Lobby Acts of 1994

When Push Comes to Shove, House Votes for Gift Ban

After months of hesitation on a lobbying bill that includes a controversial ban on gifts to members, Democratic leaders made a fairly safe bet when they sped it to the House floor March 24: At a time of deep public cynicism about politics, members were loath to vote against a bill that promised to crack down on special interests.

The move helped party leaders fill an unexpected gap in the legislative schedule, and on the eve of a two week recess, the prospect of bringing home a newly passed "reform" bill enabled Democrats to overrule internal objections and quash Republican protestations that they were being steamrollered.

Though the bill had been stymied for months by bipartisan opposition to the gift provisions, the floor debate was starkly partisan.

"Do you folks want to join us in making it against the law for a lobbyist to buy a free meal for a member of Congress or not?" Texas Democrat John Bryant, the lead sponsor of the bill, demanded, looking at Republicans.

The tactic proved effective. After surviving a key procedural test, the bill (S 349, amended With a revised version of Bryant’s bill, HR 823) sailed to passage on a 315–110 vote and now moves on to conference with the Senate. (Vote 90, p. 768)

The bill updates and strengthens the 1946 lobbying disclosure law, which for years has been derided as ineffective. The measure requires anyone paid to lobby members of Congress, their staffs or senior executive branch officials to register at a new Office of Lobbying Registration and Public Disclosure.

Virtually identical to the Senate bill, the lobbying provisions of the bill never generated much controversy. The same cannot be said of the gift language, which was alternately described as loophole-laden and so overly restrictive that members could accidentally run afoul of the law by lunching with constituents.

The bill would ban registered lobbyists from giving members gifts, meals or entertainment. It would, however, allow clients of lobbyists to buy meals for members and permit members to accept free travel for charity functions. Both activities would have to be disclosed.

The Senate is scheduled to take up far more restrictive gift ban legislation in May. The sponsors of that bill (S 1935), Democratic Sens. Paul Wellstone, Minn., and Frank R. Lautenberg, N.J., say they will try to get a vote on their bill before the conference on S 349 concludes.

Republicans Protest the Process

For a while, it looked as if the lobbying disclosure bill would have to wait until after the spring recess. But when Democrats gave up their effort to finish a crime bill, a hole was left in the House schedule, and Democratic leaders rushed the disclosure bill to the floor.

They chose an unusual route, however, one that made passage more difficult. On March 23, they tried to get consent to bring the bill up the following day under a procedure known as suspension of the rules, which requires a two-thirds vote for the bill rather than a simple majority.

Republicans objected. They complained that the bill had not been considered by the full Judiciary Committee and that the procedure—usually reserved for non-controversial measures—prohibited amendments and allowed each side only 20 minutes for debate.

That objection required the House to approve a rule allowing the bill to be considered under suspension. Though the citizens lobbying group Common Cause sharply criticized provisions that would allow members to accept privately funded travel and to steer contributions to favorite charities, Democrats said they were faced with a choice between a good though imperfect bill or none at all.

"This is not perfect legislation, but it moves us in the right direction," said Thomas M. Barrett, D-Wis., one of several freshmen to speak.

Virtually every Democrat who spoke in behalf of the bill cited a need to assuage public concern about the influence of special interests on Congress.

"There is in some quarters of public opinion a belief—I think a wrong belief—that we are unduly influenced by the provision of meals or entertainment," said Speaker Thomas S. Foley, D-Wash., in an unusual floor statement supporting the rule.

Republicans argued strenuously against the process that denied them a chance to amend the bill. They also argued that full disclosure of gifts, meals and travel payments by lobbyists was preferable to a complex set of rules to restrict activities that Democrats and Republicans say are not improper.

"It sets up certain criteria that leave us vulnerable to charges for totally innocent situations," said Tom DeLay, R-Texas.

"I do not think we should legislate on the basis of public perception," said Hamilton Fish Jr., R-N.Y., "particularly when it is legislation as illconceived and as flawed as this."

But public perception seemed to be the order of the day. The rule, which needed a simple majority for approval, won on a 221–202 vote, with the help of nine Republicans. When the bill came up for final passage, 16 Democrats and 101 Republicans who had voted against the rule switched to vote for the bill. Twenty-four Democrats who supported the rule opposed the bill. (Vote 89, p. 768)

Lobbying and Gift Provisions

Sponsors say the lobbying disclosure provisions are the crux of the bill, and they say they tried to balance a desire to reveal the identities and clients of paid lobbyists without requiring registration by every person who contacts a government official or comes to Washington for a meeting.

The final House bill included several minor amendments to the version approved by Bryant’s Judiciary subcommittee Nov. 22. One was designed to enhance disclosure of lobbyists retained by foreign interests; another established that if a person retained a lobbyist on behalf of another person or entity, both parties would be considered the lobbyist’s clients.

Following are highlights, which are similar to the Senate bill:

• Registration would be required for any organization that spends or receives more than $2,500 from all clients it lobbies for.
  
  
• Lobbying contacts would be defined as any communications with congressional members, aides or high-level executive branch officials with regard to legislation or official actions, including money spent on grass-roots campaigns.
  
  
• Any organization that employs a lobbyist would have to file a report covering all of its lobbying activities.
  
  
• Reports would be required twice a year specifying clients, lobbyists, amounts spent or received, issues involved, agencies and committees contacted and interests of foreign affiliates.