WWW.WATCHDOG.ORG.PL
th
th
OMB Watch, a nonprofit research and advocacy organization, was formed in 1983 to lift the veil of secrecy shrouding the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). OMB oversees federal regulation, the budget, information collection and dissemination, proposed legislation, testimony by agencies, and much more. While OMB's actions were having an enormous impact on agency operations and the pursuit of social justice, it remained largely behind the scenes — unaccountable and little understood by the public and public interest groups. By explaining governmental processes and monitoring OMB, OMB Watch helped bring sunshine to this powerful and secretive agency.
Since its founding, OMB Watch has expanded its focus to address the substantive issues the organization originally began tracking in the course of monitoring OMB:
 Federal budget, taxation, and government performance;
 Information and access;
 Nonprofit action, advocacy, policy, and technology; and
 Regulatory policy
OMB Watch exists to increase government transparency and accountability; to ensure sound, equitable regulatory and budgetary processes and policies; and to protect and promote active citizen participation in our democracy. OMB Watch envisions a more just and democratic society, one in which an open, responsive government protects people’s health, safety, and wellbeing, safeguards the environment, honors the public’s right to information, values an engaged and effective citizenry, and adequately invests in the common good.
Importance of Advocacy
The nonprofit sector plays a key role in our society today. In partnership with government, nonprofit organizations are engaged in service delivery, research, educating the public, and much more -- in general, they work to build a better world, at home and abroad. People across the country use nonprofit organizations to learn more about key issues of the day, and to link up with other citizens to create a more powerful voice. Nonprofit organizations themselves also speak to policy-makers and the public on behalf of the people they serve. Advocacy by the nonprofit sector has led to significant improvements in people's lives at all levels of government.
Advocacy is widely pursued among U.S. watchdogs and non-profits. In survey we recently did of hundreds of groups, roughly three of four nonprofits say they have engaged at least once in key types of public policy activity such as direct or grassroots lobbying or testifying at a legislative or administrative hearing. This was considerably higher than predicted. For example
78% of nonprofits report that they have encouraged their members to write, call, fax or email policymakers; 74% report that they have lobbied on behalf of or against a proposed bill or other policy pronouncement; and 71% report that they have testified at legislative or administrative hearings.
1

WWW.WATCHDOG.ORG.PL
Advocacy can also go by another name – lobbying. However, there is a strong and growing stigma attached to the "L" word—lobbying. Nonprofits do not like to use the word "lobbying," even when they are doing it. Repeated scandals involving high powered lobbyists and gifts, money, trips for public officials for special treatment has severely tarnished the public’s perception of lobbying as an activity. In focus groups we have run, participants went out of their way to avoid using the word. One executive preferred to call it "impact analysis." Another described a lobby campaign to get a state spending bill passed, but claimed that they do not lobby. Many board members and foundations had a negative attitude toward "lobbying," but felt more comfortable with "educating" policymakers, even when it described activities that would be considered lobbying.
There is great variation in how nonprofits interpret words that are used to describe public policy participation, particularly the words "lobbying," "advocacy," and "educating." For example, roughly one-third of nonprofits (34%) on our survey report "lobbying" two or more times a month. However, when a different word was substituted on the same question, nearly half of the respondents report either "advocating" or "educating" government officials two or more times a month: 45% report "advocating," and 47% report "educating."
Lobbying is the practice of trying to persuade legislators to propose, pass, or defeat legislation or to change existing laws. A lobbyist may work for a group, organization, or industry, and presents information on legislative proposals to support his or her clients' interests. But in the most basic sense lobbying is simply the exercising of free speech in which viewpoints are expressed to government officials.
By banding together to speak collectively, members and supporters of nonprofit organizations enhance the exercise of their free speech rights. Particularly when addressing controversial issues, such organizations play a critical role in permitting effective advocacy. Viewpoints that might otherwise go unvoiced can compete in the "marketplace of ideas," and be evaluated on their merits. It is a fundamental tenet of free speech that allowing many ideas to be heard and considered is inherently beneficial. Any action that would inhibit the expression of ideas should only be taken if it advances a truly compelling countervailing interest, and should be narrowly focused to limit as little speech as possible.
History of Lobbying
In the United States lobbyists have been at work from the earliest days of Congress. William
Hull was hired by the Virginia veterans of the Continental army to lobby for additional compensation for their war services. In the early days of the United States, tariff legislation had a great economic impact and stimulated the greatest amount of lobbying. Some of the earliest lobbyists were actually newspaper reporters hired by merchants and shippers to report back on specific tariff legislation and fight for their employers' interests.
In the 1850s, the gun maker Samuel Colt sought passage of a bill to extend his pistol patent for seven years. A congressional investigation later disclosed that, in addition to staging lavish entertainments for wavering senators, Colt provided pistols to members, including one to the
2

WWW.WATCHDOG.ORG.PL young son of a congressman. The expansion of railroads and the monopolies that controlled them in the second half of the 19 th
century further increased the presence of lobbyists in Congress, all seeking federal subsidies and land grants to further their clients' interests.
Lobbyists provided many useful services to members as the nation, and its interests, expanded during the 19 th
century. As the issues themselves became more complex, members of congress relied on lobbyists to educate and explain the impacts of the legislation under consideration.
Lobbyists analyzed bills, prepared arguments, drafted speeches, contacted committee members, and orchestrated grassroots campaigns in favor of their bills.
Importance of Transparency
People tend not to trust what is hidden. Transparency is a powerful tool to demonstrate to the public that the government is spending our money wisely, that politicians are not in the pocket of lobbyists and specials interest groups, that government is operating in an accountable manner, and that decisions are made to ensure the safety and protection of all.
Transparency can be a powerful tool in advancing government accountability. It may also be a means for strengthening public participation in government decision making, further enhancing accountability. Government needs to be more responsive to public needs and should involve the public in decisions. A more informed and engaged electorate also leads to more trust in our government. Moreover, citizens who are engaged and aware can contribute valuable ideas, resulting in better, more efficient, more successful public policies.
Open government initiatives confront strong incentives in government to keep information secret and weak incentives to disclose. As one person put it, no one in government ever got promoted for disclosing information. Instead, government employees have a strong incentive not to share or disclose information; for fear that such information will embarrass the agency or spur a controversy that may eventually result in reprimand, demotion, or discharge.
This is not a criticism of all civil service staff, many of whom support and work hard to promote government transparency. Rather, it is a statement that the culture of secrecy within government is a persistent problem that has existed for a long time. Unfortunately it is a problem that leaves government vulnerable to unethical influence when the secrecy intersects the money of lobbying.
Transparency Comes to Lobbying
Throughout the early period of U.S. history money and gifts were applied to sway votes. As lobbying became perceived as dangerous and a corrupting influence, Congress responded with a variety of reforms. This led to the first effort to regulate lobbyists in 1876 when the House required all lobbyists to register with the clerk of the House.
Slowly but surely, lobbying reforms were enacted, many of which leveraged disclosure and transparency to reduce conflicts of interest and unfair influence of money in politics.
3

WWW.WATCHDOG.ORG.PL
Democrats and progressive Republicans prevailed on the Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate lobbying activities in 1913, and each senator publicly revealed any personal finances that might benefit from a change in the tariff. In 1919, Congress prohibited any lobbying effort with appropriated funds. This move was designed to prevent agency officials from conducting public relations campaigns, such as stimulating letters and telegrams, in order to influence the passage of legislation.
Congress was willing to regulate lobbying on an industry-by-industry basis, adding registration provisions to the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 and the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938.
At the same time, many states enacted lobbying disclosure laws. Almost ten years later,
Congress passed the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act in 1946, which began the major disclosure requirements for lobbyists.
Under the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act, lobbyists were defined as any person "who by himself, or through any agent or employee or other persons in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, solicits, collects, or receives money or any other thing of value to be used principally . . . to influence, directly or indirectly, the passage or defeat of any legislation by the
Congress of the United States." Lobbyists were required to register their name, address, salary, and expenses with the secretary of the Senate and the clerk of the House, and to file quarterly reports on funds received or spent and other details of lobbying activities (including "to whom and for what purpose" those funds were paid, "the names of newspapers and magazines in which the lobbyist 'caused to be published' articles or editorials," and the proposed legislation the lobbyist was employed to support or oppose). Lobbyists were also required to keep detailed accounts of all contributions of five hundred dollars or more made to members of Congress.
Criminal penalties were assigned for any violation of this act.
Eventually Congress passed the Lobby Disclosure Act (LDA) in 1995 requiring organizations to register if their employee/lobbyists meet two conditions. First, the organization must have one or more compensated employees who engage in federal "lobbying," defined as a person who spends at least 20 percent of her time on "lobbying activities" over a 6-month period. Second, an organization must spend, in total expenses for its lobbying activities, $24,500 in a 6-month period. This also includes money spent on outside lobbyists.
Organizations meeting the criteria above are required to file semi-annual reports identifying the lobbyist/s, clients and employers, and the issues discussed in "lobbying contacts." The provisions of the LDA currently cover only activities described as "direct lobbying," omitting any reference to "grassroots lobbying." Direct lobbying covers communication between the lobbyist and officials and their staff who are subject to the law. Grassroots lobbying is defined in tax law as a "call to action," such as an action alert sent to the general public. Organizations that only engage in grassroots lobbying are not covered by the LDA.
Recent Scandals Lead to Greater Disclosure
It seems determined individuals will always find a way around restrictions and in recent years lobbying scandals demonstrated that despite the decades of developing policies to prevent abuse of power and influence by lobbyists, more work was needed. The prime example was the
4

WWW.WATCHDOG.ORG.PL
Abramoff scandal. Lobbyists Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon pocketed millions of dollars in fees charged to the Mississippi tribe of Choctaw Indians. The fees were supposed to pay for lobbying and public education efforts on behalf of the tribe's casino gaming operations. The lobbyists routed money through donations to nonprofit groups they controlled or on whose board they sat. They used these groups as intermediaries, with subgrants going to other nonprofits and consulting firms they controlled, and ultimately into their pockets. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), then chair of the Indian Affairs Committee, called the scandal "simply and sadly a tale of betrayal." The nonprofit groups that received the donations also sponsored expensive trips for elected officials. Scanlon and Abramoff both pleaded guilty to a variety of charges related to the scheme. Abramoff pleaded guilty to three felony counts — conspiracy, fraud, and tax evasion.
This abuse, and other recent cases of professional lobbyists using nonprofits to avoid ethics and disclosure rules, has raised questions about the need for greater transparency and oversight of the identity of donors and of financial transactions between groups.
As a result of these recent lobbying scandals, Congress passed the “Honest Leadership and Open
Government Act” (“HLOGA”), which was signed into law Sept. 14, 2007. HLOGA amended the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 and enhanced registration and reporting requirements that apply to lobbyists. Under HLOGA, lobbyists must determine whether registration is required based on the amount of time and money spent by an organization on lobbying efforts. If they qualify, lobbyists must register with the House and the Senate by submitting a form indicating the name and address of their organization and a description of lobbying activities and funding.
Then the lobbyists file quarterly lobbying reports with the House and Senate, regardless of the amount of lobbying activities.
The law also requires lobbyists to file semi-annual reports of political contributions to the House,
Senate, and, under other laws, to the Federal Election Commission. Organizations required to register as lobbyists must disclose political contributions they make, as well as any contributions made by an employing entity, such as a political action committee (PAC). All reports require mandatory electronic filing. Each registrant and listed lobbyist must obtain user identification numbers and passwords from a government-operated website.
Government Disclosure
I want to also make it clear that not all of the disclosure and reporting burden should fall on lobbyists and advocates. In truth, government should take as much of the transparency burden on itself as possible and only require what is absolutely necessary from lobbyists to avoid unethical behavior and ensure accountability for their activities.
Each year, members of Congress, candidates for federal office, senior congressional staff, nominees for executive branch positions, Cabinet members, the president and vice president and
Supreme Court justices are required by the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to file annual reports disclosing their personal finances. Compliance and enforcement of this requirement is overseen by the congressional ethics committees, the ethics offices of government agencies and, in the case of executive branch officials, the U.S. Office of Government Ethics. The reporting includes earned and unearned income (excluding their government salaries, oddly), assets and
5

WWW.WATCHDOG.ORG.PL related transactions, liabilities, contributions made in lieu of honoraria, gifts received, nongovernmental positions held, travel that was paid for or for which the filer was reimbursed, and various agreements into which the filer has entered. Information relating to the spouse and dependent children of the filer is also reported in many cases.
In some ways lawmakers' finances look a lot like those of many Americans. They include diverse portfolios of stocks, bonds, mutual funds and real estate. They have bank accounts, credit cards and mortgages, just like a lot of people. The difference is: politicians have more money and—unlike the people they represent—they have to make their investments public.
With the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), Congress attempted to establish comprehensive regulations on the way American political campaigns for Congress and the presidency raise money and disclose the amount and sources of contributions. The law seeks to guarantee that election results and government policies reflect the public will and national interest rather than the demands of a relatively small group of major campaign contributors.
Under FECA federal candidates running for the House of Representatives, the presidency or the vice presidency file quarterly reports with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) disclosing contributions and expenditures, which must be itemized if they amount to more than $200.
Senate candidates file with the Secretary of the Senate, which then forwards the reports to the
FEC. The agency regulates public financing of presidential campaigns and can seek fines against campaigns that violate campaign finance laws.
There have been numerous recent proposals to expand the required transparency of government officials. For example, the Sunlight Foundation, a nonprofit organization seeking to use technology to increase transparency, launched a project called the Punch Clock Campaign. The idea was to have officials post their calendars online so their constituents can see with whom the officials are meeting and potentially what issues are being discussed.
A Recent Example of Using Technology
On Sept. 26, 2006, President Bush signed into law the Federal Funding Accountability and
Transparency Act, which required the Office of Management and Budget to create a searchable website of nearly all government spending by Jan. 1, 2008. The Transparency Act was the product of Sens. Tom Coburn and Barack Obama, joined by a bipartisan team including Hillary
Clinton and John McCain. The government’s website was launched in December 2007 and it allows users to easily search for particular contracts or assistance recipients and see how much money they had received over the years, from which agency, and what the money was for.
Additionally, the site allows users to get overviews of spending by agencies or geographic regions, with quickly viewed information on top recipients, products and services, level of competition, and much more. Users interested in greater detail can drill down into the data to see more specific information on each and every transaction.
The idea behind the effort was that more transparency on the money flowing out of government would not only lead to more careful spending decisions by officials but would also reduce the amount of fraud, favoritism, and mismanagement of funds. The government included an API interface for the data to allow programmers to pull spending information into other uses, such as
6

WWW.WATCHDOG.ORG.PL a Lawmaker Profiler. The profiler presents information for each member of Congress on political contributions received, earmarks sponsored, personal assets held, and federal money spent in his or her congressional district. This type of application allows users to better find questionable connections between lawmakers and special interests.
The Transparency Act has been an enormous success the website is widely used by the public, media and lawmakers alike. To strengthen it, Obama and Coburn, along with McCain and Sen.
Tom Carper, introduced legislation in the summer of 2008 that would expand the type of information available to the public, provide information about performance, and strive to improve the quality of the data. The Transparency Act has also become a model for states that wish to build similar websites. At least 11 states have created free, searchable websites that give access to state spending, and 24 other states are working toward such a goal.
Another recent example of the government using transparency to counter risks of corruption and conflicts of interest was President Obama's official transition website. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama made strong commitments to new ethical standards, with improved government transparency and accountability prominently featured. As the presidentelect's transition team busily prepared for the transfer of executive power, its use of interactive online tools has established high expectations for the next administration. The transition website, change.gov, features videos, interactive discussions, and questions. The site placed a great deal of emphasis on having interaction and participation from the public in a very transparent manner.
The site had discussion threads that received thousands of replies that anyone could review.
A major feature of the Obama transition site was a library of all materials the transition team received – all the advice, recommendations, reference materials, backgrounders, fact sheets, etc.
Each item was posted with information on who provided the item to the transition team. If groups were not willing to allow the information to be posted, then the transition team refused to accept the documents. The library also provided the public with the ability to comment on each and every document. Many recommendations sparked robust conversations among site visitors with hundreds of back and forth comments listed underneath the documents. This is an unprecedented level of transparency that not only allowed the public to know who was advocating to the new administration but exactly what those groups were advocating. This level of transparency, so long as it is implemented fully, makes it nearly impossible for secret deals to be struck or unethical influence to be exerted.
Conclusion
The root problem as we see it is not the practice of lobbying, which is a vital First Amendment right; rather the problem exists in the pervasive and corrupting influence of money on the political process. Nonprofit organizations do not stand to profit by lobbying and can provide enormous insight on public policy issues, and should be encouraged to lobby. The ultimate objective should be to ensure an open and level playing field in accessing elected leaders.
Strong lobby disclosure with meaningful enforcement with criminal penalties for noncompliance is an important part of ensuring such an open playing field. Reporting on lobbying should occur frequently and should include the cost of grassroots lobbying communications. Disclosure
7

WWW.WATCHDOG.ORG.PL requirements should help expose big money lobby efforts cloaked in misleading coalition names.
New policies should be carefully crafted to avoid creating an undue reporting burden for small nonprofits and charities.
No one policy change or action will suddenly make government completely transparent. The solution is not as simple as instituting guidance to agencies to disclose as much information as possible in response to requests, although most certainly that must be done. Government needs to better use interactive technologies; we understand the government must first be brought into the Web 2.0 world. Even if government officials expand the presumption of openness upon which they operate, there will still be a need to change the culture of secrecy prevailing in many government agencies. The solution is multi-dimensional: it requires changing the mindset and climate within government to emphasize transparency, as well as establishing the proper policy framework and building the technology capacity of government to seize the potential of the
Internet.
8