New rules? Lobbyists say it'll be business as usual

WASHINGTON —

Some of Washington's top lobbyists say they expect to find ways around congressional efforts to impose new restrictions on lobbyists' dealings with lawmakers in the wake of the Jack Abramoff corruption scandal. Any limits will barely put a dent in the billions of dollars spent to influence legislation, they say.

While Congress may ultimately vote to eliminate a few of the more visible trappings of lobbying, such as gifts, free meals and luxurious trips, lobbyists say they already have found scores of new ways to buy the attention of lawmakers through fundraising, charitable activities and industry-sponsored seminars.

An estimated $10 billion is spent annually to influence legislation and regulations, and that spending is not likely to be diminished by the proposed lobbying reform, these lobbyists contend.

"I wouldn't classify those changes as major," said Dan Danner, senior vice president of the National Federation of Independent Business. "Between charitable events and fundraising events, there will still be lots of ways to get in front of members [of Congress]."

Abramoff's guilty plea in January to charges of fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials with lavish trips, luxury skybox fundraisers, meals and campaign contributions triggered a new push in Congress to rewrite lobbying rules.

An emerging Senate bill, which has yet to be completed, would bar lawmakers from accepting meals and gifts, such as sports tickets, from registered lobbyists. The leading House measure, proposed by GOP leaders, would rely more heavily on additional disclosures but also would temporarily ban privately paid travel.

But many lobbyists said they consider the bills more of a nuisance than an impediment.

"Even if all lunches and sporting tickets are banned, legislation and regulations are so complex that the need for professional lobbyists will not diminish," said Frederick Graefe, a Washington lawyer and lobbyist.

"If meals are heavily restricted, we're likely to see executives from the home office picking up checks because they're not lobbyists," said J. Steven Hart of Williams & Jensen, a major lobbying firm. "And there are lots of other ways we can still get our cases before members of Congress."

What's more, experts said, industries and interest groups have turned to more sophisticated tactics in recent years, and such tactics are generally not addressed in the new bills on Capitol Hill.

Lobbyists are increasing their campaign contributions, widening their use of the Internet to stir voter activism, and donating large sums to think tanks and charities affiliated with such big names as Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

The Business Roundtable, which represents big-business chieftains, has embraced a new technique of advertising on Web sites for grassroots advocates. And organizations from the left and right are increasingly offering meetings with top government officials in exchange for hefty dues.

Americans for Tax Reform, headed by conservative strategist Grover Norquist, invites its contributors of more than $15,000 a year to receptions and dinners throughout the year, often at Norquist's home. Featured speakers have included such high-profile Republicans as Sens. George Allen of Virginia, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader.

Third Way, a group that devises policies for moderate Democrats, invites its $25,000-a-year donors (many of whom are lobbyists) to regular discussions in conference rooms around Washington that have spotlighted Democratic Sens. Thomas Carper of Delaware, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Ken Salazar of Colorado.

The most important vehicle for lobbying clout — campaign contributions — would not be altered in the Senate approach, while House GOP leaders have proposed limiting the amounts of contributions made to big-money independent groups known as "527s." But without Senate support, the effort to clamp down on the independent groups would fail.

As a result, lobbyists still would be able to contribute to lawmakers' coffers, host and organize major fundraisers, and arrange trips subsidized by their clients to encourage electoral giving — just as they do now.

20% rise in federal giving

Total federal giving this election cycle is expected to rise by at least 20 percent to more than $3 billion from the last midterm election in 2002, according to Michael Malbin, executive director of the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute.

Such campaign-related activities are "the most significant benefits lobbyists use to influence members of Congress," said Larry Noble, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

The proposed ethics changes would not restrain the fastest-growing part of lobbying: grassroots activities. This ginning up of letters, telephone calls and, increasingly, e-mails from back home has become a $1 billion-a-year business, said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., an activist on the subject.

Congress might require that such lobbying costs be disclosed but wouldn't limit them. In fact, lobbying in its many forms would continue unabated under the coming legislation.

In 2004, the last full year for which data are available, lobbying was a $10 billion industry, according to estimates by James Thurber, a political-science scholar at American University. Of that total, $2.1 billion was used to pay the salaries of registered lobbyists while the rest went for more subtle forms of persuasion.

Lobbying is even done at charity events. Lobbyists say privately that they are all but required to contribute to an annual dinner that helps low-income Catholic schools in the District of Columbia. The dinner is co-hosted by Boehner and Kennedy. Boehner has solicited contributions for the $10,000 tables, a request that lobbyists say they are loath to ignore.

The communications industry has its own lobbying-and-charity gala. Every December, the Federal Communications Bar Association fills the Washington Hilton's grand ballroom for a fancy dinner that raises money for D.C. schoolchildren and honors the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates the interests of the dinner's patrons.

At the 2004 Chairman's Dinner, FCC commissioners dined at an elaborately set table in the middle of a massive room while then-Chairman Michael Powell gave a lengthy speech and showed a video about himself.

Informal encounters

Interest groups also pay to participate in social activities, which double as lobbying venues. State societies, for example, offer numerous opportunities for informal encounters between lawmakers, congressional aides and lobbyists.

The California State Society's Fall 2005 newsletter features a photo of active members Rep. Edward Royce, R-Calif., and former Rep. Bill Lowery, R-Calif., who is a lobbyist for an electric utility and a defense contractor, among others.

According to its Web site, the society's Platinum ($10,000) corporate sponsors in 2005 included Fleishman-Hillard, a lobbying/public relations company, and Sallie Mae, a financer of student loans based in Virginia that vigorously lobbies in Washington.

Lawmakers and their staff members have lately reduced their social interactions, especially meals, with lobbyists in anticipation of a possible crackdown under the new law.

Frederick McClure, a lobbyist with Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP, said the last time any of his colleagues hosted a congressional aide for lunch was before Christmas.

But interests will always find a way to be heard, lobbyists say. One is through think tanks. The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), which widely publicizes its belief that the Earth is not warming cataclysmically because of the burning of oil and coal, says Exxon Mobil is a "major donor," largely as a result of its effort to push that position.

"I think what attracted them to us was our position on global warming," said Sam Kazman, CEI's general counsel. "And we hope to get support from other industries that agree with us."