This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-1099
entitled 'Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists' Compliance
with New Disclosure Requirements' which was released on September 30,
2008.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Committees:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
September 2008:
Lobbying Disclosure:
Observations on Lobbyists' Compliance with New Disclosure Requirements:
GAO-08-1099:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-1099, a report to congressional committees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (HLOGA) of 2007 amends
the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 by doubling the frequency of
lobbyists’ reporting and increasing criminal and civil penalties. This
is GAO’s first report in response to the Act’s requirement for GAO to
annually (1) determine the extent to which lobbyists can demonstrate
compliance with the Act by providing support for information on their
registrations and reports, (2) describe challenges identified by
lobbyists to complying with the Act, and (3) identify the process for
referring cases to the Department of Justice and the resources and
authorities available to effectively enforce the Act. GAO reviewed a
random sample of 100 reports filed by lobbyists during the first
quarter of calendar year 2008. This methodology allowed GAO to
generalize to the population of 17,801 reports filed. GAO also met with
lobbyists regarding their filings and with Department of Justice
officials regarding resources and authorities.
What GAO Found:
GAO estimates that lobbyists could provide accurate supporting
information—in either written or verbal form—on income or expenses for
at least 95 percent of all first quarter reports filed requiring this
information. The legislation and guidance do not contain requirements
for lobbyists to create or maintain documentation in support of the
registrations or reports they file. Nonetheless, lobbyists were able to
provide written or oral support for all required elements of individual
reports GAO examined. However, the extent to which lobbyists could
provide written documentation varied for different aspects of the
reports. GAO estimates that lobbyists have written documentation to
support income or expenses for approximately 91 percent of first
quarter reports that required this information. In contrast, for a
separate element listing the person who acted as a lobbyist, GAO
estimates that lobbyists have written documentation for 35 percent of
reports that required this information. Also, the majority of lobbyists
newly registered with the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the
House in the first quarter of 2008 also filed required disclosure
reports for the period. However, for about 7 percent of the
registrants, GAO could not identify a clear, corresponding report on
file for their lobbying activity, likely because a report was not filed
or because of a mismatch of information in reports that were filed.
While a number of lobbyists felt that existing guidance for filing
required registrations and reports was sufficient, others believed
additional clarifications, such as on issue area activity codes and on
how to report various pieces of information about their organizations
and lobbying activity, were needed. Several lobbyists also expressed
uncertainty about what constitutes reportable lobbying activity under
the law and how much detail they needed to provide on the specific
lobbying issues for each client. The Act included the sense of Congress
that the lobbying community should create an organization to develop
training and standards for lobbying. GAO’s work reinforces that such an
organization would be beneficial and could share best practices and
provide training on the types of records to support filings and report
annually on opportunities to clarify existing guidance.
The United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia
assigns its resources for lobbying compliance issues based on competing
priorities within the Office. The Office has five staff members,
including a Deputy Chief, three assistant U.S. attorneys, and one
investigator who perform lobbying non-compliance follow-up, among other
duties. Officials from the Office told us they have sufficient civil
and criminal statutory authorities to enforce the Act. The department’s
lobbying compliance workload has increased in recent years. However, it
currently lacks a structured approach for targeting its resources to
the most significant noncompliance cases. Such an approach will require
the Office to track the referrals when they are made, record reasons
for the referrals, record the actions taken to resolve them, and assess
the results of actions taken. The Office has recently begun to redesign
its computer database to more accurately track referrals received in
past years to identify trends in past compliance matters.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the United States Attorney for the District of
Columbia complete efforts to develop a structured approach to focus
limited resources on lobbyists who continually fail to file as required
or otherwise fail to comply with the Act. The United States Attorney
for the District of Columbia concurred with GAO’s recommendation.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-1099]. For more
information, contact George Stalcup at (202) 512-9490 or
stalcupg@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results In Brief:
Background:
Most Registered Lobbyists Could Provide Support for Their Filings and
Newly Registered Lobbyists Largely Met Reporting Requirements:
Some Lobbyists Reported Challenges to Complying with the Act:
The United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia
Assigns Resources Based on Competing Demands and Has Sufficient
Authorities to Enforce Lobbying Compliance:
Conclusions and Observations:
Recommendations:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Full List of Sampled Registrants and Clients:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Justice:
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Levels of Documentation Lobbyists Provided to Support Sampled
Lobbying Reports:
Table 2: Names of Registrants and Clients Selected in Random Sample of
Lobbying Disclosure Reports Filed in First Quarter 2008:
Figures:
Figure 1: Newly Filed Registrations with Corresponding First Quarter
Lobbying Reports:
Figure 2: Overview of the Lobbying Disclosure Referral Process:
Abbreviations:
DOJ: Department of Justice:
HLOGA: Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 30, 2008:
Congressional Committees:
Recent incidents involving the lack of transparency and unlawful
actions of individuals and organizations paid to influence public
policy have focused public and congressional attention on the
interactions between government officials and lobbyists. The Honest
Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 (HLOGA), signed into law on
September 14, 2007, amends the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (the
Act), by doubling the frequency of lobbyists' reporting from
semiannually to quarterly, increasing civil penalties, and adding
criminal penalties. The law also requires GAO to use a random sample to
annually determine the extent to which lobbyists are able to provide
support for information contained in their reports and registrations,
provide recommendations related to improving compliance by lobbyists
with the Act, and report on resources and authorities available to the
Department of Justice (DOJ) for effective enforcement of the Act. GAO's
initial report is to cover registrations and reports filed during the
first calendar quarter of 2008. Subsequent GAO reports will be
submitted annually by the beginning of April and will include a review
of registrations and reports filed during the preceding calendar year.
Protecting the integrity of governmental processes and procedures from
corruption and undue influence is vital to upholding the principles and
public trusts of the U.S. government. Lobbying regulations began with
the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946,[Footnote 1] which
required lobbyists to register with the Secretary of the Senate and the
Clerk of the House of Representatives (Clerk of the House), disclose
the identities of their clients, report the receipts and expenses
involved, and describe the nature of the legislative objectives that
were pursued for each client. Lobbying was interpreted under the 1946
Act as being limited to direct communication with a member of Congress
and attempting to influence the passage or defeat of any proposed or
pending legislation by Congress.[Footnote 2] Congress replaced this law
with the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.[Footnote 3] The Act expanded
the definition of lobbying to include communications with covered
employees in both the legislative and executive branch regarding
legislation, regulations, policies or the nomination or confirmation of
a person for a position subject to confirmation by the Senate. The Act
required lobbyists to file registrations with the Secretary of the
Senate and the Clerk of the House and to report semiannually on their
lobbying activities, which include both lobbying contacts and work done
in preparation for lobbying contacts. In 2007, HLOGA amended the Act by
requiring more frequent filings and lowering thresholds for
disclosures, increasing penalties for noncompliance, and requiring new
semiannual reports detailing certain political contributions. The sense
of Congress as stated in HLOGA was that the lobbying community should
propose organizations to develop standards for the profession and
provide training. HLOGA became effective in January 2008.
Consistent with the audit and report requirements of HLOGA,[Footnote 4]
our objectives were to:
* determine the extent to which lobbyists can provide support for
information on registrations and reports filed in response to
requirements of the amended Lobbying Disclosure Act;
* identify the challenges lobbyists cite in complying with the Act and
suggestions for improving compliance; and:
* describe the process of referring noncompliance cases to the DOJ and
the resources and authorities available to DOJ in its role in enforcing
compliance with the Act.
To respond to the requirements of HLOGA, we selected a random sample of
100 reports filed by lobbyists for the first quarter of calendar year
2008.[Footnote 5] We selected our sample from the public downloadable
database of lobbying registrations and reports maintained by the Clerk
of the House. Based on our sample review, we are able to estimate
characteristics of this population of 17,801 first quarter reports
filed by lobbyists. Our sample is based on random selection, and it is
only one of a large number of samples that we might have drawn. Because
each sample could have provided different estimates, we express our
confidence in the precision of our particular sample's results as a 95
percent confidence interval. This is the interval that would contain
the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples that we could
have drawn.
We contacted each lobbyist in our sample and asked them to provide
support for key elements of these reports, including the amount of
money received for lobbying activities, the names of the people who
acted as lobbyists, and the issues being lobbied. For our purposes, the
term lobbyist refers to lobbying entities, which run the gamut from
sole practitioners to small associations to large organizations or
lobbying firms. Our work focused on examining lobbyists' compliance
with the Act's requirements by reviewing support--which included both
documentation and verbal explanations--they provided for the
information contained in their reports. We also compared new
registrations filed in the first quarter of calendar year 2008 to first
quarter reports on file with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk
of the House to determine whether new registrants met the requirement
to file a quarterly report after registration. We asked lobbyists in
our sample about their experiences under the new legislation, including
any challenges to compliance, and asked them how such challenges might
be addressed. To provide information on the resources and authorities
used by DOJ in its role in enforcing compliance with HLOGA, we
interviewed DOJ officials, obtained information from those involved in
the referral process, and requested data on the number of cases
referred, pending, and resolved.
Our objectives did not include identifying lobbyist organizations that
failed to register and report in accordance with HLOGA requirements, or
whether, for those lobbyists that did register and report, the lobbying
activity disclosed represented the full extent of lobbying activities
that took place. Consistent with the language of the mandate, our work
did not cover the operations of the Offices of the Secretary of the
Senate or the Clerk of the House--both of which have key roles in the
lobbying disclosure process. We were asked to examine first quarter
filings for this initial report, which excludes Form LD-203 (covering
certain contributions and payments for event costs) because that report
was due for the first time on July 30, 2008.
We conducted this performance audit from March 2008 through September
2008 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. For more
details on our methodology, please see appendix I.
Results In Brief:
We estimate that lobbyists could provide accurate supporting
information--in either written or verbal form--on income or expenses
for at least 95 percent of all first quarter reports filed that
required this information. [Footnote 6] The legislation and guidance do
not contain requirements for lobbyists to create or maintain
documentation in support of the registrations or reports they file.
Nonetheless, lobbyists were able to provide written or oral support for
all required elements of individual reports we examined. However, the
extent to which lobbyists could provide written documentation varied
for different aspects of the reports. We estimate that lobbyists have
written documentation to support income or expenses for approximately
91 percent of first quarter reports that required this information.
[Footnote 7] In contrast, for a separate element listing the
individuals who acted as a lobbyist, we estimate that lobbyists have
written documentation for 35 percent of reports that required this
information. The nature of support for the reports varied widely
ranging from detailed billing statements to informal logs or verbal
explanations. The nature of lobbyists' tracking and/or accounting
systems also varied widely. The lobbyists without detailed tracking
systems estimated elements of their lobbying activity, as necessary, in
preparing their reports. For example, some lobbyists who both lobby and
perform non-lobbying consulting services for clients for the same
monthly retainer estimated how much work was for lobbying activity
versus consulting services for each client. Neither the law nor
guidance specifies any documentation requirements in relation to
information reported under the Act. Only one lobbyist in our random
sample provided support that was not in agreement with the expenses
information contained in the report filed. That lobbyist subsequently
filed an amended report with the Senate and the House, correcting the
amount of reported expenses. Several lobbyists in our sample reported
the names of federal agencies lobbied or the names of individual staff
members who acted as lobbyists on behalf of the client, although such
activity did not take place during the reporting period. In addition,
most lobbyists who newly registered in the first quarter of 2008 filed
corresponding disclosure reports for the reporting period as required.
However, approximately 7 percent of the new registrants did not have a
clearly corresponding report on file for their lobbying activity.
In discussing the new legislation and reporting requirements with us,
many lobbyists felt the law and guidance were sufficient. However, some
lobbyists commented that they thought the law and guidance lack
specificity. For example, some lobbyists reported they were uncertain
about which of their activities constitute "lobbying activity" as
defined in the Act, or how to report affiliated organizations and
coalitions or foreign entities with interest in their client. They also
reported that the issue-area codes provided in the guidance to indicate
types of lobbying activity are not well-defined, may overlap, and
require them to use judgment to choose among codes that are not
entirely applicable to their individual situations. In addition, a few
lobbyists stated that the shortened, 20-day deadline for filing
quarterly reports is difficult to meet.[Footnote 8] Some other
lobbyists also said that in cases where the guidance was not clear, the
Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House staff were helpful in
providing clarifications. The Act included the sense of Congress that
the lobbying community should create an organization to develop
training and standards for lobbying. Our work reinforces the notion
that such an organization would be beneficial and could share best
practices and provide training on the types of records to support
filings, and report annually on opportunities to clarify existing
guidance.
When the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House discover that a
lobbyist has failed to file a report as required under the Act, they
follow up with the lobbyist twice. If the reports are still not filed
in accordance with the Act, they refer the matter to the United States
Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia (the Office). The Office
assigns its resources for lobbying compliance issues based on competing
priorities within the Office. The Office has a staff of about 700.
Within the office, five staff members, including a Deputy Chief, three
assistant U.S. attorneys, and one investigator, perform lobbying
noncompliance follow up, among other duties. Office officials told us
they have sufficient civil and criminal statutory authorities to
enforce the Act. However, the Office does not have a formal, structured
approach for identifying which matters should be the focus of its
resources. With such an approach, the Office could concentrate its
efforts on lobbyists who continually fail to file or otherwise do not
comply with requirements of the Act. In commenting on a draft of this
report, Office officials stated they have recently begun to redesign
their computer database to more accurately track referrals and trends
in past compliance matters, for the purpose of targeting resources to
the most significant noncompliance cases. We are recommending that the
U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia build on efforts to develop
a structured approach to focus limited resources on lobbyists who
continually fail to file as required or are otherwise not in
compliance. Such an approach should require the Office to track the
referrals when they are made, record reasons for the referrals, record
the actions taken to resolve them, and assess the results of actions
taken. The U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia commented on a
draft of this report and concurred with our recommendation to complete
efforts to develop a structured approach. The Office indicated it plans
to enhance its database to improve tracking and has assigned an
additional staff member to assist with lobbying compliance matters. We
incorporated the Office's technical comments throughout the report as
appropriate.
Background:
Lobbying registrations and reports are required under the Lobbying
Disclosure Act of 1995 (the Act) as amended by the Honest Leadership
and Open Government Act of 2007 (HLOGA) to disclose the identities of
people attempting to influence the government, the subject matters of
their attempts, and the amounts of money they spend to accomplish their
goals. [Footnote 9] The Act requires that lobbyists register with the
Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House and file periodic
reports disclosing their activities. The Act was amended by HLOGA to
make those reports due quarterly (they had previously been due
semiannually). [Footnote 10] HLOGA requires lobbyists to disclose
whether they held an official covered position[Footnote 11] in the past
20 years (rather than the 2 years the Act had previously required),
whether the client is a state or local government, and whether any
members of a coalition or association actively participated in the
lobbying activities. Under HLOGA, lobbyists are required to file these
registrations and reports electronically with Congress through a single
entry point (as opposed to separately with the Secretary of the Senate
and the Clerk of the House as was done prior to HLOGA). The Act, as
amended by HLOGA, also provides that registrations and reports must be
available in downloadable, searchable databases from the Secretary of
the Senate and the Clerk of the House.
The Act defines "lobbyists" and "lobbying activities" and imposes
requirements on the reporting of those activities. Under the Act, a
lobbyist can be an individual, a lobbying firm, or an organization that
has employees lobbying on its own behalf, depending on the
circumstances. Lobbyists are required to file a registration with the
Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House for each client on
whose behalf a lobbying contact is made if a minimum dollar threshold
is passed.[Footnote 12] The registration must list the name of the
organization, lobbying firm, or self-employed individual lobbying on
that client's behalf. In addition, the registration and subsequent
reports must list the individuals who acted as lobbyists on behalf of
the client during the reporting period. For reporting purposes, a
lobbyist is defined as a person who has made two or more lobbying
contacts[Footnote 13] and whose lobbying activities represent at least
20 percent of the time that he or she spends on behalf of the client
during any quarter. Registrations and reports must also identify any
covered official positions a lobbyist held in the previous 20 years.
The registration and subsequent quarterly reports must also disclose
the name of and further information about the client. The lobbyist is
required to disclose any foreign entities with interest in the client.
The lobbyist must report if the client is a state or local government.
When the client is a coalition or association, the lobbyist must
identify any constituent organization that contributes more than $5,000
for lobbying in a quarter and actively participates in the planning,
supervision, or control of lobbying activities.[Footnote 14] The
registration and subsequent reports may either list each organization
or make the list available on the coalition's or association's Web site
and disclose the Web address in the report.
Lobbying registrations and reports must include lobbying activity
details such as the general issue area and the specific lobbying
issues. The lobbyist must also disclose which federal agencies and
house(s) of Congress the lobbyist contacted on behalf of the client
during the reporting period.
Finally, the registrant must report the amount of money that was spent
on lobbying for the client during the reporting period. The lobbying
income or expenses disclosed on the reports are to be rounded to the
nearest $10,000. A lobbying firm, or any other organization that is
hired to lobby on behalf of an entity other than itself, must report
the amount of income related to lobbying activities received from the
client during the quarter. An organization that has employees who lobby
on its behalf must report the expenses incurred in relation to lobbying
activities during the quarter. Organizations may use one of three
accounting methods to determine their expenses: the Act's definitions
of lobbying expenses; the Internal Revenue Code definitions for non-
deductible business expenses; or, if they are a 501(c) nonprofit
organization, the definitions under that portion of the Internal
Revenue Code.
Most Registered Lobbyists Could Provide Support for Their Filings and
Newly Registered Lobbyists Largely Met Reporting Requirements:
We estimate that lobbyists could provide accurate supporting
information--in either written or verbal form--on income or expenses
for at least 95 percent of all first quarter reports filed that
required this information.[Footnote 15] Neither the Act nor lobbying
guidance specifies any standards or requirements for lobbyists to
maintain records or documentation to support information disclosed in
their reports. Nonetheless, lobbyists were able to provide written or
oral support for all required elements of individual reports we
examined. However, the extent to which lobbyists could provide written
documentation varied for different aspects of the reports. The extent
to which lobbyists could provide written documentation to support
elements of their filings was quite high for some elements such as
income or expenses, but notably lower for other elements such as the
individuals who acted as lobbyists. The Act requires lobbyists to make
a good faith estimate of either all income received from the client or
total expenses of lobbying activities. Although the Act does not
contain any special record-keeping provisions, guidance from both the
Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House recommends that
lobbyists retain copies of their filings and supporting documentation
for at least 6 years after reports are filed.
We estimate that lobbyists have written documentation to support income
or expenses for approximately 91 percent of first quarter reports that
required this information.[Footnote 16] We also estimate that lobbyists
could provide written support for issues lobbied for approximately 58
percent of reports and for 47 percent of report information on which
house of Congress or agencies were lobbied. Lobbyists had written
documentation to support information about the individuals who acted as
a lobbyist for 35 percent of reports. Sample sizes for affiliated
organizations, foreign entity interests, and the names of individuals
no longer acting as lobbyists were too small to provide reliable
estimates of levels of written documentation and verbal explanations in
support of first quarter reports that required this information.
Our estimates of the levels of lobbyists' documentation are based on
our review of 100 reports, which included 93 reports of lobbying
activity and 7 "no activity" reports. Table 1 provides the actual
numbers from our sample that formed the basis for our estimates.
Table 1: Levels of Documentation Lobbyists Provided to Support Sampled
Lobbying Reports:
Elements of the report[A]: Lobbying income or expenses;
Number of reports in which element was included: 93;
Written documentation supported report: 85;
Verbal explanation supported report: 7;
Documentation conflicted with report: 1.
Elements of the report[A]: Lobbying income;
Number of reports in which element was included: 77;
Written documentation supported report: 75;
Verbal explanation supported report: 2;
Documentation conflicted with report: 0.
Elements of the report[A]: Lobbying expenses;
Number of reports in which element was included: 16;
Written documentation supported report: 10;
Verbal explanation supported report: 5;
Documentation conflicted with report: 1.
Elements of the report[A]: Specific lobbying issues;
Number of reports in which element was included: 93;
Written documentation supported report: 54;
Verbal explanation supported report: 39;
Documentation conflicted with report: 0.
Elements of the report[A]: Houses of Congress and federal agencies
lobbied;
Number of reports in which element was included: 93;
Written documentation supported report: 44;
Verbal explanation supported report: 49;
Documentation conflicted with report: 0.
Elements of the report[A]: Name(s) of individuals acting as lobbyists;
Number of reports in which element was included: 93;
Written documentation supported report: 33;
Verbal explanation supported report: 60;
Documentation conflicted with report: 0.
Elements of the report[A]: Name(s) of previously registered individuals
no longer acting as lobbyists for client;
Number of reports in which element was included: 15;
Written documentation supported report: 2;
Verbal explanation supported report: 13;
Documentation conflicted with report: 0.
Elements of the report[A]: Affiliated organizations;
Number of reports in which element was included: 2;
Written documentation supported report: 1;
Verbal explanation supported report: 1;
Documentation conflicted with report: 0.
Elements of the report[A]: Foreign entity interest;
Number of reports in which element was included: 5;
Written documentation supported report: 2;
Verbal explanation supported report: 3;
Documentation conflicted with report: 0.
Source: GAO.
[A] Not all elements of the report were applicable to all lobbyists.
[End of table]
In our meetings with lobbyists, the types of documentation we were
provided and processes to track lobbying activity to support filings
varied widely among lobbyists, with some of the lobbyists in our sample
providing comprehensive written documentation supporting information in
the reports they filed and others providing less or no documentation,
often adding verbal explanations.
* Most lobbyists supported their reported information on lobbying
income with billing statements, invoices, or contracts.
* Some lobbyists supported their reported information on lobbying
contacts and issues using e-mails or summaries of meetings with
Congress or federal agencies.
* Lobbyists who had little or no written documentation provided verbal
explanations to support the reported information.
Our sample also showed that just one of the disclosure reports did not
match the information provided for one of the specific elements we
examined during our review. In this case, the lobbyists we visited
realized that the lobbying expenses dollar amount had been reported
incorrectly. That lobbyist subsequently filed an amended report to
correct the amount of expenses disclosed.
Although the legislation and guidance do not require lobbyists to
maintain records or documentation to support information disclosed in
their reports, several of the lobbyists we spoke to during our review
expressed interest in obtaining advice or information on documentation
that would best support their filings. Some lobbyists, for example,
told us they would like information from other firms on how to set up
tracking and compliance systems before filing deadlines. Some felt that
a checklist of useful information and documentation to consider when
filing would be helpful.
Lobbyists had systems to track lobbying contacts and the amount of time
spent on lobbying activities for an estimated 49 percent of first
quarter reports. Some lobbyists had detailed tracking and accounting
systems. One large lobbying firm, for example, provided us with a
demonstration of a database system that they developed to track their
lobbying activity in detail. The system captured data provided by the
firm's many lobbyists about their contacts, time charges, issues
lobbied, and clients and generated monthly e-mail reports for lobbyist
so that they could verify the information and report any discrepancies.
Other firms used lobbying activity tracking systems that were
integrated with their billing systems. Of these, some told us that they
had recently augmented their billing codes to better track lobbying
activity to report under HLOGA.
In contrast, the other lobbyists we spoke to did not have detailed
tracking or accounting systems for lobbying activity. These lobbyists
estimated elements of their lobbying activity as necessary in preparing
their reports. Lobbyists who lobbied and performed non-lobbying
consulting services for clients for the same monthly retainer estimated
the amount of time spent lobbying versus providing consulting services
in preparing their reports. In addition, a number of firms reported
they were uncertain of whether to track the time and involvement of
volunteers or members of their boards of directors.
Six of the lobbyists within our sample reported some aspects of
lobbying activity that did not take place. Some lobbyists told us that
they:
* reported individuals as lobbyists even though the individuals were
not involved in any lobbying activities for the client in question
during the reporting period;
* reported that they had lobbied certain federal agencies even though
they indicated during our visits that such activity did not take place
during the reporting period; and:
* filed reports but stated that they actually had not engaged in any
lobbying activity for the client in question during the reporting
period.
In addition, three lobbyists rounded the amount of their lobbying
income up to the next $10,000, rather than to the nearest $10,000 as
instructed.
A few of the lobbyists cited unclear and vague law and guidance as a
reason for reporting more information than their lobbying activity
required. But other lobbyists told us that they added information as
part of a cautious approach to the filing process, to lessen the
chances that they would fail to fully report. Another reason for
reporting additional data was that lobbyists did not want to edit their
reports each quarter to reflect what they perceived to be minor
changes--such as changes in the names of individuals acting as
lobbyists on specific issues or in lists of federal agencies lobbied--
and chose to leave this kind of information in their report in case it
should become applicable again for a future reporting period.
Most Newly Registered Lobbyists Met Reporting Requirements:
Lobbyists who registered in the first quarter of 2008 largely filed
disclosure reports for the reporting period as required. To determine
whether new registrants were meeting the requirement to file, we
matched newly filed registrations from the House Lobbyists Disclosure
Database to their corresponding first quarter disclosure reports using
an electronic matching algorithm that allowed for misspelling and other
minor inconsistencies between the registrations and reports. Our
analysis of the 1,460 new registrations showed that the majority
(1,358) had a clearly corresponding disclosure report on file,
indicating that the requirement for these lobbyists to file reports for
specific clients was generally met. However, we could not identify
corresponding first quarter reports of lobbying activity for 102
(approximately 7 percent) of the 1460 new registrations.
We brought this matter to the attention of the Secretary of the Senate
and Clerk of the House so that they could follow up with the lobbyists
to resolve any potential compliance issues. Staff of the Secretary of
the Senate and Clerk of the House told us that while the newly
registered lobbyists for whom we could not identify corresponding
reports may not have filed a report, it is possible that they filed
reports with information that did not fully match their registrations.
For example, if a client's name did not precisely match the name listed
on the lobbyist's registration, it would be difficult to match the
registrants to their corresponding reports. Figure 1 below illustrates
the number of registrations for which we were unable to find a
corresponding report.
Figure 1: Newly Filed Registrations with Corresponding First Quarter
Lobbying Reports:
[See PDF for image]
This figure contains illustrations of lobbying registration forms, as
well as the following information:
1,358 lobbying registration forms were filed that also had
corresponding 1st quarter 2008 report forms filed.
102 lobbying registration forms were filed for which no corresponding
1st quarter 2008 report form could be identified.
Potential reasons for a missing lobbying report form:
* name on documents did not match exactly;
* wrong identification code;
* lobbyists didn’t know they had to file;
* lobbyists forgot to file a report;
* lobbyists intentionally did not file.
Sources: GAO analysis of Clerk of the House of Representatives and
Secretary of the Senate data; Clerk of the House of Representatives and
Secretary of the Senate (forms).
[End of figure]
Some Lobbyists Reported Challenges to Complying with the Act:
Some lobbyists identified certain challenges to their compliance with
the Act, including uncertainty about how to report various pieces of
information about their organizations and lobbying activity. Our random
sample of 100 quarterly reports included 86 separate lobbyists (some
lobbyists had reports for more than one client in our sample). About
half (41 out of 86) of these lobbyists said that they needed further
information specific to their own situations, in addition to the law
and the guidance provided by the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk
of the House. Many lobbyists told us that when they had questions or
needed clarification regarding the law and associated guidance, the
staffs of the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House were
helpful at providing needed assistance. For example, some lobbyists
told us:
* They were confused about whether and under what circumstances members
of a trade association had to be listed under the requirement to report
certain affiliated organizations.
* They did not know how to report foreign entity interest in the client
if the client is a U.S. corporation with an international parent
company.
* The issue area codes used to indicate types of lobbying activity are
not well defined and may overlap, requiring them to use their judgment
to choose between codes that were not entirely applicable to their
individual situations.
* They were not sure which of their activities constituted "lobbying
activity" as defined in the Act.
* They did not know how much detail they needed to provide on the
specific lobbying issues for each client.
Some lobbyists also cited certain administrative constraints as
challenges to their compliance with the Act. Under HLOGA, the deadline
for filing disclosure reports is 20 days after each reporting period,
or the first business day after the 20th day if the 20th day is not a
business day. Prior to HLOGA, the deadline for filing disclosure
reports was 45 days after the end of each reporting period. Some
lobbyists told us:
* The new 20-day deadline was difficult to meet because of limitations
of their own internal billing or record-keeping systems.
* The increased frequency of reporting presented an administrative
burden.
* They found the increased frequency of reporting to be beneficial for
their own record-keeping.
Some lobbyists told us they took added steps to help ensure their
compliance with the new requirements of HLOGA. These actions included
conducting internal training sessions for their staff, hiring outside
counsel to give presentations and provide training, and attending
training seminars and workshops offered by other lobbying
organizations, law firms, and membership organizations in the lobbying
community.
In this regard, a vehicle for lobbying organizations to share
information may assist some lobbyists in better ensuring the accuracy
and completeness of information in their lobbying disclosure reports.
HLOGA includes the sense of Congress that the lobbying community should
develop proposals for multiple organizations that could provide a
number of programs to assist compliance with lobbying disclosure, such
as creating standards for the organizations appropriate to the type of
lobbying and individuals to be served and providing training and
educational materials on reporting and disclosure requirements. The
creation of such organizations may assist the lobbying community with
minimizing confusion and clarifying the information needed to comply
with the Act.
The United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia
Assigns Resources Based on Competing Demands and Has Sufficient
Authorities to Enforce Lobbying Compliance:
Officials from the United States Attorney's Office for the District of
Columbia (the Office) informed us that resources are assigned to
lobbying compliance issues based on competing priorities within the
Office. In addition to responding to referred cases of lobbyist
noncompliance, the Office is responsible for prosecuting all criminal
cases in the District of Columbia including cases that would be
otherwise prosecuted by state authorities in other jurisdictions. The
Office also prosecutes and defends all civil cases in the District of
Columbia in which the United States is a party, and initiates legal
process to collect debts owed to the federal government. It is the
largest U.S. Attorney's Office with more than 350 Assistant U.S.
Attorneys and more than 350 support personnel for carrying out the
multitude of the Office's responsibilities.
Officials from the Office stated that most tasks on referred lobbying
compliance cases are administrative, such as researching and responding
to referrals and sending notices to the lobbyists requesting that they
file reports or correct reported information. The Office has five staff
members who work on lobbying noncompliance issues in addition to other
duties: a deputy chief, three assistant U.S. Attorneys, and an
investigator. Officials stated that the Office's other resources in its
civil work are dedicated to higher priority activities with a higher
return to the taxpayer, such as health care fraud.
If the Office decides to pursue a case against a referred lobbyist,
penalties may be imposed on lobbyists who intentionally fail to (1)
remedy a defective filing within 60 days after notice of such a defect
by the Senate Secretary or House Clerk's Office and the U.S. Attorney's
Office or (2) comply with any other provision of the Act. Penalties,
recently increased by HLOGA for offenses committed after January 1,
2008, involve a civil fine of not more than $200,000 and criminal
penalties of not more than 5 years in prison. Criminal penalties may be
imposed against lobbyists who knowingly and corruptly fail to comply
with the Act. Officials from the Office stated that they have
sufficient civil and criminal statutory authorities to enforce the Act.
The Office receives referrals of noncompliance from the Secretary of
the Senate and Clerk of the House.[Footnote 17] The Secretary of the
Senate and Clerk of the House send referrals after they have twice
contacted the lobbyists by letter to inform them of the need to remedy
an error or file a missing report. Extended periods of time may lapse
between when the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House
send the first contact letter and when they make referrals to the U.S.
Attorney's Office. For example, the most recent referrals were received
in April 2008 for the filing period that ended in 2006. According to
the Office, lobbyists often respond to a contact letter from the
Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House after referrals have
been received by the Office.
Before the Office sends out its own letters requesting compliance to
lobbyists once referrals are received, its staff first reviews the
Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House databases to determine
if that lobbyist has already resolved the compliance issue. Once this
has been done, the Office will send a letter to each lobbyist informing
the lobbyist of the need to correct the problem or file reports. The
Office attempts to verify the lobbyist's address where letters were
returned or no response was received after 60 days. Thereafter, the
Office makes a determination whether to pursue a case of noncompliance
with HLOGA. Office officials told us that the work involved in this
entire process takes a considerable amount of time and resources. For
an overview of the referral process, see figure 2.
Figure 2: Overview of the Lobbying Disclosure Referral Process:
[See PDF for image]
This figure contains the following information in flow-chart format:
Overview of the Lobbying Disclosure Referral Process:
Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House Office:
* Database reviewed and missing reports and those with filing errors
are tagged;
* Is report missing or unclear?
- If no, no further action is required;
- If yes:
* Does lobbyist resolve issue within 60 days?
- If no, no further action is required;
- If yes:
* Second contact letter is sent to lobbyist;
* Does lobbyist resolve issue within 60 days?
- If no, no further action is required;
- If yes:
* Referral is sent to U.S. Attorney’s Office.
U.S. Attorney’s Office:
* U.S. Attorney’s Office verifies lobbyist response has not been made;
* Additional compliance request letter is sent to lobbyist;
* Does lobbyist resolve issue within 60 days?
- If no, no further action is required;
- If yes:
* Verify lobbyist address as needed;
* U.S. Attorney’s Office decides whether to pursue a case of non-
compliance with HLOGA.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Referrals have increased in recent years, and as a result, the Office's
workload relative to lobbying disclosure has increased. The Secretary
and Clerk automated their referral process in 2004, and began
transmitting referrals to the Office electronically in 2006. According
to Office officials, the automation of the referral process likely
contributed to a significant increase in the number of referrals. Since
2004, the Office has received more than 4,000 referrals from the
Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House. Because of a lack of
consistent records in past years, the Office was unable to provide
complete and accurate data for each reporting period prior to 2006 to
indicate the number of letters it sent to lobbyists asking them to
comply with the Act, and the number of lobbyists who complied after the
referral was received. Office officials indicated that such information
would be useful to help them better track their workload and make
resource decisions.
The Office has not received referrals for the 2007 reporting period.
The Office received more than 1,000 for the 2003, 2004, and 2005
reporting periods. In September 2007, the Office received 449 referrals
for the mid-year 2006 reporting period. The most recent set of
referrals was sent by the Secretary of the Senate in April 2008 and
totaled approximately 330 referrals, all of which were for the 2006
year-end reporting period. Office officials provided additional
information on these referrals, and explained that they consolidated
the 2006 year-end referrals for lobbyists that have more than one
report that is noncompliant, leaving 268 lobbyists with one or more
filings. Officials researched the Senate database and determined that
16 of the 268 lobbyists filed a report after the Office received the
referrals from the Senate. As a result, the Office has recently sent
252 letters to lobbyists asking them to comply with the Act by promptly
filing a report or an amendment to correct an issue that has been
identified.
The Office does not have a formal, structured approach that enables
them to readily prioritize matters that should be the focus of its
resources. For example, it does not identify those lobbyists who
continually fail to file or otherwise do not comply with requirements
of the Act. In commenting on a draft of this report, Office officials
stated they have recently begun to redesign their computer database to
more accurately track referrals and identify trends in past compliance
matters in order to create a more structured approach for assigning its
resources. Office officials believe that once this is accomplished it
should provide a foundation that will allow the Office to better focus
its lobbying compliance efforts. Such a structured approach becomes
increasingly important in light of the Office's growing workload.
The Office has been primarily focused on sending letters to lobbyists
who have potentially violated the Act, requesting that they comply with
the law and promptly file the appropriate disclosure documents.
Resolution typically involves the lobbyists coming into compliance.
Office officials told us that since the Act was passed in 1995, they
have settled with three lobbyists and collected civil penalties
totaling about $47,000. All of the settled cases involved a failure to
file.
Under HLOGA, DOJ is required to file an enforcement report with
Congress after each semiannual period beginning on January 1 and July
1, detailing the aggregate number of enforcement actions taken by DOJ
under the Act during the semiannual period and, by case, any sentences
imposed. On September 18, 2008, DOJ filed its first report for the
semiannual period ending June 30, 2008.
Conclusions and Observations:
Most registered lobbyists could provide support for their filings and
newly registered lobbyists largely met the reporting requirements.
However, several lobbyists in our sample reported some lobbying
activity that did not occur, a circumstance that diminishes the value
of information reported to Congress. In addition to a lack of clarity
in the available guidance, the absence of documentation requirements
and the fact that some lobbyists estimate amounts to be included in
their reports may have resulted in some inaccurate information reported
to Congress.
Based on these observations, we believe that the lobbying community
could benefit from creating an organization to:
* share examples of best practices of the types of records maintained
to support filings and use this information gathered over an initial
period to formulate minimum standards for recordkeeping;
* provide training for the lobbying community on reporting and
disclosure requirements, intended to help the community comply with the
Act; and:
* report annually to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the
House on opportunities to clarify existing guidance and ways to
minimize sources of potential confusion for the lobbying community.
The recent increase in public and congressional attention on lobbyists
and their interactions with government officials and the increase in
disclosure requirements indicate the importance of enforcing the Act.
To better address potential issues of noncompliance, the Department of
Justice and the U.S. Attorney's Office's limited resources need to be
targeted toward the most significant and repeated cases of
noncompliance. Without a structured approach, the Office does not have
the assurance that it is investing its limited resources in the most
useful manner. Office officials believe that the recently initiated
effort under way to redesign its computer database to more accurately
track referrals should provide a structured approach to address problem
filers.
Recommendation:
We recommend the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia:
* Complete efforts to develop plans for a structured approach to focus
limited resources on those lobbyists that continually fail to file as
required or are otherwise not in compliance. Such an approach should
require the Office to track the referrals when they are made, record
reasons for the referrals, record the actions taken to resolve them,
and assess the results of actions taken.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to the Attorney General for the
Department of Justice (DOJ) for review and comment. On behalf of the
DOJ, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia provided us with
written comments (see app. III). The U.S. Attorney for the District of
Columbia concurred with our recommendation and stated that the office
has devoted appropriate attention to enforcing the Act and plans to
continue to develop an approach to focus limited resources on lobbyists
that continually fail to file as required or otherwise fail to comply
with the Act. The U.S. Attorney noted that his office is taking or
planning to take actions that should allow the office to develop a more
structured approach as we recommended. Specifically, the U.S. Attorney
indicated that the office plans to enhance its database to improve
tracking and has assigned an additional staff member to assist with
lobbying compliance matters. The Office of the U.S. Attorney also
provided technical comments, which we have incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney General, Secretary
of the U.S. Senate, Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, and
other interested congressional committees and members. Copies of this
report will be made available to others upon request. In addition, this
report is available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
Please contact George Stalcup at (202) 512-9490 or stalcupg@gao.gov if
you or your staffs have any questions about this report. Contact points
for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be
found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major
contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV.
Signed by:
George Stalcup:
Director, Strategic Issues:
List of Addressees:
The Honorable Harry M. Reid:
Majority Leader:
The Honorable Mitch McConnell:
Minority Leader:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Steny Hoyer:
Majority Leader:
The Honorable John Boehner:
Minority Leader:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Joe Lieberman:
Chairman:
The Honorable Susan Collins:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Patrick Leahy:
Chairman:
The Honorable Arlen Specter:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Judiciary:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein:
Chairman:
The Honorable Bob Bennett:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Rules and Administration:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Henry A. Waxman:
Chairman:
The Honorable Tom Davis:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Chairman:
The Honorable Lamar Smith:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Judiciary:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Robert A. Brady:
Chairman:
The Honorable Vernon J. Ehlers:
Ranking Member:
Committee on House Administration:
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Consistent with the requirements of the Honest Leadership and Open
Government Act (HLOGA), our objectives were to:
* determine the extent to which lobbyists can demonstrate compliance by
providing support for information on registrations and reports filed in
response to requirements of the amended Lobbying Disclosure Act (the
Act);
* identify the challenges lobbyists cite in complying with the Act and
suggestions for improving compliance; and:
* describe the process of referring noncompliance cases to the
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the resources and authorities available
to DOJ in its role in enforcing compliance with the Act.
To respond to the requirements of HLOGA, we used information in
disclosure databases maintained by the Secretary of the Senate and the
Clerk of the House of Representatives. To assess whether these
disclosure data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this
report, we reviewed relevant documentation and spoke to officials
responsible for maintaining the data. Although registrations and
reports are filed through a single Web portal, each chamber
subsequently receives copies of the data and follows different data
cleaning, processing, and editing procedures before storing the data in
either individual files (in the House) or databases (in the Senate).
Currently, there is no means of reconciling discrepancies between the
two databases that result from chamber differences in data processing;
however, we do not have reason to believe that the content of the two
systems would vary substantially. While we determined that the both the
House and Senate disclosure data were sufficiently reliable for
identifying a sample of first quarter reports and for assessing whether
newly filed registrants also filed required reports, we chose to use
data from the Clerk of the House for ease of processing. We did not
evaluate the Offices of the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the
House--both of which have key roles in the lobbying disclosure process-
-although we met with officials from each office, and they provided us
with general background information at our request.
To assess the extent to which lobbyists' could provide evidence of
their compliance with reporting requirements, we examined a random
sample of 100 of the 19,861 first quarter reports filed by the April 21
deadline and available in the House database as of our download date of
May 12, 2008. We later determined that a portion of the reports in the
database were amendments or test cases, and thus 17,801 first quarter
reports were in scope for our sample. Our sample is based on random
selection, and it is only one of a large number of samples that we
might have drawn. Because each sample could have provided different
estimates, we express our confidence in the precision of our particular
sample's results as a 95 percent confidence interval. This is the
interval that would contain the actual population value for 95 percent
of the samples that we could have drawn. All percentage estimates in
this report have 95 percent confidence intervals of within plus or
minus 11 percentage points of the estimate itself, unless otherwise
noted.
We contacted each lobbyist in our sample and asked them to provide
support for eight key elements in their reports, including:
* the amount of money received for lobbying activities;
* the amount of money spent on lobbying activities;
* the specific issues on which they lobbied;
* the houses of Congress and federal agencies which they lobbied;
* the names of individuals who acted as lobbyists for the client listed
on the report;
* the names of foreign entities with interest in the client;
* the names of individuals no longer acting as a lobbyist for the
client; and:
* the names of any member organizations of a coalition or association
that actively participated in lobbying activities on behalf of the
client.
Our work to examine lobbyists' compliance was limited to reviewing
support provided by the lobbyists, which included both documentation
and oral explanations. Neither the law nor guidance currently specifies
any documentation requirements in relation to information reported
under the Act.
To determine if the Act's requirement for registrants to file a report
in the quarter of registration was met during the first quarter of
2008, we matched the 1460 records in the House's first quarter
registration file as of May 13, 2008, to those in the first quarter
report filings using House ID, Senate ID, and text matching procedures.
We examined all first quarter registrations filed and signed on March
31, 2008, or before. We deleted 31 duplications of multiple
registrations and selected only the most recent registration each
lobbyist filed for each particular client. We electronically matched
registrations with reports using House and Senate identification
numbers, lobbyist organization name, and client name. We identified 94
perfect matches, then relaxed our criteria to allow for minor typos and
missing identification codes, and identified an additional 1233
registrations with corresponding reports in the first quarter filings.
We could not readily identify matches in the report database for the
remaining 102 registrations.
We obtained views from lobbyists included in our sample of reports on
any challenges to compliance and how the challenges might be addressed.
To describe the process used in referring cases to the Department of
Justice and provide information on the resources and authorities used
by the department in its role in enforcing compliance with HLOGA, we
interviewed department officials, obtained information from those
involved in the referral process, and obtained data on the number of
cases referred, pending, and resolved.
Our objectives did not include identifying lobbyists that failed to
register and report in accordance with HLOGA requirements, or whether
for those lobbyists that did register and report, all lobbying activity
was disclosed. We conducted this performance audit from March 2008
through September 2008 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Full List of Sampled Registrants and Clients:
The random sample of lobbying disclosure reports we selected was based
on client names.
Table 2: Names of Registrants and Clients Selected in Random Sample of
Lobbying Disclosure Reports Filed in First Quarter 2008:
1;
Registrant Name: Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld;
Client Name: SAS Institute, Inc.
2;
Registrant Name: Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld;
Client Name: Solano Transportation Authority.
3;
Registrant Name: Alutiiq, LLC;
Client Name: Alutiiq, LLC.
4;
Registrant Name: The Amani Group, LLC;
Client Name: Comcast Corporation.
5;
Registrant Name: American Society for Reproductive Medicine;
Client Name: American Society for Reproductive Medicine.
6;
Registrant Name: The Anschutz Company;
Client Name: The Anschutz Company.
7;
Registrant Name: Auburn Health Strategies, LLC;
Client Name: Science Horizons Inc.
8;
Registrant Name: Avenue Solutions;
Client Name: Northwest Airlines.
9;
Registrant Name: B & D Consulting;
Client Name: The Mind Trust.
10;
Registrant Name: Balch & Bingham, LLP;
Client Name: Jefferson County Sheriff's Office.
11;
Registrant Name: Ball Janik, LLP;
Client Name: Costa Pacific Communities.
12;
Registrant Name: Barbour Griffith & Rogers, LLC d/b/a/BGR Holding;
Client Name: City of Madison.
13;
Registrant Name: Beveridge & Diamond, P.C.;
Client Name: Carbon Offset Providers Coalition.
14;
Registrant Name: BKSH & Associates;
Client Name: Cummins Engine Company.
15;
Registrant Name: Bruce Fennie & Associates;
Client Name: Monroe County Airport Authority.
16;
Registrant Name: Cardinal Point Partners;
Client Name: Middlesex Community College.
17;
Registrant Name: Cassidy & Associates;
Client Name: Oneida Healthcare Center.
18;
Registrant Name: Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear
Arms;
Client Name: Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
19;
Registrant Name: Cornerstone Government Affairs, LLC;
Client Name: Owensboro Medical Health System.
20;
Registrant Name: Cornerstone Government Affairs, LLC;
Client Name: Global Crop Diversity Trust.
21;
Registrant Name: Cornerstone Government Affairs, LLC;
Client Name: Kennedy Health System.
22;
Registrant Name: Council of the Americas;
Client Name: Council of the Americas.
23;
Registrant Name: Deborah Hohlt;
Client Name: State of Indiana.
24;
Registrant Name: Dewey & LeBoeuf, LLP;
Client Name: Water Environment Research Foundation.
25;
Registrant Name: Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP;
Client Name: Riverain Medical.
26;
Registrant Name: DTB Associates, LLP;
Client Name: National Pork Producers' Council.
27;
Registrant Name: Dutko Worldwide, LLC;
Client Name: AVCORR Consultants.
28;
Registrant Name: Dutko Worldwide, LLC;
Client Name: Eisai, Inc.
29;
Registrant Name: Federal Advocates, Inc.;
Client Name: City of Garden Grove.
30;
Registrant Name: Federal Advocates, Inc.;
Client Name: City of Thousand Oaks.
31;
Registrant Name: Ferguson Group;
Client Name: American Waterfront Revitalization Coalition.
32;
Registrant Name: Ferguson Group;
Client Name: Northern California Power Agency.
33;
Registrant Name: Fox Potomac Resources, LLC;
Client Name: Shaw Group.
34;
Registrant Name: Furchtgott-Roth Economic Enterprises;
Client Name: IDT Corporation.
35;
Registrant Name: The Gallatin Group;
Client Name: College of Southern Idaho.
36;
Registrant Name: Hogan & Hartson, LLP;
Client Name: Houghton Freeman.
37;
Registrant Name: HSBC GR-CORP;
Client Name: HSBC GR-CORP.
38;
Registrant Name: Hurt, Norton & Associates, Inc;
Client Name: Sierra Nevada Corporation.
39;
Registrant Name: Hurt, Norton & Associates, Inc.;
Client Name: Savannah Airport Commission.
40;
Registrant Name: Innovative Federal Strategies, LLC;
Client Name: Cerus Corporation.
41;
Registrant Name: Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc.;
Client Name: Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc.
42;
Registrant Name: Intuit, Inc.;
Client Name: Intuit, Inc.
43;
Registrant Name: Jamison and Sullivan, Inc.;
Client Name: Flight Landata.
44;
Registrant Name: JCP Associates; Client Name: New College of Florida
Research Foundation.
45;
Registrant Name: John Hancock Financial Services, Inc.;
Client Name: John Hancock Financial Services, Inc.
46;
Registrant Name: Kelley Drye & Warren;
Client Name: Fisheries Survival Fund.
47;
Registrant Name: Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis, LLP (K&L
Gates);
Client Name: Advanced Diamond Technologies, Inc.
48;
Registrant Name: Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP (K&L
Gates);
Client Name: T2 Biosystems, Inc.
49;
Registrant Name: Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP (K&L
Gates);
Client Name: Apollo Diamond.
50;
Registrant Name: KSA Consulting;
Client Name: Airship Management.
51;
Registrant Name: The Livingston Group, L.L.C.;
Client Name: Southern Shrimp Alliance.
52;
Registrant Name: Locke Lord Strategies, LP;
Client Name: Louisiana Sheriff's Association.
53;
Registrant Name: Maine Street Solutions, LLC;
Client Name: Health Net Federal Services, LLC.
54;
Registrant Name: Mayer Brown, LLP;
Client Name: Edison Mission Energy.
55;
Registrant Name: McBee Strategic Consulting, LLC;
Client Name: Suquamish Tribe.
56;
Registrant Name: McDermott Will & Emery, LLP;
Client Name: Magee-Womens Hospital of University of Pittsburgh Medical
Center.
57;
Registrant Name: The McManus Group;
Client Name: Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.
58;
Registrant Name: Miller/Wenhold Capitol Strategies, LLC;
Client Name: Chuckals Office Products.
59;
Registrant Name: Mitch Rose Strategic Consulting;
Client Name: The Motion Picture Association of America.
60;
Registrant Name: Morgan Meguire, LLC;
Client Name: Energy Northwest.
61;
Registrant Name: Mr. David M. Weiman;
Client Name: Cucamonga County Water District.
62;
Registrant Name: Muroff Government Strategies, LLC;
Client Name: Jewish Employment & Vocational Services on behalf of Duane
Morris Government Affairs.
63;
Registrant Name: Murray, Montgomery and O'Donnell;
Client Name: Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara.
64;
Registrant Name: National Association of Chain Drug Stores;
Client Name: National Association of Chain Drug Stores.
65;
Registrant Name: National Association of Student Financial Aid
Administrators;
Client Name: National Association of Student Financial Aid
Administrators.
66;
Registrant Name: Natural Resource Results, LLC;
Client Name: Wild Salmon Center.
67;
Registrant Name: The New England Council;
Client Name: The New England Council.
68;
Registrant Name: Nusgart Consulting, LLC;
Client Name: Abbott Nutrition (formerly Ross Products Div of Abbott
Laboratories).
69;
Registrant Name: Oldcastle Materials, Inc.;
Client Name: Oldcastle Materials Inc.
70;
Registrant Name: Olsson Frank Weeda Terman Bode Matz, PC;
Client Name: Ocean Beauty.
71;
Registrant Name: The Pennsylvania Avenue Group;
Client Name: Continental Tire North America.
72;
Registrant Name: The PMA Group;
Client Name: Comtech Systems Inc.
73;
Registrant Name: The PMA Group;
Client Name: Conemaugh Health Systems.
74;
Registrant Name: The PMA Group;
Client Name: General Dynamics.
75;
Registrant Name: The PMA Group;
Client Name: Malibu Research.
76;
Registrant Name: Potomac Partners DC;
Client Name: MJM Enterprises.
77;
Registrant Name: Public Lands Council;
Client Name: Public Lands Council.
78;
Registrant Name: Reed Smith, LLP;
Client Name: Eclipse Surgical Technologies, Inc.
79;
Registrant Name: Robert L. Redding, Jr.;
Client Name: Automotive Service Association.
80;
Registrant Name: Ryberg and Smith, LLC;
Client Name: International Sugar Trade Coalition.
81;
Registrant Name: S & J Government
Consulting Services, LLC;
Client Name: Creative Thermal Solutions, Inc.
82;
Registrant Name: Saks Incorporated;
Client Name: Saks Incorporated.
83;
Registrant Name: Secular Coalition for America;
Client Name: Secular Coalition for America.
84;
Registrant Name: Sheffield Brothers;
Client Name: Independent Community Bankers of America.
85;
Registrant Name: The Sheridan Group;
Client Name: HopeLab.
86;
Registrant Name: Smith Dawson & Andrews; Client Name:
City of Sacramento.
87;
Registrant Name: Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, LLP;
Client Name: Alabama Institute for the Deaf and Blind.
88;
Registrant Name: Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, LLP;
Client Name: Fidelis SeniorCare.
89;
Registrant Name: Strategic Marketing Innovations;
Client Name: Agile RF.
90;
Registrant Name: Thomas Loftus;
Client Name: DNV.
91;
Registrant Name: Thompson Smitch Consulting;
Client Name: Chelan County PUD.
92;
Registrant Name: Triad Strategies, LLC.;
Client Name: Inglis Foundation.
93;
Registrant Name: Troutman Sanders Public Affairs Group, LLC;
Client Name: Montgomery Watson/Khafra.
94;
Registrant Name: United Motorcoach Association;
Client Name: United Motorcoach Association.
95;
Registrant Name: Van Fleet Associates, Inc.;
Client Name: Kirk Pharmaceuticals.
96;
Registrant Name: Van Ness Feldman, A Professional Corporation;
Client Name: International Bottled Water Association.
97;
Registrant Name: Van Scoyoc Associates, Inc.;
Client Name: Knowledge Learning Corporation.
98;
Registrant Name: Van Scoyoc Associates, Inc.;
Client Name: National Urban League.
99;
Registrant Name: Venable, LLP;
Client Name: Experian, Inc.
100;
Registrant Name: Wiley Rein, LLP;
Client Name: Satellite Industry Association.
Source: Lobbying disclosure database of the Clerk of the House, first
quarter, calendar year 2008.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Justice:
U.S. Department of Justice:
Jeffrey A. Taylor, United States Attorney:
District of Columbia:
Judiciary Center:
555 Fourth Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20530:
September 24, 2002:
George H. Stalcup:
Director, Strategic Issues:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Fe: Lobbying Disclosure Act:
Mr. Stalcup:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your report titled Lobbying
Disclosures "Observations on Lobbyists Compliance with New Disclosure
Requirements. This is a thoughtful and comprehensive report of the
enforcement issues related to the Lobbying Disclosure Act (the Act)
that will certainly enhance our efforts in this area.
We consider enforcement of the Act an important and unique
responsibility of this office. However, our commitment to this area has
been balanced against the demands of our other criminal and civil
matters. In fact, as the report notes in recent years this office has
committed significant resources to following up with lobbyists referred
to this office by the United States Senate ("Senate") and the House of
Representatives ("House") for violations of the Act. Given our varied
responsibilities as the Nation's largest United States Attorney's
Office, we respectfully submit that we have devoted appropriate
attention to enforcing the Act. Indeed, as the referrals from the
Senate and House have increased, we have worked to develop methods to
efficiently carry out our responsibilities under the Act.
We appreciate your recommendation that we "continue to develop a
structured approach to focus limited resources on lobbyists who
continually fail to file as required or otherwise fail to comply with
the Act." Indeed, the office has begun to organize referrals from past
years to identify trends in past compliance matters. As part of this
process we plan to revamp our computer data base to better track this
information. We also have assigned a paralegal to among her other
duties work on these cases with the team already working them. These
enhancements should allow is to continue to develop the more structured
approach that your report recommends.
Please feel free to contact us if you have additional questions or
comments.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Jeffrey A. Taylor:
United States Attorney:
District of Columbia:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
George Stalcup, 202-512-9490, or stalcupg@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contacts named above, Robert Cramer, Associate
General Counsel; Bill Reinsberg, Assistant Director; Michael Volpe,
Assistant General Counsel; Katrina Taylor, Analyst-in-Charge;
Christopher Backley; Ellen Grady; Anna Maria Ortiz; Melanie Papasian;
Sabrina Streagle; and Greg Wilmoth made key contributions to this
report.
Assisting with lobbyist's file reviews and interviews were Stephen
Ander, Amy Bowser, Dewi Djunaidy, Daniel Dunn, Karin Fangman, Melanie
Helser, Ashleigh Kades, Olivia Leonard, Andrea Levine, Ryan Little,
Mary Martin, Jeff McDermott, Jackie Pontious, Wes Sholtes, A.J.
Stephens, and Tammy Stenzel.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. 79-601, tit. III, 60 Stat. 839 (1946).
[2] See United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 619 (1954).
[3] Pub. L. 104-65, 109 Stat. 691 (1995).
[4] P.L. 110-81, §213, 121 Stat. at 750, codified at 2 U.S.C. §1614
note.
[5] These reports were due April 21, 2008.
[6] Income or expense information was not required for reports
indicating no lobbying activity.
[7] Unless otherwise noted, all percentage estimates have 95 percent
confidence intervals between plus or minus 11 percentage points or less
of the estimate.
[8] Prior to HLOGA, reports covered a semiannual period and were due 45
days after the end of the reporting period.
[9] Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-65, 109 Stat. 691, as
amended by Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, Pub. L.
110-81, 121 Stat. 735 (Sept. 14, 2007) codified at 2 U.S.C. §§1601-
1607.
[10] 2 U.S.C. §1604.
[11] A covered position/official is defined as an elected Member of
either house of Congress, an employee of a Member or a committee, or
certain high-level positions in the Executive branch. 2 U.S.C. §1602.
[12] A lobbying firm needs to register if the firm's total income from
the lobbying client exceeds or is expected to exceed $10,000 in a
quarterly reporting period. An organization that employs internal
lobbyists must register if the organization's lobbying expenses exceed
or are expected to exceed $2,500 in a quarterly period and at least one
employee meets the statutory definition of a lobbyist.
[13] A lobbying contact is an oral or written communication to a
covered executive or legislative branch official made on behalf of a
client attempting to influence legislation or executive programs or
policies.
[14] HLOGA increased the level of required disclosure. Previously under
the Act coalitions and associations were only required to list members
who "in whole or in major part plans, supervises, or controls such
lobbying activities."
[15] Income or expense information was not required for reports
indicating no lobbying activity. Written or verbal support was provided
for 92 of the 93 reports reviewed. Based on this, we are 95 percent
confident that at least 95 percent of all first quarter reports
provided either written or verbal supporting information.
[16] Unless otherwise noted, all percentage estimates have 95 percent
confidence intervals between plus or minus 11 percentage points or less
of the estimate.
[17] The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House refer
lobbyists to the DOJ if they fail to file on time or if they provide
inaccurate information in their reports.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: