Are Most Revolving-Door Lobbyists Breaking the Law?

<a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/dl3.mhtml?id=39705448&method=display&vector_ext=&image_format=jpg&size=small&photo_url=http://download.shutterstock.com/gatekeeper/W3siZSI6MTM0Njk5NDUxMSwiYyI6Il9waG90b19zZXNzaW9uX2lkIiwicCI6InYxfDcwMDY5MzZ8Mzk3MDU0NDgiLCJrIjoicGhvdG8vMzk3MDU0NDgvc21hbGwuanBnIiwibSI6IjEiLCJkIjoic2h1dHRlcnN0b2NrLW1lZGlhIn0sIjZtemd5UXhxNmNmdDVFcExkaXREUlB0TDF6MCJd/shutterstock_39705448.jpg&chosen_subscription=1&src=b4f717a18f20163c0b9ee1bb906b03c6-1-7">Shutterstock</a>

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


A new study picked up by Politico and National Journal this week contained findings that would make any DC journalist drool: About 57 percent of lobbyists who move through the revolving door from Capitol Hill into the private sector fail to adequately report their former government employment as mandated by the Lobbying Disclosure Act.

While that figure suggests that there’s some serious K Street law-breaking going on, it doesn’t tell the whole story. The study, published by Tim LaPira of James Madison University and H.F. Thomas III of the University of Texas at Austin, overlooked lobbyists who are filing their paperwork correctly, just not on forms the researchers reviewed.

One such lobbyist is William L. Ball, a former Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan who worked for several years as a lobbyist for the Loeffler Group. I stumbled upon Ball when trying to find an example of a lobbyist in the wrong. The Center for Responsive Politics, which collects data on lobbyists, told me that Ball repeatedly failed to indicate his former government employment. But when I contacted Ball, he “respectfully” disagreed and sent me copies of his lobbying disclosure forms, which were filled out correctly.

So what was going on? Get ready to geek out. There are two ways that lobbyists can publicly disclose their previous work with the government under the Lobbying Disclosure Act: Through registration (LD-1) forms, which are filed for every new client they work for, or through the LD-2 forms that are filed quarterly. When I called the Senate Office of Public Records and and the House Legislative Resource Center, they both told me that a lobbyist only needs to fill out covered government employment on one of these forms.

So Ball was in the clear, for marking his Navy position on his registration. But what about all those other lobbyists supposedly breaking the law? A 2010 Government Accountability Office report looked at a sample of both disclosure forms and found that only about 9 percent of lobbyists did not properly report.

When I raised the issue with LaPira, one of the report’s researchers, he told me the study only looked at the LD-2 quarterly reports filed in the 2008 calendar year. (LD-2 reports are the only kind of form made available by CRP, which is where the researchers downloaded their data.) “If we were to look at [LD-1] registrations as well, we would expect the number of people who do not report to go down…I wouldn’t speculate how much exactly,” he said.

LaPira added that the researchers plan on doing further studies, but he “still feels that our evidence strongly suggests a transparency-policy failure” as prior government employment “should be disclosed again and again.” 

So is this disclosure paperwork too confusing for researchers, lobbyists, and members of the public? “The ancient software used by Congress in LDA reporting is not exactly user friendly,” Ball wrote in an e-mail. Howard Marlowe, President of the All American League of Lobbyists, said that “Many in the lobbying profession don’t even know there is guidance on these things.”

Marlowe also said that under the Obama Administration, a number of lobbyists have deregistered, meaning they are not covered by the Lobbying Disclosure Act at all, but are getting away with “doing the same work.” Scott Amey, general counsel at the Project On Government Oversight, says everyone needs to stop complaining that the system is a burden and simply follow the law: “There is a distrust in government and politicians, and this system, albeit far from perfect, provides some assurances that we get to see who is pressuring the government to act.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate