or members of Congress. This includes parties to 'honor' members of a committee and members of a state delegation.''
The letter continues, ''These parties often involve lobbyists and lobbying organizations paying for an expensive party to 'honor' a Committee Chairman or the members of a powerful Committee with jurisdiction over legislation being sought by the lobbyist or lobbying organization.''
The letter states that this major loophole in the rules restricting gifts, ''means that a lobbyist or lobbying organization is prohibited by the gift ban from paying for a meal for a Member but the same lobbyist or lobbying organization can pay $25,000, $50,000 or more to throw an expensive party at a national convention for the same Member.''
The letter adds, ''Our organizations urge you to support a provision, similar to the provision in the Senate-passed bill, which would prohibit lobbyists and lobbying organizations from paying for parties to 'honor' Members at the national conventions.''
Feb. 23, 2007 -- Reform Groups Send Letter to House Members Urging Them to Support Legislation Slowing "Revolving Door" Below is a letter reform groups sent today urging U.S. House members to support legislation slowing the "revolving door" when former public officials immediately take lobbying jobs after leaving public service.
The reform groups include the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG.
According to the letter, current revolving door abuses should be addressed by incorporating in House legislation restrictions similar to those contained in the U.S. Senate lobbying and ethics reform bill (S. 1). These provisions:
- Extend the "cooling off period" from one year to two during which former senior officials must refrain from lobbying after leaving public service; and, even more importantly,
- Include "lobbying activities" - defined narrowly under the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) as paid activity intended to facilitate a lobbying contact - as part of lobbying prohibited during the cooling off period.
The letter notes that Congress recognized that public officials could be unduly influenced by "implicit or explicit promises of future employment, as well as problems that arise when former public officials exploit their connections developed during public service," and responded by imposing a one-year ban on former officials making direct lobbying contacts after leaving public service in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989.
The letter states, "But the spirit of the law has not been met….The greatest loophole in the law is that former officials can be hired by lobbying firms immediately after leaving office to plan, strategize and oversee lobbying campaigns. They are only prevented from making 'lobbying contacts' - direct contacts such as picking up the telephone and calling their former colleagues."
The letter adds, "It is essential to include 'lobbying activities' as defined by LDA - work for compensation specifically intended at the time it is being done to facilitate a lobbying contact - in the scope of 'lobbying' that is prohibited during the cooling off period."
The letter concludes: "We urge the House to join the Senate in doing what the 1989 ethics law intended: prevent very senior public officials from exploiting their public service by becoming lobbyists for an appropriate period of time after leaving office."
February 23, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
RE: Slow the "Revolving Door"
Dear Representative:
The lobbying provisions of lobbying and ethics reform legislation - approved by the Senate by a vote of 96-to-2 on January 18 - are now under consideration by the House of Representatives.
Our organizations strongly urge you to address "revolving door" abuses by incorporating in House legislation restrictions similar to those contained in the Senate bill on former senior public officials taking jobs as lobbyists. These provisions:
- Extend the "cooling off period" from one year to two during which former senior officials must refrain from lobbying after leaving public service; and, even more importantly,
- Include "lobbying activities" - defined narrowly under the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) as paid activity intended to facilitate a lobbying contact - as part of lobbying prohibited during the cooling off period.
In the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, Congress recognized that public officials might be influenced by implicit or explicit promises of future employment, as well as the problems that arise when former public officials exploit their connections developed during public service to influence government action for their new private employers. That legislation barred former Members, senior congressional staff and senior executive branch officials from lobbying their former colleagues for one year after leaving office.
But the spirit of the law has not been met.
Today, the revolving door is spinning out of control. Between 1998 and 2004, almost half of Members of Congress who left office moved into lobbying careers on K Street. After the last administration, about a quarter of senior cabinet officials also moved into private employment as lobbyists.
The greatest loophole in the law is that former officials can be hired by lobbying firms immediately after leaving office to plan, strategize and oversee lobbying campaigns. They are only prevented from making "lobbying contacts" - direct contacts such as picking up the telephone and calling their former colleagues.
It is essential to include "lobbying activities" as defined by LDA - work for compensation specifically intended at the time it is being done to facilitate a lobbying contact - in the scope of "lobbying" that is prohibited during the cooling off period.
Former public officials can certainly join law firms or public relations firms, write books, give speeches, and pursue all other legitimate career opportunities. But it is important to the public interest that they refrain from working as paid lobbyists and engaging in lobbying activities during the cooling off period. Otherwise the revolving door, which raises so much public suspicion about conflicts of interest, will not slow.
We urge the House to join the Senate in doing what the 1989 ethics law intended: prevent very senior public officials from exploiting their public service by becoming lobbyists for an appropriate period of time after leaving office.
Campaign Legal Center
Common Cause
Democracy 21
League of Women Voters
Public Citizen
U.S. PIRG
Feb. 6, 2007 -- Reform Groups Send Letter to Ethics Taskforce Chairman Capuano Urging Support for Office of Public Integrity Representative Michael Capuano
1530 Longworth House Office Building
Washington , DC 20515
Dear Representative Capuano,
Our organizations believe it is essential to establish a professional, nonpartisan enforcement entity to help enforce the House ethics rules. We believe that such an ethics enforcement entity is the lynchpin for all other ethics reforms adopted in this Congress.
Enclosed for your information is a summary of the elements that our organizations believe are essential to establishing an effective and publicly credible new ethics enforcement entity. As a member of the Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement, we urge you to support the creation of such an enforcement entity.
We look forward to the opportunity to work with you on this critical ethics issue.
Campaign Legal Center
Common Cause
Democracy 21
League of Women Voters
Public Citizen
U.S. PIRG
Establishing an Office of Public Integrity to Help Enforce
the House Ethics Rules
It is essential to establish a nonpartisan, professional enforcement entity with real authority to help enforce the House ethics rules. This reform is the lynchpin for all other ethics reforms. An Office of Public Integrity should be created with the following essential elements:
- The Office of Public Integrity should have the authority to receive and investigate outside complaints and to initiate and conduct investigations on its own authority, where the Office determines that a matter requires investigation.
The Office should have the powers necessary to conduct investigations, including the authority to administer oaths, and to issue and enforce subpoenas. The subject of any investigation should have the opportunity to present information to the Office to show that no violation has occurred. The Office should have the authority to dismiss frivolous complaints expeditiously and to impose sanctions for filing such complaints.
- The Office of Public Integrity should be headed by a Director or by a three-member panel, should have a professional, impartial staff and should have the resources necessary to carry out the Office's responsibilities.
If the Office is headed by a Director, the Director should be chosen jointly by the Speaker and Minority Leader. If the Office is headed by a panel, the panel should consist of three members, with one member chosen by the Speaker, one member chosen by the Minority Leader and the third member chosen by the other two members.
- The Office's Director or panel members should be individuals of distinction with experience as judges, ethics officials or in law enforcement, should not be Members or former Members, should have term appointments and should be subject to removal only for cause by joint agreement of the Speaker and Minority Leader.
- The Office should have the authority to present a case to the House Ethics Committee for its decision, based on the same standard that is currently used to determine when a case should be presented to the Committee. The Ethics Committee would be responsible for determining if ethics rules have been violated and what, if any, sanctions should be imposed or recommended to the House. A public report should be issued on the disposition of a case by the Ethics Committee. The Office should have the authority to recommend sanctions to the Committee, if the Committee determines an ethics violation had occurred.
- The Office should receive, monitor and oversee financial disclosure, travel and other reports filed by Members and staff, to ensure that reports are properly filed and to make the reports public in a timely and easily accessible manner. The Office should have the same authority for lobbying reports filed under the Lobbying Disclosure Act.
This list of essential elements for an Office of Public Integrity is supported by the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG.
Feb. 5, 2007 -- Reform Groups Urge House Members to Support Disclosure by Lobbyists of Bundled Contributions Reform groups sent a letter today to House Members urging them to support in lobbying reform legislation a requirement that lobbyists disclose the contributions they ''bundle'' for members of Congress and other recipients.
To read the full letter, click here.
Jan. 23, 2007 -- "Bundling" Legislation Even More Vital as Candidates Abandon Public Financing: Statement of Meredith McGehee, Campaign Legal Center Policy Director The Campaign Legal Center commends Representatives Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Marty Meehan (D-MA) for introducing legislation today to ensure disclosure of "bundling" of campaign contributions by registered lobbyists.
To read the full statement, click here.
Jan. 23, 2007 -- Reform Groups Urge Members to Co-Sponsor and Vote for Van Hollen-Meehan ''Bundling'' Reform groups sent a letter to House members urging them to co-sponsor and vote for the legislation, to be introduced today by Representatives Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Marty Meehan (D-MA), to require lobbyists to disclose ''bundled'' contributions.
To read the full letter, click here.
Jan. 19, 2007 -- Senate Passage of Lobbying & Ethics Reform Bill: Statement of Meredith McGehee, Campaign Legal Center Policy Director We are both relieved and pleased that the ethics and lobbying reform bill passed the Senate tonight. Clearly the American people are not willing to accept the status quo and the message they delivered on Election Day was heard by their elected officials.
To read the full statement, click here.
Jan. 18, 2007 -- Senate Attempt to Derail Lobbying & Ethics Reform: Statement of Meredith McGehee, Campaign Legal Center Yesterday Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) threw a grenade in the wheelhouse of lobbying and ethics reform. Joined by all but two of his fellow Republicans in the Senate, the Minority Leader led a cynical effort to kill legislation demanded by voters in November to clean up Washington.
To read the full statement, click here.
Jan. 18, 2007 -- Statement by Reform Groups on Senate Vote Yesterday to Block Ethics and Lobbying Reform Legislation No one should be confused about what happened yesterday in the Senate on ethics and lobbying reform legislation.
Forty-five Republican Senators voted to obstruct and kill the strongest ethics and lobbying reform legislation since the Watergate scandals three decades ago.
To read the full statement, click here.
Jan. 17, 2007 -- Position of Reform Groups on Key Amendments to Senate Ethics and Lobbying Reform Legislation Reform groups sent a chart to Senators summarizing their position on key pending amendments to the Senate ethics and lobbying reform legislation.
To see the positions of the reform groups, click here.
Jan. 17, 2007 -- Reform Groups Urge Senators to Vote Against Bennett Amendment to Strike "Astroturf" Disclosure Provision Reform groups urged Senators today to vote against the Bennett amendment which would strike a critical disclosure provision from the Reid-McConnell substitute that requires professional ''Astroturf'' lobbying firms to report the amounts they spend to conduct ''Astroturf'' lobbying campaigns.
To read the full letter, click here.
Jan. 17, 2007 -- Reform Groups Urge Senators to Vote for Feingold Amendment Reform groups sent a letter today urging Senators to vote today for the Feingold amendment to the Reid-McConnell substitute.
To read the full letter, click here.
Jan. 17, 2007 -- Reform Groups Urge Senators to Vote for Obama-Feingold Disclosure Amendment The Obama-Feingold amendment would require lobbyists and lobbying organizations to disclose the contributions they collect or arrange for federal officeholders and candidates, leadership PACs and party committees.
To read the full letter, click here.
Jan. 17, 2007 -- Reform Groups Urge Senators to Vote Tonight to Invoke Cloture on Reid-McConnell Substitute Reform groups urged Senators to vote tonight to invoke cloture on the Reid-McConnell substitute.
To read the full letter, click here.
Jan. 16, 2007 -- Reform Groups Urge Senators to Vote for Cloture on Reid Amendment Reform groups sent a letter today urging Senators to vote today for cloture on the Reid amendment to the Reid-McConnell substitute.
To read the full letter, click here.
Jan. 12, 2007 -- Reform Groups Urge Senators to Support DeMint Amendment Reform groups sent a letter today to all Senators urging them to support the DeMint amendment providing for public disclosure of earmarks.
To read the full letter, click here.
Jan. 12, 2007 -- Reform Groups Urge Senators to Support Key Strengthening Amendments to Ethics and Lobbying Bill Reform groups sent today urging Senators to support a series of key amendments to the Reid-McConnell substitute to strengthen the ethics and lobbying bill now pending before the Senate.
To read the full letter, click here.
Jan. 10, 2007 -- Legal Center Sends Senators Memo on Astroturf Lobbying The Campaign Legal Center today sent a memorandum to all Senators analyzing the constitutionality of the astroturf lobbying provisions in S. 1, the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007. These provisions would require lobbying firms to disclose paid efforts to stimulate "grassroots" lobbying. This disclosure requirement does not apply to organizations communicating with their own members. As this memo makes clear, the astroturf lobbying language in this bill easily passes constitutional muster.
The astroturf lobbying provision in S. 1 will increase transparency and provide a more accurate record of paid lobbying efforts made to influence specific legislative actions in Congress. The Campaign Legal Center strongly urges you to oppose any efforts to weaken or strip these provisions from S. 1.
To read the full letter, click here.
Jan. 9, 2007 -- Reform Groups Urge Senators to Support Reid Amendment to Reid-McConnell Substitute On January 9, 2007, reform groups sent a letter to Senators to support the amendment offered by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to the Reid-McConnell substitute, which is currently pending on the Senate floor.
To read the full letter, click here.
Jan. 8, 2007 -- Groups Urge Senate to Adopt Strong Ethics Reform The Campaign Legal Center joined Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG by urging the Senate to pass ethics reform legislation this week that are as strong as those passed by the House last week.
To read the full letter, click here.
Jan. 4, 2007 -- Speaker Pelosi Makes Commendable Start to Ethics Overhaul: Statement of Meredith McGehee, Campaign Legal Center Policy Director The overwhelming passage of the changes in the House ethics rules represents a bold first step to overhauling the discredited ethics process in Congress.
To read the full statement, click here.
Jan. 4, 2007 -- Statement by Reform Groups on the Adoption of New Ethics Rules Today by the House The House took a major step forward today in adopting a strong package of new ethics rules to govern the conduct of Members and staff.
To read the full release, click here.
Jan. 3, 2007 -- House Ethics Reforms Represent Encouraging Start: Statement of Meredith McGehee, Campaign Legal Center Policy Director The rules changes announced today are a strong and credible start on Speaker Pelosi's promises to end the "culture of corruption" in Washington. But without legitimate enforcement, these rules alone will not be sufficient to change the way business is done on Capitol Hill.
To read the full statement, click here.
|
