The Hill
February 5, 2008
Susan Crabtree
Six watchdog groups are calling on Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to withdraw the official House ethics guidelines on lobbyist-sponsored convention parties and rewrite them to comport with a new, stricter Senate interpretation.
The groups have railed against the House guidelines, arguing that they introduce “gaping loopholes” eviscerating the ethics rules enacted last fall that Democrats promised would help usher in a new era of ethical standards.
“We’re going to send a letter this week to the Speaker asking her to take all possible steps to help get that guidance withdrawn,” said Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21, one of the groups complaining about the rules. “The House guidance creates a pathway for the wholesale circumvention and evasion of the law adopted by the House last year.”
Other groups upset by the House rules include the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.
Pelosi’s office did not respond to a request for comment about whether she agrees with the House ethics committee’s interpretation of thea law.
The conflicting Senate and House views on which convention parties will pass legal muster is one more sign that party planners can forget the streamers and balloons for now and instead call their lawyers. For the next few months, this year’s convention parties look like they could be caught up in reams of confusing legal red tape as well as red-hot outrage from ethics watchdogs.
The one-page guidelines on convention parties issued Monday by the Senate Ethics Committee makes it clear that lobbyists or entities that employ them cannot sponsor events honoring a group composed solely of members of Congress.
The House ethics panel, in contrast, issued guidelines months ago that said the new rules allow lobbyists to sponsor parties honoring more than one member as long as those members are not mentioned by name on the invite.
The Senate version also clarifies language in the new law barring lobbyists from directly paying for parties or events for a specific member. It does so by forbidding lobbyists or groups that employ them from earmarking money donated to the conventions’ host committees for specific events.
The House guidelines, on the other hand, specifically say that a private organization that receives some of its funding for an event during a national convention from a lobbyist or a private entity that retains lobbyists would not disqualify a member from participating in the event.
The convention party rule in the overarching ethics bill, dubbed the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, is aimed at preventing lobbyists from throwing lavish parties to honor members as a way to curry favor with them, a practice that has taken place at conventions for decades but has drawn more scrutiny in the wake of lobbying scandals involving Jack Abramoff and former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham’s (R-Calif.) wide-ranging bribery scandal.
For example, the Senate Ethics Committee guidelines say members shouldn’t attend an event honoring the “Nevada Congressional Delegation.” Events honoring “Nevada Republican Officials” or “Nevada Delegates,” however, would be OK.
“The Senate showed a basic, straightforward interpretation of the rule,” said the Campaign Legal Center’s Meredith McGehee. “It doesn’t handcuff members and put irrational constraints on them.”
Democrats touted the same watchdogs’ support when they passed the landmark ethics law, but now the groups are angrily arguing that the House is not providing the enforcement to accomplish the legislation’s goals.
Last week, Democracy 21 turned up the pressure on individual members, sending a letter urging them to ignore the House ethics guidance. The group also put every member on notice that it will “take all appropriate steps” to ensure that members are “held publicly accountable” for any violations.
Stefan Passantino, who served as a campaign and ethics counsel to former Speakers Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), said some corporations and lobbyists are worried about the attention parties may get.
“There’s a shyness among certain folks in the private sector. They know this is going to be a heavily attended media event and there’s a p.r. component,” said Passantino, who now chairs the political law team at McKenna, Long & Aldridge.
Other ethics experts, however, predict that aggressive corporate convention die-hards will find ways to keep the parties hopping despite the new rules.
Jan Baran of Wiley Rein said the lobbyist-sponsored parties will continue in St. Paul, Minn. and Denver, just as they do in Washington, D.C., where widely attended events now feature appetizers on toothpicks instead of full-fledged meals so as to comply with new ethics rules.
A lot of corporate clients, Baran said, are donating directly to the convention host committees, and the host committees are approaching the ethics panels to figure out exactly what will and will not be allowed.
Baran said some questions emanating from the contrasting House and Senate rules will be up for interpretation. If businesses have trouble getting answers on detailed questions about the parties they plan to hold from the ethics committees, they’ll ask their member friends in Congress to do it for them, he said.
“Nobody is going to be able to require the House and Senate to adopt exactly the same rules,” Baran said. “It’s hasn’t been done in more than 200 years and I don’t think they’re going to start now.”