2010 Lobbying Disclosure
Observations on Lobbyists' Compliance with Disclosure Requirements Gao ID: GAO-11-452 April 1, 2011The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 requires that GAO annually (1) determine the extent to which lobbyists can demonstrate compliance with disclosure requirements, (2) identify any challenges that lobbyists report to compliance, and (3) describe the resources and authorities available to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia (the Office), and the efforts the Office has made to improve its enforcement of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 as amended (LDA). This is GAO's fourth report under the mandate. GAO reviewed a stratified random sample of 100 lobbying disclosure reports filed from the fourth quarter of calendar year 2009 through the third quarter of calendar year 2010. GAO also selected two random samples totaling 160 reports of federal political campaign contributions from year-end 2009 and midyear 2010. This methodology allowed GAO to generalize to the population of 55,282 disclosure reports with $5,000 or more in lobbying activity. GAO also met with officials from the Office regarding efforts to focus resources on lobbyists who fail to comply. GAO provided a draft of this report to the Attorney General for review and comment. The Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia responded on behalf of the Attorney General that the Department of Justice had no comments on the draft of this report.
Lobbyists were generally able to provide documentation to support the amount of income and expenses reported; however, less documentation was provided to support other items in their disclosure reports. This finding is similar to GAO's results from prior reviews. There are no specific requirements for lobbyists to create or maintain documentation related to disclosure reports they file under the LDA. For income and expenses, two key elements of the reports, GAO estimates that lobbyists could provide documentation for approximately 97 percent of the disclosure reports for the fourth quarter 2009 and the first three quarters of 2010. According to the documentation lobbyists provided for income and expenses, we estimate the amount disclosed was supported for 68 percent of disclosure reports. After GAO's review, 21 lobbyists stated that they planned to amend their disclosure reports to make corrections on one or more data elements. As of March 2011, 12 of the 21 amended their disclosure reports. For political contributions reports, GAO estimates that a minimum of 2 percent of reports failed to disclose political contributions that were documented in the Federal Election Commission database. The majority of lobbyists who newly registered with the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House of Representatives in the last quarter of 2009 and first three quarters of 2010 filed required disclosure reports for that period. GAO could identify corresponding reports on file for lobbying activity for 90 percent of registrants. The majority of lobbyists felt that the terms associated with disclosure reporting were clear and understandable. For the few lobbyists who stated that disclosure reporting terminology remained a challenge, areas of potential inconsistency and confusion in applying the terms associated with disclosure reporting requirements have been highlighted. Some lobbyists reported a lack of clarity in determining lobbying activities versus non-lobbying activities. A few lobbyists stated that they misreported on their disclosure reports because they carried information from old reports to new reports without properly updating information. The Office is responsible for enforcement of the LDA and has the authority to pursue a civil or criminal case for noncompliance. To enforce LDA compliance, the Office has primarily focused on sending letters to lobbyists who have potentially violated the LDA by not filing disclosure reports. For calendar years 2008 and 2009, the Office sent 1,597 noncompliance letters for disclosure reports and political contributions reports. About half of the lobbyists who received noncompliance letters are now compliant. In response to an earlier GAO recommendation, the Office has developed a system to better focus enforcement efforts by tracking and recording the status of enforcement activities. The system allows the Office to monitor lobbyists who continually fail to file the required disclosure reports. The Office stated that they plan to institute procedures to formalize data review, refine summary data, and ensure data are accurate and reliable in the next few months.
GAO-11-452, 2010 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists' Compliance with Disclosure Requirements
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-452
entitled '2010 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists'
Compliance with Disclosure Requirements' which was released on April
1, 2011.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to Congressional Committees:
April 2011:
2010 Lobbying Disclosure:
Observations on Lobbyists' Compliance with Disclosure Requirements:
GAO-11-452:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-11-452, a report to congressional committees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 requires that
GAO annually (1) determine the extent to which lobbyists can
demonstrate compliance with disclosure requirements, (2) identify any
challenges that lobbyists report to compliance, and (3) describe the
resources and authorities available to the U.S. Attorney‘s Office for
the District of Columbia (the Office), and the efforts the Office has
made to improve its enforcement of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995
as amended (LDA). This is GAO‘s fourth report under the mandate. GAO
reviewed a stratified random sample of 100 lobbying disclosure reports
filed from the fourth quarter of calendar year 2009 through the third
quarter of calendar year 2010. GAO also selected two random samples
totaling 160 reports of federal political campaign contributions from
year-end 2009 and midyear 2010. This methodology allowed GAO to
generalize to the population of 55,282 disclosure reports with $5,000
or more in lobbying activity. GAO also met with officials from the
Office regarding efforts to focus resources on lobbyists who fail to
comply. GAO provided a draft of this report to the Attorney General
for review and comment. The Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District
of Columbia responded on behalf of the Attorney General that the
Department of Justice had no comments on the draft of this report.
What GAO Found:
Lobbyists were generally able to provide documentation to support the
amount of income and expenses reported; however, less documentation
was provided to support other items in their disclosure reports. This
finding is similar to GAO‘s results from prior reviews. There are no
specific requirements for lobbyists to create or maintain
documentation related to disclosure reports they file under the LDA.
For income and expenses, two key elements of the reports, GAO
estimates that lobbyists could provide documentation for approximately
97 percent of the disclosure reports for the fourth quarter 2009 and
the first three quarters of 2010. According to the documentation
lobbyists provided for income and expenses, we estimate the amount
disclosed was supported for 68 percent of disclosure reports. After
GAO‘s review, 21 lobbyists stated that they planned to amend their
disclosure reports to make corrections on one or more data elements.
As of March 2011, 12 of the 21 amended their disclosure reports.
For political contributions reports, GAO estimates that a minimum of 2
percent of reports failed to disclose political contributions that
were documented in the Federal Election Commission database.
The majority of lobbyists who newly registered with the Secretary of
the Senate and Clerk of the House of Representatives in the last
quarter of 2009 and first three quarters of 2010 filed required
disclosure reports for that period. GAO could identify corresponding
reports on file for lobbying activity for 90 percent of registrants.
The majority of lobbyists felt that the terms associated with
disclosure reporting were clear and understandable. For the few
lobbyists who stated that disclosure reporting terminology remained a
challenge, areas of potential inconsistency and confusion in applying
the terms associated with disclosure reporting requirements have been
highlighted. Some lobbyists reported a lack of clarity in determining
lobbying activities versus non-lobbying activities. A few lobbyists
stated that they misreported on their disclosure reports because they
carried information from old reports to new reports without properly
updating information.
The Office is responsible for enforcement of the LDA and has the
authority to pursue a civil or criminal case for noncompliance. To
enforce LDA compliance, the Office has primarily focused on sending
letters to lobbyists who have potentially violated the LDA by not
filing disclosure reports. For calendar years 2008 and 2009, the
Office sent 1,597 noncompliance letters for disclosure reports and
political contributions reports. About half of the lobbyists who
received noncompliance letters are now compliant. In response to an
earlier GAO recommendation, the Office has developed a system to
better focus enforcement efforts by tracking and recording the status
of enforcement activities. The system allows the Office to monitor
lobbyists who continually fail to file the required disclosure
reports. The Office stated that they plan to institute procedures to
formalize data review, refine summary data, and ensure data are
accurate and reliable in the next few months.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-452] or key
components. For more information, contact J.Christopher Mihm at (202)
512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Documentation Supporting Disclosure Reports Varied and Newly
Registered Lobbyists Largely Met Reporting Requirements:
A Few Lobbyists Continue to Report Challenges in Complying with the
Act:
The U.S. Attorney's Office Has Taken Steps to Improve Its Enforcement
of the LDA:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: List of Registrants and Clients for Sampled Lobbying
Disclosure Reports:
Appendix III: Full List of Sampled Lobbying Contribution Reports with
Contributions and No Contributions Listed:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Reasons Lobbyists in Our Sample of Reports Cited for Not
Having Documentation for Some Elements of Their LD-2 Report.
Table 2: Feedback from Lobbyists in Our Sample of Reports Who Cited
Challenges to Complying with the Act:
Table 3: Names of Registrants and Clients Selected in Random Sample of
Lobbying Disclosure Reports Filed in the Last Quarter of 2009 and
First Three Quarters of 2010:
Table 4: Lobbyists and Lobbying Firms Selected in Random Sample of
Lobbying Contribution Reports with Contributions Listed, Filed Year-
end 2009 and Midyear 2010:
Table 5: Lobbyists and Lobbying Firms Selected in Random Sample of
Lobbying Contribution Reports with No Contributions Listed, Filed Year-
end 2009 and Midyear 2010:
Figures:
Figure 1: Extent of Documentation Lobbyists Provided to Support
Selected Elements of Lobbying Reports:
Figure 2: Rating of Terms Associated with LD-2 Reporting for Lobbyists
in Interviews:
Figure 3: Status of LDA Enforcement Actions (as of January 24, 2011):
Abbreviations:
Clerk: Clerk of the House of Representatives:
DOJ: Department of Justice:
FEC: Federal Elections Commission:
HLOGA: Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007:
LDA: Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995:
Office: U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia:
Secretary: Secretary of the Senate:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
April 1, 2011:
Congressional Committees:
Questions regarding the influence of special interests in the
formation of government policy have led to a move toward more
transparency and accountability with regard to the lobbying community.
The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 (HLOGA)[Footnote
1] amended the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (LDA)[Footnote 2] to
require lobbyists to file quarterly lobbying disclosure reports and
semiannual reports on certain political contributions. HLOGA also
increased civil penalties and added criminal penalties for failure to
comply with LDA requirements. GAO is mandated to audit the extent of
lobbyists' compliance with the requirements of the LDA by reviewing
publicly available lobbying registrations and a random sampling of
reports filed during each calendar year.[Footnote 3] GAO's report
shall include any recommendations related to improving lobbyists'
compliance with the LDA and report on resources and authorities
available to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for effective enforcement
of the LDA. This is GAO's fourth mandated review of lobbyists'
disclosure reports filed under the LDA.
Consistent with our mandate, our objectives were to (1) determine the
extent to which lobbyists can demonstrate compliance with the LDA, as
amended, by providing documentation to support information contained
in reports filed under the LDA; (2) identify any challenges that
lobbyists report to compliance and potential improvements; and (3)
describe the resources and authorities available to the U.S.
Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia (the Office) in its
role in enforcing compliance with the LDA, and the efforts the Office
has made to improve its enforcement of the LDA.
[End of section]
To fulfill our audit requirement in HLOGA, we did the following:
* Selected a stratified random sample of 100 quarterly lobbying
activity disclosure reports (commonly referred to as LD-2 reports)
with income and expenses of $5,000 or more filed during the fourth
quarter of calendar year 2009 and the first, second, and third
quarters of calendar year 2010, with 25 LD-2 reports in each quarter.
The randomly sampled reports were selected from the publicly
downloadable database maintained by the Clerk of the House of
Representatives. This methodology allows us to generalize to the
population of these activity reports.
* Contacted each lobbyist[Footnote 4] in our sample by asking each
lobbyist to provide supporting documentation for key elements of the
disclosure report, including the amount of money received for lobbying
activities, the houses of Congress or federal agencies lobbied,
lobbying issue areas, lobbyists reported as having worked on the
issues, prior covered official positions held by lobbyists, and
whether the lobbyists filed a report of federal political
contributions. All lobbyists in our sample responded to our requests
for supporting documentation.
* Analyzed two random samples of year-end 2009 and midyear 2010
semiannual reports of federal political contributions (commonly
referred to as LD-203 reports) disclosing certain contributions,
comparing the contributions reported to information contained in the
Federal Elections Commission's (FEC) database. The first sample
contains 80 LD-203 reports selected that have contributions listed,
and the second sample contains 80 LD-203 reports selected that list no
contributions. The randomly sampled reports were selected from the
publicly downloadable contributions database maintained by the Clerk
of the House. In instances where an entry in the FEC database could
not be confirmed by information reported in the LD-203, because the
contribution was not disclosed on the LD-203, as required, we
contacted lobbyists and asked them to provide documentation,
information, or both to clarify differences we observed. All lobbyists
complied with our request to provide documentation, information, or
both. This methodology allows us to generalize to the population of LD-
203 reports both with and without contributions.
* Compared new registrations (commonly referred to as LD-1s) filed in
the fourth quarter of 2009 and the first three quarters of 2010 to the
corresponding LD-2 reports on file with the Clerk of the House to
determine whether registrants were meeting the requirement to file an
LD-2 report in the first quarter in which they first registered.
To identify challenges and potential improvements to compliance, we
used structured interviews to obtain views from lobbyists included in
our sample of reports on any challenges to compliance.
To describe the efforts the Office has made to improve its enforcement
of the LDA, we interviewed officials from the Office and obtained
information on the capabilities of the system they established to
track and report compliance trends and referrals and other practices
they have established to focus resources on enforcement of the LDA;
the extent to which they have implemented data reliability checks into
their tracking system; and the level of staffing and resources
dedicated to lobbying disclosure enforcement. The Office provided us
with reports from the tracking system on the number and status of
referrals.
The mandate does not include identifying lobbyist organizations that
failed to register and report in accordance with LDA requirements, or
whether for those lobbyists who did register and report the lobbying
activity or contributions disclosed represented the full extent of
lobbying activities that took place.
We conducted this performance audit from April 2010 to March 2011 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. For more
details on our methodology, see appendix I.
Background:
The LDA, as amended by HLOGA, requires lobbyists to register with the
Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House and file quarterly
reports disclosing their lobbying activity. No specific requirements
exist for lobbyists to create or maintain documentation in support of
the reports they file. However, LDA guidance issued by the Secretary
of the Senate and the Clerk of the House recommends lobbyists retain
copies of their filings and supporting documentation for at least 6
years after their reports are filed. Lobbyists are required to file
their registrations and reports electronically with the Secretary of
the Senate and the Clerk of the House through a single entry point (as
opposed to separately with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk
of the House as was done prior to HLOGA). Registrations and reports
must be publicly available in downloadable, searchable databases from
the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House.
The LDA requires that the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the
House of Representatives provide guidance and assistance on the
registration and reporting requirements of the LDA and develop common
standards, rules, and procedures for compliance with the LDA. The
Secretary and the Clerk are to review the guidance semiannually, with
the latest revision having occurred in June 2010 and the latest review
having occurred in December 2010. The guidance provides definitions of
terms in the Act, Secretary and Clerk interpretations of the LDA as
amended by HLOGA, specific examples of different scenarios, and an
explanation of why the scenarios prompt or do not prompt disclosure
under LDA. In meetings with the Secretary and Clerk, they stated that
they consider information we report on lobbying disclosure compliance
when they periodically update the guidance.
The LDA defines a "lobbyist" as an individual who is employed or
retained by a client for compensation; who has made more than one
lobbying contact (written or oral communication to a covered executive
or legislative branch official made on behalf of a client); and whose
lobbying activities[Footnote 5] represent at least 20 percent of the
time that he or she spends on behalf of the client during the quarter.
[Footnote 6] Lobbying firms are persons or entities that have one or
more employees who are lobbyists on behalf of a client other than that
person or entity.[Footnote 7]
Lobbying firms are required to file a registration with the Secretary
of the Senate and the Clerk of the House for each client if the
lobbying firm receives or is expected to receive over $3,000 in income
from that client for lobbying activities.[Footnote 8] Lobbyists are
also required to submit a quarterly report, also known as an LD-2
report, for each registration filed. The registration and subsequent
LD-2 reports must disclose:
* the name of the organization, lobbying firm, or self-employed
individual that is lobbying on that client's behalf;
* a list of individuals who acted as lobbyists on behalf of the client
during the reporting period;
* whether any lobbyists served as covered executive branch or
legislative branch officials in the previous 20 years, known as a
"covered official" position;[Footnote 9]
* the name of and further information about the client, including a
general description of its business or activities;
* information on the general issue areas and corresponding issue codes
used to describe lobbying activities;
* any foreign entities that have an interest in the client;
* whether the client is a state or local government;
* information on which federal agencies and house(s) of Congress the
lobbyist contacted on behalf of the client during the reporting period;
* the amount of income related to lobbying activities received from
the client (or expenses for organizations with in-house lobbyists)
during the quarter rounded to the nearest $10,000; and:
* a list of constituent organizations that contribute more than $5,000
for lobbying in a quarter and actively participate in planning,
supervising, or controlling lobbying activities, if the client is a
coalition or association.
The LDA, as amended, also requires lobbyists to report certain
contributions semiannually in the contributions report, also known as
the LD-203 report. These reports must be filed 30 days after the end
of a semiannual period by each organization registered to lobby and by
each individual listed as a lobbyist on an organization's lobbying
reports. The lobbyists or organizations must:
* list the name of each federal candidate or officeholder, leadership
political action committee, or political party committee to which they
made contributions equal to or exceeding $200 in the aggregate during
the semiannual period;
* report contributions made to presidential library foundations and
presidential inaugural committees;
* report funds contributed to pay the cost of an event to honor or
recognize a covered official, funds paid to an entity named for or
controlled by a covered official, and contributions to a person or
entity in recognition of an official or to pay the costs of a meeting
or other event held by or in the name of a covered official; and:
* certify that they have read and are familiar with the gift and
travel rules of the Senate and House and that they have not provided,
requested, or directed a gift or travel to a member, officer, or
employee of Congress that would violate those rules.
The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of
Representatives, along with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
District of Columbia (the Office) are responsible for the enforcement
of the LDA. The Secretary and the Clerk notify lobbyists or lobbying
firms in writing that they may be in noncompliance with the LDA, and
subsequently refer those lobbyists who fail to provide an appropriate
response to the Office. The Office researches these referrals and
sends additional noncompliance notices to the lobbyists, requesting
that the lobbyists file reports or correct reported information. If no
response is received after 60 days, the Office decides whether to
pursue a civil case against referred lobbyists which could result in
penalties up to $200,000 or a criminal case against lobbyists who
knowingly and corruptly fail to comply with the act that could lead to
a maximum of 5 years in prison.
Documentation Supporting Disclosure Reports Varied and Newly
Registered Lobbyists Largely Met Reporting Requirements:
Lobbyists for Most LD-2 Reports Provided Documentation to Support the
Amount of Income and Expenses Reported, but Provided Less
Documentation to Support Other Elements of the LD-2:
While no specific requirements exist for lobbyists to create or
maintain documentation in support of the reports they file, LDA
guidance issued by the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House
recommends lobbyists retain copies of their filings and supporting
documentation for at least 6 years after their reports are filed. As
in our prior reviews most lobbyists reporting $5,000 or more in income
or expenses were able to provide documentation to varying degrees for
the reporting elements in their disclosure reports.[Footnote 10]
Lobbyists for an estimated 97 percent of LD-2 reports were able to
provide documentation for income and expenses for the fourth quarter
of 2009 and the first three quarters of 2010.[Footnote 11] The most
common forms of documentation provided included invoices for income
and payroll records for expenses. According to the documentation
lobbyists provided for income and expenses, we estimate that the
amount disclosed was supported for 68 percent (65 of 96) of the LD-2
reports; differed by at least $10,000 from the reported amount in 13
percent (13 of 96) of LD-2 reports;[Footnote 12] and had rounding
errors in 19 percent (18 of 96) of LD-2 reports.[Footnote 13]
Lobbyists for an estimated 90 percent of the LD-2 reports filed year-
end 2009 or midyear 2010 LD-203 contribution reports for all of the
lobbyists and the lobbying firm listed on the report as required.
[Footnote 14] All individual lobbyists and lobbying firms reporting
specific lobbying activity are required to file LD-203 reports each
period even if they have no contributions to report, because they must
certify compliance with the gift and travel rules.
Figure 1 illustrates the extent to which lobbyists were able to
provide documentation to support selected elements on the LD-2 reports.
Figure 1: Extent of Documentation Lobbyists Provided to Support
Selected Elements of Lobbying Reports:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph]
Estimated percent of reports[B]:
Lobbied the House:
Documentation to support: 78%;
Some documentation to support[A]: 0%;
No documentation to support: 22%.
Lobbied the Senate:
Documentation to support: 79%;
Some documentation to support[A]: 0%;
No documentation to support: 21%.
Issue codes:
Documentation to support: 85%;
Some documentation to support[A]: 9%;
No documentation to support: 6%.
Individuals acting as lobbyists:
Documentation to support: 72%;
Some documentation to support[A]: 21%;
No documentation to support: 7%.
Source: GAO
Note: Not all elements of the report were applicable to all lobbyists.
[A] Lobbyists having some documentation to support issue codes and the
names of individuals acting as lobbyists refers to the lobbyists being
able to provide documentation for only some of the total number of
issue codes or lobbyists reported.
[B] Percent estimates in the table have a 95 percent confidence
interval of plus or minus 10 percentage points or less of the estimate.
[End of figure]
Of the 100 LD-2 reports in our sample, 52 disclosed lobbying
activities at executive branch agencies with lobbyists for 28 of these
reports providing documentation to support lobbying activities at all
agencies listed. These results are consistent with our findings from
last year's Lobbying Disclosure report.[Footnote 15] Based on this we
estimate that approximately 54 percent of all reports disclosing
executive branch activities could be supported by documentation.
[Footnote 16]
The LDA requires lobbyists to disclose previously held covered
positions when first registering as a lobbyist for a new client,
either on the lobbying registration (LD-1) or on the first LD-2
quarterly filing when added as new.[Footnote 17] Of the 100 reports in
our sample, 15 reports listed lobbyists who did not disclose covered
positions when they first lobbied on behalf of the client as required
or on subsequent disclosure reports. [Footnote 18] We therefore
estimate that a minimum of 9 percent of all LD-2 reports, list
lobbyists who never properly disclosed one or more previously held
covered positions.
Table 1 lists the common reasons why lobbyists we interviewed stated
they did not have documentation for some of the elements of their LD-2
report.
Table 1: Reasons Lobbyists in Our Sample of Reports Cited for Not
Having Documentation for Some Elements of Their LD-2 Report.
LD-2 report element: Lobbied the houses of Congress;
Reasons for not having documentation: Several lobbyists said they did
not keep documentation of certain types of contacts with the houses of
Congress, such as telephone calls.
LD-2 report element: Lobbied executive branch agencies;
Reasons for not having documentation: Several lobbyists said they did
not keep documentation of certain types of contacts with the executive
branch agency officials, such as telephone calls. In addition to
lobbyists not having supporting documentation to demonstrate they
lobbied executive branch agencies, some lobbyists told us they
overreported contacts with executive branch agencies. For example,
lobbyists reported lobbying contacts with executive branch agencies on
their LD-2 reports when federal officials were in attendance at
meetings and conferences they attended, even when they did not
communicate with the federal officials in attendance. Lobbyists said
they overreported to err on the side of caution and to prevent
potential underreporting.
LD-2 report element: Name of individuals acting as lobbyists;
Reasons for not having documentation: Several lobbyists stated they
listed all of the lobbyists in their firm on all of the LD-2 reports
even if they did not actively lobby on behalf of the client.
LD-2 report element: Covered positions;
Reasons for not having documentation: Some lobbyists thought the
position was either outside of the required reporting time frame[A] or
they were unaware that the position was a covered official position.
For example, some lobbyists did not know whether congressional
internships were considered covered official positions and therefore
needed to be disclosed. According to officials from the Secretary of
the Senate and Clerk of the House, internships are considered covered
official positions and therefore should be disclosed.
Source: GAO.
[A] Prior to 2008, lobbyists were only required to disclose covered
official positions held within 2 years of registering as a lobbyist
for the client. HLOGA amended that time frame to require disclosure of
positions held 20 years before the date the lobbyists first lobbied on
behalf of the client.
[End of table]
Some Lobbyists Indicated They Planned to Amend Their LD-2 Reports:
For 21 of the LD-2 reports in our sample, lobbyists indicated they
planned to file an amendment as a direct result of our review. As of
March 2011, 12 of those 21 lobbyists had filed amended LD-2 reports.
Reasons for filing amendments varied, but included reporting lobbyists
covered positions, changing the income or expense amounts previously
reported, and removing lobbyists who did not lobby on behalf of the
client during the quarter under review. In addition to the 21 reports
that lobbyists stated they were going to file an amendment following
our review, lobbyists filed amendments for 8 of the reports in our
sample after being notified their report was selected as part of our
random sample but prior to our review. Specific reasons lobbyists
filed amendments to change the original filing were to:
* Report no lobbying activity, reduce the amount of lobbying income
from $21,000 to less than $5,000, and remove the previously reported
lobbying contact with the Senate and the House, which the lobbyists
stated did not occur during the quarter.
* Add a lobbying contact with the Senate and lower the income reported
from $10,000 to less than $5,000.
* Add the client's interest in a foreign entity.
* Change the client's name, remove and add the name of the federal
agencies lobbied, remove the earlier reported lobbying contact with
the Senate, and remove a lobbyist.
* Add a lobbying contact with the House and add a lobbyist.
* Add lobbyists.
* Add a federal agency and remove a bill number.
* Change the point of contact.
Some LD-203 Contribution Reports Omitted Political Contributions
Listed in the FEC Database:
We estimate that a minimum of 5 percent of all LD-203 reports with
contributions omit one or more FEC-reportable contributions. The
sample of LD-203 reports we reviewed contained 80 reports with
political contributions and 80 reports without political
contributions. We compared those reports against the contribution
reports in the FEC database to identify any instance when the FEC
database listed political contributions made by the lobbyists that
were not disclosed on the lobbyist's LD-203 report.
Of the 80 LD-203 reports sampled with contributions reported, 7
sampled reports failed to disclose one or more political contributions
that were documented in the FEC database. Of the 80 LD-203 reports
sampled with no contributions reported, 1 of the sampled reports
failed to disclose political contributions that were documented in the
FEC database. We estimate that among all reports a minimum of 2
percent failed to disclose one or more political contributions.
[Footnote 19]
Most Newly Registered Lobbyists Filed Disclosure Reports as Required:
Of the 4,553 new registrations we identified from fiscal year 2010 we
were able to match 4,132 reports filed in the first quarter in which
they were registered, which is a match rate of more than 90 percent of
registrations, similar to our prior reviews.[Footnote 20] To determine
whether new registrants were meeting the requirement to file, we
matched newly filed registrations in the last quarter of 2009 and the
first three quarters of 2010 from the Senate and House Lobbyists
Disclosure Databases to their corresponding quarterly disclosure
reports using an electronic matching algorithm that allowed for
misspelling and other minor inconsistencies between the registrations
and reports.
A Few Lobbyists Continue to Report Challenges in Complying with the
Act:
LD-2 Reporting Requirement Terminology Remains a Challenge for a Few:
While most lobbyists we interviewed told us they thought that the
reporting requirements were clear, a few lobbyists highlighted areas
of potential inconsistency and confusion in applying some aspects of
LDA reporting requirements. Several of the lobbyists said that the
Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House staff were helpful in
providing clarifications when needed.
As part of our review, lobbyists present during reviews were asked to
rate various terms associated with LD-2 reporting as being clear and
understandable, not clear and understandable, or somewhat clear and
understandable.[Footnote 21] Figure 2 shows the terms associated with
LD-2 reporting that the lobbyists we interviewed in our sample of
reports were asked to rate and how they responded to each term.
Figure 2: Rating of Terms Associated with LD-2 Reporting for Lobbyists
in Interviews:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Number of interviews:
Lobbying definitions;
Clear and understandable: 61;
Somewhat clear and understandable: 26;
Not clear and understandable: 5.
Lobbying activities;
Clear and understandable: 60;
Somewhat clear and understandable: 28;
Not clear and understandable: 4.
Issue codes;
Clear and understandable: 61;
Somewhat clear and understandable: 27;
Not clear and understandable: 4.
Covered positions;
Clear and understandable: 69;
Somewhat clear and understandable: 18;
Not clear and understandable: 5.
Terminating lobbyist;
Clear and understandable: 67;
Somewhat clear and understandable: 18;
Not clear and understandable: 7.
Source: GAO.
Note: The total number of interviews totals 92 and is less than our
sample of 100 reports because some lobbyists had more than one report
in our sample that we reviewed on the same day. In these cases, we
interviewed the lobbyist once to ask about clarity of lobbying terms.
[End of figure]
Table 2 summarizes the feedback we obtained from the lobbyists in our
sample of reports that rated the lobbying terms as either not clear
and understandable or somewhat clear and understandable.[Footnote 22]
Table 2: Feedback from Lobbyists in Our Sample of Reports Who Cited
Challenges to Complying with the Act:
Associated terms: Lobbying definitions;
Feedback about LD-2 terminology and challenges to reporting: Several
lobbyists told us that differentiating between lobbyists and non-
lobbyists (i.e., consultants or government relations workers) was
difficult to understand. Of lobbyists who had difficulty with this
differentiation, several stated that more clarity is needed in the
differences between lobbying, consulting, and performing government
relations activities.
Associated terms: Lobbying activities;
Feedback about LD-2 terminology and challenges to reporting: Some
lobbyists stated additional clarity is needed in the differences
between lobbying activities and non-lobbying activities.
Associated terms: Issue codes;
Feedback about LD-2 terminology and challenges to reporting: Some
lobbyists said issue codes were unclear and that the issue codes
overlapped, making it difficult to choose the most appropriate issue
code for their specific lobbying issues.
Associated terms: Covered positions;
Feedback about LD-2 terminology and challenges to reporting: Lobbyists
expressed concern with not only knowing when to disclose covered
official positions on the LD-2 report, but also knowing when a federal
official they met with held a covered official position, which would
require them to disclose the contact. Additionally, several lobbyists
told us they referred to the Plum Book[A] for guidance on covered
officials; however, some lobbyists said it did not provide up-to-date
information on individuals' covered official positions within federal
agencies.
Associated terms: Terminating lobbyists;
Feedback about LD-2 terminology and challenges to reporting: Several
lobbyists said they were uncertain if it is necessary to terminate a
lobbyist if that individual did not actively lobby during the most
recent reporting period, but may work on behalf of that client in the
future.
Source: GAO.
[A] The "United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions,"
commonly referred to as the Plum Book, is published every 4 years
after a presidential election. It contains a listing of legislative
and executive branch covered positions. Many of the positions have
duties that support administration policies and programs. The Plum
Book was most recently published in November 2008.
[End of table]
A Few Lobbyists Cited Other Filing Challenges:
Sixty-nine lobbyists in our sample of LD-2 reports said that they
found the reporting requirements easy to meet. However, 10 lobbyists
we interviewed told us that they found meeting the deadline for filing
disclosure reports difficult because of the short time frame between
the end of the reporting period and the deadline for filing reports.
For example, one lobbyist mentioned that they have to estimate the
income for the final month of the reporting period because bills are
prepared after the filing deadline. The deadline for filing disclosure
reports is 20 days after each reporting period, or the first business
day after the 20th day if the 20th day is not a business day. Prior to
enactment of HLOGA, the deadline for filing disclosure reports was 45
days after the end of each reporting period.
While the electronic filing system used for lobbying reports may
reduce the amount of time filers must spend on data entry, a few
lobbyists stated that they misreported on their LD-2 reports because
they carried information from old reports to new reports without
properly updating information. As a result, some lobbyists now have to
amend their LD-2 reports to accurately reflect the lobbying activity
for the quarter under review.
The U.S. Attorney's Office Has Taken Steps to Improve Its Enforcement
of the LDA:
Status Update on Enforcement for the 2008 and 2009 Reporting Periods:
Since the enactment of HLOGA, quarterly referrals for noncompliance
with the LD-2 requirements have been received from both the Secretary
of the Senate and the Clerk of the House. From June 2009 to July 2010,
the Office received referrals from both the Secretary and the Clerk
for noncompliance with reports filed for the 2008 and 2009 reporting
periods.[Footnote 23] The Office received a total of 418 referrals of
lobbying firms for the 2008 filing period and 457 referrals of
lobbying firms from the 2009 filing period for noncompliance with the
quarterly LD-2 reporting requirements. The Office has not yet received
all referrals from the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the
House for the 2010 reporting period.
In addition, the Office has received referrals from the Secretary and
the Clerk for noncompliance with LD-203 contribution reports. For
noncompliance in the 2008 calendar year, the Office has to date
received LD-203 referrals from the Secretary of the Senate for 1,324
lobbying firms, and 126 LD-203 referrals from the Clerk of the House.
The Office mailed 962 noncompliance letters to the registered lobbying
firms and included the names of the individual lobbyists who were not
in compliance with the requirement to report federal campaign and
political contributions and certify that they understand the gift
rules. However, the Office stated that there is confusion among the
lobbying community as to whether the individual or organization is
responsible for responding to letters of noncompliance with LD-203
requirements. To date, the Office has received 765 lobbying firm LD-
203 referrals from the Secretary of the Senate, and 195 referrals from
the Clerk of the House for the 2009 calendar year. The Office has not
yet sent letters of noncompliance with the LD-203 referrals for the
2009 calendar year.
To enforce LDA compliance, the Office has primarily focused on sending
letters to lobbyists who have potentially violated the LDA by not
filing disclosure reports as required. Not all referred lobbyists are
sent noncompliance letters because some of the lobbyists have
terminated their registrations, or lobbyists may have complied by
filing the report before the Office sends noncompliance letters. The
letters request that the lobbyists comply with the law and promptly
file the appropriate disclosure documents. Resolution typically
involves the lobbyists coming into compliance by filing the reports or
terminating their lobbying status.
As of January 25, 2011, about 47 percent (758 of 1,597) of the
lobbyists sent letters for noncompliance with 2008 and 2009 referrals
are now considered compliant because the lobbyists in question have
either filed reports or they have terminated their registrations as
lobbyists. Additionally, about 49 percent (776 of 1,597) are pending
action because the Office did not receive a response from the lobbyist
and plans to conduct additional research to determine if they can
locate the lobbyist or close the referral because the lobbyist cannot
be located. The remaining 4 percent (63 of 1,597) of the referrals did
not require action because the lobbyists were found to be compliant
when the Office received them. This may occur when lobbyists have
responded to the contact letters from the Secretary of the Senate and
Clerk of the House after the referrals have been received by the
Office. Other referrals did not require action because the lobbyist or
client was no longer in business or the lobbyist was deceased. Figure
3 shows the status of enforcement actions as a result of noncompliance
letters sent to registrant organizations for 2008 and 2009 referrals.
Figure 3: Status of LDA Enforcement Actions (as of January 24, 2011):
[Refer to PDF for image: table and associated pie-chart]
Total number of noncompliance letters sent by the U.S. Attorney‘s
Office:
Reporting period (calendar year):
2008 LD-2: 316;
2008 LD-203: 962;
2009 LD-2: 319
2009[A] LD-203: NA;
Totals: 1,597.
Number of referrals now compliant:
Reporting period (calendar year):
2008 LD-2: 217;
2008 LD-203: 367;
2009 LD-2: 174;
2009[A] LD-203: NA;
Totals: 758.
Number of referrals pending:
Reporting period (calendar year):
2008 LD-2: 99;
2008 LD-203: 536;
2009 LD-2: 141;
2009[A] LD-203: NA;
Totals: 776.
Number of referrals with no action taken:
Reporting period (calendar year):
2008 LD-2: 0;
2008 LD-203: 59;
2009 LD-2: 4;
2009[A] LD-203: NA;
Totals: 63.
Percent of total enforcement actions (2008 and 2009):
Pending: 49%;
Compliant: 47%;
No action taken: 4%.
Source: U.S. Attorney‘s Office for the District of Columbia.
[A] Information reported for the 2009 calendar year only includes LD-2
referrals the Office has not yet sent letters of noncompliance with
the LD-203 referrals for the 2009 calendar year.
[End of figure]
Since the LDA was passed in 1995, the Office has settled with three
lobbyists and collected civil penalties totaling about $47,000. All of
the settled cases involved a failure to file. The settlements occurred
before the enactment of HLOGA, which increased the penalties for
offenses committed after January 1, 2008, to involve a civil fine of
not more than $200,000 and criminal penalties of not more than 5 years
in prison. Criminal penalties may be imposed against lobbyists who
knowingly and corruptly fail to comply with the act. Officials from
the Office stated that they have sufficient civil and criminal
statutory authorities to enforce the LDA.
As we reported previously, the Office identified six lobbyists whose
names appeared frequently in the referrals and sent them letters more
targeted toward repeat nonfilers. However, the Office has decided not
to pursue action against any of them because they determined the
lobbyists were unaware of the need to file, and therefore did not
intentionally avoid compliance with the requirements of the LDA. In
all of those cases, the lobbyists terminated or filed once they were
made aware of the requirements. In addition, in the summer of 2010,
six additional lobbyists were identified as repeat nonfilers and to
date, no action has been taken against any of them. Three of these
cases have been resolved because the Office decided not pursue further
action due to lobbyists' illness, inability to pay, or lobbyists'
stating the failure to file was the result of an inadvertent
oversight. In an additional case, the Office determined the level of
noncompliance was not sufficiently significant for further action. The
Office continues to consider further enforcement actions for the
remaining two, and has forwarded these matters to the Assistant United
States Attorney for Civil Enforcement for further review. In addition,
the Office plans to identify additional cases for civil enforcement
review in the coming months.
The U.S. Attorney's Office Has Established a System to Track Lobbying
Enforcement Activities:
In a prior report, we raised issues regarding the tracking, analysis,
and reporting of enforcement activities for lobbyists whom the
Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House identify as failing
to comply with LDA requirements.[Footnote 24] Our report recommended
that the Office complete efforts to develop a structured approach for
tracking referrals when they are made, recording reasons for
referrals, recording the actions taken to resolve them, and assessing
the results of actions taken. The Office has developed a system to
address that recommendation. The current system provides a foundation
that allows the Office to better focus its lobbying compliance efforts
by tracking and recording the status and disposition of enforcement
activities. In addition, the system allows the Office to monitor
lobbyists who continually fail to file the required disclosure reports.
Under HLOGA, the Attorney General is required to file an enforcement
report with Congress after each semiannual period beginning on January
1 and July 1, detailing the aggregate number of enforcement actions
DOJ took under the act during the semiannual period and, by case, any
sentences imposed. On September 6, 2009, the Attorney General filed
his report for the semiannual period ending June 30, 2009. We found
information provided in the enforcement report generally matched
information the system provided to GAO. In cases where we identified
inconsistencies, they were very minor. For example, the differences in
the number of noncompliance letters sent were less than 10 out of
several hundred letters sent. In addition, there were small
inconsistencies regarding the dates referrals were received from the
Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House. There were also
inconsistencies in the number of referrals received regarding
individual lobbyists and registrant organizations. These
inconsistencies totaled less than 10 out of more than a thousand
referrals received. We brought these minor errors to the attention of
the Office and asked them about their processes for ensuring data
accuracy. Officials from the Office stated that they do not have
formal procedures for ensuring that data are entered into the system
in a timely fashion. In addition, they stated that there are no formal
processes in place to review, validate, or edit the system data after
they are entered to help ensure that accurate data are entered into
the system and to help ensure that erroneous data are identified,
reported, and corrected. The Office stated that they plan to formalize
data review, refine summary data, and institute procedures to ensure
data are accurate and reliable in the next few months. As part of this
effort, they plan to establish periodic quality checks and
verification of data as we suggested when we met with them in January
2011.
The U.S. Attorney's Office's Resources and Authorities to Enforce the
LDA:
Officials from the Office stated that they have sufficient civil and
criminal statutory authorities to enforce LDA. The Office has
increased the number of staff assigned to assist with lobbying
compliance issues from 6 to 17.[Footnote 25] All of the staff continue
to work on lobbying disclosure enforcement part-time and primarily in
an administrative capacity. Some of their administrative activities
include researching the Senate and House databases to determine if
referrals have been resolved, or mailing noncompliance letters. In
addition to those 17 part-time staff members, one contractor was hired
in September 2010 to work on lobbying compliance issues on a full-time
basis.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to the Attorney General for review
and comment. We met with the Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District
of Columbia, who on behalf of the Attorney General responded that DOJ
had no comments.
We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney General,
Secretary of the Senate, Clerk of the House of Representatives, and
interested congressional committees and members. This report also is
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
Please contact J. Christopher Mihm at (202) 512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov
if you or your staffs have any questions about this report. Contact
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs
may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major
contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV.
Signed by:
J. Christopher Mihm:
Managing Director, Strategic Issues:
List of Congressional Committees:
The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman:
Chairman:
The Honorable Susan M. Collins:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy:
Chairman:
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley:
Ranking Member:
Committee on the Judiciary:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Charles E. Schumer:
Chairman:
The Honorable Lamar Alexander:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Rules and Administration:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Daniel E. Lungren:
Chairman:
The Honorable Robert A. Brady:
Ranking Member:
Committee on House Administration:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Lamar Smith:
Chairman:
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Member:
Committee on the Judiciary:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Darrell E. Issa:
Chairman:
The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Consistent with the audit requirements in the Honest Leadership and
Open Government Act of 2007, our objectives were to:
* determine the extent to which lobbyists are able to demonstrate
compliance with the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (LDA), as amended
by providing documentation to support information contained on reports
filed under the LDA;
* identify any challenges that lobbyists report to compliance and
potential improvements; and:
* describe the resources and authorities available to the U.S.
Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia (the Office), and the
efforts the Office has made to improve enforcement of the LDA,
including identifying trends in past lobbying disclosure compliance.
To respond to our mandate, we used information in the lobbying
disclosure database maintained by the Clerk of the House of
Representatives. To assess whether these disclosure data were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report, we reviewed
relevant documentation and spoke to officials responsible for
maintaining the data. Although registrations and reports are filed
thorough a single Web portal, each chamber subsequently receives
copies of the data and follows different data cleaning, processing,
and editing procedures before storing the data in either individual
files (in the House) or databases (in the Senate). Currently, there is
no means of reconciling discrepancies between the two databases that
result from chamber differences in data processing. For example,
Senate staff has told us during previous reviews[Footnote 26] that
they set aside a greater proportion of registration and report
submissions than the House for manual review before entering the
information into the database, and as a result, the Senate database
would be slightly less current than the House database on any given
day pending review and clearance; and House staff told us during
previous reviews that they rely heavily on automated processing, and
that while they manually review reports that do not perfectly match
information on file for a given registrant or client, they will
approve and upload such reports as originally filed by each lobbyist
even if the reports contain errors or discrepancies (such as a variant
on how a name is spelled). Nevertheless, we do not have reason to
believe that the content of the Senate and House systems would vary
substantially. While we determined that both the Senate and House
disclosure data were sufficiently reliable for identifying a sample of
quarterly disclosure reports (LD-2 reports) and for assessing whether
newly filed registrants also filed required reports, we chose to use
data from the Clerk of the House for sampling LD-2 reports from the
last quarter of 2009, first three quarters of 2010, as well as for
sampling year-end 2009 and midyear 2009 contributions reports (LD-203
reports), and finally for matching quarterly registrations with filed
reports. We did not evaluate the Offices of the Secretary of the
Senate or the Clerk of the House, both of which have key roles in the
lobbying disclosure process, although we consulted with officials from
each office, and they provided us with general background information
at our request and detailed information on data processing procedures.
To assess the extent to which lobbyists could provide evidence of
their compliance with reporting requirements, we examined a stratified
random sample of 100 LD-2 reports from the fourth quarter of calendar
year 2009 and the first, second, and third quarters of calendar year
2010, with 25 reports selected from each quarter. We excluded reports
with no lobbying activity or with income less than $5,000 from our
sampling frame[Footnote 27] and drew our sample from 55,282 activity
reports filed for the last quarter of 2009 and the first three
quarters of 2010 available in the public House database, as of our
final download date for each quarter. There is 1 LD-2 report in the
sample that amended their LD-2 after notification of being selected
for the sample but prior to our review. The amended LD-2 report
decreased lobbying activity income for that quarter from $21,000 to
less than $5,000. Further, that report was amended to show no lobbying
contact, whereas the original LD-2 activity report showed lobbying
contact with the Senate and House. We conducted a review of this
report because they amended to no activity with lobbying income of
less than $5,000 following notification of inclusion in the sample.
Since "no lobbying activity" was indicated on the amended LD-2
activity report, lobbyists were not required to provide information
for all reporting elements on the LD-2. Therefore, in certain
calculations this 1 report is excluded from the sample. Our sample is
based on a stratified random selection, and it is only one of a large
number of samples that we may have drawn. Because each sample could
have provided different estimates, we express our confidence in the
precision of our particular sample's results as a 95 percent
confidence interval. This is the interval that would contain the
actual population value for 95 percent of the samples that we could
have drawn. All percentage estimates in this report have 95 percent
confidence intervals of within plus or minus 10.0 percentage points or
less of the estimate itself, unless otherwise noted. When estimating
compliance with certain of the elements we examined, we base our
estimate on a one-sided 95 percent confidence interval to generate a
conservative estimate of either the minimum or maximum percentage of
reports in the population exhibiting the characteristic.
We contacted all the lobbyists and lobbying firms in our sample and
asked them to provide support for key elements in their reports,
including:
* the amount of income reported for lobbying activities,
* the amount of expenses reported on lobbying activities,
* the names of those lobbyists listed in the report,
* the houses of Congress and federal agencies that they lobbied, and:
* the issue codes that they had lobbied.
In addition, we determined whether each individual lobbyist listed on
the LD-2 report had filed a semiannual LD-203 report.
Prior to interviewing lobbyists about each LD-2 report in our sample,
we conducted an open-source search to determine whether each lobbyist
listed on the report appeared to have held a covered official position
required to be disclosed. For lobbyists registered prior to January 1,
2008, covered official positions held within 2 years of the date of
the report must be disclosed; this period was extended to 20 years for
lobbyists who registered on or after January 1, 2008. Lobbyists are
required to disclose covered official positions on either the client
registration (LD-1) or on the first LD-2 report for a specific client,
and consequently those who had held covered official positions may
have disclosed the information on a LD-2 report filed prior to the
report we examined as part of our random sample. To identify likely
covered official positions, we examined lobbying firms' Web sites and
conducted extensive open-source search of Leadership Directories,
Who's Who in American Politics, and U.S. newspapers through Nexis for
lobbyists' names and variations on their names. We then examined the
current LD-2 report under review, prior LD-2 reports, and the client
registration to determine if the identified covered positions were
disclosed properly. Finally, we asked lobbying firms and organizations
about each lobbyist listed on the LD-2 report that we had identified
as having a previous covered official position that we had not found
disclosure of to determine whether covered official positions had been
appropriately disclosed or whether there was some other acceptable
reason for the omission (such as having been disclosed on an earlier
registration or LD-2 report). Despite our rigorous search protocol, it
is possible that our search failed to identify omitted reports of
covered official positions. Thus, our estimate of the proportion of
reports with lobbyists who failed to appropriately disclose covered
official positions is a lower-bound estimate of the minimum proportion
of reports that failed to report such positions.
In addition to examining the content of LD-2 reports, we confirmed
whether year-end 2009 and midyear 2010 LD-203 reports had been filed
for each firm and lobbyist listed on the LD-2 reports in our random
sample. Although this review represents a random selection of
lobbyists and firms, it is not a direct probability sample of firms
filing LD-2 reports or lobbyists listed on LD-2 reports. As such, we
did not estimate the likelihood that LD-203 reports were appropriately
filed for the population of firms or lobbyists listed on LD-2 reports.
To determine if the LDA's requirement for registrants to file a report
in the quarter of registration was met for the fourth quarter of 2009
and the first, second, and third quarters of 2010, we used data filed
with the Clerk of the House to match newly filed registrations with
corresponding disclosure reports. Using direct matching and text and
pattern matching procedures, we were able to identify matching
disclosure reports for 4,132 of the 4,553, or 90.8 percent, of newly
filed registrations. We began by standardizing client and registrant
names in both the report and registration files (including removing
punctuation and standardizing words and abbreviations such as "Company
and CO"). We then matched reports and registrations using the House
identification number (which is linked to a unique registrant-client
pair), as well as the names of the registrant and client. For reports
we could not match by identification number and standardized name, we
also attempted to match reports and registrations by client and
registrant name, allowing for variations in the names to accommodate
minor misspellings or typos. We could not readily identify matches in
the report database for the remaining registrations using electronic
means.
To assess the accuracy of the LD-203 reports, we analyzed two
stratified random samples of LD-203 reports from the 32,893 total LD-
203 reports. The first sample contains 80 reports of the 10,956
reports with political contributions and the second contains 80
reports of the 21,937 reports listing no contributions. Each sample
contains 40 reports from the year-end 2009 filing period and 40
reports from the midyear 2010 filing period. The samples allow us to
generalize estimates in this report to either the population of LD-203
reports with contributions or the reports without contributions to
within a 95 percent confidence interval of plus or minus 7.1
percentage points or less, and to within 3.5 percentage points of the
estimate when analyzing both samples together. We analyzed the
contents of the LD-203 reports and compared them to contribution data
found in the publicly available Federal Elections Commission's (FEC)
political contribution database. For our fiscal year 2009 report, we
interviewed staff at the FEC responsible for administering the
database and determined that the data reliability is suitable for the
purpose of confirming whether a FEC-reportable disclosure listed in
the FEC database had been reported on an LD-203.
We compared the FEC-reportable contributions reported on the LD-203
reports with information in the FEC database. The verification process
required text and pattern matching procedures, and we used
professional judgment when assessing whether an individual listed is
the same individual filing an LD-203. For contributions reported in
the FEC database and not on the LD-203, we asked the lobbyists or
organizations to provide an explanation of why the contribution was
not listed on the LD-203 report or to provide documentation of those
contributions. As with covered positions on LD-2 disclosure reports,
we cannot be certain that our review identified all cases of FEC-
reportable contributions that were inappropriately omitted from a
lobbyist's LD-203 report. We did not estimate the percent of other non-
FEC political contributions that were omitted (such as honoraria, or
gifts to presidential libraries).
We obtained views from lobbyists included in our sample of reports on
any challenges to compliance.
To describe the processes used by the Office in following up on
referrals from the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House,
data reliability in the Office's tracking system for referrals, and to
provide information on the resources and authorities used by the
Office in its role in enforcing compliance with the LDA, we
interviewed officials from the Office and obtained information on the
capabilities of the system they established to track and report
compliance trends and referrals and other practices they have
established to focus resources on enforcement of the LDA; the extent
to which they have implemented data reliability checks into their
tracking system; and the level of staffing and resources dedicated to
lobbying disclosure enforcement. The Office provided us with reports
from the tracking system on the number and status of cases referred,
pending, and resolved.
The mandate does not include identifying lobbyists who failed to
register and report in accordance with LDA requirements, or whether
for those lobbyists that did register and report all lobbying activity
or contributions were disclosed. We conducted this performance audit
from April 2010 through March 2011 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that
we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate
evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: List of Registrants and Clients for Sampled Lobbying
Disclosure Reports:
The random sample of lobbying disclosure reports we selected was based
on unique combinations of registrant lobbyists and client names (see
table 3).
Table 3: Names of Registrants and Clients Selected in Random Sample of
Lobbying Disclosure Reports Filed in the Last Quarter of 2009 and
First Three Quarters of 2010:
Registrant name: American Coalition for Ethanol;
Client: American Coalition for Ethanol.
Registrant name: American Continental Group;
Client: Siemens Corporations.
Registrant name: American Lung Association;
Client: American Lung Association.
Registrant name: American National Red Cross;
Client: American National Red Cross.
Registrant name: American Network of Community Options & Resources;
Client: American Network of Community Options & Resources.
Registrant name: American Public Transportation Association;
Client: American Public Transportation Association.
Registrant name: Assurant, Inc.;
Client: Assurant, Inc.
Registrant name: Barnes & Thornburg LLP;
Client: Town of Fishers.
Registrant name: Beacon Consulting Group;
Client: Boston Architectural College.
Registrant name: Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP;
Client: Westwood College.
Registrant name: Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP;
Client: Z-Medica.
Registrant name: Bryan Cave LLP;
Client: Polimaster, Inc.
Registrant name: Building & Construction Trades Dept, AFL-CIO;
Client: Building & Construction Trades Dept, AFL-CIO.
Registrant name: C2 Group, LLC;
Client: General Electric.
Registrant name: Capital Partnerships (VA) Inc.;
Client: Taxicab, Limousine & Paratransit Association.
Registrant name: Capitol Resources LLC;
Client: Greater Jackson Chamber Partnership.
Registrant name: Cardinal Point Partners;
Client: Middlesex Community College.
Registrant name: Cauthen Forbes & Williams;
Client: United Health Group, Inc.
Registrant name: CBS Corporation;
Client: CBS Corporation.
Registrant name: CLMM & Associates;
Client: Cerberus Capital Management.
Registrant name: Communicating for America;
Client: Communicating for America.
Registrant name: Concerned Women for America Legislative Action
Committee;
Client: Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee.
Registrant name: Crowell & Moring LLP;
Client: The Dow Chemical Company.
Registrant name: DeBrunner & Associates, Inc.;
Client: Monongahela Valley Hospital.
Registrant name: Dutko Worldwide LLC;
Client: Coalition to Advance Healthcare Reform.
Registrant name: Edward D. Heffernan, Esq.;
Client: DePaul University.
Registrant name: Energy Future Holdings (formerly TXU Electric
Delivery);
Client: Energy Future Holdings (formerly TXU Electric Delivery).
Registrant name: Eris Group (formerly known as Bartlett, Bendall &
Kadesh, LLC);
Client: NBC-Universal.
Registrant name: Ernst & Young LLP (Washington Council Ernst & Young);
Client: Covidien.
Registrant name: Etherton and Associates, Inc.;
Client: General Dynamics Corporation.
Registrant name: Federal Strategy Group;
Client: Microsoft Corporation.
Registrant name: Federation of American Hospitals;
Client: Federation of American Hospitals.
Registrant name: Ferguson Group;
Client: Cary-NC, Town of.
Registrant name: Fisher Consulting;
Client: Ball State University.
Registrant name: Groom Law Group, Chartered;
Client: Investment Company Institute.
Registrant name: Groom Law Group, Chartered;
Client: Microsoft Corporation.
Registrant name: Hogan Lovells f/k/a Hogan & Hartson LLP;
Client: Pharmathene.
Registrant name: Holland & Knight LLP;
Client: Global Green USA.
Registrant name: Holland & Knight LLP;
Client: League of California Cities.
Registrant name: Holland & Knight LLP;
Client: Visual Awareness Technologies and Consulting.
Registrant name: Innovative Federal Strategies LLC;
Client: Advatech Pacific, Inc.
Registrant name: Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre;
Client: Association of Catastrophe Adjusters.
Registrant name: K&L Gates LLP;
Client: International Housing Coalition.
Registrant name: Kountoupes Consulting LLC;
Client: The Weidt Group.
Registrant name: Land Trust Alliance;
Client: Land Trust Alliance.
Registrant name: League of Conservation Voters;
Client: League of Conservation Voters.
Registrant name: Liebman & Associates, Inc.;
Client: Lineage Power.
Registrant name: Lupus Foundation of America;
Client: Lupus Foundation of America.
Registrant name: Markley and Company;
Client: Kotzebue Electric Association.
Registrant name: Mayer Brown LLP;
Client: Asurion Corporation.
Registrant name: McAllister & Quinn LLC;
Client: Childhelp.
Registrant name: McAllister & Quinn LLC;
Client: Norfolk Southern Corporation.
Registrant name: Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti, Inc.;
Client: Electronic Retailing Association.
Registrant name: Missouri Hospital Association;
Client: Missouri Hospital Association.
Registrant name: National Association of Federal Credit Unions;
Client: National Association of Federal Credit Unions.
Registrant name: National Corn Growers Association;
Client: National Corn Growers Association.
Registrant name: National Group LLP;
Client: San Mateo County Sheriff's Department.
Registrant name: New York Life Insurance Company;
Client: New York Life Insurance Company.
Registrant name: O'Brien & Associates LLC;
Client: Kidsave International Inc.
Registrant name: Olsson Frank Weeda Terman Bode Matz PC;
Client: National Meat Association.
Registrant name: Olsson Frank Weeda Terman Bode Matz PC;
Client: Pixius Communication, LLC.
Registrant name: Patton Boggs LLP;
Client: Goodwill Industries of Northern Iowa, Inc.
Registrant name: Patton Boggs LLP;
Client: Legg Mason, Inc.
Registrant name: Patton Boggs LLP;
Client: St. Thomas Aquinas College.
Registrant name: Perkins Coie LLP;
Client: Dragonslayer, Inc.
Registrant name: Petrizzo Strategic Group, Inc.;
Client: Allen Institute for Brain Science.
Registrant name: Podesta Group, Inc.;
Client: AMGEN.
Registrant name: Podesta Group, Inc.;
Client: Coeur d'Alene Mines Corporation.
Registrant name: Podesta Group, Inc.;
Client: Sunoco.
Registrant name: Public Strategies Washington;
Client: Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Registrant name: Quinn Gillespie & Associates;
Client: Cayman Finance.
Registrant name: Richard Innes;
Client: The Nature Conservancy.
Registrant name: RM2 Consultants, Inc.;
Client: Mercer Engineering Research Center.
Registrant name: Robert H. Lamb, PLLC;
Client: Biotechnology Industry Organization.
Registrant name: Save Darfur Coalition;
Client: Save Darfur Coalition.
Registrant name: Schumacher Partners International LLC;
Client: Roberts Wesleyan College.
Registrant name: Smiths Detection, Inc.;
Client: Smiths Detection, Inc.
Registrant name: Snack Food Association;
Client: Snack Food Association.
Registrant name: SRG & Associates;
Client: Warren Corporation.
Registrant name: Strategic Health Care;
Client: MRSSI, Inc.
Registrant name: Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP;
Client: Vincennes University.
Registrant name: TCH Group, LLC;
Client: City of Charleston, SC.
Registrant name: The Accord Group;
Client: Southern Company.
Registrant name: The Glover Park Group LLC;
Client: Rockefeller Family Fund.
Registrant name: The Kate Moss Company;
Client: Medco Health Solutions, Inc.
Registrant name: The Livingston Group LLC;
Client: Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company.
Registrant name: The Mitchell Firm, Inc.;
Client: Church of Scientology International.
Registrant name: The Raben Group;
Client: General Electric.
Registrant name: The Rhoads Group;
Client: Actus Lend Lease LLC.
Registrant name: University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey;
Client: University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey.
Registrant name: Van Scoyoc Associates;
Client: City of Dana Point, California.
Registrant name: Van Scoyoc Associates;
Client: DRS Technologies.
Registrant name: Van Scoyoc Associates;
Client: Martin County, Florida.
Registrant name: Washington Alliance Group, Inc.;
Client: Southwest Research Institute.
Registrant name: Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates;
Client: American Science & Engineering, Inc.
Registrant name: Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates;
Client: Wight & Company.
Registrant name: White & Case LLP;
Client: Employee-Owned S Corporations of America.
Registrant name: Winning Strategies Washington;
Client: Cablevision.
Registrant name: Winning Strategies Washington;
Client: Viaero Wireless.
Registrant name: World Shipping Council;
Client: World Shipping Council.
Source: Lobbying disclosure database of the Clerk of the House of
Representatives, last quarter of calendar year 2009 and first three
quarters of calendar year 2010.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Full List of Sampled Lobbying Contribution Reports with
Contributions and No Contributions Listed:
See table 4 for a list of lobbyists and lobbying firms from our random
sample of lobbying contribution reports with contributions. See table
5 for a list of lobbyists and lobbying firms from our random sample of
lobbying contribution reports without contributions.
Table 4: Lobbyists and Lobbying Firms Selected in Random Sample of
Lobbying Contribution Reports with Contributions Listed, Filed Year-
end 2009 and Midyear 2010:
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Advanced Medical Technology Association;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Akerman Senterfitt;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Alan Mintz;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: American College of Surgeons Professional
Association;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: American Farm Bureau Federation;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: American Hospital Association;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: American Meat Institute;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Andrea King;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Andrew Howell;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Andrew Solomon;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Barfield Associates;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Bradley Kading;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Caitlin Donovan;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Cary Sherman;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Chad Lord;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Charles Knauss;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Christina West;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Cigar Association of America, Inc.;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Consol Energy, Inc;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Danea Kehoe;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Daryl Buffenstein;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: David Abernethy;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: David Thompson;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Diane Newberg;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Duane Gibson;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Elizabeth Greer;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Geoffrey Peterson;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Gordon Robertson;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Gregg Hartley;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Hach Company/Danaher Corporation;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Hunter Johnston;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: International Association of Amusement
Parks & Attractions;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Jack Pettus;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: James McConnell;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Jay Truitt;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Jeff Markey;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Jennifer Blum;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Jessica Malow;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Joel Freedman;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: John Killeen;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: John Ladd;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Julie Dammann;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Katharine Leeson;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Kenneth Carpi;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Kutak Rock LLP;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Langston Emerson;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Laura McNeill;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Lisa Sutherland;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Lloyd Lawrence;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Lydia Hofer;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Lynn Cutler;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Matthew Miller;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Matthew Schlapp;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Melissa Hart;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Michael McAdams;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Multiple Strategies LLC;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: NAADAC The Association for Addiction
Professionals;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: National Association of Postmasters of the
United States;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: New York Farm Bureau, Inc.;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Nicole Venable;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Peter Jacoby;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Peter Peyser;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Philip Baker-Shenk;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Philip Bechtel;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Portland Cement Association;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Rita Norton;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Robert Juliano;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Sarah Venuto;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Shawn Edwards;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Stephen Richer;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Steven Pines;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Susann Edwards;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: The Outlaw Group;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Theodore Okon;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Tiffany Moore;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: TREA Senior Citizens League;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Tribune Company;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: University of Southern California;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Source: Lobbying contributions database of the Clerk of the House of
Representatives, year-end reports for calendar year 2009 and midyear
reports for calendar year 2010.
[End of table]
Table 5: Lobbyists and Lobbying Firms Selected in Random Sample of
Lobbying Contribution Reports with No Contributions Listed, Filed Year-
end 2009 and Midyear 2010:
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Adam Salina;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Alex Oehler;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Alliance of Community Health Plans, Inc.;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: American Association of Port Authorities;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: American Library Association;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Andreas Karellas;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Andrew Futey;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Anthony Lakavage;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Arizona Wheat Growers Association;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Ashli Douglas;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Benjamin Rogers;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Blake Ortner;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Bonnie Hogue Duffy;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Bradley Peganoff;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Business Coalition for U.S. Central America
Trade;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Candace Bartlett;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Carolyn Osolinik;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Casey Morgan;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Catholic Health East;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Cedric Sheridan;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Ceres, Inc.;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Chad Wolf;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Consumer Federation of America;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Cristina Finch;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Dan Lavey;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: David Bauer;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: David Shoultz;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Debbie Weatherly;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Donna Denison;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Eric Hsieh;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Eugene Miller;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Gene Lange;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Gordon Merritt;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Graham Steele;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Greg Billings;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Hank Monsees;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Jason Scull;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Jennifer Pollakusky;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Jesseca Boyer;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Jessica Mandel;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Jim Ferguson;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Joann Volk;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Joseph Crea;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Julie Nissenbaum;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Kamala Lyon;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Kia Motors Corporation;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Kristen Michal;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Lawrence Cain;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Lisa Colangelo;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Lisa Rickard;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Maureen Hardwick;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Melissa Dupree;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Meyers and Associates;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Michael Barbera;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Michelle Koroghlanian;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Montana Farm Bureau Federation;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Oldaker Group, LLC;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Paul Carothers;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Paul Marcone and Associates, LLC;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Peter Perkins;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Richard Smith;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Robin Phillips;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Ropes & Gray, LLP;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: RPI Group, Inc.;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Russ Reid Company;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Ruth Bahe-Jachna;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Ryan Vaart;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Seth Radus;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Seth Voyles;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Shari Brown;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Solvay North America;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Stapleton & Associates, LLC;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Stephanie Childs;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Stephen DeWitt;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Steven Carter;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Steven Radke;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Stewart Simonson;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Susan Frost;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: The Walcott Group;
Reporting period: Year-end 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: W Strategies, LLC;
Reporting period: Midyear 2010.
Source: Lobbying contributions database of the Clerk of the House of
Representatives, year-end reports for calendar year 2009 and midyear
reports for calendar year 2010.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
J. Christopher Mihm, (202) 512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contacts named above, Robert Cramer, Associate
General Counsel; Bill Reinsberg, Assistant Director; Shirley Jones,
Assistant General Counsel; Crystal Bernard; Amy Bowser; Anna Maria
Ortiz; Melanie Papasian; Katrina Taylor; Megan Taylor; and Greg
Wilmoth made key contributions to this report.
Assisting with lobbyist file reviews and interviews were Sarah Arnett,
Sandra Beattie, Colleen Candrl, Irina Carnevale, Jeffrey DeMarco,
Nicole Dery, Shannon Finnegan, Robert Gebhart, Meredith Graves, Lauren
Grossman, Amanda Harris, Lois Hanshaw, Angela Leventis, Blake Luna,
Patricia MacWilliams, Stacy Ann Spence, Jonathan Stehle, and Daniel
Webb.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. No. 110-81, 121 Stat. 735 (Sept. 14, 2007).
[2] Pub. L. No. 104-65, 109 Stat. 691 (Dec. 19, 1995) (2 U.S.C. §§
1601-1614).
[3] 2 U.S.C. § 1614.
[4] Although we contacted each lobbying firm in our sample, we did not
always meet with the lobbyists identified as the point of contact or
the actual lobbyists. For the purposes of our review, we use the term
"lobbyists" to refer to lobbyists, lobbying firms, and individuals
representing the lobbyists that were present during the review.
[5] Lobbying activities include not only direct lobbying contacts but
efforts in support of such contacts, such as preparation and planning
activities, research, and other background work that is intended for
use in contacts.
[6] 2 U.S.C. § 1602(10).
[7] 2 U.S.C. § 1602(9).
[8] Organizations employing in-house lobbyists file only one
registration. An organization is exempt from filing if total expenses
in connection with lobbying activities are not expected to exceed
$11,500.
[9] The LDA defines a covered executive branch official as the
President, Vice President, an officer or employee, or any other
individual functioning in the capacity of such an officer or employee,
of the Executive Office of the President, an officer or employee
serving in levels I-V of the Executive Schedule, members of the
uniformed services whose pay grade is at or above O-7, and any officer
or employee serving in a position of a confidential, policy-
determining, policymaking, or policy-advocating character who is
excepted from competitive service as determined by the Office of
Personnel Management (commonly called Schedule C employees). The LDA
defines a covered legislative branch official as a member of Congress,
an elected officer of either house of Congress, or any employee or any
other individual functioning in the capacity of an employee of a
member, a committee of either House of Congress, the leadership staff
of either House of Congress, a joint committee of Congress, or a
working group or caucus organized to provide legislative services or
other assistance to members. 2 U.S.C. § 1602(3), (4).
[10] GAO, 2009 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists'
Compliance with Disclosure Requirements, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-499] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 1,
2010); GAO, 2008 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists'
Compliance with Disclosure Requirements, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-487] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 1,
2009); and GAO, Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists'
Compliance with New Disclosure Requirements, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1099] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30,
2008).
[11] Our sample is only one of a large number of samples that we might
have drawn. Because each sample could have provided different
estimates, we express our confidence in the precision of our estimate
as a 95 percent confidence interval. This is the interval that would
contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples we
could have drawn. Unless otherwise stated, all percent estimates have
a maximum 95 percent confidence interval of within 10.0 percentage
points or less of the estimate.
[12] Eight lobbyists underreported lobbying income or expenses on the
LD-2 report by at least $10,000, and five lobbyists overreported
lobbying income or expenses on the LD-2 report by at least $10,000.
[13] Lobbyists are expected to provide a good faith estimate on the LD-
2 of income and expenses reported rounded to the nearest $10,000. Our
estimate of the number of reports with rounding errors includes
reports that disclosed the exact amount of income from or expenditures
on lobbying activities, but failed to round to the nearest $10,000 as
required.
[14] As part of our LD-2 report review, we checked the House database
to ensure that each lobbyist and organization listed on the LD-2
report filed an LD-203 report during the reporting period.
[15] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-499].
[16] The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is plus or
minus 13.7 percentage points.
[17] Guidance issued by the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of
the House of Representatives instructs lobbyists that they are only
required to disclose covered positions on the first filing.
[18] Prior to each review, we used open source search techniques to
identify lobbyists on each report who may have held a covered official
position. Additionally, where a covered official position was found
during our open source search, we conducted an additional review of
the publicly available Secretary of the Senate or Clerk of the House
database to determine whether the covered official position was
disclosed on the registration or a prior LD-2 report.
[19] We did not estimate the percent of other non-FEC political
contributions that were omitted (such as honoraria, or gifts to
presidential libraries).
[20] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-499], [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-487].
[21] Although the quantitative results from lobbyists in our sample of
LD-2 reports are generalizable to all LD-2 reports, the qualitative
results are not generalizable because our sample was designed to
develop population estimates of the accuracy of information on LD-2
reports and was not designed to estimate the opinions of lobbyists.
[22] During several interviews, lobbyists did not identify challenges
when asked initially; however, they later identified challenges when
providing overall comments at the end of the interview.
[23] [3] Although referral and other compliance data provided by the
Office may not be completely accurate, the magnitude of the errors we
found were small. Therefore, we have determined that the data were
sufficiently reliable for purposes of our review to provide a useful
overview of the Office's compliance efforts.
[24] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1099].
[25] These 17 staff include a civil chief, two deputy chiefs, three
civil enforcement attorneys, one civil enforcement investigator, three
paralegals, one support staff manager, four docket information input
clerks, and two student interns.
[26] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-499], and
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-487].
[27] LD-2 activity reports with "no lobbying issue activity" and
reports with less than $5,000 in reported income or expenses are
filtered out because they do not contain verifiable information on
income, expenses, or activity.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
