A major lobbying organization's effort to gut the new lobbying disclosure law through a lawsuit hit a roadblock when the case was dismissed.  The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) filed the suit in February.   CREW filed an amicus brief opposing NAM's effort noting that our organization "supports the government's efforts to curb both actual undue influence by lobbyists and the appearance of such undue influence."

The case was dismissed on Friday:

The National Association of Manufacturers suffered a major blow Friday in its legal battle against the new ethics and lobbying law. 

Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court dismissed the group’s challenge to a key provision of the law. The group took issue with the clause that would require disclosure of the member companies of “stealth lobbying” coalitions.

<a href="http://clk.atdmt.com/APW/go/thhlipha0080000005apw/direct/01/" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="http://view.atdmt.com/APW/view/thhlipha0080000005apw/direct/01/" /></a>

<a href='http://ad.thehill.com/adclick.php?n=a5f6dd33' target='_blank'><img src='http://ad.thehill.com/adview.php?what=zone:33&amp;n=a5f6dd33' border='0' alt=''></a>

Part of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, the measure would require public disclosure of members of such coalitions who gave at least $5,000 every quarter to the group and participated actively in lobbying campaigns.

The NAM argued the provision was constitutionally vague, hindering protections for free association and speech, and could lead to harassment of its member companies. However, in a 57-page opinion, Judge Kollar-Kotelly disagreed, saying the clause was “narrowly tailored to serve compelling government interests, and is neither vague on its face nor is applied to the NAM.”

A leading lobbying group, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), is suing to stop key parts of the new ethics law.  Lobbyists don't want to be policed any more than members of Congress do:

In a press conference Wednesday at the National Press Club, NAM President and Chief Executive Officer John Engler announced the lawsuit challenging the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. The group is also seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the provision.

The complaint relates to a section of the law that would impose new lobbying disclosure rules. The provision was designed to provide more transparency in detailing members of so-called “stealth coalitions” — groups that use nondescript names to represent and lobby for specific industries in Washington.

But the industry group says the wording of the clause is so imprecise that it falls on a variety of organizations that it was not intended for and could require the disclosure of NAM’s member list. Failing to comply with the disclosure requirements could lead to criminal penalties.

As an interesting follow-up to the post below -- featuring USA Today's report on lobbyists buying buildings on Capitol Hill to entertain members of Congress -- comes this report in The Hill.  Lobbyists think they're getting a bad rap from the presidential candidates and they want it to stop. It's rich:

Enough’s enough, apparently. The American League of Lobbyists (ALL), a trade group for lobbyists, fired off a letter Thursday to the presidential candidates asking them to lay off.

“We are concerned that political rhetoric can unfairly characterize lobbyists, ignoring the positive contribution they make daily to the public policy process,” Brian Pallasch, the president of ALL, wrote.

As far as attacks on the profession of influence-peddling go, Romney’s remark was relatively mild. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, who ended his pursuit of the Democratic nomination Wednesday, for instance, blamed healthcare lobbyists for blocking universal health insurance. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) routinely rails against special interests and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) forswears donations from federal lobbyists and uses the passage of new ethics rules, which many K Streeters believe unfairly targeted their profession, as one of his main accomplishments in Washington.

Taking a look at this weekend's DC Mardi Gras party -- and other events catering to members of Congress and their staffs -- the Sunlight Foundation's Ellen Miller unravels some of the loopholes in the gift ban.  There are plenty:

A secretive, Louisiana-based group headed by a lobbyist and former aide to now lobbyist and former Sen. John Breaux (D-La.) organizes the event. The organization declined to name this year's corporate sponsors, but in years past they included R.J. Reynolds, BellSouth, and Lockheed Martin, according to the paper.

This weekend's parties at the Hilton is clear evidence that despite passing new ethics rules last year, Congress has much work to do to realize House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) claim that the link between lobbyist and legislatures has been broken. In its story, The Times-Picayune interviewed Sunlight grantee Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, as asking, "What better occasion than Mardi Gras to demonstrate that the new rules are a farce?" Indeed.

What specifically is at issue here is the section of the new law regarding banning gifts from lobbyists to members of Congress and their staff. Most gifts are banned, but loopholes exist. This weekend's Mardi Gras parties are considered "widely attended" functions, one of the loopholes allowing lobbyists to purchase tickets and give them as gifts to members and their staff. Also, the numerous receptions held in conjunction with the parties "are allowed under a separate exception because they aren't sit-down meals: Only hors d'oeuvres are served," the paper writes. Last week, McClatchy Newspapers highlighted this "toothpick rule," where all is fine as long as members of Congress and their staff are not provided with silverware and a table and chair.

Earlier this week, The Hill newspaper spotlighted another problem with the gift ban. The House and Senate interpreted one aspect of the rules differently. It has been a long tradition for lobbyists to buy tickets to ritzy charity events, requesting that the some of the tickets be given to certain members of Congress and/or their staff. These charity events are popular with lawmakers, The Hill writes, by allowing them to socialize and interact with "Hollywood stars, business titans, sports figures and other noted celebrities." Obviously, anyone concerned about good government would have a problem with lobbyists doling out such prized perks to members of Congress and their staff. The Senate has ruled that these gifts are outlawed by the gift ban. The House has decided to allow the practice to continue for its members.

The New Orleans Times-Picayune takes a look at the Washington DC version of Mardi Gras -- and how the major events surrounding the festivities are exempt from both the old and the new ethics rules: 

More than a decade ago, one of the congressional ethics committees said that the big Mardi Gras parties appeared to be "widely attended events," one of the exceptions to the ethics rules. The numerous Mardi Gras receptions are allowed under a separate exception because they aren't sit-down meals: Only hors d'oeuvres are served.

After the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal exposed the sleazy backdoor channels between lobbyists and lawmakers and more than a half-dozen members came under investigation for corruption, the Democratic majority in Congress clamped down on corporate-sponsored travel and parties thrown "in honor" of lawmakers. The Senate banned all gifts from lobbyists.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the changes "broke the link between lobbyists and legislators." But you wouldn't know it by looking at the Washington Mardi Gras.

"What better occasion than Mardi Gras to demonstrate that the new rules are a farce?" asked Melanie Sloan, executive director of the nonprofit watchdog group Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington.

That quote from Melanie Sloan just sums it all up. 

Noting that the so-called "toothpick rule" has been on the books for decades, McClatchy takes a look at that rule now that criminal penalties are involved.  Lobbyists and their lawyers will do contortions to circumvent the law, but the criminal penalties seem to have captured their attention:

In a city where no issue is too small for a big debate, official Washington is grappling with what's become widely known as the toothpick rule. It allows lobbyists to provide free food to members of Congress at receptions, but only if the morsels fit comfortably on a toothpick. That means no pizza or hot dogs.

Lobbyists also are being advised to get rid of eating tables at their events. If you give a politician a fork and spoon and provide him with comfortable surroundings, the reasoning goes, he might be tempted to grab a chair and have a sit-down meal.

This stand-up routine is suddenly getting very serious: Lobbyists who violate the new ethics law, which took effect on Sept. 14, can receive a five-year prison sentence and a $200,000 fine, a quadrupling of the old maximum penalty.

"This new law is the criminalization of lobbying," said Paul Honigberg, an attorney at Blank Rome LLP, a Washington law and government-relations firm.

We've written about this phenomenon several times -- and it's likely that we'll write about it many more times.  There's a growing business in your nation's Capitol for lawyers who are trying to find the loopholes in the new ethics and lobbying reform bill.  You'd like to think that members of Congress would stick to the spirit of the law, not indulge in the loopholes. But until Congress passes serious enforcement measures -- including an independent Office of Public Integrity -- there's not much chance of real change happening.

Anyway, here's how The New Republic describes the current state of affairs:

Ken Gross, a lawyer with Skadden who advises lobbyists and their clients on how to throw ethically acceptable parties, was recently puzzling over a difficult problem. One of the fabulous election-year pleasures for big corporations is sponsoring sumptuous breakfasts for members of Congress and other politicos at the Democratic and Republican nominating conventions. But, recently, Congress cracked down on the wild salmon benedict and toasted pecan waffles. A new gift ban--passed as part of the Democratic majority's promise to bring ethics reform to Washington--prohibits companies that employ lobbyists from giving Hill employees free meals. Is corporate America's favorite breakfast tradition doomed?

Fortunately, Gross thought of some ways to save the day by parsing the term "meal" using the nutritional pyramid. Bread, which is really a snack and not a meal, is ethical to serve a congressman. Protein--because of its suggestion of "main course"--is problematic. "It's going to have to be rolls and doughnuts," Gross mused. "You can't serve eggs. ... Once you put tuna fish on the bagel, it becomes a sandwich."

Gross is just one of a number of ethics lawyers, lobbyists, members, and staffers who have been busily figuring out ways to circumvent the new rules. One might think that, if a legislative majority passes a law, that means a majority of legislators want to try to take it seriously. But, among those who work in the Capitol, the cause of ethics reform tends to be a faithless religion. Getting around the new ban is tough, though, because it is the most stringent ever imposed. The last gift ban happened in 1995, when, chastened by Ross Perot's anti-lobbyist harangues, the Republican Congress put a $50 limit on lobbyist-sponsored meals and gifts. But Washington culture quickly adjusted itself to the hardship. Club-level seats at Wizards games normally valued at around $100 started appearing for the gift-ban-friendly price of $49.50. A Virginia golf course offered a special package with a round of golf, a hot dog, and a Coke for just under $50. There were even semantic attempts to get out of the ban: The president of the Republican Club's restaurant, which saw its business drop in 1995, tried to get the ethics committee to exempt it with this exquisitely Talmudic piece of logic: "We're not a restaurant, we're an extension of the political party." For those who didn't want to bother with the rules at all, there was one enormous loophole-- no enforcement.

But this time is different. Democrats have decreed that all meals, regardless of their price, are verboten. They've also reduced the allowed amount for gifts to $10, forcing corporations to proffer presents about as glamorous as those at an office Secret Santa party. Even more oppressive, there are now strict penalties for fooling with the rules. The Justice Department will have to report how many ethics busts it's investigating, allowing scandalhungry reporters to publicize the cases, and the General Accountability Office has been given the authority to audit lobbying firms for disclosure violations. Breaking the rules can now get you thrown in jail. This zero tolerance policy is fostering an atmosphere of intense paranoia. Ed Kutler, a lobbyist for Clark & Weinstock, describes a recent visit to a cafe where he tried to pick up the tab on a staffer buddy's coffee. "What is that? What did you do that for?" the staffer hissed, recoiling from the cup.

Against this backdrop of fear, ethics advisers like Gross have become the Capitol's new priesthood, guiding legislators and lobbyists around the various venal traps they come across in their day-to-day activities and helping them petition the House and Senate Ethics Committees for indulgences.

 

The ink was hardly dry on the new law before both lobbyists and members of Congress began figuring out ways around the new law.  Among many issues, Sunday's Washington Post reported that the Senate has already given itself an exemption on the private jets provision:

Another provision of the new ethics law bans House members from flying on corporate jets. But senators, including the half-dozen presidential candidates among them, can still do so. Previously they were required to reimburse plane owners the equivalent of a first-class ticket, but now they must pay charter rates, which can increase travel costs tenfold.

The Senate ethics committee decided not to enforce that rule for at least 60 days after it took effect Sept. 14, citing "the lack of experience in many offices in determining 'charter rates.' "

The decision surprised some Senate staffers, Mitchell said, one of whom e-mailed her to say, "Welcome to the world of skirting around the rules we pass."

"Breathtaking. . . . In my view, they're not complying with the plain language of the law," Mitchell said. "I think it should be easier for members of Congress to travel, not harder. But what I don't appreciate as a citizen is Congress passing something but then interpreting it so it doesn't mean what the law clearly says."

The law has dragged into view several such perks that members long enjoyed but didn't reveal -- until they sought exemptions to the new rules.

Lawmakers for years have booked several flights for a day when they plan to leave town. When they finish work, they take the most convenient flight and cancel the rest without paying fees, a privilege denied others. But after the new law passed, some airlines stopped the practice, worried that it violates the gift ban.

Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) appealed to the Senate ethics committee to allow multiple bookings. Then Reid and McConnell added language to the defense bill that, if it passes, would extend the perk to staffers, too.

The Bush administration is making noises about vetoing the recently passed lobby/ethics reform bill.  The Orlando Sentinel thinks that if Bush wants even more reform, he should sign this bill, then push for further reform.  A veto is a bad idea: 

The White House has argued that the bill doesn't go far enough in curtailing lawmakers from slipping pet projects for their districts or favorite special interests into legislation. Indeed, a recently passed House bill to expand children's health insurance, which furtively steered millions of extra dollars to hospitals in the districts of powerful lawmakers, is a nagging reminder of why aggressive steps are needed to curb such abuses.

But a veto would postpone or imperil the rest of the progress on ethics and lobbying reform in the bill. The cause of cleaning up Congress would be far better served if the president, after signing the measure, championed a successor that would bolster its gains.

While the White House would portray a veto as a demand for stronger reform, it would look suspiciously like a bid to prolong the status quo and deny Democrats a shot at keeping a key campaign promise.

The Stockton Record opined on the new ethics law today in an editorial titled "The really ethical question? Enforcement."  We know thats true --  and found the last paragraph of the editorial to be particularly on point:

As with any ethics rules, their effectiveness ultimately will depend on members of Congress demonstrating their commitment and getting serious about enforcement.

Congress doesn't police itself.  To get serious, Congress will need independent oversight in the form of an office of public integrity.  Then, we know they're getting serious about enforcement.