Most Registered Lobbyists Could Provide Support for Their Filings and Newly Registered Lobbyists Largely Met Reporting Requirements

We estimate that lobbyists could provide accurate supporting  information—in either written or verbal form—on income or expenses for  at least 95 percent of all first quarter reports filed that required this  information. Nonetheless, lobbyists were able to provide written or oral support for all  required elements of individual reports we examined. However, the extent  to which lobbyists could provide written documentation varied for  different aspects of the reports. We estimate that lobbyists have written documentation to support income  or expenses for approximately 91 percent of first quarter reports that  required this information. Lobbyists had written documentation to support  information about the individuals who acted as a lobbyist for 35 percent of  reports. However, we could not identify corresponding first quarter reports of  lobbying activity for 102 (approximately 7 percent) of the 1460 new  registrations. Some Lobbyists Reported Challenges to Complying with the Act

Some lobbyists identified certain challenges to their compliance with the  Act, including uncertainty about how to report various pieces of  information about their organizations and lobbying activity. They did not know how much detail they needed to provide on the specific  lobbying issues for each client. The United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia Assigns Resources Based on Competing Demands and Has Sufficient Authorities to Enforce Lobbying Compliance

Officials from the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of  Columbia (the Office) informed us that resources are assigned to lobbying  compliance issues based on competing priorities within the Office. The Office has five staff members  who work on lobbying noncompliance issues in addition to other duties: a  deputy chief, three assistant U.S. Officials from the  Office stated that they have sufficient civil and criminal statutory  authorities to enforce the Act. Referrals have increased in recent years, and as a result, the Office’s  workload relative to lobbying disclosure has increased. In commenting on  a draft of this report, Office officials stated they have recently begun to  redesign their computer database to more accurately track referrals and  identify trends in past compliance matters in order to create a more  structured approach for assigning its resources. Based on these observations, we believe that the lobbying community  could benefit from creating an organization to    share examples of best practices of the types of records maintained to  support filings and use this information gathered over an initial period to  formulate minimum standards for recordkeeping;    provide training for the lobbying community on reporting and disclosure  requirements, intended to help the community comply with the Act; and  report annually to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House  on opportunities to clarify existing guidance and ways to minimize sources  of potential confusion for the lobbying community. Such an approach should require the  Office to track the referrals when they are made, record reasons for the  referrals, record the actions taken to resolve them, and assess the results  of actions taken. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Consistent with the requirements of the Honest Leadership and Open  Government Act (HLOGA), our objectives were to    determine the extent to which lobbyists can demonstrate compliance by  providing support for information on registrations and reports filed in  response to requirements of the amended Lobbying Disclosure Act (the  Act);  identify the challenges lobbyists cite in complying with the Act and  suggestions for improving compliance; and    describe the process of referring noncompliance cases to the Department  of Justice (DOJ) and the resources and authorities available to DOJ in its  role in enforcing compliance with the Act. We contacted each lobbyist in our sample and asked them to provide  support for eight key elements in their reports, including  the amount of money received for lobbying activities;  the amount of money spent on lobbying activities;  the specific issues on which they lobbied;  the houses of Congress and federal agencies which they lobbied;  the names of individuals who acted as lobbyists for the client listed on the  report;  the names of foreign entities with interest in the client;  the names of individuals no longer acting as a lobbyist for the client; and  the names of any member organizations of a coalition or association that  actively participated in lobbying activities on behalf of the client.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (HLOGA) of 2007 amends the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 by doubling the frequency of lobbyists' reporting and increasing criminal and civil penalties. This is GAO's first report in response to the Act's requirement for GAO to annually (1) determine the extent to which lobbyists can demonstrate compliance with the Act by providing support for information on their registrations and reports, (2) describe challenges identified by lobbyists to complying with the Act, and (3) identify the process for referring cases to the Department of Justice and the resources and authorities available to effectively enforce the Act. GAO reviewed a random sample of 100 reports filed by lobbyists during the first quarter of calendar year 2008. This methodology allowed GAO to generalize to the population of 17,801 reports filed. GAO also met with lobbyists regarding their filings and with Department of Justice officials regarding resources and authorities

What GAO Found

GAO estimates that lobbyists could provide accurate supporting information--in either written or verbal form--on income or expenses for at least 95 percent of all first quarter reports filed requiring this information. The legislation and guidance do not contain requirements for lobbyists to create or maintain documentation in support of the registrations or reports they file. Nonetheless, lobbyists were able to provide written or oral support for all required elements of individual reports GAO examined. However, the extent to which lobbyists could provide written documentation varied for different aspects of the reports. GAO estimates that lobbyists have written documentation to support income or expenses for approximately 91 percent of first quarter reports that required this information. In contrast, for a separate element listing the person who acted as a lobbyist, GAO estimates that lobbyists have written documentation for 35 percent of reports that required this information. Also, the majority of lobbyists newly registered with the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House in the first quarter of 2008 also filed required disclosure reports for the period. However, for about 7 percent of the registrants, GAO could not identify a clear, corresponding report on file for their lobbying activity, likely because a report was not filed or because of a mismatch of information in reports that were filed. While a number of lobbyists felt that existing guidance for filing required registrations and reports was sufficient, others believed additional clarifications, such as on issue area activity codes and on how to report various pieces of information about their organizations and lobbying activity, were needed. Several lobbyists also expressed uncertainty about what constitutes reportable lobbying activity under the law and how much detail they needed to provide on the specific lobbying issues for each client. The Act included the sense of Congress that the lobbying community should create an organization to develop training and standards for lobbying. GAO's work reinforces that such an organization would be beneficial and could share best practices and provide training on the types of records to support filings and report annually on opportunities to clarify existing guidance. The United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia assigns its resources for lobbying compliance issues based on competing priorities within the Office. The Office has five staff members, including a Deputy Chief, three assistant U.S. attorneys, and one investigator who perform lobbying non-compliance follow-up, among other duties. Officials from the Office told us they have sufficient civil and criminal statutory authorities to enforce the Act. The department's lobbying compliance workload has increased in recent years. However, it currently lacks a structured approach for targeting its resources to the most significant noncompliance cases. Such an approach will require the Office to track the referrals when they are made, record reasons for the referrals, record the actions taken to resolve them, and assess the results of actions taken. The Office has recently begun to redesign its computer database to more accurately track referrals received in past years to identify trends in past compliance matters.