ANOTHER PHASE COMPLETED ON REGISTRATION LAW

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150032-6
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 24, 2001
• Sequence Number: 32
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150032-6
ANOTHER PHASE COMPLETED ON REGISTRATION LAW
Congress has completed another phase of efforts to
enact major modifications in federal lobby registration
laws. But those involved say that final enactment of a bill
still may be a long time away.
The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative
Law and Governmental Relations, chaired by Rep. Walter
Flowers (D Ala.), completed five days of hearings on a
number of lobbying bills Sept. 23. The staff of the Senate
Government Operations Committee, which held three days
of hearings in May, meanwhile is finishing the draft of a
new bill to be introduced by Committee Chairman
Abraham Ribicoff (D Conn.). (Background, Weekly Report
p. 1137)
The 1946 Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act (Title III
of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946-PL 79-601)
has become a major target for criticism. The U.S. Supreme
Court's 1954 decision (U.S. v. Harriss) upheld the con-
stitutionality of the 1946 law, but narrowly limited its
scope. As a result, the law has failed to provide much useful
information about the extent of lobbying activities in
Washington.
Organizations are required to register only if lobbying
is their "principal purpose." As a result, some groups which
do lobbying work do not register. Further, lobbyists who
have registered need only report expenses incurred from
direct contacts with members of Congress. Overhead ex-
penses and major portions of lobbyists' salaries usually are
unreported.
So-called "indirect" or "grassroots" lobbying cam-
paigns-efforts aimed at representatives' constituents or
an organization's membership-are exempt from reporting
requirements as are contacts with the executive branch.
And the secretary of the Senate and clerk of the House who
collect the lobby reports have no power to enforce the law.
(Background on lobby law, 1974 Weekly Report p. 1947)
Justice Department
The Justice Department's Criminal Division is sup-
posed to be the enforcement agency for the lobby law but it
only acts on complaints and only five cases have been
referred to the de t
ar
t
without any affirmative responsibility to investigate
possible violations of the act or to refer conplaints to the
Department of Justice. The Department of Justice is
authorized to enforce the act's criminal sanctions, but lacks
specific authority to monitor lobbying activities."
Keeney advised the subcommittee that the establish-
ment of a monitoring agency was essential to an effective
modification of the lobby law. He also urged that civil sanc-
tions be included in a lobby bill along with any criminal
penalties.
The Justice Department opposed any effort to give the
monitoring agency civil or criminal enforcement powers, in-
sisting that all litigation be carried out by the department,
a view which was generally supported by the subcommittee
members. Keeney also expressed some reservation about
incorporating provisions governing lobbying of the ex-
ecutive branch in measures to change legislative lobbying
regulations. The subcommittee was much less receptive to
that idea.
House Hearings
Witnesses before the Flowers subcommittee almost un-
animously agreed with Keeney's view that the 1946 law was
inadequate and unenforceable. Only the American Civil
Liberties Union in any way expressed the view that the
statute might be adequate from its perspective, but it did
not flatly oppose changes in the law.
Most of the members of the committee, including
Chairman Flowers, criticized the existing law and sup-
ported changes. However, the witnesses differed widely as
to the changes they supported and few committee members
were very specific about their views either.
"I do not feel that the subcommittee should be wedded
to any particular proposal or approach," Flowers said at the
start of the hearings Sept. 11.. And at the end of the
hearings, his view was basically the same: "No one on the
committee has closed his mind to any approach or point of
view."
Railsback-Kastenmeier Bill
p
men
since 192. Nevertheless, the hearings tended to focus on IIR 15, a
John Keeney, deputy assistant attorney general in measure backed by Common Cause, which had been in-
charge of the Criminal Division, defended the department troduced by Rep. Tom Railsback (R Ill.) and Rep. Robert W.
in testimony before the House administrative law subcom- Kastenmeier (D Wis.).
mittee Sept. 12. The bill would require anyone who receives or spends
Keeney denied charges that the department had been more than $250 in a quarter or $500 per year on lobbying to
less than vigorous in enforci, ig the law and said the enforce- register. A lobbyist representing someone else would have
ment problem was in the law itself. He cited uncertainty to disclose whom he was representing and their financial
about the law's coverage and the fact that it provides only arrangements. Lobbyists also would be required to identify
for criminal sanctions whieb were "clearly inappropriate the persons and agencies they contact, the polio ies they seek
for minor or unintentional violations." He noted that the to influence and their salaries and expenses.
department had gone to court to force employees of the Enforcement power would reside with the Federal
National League of Cities-U.S. Conference of Ma
or
t
El
y
s
o
ections Commission
register, and the gv branch lobbying
dlrbr clelease 2001./08/30 : ClAoRDB?-kMOi ,1144N( Q0 Qed~WeP in grades GS-15
The secretary e ena e and c erk of the House h d b
sove aid, "have served merely as repositories of the records ties.1 There would
also oa~ provision contacts , requiring outside
 Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150032-6
organizations to disclose the approximate number of their
members, how their decisions to lobby were made and the
identity of anyone who had contributed more than $100 in a
quarter.
The bill was similar to S 815, introduced by Sen. Robert
T. Stafford (R Vt.) and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D Mass.),
which was the focus of the Senate committee hearings.
However, the Railsback-Kastenmeier bill did not include S
815's "eight-contact" rule, which would include anyone who
made eight separate oral communications with members or
employees of Congress or the executive branch in the defini-
tion of "lobbyist."
The lack of agreement between the supporters of HR 15
and S 815 as to whether money, contacts or both consti-
tuted an aplpropriate trigger for registration requirements
indicated the obstacles in the path of enacting a new law.
Basic Issues
The administrative law subcommittee has made no
decisions on the basic issues of who should be required to
register and how much information they should be required
to disclose.
Flowers worried that excessive disclosure and
reporting requirements might infringe upon First Amend-
ment rights of free petition by discouraging individuals
from making their views known to Congress. He also
questioned the value of "accumulating a lot of useless
data.... We need to concentrate on the real pressure points."
Senate Developments
Work on the Senate bill has focused on the same basic
questions. An effort has been made to set aside certain
areas-communications from constituents, for ex-
ample-as clearly outside the reach of lobby laws and to
limit the registration and reporting requirements.
Since the Senate hearings, two additional bills have
been introduced-S 2068 by Sen. Lee Metcalf (D Mont.) and
S 2167 by Sens. Edmund S. Muskie (D Maine) and Sen.
Jacob K. Javits (R N.Y.).
The two bills would add to the framework of S 815 an
expanded list of exempt activities and a narrowed list of in-
formation which must be reported.
Knowing When You See It
A couple of observations by Rep. Romano L. Maz-
zoli (D Ky.) during the House Judiciary administrative
law subcommittee's hearings on lobby registration bills
appeared to sum up the reaction of Mazzoli and his sub-
committee colleagues to the testimony they had been
hearing.
While questioning representatives of two Ralph
Nader groups about the proble in of defining lobbying,
Mazzoli said the discussion rerr inded him of a Supreme
Court justice's thoughts about c bscenity: "I can't define
it, but I know it when I see it"
After the AFL-CIO's chie_r lobbyist had sharply
criticized one proposed bill, M:.zzoli noted: ""The first
lesson I learned when I became a state legislator was
that if the Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO
have the same position on a bill, you'd better be
careful."
bying such activities as:
*Communications by an individual acting on his W"I'l
behalf or expressing his own opinion.
* Any communication made at the request of a membe
employee, or committee of Congress, and any appearanc
before, or written submission to, a committee.
*Any communication made to an executive agency
the agency's request.
? Activities by state or local officials acting in their r
ficial capacities, and activities of candidates for public c'
fice.
e Newspaper, magazine or broadcast editorials, nex.."
stories, and advertisements, with the exception of adv
tisements specifically soliciting lobbying activities.
*Communications from an attorney on behalf of is
client in connection with a criminal prosecution o
vestigation.
* A request for information about the status, purpose-.
effect of a decision.
The Muskie-Javits bill has a similar list and both
go far beyond the Stafford-Kennedy proposal wut,;'r
cluded only testimony before congressional committee
executive agencies; communications from governrnen.
ficials, political candidates, and political parties; and n:.
papers, magazines, books and broadcasts.
Reporting Requirements
The Metcalf bill would not require a lobbyist to rep-:
the offices or officials he contacted,. only the issues the
byist was involved in. There were also substantial cha
in the voluntary organization requirements. Only per
who had contributed 5 per cent or more o
organization's lobbying budget would have to be ides
and the agency administering the law would have i?
to waive that requirement.
Senate aides who have been working on the is.
that there has been a long series of staff meetings si.
May hearings to work out- new language acceptab
senators involved. The senators also have discussed
ject and the Government Operations Committee :,
spoken with the interest groups following the leg;.
The committee staff was trying to develop a bi=.
Sen. Ribicoff hopes to introduce with the co-sponsors
a majority of the committee's members.
An aide to Sen. Stafford indicated that the senator
inclined to support a compromise plan, but that Ste:`
and Kennedy were pressing for the strongest possible
promise bill.
He said that Stafford considered it essential the
lobbying law require the identification of the organi
i
or individual for whom lobbying is being done, thk
tification of the actual lobbyist, the identification
issues on which the lobbying is taking place and th
;
tification of the members of Congress who are beir,
bled.
"These are essential to a good bill," the aide notes
expressed concern that the committee was tryiv
eliminate requirements that the identity of the lawmr
being lobbied must be disclosed.
However, there was a willingness on the part c
proponents of a tough law, the aide added, to a
changes designed to avoid inhibiting contacts fries
dividuals, especially constituents. This has been a
of Metcalf and Ribicoff.
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150032-6
 Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150032-6
Grassroots Compromise
A compromise appeared to be emerging on the issue of
indirect lobbying. In a case where a national organization
called upon its members to write their members of
Congress, the local people would not be required to report,
but the national organization would.
A Senate staff member said that such an arrangement
did pose one problem-organizations could be set up in a
state for the purpose of lobbying that state's senators and
representatives without having to file reports. He warned
that this provision would have to be written very carefully.
There also was agreement that the General Accounting
Office probably ought to be the agency to administer the
law. The Federal Elections Commission was regarded as be-
ing too tied up trying to get the new campaign finance act
off the ground to take on an additional responsibility.
Disagreement remained on the key issues of executive
branch lobbying and the extent of financial disclosure. Sen.
Kennedy was pushing for retaining the executive branch
regulations. He also was opposing suggestions that lob-
byists be allowed to report only lump-sum expenditure
figures rather than detailed breakdowns.
There appeared to be little support in the Senate or
the House for any attempt to require senators and con-
gressmen to keep logs of their contacts with lobbyists.
Several groups charged that it was irresponsible of
Congress to place requirements on private organizations
and individuals it was unprepared to place on itself. Rep.
Railsback acknowledged the merit of the idea, but conceded
to the House subcommittee that such a provision would kill
any chance of a lobby bill passing the House.
Lobbyist Interest
"Obviously, a lot of people in this town are interested in
this bill," a member of the Senate Government Operations
Committee staff observed. Dick Clark, Common Cause's
principal lobbyist on the lobby bill, took it a step further:
"This is not a popular cause in this town."
At the House subcommittee hearings, Common Cause
was the only major interest group to embrace the concept of
a broadly inclusive registration law as exemplified by HR
15. The greatest hostility was expressed by the unlikely
combination of the AFL-CIO, the U.S. Chamber of Com-
merce and the National Association of Manufacturers
(NAM).
While the labor and business groups agreed that the
1946 law ought to be strengthened, they insisted that the
pending proposals would result in excessive paperwork,
were impractical, and would not result in'an accurate pic-
ture of the patterns of influence in Congress or the ex-
ecutive branch.
NAM and the chamber also focused on the attempts to
deal with indirect lobbying, saying it would be impossible to
distinguish between indirect lobbying activities and normal
communications with their members.
Stanley Kaleczyc Jr., assistant general counsel of the
chamber, pointed out that the organization sent out a
regular newsletter. "Sometimes we tell members to write
their congressmen about a piece of legislation, sometimes
We just talk about the legislation. Where's the dividing
line?"
Andrew J. Biemiller, the AFL-CIO's chief lobbyist,
focused on the issue of logging meetings and phone calls. He
said an organization which was involved in as many issues
Listing Contacts
Following is a list of the contacts made by AFL-
CIO lobbyist Ken Young May 13, 1975. Young's boss,
Andrew J. Biemiller, Sept. 23 submitted the list to the
House administrative law subcommittee as evidence of
how proposed requirements that lobbyists log their
contacts would be overly burdensome.
Capitol Hill
1. Legislative Assistant to Senator on proposed
amendment to FLSA: (1) phone call and (2) meeting on
issue.
2. Senator on Weicker amendment to ACA and
cloture vote.
3. Senate aide on cloture vote and timing (ACA).
4. Congressman on AFL-CIO position budget
conference report.
5. House aide on farm bill veto.
6. Senate subcommittee staff on pending man-
power legislation.
7. House Education and Labor staff on public
service employment legislation.
8. Senate budget staff on AFL-CIO position on
conference.
9. House aide on Emergency Jobs Appropriations
conference report.
10. DSG for position on budget resolution..
11. House leadership staff on budget resolution.
12. Senator on strip mining bill possible veto.
13. Senate committee staff on energy bill reported
by Commerce Committee.
14. Senate aide on problems of Accelerated Public
Works and counter-cyclical revenue sharing.
15. House Democratic Policy Committee staff on
legislation to consider before recess (2 calls).
16. Senator-Foreign policy discussion when
given ride to AFL-CIO during storm.
17. Calls to three congressional offices on Farm
Bill veto.
Outside Groups
1. NFO-farm bill veto.
2. legal service lawyers-AFL-CIO
nominees to Legal Service Corp.
3. Consumer Federation of America-ACA
cloture vote: 2 calls and 1 meeting.
4. Consumer Federation of America-. farm bill
veto.
5. Business Organization-call to determine
AFL-CIO position on lobbying bill.
6. Congress Watch-oil price
House Subcommittee (3 calls).
7. Congress Watch-ACA..
8. Common Cause-House
for next week.
Unions
amendment in
1. AFGE-budget conference report.
2. Steel-oil price amendment in I-louse Subcom-
mittee.
3. AFT-legislation on education for han-
dicapped.
4. Monday meeting--ACA (1) Weicker amend-
ment (2) cloture; oil price amendment in House Sub-
committee.
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150032-6
 Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800150032-6
as the AFL-CIO would find HR 15's record-keeping re-
quirements to be a serious burden. (Box, p. 2067)
Common Cause also received little comfort from the
testimony of various "public interest" and environmental
lobby groups.
While these organizations were much more favorable
toward new lobby registration laws than were the business
and labor lobbyists, they had specific problems with the HR
15 approach.
Rhode Island Gov. Philip W. Noel (D), the chairman of
the National Governors Conference, supported the bill in
testimony Sept. 19. But he said the conference was opposed
to provisions requiring its staff to register.
Alan Morrison and Joan Claybrook, testifying on
behalf of Ralph Nader's Public Citizen and Congress Watch
operations Sept. 18 objected to the paperwork burdens.
They also opposed any requirement that the membership
lists of, or the identity of contributors to, voluntary
organizations be disclosed. They warned that such a re-
quirement would be a violation of civil liberties and would
discourage participation in controversial organizations.
Environmental groups had similar reservations. They
also expressed the fear that if required to register as lob-
byists, their tax-exempt 'status might be threatened. The
extent to which such organizations can lobby without losing
their tax-exempt status never has. been clearly determined.
Environmental and public interest groups also worried that
executive branch logging requirements could cut off their
access to federal agencies.
Clash With Flowers
The House hearings were enlivened by a clash between
Rep. Flowers and Fred Wertheimer, Common Cause's vice
presidentfor operations, who testified for the organization
Sept. 18.
Flowers observed that neither Common Cause
Chairman John W. Gardner nor its president, David Cohen,
was testifying. Wertheimer said Cohen was out of town and
Gardner was out of the country, both honoring prior com-
"If ever legislation needed to be
handled with precision and care,
this is it.... "
-Rep. Tom Railsback (R Ill.)
mitments. Flowers noted that Gardner had termed the
failure of the subcommittee to hold hearings earlier in the
year "unconscionable" and that Cohen had attacked
Flowers in a speech in Alabama. "If this is a top priority
matter, why aren't they here?" Flowers asked.
A Common Cause spokesman said later the organiza-
tion had felt Flowers was not meeting promised timetables
and Common Cause decided that public pressure was re-
quired. "Flowers isn't used to that sort of pressure," he said.
A member of the subcommittee staff said in response
that there had been no delay and that the committee had
been working as fast as it could given limited staff.
Both Rep. Railsback and Rep. Kastenmeier made a
point of disassociating themselves from criticisn of
Flowers. "If ever legislation needed to be handled vith
precision and care, this is it," Railsback said. "The 1946 law
was a failure because it was poorly drafted and was
approved in haste."
Internal Pressures
Notwithstanding the blasts at Common C!z;;<
modification of the lobby laws has significant suppor-'.
15 has 155 cosponsors, and there is substantial press
both houses of Congress for a new law.
Given current polls showing public disenchan 7
with politics and politicians, and given the lin'
memories of Watergate, there appears to be a wider
view among senators and representatives that further
must be taken to restore public confidence.
"No one knows that a new law is needed better the, }
members themselves," a Senate aide observed. There ii
the practical consideration that a failure to support to i
lobby-registration laws could be used against a me-r#
a re-election campaign.
Outlook
A key to the outcome of the issue is the amou-t?. ?.#
port Sen. Ribicoff can muster for his compromise t
issue is sufficiently complex that the general agre-
the inadequacy of the 1946 law does not prove mi {
dition to the wide range of special intern
challenged, there are important political and cons{
questions involved in the debate. There is also the
problem of drafting language sufficiently precise to
repeat of the Harriss decision.
The Government Operations Committee's plat
hold another round of hearings on the new bill. By the
optimistic forecast, the legislation will not reach the
up stage until the end of October at the earliest.
House
In the House, Rep. Flowers says he wants tc.,
ahead on the bill as fast as possible. But he observ.
the subcommittee currently "is all over the place'
issue. "We have to sit down and decide where we .R
go.
The subcommittee appears to be leaning to-
idea of writing a clean bill which could take severa
There also could be more hearings. Agreement oi4
promise bill in the Senate could speed the process.
one on the subcommittee was predicting quick actior
matter in the House.
A jurisdictional dispute is possible between Ju
and the House Ethics Committee, which has a nu?
bills before it, including one (HR 1112) favored
U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The ethics panel ha_
uled no hearings on its legislation.
-By A
Approved For Release 2001/08/,, QA,, J A~7lVJQ0144R000800150032-6
PAGE 2068-9ept. 27, 1975 FnprO4UC pme Ditetl in whole ,, in pe.l . y,pt by a .b.IW 0.-