ALERT
May 18, 2006
House Passes More Modest Ethics and Lobbying Reform
Legislation Than Senate, Conference Talks Next
The House of Representatives on May 3, 2006 narrowly passed an
ethics and lobbying reform bill (H.R. 4975). Like the Senate bill
passed on March 29, 2006 (S. 2349), the House bill would change
rules for gifts, travel, and lobbying disclosure. While the House
bill would stiffen penalties on lobbyists more than the Senate
bill and some of its provisions are similar to those in the Senate
bill, overall the House bill’s reforms are generally viewed as more
modest. A copy of our recent Alert on the Senate-passed ethics
and lobbying reform bill can be found at: http://www.pgerm.com/
publications/pubDetail.asp?id=705. Note this Alert includes a
correction regarding the application of the Senate gift exceptions.
A number of key differences between the two bills remain to be
addressed in conference. House Speaker Hastert indicated on May
17 that he intends to name House conferees before the Memorial
Day recess (which starts on May 26). The Senate is expected to
follow suit by naming its conferees shortly after the House does.
Anchorage
Portland
Beijing
Coeur d’Alene
San Francisco
Seattle
The actual conference discussions on the ethics and lobbying
reform legislation would start in June or later.
The House bill would make changes to House rules as well as
to laws such as the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 and the
federal bribery statute. These changes would take effect upon
the bill’s enactment, unless otherwise noted below. Because
the internal rules changes are incorporated within a bill that
must be signed by the President, none of the provisions of the
bill – including those rules changes – will take effect until the
President signs the bill into law. However, the House Committee
on Standards of Official Conduct has already implemented an
interim process for voluntary certification of privately funded
travel.
Hong Kong
Orange County
Spokane
Taipei
Washington DC
continued.....
www.pgerm.com
ALERT
May 18, 2006
The House bill would:
•
require lobbyists to file electronic reports on a quarterly basis
(rather than semiannually) and disclose political contributions
and gifts on those reports;
•
increase penalties for lobbyists who fail to comply with the new
reporting requirements;
•
establish for the first time penalties for lobbyists and clients who
knowingly offer gifts that violate House rules;
•
require prior written approval for all privately funded travel
related to official duties;
•
prohibit lobbyists from accompanying Members and staff on
corporate flights;
•
make the appropriations earmarking process more transparent;
•
restrict the use of leadership PAC funds;
•
require eight hours of ethics training for lobbyists every two years,
as well as mandatory ethics training for House staff and optional
training for House Members; and
•
subject certain 527 organizations to Federal Election Commission
(FEC) regulation.
Gift and Travel Reforms
Unlike the Senate bill, which generally prohibits a registered lobbyist
from giving and a Senator or his staff from accepting gifts and meals
from lobbyists unless a gift rule exception applies, the House bill
would leave the current rules in place – at least until the Committee
on Standards of Official Conduct reviews them and recommends
changes. The House bill also would value tickets to events at either
their face value or, if there is no face value, the value of the ticket
with the highest face value cost at the event. The House bill would
hold lobbyists and clients liable (for a civil penalty of up to $50,000)
for knowingly offering gifts to House Members or staff in violation of
House rules.
Like the Senate bill, the House bill would require that proposed trip
itineraries be submitted to its chamber’s ethics committee for prior
approval. However, unlike the Senate bill, in the House bill, the private
trip sponsor (not the Member or staffer) would have to seek such
approval. The House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has
already implemented an interim process for voluntary certification of
privately funded travel. Once the bill becomes law and until the
House Committee develops standards for mandatory approval,
which are due by June 15, 2006, a two-thirds vote of the Committee
would be required to approve a trip. Unlike the Senate bill, the
House bill would not ban registered lobbyists from accompanying
Members and staff on such trips, or from planning, arranging or
organizing a Member or staff trip. The House bill does, however,
prohibit lobbyists from accompanying Members and staff on
corporate flights.
Earmark Reforms
It would not be in order for the House to consider an appropriations
bill reported by the Appropriations Committee unless the report
included a list of earmarks in the bill or report (and their
congressional sponsors). Similarly, it would not be in order for
the House to consider a conference report to an appropriations bill
unless the joint explanatory statement included a list of earmarks
(and their congressional sponsors) in the conference report or the
joint statement that was added in conference and not listed in
another report. The House bill would define earmarks as provisions
that require or recommend a specific amount of funding to a nonFederal entity if the entity is specifically identified or if the funding
is allocated outside the normal formula or competitive process and
directed to a specific person, congressional district or State.
The Senate bill contains a similar earmark transparency provision
that would apply not only to appropriations bills or conference
reports, but also to authorizing and revenue bills or conference
reports.
Post-Employment Restrictions
Unlike the Senate bill, the House bill would not tighten the current
restrictions on Members, staff and senior Executive Branch officials
lobbying their former colleagues. The Senate bill would double
to two years the statutory restrictions on former Senators, House
members and senior Executive Branch officials, and broaden
the scope of the current one-year restriction on senior Senate or
House staff earning at least 75% of Member pay. In contrast, the
House bill would merely provide for the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct to inform House Members and staff of the dates
their “cooling off” periods begin and end. Like the Senate bill, the
House bill would require Members to disclose post-employment
negotiations, but also to refrain from voting on measures where a
conflict of interest is thereby deemed to exist.
ALERT
May 18, 2006
Lobbying Disclosure Reforms
The House bill would amend the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995
(LDA) in several respects. The House bill, like the Senate bill, would
require lobbyists to file reports electronically on a quarterly rather than
semiannual basis, and would require reports to be made available
online within 48 hours. Whereas the Senate bill would require
disclosure of all past Executive Branch or Congressional positions held
by a lobbyist, the House bill would require disclosure of such positions
going back seven years (vs. the current two-year requirement). In
addition, the House bill would require LDA registrants to disclose
information about their and their lobbyists’ other activities in the
quarterly reports, specifically the following:
•
•
•
all political contributions by the registrant, its PAC, and its
registered lobbyists that are required to be reported to the FEC
(the Senate bill would require an annual report from lobbyists on
their contributions and the political fundraisers they hosted or
sponsored);
all gifts by the registrant and its registered lobbyists to Senators,
House Members, and their staff that count toward the annual gift
limits, meaning gifts of $10 or more (the Senate bill would require
disclosure of gifts above $20); and
all funds contributed by a registrant and its registered lobbyists
to organizations named for, or established, financed, maintained,
or controlled by, a Senator, House Member, or their staff (the
Senate bill contains a similar provision that would also require
disclosure of lobbyist involvement with payments for trips and
certain events and meetings).
Like the Senate bill, the House bill would double to $100,000 the
civil penalty for a knowing violation of LDA reporting and other
requirements. In addition, however, the House bill would impose
criminal fines and imprisonment for a knowing and willful failure
to comply with those requirements. The House bill also would
subject lobbyists and clients to civil penalties up to $50,000 for
knowingly offering gifts to House Members or staff that violate
House rules. Unlike the Senate bill, the House bill contains no
provision requiring LDA disclosure of paid efforts to stimulate
grassroots lobbying.
Other House Bill Changes
The House bill also includes a number of other provisions not
present in the Senate bill:
•
loss of Senators’ and House Members’ pensions for actions
that constitute an abuse of the public trust;
•
restrictions on the use of funds by leadership PACs (applicable
after the 2006 elections);
•
Eight hours of required training for lobbyists every two years,
with non-compliance subject to new penalties under the LDA
(the Senate bill requires training for Senators and staff);
•
a modification of the federal bribery statute to make it clear
that offering a thing of value in exchange for adding an
“earmark” constitutes bribery; and
•
subjecting certain 527 organizations to FEC reporting
requirements and contribution limits (like a PAC).
TO FIND OUT MORE
If you have questions about this Alert, or any other government ethics or election law matters, please contact:
Tim Peckinpaugh
202-661-6265
timp@prestongates.com
David Thomas
202-661-3864
davidth@prestongates.com
Paul Stimers
202-661-3883
pauls@prestongates.com
Scott Nelson
202-661-3714
scottn@prestongates.com
To obtain a copy of our firm’s Guide to Political and Lobbying Activities, please contact our Marketing Department at
202-628-1700. For more information about the firm, please visit www.prestongates.com.
Disclaimer
This ALERT provides general information about lobbying and ethics reform legislation. It is not a legal opinion or legal advice. Readers should confer with
appropriate legal counsel on the application of law to their own situations. Entire contents copyrighted 2006 by Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds LLP.
Reproduction of this ALERT in whole or in part without written permission is prohibited.