Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:17 PM

Critics Challenge White House Lobbyist Rules

UPDATE (March 31 4:17 pm) In response to the letter, White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said:

"The goal is full transparency.  That's entirely consistent with the First Amendment.  Lobbyists can communicate about specific projects in writing and about policy issues orally.  That fully respects freedom of speech - while at the same time ending closed-door lobbyist dealmaking in favor of sunlight.  We welcome everyone's comments and will consider them."

President Obama's March 20 directive limiting lobbyists' communication with executive branch officials "won't get rid of undue influence" and will result in less disclosure and transparancy, said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington in a Tuesday press briefing.

Sloan has joined with Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington office of the American Civil Liberties Union and Dave Wenhold, president of the American League of Lobbyists, in writing a letter requesting the administration rescind a portion of the directive aimed at reducing lobbyists' influence on how the $787 billion stimulus package is spent.

"CREW whole-heartedly supports Obama's goals, but demonizing lobbyists isn't the solution," said Sloan, whose group has been one of the loudest voices against the influence of "special interests" in Washington.

In the White House memo, Obama ordered that "an executive department or agency official shall not consider the view of a [registered lobbyist] concerning particular projects, applications or applicants for funding under the Recovery Act unless such views are in writing."

The groups complain that the rule only applies to federally registered lobbyists and not to those who aren't. There are thousands of advocates in Washington and outside the Beltway who work on behalf of clients, but don't meet the legal definition of a lobbyist. The rules therefore give an advantage to non-lobbyists. It also creates an incentive for people to deregister as lobbyists, said Sloan.

It also sets up a scenario where a non-lobbyist -- like a venture capitalist, a chief executive, or an Obama campaign donor -- may have a financial interest in the stimulus package and  exercise influence without the public knowing about it.

To address this concern, the groups said the administration should rescind the portion of the directive that says lobbyists can only communicate in writing and broaden the rule so that everyone who meets with the administration about the stimulus is made public.

"If the goal is to prevent influence, then the [rules] should apply across the board, whether they are a registered lobbyist, or whether they are the CEO of Bank of America," said Fredrickson, who is a registered lobbyist. "In the interest of disclosure, it should be the same standard."

The three leaders of the groups also said they think the directive has First Amendment problems, but weren't ready to say whether or not they would file a lawsuit if their concerns aren't addressed.

"I can't give you a definitive answer," said Fredrickson. "We'd look at whether or not there is a legal basis for a challenge and then evaluate whether or not we'd bring" a suit.

                                                                                                               --Bara Vaida