Update on Lobbying Reform

Last Thursday, the House picked up the Lobbying Reform package that the Senate passed last month.  The first step in this process was a hearing in the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution.  For weeks we have been prepping House staffers and members as to the problems we could face if the House seeks to reinsert the section 220 language that was stripped out of the Senate Lobbying Reform package, S.1. 

Last Wednesday evening, Drew Ryun, Director of our Government Affairs office in Washington, DC, had the opportunity to brief members of the subcommittee before their Thursday morning hearing.  While the Democrats had indicated that grassroots lobbying language would not be addressed in the hearing, it was evident from the written testimony of the three Democrat witnesses that they were going to bring it up.  Drew encouraged the ranking member of the subcommittee, Congressman Trent Franks, to point this out in his opening statements and on Thursday morning, he did.  Within 30 seconds of beginning his opening statements, Franks said:

I am extremely disappointed to learn, through all three prepared statements of the Democrats witnesses, that there is indeed a movement afoot to revive the blatantly unconstitutional grassroots lobbying provisions that were wisely stripped from the Senate version of this bill because they had no connection with Washingtons ethical problems.  Grassroots lobbying was defined in the original bill as 'the voluntary efforts of members of the general public to communicate their own views on an issue to federal officials or to encourage other members of the general public to do the same.'  Just reading those words describing what speech could be criminalized under such provisions should chill the spine of anyone who supports a strong First Amendment. Grassroots lobbying is the very lifeblood of a healthy democratic government.

Later, when Congressman Marty Meehan walked into the hearing, Congressman Franks used a procedural move to block his appearance as Meehan does not sit on that committee.  It became apparent at that point that the Democrats had planned on him carrying the hearing on their side in regards to grassroots lobbying language.  After his hasty departure, the Democrats on the subcommittee struggled to make a case for any need for grassroots lobbying language and failed to do so. 

It was a good victory for our side, but this is just the first skirmish of the battle that will likely take place in the House.  Drew Ryun told me that early this week, Congressman Marty Meehan will begin circulating language that will likely contain portions of the section 220 language.  We will keep you posted.