Ask the Scholar
Page 1 of 1
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
The original documents are located in Box 20, folder "Lobbying Act" of the John Marsh
Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 20 of The John Marsh Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
MAY 13 1975
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 13, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
WILLIAM SKIDMORE
FROM:
WILLIAM J. BAROODY, JR.
/s/
SUBJECT:
Testimony of Deputy Attorney General
on S. 774 and S. 815 Replacing Federal
Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946
The draft statement supplied seems designed to defend and protect
the Justice Department's lengthy explanation concerning the lack of
enforcement under the 1946 Act. The statement complains that S. 774
would vest the entire criminal enforcement authority in the Federal
Election Commission. Furthermore, Justice would not be able to
prosecute any violation, civil or criminal, unless the Commission
consented, and there is doubt cast on Justice's authority to control
Supreme Court litigation.
I do not take issue with these positions, but to confine comment on the
lengthy and far reaching provisions of this legislation to an appendix
seems to dismiss them as unimportant. They are anything but.
There are briefly three major points which I feel should be emphasized:
A. Legislation should not extend to the Executive Branch.
B. The definition of what constitues lobbying should be
made more specific, particularly because we are
dealing with a criminal law.
C. Record keeping and report requirements should be
kept to the minimum to avoid unnecessary burden
and casting a chill on communication.
-2-
Justice argues that the definition of the "Policy Making Process" should
be pared back so as to reach only lobbying intended to enlist the support
of officers and employees in the Executive Branch for or against a legis-
lative program or otherwise to influence the legislative process. This
does not appear to go far enough. No justification is offered by the
proponents of S. 774 and S. 815 why regulation of lobbying ought to be
extended to the Executive Branch in the first place. There is no
historical precedent. This seems an attempt at blanket coverage,
sweeping direct and indirect lobbying under control of this legislation
so that realistically speaking, it could be said that the bulk of citizen
communication with the Federal government would give rise to
regi stration and reporting requirements and attach the stigma of
"lobbyist" to vast numbers of the public.
I strongly recommend that Justice testify in favor of legislative branch
coverage only. The resulting reduction in paperwork, Federal and
private, would be huge; and industry is constantly complaining about
the "Federal paperwork burden."
The Justice Department testimony endorses the reporting requirements
of Section 6 of S. 815. These cover slightly more than 2-1/2 pages
(61 lines) of the bill and seem quite excessive. A lobbyist would have to
record and report: (1) each aspect of the policy making process he
sought to influence; (2) each Federal officer or employee he tried to
influence; (3) the subject matter of each oral and written communication
in which an opinion is expected or which contains information on policy-
making. The sheer burden of doing so argues against the requirement.
I think the "Policy Making Process" concept should be abandoned and
the definition of lobbying strictly limited so that in fact only overt
attempts to directly influence legislation are covered. This makes the
definition understandable, lessens the reporting and record keeping
requirements, and avoids turning off a great deal of communication
which is essential if both the Executive and Legislative Branch are to
be able to do their job effectively.
cc: John Marsh
Lobbies
LOBBY LAW NEWEST 'CLEAN GOVERNMENT' TARGET
The federal lobbying law, unchanged since 1946, has
lobbying, and anyone who fit in any of the three categories
become a major target of the "clean government" move-
would have to register.
ment and its allies in Congress.
A lobbyist would be someone who spends at least $250
Within the past year, advocates of change have
per quarter or $500 per year on lobbying, or someone who
succeeded in revising election laws and persuading con-
receives at least that much for work of which lobbying is a
gressional committees to hold most of their sessions in
substantial part, or someone who makes at least eight
public. Changing the lobby law may be even harder to ac-
separate oral communications with members or employees
complish.
of Congress or the executive branch in a quarter.
There is general agreement that the 1946 Federal Lob-
At the end of each quarter, the Stafford bill would re-
bying Act (Title III of the 1946 Legislative Reorganization
quire the lobbyist to file a public report listing each federal
Act-PL 79-601) tells the public very little about the scope
employee he sought to influence, identifying each conversa-
of lobbying in Washington. For one thing, an organization
tion he had while lobbying, and providing the names of all
is not required to register unless it considers lobbying its
persons whom he persuaded to engage in lobbying in his
"principal purpose." Any lobby group is free to consider its
behalf.
own work to be outside the requirement, as the National
The lobbyist would have to disclose his total in-
Association of Manufacturers did at one time, even though
come-not just his lobbying income-plus his total expen-
it maintained a permanent lobbying staff.
ditures and an itemized list of all lobby expenditures of
As interpreted by the Supreme Court in 1954, the lob-
more than $10. Lobbying expenditures would include the
bying law requires those who register to report only the ex-
money used for research, advertising, office space and
penses involved in their personal contacts with members of
mailings, rather than just the costs of person-to-person
Congress. It does not include the money spent on grass-
lobbying.
roots lobbying campaigns aimed at persuading constituents
The Stafford bill has a strong gift disclosure provision.
around the country to contact the members. As a result, the
Lobbyists would be required to disclose all expenditures to
quarterly reports lobbyists file tend to list the trivia of their
congressional or federal employees which exceed $25. A
work-cigars, lunches and cab fare-and leave out the
group of smaller gifts made together also would have to be
salaries and other expenses large organizations commit to
disclosed if their aggregate value was more than $100.
the job.
The Stafford measure would turn enforcement
If somebody does manage to violate the mild strictures
authority for the lobby law over to the new Federal Elec-
of the law, it is unlikely that he will be punished. The
tions Commission, created in the 1974 campaign law. The
Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House collect lobby
commission would investigate alleged violations and bring
registrations and reports, but have no power to enforce the
civil actions to stop them. Stafford would punish ordinary
rules against violators. The Justice Department, which does
violations with fines of up to $1,000, and willful violations
have the power, only acts on complaints; it does not seek out
with fines of up to $10,000 or imprisonment for up to two
violators. Since 1972 only five cases have been referred to
years. (Elections commission story, Weekly Report p. 649)
Justice: there have been no indictments. (Background on
The Railsback bill differs slightly from S 815. There
the lobby law, 1974 Weekly Report p. 1947)
would be no oral communications test in the definition of
lobbying, no requirement for itemizing lobbying expen-
Honored in the Breach
ditures of more than $10 a quarter and no requirement that
the lobbyist identify the subject matter of each lobbying
"The 1946 law is more honored in the breach than
communication.
anything else," said Sen. Robert T. Stafford (R Vt.), the
Both bills, however, would expand lobby coverage to
Senate's leading advocate of a new lobby law. "I don't
contacts with the executive branch, which is not included in
think anybody pays much attention to it."
the 1946 act. The Railsback proposal is bolder on this issue
Stafford and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D Mass.) have
than Stafford's, requiring executive branch employees to
introduced a comprehensive new lobby bill (S 815) which
keep records of the lobbyists who contacted them and sub-
would expand the definition of the word lobbyist and re-
jects they discussed.
quire those who register to keep and submit detailed
records of their activity.
Public Image
A similar bill (HR 15) has been introduced in the House
by Rep. Tom Railsback (R Ill.), who says the existing law
The sponsors of the different lobby bills differ on what
reaches only a fraction of those who lobby in Washington.
they would accomplish. Stafford does not feel the privilege
"Many people who should be registered are not," he argued.
of lobbying is being abused under existing law or that
"They may be obeying the law, but that's because the law
Congress is dominated by lobbyists, but simply that
was virtually decimated by the Supreme Court decision."
changes are needed to boost public confidence.
Under the Stafford bill, lobbyists no longer would be
"Whenever anything is done in private, even if it is
legally free to decide for themselves whether they wanted
justified, it creates the impression that something is
to file. There would be a complex, three-part definition of
wrong," Stafford said. "We may do quite a bit of good by
COPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.
Reproduction prohibited in whole or in pert except by ednorial cirents
May 31, 1975-PAGE 1137
Cong.reliston
September 13, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MAX FRIEDERSDORF
FROM:
JACK MARSH
On this Lobbying Report, I am more interested in a summary
of what the bill seeks to do.
Thanks.
JOM/dl
GERALD ? DERALOR FORD
RED TAG
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 12, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MAX FRIEDERSDORF
THROUGH:
VERN LOEN VL
FROM:
CHARLES LEPPERT, JR.
SUBJECT:
Status Report on Legislation to
Regulate Lobbying
This is in response to your request for a status report on legislation to
regulate lobbying.
H.R. 15, "the Public Disclosure of Lobbying Act of 1975," was introduced
in the House of Representatives on January 14, 1975, co-sponsored by
Rep. Tom Railsback (R. -I11.) and Rep. Bob Kastenmeier (D.-Wisc.). A
number of identical bills have been introduced with one hundred and
fifty-five co-sponsors (See list attached).
On September 11, 1975, the Subcommittee on Administrative Law and
Governmental Relations of the House Judiciary before hearings on H.R. 15.
Only members of Congress testified on the legislation on September 11th
and the hearings continue on September 12.
A copy of H.R. 15 is attached.
Attachment
OCT 7 1975
RED TAG
THE
SE
M
WASHINGTON
October 6, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JACK MARSH
THRU:
MAX L. FRIEDERSDORF
m.b
VERN LOEN VC
FROM:
CHARLES LEPPERT, JR. CLg.
SUBJECT:
Summary and Status Report of H.R. 15,
a Bill to Regulate Lobbying and Related
Activities
Attached is a brief summary of the legislation as requested and a background
memorandum on the bill which was provided to the Republican Members of
the Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental Relations of the
House Judiciary Committee.
Note that paragraph "F" of the brief summary and "page 7" of the background
memorandum set forth the "logging" requirements for Executive branch
employees.
The status of H. R. 15 is that the Subcommittee has held five public hearings
on the bill. Subcommittee Chairman Walter Flowers (D-Ala.) has asked
counsel to seek a consensus from the Subcommittee Members on the provisions
of a draft bill prior to any mark-up session of the subcommittee. Counsel
informs me that both Democrats and Republicans on the subcommittee have
problems with H.R. 15 which has the support of and is the product of Common
Cause.
I. H. R. 15 (H. R. 1734)
A. Definitions
1. *Defines "lobbyist" to be a person who receives or expends
over $250 in any quarterly filing period, or $500 during
four consecutive filing periods.
2. Excludes from the definition of "lobbying" the following:
a. An appearance before a congressional committee or
the submission of a written statement thereto or to
an executive department or agency at the request of
such department or agency. (Apparently does not ex-
clude oral communications made to an executive agency
or department made at the request of said entity.)
b. communications or solicitations by a federal officer
or employee
C. communications or solicitations through the normal
course of business of any news, editorial view,
advertising or like matter by
(1) periodical distribution to the general public;
(2) radio or television broadcast; or
(3) a book publisher.
B. Must file notice of representation within 15 days showing-
1. identification of lobbyist;
2. identification of person retaining the lobbyist and the
financial terms agreed to;
3. the decisions to be influenced;
4. identification of anyone solicited by lobbyist to en-
gage in lobbying and the financial terms of such arrange-
ment.
C. Records-must disclose;
1. total income received by lobbyist;
*The apparent intent is to make these dollar amounts disjunctive
rather than conjunctive. However, the drafting of section 2(10)
could be construed to mean the contrary. (See p. 4A)
5
2. total expenditures of lobbyist and itemization thereof;
3. identification of each person from whom income is re-
ceived, but in the case of a voluntary membership or-
ganization, the name of a member need not be disclosed
unless he contributes more than $100 to the organization
during the quarterly filing period including the three
preceding quarterly periods.
D. Reports-must disclose
1. All the information required in 2 and 3, supra;
2. identification of each federal officer or employee
with whom the lobbyist communicated during the filing
period;
3. A copy of any written communication used by the
lobbyist to solicit others to lobby.
E. Effect on Tax Status-The various reports required by this
Act are not to be considered by the IRS.
F. Executive Logging-
1. All executive branch employees in grades GS-15 or
above, or in any of the executive levels under title
5 must log all oral and written communications which
express an opinion or contain information relating
to pending decisions.
2. These records shall include:
a. name and position of the official contacted;
b. date communication received;
C. identification of person from whom the com-
munication was received;
d. summary of the subjects discussed;
e, copies of any written communications;
f. description of action taken by official, if any.
G. Commission
1. Sets up Federal Elections Commission as administrator of Act,
2. Powers of Commission:
a. subpoena power;
6
b. may hold hearings and conduct investigations.
C. Commission is the primary enforcing agency. It
may prosecute both civil and criminal violations.
H. Duties of Commission
1. develop forms;
2. create filing and indexing system;
3. make notices and reports available to public in-
spection;
4. retain records for 10 years;
5. summarize reports and put in Federal Register;
6. make audits and field investigations.
I. Sanctions
1. Willful failure to file notice of representation-
$5,000, 2 yrs. imprisonment, or both.
2. Falsification of any notice of representation or
report-same as 1.
3. Falsification of any communication to influence
legislation-same - as 1.
4. Failure of executive official to log or falsification
of such log-same as 1.
NINETY-FOURTH CONGRESS
PETER W. RODINO, JR. (N.J.), CHAIRMAN
GENERAL COUNSEL:
JACK BROOKS, TEX.
EDWARD HUTCHINSON, MICH.
EARL c. DUDLEY. JR.
ROBERT W. KASTENMEIER, WIS.
ROBERT CLORY, ILL
DON EDWARDS, CALIF.
TOM RAILSBACK, ILL.
Congress of the United States
STAFF DIRECTOR:
WILLIAM L. HUNGATE, MO.
CHARLES E. WIGGINS, CALIF.
GARNER 1. CLINE
JOHN CONYERS, JR., MICH.
HAMILTON FISH, JR., N.Y.
JOSHUA EILBERG, PA.
M. CALDWELL BUTLER, VA.
COUNSEL:
WALTER FLOWERS, ALA.
WILLIAM S. COHEN, MAINE
JAMES R. MANN, S.C.
Committee on the Judiciary
HERBERT FUCHS
CARLOS 1. MOORHEAD, CALIF.
WILLIAM P. SMATTUCK
PAUL S. SARBANES, MD.
JOHN M. ASHBROOK, OHIO
ALAN A. PARKER
JOHN F. SEIBERLING, OHIO
HENRY 3. HYDE, ILL.
JAMES F. FALCO
GEORGE E. DANIELSON, CALIF.
THOMAS N. KINDNESS, OHIO
House of Representatives
MAURICE A. BARBOZA
ROBERT F. DRINAN, MASS.
ARTHUR P. ENDRES. JR.
BARBARA JORDAN, TEX.
THOMAS W. HUTCHISON
RAY THORNTON, ARK.
Mashington, D.C. 20515
DANIEL L. COHEN
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN, N.Y.
FRANKLIN G. POLK
EDWARD MEZVINSKY, IOWA
THOMAS E. MOONEY
HERMAN BADILLO, N.Y.
Telephone: 202-225-3951
MICHAEL W. BLOMMER
ROMANO L. MAZZOLI, KY.
ALEXANDER B. COOK
EDWARD W. PATTISON, N.Y.
CONSTANTINE 3. GEKAS
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, CONN.
ALAN F. COFFEY, JR.
WILLIAM J. HUGHES, N.J.
KENNETH N. KLEE
MARTIN A. RUSSO, ILL.
September 4, 1975
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Congressman Carlos J. Moorhead
Congressman Thomas N. Kindness
FROM:
Alan Coffey Ac
SUBJECT: Background on Lobby Disclosure Legislation
On Thursday, September 11, the Subcommittee on Administrative
Law and Governmental Relations will begin hearings on H.R. 15 and
other related Lobby Disclosure bills. It is expected that the
entire hearing on that day will consist of testimony from the House
sponsors and co-sponsors, including Congressman Railsback, Chairman
Rodino and Congressman Kastenmeier. On Friday, the 12th, the tenta-
tive plan is to hear witnesses from the Department of Justice, the
General Accounting Office and Federal Energy Administration. Hear-
ings will follow on September 18 and 19 with the witnesses at that
time being from major interest groups including: Common Cause,
Chamber of Commerce, the AFL/CIO and the Wilderness Society. Addition-
al hearings are planned but not yet scheduled.
Consequently, I thought that the following preliminary analysis
might be useful for you to have at this time. Specifically, the
purposes of this memorandum are: (a) to identify the most notable
loopholes in the existing Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act (2 U.S.C.
$261-70; 60 Stat. 839-842); (b) to outline the major features of the
Railsback-Kastenmeier bill (H.R. 15); and (c) to discuss possible
Constitutional arguments that could be used against provisions in
H.R. 15.
-2-
A. Loopholes:
(1) Under the existing law an organization must "solicit,
collect, or receive" funds to come under the coverage of
the statute. So, an organization which merely expends its
own funds in a lobbying effort, avoids coverage under the
law.
(2) Under the "Principal Purpose" doctrine enunciated in the
U.S. V. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612(1954), an organization must have
as its main purpose the influencing of legislation before
Congress to come under the ambit of the statute.
(3) The 1946 law applies only to attempts to influence legis-
lation. It does not cover attempts to influence decisions
or rulemaking by the Executive Branch or Federal regulatory
agencies.
(4) The existing lobby statute does not cover efforts to
influence legislation by personnel in the Executive Branch
or lobbying which may be done by other government officials
(i.e. state and local government).
(5) There is little or no enforcement provided for in the
1946 law. It merely requires that lobbyists, who come under
the coverage of the statute, register and file periodic re-
ports with the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the
Senate. Their's is a custodial function; there is no require-
ment that they investigate into the accuracy of the reports.
(6) The Harriss decision also interpreted the 1946 law to
mean that there must be direct communication or contact with
a member of Congress for an act to constitute lobbying.
Consequently, the general view is that contact with Congression-
al staff members or the generation of a grass roots lobbying
effort (such as a letter writing campaign) does not constitute
coverage under the 1946 law.
B. Public Disclosure of Lobbying Act of 1975 - H.R. 15
(1) Lobbying - is "a communication or the solicitation or em-
ployment of another to make a communication with a Federal
-3-
officer or employee in order to influence the policymaking
process". 1 Section 2(9). This definition aims at filling a
much criticized loophole in the existing law by covering
indirect lobbying as well as direct communications. In U.S.
V. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612(1954), the Supreme Court interpreted
the 1946 law to mean that there must be direct communication
or contact with a member of Congress for an act to constitute
lobbying.
(2) Lobbyist - One must meet both income and expenditure tests.
They are: (A) receives income of $250 or more for lobbying
during a quarterly filing period (a calendar quarter); (B)
receives income of $500 or more for lobbying during four con-
secutive filing periods; (c) spends $250 or more for lobbying
during a quarter (personal travel expenses excepted); and
(D) spends $500 or more for lobbying in four consecutive filing
periods. 2 Section 2(10)(A)-(D).
(3) Exceptions - "Lobbying" in H.R. 15 does not include the
following: (A) testimony before a Congressional Committee or
an appearance before or the submission of a written statement
to an Executive agency at its request; (B) any communication
Policymaking process" is defined in Section 2(2) of the bill
as "any action taken by a Federal officer or employee with respect
to any bill, resolution, or other measure in Congress, or with respect
to any rule, adjudication, or other policy matter in the executive
branch." The aim is clearly to cover lobbying not only before the
Congress but in the Executive Branch as well. However, this definition
raises Constitutional questions of due process and overbreadth, due
to the vagueness of phrases like "any action taken" and "other policy
matter" in a criminal statute. Is one on notice as to what type of
conduct is covered and forbidden? Connally V. General Construction Co.,
269 U.S. 385, 391(1925); Grayned V. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104,108-
9(1972).
2 The intent of the sponsors was to have each of the four tests
apply in the disjunctive so that if they fell under any of the four
categories, you had to file as a lobbyist. However, the way the bill
is drafted these four criteria can be read to mean a conjunctive test,
i.e. that one must meet all four criteria before he has to file.
-4-
or solicitation by a Federal officer or employee; 3 (C) any
communication or solicitation within the normal course of
business by newspapers periodicals, radio and television,
or by book publishers.4 Section 2(9)(A)-(C). Regarding
exception "(C)" for the media, it should be noted that
"advertising" is included along with "news" and "editorial
views". Presumably advertising is included SO as to make
it clear that a newspaper would not have to register as a
lobbyist just because it carries an advertisement intended
to influence 5 some aspect of the policymaking or political
process.
(4) Registration - Within 15 days after becoming a lobbyist,
one must file a "notice of representation" with the Federal
Elections Commission. The Commission is the designated en-
forcement agency under H.R. 15. This notice of representation
must include the following (as well as any additional information
3 Note that lobbying by State or local officials is not an ex-
ception. So, for example, a mayor who repeatedly contacts HUD re-
garding his city's urban renewal application would have to register
as a lobbyist. Lobbying by such officials is excepted in the
Kennedy-Stafford bill (s. 815) and in the Metcalf bill (S. 2068).
4 This exception, however, does not extend to publications of a
"voluntary membership organization" like the Farm Bureau, the Chamber
of Commerce or the Sierra Club. Solicitations or communication by
such groups would be forms of indirect lobbying under H.R. 15 and
would be covered.
⁵The Subcommittee may want to consider a number of additional
exceptions, so as to eliminate many of the potential First Amendment
arguments against the bill. For example, Senator Metcalf's bill
(S. 2068) includes the following exceptions:
--"A communication by an individual, acting solely on his own behalf,
for redress of his grievances or to express his own opinion;"
--"A communication by an attorney of record on behalf of any person made
in connection with any criminal investigation or prosecution of such a
person;'
--"A communication which relates to the status, purpose, or effect of
a decision."
-5-
the Commission might prescribe): (1) the lobbyist's identity;
(2) the identity of his employer or identity of those on whose
behalf he will perform his services; (3) a description of the
financial terms and conditions under which he is retained; (4)
list each aspect of the policymaking process he expects to seek
to influence, who will be contacted, the form of communication
to be used, and what his position will be; 6 (5) identify each
person expected to act as an agent for the lobbyist, including
the financial arrangements and those aspects of the policymaking
process the agent-lobbyist is expected to seek to influence;
(6) in the case of a voluntary membership organization, the
approximate number of members and a description of the methods
by which the decision to lobby is made. Section 3(1)-(6).
(5) Recordkeeping - Each lobbyist is required to maintain cer-
tain records, which will be available to the Commission for
inspection for at least a period of two years from the date
of recording. They shall contain the following information:
(1) total income received by the lobbyist and the amount
attributable to lobbying; (2) identification of each person
from whom income is received and how much (in the case of
voluntary membership organization, the identity of the individ-
ual member need only be recorded if it exceeds $100 during the
quarterly filing period); (3) the total expenditures, itemizing
⁶ᴴᵉʳᵉ again, due process-vagueness problems are raised. Does a
lobbyist always know in advance what issues he will seek to influence
and what persons he will have to contact? Can one reasonably be ex-
pected to comply with this requirement? A criminal penalty--a $5,000
fine and up to 2 years imprisonment--can be imposed for a knowing will-
ful violation of Section 3 requirements. See Section 10(a) of the bill.
7why total income received and not just the income attributable
to lobbying?
8 The listing of members contributing $100 or more in a quarter,
which is also required in the reporting provisions (Sec. 5), raises
Constitutional questions with regard to associational freedom and
the right to privacy. In a number of decisions the Supreme Court has
found the requirement of disclosure of membership lists to violate the
First Amendment. NAACP V. Alabama, 357 U.S. 499(1958); Bates V. Little
Rock, 361 U.S. 526(1960); NAACP V. Button, 371 U.S. 415(1963); Gibson V.
Florida Legislature Committee, 372 U.S. 539(1963). The test laid down
by the Court is: whether or not there is a substantial relationship
between the information sought (i.e. the list) and a compelling, over-
riding state interest, so as to justify such an intrusion into the
First Amendment rights of speech, press, association, and petition.
-6-
each expenditure made, to employ lobbyists for research,
advertising, staff, offices, travel, mailings, and
publications; (4) each expenditure made directly or indirect-
ly to or for any Federal officer or employee. Section 4.
(6) Reporting - Within fifteen days after the end of a quarterly
filing period, each lobbyist must file a report with the
Commission covering his activities within that quarter. Each
report shall contain the following information (in addition,
the Commission shall prescribe any other information it feels
necessary): (1) lobbyists' identity; (2) the identity of each
person on whose behalf the lobbyist performed services during
the quarter (but in the case of a voluntary membership organiza-
tion, the listing should include only those who contributed
$100 or more during the quarter); 10 (3) each decision of the
policymaking process the lobbyist sought to influence during
the quarter; 11 (5) the identity of each Federal officer or
employee with the lobbyist communicated during the quarter;
(6) a copy of any written communication, used by the lobbyist
to solicit others to lobby and the approximate number of persons
contacted; (7) copies of the records required in Section 4,
pertinent to the quarterly period in question. Section 5(1)-(7).
(7) Tax Status - Section 6 contains a declaimer that none of the
registration, recordkeeping and reporting requirements of this
legislation should be taken into consideration by the Internal
Revenue Service in determining whether or not a specific
organization deserves preferred tax status. The present education-
al and charitable exemption and deduction provisions prohibit the
granting of preferred tax status to any organization which carries
on substantial political activities, such as attempting to influence
9 "Person" is defined in Sec. 2 as "a corporation, company,
association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company, as
well as an individual". Note that the definition does not specifically
mention a union.
¹⁰see footnote #8 regarding the Constitutional questions raised
by requiring what amounts to a partial membership list.
11How is "decision" to be interpreted by the lobbyist? "Decision"
is not defined anywhere in the bill. Again, the language is vague
and raises due process questions.
-7-
12
legislation.
(8) Logging - Each official or employee of the Executive Branch
who is grade GS-15 or above, or is designated as being respon-
sible for making or recommending decisions affecting the
"policymaking process" must maintain detailed records or oral
or written communications received directly or indirectly ex-
pressing an opinion or containing information with respect to
such policy matters. The records shall contain at least the
following information: (1) the name and position of the
official or employee who received the communication; (2) the
date upon which the communication was received; (3) an identifi-
cation, so far as possible, of the person from whom the com-
munication was received and of the person on whose behalf such
person was acting in making the communication; (4) a brief
summary of the subject matter or matters of the communication,
including relevant docket numbers if known; (5) in the case of
communications through letters, documents, briefs, and other
written material, copies of such material in its original
form; and (6) a brief description, when applicable, of any action
taken by the official or employee in response to the communication.
Section 7(a)(1)-(6).
Each agency in the Executive Branch is responsible for assuring
that the records prepared pursuant to this provision are placed
in the appropriate case files, within two working days after
the communication is received. Also these records shall be
made available for public inspection. Section 7(b) and 7(c).
(9) Administration and Enforcement - The Federal Elections
Commission13 is made the administrator of the Act and is also
12 Int. Rev. Code of 1954, Sec. 170(c)(B)-(D), Sec. 501(c)(3),
as amended, Tax Reform Act of 1969, Pub. L. No. 91-172, Sec. 201
(a) (1) (B), 83 Stat. 549.
13 The Federal Elections Commission was established under Section
310 of the "Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974". (P.L. 93-
443). The Constitutionality of its powers and the method of appoint-
ment of the Commissioners is currently under court challenge. Buckley,
et. al. V. Valeo, et. al., Civil No. 75-0001 (D.C. Cir., 1975).
-8-
given the primary civil and criminal enforcement responsibility
under it. Included among its powers: (1) the power to compel
answers to written interrogatories; (2) power to subpoena
witnesses, and to compel testimony and documentary evidence;
(3) the power to initiate civil and criminal actions for the
purpose of enforcing provisions of the Act. 14 Section 8(a)-(7);
Section 8(b) and Section 8(c).
The duties of the Commission include: (1) development of all
necessary forms as well as rules, regulations and guidelines
for compliance; (2) create a filing and indexing system; (3)
retain the records of the notices and reports for ten years;
(4) make notices and reports available for public inspection;
(5) summarize the reports received and put in the Federal
Register; (6) conduct investigations to ascertain whether any
lobbyist has failed to comply fully and accurately; (7) make
audits and field investigations; and (8) recommend additional
legislation to carry out the purposes of the Act. Section 9.
(10) Criminal Penalties - (1) Knowing and willful failure to
file notice of representation--$5,000, 2 yrs. imprisonment,
or both; (2) Falsification of any notice or representation
or report--$5,000, 2 yrs. imprisonment, or both; (3) Falsifica-
tion of any communication to influence legislation and executive
decisions--$5,000, 2 yrs. imprisonment, or both; (4) Failure
of executive official to log or falsification of such log--
$5,000, 2 yrs. imprisonment, or both. Section 10(a)-(d).
(11) Miscellaneous - Section 11 repeals the 1946 statute and
Section 12 provides that the Act take effect on the date of
enactment (However, the recordkeeping requirements under
Section 5(a) would not begin until the regulations are issued.).
14 Section 8(c) states that the Commission is the "primary
civil and criminal enforcement agency" under the Act and that the
Justice Department has no authority to enforce any civil or criminal
violation of the Act unless the Commission consents. To vest ex-
clusive enforcement in the Commission may violate the doctrine of
separation of powers. Ponzi V. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254, 262(1922),
Myers V. U.S., 272 U.S. 52, 164(1926); Springer V. Philippine Islands,
277 U.S. 189, 202(1928); Humphrey's Executor V. U.S., 295 U.S. 602
(1935); U.S. V. Cox, 342 F. 2d 167, 171(5th Cir., 1965).
-9-
C. Constitutional Questions Raised by Lobby Disclosure Legislation
(1) Right to Petition - Lobbying has been judicially recognized
as an exercise of the First Amendment right to petition the
Government for the redress of grievances. U.S. V. Harriss,
347 U.S. 612(1954); Liberty Lobby V. Pearson, 390 F.2d 489(1968).
Consequently, any interference with, or modification of those
rights must be closely scrutinized to determine whether the
limitation on these rights is reasonable, necessary and justified
by the national interest.
So, for example, one might argue that the "Logging" provision
in Section 7(a) of H.R. 15 serves to discourage government
officials from communicating with private parties regarding
important policy matters. It could inhibit the access of
private interest groups and even individual citizens to public
officials. Does the discouragement of such communications
serve a national interest? Is such a deterrent to the exercise
of First Amendment rights reasonable?
(2) Due Process - H.R. 15 and, in fact, all of the lobby
disclosure bills pending before our Subcommittee contain criminal
penalties. Thus, the language of the bills cannot be vague or
broad, or there is a violation of the Due Process clause. The
Constitutional requirement of definiteness is violated by a
criminal statute that fails to give a person of ordinary intel-
ligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden
under the statute
no man should be held criminally respon-
sible for the conduct which he could not responsibly understand
would be proscribed and forbidden. Connally V. General Construction
Co., 269 U.S. 285, 291(1925); Jordan V. DeGeorge, 341 U.S. 223,
230-232(1951); Grayned V. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-9
(1972).
H.R. 15 contains phrases like "any action taken", "other policy
matter", and "attempts to influence the policymaking process."
Is a person clearly on notice as to what conduct the bill covers
and what is forbidden?
(3) Freedom to Associate - Section 4(2) of H.R. 15 requires
that a voluntary membership organization supply a list of its
-10-
individual members that contribute $100 or more during a
quarterly reporting period to the Federal Elections Commission
(e.g. enforcement agency). While, admittedly, this requirement
would probably result only in a partial membership list, it
still raises Constitutional questions regarding the rights of
privacy and associational freedom. In a number of cases, the
Supreme Court has found the requirement of disclosure of member-
ship lists to violate the First Amendment. NAACP V. Alabama,
357 U.S. 499(1958); Gibson V. Florida Legislative Committee,
372 U.S. 539(1963), et. al. There must be an overriding public
interest to justify such an intrusion.
(4) Unlawful Delegation of Executive Powers - H.R. 15 would
place the primary criminal enforcement authority in the
Federal Elections Commission. The Commission is, at least
partially, a legislative body, since a majority of its members
are appointed and removable by Congress (the President nominates
only two of its members). P.L. 93-443. Legislative power, as
distinguished from executive power, is the authority to make
laws, but not to enforce them or appoint the agents charged
with the duty of such enforcement. Springer V. Philippine
Islands, 277 U.S. 189, 202(1928). The prosecution of offenses
against the United States is an executive function within the
exclusive prerogative of the Attorney General. Ponzi V. Fessenden,
258 U.S.254, 262(1922); U.S. V. Cox, 342 F.2d 167, 190(5th Cir.,
1965). The argument that the powers and composition of the
Commission violates the doctrine of separation of powers is one
of the issues now being litigated in Buckley, et. al. V. Valeo,
et. al., Civil No. 75-0001(D.C. Cir., 1975).
AFC:mk
Enclosure
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Date: 9-15-75
TO: Chas. Leppert
FROM: Max L. Friedersdorf
For Your Information
Please Handle
Please See Me
Comments, Please
Other
57087
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 13, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MAX FRIEDERSDORF
FROM:
JACK MARSH Jan
On this Lobbying Report, I am more inte summary
of what the bill seeks to do.
Thanks.
RED TAG
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 12, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MAX FRIEDERSDORF
THROUGH:
VERN LOEN VL
FROM:
CHARLES LEPPERT, JR.
SUBJECT:
Status Report on Legislation to
Regulate Lobbying
This is in response to your request for a status report on legislation to
regulate lobbying.
H.R. 15, "the Public Disclosure of Lobbying Act of 1975, 11 was introduced
in the House of Representatives on January 14, 1975, co-sponsored by
Rep. Tom Railsback (R. -I11.) and Rep. Bob Kastenmeier (D. .Wisc. ). A
number of identical bills have been introduced with one hundred and
fifty-five co-sponsors (See list attached).
On September 11, 1975, the Subcommittee on Administrative Law and
Governmental Relations of the House Judiciary before hearings on H.R. 15.
Only members of Congress testified on the legislation on September 11th
and the hearings continue on September 12.
A copy of H.R. 15 is attached.
Attachment
94TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 15
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
3
JANUARY 14, 1975
Mr. RAILSBACK (for himself and Mr. KASTENMEIER) introduced the following
bill; which was referred to the Committees on the Judiciary and Standards
of Official Conduct
A
BILL
To regulate lobbying and related activities.
1
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3
SHORT TITLE
4
SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the "Public
5 Disclosure of Lobbying Act of 1975".
6
DEFINITIONS
LIBRATY GERALD ? FORD
7
SEC. 2. As used in this Act, the term-
8
(1) "person" includes a corporation, company,
9
association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock
10
company, as well as an individual;
11
(2) "the policymaking process" means any action
2
1
taken by a Federal officer or employee with respect to
2
any bill, resolution, or other measure in Congress, or
3
with respect to any rule, adjudication, or other policy
4
matter in the executive branch;
5
(3) "Federal officer or employee" means any offi-
6
cer or employee in the legislative or executive branch,
7
and includes a Member of Congress, Delegate to Con-
S
gress, or the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico;
9
(4) "income" means the receipt or promise of any
10
consideration, whether or not legally enforceable;
11
(5) "expenditure" means the transfer or promise
12
of any consideration, whether or not legally enforceable;
13
(6) "quarterly filing period" means any calendar
14
quarter;
15
(7) "voluntary membership organization" means
16
an organization composed of individuals who are mem-
17
bers thereof on a voluntary basis and who, as a condition
18
of membership, are required to make regular payments
19
to the organization;
20
(8) "identification" means in the case of an indi-
21
vidual, the name, address, occupation, principal place
22
of business, and position held in that business, of the
23
individual. and in the case of a person other than an
individual. its name, address, principal officers, and
ABVERIT GERALD R. FORM
24
25
board of directors, if any;
3
1
(9) "lobbying" means a communication or the
2
solicitation or employment of another to make a com-
3
munication with a Federal officer or employee in order
4
to influence the policymaking process, but does not
5
include—
6
(A) an appearance before a congressional
7
committee, subcommittee, or joint committee or
S
the submission of a written statement thereto or
9
to any Federal executive department, agency, or
10
entity at the request of such department, agency, or
11
entity;
12
(B) any communication or solicitation by a
13
Federal officer or employee; or
14
(C) except with respect to a publication of
15
a voluntary membership organization, any com-
16
munication or solicitation through the distribution
17
in the normal course of business of any news, edi-
18
torial view, letter to an editor, advertising, or like
19
matter by-
20
(1) a periodical distribution to the gen-
21
eral public;
22
(2) radio or television broadcast: or
GERALD FORD LIBRARA
23
(3) a book publisher;
24
(10) "lobbyist" means, with respect to any quar-
4
1
terly filing period, any person who engages in lobby-
2
ing during that period and who—
3
(A) receives income of $250 or more for such
4
lobbying during that period, whether such income
1
5
is the prorated portion of total income attributable
6
to that lobbying, or is received specifically for the
7
lobbying;
8
(B) receives an income of $500 or more for
9
such lobbying during a total of four consecutive
10
quarterly filing periods, in each period of those
11
four which begins after that total of $500 has
12
been received;
13
(C) makes an expenditure of $250 or more,
14
except for the personal travel expenses of the lobby-
15
ist, for lobbying during that period; and
16
(D) makes an expenditure of $500 or more
17
for lobbying during a total of four consecutive
18
quarterly filing periods, in each period of those
19
four which begins after that total of $500 has been
20
expended;
21
(11) "Commission" means the Federal Election
22
Commission.
23
NOTICES OF REPRESENTATION
LIBRARY GERALD ? FORD
24
SEC. 3. Each lobbyist shall file a notice of representa-
25 tion with the Commission not later than fifteen days after
5
1 first becoming a lobbyist, and each lobbyist who has filed
2 such a notice and has been inactive as a lobbyist for three
3 consecutive quarterly filing periods shall also file a notice
4 of representation when that lobbyist again becomes a lobby-
5 ist. The notice of representation shall be in such form and
6 contain such information as the Commission shall prescribe,
7 including-
8
(1) an identification of the lobbyist;
3
9
(2) an identification, SO far as possible, of each
10
person on whose behalf the lobbyist expects to perform
11
services as a lobbyist;
12
(3) a description of the financial terms and con-
13
ditions on which any lobbyist who is an individual is
14
retained by any person, and the identification of that
15
person;
16
(4) each aspect of the policymaking process which
17
the lobbyist expects to seek to influence, including any
18
Government agency, committee, or Federal officer or
19
employee, with which contact is to be made, the form
20
of communication used, and whether for or against a
21
particular measure;
22
(5) an identification of each person who, as of
LIBRATA GERALD = FORD
23
the date of filing, is expected to be acting for such
24
lobbyist and to be engaged in lobbying including-
6
1
(A) any financial terms or conditions of such
2
person's SO acting; and
3
(B) the aspects of the policymaking process
4
such person is expected to work at influencing; and
5
(6) in the case of a voluntary membership organi-
6
zation, the approximate number of members and a de-
7
scription of the methods by which the decision to engage
8
in lobbying is made.
9
RECORDS
10
SEC. 4. Each lobbyist shall maintain for not less than
11 two years after the date of recording records which shall be
12 available to the Commission for inspection and which con-
13 tain the following information:
14
(1) The total income received by the lobbyist,
15
and the amount of such income attributable to lobbying.
16
(2) The identification of each person from whom
17
income is received and the amount received, but in the
18
case of a voluntary membership organization a contribu-
19
tion during any quarterly filing period from a member
20
need be recorded only if the contributions to such or-
21
ganization from such member are more than $100 during
22
that quarterly filing period, or during that quarterly fil-
23
ing period combined with the three immediately preced-
FORD
24
GER
ing such periods.
LIBRARY
25
(3) The total expenditures of such lobbyist for
26
lobbying, itemizing any expenditure made-
7
1
(A) to employ lobbyists (and the amount re-
2
ceived by each lobbyist SO employed) ; and
3
(B) for research, advertising, staff, offices,
4
travels, mailings, and publications.
5
(4) Each expenditure made directly or indirectly to
6
or for any Federal officer or employee.
7
REPORTS
8
3
SEC. 5. Each lobbyist shall not later than fifteen days
9 after the last day of a quarterly filing period file a report
10 with the Commission covering that lobbyist's activities dur-
11 ing that quarterly filing period. Each such report shall be
12 in such form and contain such information as the Commis-
13 sion shall prescribe, including-
14
(1) an identification of the reporting lobbyist;
15
(2) an identification of each person on whose
16
behalf the reporting lobbyist performed services as a
17
lobbyist during the covered period, but not including
18
any member of any voluntary membership organization
19
on whose behalf the lobbyist performed such services,
20
if the member contributed not more than $100 to the
21
organization during the covered period or during that
22
period combined with the three immediately preceding
FORD
23
quarterly filing periods;
GERALD
24
(3) an identification of each person who acted as
8
1
a lobbyist on behalf of the reporting lobbyist during the
2
covered period;
3
(4) each decision of the policymaking process the
4
reporting lobbyist sought to influence during the covered
1
5
period, including bill. numbers where relevant;
6
(5) an identification of each Federal officer or
7
employee with whom the reporting lobbyist communi-
8
cated during the covered period in order to influence
9
the policymaking process;
10
(6) a copy of any written communication used by
11
the reporting lobbyist during the covered period to solicit
12
other persons to lobby, and an estimate of the number
13
of persons to whom such written communication was
14
made; and
15
(7) copies of the records required to be kept by
16
the reporting lobbyist under section 4, to the extent
17
such records pertain to the covered period.
$
18 EFFECT OF FILING ON CERTAIN DETERMINATIONS UNDER
19
THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1954
20
SEC. 6. Compliance with the filing requirements of this
21 Act shall not be taken into consideration in determining, for
22 purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, whether a
23 substantial part of the activities of an organization is carry-
24 ing on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence
25 legislation.
LIBRARY GERALD ? FORD
9
1
RECORDS OF OUTSIDE CONTACTS
2
SEC. 7. (a) All officials and employees of the executive
3 branch in grades GS-15 or above in the General Schedule,
4 or in any of the executive levels under title 5 of the United
5 States Code, or who are designated by any person to whom
6 this subsection otherwise applies as being responsible for
7 making or recommending decisions affecting the policymak-
3
8 ing process in the executive branch, shall prepare a record
9 of each oral or written communication received directly or by
10 referral from outside parties expressing an opinion or con-
11 taining information with respect to such process. The records
12 shall be in such form and contain such information as the
13 Commission shall prescribe, including-
14
(1) the name and position of the official or em-
15
ployee who received the communication;
16
(2) the date upon which the communication was
17
received;
18
(3) an identification, so far as possible, of the person
19
from whom the communication was received and of the
20
person on whose behalf such person was acting in mak-
21
ing the communication;
22
(4) a brief summary of the subject matter or mat-
GERALD FORD
23
ters of the communication, including relevant docket
24
numbers if known;
25
(5) in the case of communications through letters,
10
1
documents, briefs, and other written material, copies of
2
such material in its original form; and
3
(6) a brief description, when applicable, of any
4
action taken by the official or employee in response
5
to the communication.
6
(b) Each agency in the executive branch shall assure
7 that records prepared pursuant to subsection (a) of this
8 section shall be placed, within two working days of the date
9 when such communication was received, in the case file of
10 the rulemaking or adjudication to which the communication
11 related. If the communication related to matters for which
12 there was no such case file, the records of such communica-
13 tion shall be placed in a public file which shall be maintained
14 in the same location as the case files.
15
(c) Each agency in the executive branch shall assure
16 that records filed pursuant to subsection (b) of this section
9.
17 shall be made available for public inspection in a convenient
18 location within the agency. A comprehensive index of such
19 records by subject matter and, when applicable, docket num-
20 ber shall be maintained and made available for public
21 inspection in such location.
22
POWERS OF COMMISSION
23
SEC. 8. (a) The Commission has the power for the pur-
24 poses of this Act-
25
(1) to require, by special or general orders, any
LISRARY TBERALO ? FORD
11:
1
person to submit in writing such reports and answers to
2
questions as the Commission may prescribe; and such
3
submission shall be made within such reasonable period
4
and under oath or otherwise as the Commission may
5.
determine;
6
(2) to administer oaths;
7
(3) to require by subpena, signed by the Chair-
MD
8
man or the Vice Chairman, the attendance and testi-
9
mony of witnesses and the production of all documen-
10
tary evidence relating to the execution of its duties;
11
(4) in any proceeding or investigation to order
12
testimony to be taken by deposition before any person
13
who is designated by the Commission and has the power
14
to administer oaths and, in such instances, to compel:
15
testimony and the production of evidence in the same
16
manner as authorized under paragraph (3) of this sub-
17
section;
18
(5) to initiate (through civil proceedings for in-
19
junctive relief and through presentation to Federal
20
grand juries), prosecute, defend, or appeal any civil or
21
criminal action in the name of the Commission for the
22
purpose of enforcing the provisions of the Act through
23
its General Counsel;
LISBARY GERALD FORD
24
(6) to delegate any of its functions or powers,
25
other than the power to issue subpenas under paragraph
12
1
(3), to any officer or employee of the Commission; and
2
(7) to make, amend, and repeal such rules as are
3
necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.
4
(b) Any United States district court within the juris-
5 diction of which any inquiry is carried on may, upon peti-
6 tion by the Commission, in case of refusal to obey a sub-
7 pena or order of the Commission issued under subsection (a)
8 of this section, issue an order requiring compliance there-
9 with. Any failure to obey the order of the court may be pun-
10 ished by the court as a contempt thereof.
11
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
12 Commission shall be the primary civil and criminal enforce-
13 ment agency for violations of the provisions of this Act.
14 Any violations of any such provision shall be prosecuted by
15. the Attorney General or Department of Justice personnel
16 only after consultation with, and with the consent of, the
17 Commission.
in
18
DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION
19
SEC. 9. It shall be the duty of the Commission-
20
(1) to develop forms for the filing of notices of
21
representation, and reports pursuant to sections 3 and
22
5 of this Act and to furnish such forms to lobbyists
23
upon request;
24
(2) to develop forms for the filing of records of out-
25
side contacts under section 7;
LIBRARY GERALD FORD
13
1
(3) to prepare a manual setting forth recommended
2
uniform methods of bookkeeping and reporting and to
3
furnish such manual to lobbyists upon request;
4
(4) to develop a filing, coding, and cross-indexing
5
system consonant with the purpose of this Act;
6
(5) to make the notices of representation and
7
reports filed with it available for public inspection and
8
copying, commencing as soon as practicable but not
9
later than the end of the second day following the day
10
during which it was received, and to permit copying of
11
any such report or statement by hand or by duplicating
12
machine, as requested by any person, at the expense of
13
such person, provided that the charge doesnot exceed
14
actual marginal cost, but no information copied from
15
such reports and statements shall be sold or utilized by
16
any person for the purpose of soliciting contributions
17
or for any commercial purpose;
18
(6) to preserve the originals or copies of such
19
notices and reports for a period of ten years from date
20
of receipt;
21
(7) to compile and summarize, with respect to
22
each filing period, the information contained in such
23
notices, and reports in a manner reflective of the dis-
24
closure intent of this Act and in specific relation to-
25
(A) the lobbying activities and expenditures
14
1
pertaining to specific legislative or executive
2
actions, including the identity of the lobbyists
3
involved and of the persons in whose behalf they
4
are acting; and
5
(B) the lobbying activities and expenditures
6
of persons who share an economic, business, or
7
professional interest in the legislative or execu-
8
tive actions which they have sought to influence:
9
(8) to have such information, as SO compiled and
10
summarized, published in the Federal Register within
11
fifteen days after the close of each filing period;
12
(9) to have each notice of representation which
13
is filed by any lobbyist published in the Federal Reg-
14
ister within three days after each such notice was
15
received by the Commission;
16
(10) to ascertain whether any lobbyist has failed
17
to comply fully and accurately with the disclosure
18
requirements of this Act and promptly notify such per-
19
son to file such notices and reports. as are necessary to
20
satisfy the requirements of this Act or regulations pre-
21
scribed by the Commission under this Act;
22
(11) to make audits and field investigations with
23
respect to the notices, and reports filed under the pro-
24
visions of this Act, and with respect to alleged failures
25
to file any statement or reports required under the pro-
LISRARY GERALD ? FORM
15
1
visions of this Act, and, upon complaint by any indi-
2
vidual, with respect to alleged violations of any part
3
of this Act;
4
(12) to prepare a special study or report upon the
5
request of any Member of the House of Representatives
6
or the Senate from information in the records of the
7
Commission; or, if such records do not contain the
S
necessary information, but the information would fall
3
9
under the scope of information required by this Act,
10
the Commission may inspect the records of the appro-
11
priate parties and prepare the report, but only if such
12
special inspection can be completed in a reasonable
13
time before the information would normally be filed;
14
(13) to prepare and publish such other reports
15
as it may deem appropriate;
16
(14) to prescribe suitable rules and regulations to
17
carry out the provisions of this Act; and
18
(15) to recommend legislation to carry out the
19
purposes of this Act.
20
SANCTIONS
21
SEC. 10. (a) Any lobbyist who knowingly and willfully
22
violates section 3 of this Act shall be fined not more than
23 $5,000 or imprisoned for not more than two years.
24
(b) Any person who knowingly and willfully falsifies
LIBRAST GERALD ? FORD
25 all or part of any notice of representation or report which
26 hn Glos with the Commission under this Act shall be fined
16
1 not more than $5,000 or imprisoned for not more than two
2 years, or both.
3
(c) Any person who knowingly and willfully falsifies or
4 forges all or part of any communication to influence legis-
5 lative or executive action shall be fined not more than
6 $5,000 or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.
7
(d) Any Federal officer or employee of the executive
8 branch to whom section 7 applies who knowingly and will-
9 fully falsifies, forges, or fails to file any record as required
10 by such section shall be fined not more than $5,000, or
11 imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
12
REPEAL OF FEDERAL REGULATION OF LOBBYING ACT
13
SEC. 11. The Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act (60
14 Stat. 839-842; 2 U.S.C. 261 et seq.) and that part of the
15 table of contents of the Legislative Reorganization Act of
16 1946 which pertains to title III, also known as the Federal
17 Regulation of Lobbying Act (60 Stat. 813), are repealed,
18 effective on the date on which the regulations to carry out
19 this Act first become effective..
20
EFFECTIVE DATE
21
SEC. 12. The provisions of this Act shall take effect upon
22 the date of its enactment, except that any person required
23 by section 5 (a) to maintain records shall not have any
24 duties or obligations under this Act to maintain such rec-
DEBALO FORD LIBRARY
25 ords until the date on which the regulations to carry out
26 this Act first becomes effective.
CO-SPONSORS
Alabama
Florida Cont'
Maryland
BUCHANAN
LEHMAN
GUDE
PEPPER
HOLT
Arizona
ROGERS
LONG
UDALL
YOUNG
SARBANES*
SPELLMAN
California
Guam
ANDERSON
WON PAT
Massachusetts
BELL
BOLAND
BROWN
Hawaii
DRINAN*
BURKE
MATSUNAGA
HARRINGTON
BURTON, PHILLIP
MINK
HECKLER
CORMAN
MOAKLEY
DANIELSON***
Illinois
STUDDS
DELLUMS
HALL
TSONGAS
EDWARDS*
HYDE*
HANNAFORD
MADIGAN
Michigan
HAWKINS
MIKVA
BLANCHARD
HINSHAW
O'BRIEN
BRODHEAD
KETCHUM
RAILSBACK*
CARR
KREBS
SIMON
CONYERS*
LAGOMARSINO
YATES
ESCH
MC CLOSKEY
RIEGLE
MILLER
Indiana
RUPPE
MINETA
HAMILTON
VANDER JAGT
REES
JACOBS
STARK
Minnesota
WAXMAN
Iowa
FRASER
BEDELL
NOLAN
Colorado
BLOUIN
QUIE
SCHROEDER
HARKIN
WIRTH
MEZVINSKY*
Mississippi
COCHRAN
Connecticut
Kansas
LOTT
DODD*
KEYS
GIAMO
WINN
Missouri
MC KINNEY
ICHORD
SARASIN
Kentucky
SYMINGTON
HUBBARD
Delaware
MAZZOLI***
Montana
DUPONT
BAUCUS
Maine
Florida
COHEN*
New Hampshire
BAFALIS
EMERY
CLEVELAND
FASCELL
CO-SPONSORS CONTINUED
New Jersey
Oklahoma
Washington
DANIELS
ENGLISH
MC CORMACK
FENWICK
PRITCHARD
FLORIO
Oregon
HELSTOSKI
AU COIN
West Virginia
HUGHES*
HECHLER
MAGUIRE
MEYNER
Pennsylvania
PATTEN
COUGHLIN
Wisconsin
RODINO*
EDGAR
BALDUS
ROE
ESHLEMAN
CORNELL
GOODLING
KASTENMEIER
New York
HEINZ
REUSS
ABZUG
MORGAN
BADILLO*
NIX
CHISHOLM
ROONEY
CONABLE
VIGORITO
FISH*
GILMAN
Rhode Island
HASTINGS
BEARD
HOLTZMAN
HORTON
South Carolina
KOCH
DAVIS
* Indicates Members of
LA FALCE
JENRETTE
the Judiciary Committee
LENT
MANN*
MC HUGH
***Indicates Members
MITCHELL
South Dakota
of the Subcommittee
OTTINGER
PRESSLER
PATTISON***
RANGEL
Tennessee
RICHMOND
FORD
ROSENTHAL
SCHEUER
Texas
SOLARZ 31
PATMAN
STEELMAN
Nebraska
WILSON
THONE
Utah
North Carolina
HOWE
NEAL
Vermont
North Dakota
JEFFORDS
ANDREWS
Virginia
Ohio
FISHER
MOSHER
HARRIS
MOTTL
WHITEHURST
14
Wednesday, October 8, 1975 THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Wednesday, October 8, 1975
Lobbying: powerful, elusive...and growing
Lobbying in Washington has grown, not lessened, in th
period. A small army of lobbyists representing causes t
to milk outnumber congressmen and senators combine
one, and may spend as much as $1 billion a year. First
By Peter C. Stuart
This newspaper examined for six weeks the
gate and since - 374 in 1971-72, 799 in 1972-73,
Staff correspondent of
little-seen world of Washington lobbying, from
and nearly 1,000 last year, an all-time record.
1
The Christian Science Monitor
the inner offices of lobbies, both humble and
The actual number of registered and unregis-
Washington
plush, to the crowded "Members Only" eleva-
tered lobbyists - reliably estimated a decade
Wednesday, October 8, 1975 THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Wednesday, October 8, 1975
15
owerful, elusive...and growing all the time
Lobbying in Washington has grown, not lessened, in the post-Watergate
period. A small army of lobbyists representing causes that range from guns
to milk outnumber congressmen and senators combined by some 20 to
one, and may spend as much as $1 billion a year. First of four articles.
By Peter C. Stuart
This newspaper examined for six weeks the
gate and since - 374 in 1971-72, 799 in 1972-73,
Staff correspondent of
little-seen world of Washington lobbying, from
and nearly 1,000 last year, an all-time record.
The Christian Science Monitor
the inner offices of lobbies, both humble and
The actual number of registered and unregis-
Washington
'A right, not to be abused'
plush, to the crowded "Members Only" eleva-
tered lobbyists - reliably estimated a decade
20
Tuesday, October 14, 1975
THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
Tuesday, October 14, 1975
Lobbying reform: a new drive to close the
Rules governing lobbying in Washington are studded W
prospects to close them seem brighter now as lobby re
Action could come as early as this year, experts believ
By Peter C. Stuart
- or does not report - is left pretty much up to
- Extend coverage to the executive branch;
Staff correspondent of
him or her. Strict@constructionists report only
- Enforce the rules by empowering the year-
How
The Christian Science Monitor
taxi fares to Capitol Hill and luncheon tabs with
old Federal Election Commission (or the GAO or
Washington
congressmen, waiving everything else as "infor-
an entirely new agency) to investigate possible
Tuesday, October 14, 1975
THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
Tuesday, October 14, 1975
21
eform: a new drive to close the loopholes
Rules governing lobbying in Washington are studded with loopholes - but
prospects to close them seem brighter now as lobby reformers gain strength.
Action could come as early as this year, experts believe. Last of four-parts.
By Peter C. Stuart
- or does not report - is left pretty much up to
- Extend coverage to the executive branch;
Staff correspondent of
him or her. Strict constructionists report only
- Enforce the rules by empowering the year-
How to keep track of the trackers?
The Christian Science Monitor
taxi fares to Capitol Hill and luncheon tabs with
old Federal Election Commission (or the GAO or
Washington
congressmen, waiving everything else as "infor- an entirely new agency) to investigate possible
When de lebbuists lebby? The answer to this officials to log outside contacts the Consumer
14
Thursday, October 9, 1975
THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
Thursday, October 9, 1975
The new lobbying: whirring computers, flo
Computers and pressure from the
grass roots (such as 600 huge coal
trucks in Washington to protest
strip-mining controls) are working
together in a new wave of lobbying
in the United States. Second in a
four-part series.
By Peter C. Stuart
indirect lobbying to people [asking them] to
Staff correspondent of
write their congressmen.
I used to be able
The Christian Science Monitor
to keep track of the lobbyists of the Liquor
U.S. Chamber of Commerce computers whir and flash,
Washington
Goods Association by the postcards I got from
Thursday, October 9, 1975
THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
Thursday, October 9, 1975
15
obying: whirring computers, floods of mail
Computers and pressure from the
grass roots (such as 600 huge coal
trucks in Washington to protest
strip-mining controls) are working
together in a new wave of lobbying
in the United States. Second in a
four-part series.
By Peter C. Stuart
indirect lobbying to people [asking them] to
Photos above and left by R. Norman Matheny, staff photographer
Staff correspondent of
write their congressmen.
I used to be able
The Christian Science Monitor
to keep track of the lobbyists of the Liquor
U.S. Chamber of Commerce computers whir and flash,
as lobbyists aim for mail like this on Capitol Hill
Washington
Goods Association by the postcards I got from
16
Friday, October 10, 1975
THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
Friday, October 10, 1975
The new lobbyists: persuaders in the pub
Unknown a few years ago, public interest
lobbyists such as Ralph Nader and
Common Cause still have small budgets
- but larger and larger impact. This is
the third article in a four-part series on
post-Watergate lobbying.
By Peter C. Stuart
Jerome Wa
$200,000, and a respected, $26,500-a-year exec-
Congressmen now are card-carrying mem-
Staff correspondent of
utive director/lobbyist, Carol T. Foreman.
bers.
The Christian Science Monitor
Five national groups lobby actively for the
"Common Cause has become one of the
Washington
public's environmental protection (Sierra
most effective organizations around," says
Lobbyists
Friday, October 10, 1975
THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
Friday, October 10, 1975
17
bbyists: persuaders in the public interest
Unknown a few years ago, public interest
lobbyists such as Ralph Nader and
Common Cause still have small budgets
- but larger and larger impact. This is
the third article in a four-part series on
post-Watergate lobbying.
By R. Norman Matheny, staff photographer
By Peter C. Stuart
$200,000, and a respected, $26,500-a-year exec-
Congressmen now are card-carrying mem-
Jerome Waldie: once a Congressman, now a lobbyist
Staff correspondent of
utive director/lobbyist, CarolT. Foreman.
bers.
The Christian Science Monitor
Five national groups lobby actively for the
"Common Cause has become one of the
Washington
public's environmental protection (Sierra
most effective organizations around," says
Lobbyists with built-in advantages:
Per.
a
Abush North Cenelina State
Christian Science Monitor
Wednesday, October 15, 1975
Controlling Washington lobbyists
The series on lobbying by Washington
private interests. Most lobbies pour ever-
correspondent Peter C. Stuart, just concluded
increasing sums into campaign coffers.
in the Monitor, shows that federal government
Present lobbying laws are woefully in-
in the United States is far from entirely "of
adequate and seldom enforced. No one knows
the people, by the people, for the people."
for sure how many lobbyists stalk congress-
men or executive agencies, and all but a tiny
While the emergence of consumer groups,
percentage of the money they spend pushing
environmental organizations, and "citizens'
their views goes unreported.
lobbies" has broadened the scope of influence
Hopefully, all of this may change with the
on lawmakers and those who set policy,
new spirit of reform on Capitol Hill. Proposed
special interests to an increasing extent are
legislation would put teeth into lobbying laws
making their voices heard — and heeded on
and broaden their applicability. Needed, as
issues important to all Americans.
the newspaper series pointed out, are a
Sophisticated techniques now are employed
broader definition of "lobbyist," full financial
to muster pressure on members of Congress
disclosure, and control of lobbying activity in
that far outweighs the constituency such
the executive branch as well as Congress.
lobbying represents. It is hard to imagine, for
Some agency of government should be given
instance, lawmakers ignoring that vast major-
the resources and the right of imposing stiff
ity of Americans favoring strict gun control
penalties to ferret out and dissuade violators.
without the well-orchestrated, though rela-
As lobbyist John Gardner of Common Cause
tively small, pro-gun lobby. Many lobbyists
said: "Lobbying is not wrong in itself. But it is
rotate in and out of Congress and executive
wrong to lobby secretly, wrong to deceive the
positions, making use of relationships and
public, wrong to use money in ways that
experience gained at public expense to serve
corrupt the public process."
Page data
- Page
- 1
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- document
- Media ID
- fa88f4224dba9909
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 1563052
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "1563052",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1563052",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Lobbying Act",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1563052",
"collections": [
"John O. Marsh Files (Ford Administration)",
"John Marsh's General Subject Files"
],
"subjects": [
"Legislation",
"Pressure groups"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/52/5630/1563052/content/library/document/0067/1563052.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/52/5630/1563052/content/library/document/0067/1563052.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/52/5630/1563052/content/library/document/0067/1563052.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "1563052",
"label": "Lobbying Act",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1563052"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "1563052",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1563052",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Lobbying Act",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1563052",
"collections": [
"John O. Marsh Files (Ford Administration)",
"John Marsh's General Subject Files"
],
"subjects": [
"Legislation",
"Pressure groups"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/52/5630/1563052/content/library/document/0067/1563052.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/52/5630/1563052/content/library/document/0067/1563052.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/52/5630/1563052/content/library/document/0067/1563052.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1563052",
"naId": 1563052,
"coverageEndDate": {
"logicalDate": "1975-10-31",
"month": 10,
"year": 1975
},
"coverageStartDate": {
"logicalDate": "1975-05-01",
"month": 5,
"year": 1975
},
"levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 1,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "document",
"url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/52/5630/1563052/content/library/document/0067/1563052.pdf",
"mediaId": "fa88f4224dba9909",
"ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 20, folder \"Lobbying Act\" of the John Marsh\nFiles at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nDigitized from Box 20 of The John Marsh Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nMAY 13 1975\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMay 13, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nWILLIAM SKIDMORE\nFROM:\nWILLIAM J. BAROODY, JR.\n/s/\nSUBJECT:\nTestimony of Deputy Attorney General\non S. 774 and S. 815 Replacing Federal\nRegulation of Lobbying Act of 1946\nThe draft statement supplied seems designed to defend and protect\nthe Justice Department's lengthy explanation concerning the lack of\nenforcement under the 1946 Act. The statement complains that S. 774\nwould vest the entire criminal enforcement authority in the Federal\nElection Commission. Furthermore, Justice would not be able to\nprosecute any violation, civil or criminal, unless the Commission\nconsented, and there is doubt cast on Justice's authority to control\nSupreme Court litigation.\nI do not take issue with these positions, but to confine comment on the\nlengthy and far reaching provisions of this legislation to an appendix\nseems to dismiss them as unimportant. They are anything but.\nThere are briefly three major points which I feel should be emphasized:\nA. Legislation should not extend to the Executive Branch.\nB. The definition of what constitues lobbying should be\nmade more specific, particularly because we are\ndealing with a criminal law.\nC. Record keeping and report requirements should be\nkept to the minimum to avoid unnecessary burden\nand casting a chill on communication.\n-2-\nJustice argues that the definition of the \"Policy Making Process\" should\nbe pared back so as to reach only lobbying intended to enlist the support\nof officers and employees in the Executive Branch for or against a legis-\nlative program or otherwise to influence the legislative process. This\ndoes not appear to go far enough. No justification is offered by the\nproponents of S. 774 and S. 815 why regulation of lobbying ought to be\nextended to the Executive Branch in the first place. There is no\nhistorical precedent. This seems an attempt at blanket coverage,\nsweeping direct and indirect lobbying under control of this legislation\nso that realistically speaking, it could be said that the bulk of citizen\ncommunication with the Federal government would give rise to\nregi stration and reporting requirements and attach the stigma of\n\"lobbyist\" to vast numbers of the public.\nI strongly recommend that Justice testify in favor of legislative branch\ncoverage only. The resulting reduction in paperwork, Federal and\nprivate, would be huge; and industry is constantly complaining about\nthe \"Federal paperwork burden.\"\nThe Justice Department testimony endorses the reporting requirements\nof Section 6 of S. 815. These cover slightly more than 2-1/2 pages\n(61 lines) of the bill and seem quite excessive. A lobbyist would have to\nrecord and report: (1) each aspect of the policy making process he\nsought to influence; (2) each Federal officer or employee he tried to\ninfluence; (3) the subject matter of each oral and written communication\nin which an opinion is expected or which contains information on policy-\nmaking. The sheer burden of doing so argues against the requirement.\nI think the \"Policy Making Process\" concept should be abandoned and\nthe definition of lobbying strictly limited so that in fact only overt\nattempts to directly influence legislation are covered. This makes the\ndefinition understandable, lessens the reporting and record keeping\nrequirements, and avoids turning off a great deal of communication\nwhich is essential if both the Executive and Legislative Branch are to\nbe able to do their job effectively.\ncc: John Marsh\nLobbies\nLOBBY LAW NEWEST 'CLEAN GOVERNMENT' TARGET\nThe federal lobbying law, unchanged since 1946, has\nlobbying, and anyone who fit in any of the three categories\nbecome a major target of the \"clean government\" move-\nwould have to register.\nment and its allies in Congress.\nA lobbyist would be someone who spends at least $250\nWithin the past year, advocates of change have\nper quarter or $500 per year on lobbying, or someone who\nsucceeded in revising election laws and persuading con-\nreceives at least that much for work of which lobbying is a\ngressional committees to hold most of their sessions in\nsubstantial part, or someone who makes at least eight\npublic. Changing the lobby law may be even harder to ac-\nseparate oral communications with members or employees\ncomplish.\nof Congress or the executive branch in a quarter.\nThere is general agreement that the 1946 Federal Lob-\nAt the end of each quarter, the Stafford bill would re-\nbying Act (Title III of the 1946 Legislative Reorganization\nquire the lobbyist to file a public report listing each federal\nAct-PL 79-601) tells the public very little about the scope\nemployee he sought to influence, identifying each conversa-\nof lobbying in Washington. For one thing, an organization\ntion he had while lobbying, and providing the names of all\nis not required to register unless it considers lobbying its\npersons whom he persuaded to engage in lobbying in his\n\"principal purpose.\" Any lobby group is free to consider its\nbehalf.\nown work to be outside the requirement, as the National\nThe lobbyist would have to disclose his total in-\nAssociation of Manufacturers did at one time, even though\ncome-not just his lobbying income-plus his total expen-\nit maintained a permanent lobbying staff.\nditures and an itemized list of all lobby expenditures of\nAs interpreted by the Supreme Court in 1954, the lob-\nmore than $10. Lobbying expenditures would include the\nbying law requires those who register to report only the ex-\nmoney used for research, advertising, office space and\npenses involved in their personal contacts with members of\nmailings, rather than just the costs of person-to-person\nCongress. It does not include the money spent on grass-\nlobbying.\nroots lobbying campaigns aimed at persuading constituents\nThe Stafford bill has a strong gift disclosure provision.\naround the country to contact the members. As a result, the\nLobbyists would be required to disclose all expenditures to\nquarterly reports lobbyists file tend to list the trivia of their\ncongressional or federal employees which exceed $25. A\nwork-cigars, lunches and cab fare-and leave out the\ngroup of smaller gifts made together also would have to be\nsalaries and other expenses large organizations commit to\ndisclosed if their aggregate value was more than $100.\nthe job.\nThe Stafford measure would turn enforcement\nIf somebody does manage to violate the mild strictures\nauthority for the lobby law over to the new Federal Elec-\nof the law, it is unlikely that he will be punished. The\ntions Commission, created in the 1974 campaign law. The\nSecretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House collect lobby\ncommission would investigate alleged violations and bring\nregistrations and reports, but have no power to enforce the\ncivil actions to stop them. Stafford would punish ordinary\nrules against violators. The Justice Department, which does\nviolations with fines of up to $1,000, and willful violations\nhave the power, only acts on complaints; it does not seek out\nwith fines of up to $10,000 or imprisonment for up to two\nviolators. Since 1972 only five cases have been referred to\nyears. (Elections commission story, Weekly Report p. 649)\nJustice: there have been no indictments. (Background on\nThe Railsback bill differs slightly from S 815. There\nthe lobby law, 1974 Weekly Report p. 1947)\nwould be no oral communications test in the definition of\nlobbying, no requirement for itemizing lobbying expen-\nHonored in the Breach\nditures of more than $10 a quarter and no requirement that\nthe lobbyist identify the subject matter of each lobbying\n\"The 1946 law is more honored in the breach than\ncommunication.\nanything else,\" said Sen. Robert T. Stafford (R Vt.), the\nBoth bills, however, would expand lobby coverage to\nSenate's leading advocate of a new lobby law. \"I don't\ncontacts with the executive branch, which is not included in\nthink anybody pays much attention to it.\"\nthe 1946 act. The Railsback proposal is bolder on this issue\nStafford and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D Mass.) have\nthan Stafford's, requiring executive branch employees to\nintroduced a comprehensive new lobby bill (S 815) which\nkeep records of the lobbyists who contacted them and sub-\nwould expand the definition of the word lobbyist and re-\njects they discussed.\nquire those who register to keep and submit detailed\nrecords of their activity.\nPublic Image\nA similar bill (HR 15) has been introduced in the House\nby Rep. Tom Railsback (R Ill.), who says the existing law\nThe sponsors of the different lobby bills differ on what\nreaches only a fraction of those who lobby in Washington.\nthey would accomplish. Stafford does not feel the privilege\n\"Many people who should be registered are not,\" he argued.\nof lobbying is being abused under existing law or that\n\"They may be obeying the law, but that's because the law\nCongress is dominated by lobbyists, but simply that\nwas virtually decimated by the Supreme Court decision.\"\nchanges are needed to boost public confidence.\nUnder the Stafford bill, lobbyists no longer would be\n\"Whenever anything is done in private, even if it is\nlegally free to decide for themselves whether they wanted\njustified, it creates the impression that something is\nto file. There would be a complex, three-part definition of\nwrong,\" Stafford said. \"We may do quite a bit of good by\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in pert except by ednorial cirents\nMay 31, 1975-PAGE 1137\nCong.reliston\nSeptember 13, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nMAX FRIEDERSDORF\nFROM:\nJACK MARSH\nOn this Lobbying Report, I am more interested in a summary\nof what the bill seeks to do.\nThanks.\nJOM/dl\nGERALD ? DERALOR FORD\nRED TAG\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 12, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nMAX FRIEDERSDORF\nTHROUGH:\nVERN LOEN VL\nFROM:\nCHARLES LEPPERT, JR.\nSUBJECT:\nStatus Report on Legislation to\nRegulate Lobbying\nThis is in response to your request for a status report on legislation to\nregulate lobbying.\nH.R. 15, \"the Public Disclosure of Lobbying Act of 1975,\" was introduced\nin the House of Representatives on January 14, 1975, co-sponsored by\nRep. Tom Railsback (R. -I11.) and Rep. Bob Kastenmeier (D.-Wisc.). A\nnumber of identical bills have been introduced with one hundred and\nfifty-five co-sponsors (See list attached).\nOn September 11, 1975, the Subcommittee on Administrative Law and\nGovernmental Relations of the House Judiciary before hearings on H.R. 15.\nOnly members of Congress testified on the legislation on September 11th\nand the hearings continue on September 12.\nA copy of H.R. 15 is attached.\nAttachment\nOCT 7 1975\nRED TAG\nTHE\nSE\nM\nWASHINGTON\nOctober 6, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJACK MARSH\nTHRU:\nMAX L. FRIEDERSDORF\nm.b\nVERN LOEN VC\nFROM:\nCHARLES LEPPERT, JR. CLg.\nSUBJECT:\nSummary and Status Report of H.R. 15,\na Bill to Regulate Lobbying and Related\nActivities\nAttached is a brief summary of the legislation as requested and a background\nmemorandum on the bill which was provided to the Republican Members of\nthe Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental Relations of the\nHouse Judiciary Committee.\nNote that paragraph \"F\" of the brief summary and \"page 7\" of the background\nmemorandum set forth the \"logging\" requirements for Executive branch\nemployees.\nThe status of H. R. 15 is that the Subcommittee has held five public hearings\non the bill. Subcommittee Chairman Walter Flowers (D-Ala.) has asked\ncounsel to seek a consensus from the Subcommittee Members on the provisions\nof a draft bill prior to any mark-up session of the subcommittee. Counsel\ninforms me that both Democrats and Republicans on the subcommittee have\nproblems with H.R. 15 which has the support of and is the product of Common\nCause.\nI. H. R. 15 (H. R. 1734)\nA. Definitions\n1. *Defines \"lobbyist\" to be a person who receives or expends\nover $250 in any quarterly filing period, or $500 during\nfour consecutive filing periods.\n2. Excludes from the definition of \"lobbying\" the following:\na. An appearance before a congressional committee or\nthe submission of a written statement thereto or to\nan executive department or agency at the request of\nsuch department or agency. (Apparently does not ex-\nclude oral communications made to an executive agency\nor department made at the request of said entity.)\nb. communications or solicitations by a federal officer\nor employee\nC. communications or solicitations through the normal\ncourse of business of any news, editorial view,\nadvertising or like matter by\n(1) periodical distribution to the general public;\n(2) radio or television broadcast; or\n(3) a book publisher.\nB. Must file notice of representation within 15 days showing-\n1. identification of lobbyist;\n2. identification of person retaining the lobbyist and the\nfinancial terms agreed to;\n3. the decisions to be influenced;\n4. identification of anyone solicited by lobbyist to en-\ngage in lobbying and the financial terms of such arrange-\nment.\nC. Records-must disclose;\n1. total income received by lobbyist;\n*The apparent intent is to make these dollar amounts disjunctive\nrather than conjunctive. However, the drafting of section 2(10)\ncould be construed to mean the contrary. (See p. 4A)\n5\n2. total expenditures of lobbyist and itemization thereof;\n3. identification of each person from whom income is re-\nceived, but in the case of a voluntary membership or-\nganization, the name of a member need not be disclosed\nunless he contributes more than $100 to the organization\nduring the quarterly filing period including the three\npreceding quarterly periods.\nD. Reports-must disclose\n1. All the information required in 2 and 3, supra;\n2. identification of each federal officer or employee\nwith whom the lobbyist communicated during the filing\nperiod;\n3. A copy of any written communication used by the\nlobbyist to solicit others to lobby.\nE. Effect on Tax Status-The various reports required by this\nAct are not to be considered by the IRS.\nF. Executive Logging-\n1. All executive branch employees in grades GS-15 or\nabove, or in any of the executive levels under title\n5 must log all oral and written communications which\nexpress an opinion or contain information relating\nto pending decisions.\n2. These records shall include:\na. name and position of the official contacted;\nb. date communication received;\nC. identification of person from whom the com-\nmunication was received;\nd. summary of the subjects discussed;\ne, copies of any written communications;\nf. description of action taken by official, if any.\nG. Commission\n1. Sets up Federal Elections Commission as administrator of Act,\n2. Powers of Commission:\na. subpoena power;\n6\nb. may hold hearings and conduct investigations.\nC. Commission is the primary enforcing agency. It\nmay prosecute both civil and criminal violations.\nH. Duties of Commission\n1. develop forms;\n2. create filing and indexing system;\n3. make notices and reports available to public in-\nspection;\n4. retain records for 10 years;\n5. summarize reports and put in Federal Register;\n6. make audits and field investigations.\nI. Sanctions\n1. Willful failure to file notice of representation-\n$5,000, 2 yrs. imprisonment, or both.\n2. Falsification of any notice of representation or\nreport-same as 1.\n3. Falsification of any communication to influence\nlegislation-same - as 1.\n4. Failure of executive official to log or falsification\nof such log-same as 1.\nNINETY-FOURTH CONGRESS\nPETER W. RODINO, JR. (N.J.), CHAIRMAN\nGENERAL COUNSEL:\nJACK BROOKS, TEX.\nEDWARD HUTCHINSON, MICH.\nEARL c. DUDLEY. JR.\nROBERT W. KASTENMEIER, WIS.\nROBERT CLORY, ILL\nDON EDWARDS, CALIF.\nTOM RAILSBACK, ILL.\nCongress of the United States\nSTAFF DIRECTOR:\nWILLIAM L. HUNGATE, MO.\nCHARLES E. WIGGINS, CALIF.\nGARNER 1. CLINE\nJOHN CONYERS, JR., MICH.\nHAMILTON FISH, JR., N.Y.\nJOSHUA EILBERG, PA.\nM. CALDWELL BUTLER, VA.\nCOUNSEL:\nWALTER FLOWERS, ALA.\nWILLIAM S. COHEN, MAINE\nJAMES R. MANN, S.C.\nCommittee on the Judiciary\nHERBERT FUCHS\nCARLOS 1. MOORHEAD, CALIF.\nWILLIAM P. SMATTUCK\nPAUL S. SARBANES, MD.\nJOHN M. ASHBROOK, OHIO\nALAN A. PARKER\nJOHN F. SEIBERLING, OHIO\nHENRY 3. HYDE, ILL.\nJAMES F. FALCO\nGEORGE E. DANIELSON, CALIF.\nTHOMAS N. KINDNESS, OHIO\nHouse of Representatives\nMAURICE A. BARBOZA\nROBERT F. DRINAN, MASS.\nARTHUR P. ENDRES. JR.\nBARBARA JORDAN, TEX.\nTHOMAS W. HUTCHISON\nRAY THORNTON, ARK.\nMashington, D.C. 20515\nDANIEL L. COHEN\nELIZABETH HOLTZMAN, N.Y.\nFRANKLIN G. POLK\nEDWARD MEZVINSKY, IOWA\nTHOMAS E. MOONEY\nHERMAN BADILLO, N.Y.\nTelephone: 202-225-3951\nMICHAEL W. BLOMMER\nROMANO L. MAZZOLI, KY.\nALEXANDER B. COOK\nEDWARD W. PATTISON, N.Y.\nCONSTANTINE 3. GEKAS\nCHRISTOPHER J. DODD, CONN.\nALAN F. COFFEY, JR.\nWILLIAM J. HUGHES, N.J.\nKENNETH N. KLEE\nMARTIN A. RUSSO, ILL.\nSeptember 4, 1975\nMEMORANDUM\nTO:\nCongressman Carlos J. Moorhead\nCongressman Thomas N. Kindness\nFROM:\nAlan Coffey Ac\nSUBJECT: Background on Lobby Disclosure Legislation\nOn Thursday, September 11, the Subcommittee on Administrative\nLaw and Governmental Relations will begin hearings on H.R. 15 and\nother related Lobby Disclosure bills. It is expected that the\nentire hearing on that day will consist of testimony from the House\nsponsors and co-sponsors, including Congressman Railsback, Chairman\nRodino and Congressman Kastenmeier. On Friday, the 12th, the tenta-\ntive plan is to hear witnesses from the Department of Justice, the\nGeneral Accounting Office and Federal Energy Administration. Hear-\nings will follow on September 18 and 19 with the witnesses at that\ntime being from major interest groups including: Common Cause,\nChamber of Commerce, the AFL/CIO and the Wilderness Society. Addition-\nal hearings are planned but not yet scheduled.\nConsequently, I thought that the following preliminary analysis\nmight be useful for you to have at this time. Specifically, the\npurposes of this memorandum are: (a) to identify the most notable\nloopholes in the existing Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act (2 U.S.C.\n$261-70; 60 Stat. 839-842); (b) to outline the major features of the\nRailsback-Kastenmeier bill (H.R. 15); and (c) to discuss possible\nConstitutional arguments that could be used against provisions in\nH.R. 15.\n-2-\nA. Loopholes:\n(1) Under the existing law an organization must \"solicit,\ncollect, or receive\" funds to come under the coverage of\nthe statute. So, an organization which merely expends its\nown funds in a lobbying effort, avoids coverage under the\nlaw.\n(2) Under the \"Principal Purpose\" doctrine enunciated in the\nU.S. V. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612(1954), an organization must have\nas its main purpose the influencing of legislation before\nCongress to come under the ambit of the statute.\n(3) The 1946 law applies only to attempts to influence legis-\nlation. It does not cover attempts to influence decisions\nor rulemaking by the Executive Branch or Federal regulatory\nagencies.\n(4) The existing lobby statute does not cover efforts to\ninfluence legislation by personnel in the Executive Branch\nor lobbying which may be done by other government officials\n(i.e. state and local government).\n(5) There is little or no enforcement provided for in the\n1946 law. It merely requires that lobbyists, who come under\nthe coverage of the statute, register and file periodic re-\nports with the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the\nSenate. Their's is a custodial function; there is no require-\nment that they investigate into the accuracy of the reports.\n(6) The Harriss decision also interpreted the 1946 law to\nmean that there must be direct communication or contact with\na member of Congress for an act to constitute lobbying.\nConsequently, the general view is that contact with Congression-\nal staff members or the generation of a grass roots lobbying\neffort (such as a letter writing campaign) does not constitute\ncoverage under the 1946 law.\nB. Public Disclosure of Lobbying Act of 1975 - H.R. 15\n(1) Lobbying - is \"a communication or the solicitation or em-\nployment of another to make a communication with a Federal\n-3-\nofficer or employee in order to influence the policymaking\nprocess\". 1 Section 2(9). This definition aims at filling a\nmuch criticized loophole in the existing law by covering\nindirect lobbying as well as direct communications. In U.S.\nV. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612(1954), the Supreme Court interpreted\nthe 1946 law to mean that there must be direct communication\nor contact with a member of Congress for an act to constitute\nlobbying.\n(2) Lobbyist - One must meet both income and expenditure tests.\nThey are: (A) receives income of $250 or more for lobbying\nduring a quarterly filing period (a calendar quarter); (B)\nreceives income of $500 or more for lobbying during four con-\nsecutive filing periods; (c) spends $250 or more for lobbying\nduring a quarter (personal travel expenses excepted); and\n(D) spends $500 or more for lobbying in four consecutive filing\nperiods. 2 Section 2(10)(A)-(D).\n(3) Exceptions - \"Lobbying\" in H.R. 15 does not include the\nfollowing: (A) testimony before a Congressional Committee or\nan appearance before or the submission of a written statement\nto an Executive agency at its request; (B) any communication\nPolicymaking process\" is defined in Section 2(2) of the bill\nas \"any action taken by a Federal officer or employee with respect\nto any bill, resolution, or other measure in Congress, or with respect\nto any rule, adjudication, or other policy matter in the executive\nbranch.\" The aim is clearly to cover lobbying not only before the\nCongress but in the Executive Branch as well. However, this definition\nraises Constitutional questions of due process and overbreadth, due\nto the vagueness of phrases like \"any action taken\" and \"other policy\nmatter\" in a criminal statute. Is one on notice as to what type of\nconduct is covered and forbidden? Connally V. General Construction Co.,\n269 U.S. 385, 391(1925); Grayned V. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104,108-\n9(1972).\n2 The intent of the sponsors was to have each of the four tests\napply in the disjunctive so that if they fell under any of the four\ncategories, you had to file as a lobbyist. However, the way the bill\nis drafted these four criteria can be read to mean a conjunctive test,\ni.e. that one must meet all four criteria before he has to file.\n-4-\nor solicitation by a Federal officer or employee; 3 (C) any\ncommunication or solicitation within the normal course of\nbusiness by newspapers periodicals, radio and television,\nor by book publishers.4 Section 2(9)(A)-(C). Regarding\nexception \"(C)\" for the media, it should be noted that\n\"advertising\" is included along with \"news\" and \"editorial\nviews\". Presumably advertising is included SO as to make\nit clear that a newspaper would not have to register as a\nlobbyist just because it carries an advertisement intended\nto influence 5 some aspect of the policymaking or political\nprocess.\n(4) Registration - Within 15 days after becoming a lobbyist,\none must file a \"notice of representation\" with the Federal\nElections Commission. The Commission is the designated en-\nforcement agency under H.R. 15. This notice of representation\nmust include the following (as well as any additional information\n3 Note that lobbying by State or local officials is not an ex-\nception. So, for example, a mayor who repeatedly contacts HUD re-\ngarding his city's urban renewal application would have to register\nas a lobbyist. Lobbying by such officials is excepted in the\nKennedy-Stafford bill (s. 815) and in the Metcalf bill (S. 2068).\n4 This exception, however, does not extend to publications of a\n\"voluntary membership organization\" like the Farm Bureau, the Chamber\nof Commerce or the Sierra Club. Solicitations or communication by\nsuch groups would be forms of indirect lobbying under H.R. 15 and\nwould be covered.\n⁵The Subcommittee may want to consider a number of additional\nexceptions, so as to eliminate many of the potential First Amendment\narguments against the bill. For example, Senator Metcalf's bill\n(S. 2068) includes the following exceptions:\n--\"A communication by an individual, acting solely on his own behalf,\nfor redress of his grievances or to express his own opinion;\"\n--\"A communication by an attorney of record on behalf of any person made\nin connection with any criminal investigation or prosecution of such a\nperson;'\n--\"A communication which relates to the status, purpose, or effect of\na decision.\"\n-5-\nthe Commission might prescribe): (1) the lobbyist's identity;\n(2) the identity of his employer or identity of those on whose\nbehalf he will perform his services; (3) a description of the\nfinancial terms and conditions under which he is retained; (4)\nlist each aspect of the policymaking process he expects to seek\nto influence, who will be contacted, the form of communication\nto be used, and what his position will be; 6 (5) identify each\nperson expected to act as an agent for the lobbyist, including\nthe financial arrangements and those aspects of the policymaking\nprocess the agent-lobbyist is expected to seek to influence;\n(6) in the case of a voluntary membership organization, the\napproximate number of members and a description of the methods\nby which the decision to lobby is made. Section 3(1)-(6).\n(5) Recordkeeping - Each lobbyist is required to maintain cer-\ntain records, which will be available to the Commission for\ninspection for at least a period of two years from the date\nof recording. They shall contain the following information:\n(1) total income received by the lobbyist and the amount\nattributable to lobbying; (2) identification of each person\nfrom whom income is received and how much (in the case of\nvoluntary membership organization, the identity of the individ-\nual member need only be recorded if it exceeds $100 during the\nquarterly filing period); (3) the total expenditures, itemizing\n⁶ᴴᵉʳᵉ again, due process-vagueness problems are raised. Does a\nlobbyist always know in advance what issues he will seek to influence\nand what persons he will have to contact? Can one reasonably be ex-\npected to comply with this requirement? A criminal penalty--a $5,000\nfine and up to 2 years imprisonment--can be imposed for a knowing will-\nful violation of Section 3 requirements. See Section 10(a) of the bill.\n7why total income received and not just the income attributable\nto lobbying?\n8 The listing of members contributing $100 or more in a quarter,\nwhich is also required in the reporting provisions (Sec. 5), raises\nConstitutional questions with regard to associational freedom and\nthe right to privacy. In a number of decisions the Supreme Court has\nfound the requirement of disclosure of membership lists to violate the\nFirst Amendment. NAACP V. Alabama, 357 U.S. 499(1958); Bates V. Little\nRock, 361 U.S. 526(1960); NAACP V. Button, 371 U.S. 415(1963); Gibson V.\nFlorida Legislature Committee, 372 U.S. 539(1963). The test laid down\nby the Court is: whether or not there is a substantial relationship\nbetween the information sought (i.e. the list) and a compelling, over-\nriding state interest, so as to justify such an intrusion into the\nFirst Amendment rights of speech, press, association, and petition.\n-6-\neach expenditure made, to employ lobbyists for research,\nadvertising, staff, offices, travel, mailings, and\npublications; (4) each expenditure made directly or indirect-\nly to or for any Federal officer or employee. Section 4.\n(6) Reporting - Within fifteen days after the end of a quarterly\nfiling period, each lobbyist must file a report with the\nCommission covering his activities within that quarter. Each\nreport shall contain the following information (in addition,\nthe Commission shall prescribe any other information it feels\nnecessary): (1) lobbyists' identity; (2) the identity of each\nperson on whose behalf the lobbyist performed services during\nthe quarter (but in the case of a voluntary membership organiza-\ntion, the listing should include only those who contributed\n$100 or more during the quarter); 10 (3) each decision of the\npolicymaking process the lobbyist sought to influence during\nthe quarter; 11 (5) the identity of each Federal officer or\nemployee with the lobbyist communicated during the quarter;\n(6) a copy of any written communication, used by the lobbyist\nto solicit others to lobby and the approximate number of persons\ncontacted; (7) copies of the records required in Section 4,\npertinent to the quarterly period in question. Section 5(1)-(7).\n(7) Tax Status - Section 6 contains a declaimer that none of the\nregistration, recordkeeping and reporting requirements of this\nlegislation should be taken into consideration by the Internal\nRevenue Service in determining whether or not a specific\norganization deserves preferred tax status. The present education-\nal and charitable exemption and deduction provisions prohibit the\ngranting of preferred tax status to any organization which carries\non substantial political activities, such as attempting to influence\n9 \"Person\" is defined in Sec. 2 as \"a corporation, company,\nassociation, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company, as\nwell as an individual\". Note that the definition does not specifically\nmention a union.\n¹⁰see footnote #8 regarding the Constitutional questions raised\nby requiring what amounts to a partial membership list.\n11How is \"decision\" to be interpreted by the lobbyist? \"Decision\"\nis not defined anywhere in the bill. Again, the language is vague\nand raises due process questions.\n-7-\n12\nlegislation.\n(8) Logging - Each official or employee of the Executive Branch\nwho is grade GS-15 or above, or is designated as being respon-\nsible for making or recommending decisions affecting the\n\"policymaking process\" must maintain detailed records or oral\nor written communications received directly or indirectly ex-\npressing an opinion or containing information with respect to\nsuch policy matters. The records shall contain at least the\nfollowing information: (1) the name and position of the\nofficial or employee who received the communication; (2) the\ndate upon which the communication was received; (3) an identifi-\ncation, so far as possible, of the person from whom the com-\nmunication was received and of the person on whose behalf such\nperson was acting in making the communication; (4) a brief\nsummary of the subject matter or matters of the communication,\nincluding relevant docket numbers if known; (5) in the case of\ncommunications through letters, documents, briefs, and other\nwritten material, copies of such material in its original\nform; and (6) a brief description, when applicable, of any action\ntaken by the official or employee in response to the communication.\nSection 7(a)(1)-(6).\nEach agency in the Executive Branch is responsible for assuring\nthat the records prepared pursuant to this provision are placed\nin the appropriate case files, within two working days after\nthe communication is received. Also these records shall be\nmade available for public inspection. Section 7(b) and 7(c).\n(9) Administration and Enforcement - The Federal Elections\nCommission13 is made the administrator of the Act and is also\n12 Int. Rev. Code of 1954, Sec. 170(c)(B)-(D), Sec. 501(c)(3),\nas amended, Tax Reform Act of 1969, Pub. L. No. 91-172, Sec. 201\n(a) (1) (B), 83 Stat. 549.\n13 The Federal Elections Commission was established under Section\n310 of the \"Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974\". (P.L. 93-\n443). The Constitutionality of its powers and the method of appoint-\nment of the Commissioners is currently under court challenge. Buckley,\net. al. V. Valeo, et. al., Civil No. 75-0001 (D.C. Cir., 1975).\n-8-\ngiven the primary civil and criminal enforcement responsibility\nunder it. Included among its powers: (1) the power to compel\nanswers to written interrogatories; (2) power to subpoena\nwitnesses, and to compel testimony and documentary evidence;\n(3) the power to initiate civil and criminal actions for the\npurpose of enforcing provisions of the Act. 14 Section 8(a)-(7);\nSection 8(b) and Section 8(c).\nThe duties of the Commission include: (1) development of all\nnecessary forms as well as rules, regulations and guidelines\nfor compliance; (2) create a filing and indexing system; (3)\nretain the records of the notices and reports for ten years;\n(4) make notices and reports available for public inspection;\n(5) summarize the reports received and put in the Federal\nRegister; (6) conduct investigations to ascertain whether any\nlobbyist has failed to comply fully and accurately; (7) make\naudits and field investigations; and (8) recommend additional\nlegislation to carry out the purposes of the Act. Section 9.\n(10) Criminal Penalties - (1) Knowing and willful failure to\nfile notice of representation--$5,000, 2 yrs. imprisonment,\nor both; (2) Falsification of any notice or representation\nor report--$5,000, 2 yrs. imprisonment, or both; (3) Falsifica-\ntion of any communication to influence legislation and executive\ndecisions--$5,000, 2 yrs. imprisonment, or both; (4) Failure\nof executive official to log or falsification of such log--\n$5,000, 2 yrs. imprisonment, or both. Section 10(a)-(d).\n(11) Miscellaneous - Section 11 repeals the 1946 statute and\nSection 12 provides that the Act take effect on the date of\nenactment (However, the recordkeeping requirements under\nSection 5(a) would not begin until the regulations are issued.).\n14 Section 8(c) states that the Commission is the \"primary\ncivil and criminal enforcement agency\" under the Act and that the\nJustice Department has no authority to enforce any civil or criminal\nviolation of the Act unless the Commission consents. To vest ex-\nclusive enforcement in the Commission may violate the doctrine of\nseparation of powers. Ponzi V. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254, 262(1922),\nMyers V. U.S., 272 U.S. 52, 164(1926); Springer V. Philippine Islands,\n277 U.S. 189, 202(1928); Humphrey's Executor V. U.S., 295 U.S. 602\n(1935); U.S. V. Cox, 342 F. 2d 167, 171(5th Cir., 1965).\n-9-\nC. Constitutional Questions Raised by Lobby Disclosure Legislation\n(1) Right to Petition - Lobbying has been judicially recognized\nas an exercise of the First Amendment right to petition the\nGovernment for the redress of grievances. U.S. V. Harriss,\n347 U.S. 612(1954); Liberty Lobby V. Pearson, 390 F.2d 489(1968).\nConsequently, any interference with, or modification of those\nrights must be closely scrutinized to determine whether the\nlimitation on these rights is reasonable, necessary and justified\nby the national interest.\nSo, for example, one might argue that the \"Logging\" provision\nin Section 7(a) of H.R. 15 serves to discourage government\nofficials from communicating with private parties regarding\nimportant policy matters. It could inhibit the access of\nprivate interest groups and even individual citizens to public\nofficials. Does the discouragement of such communications\nserve a national interest? Is such a deterrent to the exercise\nof First Amendment rights reasonable?\n(2) Due Process - H.R. 15 and, in fact, all of the lobby\ndisclosure bills pending before our Subcommittee contain criminal\npenalties. Thus, the language of the bills cannot be vague or\nbroad, or there is a violation of the Due Process clause. The\nConstitutional requirement of definiteness is violated by a\ncriminal statute that fails to give a person of ordinary intel-\nligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden\nunder the statute\nno man should be held criminally respon-\nsible for the conduct which he could not responsibly understand\nwould be proscribed and forbidden. Connally V. General Construction\nCo., 269 U.S. 285, 291(1925); Jordan V. DeGeorge, 341 U.S. 223,\n230-232(1951); Grayned V. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-9\n(1972).\nH.R. 15 contains phrases like \"any action taken\", \"other policy\nmatter\", and \"attempts to influence the policymaking process.\"\nIs a person clearly on notice as to what conduct the bill covers\nand what is forbidden?\n(3) Freedom to Associate - Section 4(2) of H.R. 15 requires\nthat a voluntary membership organization supply a list of its\n-10-\nindividual members that contribute $100 or more during a\nquarterly reporting period to the Federal Elections Commission\n(e.g. enforcement agency). While, admittedly, this requirement\nwould probably result only in a partial membership list, it\nstill raises Constitutional questions regarding the rights of\nprivacy and associational freedom. In a number of cases, the\nSupreme Court has found the requirement of disclosure of member-\nship lists to violate the First Amendment. NAACP V. Alabama,\n357 U.S. 499(1958); Gibson V. Florida Legislative Committee,\n372 U.S. 539(1963), et. al. There must be an overriding public\ninterest to justify such an intrusion.\n(4) Unlawful Delegation of Executive Powers - H.R. 15 would\nplace the primary criminal enforcement authority in the\nFederal Elections Commission. The Commission is, at least\npartially, a legislative body, since a majority of its members\nare appointed and removable by Congress (the President nominates\nonly two of its members). P.L. 93-443. Legislative power, as\ndistinguished from executive power, is the authority to make\nlaws, but not to enforce them or appoint the agents charged\nwith the duty of such enforcement. Springer V. Philippine\nIslands, 277 U.S. 189, 202(1928). The prosecution of offenses\nagainst the United States is an executive function within the\nexclusive prerogative of the Attorney General. Ponzi V. Fessenden,\n258 U.S.254, 262(1922); U.S. V. Cox, 342 F.2d 167, 190(5th Cir.,\n1965). The argument that the powers and composition of the\nCommission violates the doctrine of separation of powers is one\nof the issues now being litigated in Buckley, et. al. V. Valeo,\net. al., Civil No. 75-0001(D.C. Cir., 1975).\nAFC:mk\nEnclosure\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDate: 9-15-75\nTO: Chas. Leppert\nFROM: Max L. Friedersdorf\nFor Your Information\nPlease Handle\nPlease See Me\nComments, Please\nOther\n57087\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 13, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nMAX FRIEDERSDORF\nFROM:\nJACK MARSH Jan\nOn this Lobbying Report, I am more inte summary\nof what the bill seeks to do.\nThanks.\nRED TAG\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 12, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nMAX FRIEDERSDORF\nTHROUGH:\nVERN LOEN VL\nFROM:\nCHARLES LEPPERT, JR.\nSUBJECT:\nStatus Report on Legislation to\nRegulate Lobbying\nThis is in response to your request for a status report on legislation to\nregulate lobbying.\nH.R. 15, \"the Public Disclosure of Lobbying Act of 1975, 11 was introduced\nin the House of Representatives on January 14, 1975, co-sponsored by\nRep. Tom Railsback (R. -I11.) and Rep. Bob Kastenmeier (D. .Wisc. ). A\nnumber of identical bills have been introduced with one hundred and\nfifty-five co-sponsors (See list attached).\nOn September 11, 1975, the Subcommittee on Administrative Law and\nGovernmental Relations of the House Judiciary before hearings on H.R. 15.\nOnly members of Congress testified on the legislation on September 11th\nand the hearings continue on September 12.\nA copy of H.R. 15 is attached.\nAttachment\n94TH CONGRESS\n1ST SESSION\nH. R. 15\nIN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES\n3\nJANUARY 14, 1975\nMr. RAILSBACK (for himself and Mr. KASTENMEIER) introduced the following\nbill; which was referred to the Committees on the Judiciary and Standards\nof Official Conduct\nA\nBILL\nTo regulate lobbying and related activities.\n1\nBe it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-\n2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,\n3\nSHORT TITLE\n4\nSECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the \"Public\n5 Disclosure of Lobbying Act of 1975\".\n6\nDEFINITIONS\nLIBRATY GERALD ? FORD\n7\nSEC. 2. As used in this Act, the term-\n8\n(1) \"person\" includes a corporation, company,\n9\nassociation, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock\n10\ncompany, as well as an individual;\n11\n(2) \"the policymaking process\" means any action\n2\n1\ntaken by a Federal officer or employee with respect to\n2\nany bill, resolution, or other measure in Congress, or\n3\nwith respect to any rule, adjudication, or other policy\n4\nmatter in the executive branch;\n5\n(3) \"Federal officer or employee\" means any offi-\n6\ncer or employee in the legislative or executive branch,\n7\nand includes a Member of Congress, Delegate to Con-\nS\ngress, or the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico;\n9\n(4) \"income\" means the receipt or promise of any\n10\nconsideration, whether or not legally enforceable;\n11\n(5) \"expenditure\" means the transfer or promise\n12\nof any consideration, whether or not legally enforceable;\n13\n(6) \"quarterly filing period\" means any calendar\n14\nquarter;\n15\n(7) \"voluntary membership organization\" means\n16\nan organization composed of individuals who are mem-\n17\nbers thereof on a voluntary basis and who, as a condition\n18\nof membership, are required to make regular payments\n19\nto the organization;\n20\n(8) \"identification\" means in the case of an indi-\n21\nvidual, the name, address, occupation, principal place\n22\nof business, and position held in that business, of the\n23\nindividual. and in the case of a person other than an\nindividual. its name, address, principal officers, and\nABVERIT GERALD R. FORM\n24\n25\nboard of directors, if any;\n3\n1\n(9) \"lobbying\" means a communication or the\n2\nsolicitation or employment of another to make a com-\n3\nmunication with a Federal officer or employee in order\n4\nto influence the policymaking process, but does not\n5\ninclude—\n6\n(A) an appearance before a congressional\n7\ncommittee, subcommittee, or joint committee or\nS\nthe submission of a written statement thereto or\n9\nto any Federal executive department, agency, or\n10\nentity at the request of such department, agency, or\n11\nentity;\n12\n(B) any communication or solicitation by a\n13\nFederal officer or employee; or\n14\n(C) except with respect to a publication of\n15\na voluntary membership organization, any com-\n16\nmunication or solicitation through the distribution\n17\nin the normal course of business of any news, edi-\n18\ntorial view, letter to an editor, advertising, or like\n19\nmatter by-\n20\n(1) a periodical distribution to the gen-\n21\neral public;\n22\n(2) radio or television broadcast: or\nGERALD FORD LIBRARA\n23\n(3) a book publisher;\n24\n(10) \"lobbyist\" means, with respect to any quar-\n4\n1\nterly filing period, any person who engages in lobby-\n2\ning during that period and who—\n3\n(A) receives income of $250 or more for such\n4\nlobbying during that period, whether such income\n1\n5\nis the prorated portion of total income attributable\n6\nto that lobbying, or is received specifically for the\n7\nlobbying;\n8\n(B) receives an income of $500 or more for\n9\nsuch lobbying during a total of four consecutive\n10\nquarterly filing periods, in each period of those\n11\nfour which begins after that total of $500 has\n12\nbeen received;\n13\n(C) makes an expenditure of $250 or more,\n14\nexcept for the personal travel expenses of the lobby-\n15\nist, for lobbying during that period; and\n16\n(D) makes an expenditure of $500 or more\n17\nfor lobbying during a total of four consecutive\n18\nquarterly filing periods, in each period of those\n19\nfour which begins after that total of $500 has been\n20\nexpended;\n21\n(11) \"Commission\" means the Federal Election\n22\nCommission.\n23\nNOTICES OF REPRESENTATION\nLIBRARY GERALD ? FORD\n24\nSEC. 3. Each lobbyist shall file a notice of representa-\n25 tion with the Commission not later than fifteen days after\n5\n1 first becoming a lobbyist, and each lobbyist who has filed\n2 such a notice and has been inactive as a lobbyist for three\n3 consecutive quarterly filing periods shall also file a notice\n4 of representation when that lobbyist again becomes a lobby-\n5 ist. The notice of representation shall be in such form and\n6 contain such information as the Commission shall prescribe,\n7 including-\n8\n(1) an identification of the lobbyist;\n3\n9\n(2) an identification, SO far as possible, of each\n10\nperson on whose behalf the lobbyist expects to perform\n11\nservices as a lobbyist;\n12\n(3) a description of the financial terms and con-\n13\nditions on which any lobbyist who is an individual is\n14\nretained by any person, and the identification of that\n15\nperson;\n16\n(4) each aspect of the policymaking process which\n17\nthe lobbyist expects to seek to influence, including any\n18\nGovernment agency, committee, or Federal officer or\n19\nemployee, with which contact is to be made, the form\n20\nof communication used, and whether for or against a\n21\nparticular measure;\n22\n(5) an identification of each person who, as of\nLIBRATA GERALD = FORD\n23\nthe date of filing, is expected to be acting for such\n24\nlobbyist and to be engaged in lobbying including-\n6\n1\n(A) any financial terms or conditions of such\n2\nperson's SO acting; and\n3\n(B) the aspects of the policymaking process\n4\nsuch person is expected to work at influencing; and\n5\n(6) in the case of a voluntary membership organi-\n6\nzation, the approximate number of members and a de-\n7\nscription of the methods by which the decision to engage\n8\nin lobbying is made.\n9\nRECORDS\n10\nSEC. 4. Each lobbyist shall maintain for not less than\n11 two years after the date of recording records which shall be\n12 available to the Commission for inspection and which con-\n13 tain the following information:\n14\n(1) The total income received by the lobbyist,\n15\nand the amount of such income attributable to lobbying.\n16\n(2) The identification of each person from whom\n17\nincome is received and the amount received, but in the\n18\ncase of a voluntary membership organization a contribu-\n19\ntion during any quarterly filing period from a member\n20\nneed be recorded only if the contributions to such or-\n21\nganization from such member are more than $100 during\n22\nthat quarterly filing period, or during that quarterly fil-\n23\ning period combined with the three immediately preced-\nFORD\n24\nGER\ning such periods.\nLIBRARY\n25\n(3) The total expenditures of such lobbyist for\n26\nlobbying, itemizing any expenditure made-\n7\n1\n(A) to employ lobbyists (and the amount re-\n2\nceived by each lobbyist SO employed) ; and\n3\n(B) for research, advertising, staff, offices,\n4\ntravels, mailings, and publications.\n5\n(4) Each expenditure made directly or indirectly to\n6\nor for any Federal officer or employee.\n7\nREPORTS\n8\n3\nSEC. 5. Each lobbyist shall not later than fifteen days\n9 after the last day of a quarterly filing period file a report\n10 with the Commission covering that lobbyist's activities dur-\n11 ing that quarterly filing period. Each such report shall be\n12 in such form and contain such information as the Commis-\n13 sion shall prescribe, including-\n14\n(1) an identification of the reporting lobbyist;\n15\n(2) an identification of each person on whose\n16\nbehalf the reporting lobbyist performed services as a\n17\nlobbyist during the covered period, but not including\n18\nany member of any voluntary membership organization\n19\non whose behalf the lobbyist performed such services,\n20\nif the member contributed not more than $100 to the\n21\norganization during the covered period or during that\n22\nperiod combined with the three immediately preceding\nFORD\n23\nquarterly filing periods;\nGERALD\n24\n(3) an identification of each person who acted as\n8\n1\na lobbyist on behalf of the reporting lobbyist during the\n2\ncovered period;\n3\n(4) each decision of the policymaking process the\n4\nreporting lobbyist sought to influence during the covered\n1\n5\nperiod, including bill. numbers where relevant;\n6\n(5) an identification of each Federal officer or\n7\nemployee with whom the reporting lobbyist communi-\n8\ncated during the covered period in order to influence\n9\nthe policymaking process;\n10\n(6) a copy of any written communication used by\n11\nthe reporting lobbyist during the covered period to solicit\n12\nother persons to lobby, and an estimate of the number\n13\nof persons to whom such written communication was\n14\nmade; and\n15\n(7) copies of the records required to be kept by\n16\nthe reporting lobbyist under section 4, to the extent\n17\nsuch records pertain to the covered period.\n$\n18 EFFECT OF FILING ON CERTAIN DETERMINATIONS UNDER\n19\nTHE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1954\n20\nSEC. 6. Compliance with the filing requirements of this\n21 Act shall not be taken into consideration in determining, for\n22 purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, whether a\n23 substantial part of the activities of an organization is carry-\n24 ing on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence\n25 legislation.\nLIBRARY GERALD ? FORD\n9\n1\nRECORDS OF OUTSIDE CONTACTS\n2\nSEC. 7. (a) All officials and employees of the executive\n3 branch in grades GS-15 or above in the General Schedule,\n4 or in any of the executive levels under title 5 of the United\n5 States Code, or who are designated by any person to whom\n6 this subsection otherwise applies as being responsible for\n7 making or recommending decisions affecting the policymak-\n3\n8 ing process in the executive branch, shall prepare a record\n9 of each oral or written communication received directly or by\n10 referral from outside parties expressing an opinion or con-\n11 taining information with respect to such process. The records\n12 shall be in such form and contain such information as the\n13 Commission shall prescribe, including-\n14\n(1) the name and position of the official or em-\n15\nployee who received the communication;\n16\n(2) the date upon which the communication was\n17\nreceived;\n18\n(3) an identification, so far as possible, of the person\n19\nfrom whom the communication was received and of the\n20\nperson on whose behalf such person was acting in mak-\n21\ning the communication;\n22\n(4) a brief summary of the subject matter or mat-\nGERALD FORD\n23\nters of the communication, including relevant docket\n24\nnumbers if known;\n25\n(5) in the case of communications through letters,\n10\n1\ndocuments, briefs, and other written material, copies of\n2\nsuch material in its original form; and\n3\n(6) a brief description, when applicable, of any\n4\naction taken by the official or employee in response\n5\nto the communication.\n6\n(b) Each agency in the executive branch shall assure\n7 that records prepared pursuant to subsection (a) of this\n8 section shall be placed, within two working days of the date\n9 when such communication was received, in the case file of\n10 the rulemaking or adjudication to which the communication\n11 related. If the communication related to matters for which\n12 there was no such case file, the records of such communica-\n13 tion shall be placed in a public file which shall be maintained\n14 in the same location as the case files.\n15\n(c) Each agency in the executive branch shall assure\n16 that records filed pursuant to subsection (b) of this section\n9.\n17 shall be made available for public inspection in a convenient\n18 location within the agency. A comprehensive index of such\n19 records by subject matter and, when applicable, docket num-\n20 ber shall be maintained and made available for public\n21 inspection in such location.\n22\nPOWERS OF COMMISSION\n23\nSEC. 8. (a) The Commission has the power for the pur-\n24 poses of this Act-\n25\n(1) to require, by special or general orders, any\nLISRARY TBERALO ? FORD\n11:\n1\nperson to submit in writing such reports and answers to\n2\nquestions as the Commission may prescribe; and such\n3\nsubmission shall be made within such reasonable period\n4\nand under oath or otherwise as the Commission may\n5.\ndetermine;\n6\n(2) to administer oaths;\n7\n(3) to require by subpena, signed by the Chair-\nMD\n8\nman or the Vice Chairman, the attendance and testi-\n9\nmony of witnesses and the production of all documen-\n10\ntary evidence relating to the execution of its duties;\n11\n(4) in any proceeding or investigation to order\n12\ntestimony to be taken by deposition before any person\n13\nwho is designated by the Commission and has the power\n14\nto administer oaths and, in such instances, to compel:\n15\ntestimony and the production of evidence in the same\n16\nmanner as authorized under paragraph (3) of this sub-\n17\nsection;\n18\n(5) to initiate (through civil proceedings for in-\n19\njunctive relief and through presentation to Federal\n20\ngrand juries), prosecute, defend, or appeal any civil or\n21\ncriminal action in the name of the Commission for the\n22\npurpose of enforcing the provisions of the Act through\n23\nits General Counsel;\nLISBARY GERALD FORD\n24\n(6) to delegate any of its functions or powers,\n25\nother than the power to issue subpenas under paragraph\n12\n1\n(3), to any officer or employee of the Commission; and\n2\n(7) to make, amend, and repeal such rules as are\n3\nnecessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.\n4\n(b) Any United States district court within the juris-\n5 diction of which any inquiry is carried on may, upon peti-\n6 tion by the Commission, in case of refusal to obey a sub-\n7 pena or order of the Commission issued under subsection (a)\n8 of this section, issue an order requiring compliance there-\n9 with. Any failure to obey the order of the court may be pun-\n10 ished by the court as a contempt thereof.\n11\n(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the\n12 Commission shall be the primary civil and criminal enforce-\n13 ment agency for violations of the provisions of this Act.\n14 Any violations of any such provision shall be prosecuted by\n15. the Attorney General or Department of Justice personnel\n16 only after consultation with, and with the consent of, the\n17 Commission.\nin\n18\nDUTIES OF THE COMMISSION\n19\nSEC. 9. It shall be the duty of the Commission-\n20\n(1) to develop forms for the filing of notices of\n21\nrepresentation, and reports pursuant to sections 3 and\n22\n5 of this Act and to furnish such forms to lobbyists\n23\nupon request;\n24\n(2) to develop forms for the filing of records of out-\n25\nside contacts under section 7;\nLIBRARY GERALD FORD\n13\n1\n(3) to prepare a manual setting forth recommended\n2\nuniform methods of bookkeeping and reporting and to\n3\nfurnish such manual to lobbyists upon request;\n4\n(4) to develop a filing, coding, and cross-indexing\n5\nsystem consonant with the purpose of this Act;\n6\n(5) to make the notices of representation and\n7\nreports filed with it available for public inspection and\n8\ncopying, commencing as soon as practicable but not\n9\nlater than the end of the second day following the day\n10\nduring which it was received, and to permit copying of\n11\nany such report or statement by hand or by duplicating\n12\nmachine, as requested by any person, at the expense of\n13\nsuch person, provided that the charge doesnot exceed\n14\nactual marginal cost, but no information copied from\n15\nsuch reports and statements shall be sold or utilized by\n16\nany person for the purpose of soliciting contributions\n17\nor for any commercial purpose;\n18\n(6) to preserve the originals or copies of such\n19\nnotices and reports for a period of ten years from date\n20\nof receipt;\n21\n(7) to compile and summarize, with respect to\n22\neach filing period, the information contained in such\n23\nnotices, and reports in a manner reflective of the dis-\n24\nclosure intent of this Act and in specific relation to-\n25\n(A) the lobbying activities and expenditures\n14\n1\npertaining to specific legislative or executive\n2\nactions, including the identity of the lobbyists\n3\ninvolved and of the persons in whose behalf they\n4\nare acting; and\n5\n(B) the lobbying activities and expenditures\n6\nof persons who share an economic, business, or\n7\nprofessional interest in the legislative or execu-\n8\ntive actions which they have sought to influence:\n9\n(8) to have such information, as SO compiled and\n10\nsummarized, published in the Federal Register within\n11\nfifteen days after the close of each filing period;\n12\n(9) to have each notice of representation which\n13\nis filed by any lobbyist published in the Federal Reg-\n14\nister within three days after each such notice was\n15\nreceived by the Commission;\n16\n(10) to ascertain whether any lobbyist has failed\n17\nto comply fully and accurately with the disclosure\n18\nrequirements of this Act and promptly notify such per-\n19\nson to file such notices and reports. as are necessary to\n20\nsatisfy the requirements of this Act or regulations pre-\n21\nscribed by the Commission under this Act;\n22\n(11) to make audits and field investigations with\n23\nrespect to the notices, and reports filed under the pro-\n24\nvisions of this Act, and with respect to alleged failures\n25\nto file any statement or reports required under the pro-\nLISRARY GERALD ? FORM\n15\n1\nvisions of this Act, and, upon complaint by any indi-\n2\nvidual, with respect to alleged violations of any part\n3\nof this Act;\n4\n(12) to prepare a special study or report upon the\n5\nrequest of any Member of the House of Representatives\n6\nor the Senate from information in the records of the\n7\nCommission; or, if such records do not contain the\nS\nnecessary information, but the information would fall\n3\n9\nunder the scope of information required by this Act,\n10\nthe Commission may inspect the records of the appro-\n11\npriate parties and prepare the report, but only if such\n12\nspecial inspection can be completed in a reasonable\n13\ntime before the information would normally be filed;\n14\n(13) to prepare and publish such other reports\n15\nas it may deem appropriate;\n16\n(14) to prescribe suitable rules and regulations to\n17\ncarry out the provisions of this Act; and\n18\n(15) to recommend legislation to carry out the\n19\npurposes of this Act.\n20\nSANCTIONS\n21\nSEC. 10. (a) Any lobbyist who knowingly and willfully\n22\nviolates section 3 of this Act shall be fined not more than\n23 $5,000 or imprisoned for not more than two years.\n24\n(b) Any person who knowingly and willfully falsifies\nLIBRAST GERALD ? FORD\n25 all or part of any notice of representation or report which\n26 hn Glos with the Commission under this Act shall be fined\n16\n1 not more than $5,000 or imprisoned for not more than two\n2 years, or both.\n3\n(c) Any person who knowingly and willfully falsifies or\n4 forges all or part of any communication to influence legis-\n5 lative or executive action shall be fined not more than\n6 $5,000 or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.\n7\n(d) Any Federal officer or employee of the executive\n8 branch to whom section 7 applies who knowingly and will-\n9 fully falsifies, forges, or fails to file any record as required\n10 by such section shall be fined not more than $5,000, or\n11 imprisoned not more than two years, or both.\n12\nREPEAL OF FEDERAL REGULATION OF LOBBYING ACT\n13\nSEC. 11. The Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act (60\n14 Stat. 839-842; 2 U.S.C. 261 et seq.) and that part of the\n15 table of contents of the Legislative Reorganization Act of\n16 1946 which pertains to title III, also known as the Federal\n17 Regulation of Lobbying Act (60 Stat. 813), are repealed,\n18 effective on the date on which the regulations to carry out\n19 this Act first become effective..\n20\nEFFECTIVE DATE\n21\nSEC. 12. The provisions of this Act shall take effect upon\n22 the date of its enactment, except that any person required\n23 by section 5 (a) to maintain records shall not have any\n24 duties or obligations under this Act to maintain such rec-\nDEBALO FORD LIBRARY\n25 ords until the date on which the regulations to carry out\n26 this Act first becomes effective.\nCO-SPONSORS\nAlabama\nFlorida Cont'\nMaryland\nBUCHANAN\nLEHMAN\nGUDE\nPEPPER\nHOLT\nArizona\nROGERS\nLONG\nUDALL\nYOUNG\nSARBANES*\nSPELLMAN\nCalifornia\nGuam\nANDERSON\nWON PAT\nMassachusetts\nBELL\nBOLAND\nBROWN\nHawaii\nDRINAN*\nBURKE\nMATSUNAGA\nHARRINGTON\nBURTON, PHILLIP\nMINK\nHECKLER\nCORMAN\nMOAKLEY\nDANIELSON***\nIllinois\nSTUDDS\nDELLUMS\nHALL\nTSONGAS\nEDWARDS*\nHYDE*\nHANNAFORD\nMADIGAN\nMichigan\nHAWKINS\nMIKVA\nBLANCHARD\nHINSHAW\nO'BRIEN\nBRODHEAD\nKETCHUM\nRAILSBACK*\nCARR\nKREBS\nSIMON\nCONYERS*\nLAGOMARSINO\nYATES\nESCH\nMC CLOSKEY\nRIEGLE\nMILLER\nIndiana\nRUPPE\nMINETA\nHAMILTON\nVANDER JAGT\nREES\nJACOBS\nSTARK\nMinnesota\nWAXMAN\nIowa\nFRASER\nBEDELL\nNOLAN\nColorado\nBLOUIN\nQUIE\nSCHROEDER\nHARKIN\nWIRTH\nMEZVINSKY*\nMississippi\nCOCHRAN\nConnecticut\nKansas\nLOTT\nDODD*\nKEYS\nGIAMO\nWINN\nMissouri\nMC KINNEY\nICHORD\nSARASIN\nKentucky\nSYMINGTON\nHUBBARD\nDelaware\nMAZZOLI***\nMontana\nDUPONT\nBAUCUS\nMaine\nFlorida\nCOHEN*\nNew Hampshire\nBAFALIS\nEMERY\nCLEVELAND\nFASCELL\nCO-SPONSORS CONTINUED\nNew Jersey\nOklahoma\nWashington\nDANIELS\nENGLISH\nMC CORMACK\nFENWICK\nPRITCHARD\nFLORIO\nOregon\nHELSTOSKI\nAU COIN\nWest Virginia\nHUGHES*\nHECHLER\nMAGUIRE\nMEYNER\nPennsylvania\nPATTEN\nCOUGHLIN\nWisconsin\nRODINO*\nEDGAR\nBALDUS\nROE\nESHLEMAN\nCORNELL\nGOODLING\nKASTENMEIER\nNew York\nHEINZ\nREUSS\nABZUG\nMORGAN\nBADILLO*\nNIX\nCHISHOLM\nROONEY\nCONABLE\nVIGORITO\nFISH*\nGILMAN\nRhode Island\nHASTINGS\nBEARD\nHOLTZMAN\nHORTON\nSouth Carolina\nKOCH\nDAVIS\n* Indicates Members of\nLA FALCE\nJENRETTE\nthe Judiciary Committee\nLENT\nMANN*\nMC HUGH\n***Indicates Members\nMITCHELL\nSouth Dakota\nof the Subcommittee\nOTTINGER\nPRESSLER\nPATTISON***\nRANGEL\nTennessee\nRICHMOND\nFORD\nROSENTHAL\nSCHEUER\nTexas\nSOLARZ 31\nPATMAN\nSTEELMAN\nNebraska\nWILSON\nTHONE\nUtah\nNorth Carolina\nHOWE\nNEAL\nVermont\nNorth Dakota\nJEFFORDS\nANDREWS\nVirginia\nOhio\nFISHER\nMOSHER\nHARRIS\nMOTTL\nWHITEHURST\n14\nWednesday, October 8, 1975 THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR\nTHE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Wednesday, October 8, 1975\nLobbying: powerful, elusive...and growing\nLobbying in Washington has grown, not lessened, in th\nperiod. A small army of lobbyists representing causes t\nto milk outnumber congressmen and senators combine\none, and may spend as much as $1 billion a year. First\nBy Peter C. Stuart\nThis newspaper examined for six weeks the\ngate and since - 374 in 1971-72, 799 in 1972-73,\nStaff correspondent of\nlittle-seen world of Washington lobbying, from\nand nearly 1,000 last year, an all-time record.\n1\nThe Christian Science Monitor\nthe inner offices of lobbies, both humble and\nThe actual number of registered and unregis-\nWashington\nplush, to the crowded \"Members Only\" eleva-\ntered lobbyists - reliably estimated a decade\nWednesday, October 8, 1975 THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR\nTHE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Wednesday, October 8, 1975\n15\nowerful, elusive...and growing all the time\nLobbying in Washington has grown, not lessened, in the post-Watergate\nperiod. A small army of lobbyists representing causes that range from guns\nto milk outnumber congressmen and senators combined by some 20 to\none, and may spend as much as $1 billion a year. First of four articles.\nBy Peter C. Stuart\nThis newspaper examined for six weeks the\ngate and since - 374 in 1971-72, 799 in 1972-73,\nStaff correspondent of\nlittle-seen world of Washington lobbying, from\nand nearly 1,000 last year, an all-time record.\nThe Christian Science Monitor\nthe inner offices of lobbies, both humble and\nThe actual number of registered and unregis-\nWashington\n'A right, not to be abused'\nplush, to the crowded \"Members Only\" eleva-\ntered lobbyists - reliably estimated a decade\n20\nTuesday, October 14, 1975\nTHE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR\nTuesday, October 14, 1975\nLobbying reform: a new drive to close the\nRules governing lobbying in Washington are studded W\nprospects to close them seem brighter now as lobby re\nAction could come as early as this year, experts believ\nBy Peter C. Stuart\n- or does not report - is left pretty much up to\n- Extend coverage to the executive branch;\nStaff correspondent of\nhim or her. Strict@constructionists report only\n- Enforce the rules by empowering the year-\nHow\nThe Christian Science Monitor\ntaxi fares to Capitol Hill and luncheon tabs with\nold Federal Election Commission (or the GAO or\nWashington\ncongressmen, waiving everything else as \"infor-\nan entirely new agency) to investigate possible\nTuesday, October 14, 1975\nTHE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR\nTuesday, October 14, 1975\n21\neform: a new drive to close the loopholes\nRules governing lobbying in Washington are studded with loopholes - but\nprospects to close them seem brighter now as lobby reformers gain strength.\nAction could come as early as this year, experts believe. Last of four-parts.\nBy Peter C. Stuart\n- or does not report - is left pretty much up to\n- Extend coverage to the executive branch;\nStaff correspondent of\nhim or her. Strict constructionists report only\n- Enforce the rules by empowering the year-\nHow to keep track of the trackers?\nThe Christian Science Monitor\ntaxi fares to Capitol Hill and luncheon tabs with\nold Federal Election Commission (or the GAO or\nWashington\ncongressmen, waiving everything else as \"infor- an entirely new agency) to investigate possible\nWhen de lebbuists lebby? The answer to this officials to log outside contacts the Consumer\n14\nThursday, October 9, 1975\nTHE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR\nTHE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR\nThursday, October 9, 1975\nThe new lobbying: whirring computers, flo\nComputers and pressure from the\ngrass roots (such as 600 huge coal\ntrucks in Washington to protest\nstrip-mining controls) are working\ntogether in a new wave of lobbying\nin the United States. Second in a\nfour-part series.\nBy Peter C. Stuart\nindirect lobbying to people [asking them] to\nStaff correspondent of\nwrite their congressmen.\nI used to be able\nThe Christian Science Monitor\nto keep track of the lobbyists of the Liquor\nU.S. Chamber of Commerce computers whir and flash,\nWashington\nGoods Association by the postcards I got from\nThursday, October 9, 1975\nTHE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR\nTHE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR\nThursday, October 9, 1975\n15\nobying: whirring computers, floods of mail\nComputers and pressure from the\ngrass roots (such as 600 huge coal\ntrucks in Washington to protest\nstrip-mining controls) are working\ntogether in a new wave of lobbying\nin the United States. Second in a\nfour-part series.\nBy Peter C. Stuart\nindirect lobbying to people [asking them] to\nPhotos above and left by R. Norman Matheny, staff photographer\nStaff correspondent of\nwrite their congressmen.\nI used to be able\nThe Christian Science Monitor\nto keep track of the lobbyists of the Liquor\nU.S. Chamber of Commerce computers whir and flash,\nas lobbyists aim for mail like this on Capitol Hill\nWashington\nGoods Association by the postcards I got from\n16\nFriday, October 10, 1975\nTHE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR\nTHE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR\nFriday, October 10, 1975\nThe new lobbyists: persuaders in the pub\nUnknown a few years ago, public interest\nlobbyists such as Ralph Nader and\nCommon Cause still have small budgets\n- but larger and larger impact. This is\nthe third article in a four-part series on\npost-Watergate lobbying.\nBy Peter C. Stuart\nJerome Wa\n$200,000, and a respected, $26,500-a-year exec-\nCongressmen now are card-carrying mem-\nStaff correspondent of\nutive director/lobbyist, Carol T. Foreman.\nbers.\nThe Christian Science Monitor\nFive national groups lobby actively for the\n\"Common Cause has become one of the\nWashington\npublic's environmental protection (Sierra\nmost effective organizations around,\" says\nLobbyists\nFriday, October 10, 1975\nTHE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR\nTHE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR\nFriday, October 10, 1975\n17\nbbyists: persuaders in the public interest\nUnknown a few years ago, public interest\nlobbyists such as Ralph Nader and\nCommon Cause still have small budgets\n- but larger and larger impact. This is\nthe third article in a four-part series on\npost-Watergate lobbying.\nBy R. Norman Matheny, staff photographer\nBy Peter C. Stuart\n$200,000, and a respected, $26,500-a-year exec-\nCongressmen now are card-carrying mem-\nJerome Waldie: once a Congressman, now a lobbyist\nStaff correspondent of\nutive director/lobbyist, CarolT. Foreman.\nbers.\nThe Christian Science Monitor\nFive national groups lobby actively for the\n\"Common Cause has become one of the\nWashington\npublic's environmental protection (Sierra\nmost effective organizations around,\" says\nLobbyists with built-in advantages:\nPer.\na\nAbush North Cenelina State\nChristian Science Monitor\nWednesday, October 15, 1975\nControlling Washington lobbyists\nThe series on lobbying by Washington\nprivate interests. Most lobbies pour ever-\ncorrespondent Peter C. Stuart, just concluded\nincreasing sums into campaign coffers.\nin the Monitor, shows that federal government\nPresent lobbying laws are woefully in-\nin the United States is far from entirely \"of\nadequate and seldom enforced. No one knows\nthe people, by the people, for the people.\"\nfor sure how many lobbyists stalk congress-\nmen or executive agencies, and all but a tiny\nWhile the emergence of consumer groups,\npercentage of the money they spend pushing\nenvironmental organizations, and \"citizens'\ntheir views goes unreported.\nlobbies\" has broadened the scope of influence\nHopefully, all of this may change with the\non lawmakers and those who set policy,\nnew spirit of reform on Capitol Hill. Proposed\nspecial interests to an increasing extent are\nlegislation would put teeth into lobbying laws\nmaking their voices heard — and heeded on\nand broaden their applicability. Needed, as\nissues important to all Americans.\nthe newspaper series pointed out, are a\nSophisticated techniques now are employed\nbroader definition of \"lobbyist,\" full financial\nto muster pressure on members of Congress\ndisclosure, and control of lobbying activity in\nthat far outweighs the constituency such\nthe executive branch as well as Congress.\nlobbying represents. It is hard to imagine, for\nSome agency of government should be given\ninstance, lawmakers ignoring that vast major-\nthe resources and the right of imposing stiff\nity of Americans favoring strict gun control\npenalties to ferret out and dissuade violators.\nwithout the well-orchestrated, though rela-\nAs lobbyist John Gardner of Common Cause\ntively small, pro-gun lobby. Many lobbyists\nsaid: \"Lobbying is not wrong in itself. But it is\nrotate in and out of Congress and executive\nwrong to lobby secretly, wrong to deceive the\npositions, making use of relationships and\npublic, wrong to use money in ways that\nexperience gained at public expense to serve\ncorrupt the public process.\""
}