This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-499
entitled '2009 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists'
Compliance with Disclosure Requirements' which was released on April
1, 2010.
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.
Report to Congressional Addressees:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
April 2010:
2009 Lobbying Disclosure:
Observations on Lobbyists' Compliance with Disclosure Requirements:
GAO-10-499:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-10-499, a report to congressional addressees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 amended the
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (LDA). This is GAO’s third report in
response to the LDA’s requirement for GAO to annually (1) determine
the extent to which lobbyists can demonstrate compliance with the LDA
by providing support for information on their registrations and
reports, (2) identify challenges and potential improvements to
compliance for registered lobbyists, and (3) describe the efforts the
U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia (the Office) has
made to improve its enforcement of the LDA. GAO reviewed a random
sample of 134 lobbying disclosure reports filed from the fourth
quarter of calendar year 2008 through the third quarter of calendar
year 2009. GAO also selected two random samples of federal political
campaign contributions reports from year-end 2008 through midyear
2009. GAO sampled 100 reports listing contributions and 100 reports
listing no contributions. This methodology allowed GAO to generalize
to the population of 53,756 disclosure reports, 10,928 contributions
reports, and 22,572 reports with no contributions. GAO also met with
officials from the Office regarding efforts to focus resources on
lobbyists who fail to comply with the LDA.
What GAO Found:
While there are no specific requirements for lobbyists to create or
maintain documentation related to disclosure reports they file under
the LDA, GAO’s review showed that lobbyists were generally able to
provide documentation, although in varying degrees, to support items
in their disclosure reports. This finding is similar to GAO’s results
from last year’s review.
For income and expenses, two key elements of the reports, GAO
estimates that lobbyists could provide written documentation for
approximately 89 percent of the disclosure reports. After GAO’s
review, 15 lobbyists stated that they planned to amend their
disclosure reports to make corrections on one or more data elements.
As of March 18, 2010, 7 of the 15 amended their disclosure reports to
make these corrections.
For political contribution reports, GAO estimates that 82 percent of
the reports listing contributions could be supported by Federal
Elections Commission (FEC) data or documentation provided by
lobbyists. Among reports with no contributions listed, an estimated
minimum of 3 percent of reports omitted one or more contributions that
should have been reported. All of the lobbyists said that they did not
report the information listed in the FEC database because of an
oversight and plan to amend their reports.
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 2008 and first three quarters of 2009 filed required
disclosure reports for the period. GAO could not identify
corresponding reports on file for lobbying activity for about 11
percent of the registrants, likely because either reports were not
filed or the reports that were filed contained information, such as
client names, that did not match the registrations. The Secretary of
the Senate and Clerk of the House routinely review the completeness of
registrations and reports and follow up with lobbyists.
Most lobbyists felt that existing guidance for filing required
registrations and reports was sufficient. However, GAO’s review of
documentation and lobbyists’ statements indicates some opportunities
to strengthen lobbyists’ understanding of the requirements. The
Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House update guidance
periodically to respond to issues and comments as they arise.
In response to an earlier GAO recommendation, the Office developed a
system to help monitor and track enforcement efforts. The Office
continues to refine the system to meet the requirements conveyed in GAO’
s recommendation. To enforce compliance, the Office primarily focuses
on sending letters to lobbyists who potentially violated the LDA by
not filing disclosure reports. No civil actions or settlements with
lobbyists have been pursued by the Office since 2005, although it is
following up on hundreds of referrals each year.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-499] or key
components. For more information, contact Laurie Ekstrand at (202) 512-
6845 or ekstrandl@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Documentation Supporting Reporting Requirements Varied:
Some Lobbyists Continue to Report Challenges in Complying with the LDA:
The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia Continues to
Make Progress on Focusing Resources to Track and Enforce Lobbying
Disclosure Compliance:
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 with No Contributions Listed:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: LD-203 Reports Sampled Including All Information, and LD-203
Reports Missing Contributions:
Table 2: LD-2 Lobbying Referrals Received from the Secretary of the
Senate and Clerk of the House of Representatives for the 2007
Semiannual Reporting Periods and the U.S. Attorney's Office
Noncompliance Letters Sent as a Result:
Table 3: LD-2 Lobbying Referrals Received from the Secretary of the
Senate and Clerk of the House of Representatives for the 2008 and 2009
Quarterly Reporting Periods and the U.S. Attorneys Office
Noncompliance Letters Sent as a Result (as of March 26, 2010):
Table 4: LD-203 Report Referrals Received from the Secretary of the
Senate and Clerk of the House of Representatives for the 2008 and
Midyear 2009 Reporting Periods (as of March 17, 2010):
Table 5: Status of Enforcement Actions Resulting from LD-2
Noncompliance Letters Sent to Lobbyists from the U.S. Attorney's
Office (as of March 26, 2010):
Table 6: Names of Registrants and Clients Selected in Random Sample of
Lobbying Disclosure Reports Filed in the Last Quarter of 2008 and
First Three Quarters of 2009:
Table 7: Lobbyists and Lobbying Firms Selected in Random Sample of
Lobbying Contribution Reports with Contributions Listed, Filed Year-
end 2008 and Midyear 2009:
Table 8: Lobbyists and Lobbying Firms Selected in Random Sample of
Lobbying Contribution Reports with No Contributions Listed, Filed Year-
end 2008 and Midyear 2009:
Abbreviations:
DOJ: Department of Justice:
FEC: Federal Elections Commission:
HLOGA: Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007:
LDA: Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995:
PAC: political action committee:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
April 1, 2010:
Congressional Addressees:
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] signed into law on September 14, 2007, amended the
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (LDA)[Footnote 2] by doubling the
frequency of lobbyists' reporting from semiannually to quarterly,
increasing civil penalties, and adding criminal penalties. The LDA as
amended requires GAO to audit the extent of lobbyists' compliance with
the requirements of the LDA by reviewing a random sampling of publicly
available lobbying registrations and reports filed during each
calendar year. GAO's report must also include recommendations related
to improving lobbyists' compliance with the LDA and report on
resources and authorities available to the Department of Justice for
effective enforcement of the LDA. This is GAO's third 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 by
providing support for information on registrations and reports filed
under the LDA; (2) identify challenges and potential improvements to
compliance for lobbyists, lobbying firms, and registrants; and (3)
describe the efforts the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of
Columbia (the Office) has made to improve its enforcement of the LDA,
including identifying trends in past lobbying disclosure compliance.
To respond to the audit requirements in HLOGA, we did the following:
* Selected a random sample of 134 quarterly lobbying activity
disclosure reports (commonly referred to as LD-2 reports) with income
and expenses of $5,000 or more filed by lobbyists during the fourth
quarter of calendar year 2008 and the first, second, and third
quarters of calendar year 2009 from a total of 53,756 activity reports
filed for those quarters. 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 in our sample by sending a letter by e-mail
describing our review and 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, 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 2008 and midyear 2009
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 100 LD-203 reports selected from a total of 10,928 reports
that have contributions listed, and the second sample contains 100 LD-
203 reports selected from a total of 22,572 reports 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 LD-203 report could
not be confirmed by information reported in the FEC database, either
because the data did not match or the contribution was not required to
be disclosed to the FEC, 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 2008 and the first three quarters of 2009 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 after registering.
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 and how the
challenges might be addressed.
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 results of their new system to track past
compliance trends and referrals and other practices they have
established to focus resources on enforcement of the LDA.
Our objectives did 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 2009 to March 2010 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 the HLOGA, requires lobbyists to register with
the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House and file
quarterly reports disclosing their activities. No specific
requirements exist for lobbyists to create or maintain documentation
in support of the registrations or reports they file. Under the LDA,
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. The LDA also provides that
registrations and reports must be available in downloadable,
searchable databases from the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of
the House.
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 3] represent at least 20 percent of the
time that he or she spends on behalf of the client during the quarter.
[Footnote 4] 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 5]
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 over $3,000 in income from that client for
lobbying activities.[Footnote 6] Lobbyists are also required to submit
a quarterly report, 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;[Footnote 7]
* the name of and further information about the client, including a
general description of its business or activities;
* information on the general issue area and specific lobbying issues;
* any foreign entities that have an interest in the client;
* the client's status as 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 also requires lobbyists to report certain contributions
semiannually in the contributions report, or 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. The lobbyists or
organizations must also report contributions made to presidential
library foundations and presidential inaugural committees. In
addition, the lobbyists or organizations must 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. Finally, the LD-203 report requires lobbyists
or organizations to 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. Each
individual lobbyist and organization must file a LD-203 report each
period and certify compliance with the gift and travel rules, even if
there are no contributions to report.
The Office is responsible for the enforcement of the LDA. The Office
fulfills its administrative responsibilities by researching and
responding to referrals of noncomplying lobbyists submitted by the
Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House. The Office sends
additional noncompliance notices to the lobbyists, requesting that the
lobbyists file reports or correct reported information. The Office
also has the authority to pursue a civil or criminal case for
noncompliance.
An electronic system has been developed and implemented in response to
a recommendation in our prior report,[Footnote 8] specifically to
address issues we raised regarding the tracking, analysis, and
reporting of enforcement activities for lobbyists who were referred to
the Office for failure to comply. The officials said that the new
system is designed to provide a more structured approach for assigning
resources and to better focus lobbying disclosure compliance
enforcement efforts. The new system is intended to track and record
enforcement activities, record the status and disposition of
lobbyists' cases, provide automated alerts to ensure timely follow-up
and monitoring, provide the ability to track those who continually
fail to comply with the LDA, and use data to report statistical trends
to track the effectiveness of enforcement activities.
Documentation Supporting Reporting Requirements Varied:
Neither the LDA nor guidance requires lobbyists to maintain records or
documentation to support information disclosed in their reports.
However, similar to our findings in last year's review,[Footnote 9]
most lobbyists reporting $5,000 or more in income or expenses were
able to provide written support for certain elements of individual
activity reports we examined. For example, most lobbyists were able to
provide documentation to support income or expenses related elements
of their reports. We estimate that lobbyists could provide written
documentation for income or expenses for an estimated 88 percent of
the disclosure reports for the fourth quarter of 2008 and the first
three quarters of 2009.[Footnote 10] Lobbyists for all but 11 of the
112 reports that we reviewed from our sample that reported income and
all but 5 of the 22 sampled reports with lobbying expenses provided
some form of documentation for the dollar amounts reported. The most
common form of income documentation provided was invoices (an
estimated 68 percent of all reports with income), followed by
contracts (an estimated 24 percent of all reports with income). Also,
we estimate that lobbying firms were able to provide documentation
that all lobbyists listed on the disclosure report were employed as
lobbyists at the lobbying firm during the reporting period for an
estimated 89 percent of reports that required this information.
More than half of lobbyists in our sample were able to provide
documentation to support all of the entities they reportedly lobbied
during the reporting period. Lobbyists are required to disclose if
they lobbied covered officials at the House of Representatives, the
Senate, one or more executive branch agencies, or a combination of
these entities. For close to three quarters of reports disclosing
House or Senate lobbying activity (an estimated 70 percent), lobbyists
had documentation to support the House and Senate lobbying contacts
they disclosed. However, lobbyists that reported contacts with
agencies were only able to provide documentation for about half of
reports (31 of 66 reports we reviewed) to support the agency lobbying
contacts they reported in the disclosure reports. Too few reports in
our sample disclosed foreign entities, affiliated organizations, and
the names of individuals no longer acting as lobbyists to provide
reliable estimates of levels of written documentation in support of
the reports that required this information.
Lobbyists did not disclose covered official positions previously held
by individual lobbyists on at least 6 of the 131 applicable reports
[Footnote 11] we reviewed.[Footnote 12] Based on this information, we
estimate that a minimum of 2 percent of all disclosure reports fail to
fully disclose whether the individual lobbyists for a specific client
held a covered official position.[Footnote 13] Lobbyists gave several
reasons for not including previously held covered official positions,
typically indicating that they misunderstood the requirements or did
not realize the position held qualified as a covered official position.
To correct errors or omissions, 12 lobbyists amended 12 of the 134
disclosure reports in our sample prior to our review. Additionally, 15
lobbyists indicated that they planned to amend their disclosure
reports after our review. As of March 18, 2010, 7 of the 15 lobbyists
had amended their disclosure reports. Indicating that a lobbyist held
a covered official position, changing income or expense amounts, or
disclosing a foreign entity were the most commonly cited reasons for
filing amendments.
Although the LDA and guidance do not require lobbyists to maintain
records or documentation to support information disclosed in their
reports, many of the lobbyists we spoke with had systems to track
lobbying contacts and the amount of time spent on lobbying activities.
In an estimated 79 percent of reports (106 of 134 we reviewed),
lobbyists reported having a method or system in place to track
lobbying contacts and activities.[Footnote 14] We estimate that 57
percent of all reports with tracking methods monitored actual time
spent lobbying on behalf of the client as a means of tracking lobbying
activities. In addition, we estimate that meetings were tracked to
support the information in 75 percent of reports where a tracking
system was used, e-mails for 53 percent of reports where a tracking
system was used, and telephone conversations to identify and document
the work the lobbyist performed on behalf of a client for 49 percent
of reports where a tracking system was used.[Footnote 15]
As previously noted, all individual lobbyists and organizations
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.
As part of our LD-2 report analysis, 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. For an estimated
84 percent of lobbying reports where this information was required
(110 of the 131 applicable reports in our sample), the LD-203 reports
were filed as required by both the lobbyists and the lobbying firms
during the reporting periods in question.[Footnote 16] Some lobbyists
told us that the guidance on the LD-203 report was confusing. For
example, several lobbyists told us that they were confused regarding
whether to file an LD-203 report if the lobbyist or lobbying firm did
not make any political contributions during the reporting period.
Most Contribution Reports Could Be Supported by FEC Data or
Documentation:
Individual lobbyists and lobbying organizations are required to file
federal campaign and political contributions reports, even if they did
not make any contributions during the reporting period. In addition to
the brief check of LD-203 compliance listed above, we conducted a
detailed analysis of LD-203 reports, sampling 100 reports that list
contributions and 100 reports that list no contributions made during
the reporting period.[Footnote 17] Lobbyists or lobbying firms could
support all listed contributions with documentation for approximately
82 percent (82 of 100) of the contribution reports listing
contributions that we reviewed. Of the 100 contribution reports in our
sample listing no contributions, we confirmed that 97 did not have
clearly corresponding contributions listed in the FEC database during
the reporting period, while 3 (or 3 percent) of the reports we
reviewed that did not list any contributions failed to list at least
one donation that should have been disclosed. Documentation includes
data from the FEC disclosure database, canceled checks, invoices, or
letters. Table 1 shows the number of LD-203 reports with contributions
that were supported in the FEC database and LD-203 reports that were
missing contributions.
Table 1: LD-203 Reports Sampled Including All Information, and LD-203
Reports Missing Contributions:
Total sample population;
LD-203 reports sampled with contributions reported: 100;
LD-203 reports sampled with no contributions reported: 100.
Reports sampled with documentation for all listed contributions;
LD-203 reports sampled with contributions reported: 82;
LD-203 reports sampled with no contributions reported: N/A.
Reports missing contributions that appear in the FEC database;
LD-203 reports sampled with contributions reported: 18;
LD-203 reports sampled with no contributions reported: 3.
Source: GAO analysis.
Note: Each sample of 100 LD-203 reports (with contributions and
without contributions) comprises 50 reports from year end 2008 filings
and 50 reports from midyear 2009 filings.
[End of table]
Based on the 18 reports that failed to report all contributions in our
sample of reports with contributions, we estimate that at least 12
percent of all reports listing contributions are missing one or more
contributions.[Footnote 18] For example, 11 filers said that they did
not report the information we found in the FEC database because of an
oversight. Of the 18 LD-203 reports with contributions we reviewed
that failed to list at least one contribution, only 9 were missing
more than one contribution. All of the lobbyists said that they did
not report the information listed in the FEC database because of an
oversight and plan to amend the reports. Overall, we estimate that a
minimum of 5 percent of all LD-203 reports--whether they listed
contributions or not--omitted one or more donations that were required
to have been disclosed.
The Majority of New Registrants Filed Disclosure Reports as Required:
To determine whether new registrants were meeting the requirement to
file, we matched newly filed registrations in the fourth quarter of
2008 and the first, second, and third quarters of 2009 from the House
and Senate Lobbyist Disclosure Databases to their corresponding
quarter disclosure reports using an electronic matching algorithm that
allowed for misspelling and other minor inconsistencies between the
registrations and reports. Our analysis showed that of the 6,184 new
registrations we identified in fiscal year 2009, the majority (5,489
or 89 percent) had clearly corresponding disclosure reports on file,
indicating that the requirement for these lobbyists to file reports
for specific clients was generally met. We could not readily identify
corresponding reports of lobbying activity for 695 (approximately 11
percent) of the 6,184 new registrations, likely because either a
report was not filed or reports that were filed contained information,
such as client names, that did not match. The Clerk of the House and
Secretary of the Senate routinely review the completeness of
registrations and reports and follow up with lobbyists.
Some Lobbyists Continue to Report Challenges in Complying with the LDA:
Similar to our findings in prior reviews of lobbying disclosure,
[Footnote 19] some lobbyists may not fully understand the law and
therefore did not properly disclose information. Some lobbyists said
that they thought the reporting requirements were clear and the
Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House staff were helpful in
providing clarifications when needed. However, our review of
lobbyists' documentation and some lobbyists' statements highlights
areas of inconsistency in reporting information on the LD-2 report and
the LD-203 report. For example, our review identified that lobbyists
in our sample inconsistently reported "covered official positions"
previously held by individuals. As stated earlier, covered official
positions are either an elected member of either house of Congress, an
employee of a member or a committee, or certain high-level positions
in the executive branch.
Guidance published by the Clerk of the House and Secretary of the
Senate advises registrants to disclose new lobbyists who are not
listed on a client registration on the quarterly disclosure report and
include any covered executive or legislative branch official positions
the new lobbyists held within 20 years of that filing.[Footnote 20]
Several lobbyists in our sample disclosed their covered official
positions in a variety of ways. While guidance only directs filers to
list the covered official positions on forms denoting the lobbyists as
new lobbyists, in several reports in our sample lobbyists reported
covered official positions on more than one LD-2 report, even if a
lobbyist was not listed as "new." A few other lobbying firms amended
the lobbying LD-1 to include new lobbyists in addition to new or
previously undisclosed covered official positions and therefore left
subsequent quarterly disclosure reports blank. Lobbyists told us that
they were unclear about the frequency with which they had to disclose
their covered official position, specifically, whether they had to
disclose the covered official position on the LD-1, the LD-2 report,
or both. The LDA and lobbying guidance direct lobbyists to disclose
covered official positions on either the initial client registration
(LD-1) or on subsequent LD-2 quarterly reports as lobbyists are added.
In addition, some lobbyists cited difficulty determining whether the
previous positions held within the executive or legislative branches
were covered positions.
In addition, several lobbyists told us that they were unsure about
when and how to terminate lobbyists from LD-2 reports. House and
Senate guidance directs registrants to list terminated lobbyists, or
lobbyists no longer expected to act as lobbyists for a given client,
in line 23 of the LD-2 report. Several lobbyists indicated that they
were not sure if they needed to terminate a lobbyist who did not
actively lobby on behalf of a client for a given reporting period, or
if they only needed to terminate lobbyists when they were certain the
lobbyists would not lobby for the client at all in the future. The
guidance states that a lobbyist can be left off an LD-2 report
(without being terminated) if the lobbyist did not meet the LDA's
definition of lobbyist for that client in the current or next quarter.
The guidance advises that lobbyists should be terminated if the
lobbyists are no longer expected to lobby on behalf of that client in
the future, as the lobbyists job duties, assignment, or employment
status changes.
Lobbyists also told us that they found meeting the deadline for filing
disclosure reports difficult because of administrative constraints.
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 the HLOGA, the
deadline for filing disclosure reports was 45 days after the end of
each reporting period. The lobbyists cited limitations of their own
record-keeping systems and in some cases the large volume of
disclosure reports that needed to be filed as the specific reasons why
meeting the deadline was challenging.
The LDA requires the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House to
provide guidance and assistance on registration and reporting
requirements and to develop common standards, rules, and procedures
for compliance. The guidance is revised every 6 months based on
comments the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House receive.
The guidance may also be revised when issues arise as a result of
statutory and administrative responsibilities.
The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia Continues to
Make Progress on Focusing Resources to Track and Enforce Lobbying
Disclosure Compliance:
The Office fulfills its responsibility for enforcing compliance with
the LDA by researching and responding to referrals of noncomplying
lobbyists forwarded from the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of
the House. The Office reviews these referrals and sends additional
noncompliance notices to the lobbyists, when warranted, requesting
that they file reports or correct reported information. Continued
failure to comply may lead the Office to prosecute.
Officials from the Office have made progress in developing an
electronic system to address issues we raised in our prior report
regarding the tracking, analysis, and reporting of enforcement
activities. Our prior report recommended that the Office complete
efforts to develop a structured approach that would require it to
track referrals when they are made, record reasons for referrals,
record the actions taken to resolve them, and assess the results of
actions taken. The new tracking system became operational in April
2009, and officials from the Office stated that the system has
enhanced their ability to enforce lobbyists' compliance with the LDA.
The system allows officials from the Office to track referral and
enforcement actions and to monitor lobbyists who continually fail to
file the required disclosure reports.
The Office has completed entering referral data from prior years and
is continuing to update the system by inputting referral data received
from the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House. The
information is used to produce referral actions, referral summaries
and summary reports of chronic offenders who are found repeatedly out
of compliance with the LDA. Officials from the Office stated that the
system has provided easy access to reporting data since it became
operational in 2009 and has the potential to target enforcement
actions. However, the system and summary information are still being
refined and the Office has not instituted procedures to ensure data
are accurate and reliable. One such procedure may be to establish
reliability checks to ensure that data added to the system are
accurate and run system tests to ensure that there are no programming
errors. Officials from the Office stated that they recognize the
importance of establishing reliability checks and plan to institute
such assessments in the next few months.
The number of lobbyists referred to the Office has increased, as
expected, because of the LDA's new requirement to disclose federal
campaign and other political contributions by filing LD-203 reports in
addition to disclosing lobbying activity on LD-2 reports. In 2009 the
Office received referrals from both the Secretary of the Senate and
the Clerk of the House for noncompliance with reports filed for the
2007 and 2008 reporting periods. In addition, the Office received
referrals for the first three quarters of 2009 from the Secretary of
the Senate. In January 2010, the Office received referrals for
quarters one and two of the 2009 reporting period, but the data has
not been entered into the system and the numbers are not yet known. As
of March 4, 2010, the Office has not received referrals from the Clerk
of the House for the third quarter of the 2009 reporting period. The
Clerk of the House takes longer to send referrals because this office
uses different referral procedures, such as reviewing the data for
duplicate referrals before they are sent to the Office. Referrals are
not made immediately after the filing period. There is a minimum of
120 days between the end of the filing period and the date referrals
are sent because the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House
send referrals after they have reviewed their respective databases for
missing or erroneous reports, twice contacted lobbyists by letter to
inform them of the need to remedy errors or file a missing reports,
and allowed 60 days for lobbyists to respond to each letter.
The Office received a total of 368 referrals for noncompliance with
disclosure requirements from the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of
the House for the 2007 calendar year. The 2007 referrals were for LD-2
reports that were disclosed before the enactment of the HLOGA and
therefore were submitted semiannually instead of quarterly and did not
include referrals for LD-203 reports. Table 2 shows the number of LD-2
referrals received from the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the
House as well as the number of noncompliance letters the Office sent
to lobbyists as a result of these referrals. According to the Office,
the number of referrals from the Secretary of the Senate is larger
than the number from the Clerk of the House because of differences in
their referral procedures.
Table 2: LD-2 Lobbying Referrals Received from the Secretary of the
Senate and Clerk of the House of Representatives for the 2007
Semiannual Reporting Periods and the U.S. Attorney's Office
Noncompliance Letters Sent as a Result:
Reporting period (calendar year): Midyear 2007;
Number of referrals received from the Secretary of the Senate: 242;
Number of noncompliance letters sent by the U.S. Attorney's Office:
164;
Number of referrals received from the Clerk of the House: 23;
Number of noncompliance letters sent by the U.S. Attorney's Office: 12.
Reporting period (calendar year): Year-end 2007;
Number of referrals received from the Secretary of the Senate: 65;
Number of noncompliance letters sent by the U.S. Attorney's Office: 44;
Number of referrals received from the Clerk of the House: 38;
Number of noncompliance letters sent by the U.S. Attorney's Office: 21.
Source: U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia.
[End of table]
The Office received a total of 1,099 referrals from the Secretary of
the Senate and the Clerk of the House for noncompliance with the
quarterly LD-2 reporting requirements for periods after the enactment
of the HLOGA. As of March 26, 2010, the Office has received 730 LD-2
referrals for calendar year 2008 from the Secretary of the Senate and
the Clerk of the House. Additionally, the Office has received 369 LD-2
referrals for first three quarters of 2009 from the Secretary of the
Senate. As previously stated, the Office received referrals from the
Clerk of the House for the first two quarters of 2009 in January 2010,
but the data has not been entered into the system and the numbers are
not yet known. The Office has not received referrals from the Clerk of
the House for the third quarter 2009 reporting period. The Clerk of
the House takes longer to send referrals because the office uses
different referral procedures, such as reviewing the data for
duplicate referrals before they are sent to the Office. Table 3 shows
the number of referrals received from the Secretary of the Senate and
Clerk of the House as well as the number of noncompliance letters the
Office sent to lobbyists as a result of these referrals.
Table 3: LD-2 Lobbying Referrals Received from the Secretary of the
Senate and Clerk of the House of Representatives for the 2008 and 2009
Quarterly Reporting Periods and the U.S. Attorneys Office
Noncompliance Letters Sent as a Result (as of March 26, 2010):
Reporting Period (calendar year): Quarter 1, 2008;
Number of referrals received from the Secretary of the Senate: 74;
Number of noncompliance letters sent by the U.S. Attorney's Office: 40;
Number of referrals received from the Clerk of the House[A]: 51;
Number of noncompliance letters sent by the U.S. Attorney's Office: 20.
Reporting Period (calendar year): Quarter 2, 2008;
Number of referrals received from the Secretary of the Senate: 97;
Number of noncompliance letters sent by the U.S. Attorney's Office: 52;
Number of referrals received from the Clerk of the House[A]: 64;
Number of noncompliance letters sent by the U.S. Attorney's Office: 16.
Reporting Period (calendar year): Quarter 3, 2008;
Number of referrals received from the Secretary of the Senate: 130;
Number of noncompliance letters sent by the U.S. Attorney's Office: 66;
Number of referrals received from the Clerk of the House[A]: 93;
Number of noncompliance letters sent by the U.S. Attorney's Office: 32.
Reporting Period (calendar year): Quarter 4, 2008;
Number of referrals received from the Secretary of the Senate: 138;
Number of noncompliance letters sent by the U.S. Attorney's Office: 66;
Number of referrals received from the Clerk of the House[A]: 83;
Number of noncompliance letters sent by the U.S. Attorney's Office: 24.
Reporting Period (calendar year): Quarter 1, 2009;
Number of referrals received from the Secretary of the Senate: 50;
Number of noncompliance letters sent by the U.S. Attorney's Office: 23;
Number of referrals received from the Clerk of the House[A]: 0;
Number of noncompliance letters sent by the U.S. Attorney's Office: 0.
Reporting Period (calendar year): Quarter 2, 2009;
Number of referrals received from the Secretary of the Senate: 139;
Number of noncompliance letters sent by the U.S. Attorney's Office: 73;
Number of referrals received from the Clerk of the House[A]: 0;
Number of noncompliance letters sent by the U.S. Attorney's Office: 0.
Reporting Period (calendar year): Quarter 3, 2009;
Number of referrals received from the Secretary of the Senate: 180;
Number of noncompliance letters sent by the U.S. Attorney's Office: 0;
Number of referrals received from the Clerk of the House[A]: 0;
Number of noncompliance letters sent by the U.S. Attorney's Office: 0.
Source: U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia.
[A] According to the Office, the number of referrals from the
Secretary of the Senate is larger than that for the Clerk of the House
of Representatives because of differences in their referral procedures.
[End of table]
The Office has also received referrals for noncompliance with the
HLOGA requirement to file LD-203 reports. To date, the Office has
received 2,486 LD-203 noncompliance referrals for the 2008 calendar
year and 194 LD-203 noncompliance referrals for the first half of the
2009 calendar year. Officials from the Office stated that similar to
the LD-2 referrals, the number of LD-203 referrals from the Secretary
of the Senate is larger than the number from the Clerk of the House
because of differences in their referral procedures. Letters of
noncompliance with the LD-203 requirement have not been sent by the
Office. Officials from the Office stated that they plan to send the
letters for noncompliance with LD-203 reporting requirements in May
2010. Table 4 shows the number of LD-203 noncompliance referrals
received from the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House.
Table 4: LD-203 Report Referrals Received from the Secretary of the
Senate and Clerk of the House of Representatives for the 2008 and
Midyear 2009 Reporting Periods (as of March 17, 2010):
Reporting period (calendar year): Midyear 2008;
Number of referrals received from the Secretary of the Senate: 1,233;
Number of referrals received from the Clerk of the House: 43.
Reporting period (calendar year): Year-end 2008;
Number of referrals received from the Secretary of the Senate: 1,127;
Number of referrals received from the Clerk of the House: 83.
Reporting period (calendar year): Midyear 2009;
Number of referrals received from the Secretary of the Senate: 194;
Number of referrals received from the Clerk of the House: 0.
Source: U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia.
[End of table]
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. 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. In response to the 653 letters sent by the
Office in 2007, 2008, and 2009, 163 lobbyists have come into
compliance. Because there is a time lapse between when the Secretary
of the Senate and the Clerk of the House send the first contact
letters and when they make referrals to the Office, lobbyists may have
responded to the contact letters from the Secretary of the Senate and
Clerk of the House after referrals have been received by the Office.
As a result, the Office reviews the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk
of the House databases to determine whether a lobbyist has already
resolved the compliance issue before sending out its own letters. In
addition, the Office attempts to verify the lobbyist's address when
letters are returned or no response is received. Table 5 shows the
status of enforcement actions as a result of noncompliance letters the
Office sent to lobbyists.
Table 5: Status of Enforcement Actions Resulting from LD-2
Noncompliance Letters Sent to Lobbyists from the U.S. Attorney's
Office (as of March 26, 2010):
Reporting period (calendar year): Number of referrals now compliant[B];
2007: 75;
2008: 86;
2009[A]: 2.
Reporting period (calendar year): Number of referrals pending;
2007: 135;
2008: 197;
2009[A]: 92.
Reporting period (calendar year): Number of referrals with no action
taken[C];
2007: 26;
2008: 33;
2009[A]: 2.
Reporting period (calendar year): Number of referred lobbyists not
located;
2007: 5;
2008: 0;
2009[A]: 0.
Reporting period (calendar year): Total noncompliance letters sent by
the U.S. Attorney's Office;
2007: 241;
2008: 316;
2009[A]: 96.
Source: U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia.
[A] Noncompliance letters for 2009 only include those sent as a result
of referrals received from the Secretary of the Senate for the first,
second, and third quarters of 2009.
[B] Number of referrals now compliant includes lobbyists who became
compliant or terminated after/or as a result of noncompliance letters
sent by the Office.
[C] Number of referrals with no action taken includes those for
lobbyists who terminated before noncompliance letters were sent by the
Office, and lobbyists who became compliant before receiving the
noncompliance letters from the Office.
[End of table]
In our 2008 lobbying disclosure report, we noted that the Office had
settled with three lobbyists and collected civil penalties totaling
about $47,000 in 2005. All of the settled cases involved a failure to
file. Since then no additional settlements or civil actions have been
pursued, although the Office is following up on hundreds of referrals
each year. Also in our 2009 lobbying disclosure report, we reported
that the Office had identified six lobbyists whose names appeared
frequently in the referrals and sent them letters more targeted toward
repeat nonfilers. Four of these lobbyists have resolved their
noncompliance issues, and the Office continues to consider further
enforcement actions for the other two. Officials from the Office
stated that they plan to begin using information from the Chronic
Offenders Report generated by their tracking and monitoring system to
begin targeting additional repeat nonfilers in the summer.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft statement of the facts contained in this report to
the Department of Justice (DOJ) for review and comment. We met with
the Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, who on
behalf of DOJ provided us with technical comments, which we
incorporated as appropriate, but did not otherwise comment on the
report.
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 Laurie Ekstrand at (202) 512-6845 or ekstrandl@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:
Laurie Ekstrand:
Director, Strategic Issues:
List of Congressional Addressees:
The Honorable Harry M. Reid:
Majority Leader:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Mitch McConnell:
Minority Leader:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Steny H. Hoyer:
Majority Leader:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable John A. Boehner:
Minority Leader:
House of Representatives:
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 Jeff Sessions:
Ranking Member:
Committee on the Judiciary:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Charles E. Schumer:
Chairman:
The Honorable Robert F. Bennett:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Rules and Administration:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Edolphus Towns:
Chairman:
The Honorable Darrell Issa:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Chairman:
The Honorable Lamar Smith:
Ranking Member:
Committee on the Judiciary:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Robert A. Brady:
Chairman:
The Honorable Daniel E. Lungren:
Ranking Member:
Committee on House Administration:
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Consistent with the requirements of the Honest Leadership and Open
Government Act of 2007, our objectives were to:
* determine the extent to which lobbyists can demonstrate compliance
by providing support for information on registrations and reports
filed in response to requirements of the amended Lobbying Disclosure
Act of 1995 (LDA);
* identify the challenges and potential improvements to compliance by
lobbyists, lobbying firms, and registrants; and:
* describe the efforts the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of
Columbia (the Office) has made to improve its enforcement of the LDA,
including identifying trends in past lobbying disclosure compliance.
To respond to our mandate, we used information in the lobbying
disclosure databases maintained by the Secretary of the Senate and 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 through 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 told us 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. House staff told us 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 House and Senate systems
would vary substantially. While we determined that both the House and
Senate 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 2008, first three quarters of 2009,
as well as for year-end 2008 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 met 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 systematic
random sample of 134 LD-2 reports. We excluded reports with no income
or with income and expenses less than $5,000 from our sampling frame
and drew our sample from 53,756 activity reports filed for the last
quarter of 2008 and the first three quarters of 2009 available in the
public House database, as of our final download date for each quarter.
There are 3 LD-2 reports in the total sample that indicated "no
lobbying activity" but listed lobbying income for the quarter. We
conducted reviews of these reports because the income was disclosed in
accordance with LDA reporting requirements, but since "no lobbying
activity" was indicated, lobbyists were not required to provide
information for all reporting elements on the LD-2 report. Therefore,
in certain calculations these 3 reports are excluded from the sample.
Our sample is based on a systematic random selection, and it is only
one of a large number of samples that we might have drawn. We sorted
firms by the number of LD-2 reports they filed and then drew a
systematic sample of LD-2 reports to ensure that our sample contained
reports from firms of all sizes. 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 9.7 percentage points 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 lobbyists who had held covered official positions,
* the houses of Congress and federal agencies that they lobbied,
* the names of foreign entities with interest in the client,
* the names of individuals no longer acting as lobbyists for the
client, and:
* the names of any member organizations of a coalition or association
that actively participated in lobbying activities on behalf of the
client.
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 an extensive open-source search of Leadership Directories,
Who's Who in American Politics, Carroll's, and U.S. Newspapers through
Nexis and Google for lobbyists' names and variations on their names.
We then 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 to determine whether the LD-2 report
appropriately disclosed covered official positions or whether there
was some other acceptable reason for the omission (such as its 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 midyear 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 2008
and the first, second, and third quarters of 2009, 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 5,489 of the 6,184, or 89 percent, of the newly
filed registrations. We first matched reports and registrations using
both the registrant and client identification numbers. For reports we
could not match by identification number, 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 random
samples of LD-203 reports from the 33,500 total LD-203 reports. The
first sample contains 100 reports of the 10,928 reports with political
contributions and the second contains 100 reports from the 22,572
reports listing no contributions. Each sample contains 50 reports from
the year-end 2008 filing period and 50 reports from the midyear 2009
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 7.7 percentage points or less, and to within
2.9 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 the Federal
Elections Commission's (FEC) political contribution database. In our
prior 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 on an LD-203 report had, in fact, been reported to
the FEC.
We compared several factors of contributions reported on both the FEC
database and the LD-203 reports, including the number of
contributions, the dollar amount of contributions, date contributions
were made, and to whom contributions were made. We were able to
readily verify the majority of listed contributions using 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. Given
the lag time between when a lobbyist or organization might make a
contribution and when a political action committee (PAC) or campaign
might cash or report the contribution, some flexibility had to be
built into the analysis when examining the dates of entries. 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.
For FEC-reportable contributions that could not be readily matched in
the FEC database (perhaps as a result of a delays in a PAC's or
campaign's filing of the contribution or discrepancies between the
name on the LD-203 report and the name on the FEC filing), we
contacted each lobbyist to ask for documentation of the contribution.
In several cases, the contribution reported had not been processed by
the campaign or had been refunded to the donor and therefore did not
appear in a campaign's FEC filing. Additionally, we also asked
lobbyists to document reports of honorary and meeting expenses that
were not reported to the FEC. Lobbyists were able to provide
supplementary documentation for most honorary and meeting expenses, as
well as the majority of other contributions we asked about, in the
form of invoices, acknowledgment letters, and canceled checks or other
financial records.
We obtained views from lobbyists included in our sample of reports on
any challenges to compliance and how the challenges might be
addressed. To describe the process used in referring cases to the
Office 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; obtained information from
those involved in the referral process; and obtained data on the
number of cases referred, pending, and resolved.
Our objectives did 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 2009 through March 2010 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:
We used each report's filing identification number to select our
random sample of lobbying disclosure reports (see table 6). Each
identification number is linked to a unique pair of registrant and
client names.
Table 6: Names of Registrants and Clients Selected in Random Sample of
Lobbying Disclosure Reports Filed in the Last Quarter of 2008 and
First Three Quarters of 2009:
Registrant name: Aduston Consulting, LLC;
Client: National Religious Broadcasters Music License Committee.
Registrant name: Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld;
Client: Catalina Health Resource, Inc.
Registrant name: Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld;
Client: Pardee Homes.
Registrant name: Albertine Enterprises, Inc.;
Client: Energy Absorption, Inc.
Registrant name: Alcalde & Fay;
Client: Contra Costa County.
Registrant name: Alcalde & Fay;
Client: Hudson Technologies.
Registrant name: Alliance For Quality Nursing Home Care;
Client: Alliance For Quality Nursing Home Care.
Registrant name: Alston & Bird, LLP;
Client: Kestrel Enterprises, Inc. ("KEI").
Registrant name: Alston & Bird, LLP;
Client: Roche Diagnostics.
Registrant name: American Cancer Society, California Division, Inc.;
Client: American Cancer Society, California Division, Inc.
Registrant name: American Counseling Association;
Client: American Counseling Association.
Registrant name: American Defense International, Inc.;
Client: East/West Industries, Inc.
Registrant name: AMGeneral, LLC;
Client: AMGeneral, LLC.
Registrant name: Artemis Strategies;
Client: Little Planet Learning.
Registrant name: Baker & McKenzie, LLP;
Client: The Permanente Medical Group.
Registrant name: Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz;
Client: Forest General Hospital.
Registrant name: Baldwin Consulting, Inc.;
Client: Raydon.
Registrant name: Ball Janik, LLP;
Client: Onboard Systems International.
Registrant name: Barbour Griffith & Rogers, LLC d/b/a BGR Government
Affairs;
Client: State of Qatar.
Registrant name: Bill Carney and Company;
Client: Edison Electric Institute.
Registrant name: Bill Carney and Company;
Client: Nuclear Energy Institute.
Registrant name: Bingham McCutchen, LLP;
Client: Shure Inc.
Registrant name: Blank Rome Government Relations, LLC;
Client: Capital Automotive, LLC.
Registrant name: Blank Rome Government Relations, LLC;
Client: Harris Watson Holdings.
Registrant name: Bolton-St. Johns, LLC[A];
Client: St. Elizabeth Medical Center.
Registrant name: Bolton-St. Johns, LLC[A];
Client: St. Elizabeth Medical Center.
Registrant name: Borski Associates;
Client: Delaware River Port Authority.
Registrant name: Bostrom Group;
Client: Hearing Industries Association.
Registrant name: Bracewell & Giuliani, LLP;
Client: MBDA Incorporated.
Registrant name: Braxton C. Counts, III, P.C.;
Client: Thompson Engineering and Testing, Inc.
Registrant name: Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP;
Client: West Valley Water District.
Registrant name: Capitol Decisions, Inc.;
Client: Greater Cheyenne Chamber of Commerce.
Registrant name: Capitoline Consulting, LLC;
Client: Manchester Bidwell Corporation.
Registrant name: Carpi Clay & Smith;
Client: Port of Stockton.
Registrant name: Cedars-Sinai Medical Center;
Client: Cedars-Sinai Medical Center.
Registrant name: Center for Science in the Public Interest;
Client: Center for Science in the Public Interest.
Registrant name: Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, LLP;
Client: Institute of International Bankers.
Registrant name: Congressional Strategies, LLC;
Client: ARCTECH.
Registrant name: Contango, LLC;
Client: Barrick Gold Corporation of North America.
Registrant name: Cornerstone Government Affairs, LLC;
Client: Better World Campaign.
Registrant name: Cuba Democracy Public Advocacy, Corp.;
Client: Cuba Democracy Public Advocacy, Corp.
Registrant name: David Turch & Assoc.;
Client: City of Palmdale, California.
Registrant name: Dewey Square Group;
Client: Shields MRI.
Registrant name: Dow Lohnes Government Strategies, LLC;
Client: Qualcomm, Inc.
Registrant name: Dow Lohnes Government Strategies, LLC;
Client: National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs.
Registrant name: Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP;
Client: Society of Nuclear Medicine.
Registrant name: Eris Group (formerly Bartlett, Bendall & Kadesh, LLC);
Client: eBay, Inc. (formerly Paypal, Inc.).
Registrant name: Ernst & Young, LLP (Washington Council Ernst & Young);
Client: Florida Crystals.
Registrant name: Fabiani & Company;
Client: Fortu Holding AG.
Registrant name: Farmers Group, Inc.;
Client: Farmers Group, Inc.
Registrant name: FBA, Inc.;
Client: Harcum College.
Registrant name: Federal Policy Group (formerly Clark & Wamberg, LLC);
Client: Nabors Industries, LTD.
Registrant name: Ferguson Group;
Client: City of High Point, North Carolina.
Registrant name: Ferguson Group;
Client: Lansing Community College.
Registrant name: Fierce, Isakowitz & Blalock;
Client: AMCHAM Brazil.
Registrant name: Flagship Government Relations, Inc.;
Client: Engineered Arresting Systems Corporation.
Registrant name: Foley Hoag, LLP;
Client: GlaxoSmithKline.
Registrant name: Foley Maldonado & O'Toole;
Client: Low Income Investment Fund.
Registrant name: Gentiva Health Services;
Client: Gentiva Health Services.
Registrant name: Gilbert's, LLP;
Client: Mylan Laboratories, Inc.
Registrant name: Haake & Associates;
Client: General Dynamics Corporation.
Registrant name: Hoffman, Silver, Gilman & Blasco P.C. (formerly
Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh);
Client: Kenai Peninsula Borough.
Registrant name: Holland & Knight, LLP;
Client: The E-Ordering Coalition.
Registrant name: Innovative Federal Strategies, LLC;
Client: Florida Institute for Human & Machine Cognition.
Registrant name: Innovative Federal Strategies, LLC;
Client: Mojave Water Agency.
Registrant name: Intel Corporation;
Client: Intel Corporation.
Registrant name: Jack Ferguson Assoc., Inc.;
Client: Alaska Airlines.
Registrant name: John T. O'Rourke;
Client: Coalition to Protect Interstate Commerce.
Registrant name: Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre;
Client: New Orleans Business Council.
Registrant name: K&L Gates, LLP;
Client: Spokane Tribe of Indians.
Registrant name: Kountoupes Consulting, LLC;
Client: National Electrical Manufacturers Association (formerly
Medical Imaging & Technology Alliance).
Registrant name: Laura Saul Edwards;
Client: American College of Mohs Surgery.
Registrant name: Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory
Reform;
Client: Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform.
Registrant name: McAllister & Quinn, LLC;
Client: Columbia College.
Registrant name: McAllister & Quinn, LLC;
Client: Jupiter Oxygen Corporation.
Registrant name: mCapitol Management;
Client: City of North Vernon, Indiana.
Registrant name: McCarthy Strategic Solutions, LLC;
Client: Poe Companies, LLC.
Registrant name: McGlotten & Jarvis;
Client: Edison Electric Institute.
Registrant name: McGuireWoods Consulting;
Client: Smithfield Foods, Inc.
Registrant name: Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti, Inc.;
Client: Mayo Clinic.
Registrant name: Mental Health America (formerly the National Mental
Health Association);
Client: Mental Health America (formerly the National Mental Health
Association).
Registrant name: Military Officers Association of America;
Client: Military Officers Association of America.
Registrant name: ML Strategies, LLC;
Client: Station Casinos, Inc.
Registrant name: MWW Group;
Client: Ramapo College of New Jersey.
Registrant name: National Electrical Manufacturers Association;
Client: National Electrical Manufacturers Association.
Registrant name: National Environmental Strategies;
Client: Afton Chemical Corporation.
Registrant name: National Environmental Strategies;
Client: Yates Petroleum Corporation.
Registrant name: North Carolina Baptist Hospital;
Client: North Carolina Baptist Hospital.
Registrant name: Ogilvy Government Relations;
Client: Inverness Medical Innovations, Inc.
Registrant name: Ogilvy Government Relations;
Client: RRI Energy, Inc.
Registrant name: Oncology Nursing Society;
Client: Oncology Nursing Society.
Registrant name: O'Neill and Associates;
Client: Vossloh.
Registrant name: Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc.;
Client: Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc.
Registrant name: Patton Boggs, LLP;
Client: City of Mesa.
Registrant name: Patton Boggs, LLP;
Client: Virginia Community College System.
Registrant name: Peck, Madigan, Jones & Stewart, Inc. (formerly
Johnson, Madigan, Peck, Boland & Stewart);
Client: County of Nassau New York.
Registrant name: Polaris Government Relations, LLC;
Client: Association of Kentucky Fried Chicken Franchisees.
Registrant name: Polsinelli Shughart, PC;
Client: National Installment Lenders Association.
Registrant name: Potomac Counsel, LLC;
Client: Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund.
Registrant name: Public Strategies, Inc.;
Client: The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.
Registrant name: Ricchetti Inc.;
Client: AT&T.
Registrant name: Ringley Policy Group, LLC;
Client: Amazon.com.
Registrant name: Ron Klink and Associates;
Client: Sentry Data Systems (formerly Freedom Health Care).
Registrant name: RR&G, LLC;
Client: World Healing Center Church.
Registrant name: Runyan Public Affairs, LLC;
Client: The Coalition for Transportation Productivity.
Registrant name: Russ Reid Company;
Client: The Village of Franklin Park.
Registrant name: Russ Reid Company;
Client: White River Medical Center.
Registrant name: Russell Mueller;
Client: PKD Foundation.
Registrant name: Ryan, MacKinnon, Vasapoli and Berzok, LLP (formerly
Ryan, Phillips, Utrecht & MacKinnon);
Client: Sunoco, Inc.
Registrant name: Seattle City Light;
Client: Seattle City Light.
Registrant name: Sher & Blackwell, LLP;
Client: Vehicle Donation Coalition (Informal Coalition).
Registrant name: Strategic Marketing Innovations;
Client: AGY.
Registrant name: Teledyne Technologies Inc.;
Client: Teledyne Technologies Inc.
Registrant name: The Cleveland Clinic Foundation;
Client: The Cleveland Clinic Foundation.
Registrant name: The Kroger Co.;
Client: The Kroger Co.
Registrant name: The Rhoads Group;
Client: Sonardyne International, Ltd.
Registrant name: The Smith-Free Group;
Client: Ingram Barge Company.
Registrant name: The Smith-Free Group;
Client: Sony Pictures Entertainment.
Registrant name: Thomas L. Birch;
Client: National Assembly of State Arts Agencies.
Registrant name: Thomas Walters & Associates, Inc.;
Client: County of Ventura.
Registrant name: Van Scoyoc Associates;
Client: Excelerate Energy, LLC.
Registrant name: Van Scoyoc Associates;
Client: Lyme Disease Association, Inc.
Registrant name: Van Scoyoc Associates;
Client: SGT, Inc.
Registrant name: Venn Strategies, LLC;
Client: Employee-Owned S Corporations of America.
Registrant name: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States;
Client: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States.
Registrant name: VPR Associates;
Client: OSI Restaurant Partners, LLC.
Registrant name: Washington2 Advocates;
Client: Russell Investment Group.
Registrant name: Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates;
Client: Sechan Electronics, Inc.
Registrant name: White & Case, LLP;
Client: Employee-Owned S Corporations of America.
Registrant name: Wiley Rein, LLP;
Client: Intelsat.
Registrant name: Williams & Jensen, PLLC;
Client: Coalition of Air Medical Companies.
Registrant name: Wolf Block Public Strategies;
Client: The Boston Beer Company.
Registrant name: Xenophon Strategies;
Client: Piedmont Municipal Power Agency.
Registrant name: Zel E. Lipsen, Esquire;
Client: NuVision Engineering Inc. (formerly AEA Technology).
Source: Lobbying disclosure database of the Clerk of the House of
Representatives, last quarter of calendar year 2008 and first three
quarters of calendar year 2009.
[A] The registration/client pair Bolton-St. Johns, LLC/St. Elizabeth
Medical Center was selected for both the first quarter of 2009 and the
second quarter of 2009 in our LD-2 sample.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Full List of Sampled Lobbying Contribution Reports with
Contributions and with No Contributions Listed:
See table 7 for a list of lobbyists and lobbying firms from our random
sample of lobbying contribution reports with contributions. See table
8 for a list of lobbyists and lobbying firms from our random sample of
lobbying contribution reports without contributions.
Table 7: Lobbyists and Lobbying Firms Selected in Random Sample of
Lobbying Contribution Reports with Contributions Listed, Filed Year-
end 2008 and Midyear 2009:
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Advanta Corporation;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: American College of Physicians;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: American Society of Consultant Pharmacists;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Amit Sachdev;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Amy Oberhelman;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Amy Souders;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Amylin Pharmaceuticals;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Ann Morton;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Barry Direnfeld;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Ben Barnes;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Brent Franzel;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Brian Gunn;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Carolyn Osolinik;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Cartier Esham;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Charter Communications, Inc.;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Cobham Holdings, Inc.;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc.;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Covidien, Inc.;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Craig Lasher;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Cynthia Shenker;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Dana Gray;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: D'Arcy Philps;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Darnell Demasters;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Daron Watts;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: David Albert;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: David Leach;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Day & Zimmermann;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Donoghue Barrett & Singal, P.C.;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Edwin Kichline;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Frank Collins;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Fred McDuff;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Gary Lapaille;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: GDF Suez Energy North America, Inc. PAC;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Gene Schaerr;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Governmental Strategies, Inc.;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Harvey Cauthen;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Ira Kaminsky;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: James Bonham;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: James Butera;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Jessica Hogle;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Joanna McIntosh;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: John Hansen;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Joyce Cowan;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Julie Minerva;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Karen Thiel;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Kimberley Fritts;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Kyle Gilley;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Lanny Davis;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Lori Denham;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Lydia Verheggen;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: MacAndrews South Corporation;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Margaret Simmons;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Marlowe & Company;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Martha Cochran;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Meredith Advocacy Group;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Michael Ferguson;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Michael Roy;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Michael Waite;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Michelle Leeds;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: MJ Capitol Consulting, LLC;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: N. Stuart Spencer;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: NAADAC The Association for Addiction
Professionals;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: National Association of Federal Credit
Unions;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: National Association of Mutual Insurance
Companies;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Patricia Adkins;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Philip Kiko;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Raymond James;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Reid Stuntz;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Research In Motion;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Rich Glick;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Rich Stombres;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Robert Green;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Robert Leebern;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Robert Marlar;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Roger Hollingsworth;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Roman Buhler & Associates;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Ryan Haaker;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Ryan McGinness;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Ryan Weston;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Samuel J. Baptista;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Sarah McDermond;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Scott Nelson;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Sean O'Keefe;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Stephen Winchell;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Susann Edwards;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: The American Council of Engineering
Companies;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: The Home Depot;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: The Personal Care Products Council;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Theresa Forster;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Thomas Rath;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Thomas Simpson;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Thurgood Marshall, Jr.;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Vets for Freedom;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Wally Burnett;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Welch Allyn;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: William Fulford;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: William Hanka;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: William Mattox;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Source: Lobbying contributions database of the Clerk of the House of
Representatives, year-end reports for calendar year 2008 and midyear
reports for calendar year 2009.
[End of table]
Table 8: Lobbyists and Lobbying Firms Selected in Random Sample of
Lobbying Contribution Reports with No Contributions Listed, Filed Year-
end 2008 and Midyear 2009:
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Alexis Strothman;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Allynn Howe;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: American Association of Advertising
Agencies;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: American Astronomical Society;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: American Bankers Insurance Association;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Amy McMahon;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Amy Ryan Alexander;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Andrew Sachs;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Aura Renewable Energy Corporation;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Barry Lambergman;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Beth Spivey;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Bradley Ayers;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Brandon Avila;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Brent Sailhamer;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: C. Pence;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Cable Telecommunications Association;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: California Forestry Association;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Carlos Jackson;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Carol Brewer;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Christina Metzler;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Chuck Colson;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Consumer Federation of America;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: D Steele;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Darius Withers;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Darlene Rosenkoetter;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Datapath, Inc.;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: David Dunbar;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: David Isaacs;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: David Talbot;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Diane Blagman;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Dianne Miller;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Donald Stein;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Edward Rosen;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Elmwood Strategies;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Emily Gardner;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Federal Hill Group, LLC;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Glenn Grigsby;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Grinnell Associates;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Howard Bartolomucci;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Information Sciences Corporation;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: International Wood Products Association;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: James Baumberger;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: James Glueck;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: James Sloan;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Jennifer Hatcher;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Johanna Shelton;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Judith Bayer;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Katharine Wood;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Kathleen Hatfield;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Katie Gallehugh;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Katy Bayless;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Ken Connolly;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Lance Landry;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Lauren Fuller;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Leah Yaw;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Leslie Blaker;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Logan Enterprise, Inc.;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Louisiana Energy Services;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Mara Sovey;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Mark Ludwikowski;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Martin Regalia;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Mary Pittelli;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Matt Carr;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Matthew McGrath;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Michael Flanagan;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Michael Galano;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Michael Huneke;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Ms. Karen Johnson;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Ms. Marta Aguirre Bascom;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Ms. Susan Emmer;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Nathan Garman;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Patricia Burke;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Paula Boyd;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Peter Arapis;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Pettus Consulting;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Phil Odom;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Richard Schwab;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Robert Seraphin;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Robert Webb;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Ronald Ours;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Rori Kramer;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Rosemarie Sweeney;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Samuel Hodson;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Sandra Schubert;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Scenic America;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Shari Brown;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Solvay North America;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Spartamatrix, Inc.;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Steve Mister;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Tal Franklin;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Tarplin Strategies, LLC;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: The Rose Company, LLC;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: The Trustees of Purdue University;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Thomas Nickels;
Reporting period: Midyear 2009.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Tobin Cobb;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Tracy Sherman;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Usry Consulting, Inc.;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Washington Technology Strategies;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Winifred Woodward;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Lobbyist or lobbying firm: Xenophon Strategies;
Reporting period: Year-end 2008.
Source: Lobbying contributions database of the Clerk of the House of
Representatives, year-end reports for calendar year 2008 and midyear
reports for calendar year 2009.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Laurie Ekstrand, (202) 512-6845 or ekstrandl@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; Greg Wilmoth; and Michelle
Loutoo Wilson made key contributions to this report.
Assisting with lobbyist file reviews and interviews were Vida Awumey,
Colleen Candrl, John Dell'Osso, Scott Doubleday, Jessica Drucker,
Justin Dunleavy, Robin Ghertner, Ellen Grady, Lois Hanshaw, Jeff Heit,
Alison Hoenk, Lina Khan, Alicia Louks, Jeff McDermott, Adam Miles,
James Murphy, AJ Stephens, Sabrina Streagle, and Esther Toledo.
[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) (codified at 2
U.S.C. §§ 1601-1614).
[3] 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.
[4] 2 U.S.C. § 1602(10).
[5] 2 U.S.C. § 1602(9).
[6] 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. Under the LDA, lobbying firms are exempt from filing if they
are expected to make under $2,500 from the client, and organizations
are exempt if their expenses are under $10,000 during the quarterly
period. 2 U.S.C. § 1603(a)(3). These amounts are adjusted for
inflation, and the House/Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act Guidance lists
amounts for firms and organizations adjusted for inflation as $3,000
and $11,500, respectively.
[7] 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, policy-making, 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 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).
[8] We recommended that the Office complete efforts to develop a
structured approach that would allow it to track referrals when they
are made, record reasons for referrals, record the actions taken to
resolve them, and assess the results of actions taken. GAO, Lobbying
Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists' Compliance with New Disclosure
Requirements, GAO-08-1099 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2008).
[9] See 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).
[10] 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 estimates have a 95
percent confidence interval of within 9.7 percentage points of the
estimate.
[11] Though our total sample size is 134 LD-2 reports, 3 reports had
the "no lobbying activity" box checked but also reported receiving
lobbying income for that quarter. Since the "no lobbying activity" box
was checked, the LD-2 reports do not contain certain pieces of
information about lobbying contacts or specific lobbyists, and
therefore in certain calculations these 3 reports are excluded.
[12] Prior to each review, we used open source search techniques to
identify lobbyists on each report who may have held covered positions.
Our search, which is discussed in more detail in app. I, may not have
identified every single case in which a lobbyist held a position for
which the LDA requires disclosure.
[13] We base our estimate of the minimum on a one-sided 95 percent
confidence interval.
[14] This estimate is not equal to the percentage of lobbyists with
tracking methods because several lobbyists had more than one client
report drawn into our sample.
[15] Lobbyists may have more than one method in place for tracking
lobbying contacts and activities.
[16] For the fourth quarter of 2008 through the second quarter of
2009, we reviewed LD-203 reports for year-end 2008. For the third
quarter of 2009, we reviewed LD-203 reports for year-end 2008 and
midyear 2009 for the lobbyists and lobbying firms selected in our
sample to verify whether the LD-203 reports were filed for the
lobbyists and lobbying firms listed on the disclosure report.
[17] Unless otherwise noted, all percentage estimates for lobbyist
contributions reports have 95 percent confidence intervals between
plus or minus 7.7 percentage points or less of the estimate.
[18] We base our estimate of the minimum on a one-sided 95 percent
confidence interval. Our search protocol, which is detailed in app. I,
may not have identified all reports that omitted FEC-reportable
contributions and could not identify reports that omitted other types
of contributions that are required to be disclosed.
[19] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-487] and
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1099].
[20] Prior to the enactment of the HLOGA, the lobbyists were only
required to disclosure covered official positions held within 2 years
of filing.
[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: