Lobby Act Reform

LOBBY ACT REFORM

ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER I B 7 5 0 3 4

AUTHOR:

S a c h s , Richard C.

Government Division

T H E LIBRARY OF C O N G R E S S

CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE

MAJOR I S S U E S SYSTEM

DATE O R I G I N A T E D 0 4 / 1 0 / 7 5

DATE UPDATED 03/19/81

FOR ADDITIONAL I N F O R M A T I O N C A L L 287-5700

0424

CRS- 1

ISSUE DEFINITION

Fueled in part by abuses revealed during investigations into the Watergate

scandal and aissatisfaction with present l a w , the controversy over how to

achieve more effective accountability from lobbyists--groups and individuals

who seek to influence the governmental decision-making process--was

a major

issue in the 96th Congress. Proposals included broadening

present

law to

cover more fully those who lobby the Congress, to include for the first time

those who lobby the executive branch, and to

place

authority

for

administration and enforcement in the General Accounting Office.

BACKGROUND AND POLICY ANALYSIS

Although the activities of pressure groups and individuals lobbying

Congress have been the subject of sporadic investigations since 1 9 1 3 , not

until the 1930s did Congress enact the first registration and reporting

requirements for lobbyists. Within a period

of 4 years, Congress passed

three measures--the Utilities Holding Company Act, the Merchant Marine Act,

and the Foreign Agents Registration Act-- requiring some form of registration

and periodic reporting for persons seeking to influence Congress and certain

agencies of the executive branch.

Further efforts to enact more comprehensive legislation on lobbying

resulted in the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act, passed as part of the

Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. This Act, presently the only Federal

statute regarding lobbyists' activities on a broad scale, does not restrict

lobbying activities, but requires that individuals and groups seeking to

influence legislation in the Congress register with

the Secretary of the

Senate and the Clerk of the House, and file quarterly financial reports with

the latter.

Critics of the Act have often faulted it for being

ineffective.

They

point out that the law requires registration only by persons

paid

to lobby

for someone else, and only by those whose principal purpose is lobbying.

Accordingly, some organizations avoid registering by contending that lobbying

is not their principal purpose.

Moreover, a 1 9 5 4 Supreme Court decision

interpreted the Act to mean that lobbying efforts are not covered by the Act

unless a lobbyist contacts a Member of Congress directly; thus, persons who

generate "grass rootsw pressure on Congress are not covered.

Critics also point out that the Act does not require the Secretary of the

Senate and the Clerk of the House to examine lobby registrations and

financial reports for their truthfulness, nor can they require individuals or

groups to register as lobbyists.

In addition, while the Justice Department

can prosecute Lobby Act violators, it does not investigate reports for

validity and completeness, and acts only when it receives a complaint. There

have been only four prosecutions since 1946.

Also, the Act covers only those persons who lobby Congress; there are no

registration or reporting requirements for persons who lobby the executive

agencies.

An April, 1975, General Accounting Office ( G A O ) report concluded that

Act failed to provide accurate information on lobbyists and that

the

the

CRS- 2

IB75034

UPDATE-03/19/81

definitional

standards and the enforcement provisions were vague

and

difficult to administer.

I n its recommendations to the Senate Government

Operations Committee, the unit requesting

the study, GAO suggested three

areas which the commitcee might wish to pursue: (1) the lack of investigative

(3)

enforcement power to

authority; ( 2 ) the right to inspect records; and

determine whether the Act should be strengthened.

Soon after its passage, the constitutionality

of the 1946 Act was

challenged on the grounds that it violated First Amendment guarantees of free

speech, petition for redress of grievances, and freedom of assembly.

In

v.

Harriss upheld the

1954, by a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court in U.S.

constitutionality of the Act but construed it so narrowly, critics argue, as

to negate reporting and registration requirements of the law as an effective

means of publicizing lobbying activities and preventing abuses.

Although there have been numerous congressional investigations of alleged

lobbying abuses since 1954, it was not until 1971 that a committee, the House

Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, reported out a comprehensive

revision of the 1946 Act, the Legislative Activities

Disclosure Act.

However, no floor action on the bill occurred in the House.

3ppOnentS of the bill stated that First Amendment

rights would be

jeoparaized by its passage.

At the 1971 hearings on the measure, the

National Association of Manufacturers and the Chamber of Commerce, while

criticizing the failure of the existing l a w , testified that the proposed bill

was of dubious constitutionality, went

"too far," and would

require

"needlessly detailed, burdensome, and overlappingw reporting requirements.

The so-called Watergate scandals, several aspects of which were associated

with apparent abuses by Washington lobbyists, have been seen as the impetus

for a renewed effort to reform the 1946 Act.

In December 1974, the Congress passed

the Antitrust

Penalties and

Procedures Act ( S . 782 and H.R. 17063), which contained a section requiring

that a defendant filing for a proposed consent decree in an antitrust case

provide the court with logs of pertinent oral communications with Government

officials not directly involved in the judgment. The sponsors of the measure

stated that it was directly aimed at preventing

the type of abuses that

allegedly occurred in relation to antitrust actions brought against the

In 1973, while Elliot

International Telephone and Telegraph Company ( I T T ) .

Richardson was Attorney General, the Justice Department issued an agency

order which required the maintenance of meeting logs with persons outside the

agency regarding pending cases. This measure, too, was stated to be aimed at

preventing recurrences of the type of alleged abuses by lobbyists i n the ITT

antitrust cases.

In June 1974, California passed by initiative a wide-ranging election and

lobbying reform l a w , known generally as Proposition Nine, which placed tight

limitations on certain lobbyist activities.

Critics say the law

is

unconstitutional, but the State has announced its intention to enforce the

law while court tests are undertaken. Arizona, Minnesota, Kansas, and West

Virginia also passed new laws or regulations for lobbying disclosure in 1974.

Other States have proposals under consideration.

Also in 1974, the Justice Department announced its intention to bring suit

against the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties,

and the United States Conference of Mayors, charging that these groups were

lobbying organizations but had failed to register a s such.

In a declaratory

CRS- 3

IB7.5034

UPDATE-03/19/81

judgment issued in response to the associations' request for a preliminary

injunction, the U.S.

District Court for the District of Columbia upheld the

asSOCiatiOns' argument that its employees were acting "On the authorization

of a public official acting in his official capacity," were compensated

through public funds, and were therefore exempt from the 1946 Lobbying Act.

In the 94th Congress, the Senate Government Operations Committee held five

days of hearings on lobby reform proposals, and in March

1 9 7 6 reported a

bill, S. 2477. On June 15, the Senate passed S. 2477 by a vote of 8 2 to 9.

This marked the first time since the 1946 Act that the Senate had voted

favorably on a lobby reform bill.

2477, only an organization could become a lobbyist.

The

Under S.

(1) if

it

organization could become a lobbyist in any one of three ways:

retained a law firm or similar organization to lobby for it in Congress and

pays that organization at least $250 in a quarter; (2) i f , on its own behalf,

it engaged in 1 2 or more oral lobbying communications with

Congress in a

quarter; or (3) if it spent $5,000 or more a quarter in direct expenses on

lobbying solicitations, so-called "grass-rootsw lobbying campaigns.

The bill

covered lobbying of the executive branch only insofar as an executive branch

issue 2ertained to a measure

before the Congress.

Enforcement

and

administration was vested in the GAO, which was given certain rule-making and

investigative powers; however, all litigation in Federal court to enforce the

law was the responsibility of the Department of Justice.

In the House during the 94th Congress, most of the lobby bills were

jointly referred to the Judiciary Committee and the Committee on Standards of

Official Conduct.

Under new rules of the House, both committees must agree

In the first session

on a bill before it goes tc the floor for a final Vote.

of the 94th Congress, both committees held hearings, and on Aug.

25, 1976,

the Judiciary reported a bill, H.R. 15. Under H.R. 1 5 , only a n organization

c o ~ l dqualify as a lobbyist.

Such an organization could qualify in one of

two ways:

(1) it makes an expenditure in excess of $1,250 in any quarterly

filing period for the retention of another person to make oral or written

communications directed to a Federal officer, as defined in the bill, to

(2) the

influence legislation and certain executive agency decisions; and

organization employs at least one individual who spends 20% of his time in a

quarterly filing period engaged on behalf of that organization in lobbying

activities.

The bill covered executive agency lobbying, but only those

officers in executive levels I through V , the highest ranking executive

officers in the Government. Like S. 2477, the bill gave administrative and

enforcement authority to the GAO.

Congress was granted

specific powers

to

disapprove regulations issued pursuant to the Act by the Comptroller General.

On Sept. 2 0 , 1976, the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,

acting under its jurisdiction granted by the joint referral of lobby bills in

the House, adopted a n amendment i n the nature of a substitute to H.R. 15.

The Standards Committee substitute to H.R. 1 5 structurally

resembled the

Judiciary Committee's version, but contained some notable differences that

gave the measure a somewhat broader

application.

The Standards Committee

version contained, like S. 2477, a separate threshold for groups that only

conduct so-called wgrass-rootsw lobbying efforts.

The bill also eliminated

the quarterly registration and reporting provision and substituted

a

half-yearly

filing provision with a requirement that registrations be

up-dated when necessary. Certain additional registration information was

would

require

the

also required and a provision was adopted that

identification of certain officials of interest groups, whether paid or not,

CRS- 4

IB75034

UPDATE-03/19/81

who exerted a prominent role in the decision-making

processes

of the

organization.

The Standards bill also changed the 20% threshold test found

in the Judiciary Committee's version with a threshold test that called for an

organization to register as a lobbyist if it employed at least one individual

who lobbied on all or part of six or more calendar days in a half-year filing

period.

Administration, enforcement, and civil and criminal sanctions were

essentially similar to the Judiciary version of H.R. 1 5 , as amended.

The full House took up the two lobby bills on Sept. 28, 1976. By a roll

call vote of 291 to 74, the Standards Committee amendment in the nature of a

substitute was defeated. Early in the morning of Sept. 29, after 1 4 hours of

1 5 , with

debate, the House passed the Judiciary Committee's version of H.R.

additional amendments, by a roll call vote of 307 to 34.

The bill, H.R. 1 5 , was then sent to the Senate where it was referred to

the Cornnittee on Government Operations.

Because of the Senate's intention to

shortly adjourn sine die, the parliamentary situation was such that the bill

could be brought from the Committee to the floor for a vote only by unanimous

consent of the Senate.

Such unanimous consent was not forthcoming and

Senator Abraham Ribicoff (D-Conn.), Chairman of the Committee, said the bill

was "apparently dead for this year."

In the 95th Congress, hearings were held by

the House

Judiciary

Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental Relations, now chaired by

Rep. George Danielson (D-Calif.), and the Senate Committee on Governmental

Affairs.

On Feb. 24, 1978, the House Judiciary Committee reported H.R. 8494.

On Apr. 26, 1978, H.R. 8494 passed the House, as amended, by a vote of 259 to

140.

Testimony in the House focused on the 1976 House-passed

bill, introduced

(D-N.J.);

a somewhat modified

this year a s H.R. 1180 by Rep. Peter Rodino

version of H.R. 1180 introduced by Reps. Railsback and Kastenmeier, H.R.

5795; a measure introduced by Rep. Don Edwards (D-Calif.),

H.R.

5 5 7 8 , that

had received the backing of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU); and a

proposal that would create separate registration and reporting criteria, one

for smaller, less-active organizations, and another for larger lobbying

groups.

Appearing on behalf of the Carter Administration; Deputy Attorney

General Peter F. Flaherty stated that the White House would

support "the

enactment of a lobbying bill which would be comprehensive, evenhanded, easily

enforceable, and which would

effectively open to the public

significant

instances in which the congressional process is influenced by

the organized

efforts of outside groups."

On July 20, 1977, after meeting 1 7 times to consider lobbying legislation,

the House subcommittee ordered reported H.R. 1180, reintroduced on July 22 as

H.R. 8494. Under this bill, organizations were required to register and make

quarterly reports if they (1) spend $2,500 in any quarterly period to retain

persons or firms to make oral or written lobbying communications on their

behalf or "for the express purpose of preparing and/or

drafting1' such

lobbying communications

communications; or ( 2 ) spend $2,500 or more making

and employ one or more individuals who

(in the aggregate) make lobbying

communications on 13 or more days per quarter.

Certain activities were

specifically excluded from the

Act.

The

Comptroller

General

had

responsibility for implementing the Act and the authority to promulgate rules

and regulations, Which were subject to congressional veto.

Civil and

criminal sanctions could be imposed for violations of the Act.

On Feb. 2 4 , 1978, the House Judiciary Committee reported H.R.

8494.

Two

CRS- 5

IB75034

UPDATE-03/19/81

major changes were made in the subcommittee bill: the section that Called for

disclosure of information relating to grassroots lobbying efforts was

eliminated, and virtually all enforcement authority was placed with

the

Attorney General rather than the Comptroller

General.

The Comptroller

General was left with certain administrative and rule-making functions.

On Apr. 2 6 , 1 9 7 8 , the House, by a roll-cail vote of 259 to 1 4 0 , passed

H.R. 8494. Three major changes were made through floor amendments:

(1) an

amendment offered by Rep. Flowers that restored the reporting requirements

relating to solicitations and grass-roots lobbying efforts; (2) an amendment

offered by Rep. Railsback that required a reporting organization to identify

its chief executive, whether paid or unpaid, and the issues on which he

lobbied; and (3) an amendment by Rep. Railsback that required any lobbying

organization that spent more than 1% of its total budget

on lobbying to

report the names of organizations from which it received more than $3,000 a

year in dues or contributions.

On Feb. 7 , 1978, the Senate completed three days of hearings on two

disclosure bills, S. 1785 and S. 2026.

major

On May 1 0 and 1 1 , 1978, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee met to

mark-up S. 2971, a so-called

compromise bill which, with

several major

modifications, closely resembled S. 1785. The committee's only action was

adoption of an amendment to establish a completely new threshold, replacing

The amendment

the "two-tier" threshold found in both S. 1785 and S. 2971.

provided that a group engaging in direct lobbying would have to register if

it either (1) has one paid employee "making two oral communications a day on

each of 1 0 days in a calendar quarter, or two paid employees making two oral

(2) spends

communications on each of five days in a calendar quarter," or

"$1,750 in a quarter retaining an outside lobbyist."

Two exemptions were

included in the direct lobbying threshold.

The law would not apply to a

group if:

"all of its oral lobbying communications are made only during a

period of six consecutive working days in a calendar year," or (2) "it is a

locally oriented organization that has a total annual budget of less than

$75,000, and is not located in the Washington, D.C.

SMSA

Standard

Metropolitan Statistical Area , and is not a controlled affiliate of any

other organization."

On Aug. 1 7 , 1978, the Committee approved two amendments, one that would

exempt from coverage any organization composed of State, county or local

officials, and one that would delete coverage of a lobbying organization's

"grass-roots" activities. The Committee narrowly defeated an amendment to

remove from the bill a provision requiring lobbying organizations to identify

other groups making large financial contributions.

The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee failed to complete action on the

bill before the end of the 95th Congress.

Despite reports that supporters

would try to attach a lobby reform measure to an unrelated bill set for

Senate floor action, or request that the House-passed

bill, H.R.

8494, be

brought directly to the Senate floor, the Senate failed to pass a disclosure

bill.

In the 96th Congress, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative

Law and Governmental Relations held six days of hearings in February and

1979, reported a clean

March. of 1 9 7 9 and after meeting seven times in May

bill, H.R. 4395, in lieu of H.R. 8 1 , a measure identical to the House-passed

H.R. 8494 of the 95th Congress.

CRS- 6

IB75034

UPDATE-03/15/81

On Oct. 1 6 , 1979, the Judiciary Committee reporced H.R.

4395 in a more

narrow version than the bill approved by the subcommittee.

Under the

Judiciary Committee's bill, organizations were required to register and make

quarterly reports of their activities if (1) they make expenditures of $5000

or more in a quarterly filing period to retain one or more individuals to

conduct lobbying activiites, or to prepare or draft lobbying communications;

or (2) if the organization employs at least one individual who, on all or

part of each of 23 days in a quarterly filing period, or two or more

individuals each of whom, on all or any part of each of seven days or more,

conducts lobbying activities on behalf of the organization, and if the

organization spends more than $5000 for such activities. Certain activities

were specifically excluded from the bill.

In contrast to other measures,

H.R. 4395 did not call for either disclosure of significant contributions to

the lobbying organization or disclosure of "grass-roots" lobbying activities.

Unlike previous measures, administrative responsibility was placed with

the

Clerk of the House rather than the Comptroller General.

The Justice

Department was responsible for enforcing the measure.

In the Senate, the Governmental Affairs Committee held

two days of

Senator Lawton

hearings, Sept. 25 and 26, 1979, on S. 1564, introduced by

Chiles.

Under S. 1564, an organization was required to register and file

quarterly reports if it either (1) Spends more than $500 during a quarterly

filing period either on retaining one or more outside agents to make lobbying

c o m m u n i c a ~ i o n s ,or for the benefit of a Federal officer or employee; or

(2)

employs one person who, on all or part of each of 13 days or more (or two or

more persons each of whom on all or part of seven days or more) i n a quarter,

makes lobbying communications and spends more than $500 during the quarter

for lobbying purposes.

Certain activities were specifically

exempt from

disclosure.

The bill included both a contributor's disclosure and a

"grass-roots" reporting provision.

The Comptroller General was

given

administrative authority and the Attorney General was responsible for

enforcement. The bill prescrided only civil penalties for violations.

LEGISLATION

HEARINGS

U.S.

Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary.

Subcommittee on

Administrative Law and Governmental Relations.

Hearings, 94th

Congress, 1st session, on H.R. 15. Sept. 1 1 , 1 2 , 1 8 , 1 9 , and

23, 1975.

Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1975.

998 p.

----- Hearings, 95th Congress, 1st session, on H.R. 1180, H.R.

5578,

and H.R. 5795 and companion bills.

Apr. 4 and 6 , 1977.

Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1977. 556 p.

----- Hearings, 96th Congress, 1st session, on H.R. 81.

Feb. 2 8 , Mar. 7 , 14, 2 1 , 2 2 , and 2 8 , 1979.

Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979.

544 p.

U.S.

Congress.

House.

Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

Lobbying Activities Disclosure Act.

Hearing, 92d Congress,

1st session, on H.R. 5259. March 1 6 , 24, 1971. Washington,

U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 145 p.

CRS- 7

IB75034

U P D A T E - O ~ / ~ ~ /

----- Lobbying -- efforts to influence governmental actions.

Hearings,

Dec. 2-4,

94th Congress, 1st session, on H.R. 15 and related bills.

1975. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1975. 278 p.

----- Regulation of lobbying and management of campaign money.

Hearings, 91st Congress, 2d session, on H - R e s . 1031. Dec. 1 ,

8-9, 1 5 , 1970. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971.

209 p.

----- Regulation of lobbying.

Hearings, 91st Congress, 2d session,

on H.Res. 1031. Oct. 1 , 7-8, 1970. Washington, U.S. Govt.

Print. Off., 1971. 1 3 4 p.

U.S.

Congress. Senate.

Committee on Government Operations.

Hearings, 94th Congress, 1st session, on S. 774, S. 8 1 5 ,

S. 2068, S. 2167, S. 2477. Apr. 2 2 , May 1 4 , 1 5 , Nov. 4 , 5 ,

6 , 1975. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1975.

841 p.

REPORTS AND CONGRESSIONAL DOCUMENTS

U.S.

Congress. House.

Committee on the Judiciary. Antitrust

Procedures and Penalties Act; report together with additional

views to accompany H.R. 17063. Washington, U.S. Govt.

Print. Off., Oct. 1 1 , 1974.

22 p.

(93d Congress, 2d session.

House. Report no. 93-1463)

----- Public Disclosure of Lobbying Act of 1978; report,

together With additional and dissenting views, to accompany

H.R. 8494, 95th Congress, 2d session. Mar. 2 4 , 1978.

(95th

Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1978. 9 7 p.

Congress, 2d session.

House. Report no. 95-1003)

----- Public Disclosure of Lobbying Act of 1979; report to accompany

H.R. 4395, 96th Congress, 1st session.

Nov. 5 , 1979.

Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 78 p.

(96th

Congress, 1st session.

House. Report no. 96-590)

----- Regulating lobbying and related activities; report together with

dissenting views to accompany H.R. 1 5 , 94th Congress, 2d session.

8 7 p.

(94th

Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.

Sept. 2, 1976.

Congress, 2d session.

House. Report no. 94-1474, Part 1)

U.S.

Congress. House.

Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

Legislative Activities Disclosure Act; report to accompany

H.R. 11453, 92d Congress, 2d session. Washington, U.S.

(926 Congress,

Govt. Print. Off., Dec. 1 0 , 1971.

5 6 p.

2d session. House. Report no. 92-741)

U.S.

Congress.

Senate.

Committee on Government Operations.

Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1976; report to accompany S. 2477,

94th Congress, 1st session.

Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,

1976. 71 p.

(94th Congress, 2d session. Senate.

Report no.

94-763)

U.S.

Congress.

Senate.

Committee on the Judiciary. Antitrust

laws amendments; report to accompany S. 782, 93d Congress,

CRS- 8

1st session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1973.

13 p.

(93d Congress, 2d session. Senate. Report no. 93-298)

U.S.

General Accounting Office. The Federal Regulation of

Lobbying Act--Difficulties in enforcement and administration;

Report to the Committee on Government Operations, United States

Senate. Washington, 1975.

(GGD-75-79, Apr. 2 , 1975) 1 4 p.

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

01/25/79

-- In his 1979 State of the Union message, President

Carcer called for a "sound" lobby disclosure law:

"The American people have a right to know what

significant influences affect their national

legislature. The proliferation of well financed,

organizational lobbying activities during recent

years has demonstrated the need for reform of the

outdated and ineffective lobby disclosure law now

in effect.

This year my Administration will

continue to work with Congress to pass a sound

one that respects the

lobby law reform bill

First Amendment right of all Americans and minimizes

paperwork burdens, yet allows meaningful disclosures."

--

01/19/78

-- In his message accompanying the State of the Union

address, President Carter stated that "The Administration

will press for legislation requiring registration of

lobbyists and thorough public disclosure of their

lobbying activities.

This long overdue legislation

will help reestablish confidence and trust in

Government."

01/11/77

-- Included in a package of major legislation that will

be proposed by the Carter Administration is a lobby

disclosure proposal requiring Federal officials to

maintain a public log of their contacts with lobbyists.

04/02/75

-- General Accounting Office investigation revealed that a

sample of reports and registrations filed in accordance

with the 1946 Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act was

incomplete, and that administration and enforcement

provisions of the Act are inadequate in preventing

abuses of the law.

03/10/75

-- The House Republican Task Force on Reform, chaired by

Rep. William Frenzel of Minnesota, recommended

strengthening of existing lobby disclosure requirements.

02/03/75

-- Common Cause was denied standing in its court suit to

have the Federal lobby law enforced against the National

Association of Manufacturers (NAM).

Common Cause has

appealed the court's decision.

12/21/74

-- The President signed into law S. 782, the Antitrust

Penalties and Procedures Act

12/13/74

(P.L. 93-528).

-- A declaratory judgment was issued in response to a request

CRS- 9

IB75034

UPDATE-03/19/81

by the National League of Cities, the National Association

of Counties, and the United States Conference of Mayors

for a preliminary injunction to halt further action by

the Department of Justice. The United States District

Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the

associations were exempt from registration under the

Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act because the associations'

employees were acting "on the authorization of a public

official acting in his official capacity" and were paid

by public funds from the localities the association

represented.

09/09/74

-- The National League of Cicies, the National Association

of Counties, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors filed a

countersuit against Attorney General William B. Saxbe,

who had announced his intention to enforce he 1946

Regulation of Lobbying Act against these groups.

The associations claimed that their Washington activities

were essential to the governments of the localities they

represented and that they acted as extensions of those

local governments and were, therefore, exempt from the

Act under the section that excludes "any public official

acting in his official capacity."

07/27/74

-- Congressional Quarterly reported that in 1973 organizations

reported spending $9.7 million on congressional lobbying,

the largest annual reported total since 1950.

07/26/74

-- Common Cause filed suit against the National Association

of Manufacturers for failure to register as a lobbying

organization.

05/22/74

-- Common Cause Chairman John Gardner called for more

effective lobby disclosure laws in testimony before the

Subcommittee on Reorganization, Research, and International

Organizations of the Senate Government Operations Committee.

06/04/74

-- California voters approved Proposition Nine, a wide-ranging

political reform initiative placed on the ballot by Common

Cause and other citizens' groups.

The measure, under

challenge in the courts, prohibits lobbyists from

contributing directly to political candidates and

strengthens the State's lobbyist reporting and registration

requirements.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCE SOURCES

A constitutionally protected

Eastman, Hope.

Lobbying:

right.

Washington, American Enterprise Institute for

Public Policy Research 1977 35 p.

(American Enterprise

Institute for Public Policy Research.

AEI studies,

no. 168).

Greenwald, Carol.

Post-Watergate lobbying laws; tokenism v.

real reform.

National civic review, v. 6 3 , October 1974:

467-471, 483.

The swarming lobbyists.

U.S.

T i m e , Aug.

7, 1978:

i4-18,

21-22.

Library of Congress.

C o n g r e s s i o n a l Researcfi S e r v i c e .

Lobbying a n d interest groups:

a selected annotated

bibliography

by

Suzanne Laurencell.

Washington

July 23, 1979.

1 6 0 p.

C R S Report 79-157 G

The Washington lobby.

q u a r t e r l y , 1974.

2 d ed.

1 3 8 p.

Washington, Congressional