1

The System, Principles and Practice of Lobbying and Advocacy in the U.S.

Monday, 2 June 2014 Ukrainian Catholic University

Lviv, Ukraine

Benjamin E. Griffith, Chair, International Steering Committee, International Municipal Lawyers

Association, and International Committee of ABA Section of State & Local Government Law

We are pleased to participate with our colleagues in Ukraine in this timely, collaborative and interactive presentation on the System, Principles and Practice of Lobbying and Advocacy in the United States. It is our hope that you will find this information to be informative, relevant, and helpful. You will note that we provide throughout this presentation a number of online sources, links and websites that provide access to more detailed information, and that is exactly what we intend: help open the door and encourage you to explore, learn and develop a solid understanding of this subject.

Sponsors for this presentation include the Ukrainian Catholic University’s Public Administration Program in the Institute of Leadership and Management, the University of Mississippi School of Law, the International Municipal Lawyers Association and the ABA Section of State and Local Government Law. For their generosity in making the facilities and technical staff of the School of Law available for this presentation, we sincerely thank Dean Richard Gershon and Senior Associate Dean and Associate Professor Matthew R. Hall, also a participant in this presentation. We are also grateful for the excellent work of Cate McClure, Deputy Democratic Counsel for the Michigan State Senate, and we thank her for invaluable contributions to the substantive discussion in this written presentation on lobbying practices in the U.S.A. and for her time and expertise in the proofreading and revision process.

Lobbying and Advocacy Defined and Distinguished

Most people use the terms “lobbying” and “advocacy” interchangeably, but there is a distinction between these terms should be emphasized. Lobbying is a form of advocacy and refers specifically to advocacy efforts that attempt to influence legislation and legislators. Advocacy is a more general term related to activism on behalf of an issue. Lobbying is attempting to influence legislators to support or oppose a particular issue or piece of legislation.

2

Advocacy encompasses any activity that a person or organization undertakes to influence governmental policies, and it includes educating and creating awareness among legislators and the general public of issues facing the community and the importance of aligning public policy to address the need. Unlike lobbying, advocacy does not endorse or oppose specific legislation, but rather informs the community at large how public policy decisions impact service provision.

The meaning of “Lobbying” Many people may ask what lobbying actually means and where it originated. Washington, DC pundits have long advanced an age-old myth that lobbying began in the lobby of the Willard Hotel. The myth is that while President Ulysses S. Grant was in office (1869-1877), he would would frequently slip away from the White House and go around the corner to the Willard Hotel to enjoy brandy and a cigar. While he was there, he would be hounded by petitioners asking for legislative favors or jobs. President Grant is said to have coined the term “lobbying” by referring to the petitioners as “those damn lobbyists.”    http://www.welovedc.com/2009/06/09/dc-mythbusting-lobbyist-coined-at-willard-hotel/ True enough, the Latin word ‘labium’ means entrance hall or lounge, and that does have a relation to actual discussion: political decisions these days are often made in the pre-parlamentarian phase of balancing the various interests. According to Beyme, lobbying means ‘diverse intensive activities of social groups, chambers and companies in the political and bureaucratic vestibule’ (Beyme 1980). The oldest research definition of lobbying is given by Milbrath, who concerned lobbying primarily as communication process: ‘Communication is the only means of influencing or changing a perception; the lobbying process, therefore, is totally a communication process’ (Milbrath 1960: 32). Van Schendelen ads a new aspect to the definition of lobbying: ‘lobbying is the informal exchange of information with public authorities, as a minimal conception on the one hand, and as trying informally to influence public authorities, as a maximal description on the other hand’ (Van Schendelen 1993). The most comprehensive definition of lobbying is formulated by Koeppl: ‘lobbying is the attempted or successful influence of legislative-administrative decisions by public authorities through interested representatives. The influence is intended, implies the use of communication and is targeted on legislative or executive bodies’. (Koeppl 2001: 71). There is great latitude in these definitions, and the use of these terms is sometimes problematic. Some people consider advocacy to be all activities that are not specifically lobbying, such as public demonstrations, or the filing of friend of the court briefs. See http://www.npaction.org/article/articleview/76/1/248.

Lobbying and Advocacy in the Non-Profit Organization Context Non-profit organizations are not allowed to lobby; however, any private citizen may write a letter to a legislator with her/his own letterhead.

3

In the context of non-profit organizations, lobbying has a strict legal and IRS definition and

generally includes only those activities that ask policymakers to take a specific position on a

specific piece of legislation. Outside the non-profit context, the common language definition of

lobbying usually includes any discussion of issues with policymakers. The lesson for non-profit

organizations is that one must be careful of the letterhead used for communication with

legislators and also whether one is on company time.

Citizens can both lobby and practice advocacy. It is a good idea to become familiar with the

legislative system. There are many good resources to help one influence a politician or a polic

issue. In addition, you can advocate for issues that concern you through associations and

organizations. Examples are lobbying groups like the ALEC, ACLU, NOW, union PACs and

other organizations that work effectively to give otherwise disenfranchised stakeholders a voice.

Writing to Legislators!

A number of organizations have tips on writing letters to legislators and how to arrange for

visits, and their websites have helpful tips on writing legislators, including sample letters.

One example is the Indiana State Nurses Association (ISNA), which provides the following tips and suggestions for “Writing Your Legislators.” The following was adapted from Communication materials provided by Melinda Rider (1988). http://www.indiananurses.org/pdf_files/writing%20your%20legislators.pdf

Letters may be written to a legislator's home address or to the State House during hearings, committee process or legislative sessions. The structure of the letter should include:

1. The focus of your letter (preferably an action statement informing your legislator what you want done). 2. If a bill, identification by name and number. 3. Your credentials or why you have special knowledge about the issue. 4. Major consequences of the proposed legislation. 5. Rationales for your point of view (facts and statistics). 6. Observations, personal anecdotes, or concrete examples supporting your rationales. 7. A reiteration of what you want the legislator to do (vote yes, vote no, introduce legislation, encourage others to act). 8. The effects proposed legislation will have on constituents (not just nursing). 9. A request for your legislator's response (you are entitled to this information).

Other suggestions for improving your letter writing are as follows:

4

Letterheads portray to legislators whom you represent. Use personal stationery rather than letterhead from your health care facility, agency or school. ISNA stationery is acceptable when representing official association positions authorized by ISNA headquarters and mailed from the ISNA office. Always include your name and address on the letter. A letter cannot be answered if there is no return address or the signature is not legible. Envelopes with return addresses are usually discarded. Letters may be handwritten or typed. The deciding factor will be the legibility of your handwriting. Form letters are discouraged, because of their limited influence on legislators. Lawmakers want to hear their constituent's viewpoints, not "canned" responses funneled through their constituents. Sample letters designed to assist nurses in composing letters should be used only as a guide. Personalize your letter and make it your own. Keep your letter brief. Legislators are far too busy to read much more than one page. Include relevant and concise information – such as a fact sheet, summary document or newspaper clipping – when it lends more power to your letter. Do not apologize for writing and taking the legislator's time. Letters are most effective when written to your legislator and when directed toward legislators in key decision-making positions (for example, chairpersons and pertinent committee members). Time your letter to coincide with key events in the legislative process. A letter campaign is most effective during interim study committee meetings pre-session and during committee meetings in-session. Committees are where ideas are honed and formalized for presentation to the General Assembly. Do not write members of the House while the bill is still being considered in the Senate and vice versa. The bill may be quite different by the time it leaves one chamber. Keep in mind that you write letters to legislators to help them better represent you. It is not your place to cajole, demand or threaten. Avoid emotionalism or righteous clichés like "as a citizen and a taxpayer." Legislators respond best to courtesy and recognition of their previous actions supporting health care and pro-nursing initiatives. Generally avoid writing a legislator more than once on the same issue. Your time will be better spent persuading peers in your legislative district or peers of every legislator to write letters on the same issue. Also, avoid covering more than one topic per letter. Multiple topics dissipate the force of your argument. Follow-up to a legislator's actions may include a letter of commendation or "Thank-you" note when he or she has done something of which you particularly approve. Legislators like to be rewarded for "good behavior," too. Follow letters with visits. Please send a copy of your letter to ISNA headquarters.

5

Advocacy vs. Lobbying: Effective Tools for CSOs

Advocacy and lobbying are effective tools for Civil Society Organizations to create awareness about how public policy may have an impact on civil society in general or a community in particular. Both advocacy and lobbying can generate interest in and support for the mission of a CSO, and both can influence public attitudes and policy, especially if they are genuinely community-based and focused. See http://www.mccoyouth.org/Advocacy/advocacy‐vs‐

lobbying.html.  

 

Among the very good questions that participants asked in advance of this presentation was a question about what we would advise to build or develop in the relatively new field of professional advocacy. Bear in mind that advocacy generally relates to activism on behalf of an issue and involves activities that a person or organization, including a CSO, undertakes to influence governmental policies. Advocacy can and does include a great amount of educating and creating awareness among legislators and the general public of issues facing the community and the importance of aligning public policy to meet the needs and concerns of the general public. Effective advocacy must be built on a strong foundation, and sometimes we must build that foundation very carefully and give great attention to detail. This may be a time-consuming process, but it translates to a stronger foundation for advocacy. So where does one begin? Several keys to build or develop advocacy are at your disposal, and they relate in a fundamental sense to interactive democracy through (1) online groups that form through Facebook; (2) offline meetings that are organized through meetup.com or gotomeeting.com; (3) political campaign commercials that are remixed and posted to YouTube; and (4) media content that is spread through Twitter and other social media and social networks. There is no magic to empowering the citizens of a community or nation, and there is a lot of hard work that must be devoted to promoting citizen engagement and helping facilitate community organization that is competent and accessible to citizens. There are many other ways and means to promote citizen involvement, and each involves advocacy in one form or another: •formation of youth groups; •creation of student associations and university associations that combine political expertise, technology, and academic strength; •organizing of grassroots citizens initiative groups into online communities of interest that can identify the needs and priorities of the community in such areas as education reform, economic justice, social enterprise, and viable neighborhood associations; •formation of intellectuals circles with internet-moderated issue generalists; and

6

•development of school-based or religious organizations that pursue charitable and community goals at the grassroots level. These are but a few of the ways to promote citizen engagement and empower communities, and they can lead to a more active, informed citizenry by helping open up access to information, creation of participatory councils, formation of rural community centers, development of neighborhood associations, and creation of public spending monitoring through such associations and organizations. The ultimate goal of such advocacy is to revitalize civil society, promote greater citizen participation and enhance the depth of meaningful, informed political participation. That goal can be achieved by giving citizens more say and more power to have an impact upon policy, the political process, and access to their government.

Direct Lobbying distinguished from Grassroots Lobbying

·Direct lobbying is defined as communication with a legislator, legislative staff or legislative body, or any covered executive branch or other government employee who may participate in the formulation of legislation. The communication refers to a specific piece of legislation and expresses a view on that legislation.

·Grassroots Lobbying is defined as an attempt to influence specific legislation by encouraging the public to contact legislators about that legislation. A communication constitutes grassroots lobbying if it refers to specific legislation, reflects a view on that specific legislation and encourages the recipient of the communication to take lobbying action. This type of communication is known as a call to action.

Grassroots lobbying may also be defined as an appeal to the general public to contact the legislature about an issue. In contrast, direct lobbying is contacting government officials or employees directly to influence legislation. It a particular issue is to be decided through a ballot initiative or referendum, appeals to the public are considered direct lobbying, since the public in this instance acts as the legislature. Consistent with the definitions and distinctions between lobbying and advocacy discussed above, these are examples of activities that are considered advocacy, but are not lobbying:

•Providing technical assistance or advice to a legislative body or committee in response to a written request; •Making available nonpartisan analysis, study or research; •Providing examinations and discussions of broad, social, economic and similar problems; •Communicating with a legislative body regarding matters which might affect the existence of the organization, its powers and duties, its tax-exempt status, or the deduction of contributions to the organization; and

•Updating the members of your own organization on the status of legislation. 

7

Leadership Role of Local Government Attorneys in Helping Shape Public Policy

Local government attorneys are often thrust into major leadership roles in helping shape public policy of their communities, regions, states and society. They can help bring good government to the citizenry, providing much-need guidance and leadership for civic, charitable, political, social, religious and other nonprofit organizations. Opportunities for public service through political office, elective or appointive, enable many local government attorneys to participate in public educational programs concerning our legal system and contribute to the quality of justice.

The U.S.A. Perspective

Local government attorneys can promote community interests and facilitate the creation of civic organizations into effective lobbying groups that speak with a larger and more broadly representative voice and advocate for or against legislative policies or other governmental policies that may broadly impact citizens, communities and organizations.

In this presentation, we will discuss from a USA perspective how local governments can aid in promoting transparency and maximizing citizen access, trust and understanding of issues, policies and matters of interest to the general public several mechanisms: (1) open meetings laws, (2) public records acts, (3) municipal home rule, intergovernmental cooperation agreements and other legal mechanisms that can be consistently implemented in a predictable, understandable manner.

Local governments have a clear role in promoting transparency, maximizing citizen access, participation and trust, and promoting collaborative efforts that can lead to development of policy. A number of statutory vehicles facilitate this process.

Open Meetings Laws Openness in government is the rule and not the exception in the U.S.A. A municipality, county, school district or other form of local government operating in secret is not lightly tolerated. Secrecy in government generates suspicion and mistrust among the citizenry. Legislative acts and decisions by local government bodies, including municipalities, counties, school districts and special districts, should be deliberated upon and decided in “open air” and are generally subject to the requirements of Open Meetings Laws. While the statutory language, procedure for going into executive session, exceptions for matters that can be discussed and deliberated on outside the presence of the public may differ, most states have enacted substantially similar laws in this regards.

  

As a general rule, these laws are a reflection of the fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of representative government. It is a matter deemed essential to the maintenance of a democratic society that public business be performed in an open and public manner, and that citizens be advised of and be aware of the performance of public officials and the deliberations and decisions that go into the making of public policy. It is thus state policy in most of the states that the formation and determination of public policy is public business and shall be conducted at open meetings, with specific exceptions for sensitive or extraordinary matters such as pending criminal investigations, specific personnel matters involving privacy rights of public employees, and pending litigation.

Public Records Acts Most states in the U.S.A. have adopted a form of public records act that, as a general rule, provides that all public records are public property and that any person has the right to inspect or obtain a copy thereof subject to certain procedures concerning costs, time, place and method of access. Most public records acts provide for public access to records, subject to certain exemptions, such as judicial records, jury records, certain personnel records, attorney's work product, documents from third parties containing confidential information, certain appraisal records, academic records, archeological records, hospital records, investigative and criminal justice records, and certain commercial and financial records.1

Municipal Home Rule The system of governance in the United States is based on federalism and has many different levels —federal, state and local— and all have a specific role to play in providing public services for the citizenry. At times, these levels of governance can overlap, or create gaps in the provision of services, leaving uncertainty about who has what type of authority. In 1886, a defining ruling was made in two Iowa Supreme Court decisions which more clearly defined the relationship between local autonomy and state supremacy.

Dillon’s Rule: Strict Construction of Municipal Powers These rulings came to be known as “Dillonʼs Rule.” Judge John F. Dillonʼs 1886 ruling limited county governmental powers. Judge Dillon severely distrusted local government due to the power and corruption of political “machines,” who often controlled municipal and regional decision makers. In his landmark opinion, Judge Dillon wrote:

  

“It is a general and undisputed proposition of law that a municipal corporation possesses and can exercise the following powers, and no others: first, those granted in express words; second, those necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers expressly granted; third, those essential to the accomplishment of the declared objects and purposes of the corporation—not simply convenient, but indispensable. Any fair, reasonable, substantial doubt concerning the existence of power is resolved by the courts against the corporation, and the power is denied.”

Some states still retain "Dillon's Rule" by which municipalities are subordinated to the state legislature and subject to a rule of strict construction with respect to local government powers. In short, if there is any reasonable doubt whether a power has been conferred on a municipality or local government, then the power has not been conferred.

Gradual Move from Dillon’s Rule to Municipal Home Rule

Other states have gradually moved away from this strict construction approach to municipal authority. Today forty-three states have adopted municipal home rule, by which provisions either in law or within the body of their Constitutions acknowledge the right of citizens, through their municipal governments, to exercise local decision-making power with the weight of law.

Greater Local Autonomy and Community Rights In other words, municipalities enjoy greater local autonomy and a community-rights affirming power. Municipal home rule powers vary widely from state to state, and in some states, municipal authority is extended only to certain classes of cities, counties, and towns. Regardless of type, home rule gives local government the capability to shape the way it serves the needs of its constituency. Different municipalities and counties have different needs. The service delivery demands of a rural municipality or county and an urban municipality or county may differ. Therefore, in states that do not provide the flexibility of home rule, municipalities and counties may provide services that do not suit the needs of their residents. Home rule gives local government the ability to shape its services to fit its need, providing timely, fiscally-responsible services, allowing it to respond quickly and effectively to the needs, concerns and issues most important to its residents. A listing of which states have municipal home rule provisions, including links to detailed information is available at http://www.celdf.org/article.php?list=type&type=141.

Transparency, Accessibility and Predictability of Government Processes There is a strong public policy that demands consistent adherence to the legal requirements governing these statutory vehicles and tools of governance. Open meetings laws, public records acts, public procurement laws, municipal home rule, and intergovernmental cooperation agreements

provide municipal governments with the framework for maintaining a transparent, accessible, and open process. It is an open and accessible process that invites participation by citizens and minimizes the risk of corruption. When these and similar laws that govern the structure, access, processes and day- to-day work of municipal government are consistently applied, fairly implemented and administered in a predictable, understandable and transparent manner, the average citizen will be the primary beneficiary through meaningful public participation in the process of developing policy, enacting laws and providing an accessible government that legitimately earns and receives the support and trust of its citizens.

A Checklist for Public Participation

The following checklist provides a test against which public participation in the legislative process can be evaluated in any country. Few, if any, legislatures in the world meet all of the standards set forth in this table, although the U.S. Congress, the British Parliament and many American state legislatures, notably Minnesota and Georgia, come close.

Conditions Promoting Public Participation and Confidence in the Legislature

Check

1. The legislative building and galleries are open and inviting to the public.

2. Committee meetings are open to the public with adequate notice of meeting times and agendas.

3. Records of committee meetings and plenary sessions are available to the public and distributed to libraries or other public facilities.

4. Committees aggressively seek public input by such means as holding hearings inside and outside the capital and utilizing remote conferencing technology.

5. The legislature publishes basic information about the legislative process and distributes it to the public, media and libraries.

6. Legislative sessions can be viewed on television or heard on radio or via the Internet in unedited form.

7. Freedom of the press is guaranteed in the constitution and practiced.

8. The legislature and society in general encourages voluntary media restraint, openness and independence.

9. Journalists have adequate access to the legislature, are supplied with timely information and receive training and education about the legislative process.

10. The legislature responds to public problems in a timely manner and operates in a decorous fashion.

11. The legislature has a code of conduct and legislators are trained in how to meet high standards of ethical behavior.

12. Appropriately limited forms of direct democracy exist to allow voters to make their own decisions on vital constitutional and policy matters.

13. The legislature supports civic education in schools and provides curriculum materials to help children learn about the legislative process.

14. Both the legislature and NGOs have ground rules of acceptable and ethical lobbying practices and abide by them.

While this checklist serves to outline key characteristics of, and necessary pre-conditions for, legislative due process, it is important to keep in mind that government actors naturally become adept at sidestepping the protections that are outlined, or developing work-around strategies to short-circuit stakeholder input that would derail political priorities. For example, legislative procedural rules requiring open, public committee hearings before a bill is voted on by the full legislature are normally subject to “suspension” by majority vote, so that controversial bills may never get the public hearings necessary for true ‘due process.’ Similarly, open meeting requirements may be stymied by last minute and minimal notice to the stakeholder groups most in opposition to a particular policy initiative or change, making it unlikely that they will appear or be fully prepared to argue against the change. Rules to protect public participation in emerging democracies must therefore be developed with an eye toward making these work-arounds more difficult, so that effective public participation is not, in whole or in large part, subordinate to political considerations.

Citizen Participation, Access and Legitimacy of Government: The Important Link

"In a democracy, the more people involved the better the result" (Koch 1997, 33). An elementary understanding of the legislative process is essential to democracy. Public access to and greater public involvement in the legislative (parliamentary) decision-making process provides an essential link between citizens and their government. This link between citizens and their government is strengthened when the public has ample opportunity to have their concerns heard by the legislature or parliament. When citizens from diverse segments of the population are free to voice their concerns and articulate their needs to their elected representatives in this manner, they will more readily regard their government at legitimate. This important role of linking citizens and their government is closely related to the concept of legitimacy. Citizens who regard their government as legitimate are more likely to obey laws, support the regime and accommodate diverse points of view. Citizen participation in the legislative process is vital to creating this sense of legitimacy. One of the most important functions that a legislature or parliament can perform is to provide legitimacy to government actions, which in turn promotes support among the citizens for the government. Such a legitimizing function is enhanced when opposition and dissent are allowed a voice within the governmental system. Stability of government is increased when diverse groups of citizens feel that they have some say in the political process and feel at ease about the strength and legitimacy of their governmental system. Citizens should have access to meaningful knowledge and information about their representative form of government. This knowledge should extend to an elementary understanding of how democratic control over the national legislative system actually takes place, and thus how the policy-making process takes place. If citizens are increasingly aware of and knowledgeable of this legislative process, the quality of democratic politics will be enhanced dramatically. In the specific context of newly formed democratic regimes and democracies in Eastern Europe, legislatures or parliaments know that their survival and effective functioning is dependent upon public approval. Public support is vital for a society that purports to be ruled by the consent of the people, those who are willingly governed as long as they feel it is in their best interest to give public support to their legislative institutions. Remove that public support and you lose a broad base of public willingness to obey. Remove that public support and you lose the legitimacy of the government and government institutions. Remove that public support and you will see increased resort to executive fiat, court order or voter initiatives. Remove that public support and few will want to run for election.

It is thus critically important for a national legislature or parliament to assure that public participation in the legislative or parliamentary process is genuine. A democratic regime will be seen as legitimate if it genuinely promotes knowledge and support of the legislative process among the citizens and fosters their confidence in that process. This raises an interesting question about the legitimacy and effectiveness of the national government in the USA when we consider current public opinion polls that tell us voters in the United States do not think highly of the U.S. Congress or state legislatures. As recently as the past two decades, our nation has seen approval ratings for state legislatures in the 20 to 40% range, and those approval ratings have rarely gone above 50%. The irony is that in spite of these abysmally low evaluations of individual legislatures and of Congress at specific points in time, we still see strong, diffuse support for and a reservoir of good will for legislative institutions, sufficient to sustain democracy in our country. (Shaffer 1996) This phenomenon in the U.S.A. may be explained in part by our country’s separation of powers system, which may tend to cause Congress to appear more confrontational, obstructionist or slow moving in the public eye than other national legislative bodies. In the U.S.A., the frequency of divided party control of government that began in the 1990s at both state and national levels may contribute to this problem and the resulting gridlock. U.S. mass media also tend to be more critical and negative about governmental institutions than their counterparts in other established democracies like Canada and Britain. It is thus not surprising to conclude that Americans who tend to be more attentive to government and consume the most information from the media are likely to be more negative about the performance of legislatures. (Baker et. al. 1994). It is also apparent that with the greater size and social diversity of the United States, the issues that Congress deals with tend to be more complex and intractable than those confronting parliaments in other established democracies like the British and Canadian parliaments. As a result, Congress' performance is more likely to disappoint the public. This point is supported by data from American state legislatures that show that more professionalized legislatures (i.e., those that spend more time in session, have more staff and are better compensated) are rated lower by the public. The more professionalized legislatures are generally found in the larger, more diverse states. (Squire 1993). Turning away from the U.S.A. problem, let’s look at Eastern Europe. In Mishler and Rose’s study of Eastern Europe public opinion, they found that East Europeans who lacked democratic institutions apparently learned to value them. They did so through vicarious socialization resulting from their unhappy experiences with the undemocratic institutions of the former Communist regimes and their long repressed admiration for the institutions enjoyed by neighboring democratic systems in western Europe. (Mishler and Rose 1994, 13). Mishler and Rose's study indicates that general public support for democratic regimes leads to greater approval of parliaments. The relationship between knowledge and support of legislative institutions is important to the cause of democracy building. An underlying assumption of the later discussions in this paper about what

legislatures can do to improve their public standing is that more information (i.e. knowledge), access and participation will lead to more public support for the institution. The data from the United States, though, offer a cautionary note that structural and social factors may prevent this linkage from working.2

Effective Civil Society Organizations There are key characteristics by which the most developed and effective civil society organizations can be identified:

(1) They represent a wide variety of interests. (2) With their varied organizational cultures, they can more readily see the problem of

corruption from different perspectives. (3) They are able to bring together diverse viewpoints to develop, design and implement a

strategy to fight corruption and increase its chances of success. (4) A political will to fight corruption that is based on broad support from various sources in

civil society is more likely to ensure that the anti-corruption measures taken are not politically biased.

(5) The variety of interests ensures that the anti-corruption effort ultimately responds to the public interest.

Lobbying and the role of civil society organizations and associations

The formation of public policy is public business. It cannot be conducted in secret. Lobbying relates to access to power. Lobbying activities are attempt to influence official government action such as the passage, amendment, delay or defeat of legislation, executive action, or changes in regulations. Can civil society organizations and other civil organizations effectively organize or consolidate into effective watchdog organizations to monitor, report on and disclose lobbying activities? The short answer is yes, they can.

Effective Watchdog Organizations Common Cause is generally regarded as one of the more effective watchdog organizations in the U.S.A., holding itself out as a “nonpartisan, grassroots organization dedicated to restoring the core values of American democracy, reinventing an open, honest, and accountable government that works for the public interest, and empowering ordinary people to make their voices heard.” http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=8281551. In part, the group accomplishes its mission by monitoring and reporting on lobbying activities by organizations that otherwise operate in secrecy, often attempting to advance legislative and other governmental changes which advantage the few at the expense of the many. One of the most powerful such organizations in the legislative realm is the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which is a nonprofit group consisting of conservative state legislators and private sector representatives who buy membership, and thereby influence, at levels of $7,000, $12,000, and $25,000 per year. http://www.alec.org/membership/private-sector-membership/.

ALEC provides a forum for state legislators and private sector members who are often large corporations and other business entities, to create model legislation that particularly benefits big business interests, and then uses the big money contributed by those businesses to lobby legislatures across the county to get their legislative agenda passed into law. Common Cause recently criticized ALEC, for failing to move toward transparency, reporting that “state legislators and corporate executives and lobbyists in the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) are gathering for a new round of closed-door meetings to endorse “model” legislation fashioned largely by business interests.” Common Cause charged that ALEC was the force behind state laws and proposals that would privatize public schools and prisons, turning them over to for-profit operators, that it had backed legislation to weaken clean air and clean water laws, that it pressed for laws to limit collective bargaining rights for public and private workers, and that it was beyond legislative efforts such as voter identification laws that would make it harder for tens of thousands of college students, senior citizens, minorities and handicapped Americans to vote. Transparency Promises Ring Hollow as ALEC Convenes in Oklahoma, online at http://www.commoncause.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4773613&c t=13110885&notoc=1 There are many other groups, entities and organizations however, that can be very effective in organizing and lobbying for the interests of the many who would not otherwise have a political voice. These include groups that are formed around a central issue or around a particular constituency, defining themselves and their mission accordingly – for example, around religious or political beliefs or tenets, or common interests such as neighborhood, businesses, or protection of property values. Particularly effective examples of these groups include the National Organization for Women, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and the League for Conservation Voters. These kinds of groups take the form of political action committees, public interest firms, and special interest organizations that promote citizen participation at publicly conducted municipal and other government meetings or legislative and other rulemaking sessions at every level of government. Such organizations on the local level can be among the most effective watchdog groups; observing, questioning, reporting on and publicizing lobbying activities that influence governmental action.

Disclosure and Transparency In order to understand how lobbying takes place and how it influences governmental action, one should focus on disclosure and transparency. With respect to disclosure, as a general proposition, three key elements of lobbying activity and the meeting in which lobbyists seek to influence official action need to be disclosed: (1) who is doing the lobbying? (2) who are they lobbying? (3) what is the subject of the meeting or other lobbying activity? Lobbying disclosure – making the lobbying process open to the public – can come in many forms:

1. Public records laws 2. Ethics laws and conflict of interest laws 3. Open meetings laws

4. Executive orders and other regulations promoting open and accessible government 5. Judicial intervention and enforcement of disclosure laws 6. Journalism and public watchdogs.

Access to Lobbying Data

With respect to transparency, one must consider why access to lobbying data is important. Citizens should have the broadest access to information about access to power, how that access is used, who has that access, and what they seek to influence through that access. Citizens must have the meaningful ability to track influence on their government, political decision-making and legislation. Lobbying data can include critically important information about public contracts, public procurement, zoning, government grants, economic development projects, financial disclosure, campaign finance, official meeting agendas, official municipal government expenditures on lobbying, and the “revolving door” between public office and the private sector.

Lobbying Laws: 50 States & 50 Versions The National Conference of State Legislatures has reported that there are more than 50 versions of lobbying laws in states and territories. Yet, all states share a basic definition of lobbying as an attempt to influence government action. Written and oral communications are both recognized as lobbying. Three states (Delaware, Kansas, and Texas) include in their definitions of lobbying providing entertainment, gifts, recreational events, food and beverages to legislators. The remaining states regulate the disclosure of and the amounts spent on such activities. The definition of who is a lobbyist usually revolves around compensation. Most states define a lobbyist as someone who receives any amount of compensation or reimbursement to lobby.

Among the exceptions are Hawaii, Minnesota and New York. These states stipulate threshold amounts of money and time spent on lobbying, and, if these thresholds are reached, an individual becomes a lobbyist. All states recognize certain exceptions for activities that might otherwise be construed as "lobbying." These activities include testifying at committee hearings, meetings, writing letters and casual conversations. In some states, interagency communications between state employees are outside the statutory definition of lobbyist. At least 14 states specify that members of the press are not lobbyists. http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/ethicshome/50-state-chart-lobby-definitions.aspx Regulation of these lobbyists and their activity focuses on transparency, as discussed above, and limiting opportunities for coercion and undue influence. State laws can generally be divided into 4 different categories: Registration and identification requirements, activity disclosure reporting, restrictions on the use of public funds for lobbying, and revolving door prohibitions. The National Conference of State Legislatures details the lobbying laws across the 50 United States, providing excellent examples of both effective and not-so-effective regulation. http://www.ncsl.org/research/ethics/lobbyist-regulation.aspx

17

Generally speaking, effective registration and identification laws will include reporting name and address of lobbying organizations and all members, and detailing relationships to government officials, the nature and form of lobbyist compensation, and the specific nature and subject matter of the activities. Required annual disclosures of activities will include all engagements of each lobbyist for the year, descriptions of expenses and compensation for each engagement, and an itemization of all payments or other items of value including money, goods or services given to each governmental official by the lobbyist. With respect to the use of public funds to lobby, the best rules can be found in the 10 states which prohibit state agencies from using public funds to contract with a lobbyist altogether, although others which place less comprehensive restrictions the use of public funds for lobbying also provide valuable examples of ways to limit government lobbying government. Finally, the best practices in regulating the peddling of influence are found in the 31 states which have revolving door rules that include “cooling-off periods,” precluding a former government official from working as a lobbyist for certain periods of time, ranging generally from one to two years.

Lobbying and Influence Upon Public Policy

Government policy making and business interests have always been intimately connected, and at times contentiously. Lobbying on behalf of the private sector, openly or surreptitiously, may arguably be the second-oldest profession on the planet. The right to voice our concerns and interests, and thereby influence public policy, is fundamental to democracy. It is not only individuals who have this right, but also organizations that represent collective interests. Businesses, civil society, labor organizations and public bodies do, and should, exercise their lobbying rights, whether arguing for their own interests or for a broader social, environmental and economic agenda. Lobbying, however, is facing a crisis of legitimacy. It is big business, particularly for those representing companies and nations. Even civil society lobbying, once conducted by passionate amateurs, has become a sophisticated industry pursuing an extraordinary range of aims. The sheer numbers of lobbyists and the resources at their command threaten to overwhelm or co-opt politicians and public servants. Beyond volume, lobbying behavior is open to question. Sometimes, sadly, the law is not observed, certainly not its spirit. Too often, undue influence falls into too few hands, or into the hands of

18

those with narrow commercial or nationalist interests. Or, at times, into the hands of people who leverage populist sentiments in order to advance their own views of how society should change. There is, in short, an accountability deficit. The enormous potential of lobbying to influence the world is not balanced by ways in which the practice can be held to account. This problem is not being solved, despite on-going debate and campaigns to reduce the influence of lobbyists or make their actions more transparent. There have been some successes. Misdemeanors have been exposed and voluntary codes of conduct implemented. Legislation has required disclosure of financial donations or records of interactions between government and lobbyists. But these successes have stemmed neither the increasing influence of lobbyists nor the practice’s growing discreditable reputation. Accountability, like others, believes action is needed to break the current impasse and make lobbying accountable. The need is urgent when we consider how lobbying could tackle poverty, inequality and environmental insecurity. Business increasingly acknowledges these crises and commits to addressing them. The U.N. Global Compact, for example, mobilizes thousands of businesses worldwide in the shared vision of the ten principles. Political lobbying is arguably the most important opportunity for companies to deliver on these commitments because it can reshape how economies and businesses affect people and the environment. Although some businesses, often working with civil society partners, have used lobbying as a force for good, too often corporate commitments to sustainable development or the Millennium Development Goals evaporate in the face of lobbying for narrow commercial interests. This is no longer acceptable. Businesses cannot continue to make high profile commitments, and then contradict these commitments through their less-visible lobbying. If businesses are to build trust and retain their right to influence public policy, they must walk their talk. There are equivalent issues for civil society and labor organizations who must align their claims to legitimacy with the people they actually represent. They must ensure that their media campaigns to inspire public support for their policy proposals are firmly rooted in credible evidence. While it should be our right to influence governments by voicing our interests and concerns, this right is only legitimate if balanced by the obligation to act responsibly. There is no easy fix. The complex relationships between governments and non-state actors, such as business, vary enormously across regions and between the local, national and international levels.

19

They have long histories and can rarely be understood by looking at one issue, or one set of interactions. There exists valuable guidance for organizations to move towards more responsible, and so more legitimate, lobbying. Effectiveness requires use, of course. Collaboration with the UN Global Compact may be an important element of effectuating this increased level of responsibility. Lobbying can thereby become a legitimate and valuable part of the relationship between governments, business and non-state actors.

Advocacy, Government Policy and Limitations on Lobbying NGO advocacy organizations often try to advance their goals in the complex and ever-changing arena of government policy arena. Achieving policy change usually involves much more than just getting legislators to change a single law. In fact, effective policy work often doesn’t even involve changing a law. It involves building a constituency to promote the policy change—and monitor its effective implementation, once achieved. It often requires developing research to assess the impact of different policy proposals. It requires public awareness campaigns and closed-door deal-making with elected officials. Sometimes, success in advocating a particular type or direction for government policy means the absence of change, when, for example, advocates are tying to stop policy changes they feel would be detrimental. The path to government policy change is complex. In determining what actions will create change or how to assess progress, one must realize that there are many players and dynamics that can and do shape advocacy and policy work, such as opposition organizations or the political and economic environment. Most policy work involves multiple players often working in coalitions and, in fact, requires multiple players “hitting” numerous leverage points. In this complex system, it is difficult to sort out the distinct effect of any individual player or any single activity. In the context of effective advocacy that seeks to change or have a specific impact upon government policy, we must always keep in mind the limitations on lobbying. Misperceptions regarding the federal guidelines on nonprofit lobbying, for example, coupled with the desire to avoid any chance of regulatory trouble, create challenges when trying to assess the role of advocacy work. Federal regulations may constrain a nonprofit foundations’ ability to lobby directly and to provide financial support for nonprofits to lobby on specific pieces of legislation. The concerns over violating lobbying restrictions may push the advocacy and policy work beyond

20

federal and state legislative arenas and more in the direction of public education, research or general community organizing. Beyond the legislative arenas, policy can be and is set through administrative and regulatory action by the executive branch and its agencies as well as by the judicial branch. Indeed, some of the most important policy occurs at the local and regional levels. Significant policy opportunities also occur during the implementation stage and in the monitoring and enforcement of the law or regulation.

Guidelines to Ethical Lobbying: Tools of the Trade

The name of the first lobbyist is not recorded in time. But rest assured, lobbying has been around since governments were formed and political decisions were first made.

Lobbying is simply communicating a point of view to a lawmaker in an attempt to influence government action. It is a right protected by the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution. It’s one way different views, opinions and concerns get expressed. No one disagrees with this. But “how” lobbying is done sometimes creates controversy. Like in the movies.

An Image Problem

Movies have not been kind to lobbyists. “Thank You for Smoking” (2005) and “Casino Jack” (2010), are recent examples that depict people who practice lobbying, an honorable and respected profession, as conniving and manipulative.

To some, the recent movie “Lincoln” is guilty of such a portrayal. In the movie, the president and Secretary of State William Seward strategize on how to persuade the House of Representatives to pass the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery. With the Republicans on board, Lincoln and Seward identify a handful of Democrats they may be able to win over to pass the amendment. Lincoln rejects the idea of buying their votes, but stays open to the possibility of offering them appointments to government jobs.

Enter W.N. Bilbo, along with a couple of fellow lobbyists, to get the needed votes. They sit in the gallery of the U.S. House and watch the selected Democrats in action, sizing up their mannerisms and style. Then Bilbo and his buddies lobby the targets one by one—not railing against the evils of slavery, but describing what the lawmaker will receive if he switches votes. It is difficult and slow going. Lincoln, too, meets with some, using his eloquent words to convince them to vote yes.

In an emotional scene with Seward and the lobbying team, Lincoln expresses how essential it is that they get those last two votes. “I am president of the United States, clothed with great power … those two votes must be procured. I leave it to you to determine how it shall be done.”

Sticking to his principles, yet exerting and even expanding his powers to get what he wants, Lincoln pushes ahead for passage. Abolishing slavery justified the lobbying tactics taken. To him, the end justified the means.

21

The State of Lobbying

Fast-forward to today. The days of patronage are long gone, and lobbying standards have vastly improved. The profession is regulated in all states, and lobbyists are required to register, disclose their activities and limit gifts.

Still, unethical lobbyists look for loopholes and ways to skirt laws, says Keeneland Association’s Judy Taylor, the first professional female lobbyist in Kentucky. If they don’t get caught, she says, they get bolder, and at some point convince themselves that their actions are common and acceptable.

But the vast majority of lobbyists follow the rules, and honesty is one of their essential attributes.

“As a lobbyist, the only thing you have to sell is your credibility,” says Peg Ackerman of Ackerman Information, a Colorado lobbying firm. “Legislators must be able to rely on you to give accurate information,” which means being honest about the provisions of a bill and the reasons for a client’s position.

“It is not unethical to argue your client’s case in the most favorable way possible, as long as this does not entail being less than truthful or withholding significant information,” she adds.

Taylor says ethical lobbying is the product of an “ethical culture where there is respect for the law, respect for the individual and respect for the public—many of whom do not have a voice.”

In advance of this presentation, participants asked some excellent questions and gave us a number of very good suggestions on matters they would like to discuss. These include moral rules for professional lobbyists. We submit that there are a number of guidelines or rules that lawmakers should expect from moral and ethical lobbyists. Without exception, they should:

•  Maintain  trust:  Ethical  lobbyists  build  strong  relationships,  show  mutual  respect  and honor commitments with legislators, staff and fellow lobbyists. 

• Conduct business with  integrity: Good  lobbyists  are  proud  of  their profession  and  see themselves as problem solvers and resources for information. 

• Obey  state  laws:  States  have  a  variety  of  laws  for  lobbyists  to  follow—from  how  to register, to when to wear identification to how much they can give.  

• Treat  fellow  lobbyists with courtesy: Lobbyists know  they may be on opposite sides on one issue but allies on others. 

• Tell  the  truth:  Principled  lobbyists  don’t  mislead  lawmakers  or  mischaracterize  their clients’ positions or supporting data. 

• Follow the spirit of the  law:  It  is not enough to  just act within the  law. Ethical  lobbyists embrace the rule of law and its underlying principles. 

 

22

• Avoid  conflicts  of  interest:  If  a  potential  conflict  arises,  ethical  lobbyists  disclose  it immediately to both parties and recuse themselves until the matter is resolved. 

•     Strive for transparency: Good lobbyists don’t hide information—they share it. 

A policymaker is entitled to expect candid disclosure from the lobbyist, including accurate and reliable information about the identity of the client and the nature and implications of the issues, according to Woodstock Theological Center’s Principles for the Ethical Conduct of Lobbying.

Ethical behavior should be a two-way street. Legislators need to be just as ethical as lobbyists.3

Political Lobbying vs. Bribery

Lobbying vs. Bribery

The American League of Lobbyists’ Code of Ethics: Key Elements

Another source for what we believe to be responsible, ethical and moral guidelines for professional lobbyists is the American League of Lobbyists’ Code of Ethics, under which a lobbyist shall:

§  Conduct lobbying activities with honesty and integrity. 

§  Comply fully with all laws, regulations and rules applicable to the lobbyist. 

§  Conduct lobbying activities in a fair and professional manner 

§  Avoid all representations that may create conflicts of interest. 

§  Vigorously and diligently advance the client’s or employer’s interests. 

§  Have a written agreement with the client regarding terms and conditions of services. 

§  Maintain appropriate confidentiality of client or employer information. 

§  Ensure better public understanding and appreciation of the nature, legitimacy and necessity of lobbying in our democratic governmental process. 

§  Fulfill duties and responsibilities to the client or employer. 

§ Exhibit proper respect for the governmental institutions the lobbyists appear before.

23

In light of the above discussion of lobbying and its close nexus to the political process, one might ask how political lobbying is not bribery? Critics of lobbying suggest that it is bribery in a suit. A bribe giver usually gives an offer of money "under the table" in order to subvert standard processes. This could be paying a tax officer to clear reports with under-reported revenue or sending goods without an invoice. Walmart has been accused of bribing government officials in Mexico to obtain new permits faster in order to open stores sooner.

Remember that lobbying is the act of trying to directly shape or influence a government official's understanding and position on a public policy or issue, while bribery is a quid pro quo of offering money in return for for political action. Lobbying is offering political support (usually votes or expertise) in return for political action. Legal lobbying does not involve direct financial support. This is the difference between Bribery and Lobbying: it is why some lobbyists end up accused of bribery.

The impact of lobbying is massive, of course, and it affects policy by influencing policy makers and therefore citizens, rather than just individuals.

Political Contributions by Lobbyists

Lobbying itself is not bribery. It is just speaking to people who have power and trying to influence them. There are several reasons why political contributions by lobbyists are not bribery:

1) The money is not a quid pro quo. One does not hand a check to politician and then tell them how to vote, and politicians do not always vote depending on who gave them money. Of course, an elected politician is probably going to be influenced by big donors, but not always. If they do not side with you, then you can decide not to donate again. But you cannot ask for your money back, or threaten them because you paid them and they did not do what you wanted. The only incentive for the politician to side with you (aside from persuasive intellectual arguments) is that you may donate to their campaign again. On the other hand, once you have made a contribution, the politician has your money and can do what he or she pleases. You cannot get it back.

2) The money is tracked. Campaigns are required to disclose who gave them money. Lobbyists are required to disclose who they gave money to, and they are required to disclose who pays them to lobby.

3) The money is limited (at least for direct contributions to a campaign). There is a limit to how much each individual and business can give to a single campaign. PACs and other organizations are another story for another time.

Gaining Political Access

So what does this money buy? What this money does is buy access. Campaign donors may be more likely to get a meeting quickly with a lawmaker or have their calls taken, especially if they are major donors. Of course, anyone can ask for and get a meeting, but whether or not you've donated to their campaign and may be likely to do so in the future can influence whether a lawmaker decides to meet with you or not. Fundraisers in which the donor brings a check and the lawmaker is there is also an easy way to get some face time with a person in power, even if just 5 or 10 minutes.

24

It must also be emphasized that there are laws about how campaign contributions can be spent. By law these contributions can only be used for campaign expenditures such as ads, signs, paying workers, get-out-the-vote activities, and the like. The lawmaker who receives a campaign contribution cannot use the funds to buy himself a new car or watch, and when this does happen, it constitutes a violation of campaigning laws, but it is not bribery.

No Quid Pro Quo

It is not that the money given is buying policy but it is money that is given at the time policy is being decided, and lobbyists are completely free to tell a politician, while handing them a briefcase of cash, that if their clients are not pleased with the outcome the next time a briefcase of cash is handed out it will go to their challenger in the next election. So, money changes hands, expectations are stipulated, and consequences of failure to comply are plainly stated but technically it is not Quid Pro Quo.

Appearance of Impropriety

But this is not how it works in practice. Members of Congress, state legislators and local government officials generally tend to want to avoid the "appearance of impropriety". Because all the money is tracked and publicly disclosed, the risk of accepting your money the day of a controversial vote in which your group has a public position outweighs the benefits of your donation. The risk of a scandal from a donation such as, "Monsanto gives key Member $20,000 on the same day as the Farm Bill vote!" is not worth the $20k contribution.

You also cannot hand a Member a campaign check and simultaneously tell them that you will donate to their rival if "your clients aren't pleased". That crosses the line. In that situation it would be implicit that you're giving them money to influence their vote, which would be illegal, and again, not worth the political risk for the Member. They would hand that check right back to you and very politely ask you to back off. Lawmakers do not respond to attempts to bully or browbeat them. One must also remember that campaign donations only go so far.

You need money to win, but just because you have got more money than your rival does not guarantee you will win your seat. The real pressure on lawmakers is the threat of a primary challenger. Groups like Club for Growth, ALEC, the NRA or the local chapter of the Tea Party can wield power far beyond political donations because they can field and support challengers from the right.

Power, Money and Politics

To summarize the above, lobbying lawmakers is not in and of itself a crime. The vast majority of lobbyists operate within the law as they attempt to meet with lawmakers and their staffs to try and influence legislative outcomes beneficial to their clients.

Power, money, and politics always have the potential to mix into a toxic brew, but for those looking to gain the legislative edge, the rules leave enough loopholes to do so within the bounds of the law.

Several years ago, in a series of actions that became the basis for the movie American Hustle, Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to lobbying outside the confines of the law by conspiring to directly bribe

25

officeholders with campaign contributions, and those lawmakers who participated were also convicted after guilty pleas. That kind of clear cut quid-pro-quo is illegal, but it is usually hard for prosecutors to prove, which explains in part why the prosecutors agreed to a plea bargain deal with Abramoff.

“All politicians are crooks” is an old saying in and about Washington, D.C. It alludes to the factx that money has the ability to corrupt people. One must remember, however, that lobbying is not necessarily a dirty business, but a legal way many interest groups choose to participate in the democratic process.

When the federal government can influence what happens in your business or your backyard or your bedroom — you are quite properly going to want to influence it right back. That’s not corruption; that’s self-government. And while it would be swell if that dialogue happened in a pristine, college-seminar-style setting–or maybe a private club–free of the grubbiness of real-world interests, it doesn’t. This, after all, is America. And we grub.

Lobbying Expenditures Today

Lobbyists are either individuals or organizations paid well by sections of industry to influence the movers and shakers at Capitol Hill. Fueled by the money of various industries, lobbyists have become their men and women at Washington. The total amount spent on lobbying has skyrocketed from $1.44 billion in 1998 to $3.3 billion in 2011. The top three spenders in 2012 include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Realtors and General Electric. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has spent as much as $55,320,000 in 2012 to date. Increasingly, lobbyists are ensuring contributions are made from the grass roots up to influence decision makers at all stages. Lobbyists systematically build up support for their causes. They often have previous government officials joining their ranks, leveraging their understanding of how the government machine works. For example, cigar lobbyists have campaigned for cigars not to be grouped with cigarettes. They lobbied for years to avoid government scrutiny and to propagate an image that cigars were not harmful, when in fact cigars are as harmful as cigarettes.

The financial sector is the largest contributor currently contributing more to Democrats than Republicans. Investment and securities, insurance companies, real estate, and commercial banks all constitute the financial sector. Some top contributors in this sector include Goldman Sachs, The National Association of Realtors and Clarium Capital Management. During the banking crisis of 2007-08, this sector contributed over $468 million. Most of this money was spent to ensure that the government did not regulate the hedge fund industry. Banks have spent their money lobbying to prevent the government from undertaking a detailed scrutiny of their balance sheets.

Examples of Bribery

In contrast to lobbying expenditures, a bribe occurs on an individual level. The bribe may be in the form of a donation or favor in kind. A company's purchase manager may award an order to a

26

supplier in return for undue favor in the form of money, against his company's policy of awarding orders based on criteria of quality and price. Public officers are offered bribes to enable evasion of taxes and the corresponding liabilities at an individual or company level. Bribery is the first step of subversion of the system. Slowly but steadily, a parallel system is formed. This results in an unfair advantage for the bribe giver. Over time, the system erodes the economic foundation of the country, hurting the most vulnerable members of the society and filling the middle class with a sense of hopelessness and cynicism. Corruption is seen as endemic and at the heart of the systemic failure in some countries. Bribery is considered illegal, while lobbying is not. Bribery is considered a sale of power. However, lobbying is considered an influence of political power by offering contributions that affect political outcomes. Bribes may seem like small amounts compared to lobbying contributions, but therein lies the problem. Bribes cannot be accounted for and therefore a parallel economy blossoms. It creates inefficiencies in systems and obstacles. In the World Bank report, "Does Grease Money Speed Up The Wheels of Commerce?," the relationship between bribe payments and a variety of measures of official harassment (management time wasted with bureaucracy, regulatory burden and cost of capital) was studied. The evidence suggests that there is no support for the "efficient grease" hypothesis. In fact, a consistent pattern is that bribery and measures of official harassment are positively correlated across firms. It also increases the cost of doing business.

Recent Notable Lobbying Examples

Since lobbying is legal, lobbyists are required to register with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House. Furthermore, lobbyists must file disclosures of their lobbying activity according to the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. No such formalities are required of bribe givers or takers. Lobbying is also used by civil rights and environmental support groups. In that sense, lobbying becomes a critical and important tool in influencing public policy. The gay and lesbian rights lobby is a civil rights campaign that aims at gender identity equality and removing sexual orientation-based workplace inequities. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) spent $1 million on lobbying efforts in 2009. Its principal focus was on the passage of the Employee Non-Discrimination Act. It also lobbied for the Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act. The Act would give same-sex partners of federal workers health and pension benefits equal to opposite-sex partners.

The Citizens United decision and its impact on Lobbying and Advocacy

The Citizens United decision was handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in January 2010. It invalidated the corporate and union ban on making independent expenditures and financing

27

electioneering communications. It gave corporations and unions the green light to spend unlimited sums on ads and other political tools, calling for the election or defeat of individual candidates.

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court overturned provisions of the "McCain-Feingold" Act that barred corporations and unions from paying for political ads made independently of candidate campaigns. The case revolved around a documentary “Hillary: The Movie,” which was produced by Citizens United. The lower courts ruled that under McCain-Feingold, Citizens United would be barred from advertising its film.a During oral argument, the government argued that under existing precedents, it had the power under the constitution to prohibit the publication of books and movies if they were made or sold by corporations.

A dissenting opinion by Justice Stevens, he argued that the Court's ruling "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will...do damage to this institution."

In a nutshell, the high court’s 5-4 decision said that it is OK for corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want to convince people to vote for or against a candidate.

The decision did not affect contributions. It is still illegal for companies and labor unions to give money directly to candidates for federal office. The court said that because these funds were not being spent in coordination with a campaign, they “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

It is important to note that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 landmark decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (No. 08-205; decided January 21, 2010), concerning the application of certain election laws to corporations, does NOT change how other laws limit the election-related activities of charitable nonprofit organizations with tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. - See more at: http://www.councilofnonprofits.org/public-policy/federal-policy-issues/nonprofit-advocacy-voice#sthash.BUVpVOhG.dpuf

So if the decision was about spending, why has so much been written about contributions? Like seven and eight-figure donations from people like casino magnate and billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who, with his family, has given about $40 million to so-called “super PACs,” formed in the wake of the decision?

The organization Citizens United is known for its support of conservative and money in politics. The group produced a TV ad that reveals several "surprisingly liberal" legislative actions taken by Senator John McCain,[2] which aired on Fox News Channel.[3] On October 2, 2006, in reaction to revelations of a cover-up of inappropriate communications between Congressman Mark Foley and teenage pages, Citizens United president David Bossie called on Dennis Hastert to resign over his role in covering up the scandal.[4]

American Sovereignty Project

The American Sovereignty Project is the lobbying arm of Citizens United, focused on issues related to American sovereignty and national security. Its goals include a complete withdrawal

28

from the United Nations, defeat of the treaty establishing a permanent International Criminal Court, and of the rejection of its perception of the formation of a one-world government.[1]

Nonprofit Voice: Advocacy and Lobbying

“I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. They … will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president.”

Barack Obama, quoted in Blueprint for Change at 17

It is a central element of American tradition that citizens come together in nonprofit organizations to give voice to the issues of their day. We gathered through the National American Woman Suffrage Association to secure women’s right to vote in 1920. We gathered through Townsend Clubs in the 1930s to get Congress to pass the Social Security Act. And we gathered through numerous nonprofits to secure passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Over the past 40 years, however, the federal government has imposed policies that restrict the voices of nonprofits and the people we serve. Unlike for-profit corporations, charitable nonprofits must operate under burdensome rules that limit their ability to lobby policymakers. Plus, nonprofits face severe disadvantages in securing funding for advocacy and getting their message heard. The time has come for the public and nonprofits to demand an equal voice.

Nonprofit Lobbying Restrictions

In 1976, Congress imposed an unfair burden on nonprofits by limiting our ability to communicate to the public about legislation. Nonprofits using the expenditures test may spend only 25% of their allowable lobbying expenditures to communicate with the general public, while for-profit corporations face no similar limitations. This restriction on nonprofits is fundamentally unfair. What is so threatening to democracy that a local food bank, homeless shelter, or hospice must be limited when sharing their views with fellow citizens while powerful for-profit corporations enjoy unlimited ability to espouse their opinions to the public?

Bans on Nonprofit Lobbying

Some nonprofits that accept government funds are forbidden to lobby even if they use non-governmental funds from other sources. This same limitation is not applied to for-profit corporations with federal contracts. To deny such rights to nonprofits receiving federal funding, while not imposing the same restriction on for-profit corporations, is fundamentally unfair. The democratic process is endangered and thrown off-kilter when only one group of advocates is allowed to speak.

Foundation Support for Nonprofit Advocacy

In 1969, the federal government prohibited private foundations from issuing grants designated for legislative lobbying. To avoid any risk, too many foundations actively shun all advocacy-related activities, not just legislative lobbying. As recent research shows, “Many foundations take at best a ‘hands-off’ posture, and at times an actively negative one, toward policy involvement and civic engagement.” Consequently, “the resources organizations have available to devote to this

29

increasingly important function remain highly limited. … Nonprofit organizations are entering the policy realm with one hand tied behind their backs.” See Lester Salamon, “Nonprofit America: A Force for Democracy?” Communiqué No. 9 of the Listening Post Project (2008)

What Nonprofits Can Do:

Many proponents of broadening the lobbying and advocacy role and activities of nonprofit corporations are urging Congress to restore the American people’s ability to amplify their voices by fully restoring foundations’ ability to promote democracy through grant making that promotes civic engagement and helps citizens come together through nonprofits for legislative lobbying. See http://www.councilofnonprofits.org/public-policy/federal-policy-issues/nonprofit-advocacy-voice#sthash.BUVpVOhG.dpuf

Democratic constituencies are responding. Jittery about a potential avalanche of corporate money flowing to GOP allies, several unions, led by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the AFL-CIO, and the Service Employees International Union, have begun plotting a counter-strategy — hiking their budgets, polishing their famous “ground game” tactics, and expanding cooperative efforts of their own to avoid a debacle in November.

Notwithstanding labor’s defensive efforts, based on budget and spending projections from many big groups on both sides it’s expected that GOP-allied entities are likely to outspend their Democratic foes by a three to two margin and perhaps even two to one.

In recent weeks, GOP allies have built a huge lead of almost five to one in ad spending compared to their Democratic counterparts, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group. CMAG data says that GOP-affiliated groups spent $24.8 million on Senate and House ads from Aug.1 to Sept. 20 while their Democratic rivals spent just $4.9 million in the same period.

What this amounts to, say veteran money and politics watchers, is a virtual Wild West, with fewer rules and more cash than ever. Republicans and Democrats each now boast ten or so deep-pocketed independent groups with plans to spend $10 million plus helping Senate and House candidates by running expensive ads and/or conducting get out the vote efforts. And they’re on track to spend, collectively, some $500 million dollars or more. With little oversight.

“The financial flows into this election cycle,” says Marcus Owens, a partner at Caplin & Drysdale and a former IRS director of exempt organizations, “are beyond regulation and beyond the existing mechanisms of the Federal Election Commission and the IRS,”

The Citizens United decision: A game changer

The Supreme Court’s ruling, which initial polls showed was opposed by 80 percent of the public, has helped to open the floodgates for potentially record spending by outside groups this year while creating a new fundraising landscape.

A sharply split Supreme Court in its 5 to 4 Citizens United decision overruled two key precedents about the free-speech rights of corporations and affirmed on First Amendment grounds the idea that the government should not regulate political speech.

30

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, said that “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”

President Obama attacked the decision as “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies, and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

While the decision didn’t directly address labor unions, the ruling also gives them new freedom to spend without limit certain funds on campaign ads and other election activities.

The case itself arose from an unusual venue: It centered on a ninety-minute documentary, Hillary: The Movie — a biting look at Hillary Rodham Clinton — that was the handiwork of a conservative nonprofit group: Citizens United.

Longtime campaign finance watchdogs reacted angrily to the decision. “The 2010 Congressional elections are being flooded by influence-buying spending as a result of Citizens United,” said Fred Wertheimer, the president of campaign finance reform advocacy group Democracy 21. “I think the 2010 spending will be dwarfed by what will come.”

Most leaders of the GOP’s allied groups disagreed about the decision’s influence, but a few acknowledged its potential to change the fundraising game.

“Citizens United opened the door for the unparalleled participation by corporations at the financial level,” says veteran GOP operative Scott Reed, who this summer launched a group called the Commission on Hope, Growth and Opportunity with an eye to raising $25 million to help about two dozen GOP candidates. “But it took the combination of the RNC being inept and the Obama administration’s political agenda to bring it all together.”

Corporations flying under the radar with millions in donations

A look at both the older and newer GOP-leaning groups that are planning the most expensive drives this year makes this much clear: Many corporations seem inclined to give to groups that are allowed by tax laws to keep their donations anonymous.

The desire for anonymity is attributable to several factors, say campaign finance lawyers and fundraisers, but arguably the most important is that the Supreme Court decision was controversial and unpopular. Some experts say the situation has prompted companies to fear reprisals from liberal groups for making large donations publicly.

Most of the independent groups raking in big bucks are set up under IRS rules as so-called 501(c) organizations, named after a section of the tax code that covers a range of non-profit tax exempt

31

organizations. They can accept unlimited donations and are not required to make their donors’ names public.

Quite a few of the new GOP-allied groups this year have obtained 501(c)(4) social welfare status, providing their donors anonymity but requiring them to spend more than half their funds on nonpolitical activities such as legislative matters, a rule that still allows them wiggle room since the IRS regulations are often vague. For instance, some outfits are running issue ads attacking the stands of incumbents on legislative matters such as health care reform. “These advertisements clearly have a political edge, but they also have a grassroots lobbying message,” said Marcus Owens, the former IRS official. Further, business trade groups such as the Chamber of Commerce have long enjoyed IRS status as 501(c)(6) operations, which also are not required to disclose their donors’ names.

“The major impact [of the decision] is that more money is going to 501(c)(4) groups, trade groups and others that don’t disclose their donors,” former FEC counsel and election lawyer Larry Noble told the Center. “Those groups that don’t disclose are getting more money and getting more aggressive with their ads.”

The “501cs are the keys to the political kingdom,” says lobbyist Scott Reed, “because they allow anonymity.”

The increasing popularity of under-the-radar 501(c) groups is underscored by contrasting this year’s public disclosures with past election seasons. A recent study from Public Citizen shows that in 2004 and 2006, the large majority of outside groups revealed their donors. By contrast in 2008 only about half disclosed their donors and this year, to date, a scant 32 percent have made such disclosures.

Many of the GOP groups have aggressively tapped into what looks like a growing corporate backlash among financial service, energy, and health insurance companies against the Obama administration and Congress for expanding government regulation and taxation of some business sectors.

American Crossroads

An affiliate group of American Crossroads is perhaps the most prominent and aggressive of the new organizations that can take in anonymous donations. American Crossroads opened its doors in March as a section 527 group. Under IRS rules the group can accept unlimited donations and can spend all its monies on political advocacy, but must disclose its large donations and donors monthly.

Following the Citizens United decision, Crossroads GPS was founded. This is a 501(c)(4) which can accept unlimited donations but does not have to disclose its donors at all. In a matter of months, it had pulled in over $32 million and expended about half of that amount on hard hitting ads with a major focus on Senate contests in Colorado, Missouri, Nevada, and Ohio, followed by running ads to assist a dozen to two House races that fall.

32

American Crossroads has run a several direct advocacy ads in support of candidates and was a force in the 2012 elections.

Americans for Prosperity

Americans for Prosperity had plans to spend $45 million in the 2012 races, helping House and Senate candidates. AFP is a 501(c)(4) closely linked to David Koch, the co-chairman of the Kansas-based energy giant Koch Industries. A long time backer of conservative causes, Koch heads the board of Americans for Prosperity Foundation, a sister 501(c)(3) group.

Other groups are stepping up to help House candidates too and tapping donors in sectors hit hard by new regulations.

These funds are largely coming from the financial services industry, the energy industry, and the health insurance industry. Other older groups that can protect donors’ identities, such as the American Future Fund and BIPAC, also have seen spikes in their funding.

The Washington-based Business Industry Political Action Committee, or BIPAC, is a business group that tilts heavily to the GOP, uses a sophisticated computerized database to track voting records of candidates which it provides to its 400 or so corporate members to help them educate their workers. The goal is simple: spur employees to pull the right levers at the polls.

Sources familiar with BIPAC have indicated that it depends heavily on large energy interests such as the American Petroleum Institute, ExxonMobil, and mining and gas companies for a hefty chunk of its election budget. BIPAC’s board boasts several heavy hitting Washington lobbyists such as ex-Rep. Steve Bartlett of Texas, who runs the Financial Services Roundtable, a group comprised of some 100 leading integrated financial firms, and Rick Shelby, the top lobbyist with the American Gas Association.

Big unions, liberal groups play defense

Democrats worried about an enthusiasm and money gap are looking to their traditional union allies for help — and they’ll get it. But unions are worried about the influx of corporate monies this year to GOP boosters in the wake of Citizens United. The big advantage that labor banks on is its ability to mount a heftier and more aggressive get-out-the vote drive, its “ground game.” Some unions have responded by boosting their spending and trying to do more in concert as well.

In late August, the AFL-CIO announced it would mount a joint national political operation this year with the SEIU and the United Food and Commercial Workers. The three union giants, the AFL-CIO, SEIU, and United Food and Commercial Workers, are planning for a combined political drive that could cost at least $94 million with each organization

33

The collaboration will focus on 26 states, among them Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Nevada, and will be aimed at reaching more than 17 million voters including active union members, their families and union retirees.

One veteran liberal activist stresses that having the AFL-CIO and SEIU mount joint operations will “promote greater efficiency and a common strategy that’s especially important in mega states such as California and Illinois,” where there are many union members. Other unions are boosting their budgets, as well.

Can Citizens United impact be muted by Congress?

Almost as soon as the high court ruled in January, campaign finance watchdogs began to push for greater disclosure of the firms that were poised to funnel millions of dollars anonymously to independent groups.

One result of that push: the Disclose Act, which would require corporations, unions and other interest groups to identify themselves explicitly in campaign advertisements that they finance. Large donors funding these ads would also have to be named. The bill passed the House earlier this year with just two Republicans backing it; and has been blocked in the Senate twice on cloture votes with unanimous GOP opposition. The bill’s lead sponsors are Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., who chairs his party’s House campaign committee, and Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York who formerly chaired the Senate counterpart.

The debate has a familiar ring. Republicans have charged that the bill is politically motivated and prompted by a desire of Democrats to maintain their majorities. President Obama, meanwhile, has repeatedly championed the measure, most recently in his Saturday morning address on Sept. 18. “What’s at stake is not just an election,” he said. “It’s our democracy itself.”

Among the questions that participants asked in advance of this presentation was a question about what concrete steps need to be taken in order to officially implement a workable, legal, fair and transparent system of lobbying and advocacy, taking into account the very difficult and challenging conditions prevailing at the moment. This question was followed by a question whether we thought it would be possible to convince or persuade the officials in your country to adopt, implement and use a system of officially sanctioned and legally authorized lobbying and advocacy.

First, there are concrete steps that can be taken at the grassroots level, through organizational advocacy and creation of a broad base of public support for citizen involvement in the political process. Start at the grassroots or community level.

34

Second, take positive steps to enable active citizenship by mobilizing public sentiment, encouraging the creation of communities of interest, and fostering greater public awareness of the need for governmental accountability.

Third, promote citizen oversight and control over the election process by making it more open, transparent, and accessible to citizens regardless of social status, ethnicity, gender, age, or religion.

Fourth, promote and constantly call for more democratic government, respect for human rights, and respect for the rule of law.

Fifth, look to examples of successful efforts in other countries and work by international organizations that have helped citizen groups cast off the shackles of a once-authoritarian regime or that may be in the aftermath of civil conflict. For example,

(1) in the Philippines, pro-democracy organizations have formulated a Democracy Action Agenda, including institution-building and collaborative projects with the government, with assistance from USAID/Philippines;

(2) the Asia Foundation has provided start-up support, staff training and sponsorship of programs to strengthen local government accountability;

(3) the Eurasia Foundation provides grants to develop and strengthen NGOs;

(4) the Institute for Democracy in Eastern Europe (IDEE) provides grants and support of NGO activity in former states of the Soviet Union;

(5) the London-based Charity Know-How helps develop the legal, financial and regulatory frameworks, coordinating bodies and skills needed by voluntary organizations in the former Eastern Bloc countries; and

(6) the European Union’s PHARE program helps target non-state, non-profit-making bodies in civil society, offers small-scale grants for initiatives, stimulation of grassroots activity, and enhancement of a wide range of NGOs that work for human rights, civil education, conflict resolution, and interethnic tolerance.

Turning to the question of whether it would be possible to convince or persuade the officials in your country to adopt, implement and use a system of officially sanctioned and legally authorized lobbying and advocacy, the short answer is YES. Through the above efforts to create and encourage citizen empowerment, citizen access to their own government, citizen participation in the electoral process, and citizen engagement at all levels of society, the people hold the keys to democratic government, including the power to influence and promote the enactment of legislation and government policies that would authorize and make legitimate appropriate lobbying and advocacy actions.

Citizens can take charge of their own destiny by participating in government decision-making over budgetary resources and allocation of resources, through formation of local participatory budgeting organizations and watchdog organizations that insist on government accountability and

35

government transparency. Open, transparent and democratic government should be based on a viable, strong and informed citizenry and civil society organizations that have a strengthened role in promoting participatory government. It can be done. It takes time, work and commitment.

CONCLUSION

It is our hope that this presentation on the system, principles and practice of lobbying and advocacy in the United States has been helpful and that it may provide the spark for further discussion and possible implementation of some aspects of proactive local government reform and transparent, accessible governance in Ukraine. To our colleagues and counterparts in Ukraine, we have shared our perspective drawn from our experience with municipal, county and other local governance in the USA. We have shared with you our suggestions and ideas on the role of local government attorneys and civil society organizations in lobbying and advocacy. If this has been a mutually beneficial learning process and if we have at least begun the process of building meaningful bridges and lines of communications between the people, professionals, and government counterparts of our respective countries, then our efforts have achieved their objective.

 The following are links to a representative sampling of state and federal laws and regulations 

governing public access to government records.  

ACCESS TO STATE GOVERNMENT RECORDS IN THE U.S.: http://www.archivists.org/publications/proceedings/accesstoarchives/09_Richard_Pearce-MOSES.pdf

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACTS: https://www.osc.gov/foia.htm; http://sunshineweek.rcfp.org/foi-in-action/; http://ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Policy___Standards/DEV01_003750; http://www.ssa.gov/foia/

CALIFORNIA: http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/building/dept/pr_main.htm; http://www.calaware.org/downloads/Top10_CPRAExemptions.pdf; http://adminrecords.ucsd.edu/ppm/docs/480-4.html; https://www.cacities.org/Resources/Open-Government/THE-PEOPLE%E2%80%99S-BUSINESS-A-Guide-to-the-California-Pu.aspx; http://www.marincounty.org/depts/bs/boards-and-commissions/member-handbook/public-records-act; https://www.tustinca.org/departments/cityclerk/records.html; http://www.regionalsan.com/public-records-act-requests

COLORADO: http://tornado.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/PDF/CORA.pdf

FLORIDA: http://floridafaf.org/resources/requesting-public-records/;http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0100-0199/0119/0119.html; http://www.myflsunshine.com/sun.nsf/sunmanual/d85cde087c3a6818852566f3007272ea; http://www.co.okaloosa.fl.us/Dept_docs/doc/prr_policy.pdf

36

GEORGIA: http://www.gfaf.org/resources/resourcesBlueBook.pdf

INDIANA: http://www.purdue.edu/business/records/ppt/PublicRecordsandSubpoenaEmployeeTraining.ppt

KANSAS: http://www.emporia.edu/about/kora.pdf; http://kckps.cloudaccess.net/departments/communications-office/privacy-links/ks-open-records-act.html

KENTUCKY: http://ag.ky.gov/civil/orom/documents/protectingyourrighttoknow.pdf

LOUISIANA:http://www.ag.state.la.us/Article.aspx?articleID=20&catID=10&printer=1; http://ballotpedia.org/Louisiana_Public_Records_Act

MARYLAND: http://www.oag.state.md.us/Opengov/whatisPIA.pdf; https://www.dpscs.state.md.us/publicinfo/pia.shtml

MASSACHUSETTS: http://www.sec.state.ma.us/pre/prepdf/guide.pdf; http://www.mass.gov/perac/training/massachusettspublicrecordslaw.pdf

MICHIGAN: http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-Act-442-of-1976; http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-act-267-of-1976.pdf http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/openmtgsfreedom.pdf MISSISSIPPI: http://olemiss.edu/depts/u_attorney/publicrecordsact.html; http://www.ago.state.ms.us/foi-forms-and-requests/http://www.ethics.state.ms.us/ethics/ethics.nsf/webpage/A_records; http://www.mcfoi.org/handbook.html; http://www.nfoic.org/mississippi-foia-laws; http://www.desotocountyms.gov/index.aspx?NID=381; http://www.cityofamoryms.com/site/media/publicrecordsord1620and1660.pdf

NEW JERSEY: http://www.nj.gov/grc/public/docs/Citizen's%20Guide%20to%20OPRA%20(July%202011).pdf; http://www.state.nj.us/grc/act.html; https://www.njslom.org/seminar-documents/OPRA-061813.pdf; http://datamine2.state.nj.us/dep/DEP_OPRA/index2.html

NEW MEXICO: http://www.cfb.state.nm.us/AGO20IPRA20Guide.pdf

OHIO: https://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/ChiefLegal/PolicyAndProcedures/PublicRecordsRequestLetterPoster.pdf; http://www.citizenadvocacycenter.org/uploads/8/8/4/0/8840743/ohio.pdf

OREGON: http://www.doj.state.or.us/public_records/citizens_guide.shtml; http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=185830

37

PENNSYLVANIA: http://openrecords.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/open_records/4434/faqs/462051; http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/public_records/20686

TENNESSEE: http://www.comptroller.tn.gov/openrecords/pdf/CJEPresentation8-14-08.pdf

TEXAS: http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/divisions/es/exec_services_public_information_act.html;https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/open/;https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/AG_Publications/pdfs/pia_easy.pdf;https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/AG_Publications/pdfs/pia_easy.pdf; http://www.occc.state.tx.us/pages/Legal/open_rec/Policy.htm; http://www.window.state.tx.us/pia.html; http://www.utexas.edu/business/vp/open_records.html

WASHINGTON:http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/publicrecords/;http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/pra/;http://www.atg.wa.gov/OpenGovernment/InternetManual/Chapter1.aspx#.U3ODVIwo7IU; http://www.mrsc.org/subjects/legal/prd/prd.aspx

1 Karl T. Kurtz, Director of Trust for Representative Democracy, NCSL,  Legislatures and Citizens: Public Participation and Confidence in the Legislature (December 1997), accessible online at http://www.ncsl.org/legislators‐staff/legislators/trust‐for‐representative‐democracy/public‐participation‐and‐confidence‐in‐the‐leg541.aspx] 

2 Peggy Kerns, Tools of the Trade: Guidelines to Ethical Lobbying (NCSL  May 2013) at http://www.ncsl.org/research/ethics/tools‐of‐the‐trade‐guidelines‐to‐ethical‐lobbying.aspx