NHỮNG THAY đổi TRONG CHÍNH SÁCH vận ĐỘNG HÀNH LANG dưới CHÍNH QUYỀN OBAMA và PHẢN ỨNG của dư LUẬN

Lobbying has been accepted as legitimate practice and played an important part in the U.S. It helps to raise the voice of special interests as well as inform them of the legislative process. In order to be successful in doing business with U.S. enterprises the number of which is increasingly high, it is essential to understand lobbying thoroughly. Thus, this study was conducted with the hope of providing some fundamental concepts relating to lobbying in the U.S. as well as current laws on lobbying in the Obama Administration. The results were achieved through analyzing, synthesizing, comparing as well as contrasting and evaluating documents. The findings revealed that there were three basic firstever lobbying polices in the Obama Administration, namely the revolving door bans, stimulus funds lobbying restrictions and lobbyist gift ban. Also, it was found that those policies got highlevel criticism from the public, especially from interest groups, concerning their effectiveness,. Besides, they were believed to cause negative effects on the U.S. politics, respectively mass deregistration, diminished transparency, and, lack of information and experienced staff in the government. In a nutshell, it was concluded that though the Obama Administration desired to advance the goal of increased transparency, the results were not as high as the President had expected before.

Lobbying has been accepted as legitimate practice and played an importantpart in the U.S It helps to raise the voice of special interests as well as informthem of the legislative process In order to be successful in doing business withU.S enterprises the number of which is increasingly high, it is essential tounderstand lobbying thoroughly Thus, this study was conducted with the hope ofproviding some fundamental concepts relating to lobbying in the U.S as well ascurrent laws on lobbying in the Obama Administration The results were achievedthrough analyzing, synthesizing, comparing as well as contrasting and evaluatingdocuments The findings revealed that there were three basic first-ever lobbyingpolices in the Obama Administration, namely the revolving door bans, stimulusfunds lobbying restrictions and lobbyist gift ban Also, it was found that thosepolicies got high-level criticism from the public, especially from interest groups,concerning their effectiveness, Besides, they were believed to cause negativeeffects on the U.S politics, respectively mass de-registration, diminishedtransparency, and, lack of information and experienced staff in the government In

a nutshell, it was concluded that though the Obama Administration desired toadvance the goal of increased transparency, the results were not as high as thePresident had expected before

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENT

PAGE

Acknowledgements……… i

4.2 Public responses to changes

4.2.1 Responses to the revolving door bans

REFERENCES APPENDICES

LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES AND ABBREVIATIONS

List of tables

Table 1: Different definitions of lobbying

Table 2: Timeliness of quarterly reports filed for 1989

Table 3: Incomplete Responses in Quarterly Reports for 1989

List of figures

Figure 1: Simplified diagram for lobbying process

Figure 2: New registrations and terminations during calendar years 1960-1972

and active registrations at the end of calendar years 1960-1972

Figure 3: Registrants, Clients and Lobbyists Registered Under the Lobbying

Disclosure Act of 1995, 1996-2004

Figure 4: Number of unique, registered and active lobbyists

List of abbreviations

OGE: Office of Government Ethics

OBM: Office of Budget and Management

ALL: American League of Lobbyists

LDA: The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995

FARA: The Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938

FLRA: The Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946

HLOGA: The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007

GAO: The United States General Accounting Office

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Statement of the problem and the rationale for the study

It can be said that lobbying is one of the most typical characteristics ofAmerican politics It has been a legal practice since it was acknowledged by theConstitution The right of people to lobby is protected by the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of speech […] orthe right of the people peaceably […] to petition the government for aredress of grievances

Madison, J (n.d.)Lobbying began to be used intensely in the U.S between 1869 and 1877.With such a long history, it has increasingly played a fundamental part inenhancing American democracy Claimed by Biggs & Helms (2006), lobbying is

“an inextricable part of policy production process” (p.113) In other words,lobbying plays an indispensable role in the U.S politics

After Vietnam joined WTO in 2006, the number of U.S partners hasincreased greatly One of the most important things to do business successfullywith them is having a thorough understanding of lobbying – a legal practice whichplays a crucial role in influencing government policies to support the interests ofcompanies Despite such great influence and significance, lobbying is little known

to Vietnamese people In Vietnam, there are no laws concerning lobbying; thus,lobbying activities are “not officially recognized” (cited in Trung Kien, 2007).Moreover, lobbying in Vietnam is often bound with negative meanings andmisunderstood People usually think about “bribery” or “to get in by the backdoor” when mentioning lobbying (cited in Doan Trang, 2010) In this situation,there is a need to give a clear and precise definition of lobbying to replace thosemisperceptions

Furthermore, there are a number of new rules and regulations in lobbyingpolicies addressed by the incumbent President Barack Obama that Vietnameseenterprises need to know and understand Therefore, it is necessary to do research

on lobbying in the U.S to help Vietnamese companies get fundamentals as well ascurrent laws on lobbying.

At the Faculty of English Language Teacher - University of Languages andInternational Study (FELTE – ULIS), American Studies has been included in thesyllabus recently to provide the English majors background knowledge, so thatthey could work with the U.S partners in the future Therefore, understandingAmerican politics and society, including lobbying, is very important not only fortheir study but for their future jobs Yet most of them lack basic knowledge aboutlobbying which is a key factor of U.S business According to a survey by Phung(2009), 80% of the students do not understand exactly what the aims of lobbyingactivities are while 36% think that lobbying activities are connected to corruption,which is not true Hence, it is urgent to provide information about U.S lobbying,especially current lobbying laws, to help students understand this essentialcomponent of American politics and society

All the reasons above encourage the researcher to carry out a study on the

topic: “Lobbying in the Obama administration: changes and public responses”

1.2 Aims and objectives of the study

This thesis paper aims at investigating the outstanding features of lobbyingpolicies addressed by President Barack Obama It then goes further exploringpublic responses to those changes

To reach these aims, the research is specially designed to answer the threefollowing questions:

1 What are the lobbying laws prior to the Obama Administration?

2 What are the changes in lobbying policies addressed by PresidentBarack Obama?

3 What are the responses from the public to these changes?

1.3 Scope of the study

There are many aspects related to lobbying, such as lobbying activities,strategies, cases and so on However, in this thesis, lobbying is only discussed interms of Barack Obama’s policies and the responses to those policies To be morespecific, it focuses on the changes in the law on lobbying and the reaction from thepublic

In America, lobbying occurs at both local and national level However,this study only explores lobbying at the level of federal government

There are a number of sources that provide valuable information aboutthe topic Nevertheless, because of the limited time, this paper mainly draws uponthe major resources of books, articles, magazines and websites

1.4 Significance of the study

Once the study is completed, it is expected to have some decent benefits

In the first place, it will partly fill the gap in the literature and serve as areference source for other researchers who are interested in the same or relatedtopics

Secondly, this paper can serve as a supplementary material for bothteaching and learning at FELTE – ULIS The findings from the study can providethe teachers with an overall picture of lobbying in the U.S with focus on thepresidency of Barack Obama, which can help them improve the course book inorder to make it more informative

Furthermore, the researcher also hopes that this study, to some extent, canhelp students widen their knowledge by providing them information aboutlobbying in the U.S., especially current laws relating to lobbying English majors,especially those who wish to do business with U.S partners in the future, can use it

as a supplementary material not only in their learning but in their careers

Moreover, the study can help those who may concern have clear andprecise perception of lobbying practice

1.5 Methodology of the study

This is a secondary research which is conducted in comparativedocument analysis approach The very first phase is collecting data Documentsrelated to lobbying reforms in Obama administration are gathered from books,magazines, internet and other relevant sources These documents are thenanalyzed, synthesized, compared, contrasted and evaluated to find the answers tothe research questions

Overall, this paper is carried out through following phases:

Phase 1: Collecting data

Phase 2: Processing data: the data are analyzed, synthesized, compared, contrasted and evaluated

Phase 3: Summarizing and concluding

1.6 Organization of the study

Chapter I – INTRODUCTION – introduces the rationale, aims,objectives, scope, significance and methods of the study

Chapter II – BACKGROUND AND BASIC CONCEPTS – provides thebackground for the research by exploring the key concepts of lobbying andlobbyist

Chapter III – LOBBYING LAWS IN THE PREVIOUSADMINISTRATIONS – presents the laws related to lobbying before thepresidency of Barack Obama

Chapter IV – LOBBYING IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION –describes the policies on lobbying issued by President Barack Obama anddiscusses responses from the public to those policies

Chapter V – CONCLUSION – ends the study by summarizing majorfindings, mentioning limitations as well as making suggestions for further study

CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND AND BASIC CONCEPTS

Lobbying has been recognized as a legitimate practice and played anindispensable role in the U.S political process since it first started in the 19th

century It helps U.S citizens, organizations, corporations and others make theirvoice heard That is why every year companies and groups spend huge amount ofmoney lobbying the government In comparison with the early days, lobbyingtoday has evolved dramatically with sophisticated changes both in forms andtechniques To understand the nature of this legal process, it is essential to definethe basic concepts first In this chapter, the key concepts of “lobbying” and

“lobbyist” will be discussed

2.1 Lobbying

2.1.1 Definitions of lobbying

From its inception until now, defining lobbying has always been undercontroversy It has gained the interests not only from political scientists but alsofrom the U.S Congress In their studies, scientists propose definitions based ontheir opinions and their findings, whereas every time enacting new laws to regulatelobbying, the Congress provides different definitions so that they can be moresuitable to the new laws and help to achieve the objectives

Stephanos Anastasiadis (2006) stated that lobbying initially was “the act ofspecial interests approaching someone with political power” (p.9) Gradually,along with the development of the U.S society, it has changed so much far fromthe early days that various definitions have been provided In 1960, the so-called

“father of lobbying research” Lester Milbrath was the first researcher to analyzelobbying from a communication perspective when claiming that “communication

is the only means of influencing or changing a perception; the lobbying process,therefore, is totally a communication process” (p.24) Sharing the same viewpoint,forty-five years later, Dondero & Lunch (2005) added that lobbying is “a two-waycommunication process” (p.87) Lobbyists, in their views, are great

communicators to legislators However, according to Berg (2009), when it comes

to lobbying, it is often described as a minor and specific activity, not a process

Undergraduate public textbooks define lobbying as a function of publicaffairs In Toth (1986), lobbying is recognized as a specialized area of publicrelations Heath and Cousino (2000) supported that it is a function of issuemanagement More specifically, Cutlip, Center and Broom (2000) definedlobbying as “a function of public affairs which builds and maintain relations withgovernment primarily for the proposal of influencing legislation and regulation”(cited in Berg, 2009, p.1)

From the perspective of purpose, lobbying is considered any attempt toinfluence legislative process In this light, Zorack (2000) put it that it is “the right

of any citizen or interest group to petition government or Congress and provideinformation designed to influence the passage or defeat of any legislation of theUnited States” (p.24) Recognizably, Mayhew (1997, p 218) further defined theconcept of lobbying by proposing that it is “a process of influence that travelsalong routes sustained by exchanges of information” in which “both parties have

an opportunity to make their message influential as well as informative” Evenmore specifically, Koeppl (2000) analyzed lobbying in three aspects: purpose,function and tool when stating that lobbying is “the attempted or successfulinfluence of legislative-administrative decisions by public authorities throughinterested representatives” (p 71)

Although a lot of studies have been carried out, it is not easy to give adefinition that everyone agrees on The following table illustrates a variety oflobbying definitions from different viewpoints

Table 1: Different definitions of lobbying

Lobbying is “the right of any citizen or interest

group to petition government or Congress and

provide information designed to influence the

Zorack, (1990, p.24)

passage or defeat of any legislation of the United

States”

Lobbying refers to “the deliberate attempt to

influence political decisions through various forms

of advocacy directed at policymakers on behalf of

another person, organization, or group”

The Woodstock TheologicalCenter (2002)

Lobbying is “a function of public affairs that builds

and maintains relations with government primarily

for the proposal of influencing legislation and

regulation”

Cutlip, Center & Broom(2000, p.3), cited in Berg,2009

Lobbying is “the attempted or successful influence

of legislative-administrative decisions by public

authorities through interested representatives”

Koeppl (2000, p.71)

Lobbying is “a process of influence that travels

along routes sustained by exchanges of

information” in which “both parties have an

opportunity to make their message influential as

well as informative”

Mayhew, (1997, p.218)

Lobbying is “the act of publicly representing an

individual, organization, or idea with the object of

persuading targeted audiences to look favorably on

– or accept the point of view of – the individual, the

organization, or the idea”

Edgett, (2002, p 1), cited inBerg, 2009

In conclusion, it can be seen that lobbying is interpreted in different waysfrom different aspects Some scientists describe it as a specialized activity whilethe others recognize it as a whole process seeking to exert influence on legislativedecisions However, obviously, the point that all the aforementioned definitions oflobbying have in common is the focus on the purpose, tool and object of lobbying

The definition adopted in this research paper is of Koeppl (2000): lobbying is “theattempted or successful influence of legislative-administrative decisions by publicauthorities through interested representatives The influence is intended, impliesthe use of communication and is targeted on legislative and executive bodies” (p.71).

2.1.2 Process of lobbying

Lobbying is a process which requires technical competence, thoughtfulanalysis and critical inquiry, all of which are directed toward achieving the bestresults for a client or employer (Association of Accredited Lobbyists to theEuropean Union, 2009) Therefore, lobbyists have to know what, when, where andhow to conduct their activities

A lobbying process can be started in two ways: actively or passively(Perjons, Bider & Anderson, 2007) When an organization or corporationdetermines on its own to influence the policy makers, it is active initiation Bycontrast, when it receives information about a new decision which is alreadyplanned or taken, it is passive

Once starting, lobbyists make analysis on some aspects: level of decision(international, national, local); status and type of public official; the area of issue;and the status of the decision-making (planned, made, under discussion) Afterthese analyses are made, the main course of action (support/ oppose the decision/seek for a compromise) is considered, followed by an opinion poll and thedesigning of strategies and tactics

Channels for influence are divided into two types: direct channel andindirect channel Direct channel is aimed at a person or a group involved in policy-making process The tactics adopted are informing about consequences, ensuringsupport, threatening, or seeking for a compromise By indirect channel, theorganization aims at a person or group who is not involved in the legislativesystem, but has some influence on the decision-makers (Perjons, Bider &

Anderson, 2007) The typical tactics are using mass media, ensuring support orthreatening.

Following the chosen tactics for a given channel is the communication withpublic officials, either orally such as meeting, phone call, or in written forms likefax and email The data of communication will be kept and may be reused Thelobbyists then will evaluate the results, whether the target is reached or not If not,new channels may be tried and new tactics may be adopted

Figure 1 presents the simplified graphical representation of lobbyingprocess

Figure 1: Simplified diagram for lobbying process

(Source: Perjons, Bider & Anderson, 2007)

2.2 Lobbyist

2.2.1 Definitions of lobbyist

Public and scientists have different viewpoints on lobbyists, which makesdefining lobbyist still under debate

Scandals in lobbying have earned lobbyists poor reputation that sets theirstereotype: highly-paid, well-dressed and smoking cigar white men corruptingCongressmen to influence public policies on behalf of the rich and well-connectedspecial interests (Waldman, 2000) They were even defined as “political villains”

in “disreputable industry which related mostly to dishonesty and corruption”(Cook, 2009, p.2)

However, there are also positive perceptions on lobbyists Thompson(1985) recognized lobbyists as “representatives who act concurrently with, andsupplement the capabilities of those who are selected at the polls” and that they

“filled roles that in many ways were comparable to those of legislators” (p.140)

By contrast, Dondero and Lunch (2005) concentrate on the jobs of lobbyists aswell as recognize their roles in society when defining them as “the eyes and ears ofthe public, information providers, representatives of their clients and constituents,shapers of the government agenda, movers of legislation, coalition builders, andcampaign contributors”(p 87)

It can be said that lobbyist’s image depends on citizen and publicofficials’ perceptions In other words, the meaning of lobbyist is in the eye of thebeholder Despite different ways of defining lobbyists, one common point is thatmost of them focus on the role of lobbyists: representation of individual ororganization interests The definition adopted in this paper is from Webster’s NewWorld Dictionary of American English: lobbyists are the people “acting for aspecial interest group […] to influence the introduction of or voting onlegislation or the decision of government administrators” (1994, p 793)

2.2.2 Types of lobbyist

For a long time, both political scientists and the U.S Congress have triedtheir best to classify lobbyists Admittedly, defining types of lobbyist is not asimple work According to Cigler and Loomis (1991), the reason can be: (1) anincrease in the number of full-time lobbyists; (2) the emergence of lobbying firmsthat provide a variety of services and represent multiple clients; (3) the increased

specialization of lobbyists in response to the growing complexity of government.These authors categorized lobbyists into four types: contract lobbyists, in-houselobbyists, citizen or volunteer lobbyists and private “hobbyists” or self-styledlobbyists Later, in 2003, based on the ideas of Cigler and Loomis, Thomas andHrebenar reclassified and suggested five types of lobbyists which are widelyaccepted They are (1) contract lobbyists; (2) in-house lobbyists; (3) citizen, cause

or volunteer lobbyists; (4) government legislative liaisons; (5) private “hobbyists”

or self-appointed lobbyists

Contract lobbyists, sometimes called “pros” or “hired gun” (Cigler &Loomis, 1991), are those who are employed by contract Appearing in the 1930s,they specialize in political system and have close relationships with governmentstaff That is why they tend to carry out inside lobbying1 They are hired to lobbythe government on behalf of their clients who are economically influential at thestate level Regarded as one of the most important political forces in each state,these big-name lobbyists get the highest incomes

By contrast, in-house lobbyists are employees of companies ororganizations who have no experience in governmental process They may also beexecutive directors, presidents, or staff members They have accounted the largestnumbers since they first began to appear in mid-1800s Contrary to contractlobbyists, in-house lobbyists are expertise in setting goals for the organizationsand have ability to carry out grass-roots campaigns which are part of outsidelobbying2

Government legislative liaisons are the employees of government agenciesand local governments who represent their agencies to other government andlegislative branch They call themselves legislative liaisons instead of lobbyistsbecause of the negative connotation of the term lobbyist (Thomas, 2004) Yet inpractice they are actual lobbyists They include representatives of state university,

1 Seeking to influence decisions of policymakers through close contacts with them (Patterson, 2000).

2 A form of lobbying in which interest groups use public pressure as a means of influencing officials.

elected and appointed officials of local governments, heads and senior staff offederal and state government agencies.

Volunteer lobbyists are the representatives of local groups or smallnonprofit organizations They are not well-paid and their salaries are based ontheir commitments to a cause They depend on moral arguments to sell theircauses to the governmental staff and provide political perspectives or viewpoints(Cigler & Loomis, 1991) They usually lack the status of political insiders oraccess to big campaign contributions and large organizations

Accounting for a very small number (only 1-2% in lobbying community),private “hobbyists” or self-appointed lobbyists are prominent individuals wholobby to gain their economic interests (Thomas, 2004) The subjects of theiractivities may be pet projects, personal benefits, for or against a policy or decision

All lobbyists, regardless of type, seek to maintain a reputation of honesty,expertise and credibility by providing useful and honest information Still, each ofthem has his own strategies and tactics of influence

2.3 Revolving door

This term is used to describe the employment cycle from “public service toprivate representation” (McGuire, 2000, p.113), which is a popular trend in theU.S politics nowadays To put it simply, government officials, after havingworked in different positions in Congress, executive branch departments andregulatory agencies, leave public sector and join lobbyist community inWashington These individuals often lobby on the issue that they are interested in

or work in lobbying firms

Significantly, having worked in governmental body, they are at greatadvantage to take new roles as members of the Washington pressure community.Obviously, a government job provides them a lot of experience including the innerworkings of government as well as the knowledge of policy – making processwhich has long been viewed as “considerable asset for those who would seek topressure decision makers” (Herring, 1929; cited in McGuire, 2000, p 115) It is

undoubtedly true that with such experience and knowledge, they can recognizetheir potential positions as lobbyists and client interests; and may readily use thatexpertise to make the jump from Congress to Washington’s lobbying industry.Moreover, as stated by Schlozman & Tierney (1986), the vast majority of interestgroups take pains to make sure that they attract such individuals on their interests.Tony Podesta – founder and chairman of the Podesta Group, one of Washington’smost prominent lobbying firms – has ever said in the Washingtonpost that “peoplewho are experienced in Washington tend to be better at doing this kind of workthan people who have never worked in the government before” (2011)

Furthermore, another advantage that encourages former political staffers totake lucrative jobs in the lobbying industry is their personal contacts During theirperiods of public service, they developed a wide network of relationship withdifferent colleagues who they can exploit on behalf of their clients (Burger &Zenely, 2006)

The question now is why former Congressmen are ready to take themovement into lobbying community after their terms Needless to say, the answerlies in the salary for such lobbyists Working in private sector can earn them anamount of money that may be 3 or 4 times higher than that of a congressionalstaff That is the reason why there has been a dramatic increase in the number offormer congressional staffer-turned-lobbyists recently According to a study bynon-partisan group Legistorm in 2011, there are approximately 5400 formergovernment servants who have left Congress to work as federal lobbyists over thepast 10 years It was also revealed that in 2011, of 5400 lobbyists, about 2900were registered to lobby on behalf of clients Besides, a recent review of U.S.House disbursement data and federal lobbying records shows that in the periodfrom 2009 to 2011, at least 378 House staffers made a movement to lobbying 527revolving door lobbyists was part of the Bush Administration, compared to 358during the Clinton Administration Today that number is 326 in the ObamaAdministration

The existence of revolving door raises several concerns Firstly, formerofficials can “cash in” on their experience As discussed earlier, corporations andorganizations often seek for ex-staffers because of their expertise When leavingtheir offices, besides close networks with their colleagues, former employees bringwith them valuable knowledge of insiders in legislation which is not available toothers In effect, they can gain large amount of money thanks to those advantages

Another common criticism is that staffers-to-lobbyists could be simplytrading on their political connections Although lobbyists argue that their hugeearnings are due to their expertise, the question whether they are really paid for

“what they know” or “who they know” remains under debate (Draca, Fons-Rosen

& Vidal, 2010) In addition, the prospect of being well-paid can probably haveinfluence on officials’ actions They may be well affected by the promises ofgetting high-paying jobs by corporations and organizations that have the sameinterests with officials’ actions while serving in public service

Furthermore, the leave of staff causes a huge loss to Congress It is clearthat each term Congress loses a number of experienced officials It means thattheir offices have to recruit new employees that are often less experienced.Certainly, the offices which lack staff with political expertise ought to seek for theaids from the outside lobbyists Also, revolving door can make a bad impressionthat Washington is linked to corrupting interrelationship, thus decreasing publicconfidence in the government

The first attempt to regulate revolving door took effect at the federal level

in 1978 with the Ethics in Government Act According to the Act, former staffers

in the executive branch of government were required to wait in a so-called “cooloff” period (1 year) before becoming lobbyists The law, in 1989, was expanded toinclude Congressmen and senior congressional staff in the Ethics Reform Act.About two decades later, Congress further slowed the door by increasing the “cooloff” period to two years in the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of2007

CHAPTER 3: LAWS RELATED TO LOBBYING

IN THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS

Lobbying activities started and developed along with the development ofthe U.S history The First Amendment to the Constitution ratified in 1790guaranteed citizens’ right to petition the government Records suggest thatorganized lobbying of American politicians goes back at least as far as the late 18th

Century, getting involved in the earliest days of Congress (Public Affairs Links,2007) In the years since, lobbying has taken on many forms to advance a variety

of causes from tariff legislation during the republic's early days to the specialinterests of political action committees3

Congress first took efforts to regulate lobbying activities in 1876 when allthe lobbyists were required to register with the Clerk of the House In thefollowing years, Congress made attempts to pass certain effective laws, but none

of them was enforced systematically In 1936, in response to the scandals in thelobbying practices of shipping industry, Congress included several lobbyingregistration provisions in some industry – specific legislation, such as theMerchant Marine Act of 1938 However, it wasn’t until World War II thatsystematic and comprehensive regulation of lobbying was enacted

3.1 The Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938

In 1938, President Franklin Roosevelt believed that Adolph Hitlerprovided financial aids for the Nazi movement in the U.S A special committee ofCongress known as the “McCormack Committee” was established to investigate

“un-American activities” in the U.S The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA)was enacted as a result of the investigations by this committee

3 Organizations through which an interest group raises and distributes funds for election purposes.

(Patterson, 2000)

The 1938 Act was passed in order to restrict the influence of foreign

agents on the U.S public policy The law was first aimed at the Nazi movement 4

or “Nazi propaganda5”, but then it was extended to include “pro-communistpropaganda”

The FARA focused mainly on providing the public disclosure of identityand financial interests of people engaged in lobbying In the Act, the definitions of

“foreign agent” and “foreign principal” were given “Foreign agent” was anyoneworking as lobbyist or representative for “foreign principal” “Foreign principal”was defined as a foreign government or political party under the laws of a foreignnation

Under the FARA, all foreign agents were required to register their names,addresses and their clients to the Secretary of the Senate They must also report alltheir lobbying activities to the Secretary, including the details of lobbyingcontacts, the expenditure, the subject of discussion and the name of public officiallobbied Besides, any paper or information propagated by foreign agents has to beclearly labeled

There were several amendments to the FARA, including a generalrevision in 1942 and major amendments in 1966 The 1942 revision, (1) provided

a new requirement that all political propaganda spread in the U.S by foreignagents be labeled as such, (2) further defined the term “political propaganda” byadding a new definition, and (3) transferred the responsibility for administeringand enforcing the act from the Department of State to the Department of Justice

The 1966 amendments were the results of an extensive study andhearings by the Committee in the early 1960s It was aimed at enhancing the basicobjectives of the original act (the FARA) The most important provision was thatthe FARA was changed into an instrument to regulate lobbying Congress by

4 Movement in Germany to cause Germans believe that Germans were "racially superior" and that the Jews,

deemed "inferior," were an alien threat to the so-called German racial community (Holocaust Encyclopedia, 2000).

5 Mechanisms of persuasion used to secure the consensus and support of the German populace for Hitler

and his wartime cruelty (Holocaust Encyclopedia, 2000)

foreign agents and grassroots lobbying6 Other amendments were (1) stricter

requirements for foreign agents’ disclosure of lobbying activities andexpenditures, (2) requirements of disclosing the status of foreign agents andidentifying their foreign principal, and (3) revision of the definition of “foreignagent” and “foreign principal”

According to the General Accounting Office (GAO, 1974), only after the

1942 provisions was lobbying more regulated From 1942 to 1974, when theDepartment of Justice began administering the Act, more than 2400 individualsand organizations registered, including more than 400 since 1966 amendmentsbecame effective The following figure presents the number of registrants from

1960 to 1972

6 Pressure designed to convince government officials that a group’s policy position has broad public support through advertisement, media, letters or phone calls to representatives.

Figure 2: New registrations and terminations during calendar years

1960-1972 and active registrations at the end of calendar years 1960-1960-1972

(Source: United States General Accounting Office (GAO, 1974)

It is revealed that the number of registrations reached a peak of 511 at thebeginning of 1966 However, it dropped steadily to 446 at the end of 1968, andthen rose again until it reached 481 in 1972

However, according to the GAO (1974), there was high incidence of latefiling and the large number of insufficient supplemental statements Especially, itwas noted that, (1) 261 (67%) of the 392 required statements were not submittedwithin the time limits, and, (2) 154 (70%) of the 222 supplemental statementswere incomplete or lacked sufficient details, (GAO, 1974)

Since its last substantive reform, many FARA failures and shortcomings

in lobbyist registration have been pointed out The major loopholes were the lack

of enthusiasm by the Department of Justice in enforcing the Act; failure to clarifyexactly who had to register and what were the disclosure requirements; and,inability to regulate any contact between lobbyists and public officials that did nottake place in the U.S Despite the outcry from the public and several members ofCongress to update the FARA, Congress failed to pass any substantive reform.That is why all of the major loopholes that exist in the original version are still ineffect today

3.2 The Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946

In 1940s, the fact that lobbyists became more tactical in their activitiesand the number of lobbyists was increasing greatly required the enactment of aneffective law to regulate this legal process and “assure more fairness, transparencyand responsibility” (Mihut, 2008)

Unlike the FARA which was for foreign agents, the Federal Regulation

of Lobbying Act of 1946 (FRLA) was for domestic lobbyists, which was passed toprovide a lobbyist registration system and disclosure of those attempting to

influence Congress Another purpose of the law was to provide public informationabout the pressures which influenced policy making process

The FRLA, similar to the FARA, focused entirely on providing lobbyingdisclosure It required lobbyists who sought to influence legislation in Congress toregister with the Clerk of the House and submit quarterly financial reports whichmust include lobbyist’s name, address and all paying clients; an itemized account

of funds and expenditures; and the passage or bill that the lobbyist was paid toinfluence Any lobbyist violating these requirements would be fined $5000 orimprisoned 1 year, or banned from lobbying for 3 years

However, the Act was largely considered irrelevant to the practice oflobbying and soon became a failure Two years after its enactment President HarryTruman required some revisions to the Act Some of the shortcomings were that itapplied only to those seeking to influence members of Congress, so in essence theexecutive branch, regulatory agencies and other governmental organizations wereexempt Moreover, financial reporting was left to the lobbyist to decide As aresult, it couldn’t provide a clear disclosure of expenditures which was actuallywhat the public needed to know In addition, the FRLA failed to give a specificdefinition of lobbyist who had to register

In 1954, the Supreme Court substantially weakened the FRLA by

narrowing its scope in United States v Harriss7 According to the Court, the Actonly applied to the paid lobbyist who directly communicated with Congressmen toinfluence the passage or defeat a specific legislation Besides, the Court approvedthat the federal government had the right to regulate lobbying conduct anddisclosure

As noted, the 1946 Act soon became a failure According to a study in

1991 by the General Accounting Office (GAO), there was a significant number of

7 A U.S Supreme Court case applied directly to the FRLA in which the Court narrowed the potential

application to direct contacts with a member of Congress by individuals or organizations whose principal purpose is lobbying.

nonfilers It was revealed that about 10 000 of the 13 500 individuals andorganizations listed as lobbyists in the book “Washington Representative”8 did not

register with the Clerk and the Secretary In addition, it was found that informationrequired was often submitted late and incomplete Table 2 and 3 demonstrate howlate and incomplete the reports were

Table 2: Timeliness of quarterly reports filed for 1989

Range of days late Number of reports Percent of reports

(Source: United States General Accounting Office (GAO, 1991)

Table 3: Incomplete Responses in Quarterly Reports for 1989

Incomplete questions per

The FARA and the FRLA are similar in the point that they were virtuallyobsolete soon after the enactment The main shortcomings are: inability to provide

8 A directory listing individuals and organizations in Washington who engage in legal services, government affairs, public relations and lobbying (GAO, 1991).

clear and comprehensive definitions of lobbying and lobbyist that have to register;failure to cover a large number of public officials in decision making processsubject to lobbying; confusing registration and financial report requirements; andincoherent enforcement authority.

3.3 The Byrd Amendment and Miscellaneous Disclosure Laws of 1989

The primary purpose of the Byrd Amendment signed in 1989 was toprohibit federal agencies and departments from using government funds toinfluence a federal contract, grant or loan Instead, they could use non-governmentfunds They were also required to disclose their contacts with federal officialsthrough “outside lobbyists”9 and submit disclosure reports to the Clerk of the

House and the Secretary of the Senate on a semiannual basis The Amendmentdidn’t cover in-house lobbyists and client’s employees

Under the Amendment, Federal employees were prohibited fromconducting “grassroots lobbying” campaign However, they were permitted to (1)contact Congressmen and their staff to support them in administration ordepartmental positions; (2) communicate with the public through public speechesand printing documents; (3) meet individuals of the public in private, as long as it

is not related to a grassroots lobbying campaign; and, (4) lobby Congress or thepublic on non-legislative subjects

The Amendment was vague in many important aspects and causedconfusion to those to whom it might apply Some points in the Byrdamendment were then amended in the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995

3.4 The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995

After the failure of the FRLA of 1946, attempts to enact an effectivefederal lobbying law continued for more than forty years without success Theinadequacies were advantages for lobbyists to conduct lobbying activities withoutreporting, even adopting inappropriate activities and illegal tactics, includingbribery There were many scandals related to lobbyists and their activities,

9 Lobbyist who seeks influence through public pressure (Patterson, 1996).

involving a few Democrats leaders of the House Therefore, it was urgent to enact

a systematic law to regulate lobbying registration and disclosure reporting In theperiod from 1991 to 1995, a number of hearings and meetings were held with theeffort of modifying the FRLA into a more effective act Finally, in 1995 theLobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) was ratified with bipartisan10 support Incomparison with previous regulations, the LDA was the representation of a greatereffort to create an effective system of lobbying disclosure The Act integratedseveral key points of the FARA, the Byrd Amendment and the FRLA into onelaw, and provided substantial improvements

The LDA advanced the definition of lobbyists to include all those “whoseek to influence Congress, congressional staff, and policymaking officials of theexecutive branch including the president, top White House officials, Cabinetsecretaries and their deputies, and independent agency administrators and theirassistants” (Hrebenar, 1997, p.280) Prior to 1995, lobbying laws only focused onlobbyists’ contacts with members of Congress, but were silent on those withexecutive branch The LDA, for the first time, included executive branchemployees and certain officers by defining them as “covered officials”11

Moreover, lobbying was said to occur when a lobbyist communicatedeither orally or in writing with certain public officials on behalf of their client oremployer, “concerning legislation, rules and regulations, programs, grants, loansand nominations subject to Senate confirmation” (McGrath, 2005, cited in Chary

10 Involving two political party (Oxford Advanced Learner’s dictionary, 8th ed.)

11 For the list of executive branch officials, see Appendix 1.

12 See Appendix 2.

periodic reports (the LD-213) must be submitted at the end of each six-monthperiod, updating information in the registration form, specifying exactly whichlegislative matter the lobbyist worked on as well as setting out whichcongressional chamber and/or executive agencies were lobbied Any lobbyistviolating these requirements could be imprisoned up to five years However, thereporting requirements didn’t apply to grassroots lobbying and lobbying byreligious groups.

In addition, the LDA further enforced the responsibility of the Clerk ofthe House and the Secretary of the Senate in implementing the Act According toSection 6, they were required to provide guidance and assistance to lobbyists andlobbying community on clarifying registration and report requirements, whichthey had not been authorized to do under the FRLA Besides, they had to developcomputer-based system to compile lobbying documents and make them availablefor public inspection

The Act also provided modifications to reporting requirements for

“foreign agents” The lobbyists working on behalf of foreign governments orforeign political parties must register under the FARA whereas those representingindividual foreign companies must register under the LDA

The amendments to the LDA were made in 1998 They clarified thedefinition of covered executive branch officials; and more clearly defined whatconstitutes a lobbying contact These amendments were provided to solve severalminor problems with the language in the LDA faced by the Clerk and theSecretary

The LDA of 1995 was a lobbying reform which improved substantiallymany of the problems created by the poor drafting of the FRLA It successfullyclosed many of the largest loopholes, including the weakness of the lobbyingdefinitions and the focus on congressional action It provided definitions that were

“empirical” “quantifiable” but not “subjective” (Holman, 2010) Since LDA took

13 See Appendix 3.

effect, lobbying registration has been more facilitated The following figuresummarizes the number of registrants, clients and lobbyists registered with theSecretary of the Senate The number of registered lobbyists increased from 10798

in 1996 to 30402 in 2004

Figure 3: Registrants, Clients and Lobbyists Registered Under

the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, 1996-2004

(Source: Data from the Secretary of the Senate, Office of Public Records and CRS

calculations)Claimed by the House Judiciary Committee (1995), it created a more

“effective and equitable systems for administering and enforcing the disclosurerequirements” (p.2) Thanks to clear and concise definitions of “lobbyist” and

“lobbying activity”, its coverage of key members in the decision making processand its focus on making the information available to the public, the LDA exposedworst corruption scandals which have been seen in decades on Capitol Hill Themost notorious case was of the “super-lobbyist” Jack Abramoff who in 2006 wascharged with using large amount of money to bribe Congressmen and even while

he was in prison, he still bribed lawmakers in exchange for a lighter sentence Thepublic uncovered his activities due to the electronic disclosure of lobbyist reports

3.5 The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007

Beside some important improvements, the LDA still had a number ofshortcomings:

 Lobbyist financial reports were filed in paper format, which caused a hardworkload for the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House inreconverting them into electronic data to post online

 The Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate were justresponsible for filing lobbying financial reports without ensuring thatwhether the reports were complete or accurate

 Many lobbying activities needed regulating, among which is “revolvingdoor” – former public officials becoming lobbyists for special interests

To transcend these limitations, the Honest Leadership and OpenGovernment Act (HLOGA) was signed into law on September 14, 2007 Itprovided, among other changes to federal law and House and Senate rules,additional and more frequent disclosures of lobbying contacts and activities.Under the HLOGA, lobbyists were required to submit documents to theClerk and the Secretary through an online reporting system in which the datawere in electronic form Moreover, the HLOGA shortened the reporting cyclefrom semi-annual period to quarterly period All lobbying firms whose earningexceeds $2500 (formerly $5000) over four months must register with the Clerkand the Secretary, as must all individual lobbyists lobbying on their own behalfwho spend more than $10 000 (formerly $20 000) over the same period

The HLOGA also focused on the work of the Clerk and the Secretary incollecting and reporting information about lobbyists They were required tocollect quarterly and semiannual reports electronically; make documentsavailable on the internet and report incorrect or false filings to the U.S attorneyfor the District of Columbia The Clerk and the Secretary used a separate

electronic filing system, whereas lobbyist registered once and documents wereautomatically sent to both the Clerk and the Secretary.

The HLOGA slowed the revolving door by prohibiting former senatorsand senior executive branch officials from lobbying contacts with the entireSenate for two years Prior to the HLOGA, the “cool off” rule was just oneyear for lobbying the former working office The Act also banned the seniorHouse employees from lobbying their former office for one year

In general, lobbying reforms in the U.S are based on the key points ofthe former Acts and provide amendments to close the loopholes It is said thatthe amendments to the LDA in the HLOGA remain modest, and there stillexists room for improvement

CHAPTER 4: LOBBYING IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION 4.1 Policy changes

Lobbying reform has been the interest of President Obama since he was asenator With the support of Senator John McCain, he proposed the extensiverevisions which led to the enactment of the most important reform since 1995 –the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 (HLOGA) The Actattempted to slow the “revolving door” between public and private sector, and toenhance transparency of lobbying activities by requiring the submission ofdisclosure report from registered lobbyists on a quarterly basis Senator Obama’saim in the HLOGA was to make it easier for the public to know more aboutlobbyists’ campaign contributions to lawmakers and to make it easier for thepublic to “be aware of lobbyist advocacy topics, targets and expenditure”(Thurber, 2011, p.360)

Barrack Obama continued his attacks on lobbyists in his 2008 electioncampaign with the promise of making the executive branch more “transparent,participatory and collaborative” (Congressional research service, 2009, p.1) Hisfirst action was banning lobbyists from his campaign organization The popularquotation in his campaign was that “I don't take money from federal lobbyists Idon't take money from PACs” (Republican National Committee, 2008) or “we willnot take a dime from Washington lobbyists” (Republican National Committee,2008) He explained his refusal to take contributions from federally registeredlobbyists on grounds that they could “drown out the views of the Americanpeople” (Office of the President-Elect, 2008, p.2) Also, Obama often said banningthe donations was one way to help keep him free of the influence of Washingtoninsiders In addition, during a campaign speech in Virginia, he made the promise

to the public:

[…] they [registered lobbyists] had not funded my campaigns, and from myfirst day as president, I will launch the most sweeping ethics reform in U.S

history We will make government more open, more accountable and moreresponsive to the problems of the American people (Thurber, 2010, p.2).Moreover, he continuously declared to exclude lobbyists from the WhiteHouse once he was elected: “On my very first day as president, I will launch themost sweeping ethics reform in history to make the White House the people’shouse and send the Washington lobbyists back to K street” and […] when I ampresident, they won’t find a job in my White House” (ABC news) Besides, inanother occasion, he proclaimed that his administration was “going to change howWashington works” (Office of the President-Elect, 2008), by which he meant hisAdministration would serve the views of public interests, not special interests.

His sustained attempts to change the culture of lobbying and the wayWashington works have been kept going since he became the President Soon aftertaking the office, President Obama directed his departments and agencies tochange lobbying and the political influence culture that pervaded Washington(Jacobson, 2011) He introduced new ethics rule diminishing the influence thatspecial interests had on legislators and White House officials The Administrationalso instituted strong code ethics which focused on closing the revolving door.Additionally, he established tough restrictions on direct lobbying on stimulusfunds from the Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 and, implemented strictgift ban In order to achieve intended goals, the Administration has issued twohistoric Executive Orders and several memoranda

4.1.1 Revolving door bans

The Obama Administration established the strongest and most farreaching revolving door provisions ever adopted by any Administration

One of the most extensive amendments to the revolving door ban is

reverse revolving door 14 restrictions that had not been adopted before Any person

who worked as a registered lobbyist within two years prior to serving the Obama

14 Other form of revolving door: lobbyists are appointed to key positions in federal agencies (Public

Citizen, 2005).

Administration is prohibited from being appointed to any agency or departmentthat they lobbied before in two years To be more specific, they may work in otherdepartments, but may not:

(a) Participate in any particular matter on which [they] lobbied within 2years before the date of [their] appointment

(b) Participate in the specific issue area in which that particular matter falls;or

(c) Seek or accept employment with any executive agency that [they]lobbied within 2 years before the date of [their] appointment

The President made a commitment to the American people to reduce theinfluence of lobbyists in Washington out of a belief that lobbyists have toooften in the past achieved disproportionate impact on government decisionmakers at the expense of broader voices from the public at large (Eisen,

2009, p.2)

He then added that “If we are going to change the way business is done inWashington, we need to make sure we are not simply continuing the practices ofthe past” (Eisen, 2009, p.2)

While the President kept the two year cool-off rule preventing seniorofficials having any direct contacts with their former agencies, as set in theHLOGA, he banned them from lobbying all covered officials in the executivebranch for the remainder of the Obama Administration Additionally, all theappointees in the executive branch are prohibited from participating in any matters

or specific areas related to their former employer or clients

4.1.2 Restrictions on contacts between lobbyists and executive branch officials

In December 2007, the United States slipped into recession which wouldbecome the most profound economic crisis to the nation since the GreatDepression. The crisis, known as the “Great Recession”, resulted from the collapse

of the housing market bubble and the related mortgage crisis (Vukovic, 2010) Itcaused such strong and long-lasting effects that politicians and economic analystsclaimed it would outmatch the Great Depression of the 1930s The crisis sprangover the U.S economy, resulting in a severe public debt crisis ($3600 billion,Vukovic, 2010), upsettingly high unemployment rate as well as a massive fall inproduction and profits Consequently, it spread to the rest of the world’s financialmarket, bringing about the worldwide recession The crisis called for swift andbold action from the government to revive production and turn around theunemployment trend In response to the economic recession, on February 17, 2009President Obama signed the Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the Stimulus Bill orthe Recovery Act) into law This legislation was an effort to create jobs, restoreeconomic growth and lift the economy out of the crisis through federal spending(OpenCongress, 2009)

The bill was enacted not long after Obama became the President with thepromise to change the way business done in Washington As discussed earlier,President Obama has long viewed lobbying as a source of corruption and placedthe blame for many of American’s problem on lobbyists He continuously

promised to change the culture of lobbying and influence in Washington, and thatwas still fresh in the public’s mind at the time It was in the environment offrequent anti-lobbying attacks and economic crisis that the bill was enacted

Moreover, this environment also encouraged Obama to issueunprecedented restrictions on communication between lobbyists and federalofficials about the distribution of the fund The ultimate goal of the restrictionswas to ensure that “public funds are expended responsibly and in a transparentmanner” (Presidential Memorandum, 2009, p.1) In essence, three goals were set:transparency, merit-based decision making and the reduction of “improperinfluence”

On March 20, 2009, Obama announced the first set of restrictions in amemorandum entitled “Ensuring Responsible Spending of Recovery Act Funds”

It prescribed severe restrictions and disclosure obligation not found in the LDA orelse where with regard to contacts between executive branch and registeredlobbyists under the LDA (Luneburg, 2010)

Pursuant to section 3a of the Memorandum, “an executive department oragency official” is prohibited from communicating orally with a registeredlobbyist under the LDA about “particular projects, applications, or applicants forfunding under the Recovery Act” (Obama, 2009, p.3), unless the communication

is interpreted into writing In other words, the Memorandum bans verbalcommunication of any kind (either in-person meeting or telephone calls) betweenfederal employees and registered lobbyists

Furthermore, section 3c related to transparency of a registered lobbyist’scontact with an agency official Specifically, “all written communications from aregistered lobbyist concerning the commitment, obligation or expenditure of fundsunder the Recovery Act” are required to disclose on the respective agency’srecovery website no more than three days after the communication (Obama, 2009,p.3)

However, executive branch officials may have oral communications withregistered lobbyists as long as they do not concern particular projects, application,

or applicants for funding Instead, such communications should touch on generalpolicies or information related to the Recovery Act After a permissiblecommunication took place, the official is directed to document it in writing,including date and time, the names of the registered lobbyist and the officialinvolved and a brief description of what was discussed15 As before, the

Memorandum required all the documented information put on the agency’srecovery website no later than three days after the communication took place

After the Presidential Memorandum was released, it got negative reactionand strong opposition, especially from interest groups who claimed that it wasineffective and violated the First Amendment In order to close the loopholes, onJuly 24, 2009, the Director of the Office of Budget and Management Peter Orszagofficially issued an updated version which was “even tougher on special interestsand more focus on merits-based decision making” (Norm Eisen, 2009, p.1).Significantly, the new memorandum expanded the restrictions to include anyoneoutside the Federal government communicating with executive officials about theRecovery Act, not just registered lobbyists Additionally, it focused the restrictions

on communications during the time following the submission of a formalapplication for Recovery Act funds to the approval of the application During thistime, federal officials may not communicate verbally with anyone about aparticular application, “whether or not the initiating party is a federally registeredlobbyist” (Orszag, 2009, p.2) However, the restrictions do not apply to thecommunications that are about general policies of the fund, or those taking place

at a widely attended gathering, or those initiated by the Federal agency officials

Besides, with regard to oral and written communications about RecoveryAct policy or projects for funding, the federal employee is directed to take thefollowing steps: (1) inform the person of applicable restriction that the

15 For the form of disclosure, see Appendix 5.

conversation will be interpreted in writing; (2) document the contact with date,names of people involved and a short description of the contact and attachments ofany written materials provided by the outside participants; and, (3) submit theform to the agency for posting on the recovery website (Orszag, 2009).

The new version, similar to the Presidential Memorandum, does notrestrict the oral communications on general questions However, it clarifies what ageneral issue is by outlining four general topics of discussion which were notprovided in the Presidential Memorandum:

(1) How to apply for funding under the Recovery Act;

(2) How to conform to deadlines;

(3) To which agencies or officials applications or questions should bedirected; or

(4) Requests for information about program requirements and agencypractices under the Recovery Act

(Orszag, 2009, p.1)

In addition, under the new rules, oral communications at widely attendedgathering are not restricted However, this category does not cover privateconversations

All these provisions are on the purpose of preventing any potential abuse

or corruption that anyone seeking for the funds may take to gain access to orfavoritism from federal officials

4.1.3 Lobbyist gift bans

A strict ban on gifts from registered lobbyists to executive branch officialsand federal employees is part of the Obama Administration efforts to change theculture of lobbying and influence in Washington The gift ban is designed to help

“prevent influence buying and the appearance of influence buying by those withbusiness pending before the executive branch” (Democracy 21, 2010, p.8).Significantly, the ban extends the previous limitations to all federal executivebranch officials

In general, as before, federal employees may not accept gifts fromregistered lobbyists and lobbying organizations or any organizations that actuallyhave filed registration with the Secretary and the Clerk, or in the case the gift isprovided because of the employee’s official position (Office of GovernmentEthics, 2009) Federal employees may refer to the online searchable databases todetermine whether the gift giver is registered.

Remarkably, under the new rule, the current exceptions are mostlyeliminated For example, prior to the Obama Administration, federal employeesmight accept gifts valued at $20 or less Noticeably, that exception, known as the

“de minimis” exception, would no longer exist under the new rule Also, they willnot be able to accept free attendance at widely attended gatherings unless they arespeaking or presenting information at the conference Other exceptions that havebeen eliminated relate to free attendance at social events that are not sponsored by

a prohibited source16; and, meals, refreshments and entertainment from privateentities in a foreign area (Office of Government Ethics, 2009)

However, the new rule remains the exceptions to the gifts based on apersonal relationship; gifts from journalists; and gifts to the President or VicePresident

In addition, the Administration also set the ban on the gifts that areaccepted in an indirect way An indirect gift is defined as any gift to anappointee’s family (parents, sibling, children and spouse) because of therelationship with that appointee It also includes any gift to any other person,

“including a charitable organization, based on the employee’s designation,recommendation or other specification” (Office of Government Ethics, 2009, p.4)

Finally, proper disposition can be paying the gift giver “the market value”

or “returning a tangible item” If the gift is perishable and can not be returned, theappointee’s supervisor can determine to donate it to an appropriate charity, toshare within the agency or destroy it

16 A person or organization who seeks to influence government officials’ actions