A new bill introduced into Congress redefines lobbyist and increases lobbyist reporting requirements.

Representative Mike Quigley has introduced the Lobbying Disclosure Enhancement Act, which changes the definition of lobbyist by removing the exception of individuals whose lobbying activities account for less than 20 percent of the time engaged in lobbying over a three month period.

Lobbyists would be required to register online within five days of employment, as opposed to the current 45 day requirement. For each lobbying activity which engaged an official, a lobbyist would be required to report the date of the contact, the specific issue discussed, and identify those covered executive branch officials or Members of Congress contacted about the issue. If lobbying an employee of a Member of Congress, the Member’s name would also have to be reported. Political contributions by lobbyists to candidates would have to be reported quarterly instead of semi-annually.

The bill also creates a special unit for enforcing the lobbying disclosure laws called the Lobbying Disclosure Act Enforcement Task Force, whose primary responsibility would be investigating and prosecuting each case referred to the Attorney General.

A proposed executive order requiring vendors submitting offers for federal contracts to disclose political contributions and expenditures has sparked a legislative response.

An amendment was added to HR1540, a fiscal national defense authorization bill, which passed last week, precluding an executive agency from requiring a vendor to disclose political contributions as a condition of contract participation.

Additionally, two companion bills opposing the proposed executive order were also introduced into the house and senate. SB1100 and HR2008, titled “Keeping Politics Out of Federal Contracting Act of 2011”, explicitly prohibit an executive agency from requiring submission of political information, and prohibit an agency from using political information as a factor in consideration of whether to award a contract. The bills’ definition of political information means information relating to political spending, including contributions, independent expenditures and electioneering communications.

Previously, a congressional hearing was also held concerning the proposed executive order.

Photo of the United States Capitol with the flag by Florian Hirzinger on Wikipedia.

Reaction to the leaked draft presidential executive order requiring vendor disclosure of political contributions has been increasing. A hearing was held in the House last week to examine the proposed executive order, with testimony being presented from various witnesses.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, writing on behalf of a coalition of more than 80 business groups and trade associations, has strongly protested the proposed executive order, stating, “American businesspeople should not be forced to limit the exercise of their constitutional rights under a new and oppressive regulatory scheme.”

More than 30 public-interest groups have signed a letter in support of the draft executive order, writing, “In order to keep in check actual or perceived corruption in government contracting, it is imperative that there be full disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures by federal government contractors.”

If the draft presidential executive order were to be signed, it would be effective immediately, requiring every entity submitting offers for federal contracts to disclose certain political contributions and expenditures made within the two years prior to submission of their offer.

Photo of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce courtesy of APK on Wikipedia.

Today at 1:30pm EDT, the hearing examining the proposed pay-to-play presidential executive order will be held by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the House Small Business Committee.

Here is a link to the live coverage on the Committee on Oversight & Government Reform website.

The SunFoundation will be liveblogging the hearing at:  http://bit.ly/mxIbFe

You can also follow the conversations on Twitter with the hashtag #opengov.

This post is a follow-up to Tuesday’s post “Hearings Set for Anticipated Executive Order on Pay-to-Play” by George Ticoras.

On Thursday, May 12, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the House Small Business Committee will hold a joint hearing to examine a proposed presidential executive order requiring disclosure of political contributions by governmental contractors.

The draft proposed executive order, which was leaked to the press, would require every entity submitting offers for federal contracts to disclose certain political contributions and expenditures made within the two years prior to submission of their offer. The disclosure requirement includes contributions made to federal candidates, parties, and committees, by the bidding entity, its officers, and any affiliates or subsidiaries within its control. Contributions made to parties for independent expenditures and electioneering communications would also have to be reported. These disclosures would be required whenever the aggregate amount of the contributions and expenditures by the bidding entity exceeds $5,000.

The hearing is scheduled to examine the proposed executive order, evaluate its impact and consequences on the federal acquisition system, and determine whether it introduces politics into the procurement process.

Baseball season is here and every year, members of the U.S. Congress (Republican and Democrat) face off in a venue other than the Capitol – on the field. The U.S. House Office of the Clerk website has a fun series of pages for the event: The U.S. Congressional Baseball Game. This year, on June 17, the 50th game will be sponsored by CQ/Roll Call.

In 1909 the first game was put together by U.S. Rep. John Tener (R-Penn.), who had been a professional baseball player from 1885 until 1890. The games have been very popular and over the years the proceeds have gone to various charities.

They have been held in different places: American League Park,Griffith Stadium, D.C. Stadium, RFK Stadium, Memorial Stadium, Four Mile Run Park, and Prince George’s County Stadium. Since 2006 they have been held at Nationals Park.

The games were put on hiatus a few years during the Great Depression and World War II. They are said to have gotten in the way of getting legislation passed in Congress a few times!

The Office of the Clerk site can give you a history of the rosters, and a great stats page showing where the games were played, who won, and the final score.

Attendance in the 1926 game was 4,000 as the Republicans held a parade with a live elephant and the Democrats paraded a donkey. (Democrats won that year.) The first game to be covered by radio broadcast was in 1928, and lately the games have been covered on Twitter and Facebook.

The Congressional Baseball games have not been immune to the problems of ethics. This Fox News article reports how Rep. John Ensign had to sit out of the 2009 game because of his admitting to having an affair. Apparently his skills on the field were missed!

Here is a Roll Call video from the 2010 game. Pure fun: 2010 Congressional Baseball Game Music Video.

Let me know if you are going!

According to a Politico article by John Bresnahan: “Daniel Schwager, a lawyer on the Senate Ethics Committee, was approved by the House panel in a bipartisan vote Monday to take over the super-sensitive post, which had been vacant since January.”

You can read Roll Call’s coverage of the news by Emma Dumain here. Jordy Yager writes here in the Hill’s Blog Briefing Room.

The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Ethics has a press release from May 2.

Photo of the U.S. Capitol Rotunda by UpstateNYer on Wikipedia.

As part if its Weekly Historical Highlights, the website of the U.S. House of Representatives Office of the Clerk remembers the very first presidential inauguration at Federal Hall in New York City. On April 30, 1789, the inauguration ceremony for George Washington was held in Federal Hall, where Federal Congress first met before moving to Philadelphia. The Office of the Clerk site gives an account of the event and says Washington was very humbled by the occasion.

The original building was located on Wall Street. It was built in 1700 and originally served as the New York City Hall. From 1785-1789, it served as the capitol where Congress met. According to the U.S. Senate website: “When Congress convened for the first time on March 4, 1789, the old building had been converted into a splendid capitol, optimistically renamed Federal Hall.”

The National Park Service (NPS.gov) gives us a great picture of the landmark events that Federal Hall has witnessed: “After the American Revolution, the Continental Congress met at City Hall and, in 1787, adopted the Northwest Ordinance, establishing procedures for creating new states.When the Constitution was ratified in 1788, New York remained the national capital. Pierre L’Enfant [who designed the city plan for the District of Columbia] was commissioned to remodel the City Hall for the new federal government. The First Congress met in the now Federal Hall and wrote the Bill of Rights.”

The NPS goes on to say that when the nation’s capital was moved to Philadelphia, the building went back to being New York’s city hall. In 1812 the building was torn down and a new one was opened in 1842, functioning first as the Customs House, then as a Treasury, and finally as a national memorial to Federal Hall.

If you are in New York City, there is tour information for Federal Hall here and here. You might wish to follow the New Amsterdam trail that starts at Castle Clinton and ends with Federal Hall.

Have a great weekend!

The U.S. House of Representatives has debuted a beta version of its new website.

The Hill reports the U.S. State Department has shut down its website America.gov and will put its communications work into social media.

ExecutiveGov.com reports that Senator Tom Carper (D-Del.) is seeking more information from White House Chief Information Officer about which open government websites are at risk of being cut.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has released a report stating that, with a small percentage of exceptions, most lobbyists comply with the federal lobbying disclosure laws.

Here is the full text of the report from the GAO.

For a good summary of the report, read Roll Call’s article “GAO: K Street Largely Complying With Disclosure Rules” by Alex Knott.

The Roll Call article noted that the annual report to Congress is required as part of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. The scope of the results included analysis of disclosure reports for the fourth quarter 2009 and the first three quarters of 2010.

The American Bar Association’s Task Force on Federal Lobbying Laws has issued a report recommending several changes to existing federal lobbying laws. The Task Force proposes broadening registration requirements for lobbyist by eliminating the current twenty percent rule, the threshold amount of time devoted to lobbying required before triggering registration.

The Task Force also recommends disclosing outside lobbying support by other firms and individuals, including details of compensation, specific identities of those involved, and short narrative summaries of the work performed. Lobbying support would be defined to include monitoring legislative and administrative developments related to lobbying goals, strategic advice, polling, and other activities. Additionally, in some situations, the lobbying support entity would be required to file disclosures.

The report includes other recommendations including strengthening the regulation of lobbyist participation in political fundraising.

The report by the Task Force on Federal Lobbying Laws has not been approved by the Council of the Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice, the House of Delegates, or the Board of Governors of the American Bar Association.

Photo of the American Bar Association building in Washington, D.C. by AgnosticPreachersKid at enwikipedia.

A panel of the Administrative Conference of the United States has made a recommendation of ethics standards for government contractors and their employees. Under the proposed rules, a contractor would be prohibited from accepting gifts from anyone who is seeking an official action from the contract work or who has some interest substantially affected by the contract.

A contractor would also have to certify, prior to commencing work on any contract, no participating employee has a conflict. If conflicts do exist, the contractor would be required to request waivers for such conflicts, or disclose any conflicts and propose a mitigation plan.

The Conference is an independent agency of the federal government serving as an advisory organization.

Update: Kathy Kyle, Communications Director with the Administrative Conference of the United States, sent us a wonderful clarification, which we quote here:

The “recommendation” that you reference in your blog is an initial draft recommendation that was considered by the Committee at its most recent meeting, on December 3, 2010.  Over the course of the next several months, the Committee plans to hold one or more additional meetings wherein it will further discuss the issues related to the project and will revise the recommendation.  Once the Committee has produced its final recommendation, the recommendation will then be presented to the ACUS Council and then to the full Conference meeting in plenary session, set for a vote.  If approved, the final recommendation will then be published in the Federal Register.

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission has proposed a ban on political contributions from banks which arrange derivative trading with federal, public, and municipal agencies. The banks would be prohibited from making campaign donations to public officials who have the power to award work to the banks.

The commission voted unanimously to seek public comment on December 16 with the view to complete the regulations by 2011.

Following a recent meeting, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board issued a request for comment on a rule regulating the business activities of municipal advisors with municipal entities when they have made political contributions to officials responsible for awarding that business.

You can read the press release from the MSRB here.