Dems To Further Tighten Ethics Rules

Democratic leaders are anxious to put the discomforting business of lobbying and ethics reform behind them, but a few politically tricky steps remain.

Among the biggest: a House decision on whether to toughen its ethics enforcement process and tidying up the final language in the lobbying bill -- a process that's sure to include some tweaks and deletions.

A task force created by Speaker Nancy Pelosi in January is expected to release its recommendations soon for changing the way ethics complaints are handled in the chamber. Reformers are clamoring for the addition of independent investigators to probe such complaints. But that doesn't appear to be in the works.

According to people familiar with the process, the task force is likely to loosen the rules under which complaints can be filed and is leaning toward creating a four-person panel that would conduct an initial review of their worthiness. Those deemed serious enough would be passed on to the ethics committee for full investigation.

Since Republicans took over the House in 1994 -- with then-Speaker Newt Gingrich battling ethics charges -- lawmakers have incrementally put the squeeze on the complaint process. In 1994, an outsider could file a complaint only after three sitting members of Congress refused to do it for him or her.

The rules changed later to allow only members to file complaints, a step that led to a long period when the ethics committee's investigative operation pretty much shut down.

The task force is expected to recommend that the House open the complaint process by allowing outsiders to file against members without having to jump through any hoops first. Their allegations would then be vetted by the new panel of outsiders appointed by the House speaker and minority leader.

An evenly divided panel would mean that at least one person who hails from an accused member's own party would have to vote with the majority to forward a complaint to the full ethics committee. But it also could lead to deadlocks, as can happen with the Federal Election Commission, which is also equally divided along partisan lines.

It's unclear whether the task force is recommending a particular profile for the panel appointees. Reformers are pressing for candidates with legal or judicial training but fear the committee could wind up being dominated by former members of Congress.

Also unresolved is how much power the panel would have in vetting complaints: Will it evaluate them based on a simple reading, after a few telephone calls or as a result of some real investigative work?

Since the task force's recommendations affect only the House's ethics process, it is being managed separately from the lobbying reform bill that the House and Senate are negotiating now.

A requirement that lobbyists disclose how much money they help raise for incumbents and candidates is expected to survive final negotiations. "If they throw that overboard or weaken them, it will be a public relations nightmare," says Meredith McGehee of the Campaign Finance Institute.

But other provisions are probably going to be deleted. The reform community has all but given up on extending from one year to two the so-called revolving-door component that would bar former lawmakers from lobbying their old colleagues.

It's likely to put more energy in salvaging a Senate-passed plank that requires lobbyists to disclose the underwriters of convention parties honoring incumbents. But that, too, is in peril.

A late addition to the bill by Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah) is also probably headed for the shredder. His amendment was intended to block law firms that do government work from also lobbying. It was inspired by House Judiciary Committee Democrats' decision to hire a law firm with a lobbying arm to help conduct its investigation of the Justice Department's dismissals of several U.S. attorneys.

Cannon chafed at seeing the firm's attorneys dig up Republican irt behind the scenes and ask for help with lobbying clients in other meetings with lawmakers.

Although the amendment passed in committee with a unanimous voice vote, it wasn't written precisely, and lawyers are warning lawmakers that it could prevent law firms with lobbying wings from defending incumbents caught in corruption cases or serving as campaign counsels. "Cannon would be willing to add language to clarify it, but I don't know if that will be acceptable to the legal donors of the Democratic Party," says spokesman Fred Piccolo.

(Pit Boss note: Republicans have legal donors, too, and, at the moment, a lot more legal defense funds.)

Returning lawmakers are likely to get plenty of advice. Lobbyists and lawyers had plenty of time during the Memorial Day break to cull the House and Senate legislation. Some boutique lobbying shops are griping that the new disclosure requirements may force them to increase fees to hire new staff -- a move that could drive clients to bigger outfits that can more easily absorb the costs of a few extra hires.

But, perhaps surprisingly, other lobbyists are shrugging off -- or even embracing -- the new requirements.

"This is one of the few things the American public is right about with respect to their cynicism and concern about the access of special interests," says Robert Raben, founder of the Raben Group and a fundraiser for mostly Democratic candidates. As long as campaigns are financed with private money, he says, "There must be as much disclosure and transparency about how elected officials raise that money as humanly possible."

Besides, he notes, the public is about the only constituency that doesn't know the nitty-gritty details about lobbyists' practice of bundling campaign checks for candidates. In many cases, lobbyists like to brag about it.

"My inbox is filled with information about how good some lobbyists are at raising money. I'm hard-pressed to know exactly what kind of lobbyist is concerned about another person knowing that she or he raised x amount of money for a candidate," he says.

Wayne Berman, a top lobbyist and fundraiser for Republicans, is also nonplussed by the legislation. "I don't ask members to do things that are politically dangerous to them or stupid, so I don't see much downside," he says. 

Pit Boss is a weekly column that explores the intersection of lobbying and politics. Please send any tips for tracking Washington's most lucrative industry to pitboss@politico.com.