Rick and I haven't discussed this. My view is similar but perhaps not identical to his. I think this kind of problem is inevitable now that there are separate Legislation and Election-law lists. Each has some areas of interest that are not within the other's purview, but there are large areas of overlap. The boundaries of the election-law listserv have never been clearly defined and it is not likely the legislation listserv will be different. Before the legislation listserv was created, I don't think this discussion on the election-law listserv would have raised any eyebrows. People raising new subjects may want to give some thought to which is the more appropriate forum, but I don't think we should worry too much about it. At least, not unless the number of messages gets more oppressive than it has been so far.
Best,
Daniel Lowenstein
UCLA Law School
405 Hilgard
Los Angeles, California 90095-1476
310-825-5148
________________________________
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu on behalf of Rick Hasen
Sent: Fri 3/10/2006 2:22 PM
To: Smith, Brad
Cc: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Re: Lobbying reform legislation
I don't necessarily disagree with that point, Brad. But people sign up for the election law list because they are interested in a bunch of different things. Some people really care about campaign finance, others about redistricting, others about election administration, etc. So there will be some people who on the election law list who are not too interested in the lobbying issue, even if it ties into campaign finance. But just about everyone on the legislation list is likely to be interested in the topic your post raises. And anyone on the election law list who wants to be part of that discussion can simply join the legislation list (which has, by the way, many fewer posts---at least so far---than the election law list).
But make your own judgments. If you and Craig want to continue this discussion on the election law list, go ahead.
Rick
Smith, Brad wrote:
I thought of grassroots lobbying as precisely the part of the bill that is inherently tied to election law - indeed, that really is election law masquerading as "lobbying" reform.
Bradley A. Smith
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
Columbus, Ohio
________________________________
From: Rick Hasen [mailto:Rick.Hasen@lls.edu]
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 4:33 PM
To: Smith, Brad
Cc: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Re: Lobbying reform legislation
As much as I hate to tell you boys to take this and settle this outside....
Might I suggest that a more appropriate place to have this very important discussion is on the new Legislation listserv, where there have been numerous posts on lobbying reform?
For anyone who wants to sign up with the legislation listserv, the link is:
http://majordomo.lls.edu/cgi-bin/lwgate/LEGISLATION/
Rick
Smith, Brad wrote:
Do you consider the restrictions on grassroots lobbying among the "most significant" parts of the bill?
Bradley A. Smith
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
Columbus, Ohio
________________________________
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu [mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Holman@aol.com
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 10:18 AM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Lobbying reform legislation
This is day-old news about the lobbying reform legislation, but similar the discussion of the bill on soft money in Internet campaign advertising (HR 1606), there has not been much discussion about what happened on the Hill yesterday about the lobbying reform bill, so I thought I would offer a brief update.
For the last two weeks, the Senate had been rushing head-long into reforming lobbying and ethics rules and legislation. Last week, two bills were sent to the floor from two separate Senate committees. Sen. Trent Lott's Rules committee approved S. 2349, which restricted earmarks in appropriations and other bills, banned gifts (except meals) from lobbyists, prohibited favoritism in hiring practices (K Street project), and enhanced various disclosure requirements for travel.
The Senate Homeland Security Committee, chaired by Sen. Susan Collins, approved its own lobbying reform bill (S. 2180) that primarily enhanced disclosure requirements for campaign contributions by lobbyists, grassroots lobbying, gifts and travel. A provision to create an independent ethics agency to monitor compliance was deleted from the bill.
Both bills were combined into one package, introduced on the Senate floor on Wednesday as S. 2349. An intense floor battle was expected, as some 35 amendments were going to be offered addressing mostly the conduct (rather than disclosure) of lobbying activity, including amendments to ban privately-sponsored travel, prohibit all gifts from lobbyists, slow the revolving door by prohibiting retiring public officials from conducting any lobbying activity during the cooling off period (rather than just prohibiting them from picking up the telephone and calling their former colleagues during the cooling off period), and establishing an independent ethics agency.
All of this came to a screeching halt on Thursday, when Sen. Schumer introduced an unrelated amendment to end the Dubai Ports deal. Sen. First did not want Democrats to stake out a claim to ending the ports deal and so called for a cloture vote.
The cloture vote created a lose-lose situation for comprehensive lobbying reform. If approved, most of the significant amendments, like the independent ethics agency, would also be deemed non-germane and struck from consideration. If not approved, Sen. First would pull the bill from consideration on the floor.
The latter lose-scenario occurred. Unless First and Schumer work out a deal, Senate consideration of lobbying reform will be on hold. The debate next moves to the House, where we start all over again.
Craig Holman, Ph.D.
Public Citizen
215 Pennsylvania Ave., SE
Washington, D.C. 20003
TEL: 202-454-5182
FAX: 202-547-7392
Holman@aol.com
--
Rick Hasen
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
919 Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211
(213)736-1466
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org