Tougher Rules Change Game for Lobbyists

I haven't been very happy with the Democrats timid approach in getting us out of Iraq. But on this issue they are making significant positive progress. Good on 'em.

August 7, 2007

Tougher Rules Change Game for Lobbyists

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
WASHINGTON, Aug. 6 — H. Stewart Van Scoyoc, founder of one of the biggest lobbying firms in Washington, spent an anxious morning with his lawyer last week assessing the far-reaching ethics and lobbying rules Congress had passed the day before.

The first worry was what lobbyists are calling the new “temptation rules.” Not only do they bar lawmakers and aides from accepting any gifts, meals or trips from lobbyists, they also impose penalties up to $200,000 and five years in prison on any lobbyist who provides such freebies.

And worse still for Mr. Van Scoyoc, under the new law he is required to certify each quarter that none of the 50 lobbyists in his firm bought so much as a burger or cigar for someone on a lawmaker’s staff.

“You are basically asking people to certify, with big penalties, that nobody has lied on their expense accounts,” Mr. Van Scoyoc said, marveling at the complexity of policing such casual contact between lobbyists and Congressional aides. “These are people who are sharing apartments together, playing on the same softball teams, dating each other—young people with active social lives.”

The new law has quickly sent a ripple of fear through K Street. It comes amid signs that federal prosecutors are taking a newly aggressive approach to corruption cases — including treating campaign contributions as potential bribes.

By requiring them to certify the good behavior of their employees, the law puts lobbyists at new legal risk and could subject them to new pressure from prosecutors. And new centralized disclosures of lobbyists’ campaign contributions, fund-raising activities and even their achievements — in the form of Congressional earmarks in spending bills — make it only easier for federal investigators to paint unflattering portraits of lobbyists’ influence.

“It will be easier to connect dots,” said Ted Van Der Meid, a Washington lawyer who was counsel to Representative J. Dennis Hastert when he was House speaker. “Even if there shouldn’t be a connection, you are going to have to explain to them how the way they connected the dots is not what you intended. You are going to have to basically prove your innocence.”

Stanley Brand, a longtime Washington defense lawyer who usually represents Democrats, said the law was a sea change. “It should send shivers down lobbyists’ spines,” Mr. Brand said. “It is a minefield now.”

These are hardly the first restrictions, of course. Internal rules already barred lawmakers or senior staff members from accepting a gift or a meal worth more than $50 from a lobbyist. But the rules were rarely, if ever, enforced and did not govern lobbyists.

President Bush has not said whether he would sign the bill, but it is already changing the culture of Capitol Hill in myriad ways, beginning with more Dutch treats and fewer steak dinners.

Lobbying firms are racing to train employees in the new rules. One firm, fearful that prosecutors might try to use the expanded disclosures to link official actions to campaign contributions, has sent letters to its clients advising them how to respond if a lawmaker brings up fund-raising in a conversation about policy or procurements. “We would love to have this conversation, but it would have to be at another time” is the short answer.

One lobbyist, who would speak only anonymously to avoid attracting the attention of prosecutors or rivals, said he had started sending himself date-stamped e-mail to create a record of every phone conversation he had with a lawmaker. Then he stopped making campaign contributions.

Another lobbyist recently scaled back the menu at a breakfast briefing for lawmakers, offering bagels and cream cheese instead of ham and eggs. The rules permit lobbyists to provide refreshment of “only nominal value.” The House ethics committee guidelines suggest “light appetizers and drinks, or soda and cookies,” a standard that is known as “the toothpick test.”

The firm also advised a client distributing flashlights on Capitol Hill — to promote government openness — to make sure not only that they cost less than $10 each but also that they looked cheap, to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

And the “staff briefing” — in which a lobbyist enticed Congressional staff members to hear a talk about some dry legislative concern by offering pizza — has become extinct. No one will come without the free food.

Lobbyists complain that Congress is unfairly punishing them for the misdeeds of its own members, not to mention ruining the social lives of innocent and underpaid staff members.

“All those people who grew up in the system — who aren’t evil-doers, just good people — used to be able to entertain and have fun,” lamented Jim Ervin, a veteran military industry lobbyist.

Jan Baran, a longtime Republican lawyer whose clients include lobbyists, said: “There is a great deal of resentment. It’s ‘the devil made me do it,’ and the devil this time happens to be lobbyists. They get tarred with corruption, and the next day they get mail from all the same lawmakers who are blaming lobbyists saying, ‘I have a fund-raiser next week — don’t forget to contribute!’ ”

Many lobbyists say the rules pose dilemmas. Blocking them from buying dinners or trips for lawmakers, lobbyists say, will only force them to spend more time and money at political fund-raisers to get the same access.

For lawmakers, one of the most contentious elements of the package is the requirement that candidates disclose the names of federally registered lobbyists who solicit and “bundle” contributions. But lobbyists say the recognition may only encourage them to bundle. Ties to lawmakers are calling cards for clients.

“That is not going to be viewed as the mark of Cain or anything,” Lawrence O’Brien III, a Democratic lobbyist and fund-raiser, said dryly. “It could be perceived as bragging rights.”

Other lobbyists, though, worry that prosecutors’ new tactics could make fund-raising more perilous. In plea agreements involving the lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former Representative Randall Cunningham, prosecutors have treated certain campaign contributions as bribes for official favors, something almost never done before.

For lobbyists — who live at the nexus of contributions and favors — it is an alarming trend. “They might as well just pull up the paddy wagon outside the Capital Grille,” one lobbyist said, referring to a clubby steakhouse near the Capitol that is a well-known K Street hangout.

Between the ban on buying dinners and the scrutiny of fund-raising, “It is a lose-lose situation,” said James Dyer, a lobbyist at Clark & Weinstock.

A self-described “earmarks guy” who specializes in spending items, Mr. Dyer said the new rules were an invitation to scandal hunters. For the first time, the law will require disclosure of both the lawmakers who sponsor such items and the campaign contributions of the lobbyists who seek them.

“It is a road map that says, ‘Hey, come look at me; I have got my name against an earmark,’ ” he said.

Some loopholes exist. At the annual Aerospace Industries Association trade show in Paris last month, for example, military contractors treated a gaggle of senators to luxurious receptions at galleries, parks and hotels — all permitted under an exception for “widely attended events.”

But John W. Douglass, the group’s president, said the new rules were putting a damper on such events. “Who wants to go to a hot, crowded cocktail party,” Mr. Douglass said, “and have to worry every time the guy brings the hors d’oeuvres tray up, ‘Should I do this or not?’ ”

Still, some lobbyists and lawyers wondered privately how long the new carefulness would last.

At the Capital Grille the evening after final passage of the new lobbying bill, private wine lockers by the door still bore the names of several prominent lobbyists. Two mounted stag heads were the only sentries policing the dimly lit bar. Shaking a Belvedere Vodka martini for a lone defense contractor, a bartender leaned in to offer his thoughts.

“What happens at the Capital Grille,” the bartender said, “stays at the Capital Grille.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/w...59474-szHih/Ipld/lY+XO1Ans4A&pagewanted=print