The American Bar Association (ABA) has weighed in on a proposal to prohibit federal lobbyists from contributing to, or raising money for, those they seek to influence on Capitol Hill. Yesterday, the ABA’s House of Delegates approved a resolution calling for several significant changes to the Lobbying Disclosure Act – the federal legislation governing lobbyist registration and disclosure.
Of significance to this blog, the resolution calls upon Congress to amend the Act to prohibit lobbyists from working their trade with any member of Congress for whom he or she has raised money in the past two years. The resolution also recommends a refinement of the definition of “lobbyist” to enhance registration and disclosure. With respect to contributions by such lobbyists, the resolution recommends mandating that a federally-registered lobbyist may not:
(a) lobby a member of Congress for whom he or she has engaged in campaign fundraising during the past two years;
(b) engage in campaign fundraising for a member of Congress whom he or she has lobbied during the past two years;
(c) make or solicit financial contributions to the reelection campaign of a member of Congress whom the lobbyist has been retained to lobby for an earmark or other narrow financial benefit; or
(d) enter into a contingent fee contract with a client to lobby for an earmark or other narrow financial benefit for that client.
The proposal is likely to enjoy enhanced stature because of the high caliber, and bi-partisan bona fides of the task force issuing the underlying report recommending the changes this past January. Co-chairs to the ABA task force included former Republican FEC Commissioner Trevor Potter, noted Democratic attorneys Rebecca Gordon and Joseph Sandler, and former Reagan Solicitor General and current Harvard Law School professor Charles Fried. Nothing says “bipartisan” and “mood of America” like agreement between former counsel to Obama for America, John McCain 2008, the Gipper, and Stephen Colbert.
Already, the American League of Lobbyists (ALL) is responding to this shot across its bow with a promise to release a report of its own in response to the ABA’s proposals. ALL President Howard Marlowe has also signaled that the League may embark on an effort kill this portion of the proposal before it gains any traction. As reported in Roll Call, Marlowe acknowledged “the significance of money in the policymaking process” represents a “significant” problem, but then pivots to signal an effort to kill the proposal with the backhanded compliment that while the leagues’ proposal will be similar, “[t]he ABA knows ‘that they are on the short end of the stick constitutionally when they’re doing that, and it’s not likely to pass muster.’” Marlowe also reached out to Politico to characterize the proposed contribution ban as “not practical at all.”
You have to give ALL props for trying, but there would appear to be far less constitutional infirmity in this proposal, which simply prohibits lobbyists from plying their regulated trade with those they have previously supported politically, than we have seen in other attempted bans on free association and expression covered and criticized by this blog in the past.
There is an old legal saying that “good lawyers know the law, great lawyers know the judge.” The ABA’s proposal looks to refine lobbying effectiveness more towards “what you know” and less towards “who owes you.” The ABA has captured the mood of the country with a sensible proposal that is as likely to enjoy as much legislative success as anything trying to make its way through an otherwise dysfunctional legislative environment.