|
In the wake of highly publicized lobbying scandals and misuse of charitable organizations, such as that by lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Members of Congress from both parties moved aggressively to roll out lobbying reform packages in the 109th Congress. Both the Senate and House passed reform measures early in 2006, however, were unable to resolve differences between the legislation before the Congress closed. See below for detailed information on the reform packages that passed in the Senate and House, as well as other proposals.
Senate Lobbying Reform Bill
The Senate passed its lobbying reform bill (S. 2349) by a vote of 90 to 8 on March 29, 2006, after agreeing to limit the number of amendments senators could offer. Among the withdrawn amendments were two offered by Senator Inhofe (R-OK) that would have imposed criminal penalties of up to five years imprisonment on officers of 501(c) organizations that lobby with federal funds.
Senators also rejected an amendment to create an office of public integrity to investigate ethics rules, but adopted an amendment to require senators to publicly disclose holds they have on bills.
S. 2349 combined changes to Senate rules from a bill that came through the Senate Rules Committee and changes to the Lobbying Disclosure Act from a bill passed by the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee (S. 2128).
- See a summary of S. 2349, the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006.
House Lobbying Reform Bill
The House passed its lobbying
reform bill (H.R.
4975) on May 3, 2006, by a narrow margin of 217 to 213. H.R. 4975 shared several elements with S. 2349. Unlike its Senate counterpart, however, it contained provisions to restrict the amount and types of donations Section 527 organizations could receive. The 527 provisions, which were automatically attached to H.R. 4975 upon its passage, originally passed separately as H.R. 513 in April 2006. See more on Section 527 legislation.
House lawmakers also adopted several amendments to H.R. 4975 during debate,
including a modification of an original temporary moratorium on privately-funded
travel. An amendment offered by Representatives Dan Lungren (R-CA)
and George Miller (D-CA) modified the bill to allow privately-funded congressional travel if pre-approved by the House Ethics Committee by a two-thirds vote. The amendment additionally charged the Ethics Committee
with recommending permanent changes to the
House Rules for trip approval by June 15, 2006.
The original moratorium on privately-funded travel drew the attention of several nonprofit organizations, many of which sponsor educational travel for Members of Congress. During a House Rules Committee hearing on lobbying reform
issues, representatives of the nonprofit community expressed support for increased disclosure
of privately-funded congressional travel while urging lawmakers
to oppose a complete ban on such trips. Panelists included representatives
from IS members United
Jewish Communities (PDF) and the
Aspen
Institute (PDF). See the House
Rules Committee website for additional testimony. The temporary travel
ban also met significant opposition from
House Members. Representative Dan Lungren (R-CA) reportedly
expressed concern that the moratorium would have prohibited him from accepting travel expenses
to attend the board meetings of a charitable foundation on which he
serves.
- See a summary of H.R. 4975, the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006.
Additional Lobbying Reform Proposals of the 109th Congress
In addition to S. 2349 and H.R. 4975, lawmakers introduced several other lobbying reform packages during the 109th Congress that did not make it to either the Senate or House floor.
Last Updated: December 29, 2006 |
