Making the Liars "Tell"

House Lobbying Rules Call for More Disclosure

By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 4, 2006; Page A01

The House narrowly approved ethics legislation yesterday that would expand the amount of information that lobbyists must disclose about their interactions with lawmakers and would also rein in big-money political groups that spent heavily in the last presidential election.

By a vote of 217 to 213, the House agreed to require lobbyists to file quarterly instead of semiannual reports, to include in those reports donations they give to federal candidates and political action committees, and to make public gifts that they give to lawmakers or congressional aides.

In addition, spending bills would have to list any narrow-interest projects, called earmarks, that they contain, as well as the sponsors of those projects. Lawmakers have frequently been able to insert these projects in major spending bills anonymously, without offering any justification.

The House measure must be reconciled with a version of the bill that passed the Senate in March. Neither version is as tough on lobbyists and lawmakers as Republican leaders promised in January, after former GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to conspiring to bribe public officials in a major political corruption scandal.

The final version of the legislation will be a combination of statutory changes and changes in the rules governing House and Senate members, but not all the rules need apply to both chambers. Rules that govern the gifts and travel expenses that lobbyists are allowed to give to lawmakers can be different for the House and for the Senate. Each chamber is responsible for setting the rules for the conduct of its lawmakers and staff members.

"It's conceivable that there can be different rules in each chamber" as a result of the legislation, said Jo Maney, spokeswoman for the House Rules Committee. But she added that the goal of congressional leaders is to make restrictions on gifts and travel similar for both chambers.

Still, if rule changes remain different for each chamber in the final version that becomes law, said Donald Simon, a campaign-finance expert, "it's going to complicate life for lobbyists and probably cause some confusion."

The House bill, for example, would temporarily ban privately paid travel for lawmakers until new guidelines are in place. The Senate bill includes no such moratorium. Yet these disparate rules could be part of the package that is enacted.

The Senate-passed legislation would bar lobbyists from providing gifts, such as tickets to sports events, and meals to senators and their aides. The House bill does not contain such restrictions for House officials. Nonetheless, both provisions could be approved.

In contrast, the enhanced disclosure requirements that are part of both bills -- which are similar in many ways -- must be reconciled exactly before the bill can become law. Disclosure is a matter of statute rather than congressional rules.

After disclosure that Abramoff had influenced lawmakers and other officials with expensive meals, overseas trips and other favors, Republican leaders initially called for severe restrictions on meals and travel as a way to distance lawmakers from lobbyists and to shield themselves from voter anger.

Jeff, you've been covering Congress for too long. This bill does nothing to make abuses like Abramoff's out of line for the Members. This is a bandaid and you are too close to be able to tell that.