Ethics reform meets convention lobbyists

In a campaign season during which federal lobbyists have been blamed for much of what is wrong with Washington, perhaps no ethics “fix” has more captured public attention than the new federal rules governing corporate parties to be held during the Democratic and Republican conventions.

In true Washington style, the rules are simultaneously vague and tough, striking fear in the hearts of many convention-goers and party planners. Ultimately, we predict, not much is going to change when it comes to corporate and lobbyist “business” as usual at the conventions.

In passing new ethics laws two years ago, Congress said it intended to remove what the public viewed as ostentatious displays of corporate money and cozy relationships with lobbyists at past conventions. Election after election, our newspapers and televisions were filled with images of lavish parties in which members of Congress and their staffs were honored, and wined and dined at parties featuring enough corporate logos to make a NASCAR team jealous. Unfortunately, however, the new law has become a thicket of vague regulation and inconsistent guidance that hasn’t garnered much respect from anyone.

To great fanfare, Congress legislated that lobbyists can’t sponsor parties “honoring” its members at the national party conventions. Also to great fanfare, Congress passed relatively comprehensive changes to its gift rules, adding complex prohibitions on its own ability to accept “meals” and other items of value from lobbyists. To no one’s surprise, however, the House and Senate Ethics Committees quietly issued internal interpretations of these new laws that had the effect of cutting back on their scope and offered contradictory guidance as to their application. The rules, and Congress’ interpretations of them, have effectively required every event-planning committee to include at least one lawyer.

Moreover, as soon as the new legislation was signed into law, those lawyers, corporations and their lobbyists also began looking for, and finding, numerous curiosities and ambiguities in the legislation. Political lawyers found themselves facing such questions as: “What if we don’t honor the Congressman by name?” “What if we have the party in the host city the night before the convention starts so it’s not ‘during’ the convention?” And —- our favorites —- “What if we don’t eat our food sitting down, but only eat standing up?” or “What if we promise to eat the food with a toothpick rather than a fork?”

Incredible as it may seem, these became relevant questions in the modern world of “ethics reform.” But the mere fact that following the law may turn on such meaningless distinctions has eroded public confidence in the rules.

Confronted with vague rules and inconsistent direction, some groups have taken an aggressive approach in their convention planning, looking for some very available loopholes and presumably planning to seek forgiveness rather than permission. Other groups have elected to opt out of the conventions entirely.

Both approaches are understandable, but neither is appropriate nor necessary. There is no need for people, even —- heaven forbid —- lobbyists, to avoid their elected representatives this convention season or any other time. There remain a number of avenues available for the legitimate exercise of the First Amendment right to petition the government and to help our representatives actually represent our interests. But notwithstanding Congress’ effort to quietly cut back on the restrictions it imposed on itself, people also need to reflect on the original “spirit” in which these reforms were intended and not take advantage of Congress’ silent efforts to curtail the reach of the law it just passed.

We’ve heard a lot of talk about “changes” in Washington —- but bet on seeing a lot of “business as usual” at the convention parties this week and next.

> Stefan Passantino and Douglas Chalmers Jr. are Atlanta attorneys specializing in political law.