What appears below is an e-mail sent by National Right to Life to offices of members of the U.S. House of Representatives, issued Wednesday, March 14, 2007, at 5 PM EDT. For further information, follow the links below, or call 202-626-8820.

"Rep. Fred Wertheimer" informs House members of what language they will consider on "grassroots lobbying"

The following observations may be attributed to NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson.

In a recent essay titled "The Real 'Astroturf' Lobbyists," Bradley Smith (a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission who now serves as chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics) noted that some of the special-interest groups that are pushing for regulation of so-called "grassroots lobbying" are themselves funded and run by small groups of elite inside players.  Smith zeroed in on Democracy 21, an entity that is headed by a registered lobbyist, Fred Wertheimer.  Democracy 21 "has no members," Smith noted, explaining that "the bulk of Democracy 21's funding comes from the Pew, Carnegie, Joyce and Open Society (George Soros) Foundations, which themselves have no broad membership to whom to be accountable, and which operate with no accountability to the general public . . . . [Yet, they] go around Capitol Hill ridiculing Congress's constituents as ‘fake' and ‘astroturf' while claiming to speak for ‘the American people.'"

Today, Fred Wertheimer sent a letter, reproduced below, to members of the U.S. House of Representatives.  Wertheimer's letter begins, "When the House considers lobbying reform legislation in the coming weeks, a new important disclosure proposal will require . . .," followed by Wertheimer's detailed characterization of a new legislative proposal to regulate what has come to be referred to as "grassroots lobbying."  (Such proposals are based on the strange premise that a constituent who communicates with her congressperson on a pending bill thereby becomes a type of "lobbyist.")  The letter even includes a chart that purports to contrast the new legislation with the "grassroots lobbying" proposal (also supported by Democracy 21) that the Senate rejected on January 18. 

Wertheimer's letter is somewhat remarkable because the legislation that Wertheimer claims to describe in such detail has not been introduced in the House -- nor, to our knowledge (and we've been watching), has any elected member of the House announced that he will introduce the proposal that Wertheimer describes in such detail.

Indeed, today's edition of Roll Call reports that House Democratic leaders are still struggling to draft omnibus "lobbying reform" legislation, and that the issue of "grassroots lobbying" is one of three particularly thorny issues that are "bedeviling" them in that drafting process.  But Wertheimer apparently knows better.  In his letter, he is already describing to House members, with utter confidence and without any qualifying phrases, what they will be presented with on this issue.

One might even get the impression that Wertheimer, the registered lobbyist, may have submitted the final language he wants to the Democratic leadership, and that he regards actual incorporation of the language into the omnibus bill, and the actual introduction of the language by some designated elected member of Congress, to be mere formalities that will be attended to by those so assigned.

(According to press reports, the House member who until now has been most identified with the drive to regulate "grassroots lobbying," Rep. Marty Meehan, may soon resign from the House to accept another job.)

National Right to Life is among the many grassroots-based organizations that are strongly opposed to regulation of "grassroots lobbying," a term that refers to organized efforts to encourage citizens to express their views on pending legislation to their elected representatives.  But, unlike Wertheimer, we must await the actual introduction of the legislation before we can provide a detailed analysis.  When that occurs, we expect that the actual sweep of the proposal will be considerably broader than Wertheimer's characterizations, as was certainly true of the language rejected by the Senate, which Democracy 21 also supported. 

For example, we anticipate that the Democratic leadership will propose a definition of "retained lobbying firm" that would cover even a single citizen activist, no matter how little she is paid, if the amount actually spent on encouraging people to communicate with their elected representatives (the cost of the newspaper ads, mailings, etc.) exceeds a dollar threshold that will amount to no more than a fraction of Wertheimer's annual salary.  (According to publicly available sources, Wertheimer receives over $200,000 in annual compensation from Democracy 21 and the Democracy 21 Education Foundation.)

For more on NRLC's views on regulation of "grassroots lobbying," and on NRLC's opposition to the Waxman-Davis "Executive Branch Reform Act" (H.R. 984), see http://www.nrlc.org/FreeSpeech/index.html

Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee
512 10th Street, Northwest
Washington, D.C. 20004
office:  202-626-8820
 http://www.nrlc.org/FreeSpeech/Index.html

The Democracy 21 letter follows:

From: Elenia Saloutsi [mailto:esaloutsi@democracy21.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 10:35 AM
To: 'Elenia Saloutsi'
Subject: New House Proposal Requiring Disclosure by Retained Lobbying Firms

March 14, 2007

Dear Representative,

When the House considers lobbying reform legislation in the coming weeks, a new important disclosure proposal will require retained lobbying firms to disclose the total amount they spend on behalf of a client to conduct paid communication campaigns to influence the general public to lobby Congress.

This new House proposal is fundamentally different and far narrower than the “Astroturf” lobbying disclosure provision rejected in the Senate earlier this year.

Enclosed for your information is a side-by-side comparison that sets forth the basic differences between the new House proposal to require disclosure by retained lobbying firms and the Senate “Astroturf” lobbying disclosure provision.

The new House proposal only applies to lobbying firms retained by a client, and only covers paid communications campaigns by the lobbying firms to influence the general public to lobby Congress.  The House proposal, expressly states that it does not apply to any person or entity other than a retained lobbying firm.

Retained lobbying firms currently are required to report a good faith estimate of the total amount they receive from a client to conduct direct lobbying on Capitol Hill. The new House proposal would require retained lobbying firms to also disclose a good faith estimate of the total amount they receive from a client to conduct media and other paid communications campaigns to influence the general public to lobby Congress. 

The new House proposal closes a major loophole in the lobbying disclosure laws, starkly illustrated by the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandals, and provides citizens with information that they have a right to know about the amounts being spent by retained lobbying firms on the lobbying activities covered by the proposal. 

Sincerely,

Fred Wertheimer
President 

Differences between (1) New House Proposal to Require Lobbying Firms to Disclose Total Amounts Spent on Communications Campaigns to Influence the General Publicto Lobby Congress and (2) Senate Grassroots Lobbying Provision

 

New House Proposal to Require Lobbying Firms to Disclose Total Amounts Spent on Communications Campaigns to Influence the General Public to Lobby Congress

 

Senate Grassroots Lobbying Provision

 

Does the disclosure provision impose obligations on any person or entity other than a lobbying firm?

 

No.  The new provision explicitly states that it does not apply to any person or entity other than a retained lobbying firm, and that no person or entity other than such a firm is required to register or file a report under the provision.

Yes.  The Senate provision required any organization registered under the lobbying laws (such as an organization registered to lobby on its own behalf) to disclose in its lobbying reports the amounts it spent on paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying.

What is the definition of a lobbying firm and when does it have to register?

 

A lobbying firm includes a firm already required under existing law to register to lobby on behalf of clients, and also an entity (not previously required to register) that is retained by one or more clients to engage in paid communications efforts to influence the general public to lobby Congress, and that receives total income of $100,000 or more for this purpose in any quarterly period. 

 

 

A “Grassroots lobbying firm” is an entity not previously registered as a lobbying firm that is retained by one or more client to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, and that receives income of $25,000 or more in any quarterly period for this purpose.  It has to register within 45 days after it is retained by a client or clients. 

What constitutes “paid communications campaigns to influence the general public to lobby Congress?”

“Paid communications campaigns to influence the general public to lobby Congress” are paid efforts by a retained lobbying firm to influence the general public to contact Congress to take specific action on a legislative issue.

 

These efforts do not include communications by such a firm to an organization’s members and do not include communications by such

a firm to the general public primarily for recruiting members for an organization.

 

 

“Paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying” are  efforts by a lobbying organization, a lobbying firm or a grassroots lobbying firm  to influence the general public to contact Congress about legislative issues, but does not include communications by an organization to its members.

 

 

 

 

 

What efforts to influence the general public to lobby Congress must be reported by a lobbying organization?

 

None

 

 

A lobbying organization reports a good faith estimate of the total amount spent to stimulate grassroots lobbying, and within that, an estimate of the total amount spent on paid advertising.

What efforts to influence the general public to lobby Congress are reported by a lobbying firm?

 

A lobbying firm reports for each client, the client’s name, the issues the firm works on for such client and one number: good faith estimate of the total amount of income received during the period from the client for communications campaigns to influence the general public to lobby Congress, but only if that total amount exceeds $50,000 from the client during the reporting period.

A lobbying firm or a grassroots lobbying firm reports the name of each client, the issues it works on for such client and two numbers: a good faith estimate of the amount of income received from the  client for paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, and within that, an estimate of the amount relating to paid advertising

Does the provision impose any reporting requirements regarding communications efforts by a lobbying firm to an organization’s members?

 

No

No.