The Frustrating Lack of Facts on Lobbying Bills

This is the kinds of articles by the press that just drive me nuts. What is more infruriating is that Jeffrey Birnbaum has covered Washington and the lobbying world for a long time (he has even written several books on the subject), he knows how the system works. By calling the campaign finance activity a "loophole" he characterizes the lobbying reform bills being bandied about as deeply flawed.

Lawmakers are about to bombard the American public with proposals that would crack down on lobbyists. Several prominent plans, including one outlined yesterday by House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), would specifically ban meals and privately paid travel for lawmakers.

Or would they?

According to lobbyists and ethics experts, even if Hastert's proposal is enacted, members of Congress and their staffs could still travel the world on an interest group's expense and eat steak on a lobbyist's account at the priciest restaurants in Washington.

The only requirement would be that whenever a lobbyist pays the bill, he or she must also hand the lawmaker a campaign contribution. Then the transaction would be perfectly okay.

"That's a big hole if they don't address campaign finance," said Joel Jankowsky, the lobbying chief of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, one of the capital's largest lobbying outfits.

The plans offered by Republican leaders yesterday would change two of the three areas of law or regulation that govern lobbyists' behavior: the congressional rules that limit gifts to lawmakers and the laws that dictate the amount of disclosure that lobbyists must give the public.

A third major area -- campaign finance laws -- would go untouched, an omission that amounts to a gaping loophole in efforts to distance lobbyists from the people they are paid to influence.

Okay, it is about to get a little technical here.

Birnbaum is suggesting that lawmakers will have lavish dinners with lobbyists and then get a campaign check. That is not going to happen. Right now, the most efficient way for lawmakers to raise funds for re-election is to hold fundraising events, dinners, receptions and the like. A dinner or lunch with a single lobbyist is not going to raise the cash--nor do lawmakers have the time, stomachs or constitutions for such a fundraising operation, other wise every lawmaker will look like Jabba the Hut after all those meals.

So that leaves fundraising events. These events are paid in two ways--first, by the lawmaker's campaign or by the PAC/Lobbyist hosting the event. If the lawmaker pays the freight, then she may spend as much as she would like--because those expenses, even though they have no limit, are fully reportable to the FEC.

The second option is for the PAC/lobbyist to host the event. Let us say, a PAC is the host. By law they can only contribute $5,000 per election to a candidate. The PAC could give a check for $5,000 or a combination of goods/services and cash, totaling $5,000. Thus if the PAC holds the event and picks up the tab, and the tab cannot exceed $5,000 without violating the law. If the PAC pays travel and other expenses for the lawmaker to attend the fundraising event, that is an in-kind contribution, also limited to $5,000 per election. All of these contributions, since they exceed the $200 minimum are reportable both by the PAC and by the candidate--that is teh current law.

If a lobbyist himself pays the freight, he is limited to $2,100 per election. If you have a bunch of people over for a swanky dinner, you have to watch the cost.

For those with a little more knowledge of campaign finance law may point to independent expenditures as the method to avoid PAC and individual limits. True a PAC or an individual may spend as much as they would like on an independent expenditure, but by definition, if the candidate is at the event (why else have the event), they will know about it and independent expenditures don't apply.

Now the real problem with campaign finance and lobbying is the fundraising done by lobbyists for candidates. This is what Jack Abramoff has done, hosted events or encourages his clients to give to campaigns. This, in and of itself, is not illegal--ever heard of the Bush Pioneers or Rangers? Could some additional disclosure work in this area? I doubt it. One think to keep in mind is that, while Lobbyists may help raise funds, many of her clients may already be disposed to giving to that law maker. How does one prove that the lobbyist is solely, or even partially, responsible for a contribution from PAC A to candidate B. Good luck trying to prove that causal connection.

Part of the problem with lobbying reform and campaign finance is that the two work so closely together that it is nearly impossible to classify an activity as falling into one or the other. Does lobbying occur at fundraisers--you bet!! That activity is not covered under the lobbying laws. But a simple change in the lobbying rules could reverse that.

So Birnbaum's insinuations lack merit--and he knows it! There are no loopholes here, campaign finance activity is subject to stricter reporting rules than lobbying. Could each set of rules be altered to cover fundraising activity by lobbyists, sure, and that could happen through the legislative process, but to insinuate that current reform efforts have such a large loophole is disingenuous at best and downright false at worse.