« PreviousContinue »
more in any one quarter should appear in the statement filed under the lobbying title, whether specifically earmarked for legislative purposes or not. If a lobby statute does not reach organizations such as the National Association of Manufacturers or the Congress of Industrial Organizations, then, make no mistake about it, you have no regulatory law worth talking about.
3. A statement of the bona fide total membership of organizations should be required. It would also be effective if each organization were required to state how its legislative policy is determined and to indicate the responsibility of the lobbyist in conveying these views on behald of the membership of the organization. It would then be a simple matter to expect chairmen of standing and special committees to require of a witness appearing at hearings a sworn statement as to whom he represents, the membership of his organization'and a brief account of the internal structure of such organization that would indicate how the position taken by the witness was arrived at. This might prove to be a broad step in the direction of making pressure groups more representative of their actual and potential membership, and more democratic in their procedures.
I might say that the joint committee made that recommendation as well. I think it would smoke out so-called “paper organizations” or representatives who tended to exaggerate the importance of their organizations or the numbers that they represent.
4. It should be the responsibility of a specially designated agency to enforce the Lobbying Act. This agent should be the Attorney General of the United States. It would be his responsibility to see that complete information is supplied in accordance with the terms of the act and that such information is given the fullest publicity. Publicity is the key to effective enforcement of lobbying legislation. The compilation of the data for the Congressional Record is only a first step. The Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate now responsible for the compilation of the data on Forms B and C lack police power. The information on all forms, including A, to be prepared by the Attorney General in the first place, should be pubIished at quarterly intervals in the Congressional Record. One copy should be filed with the enforcement agency and one with the Clerk of the House. It is further recommended that the compilation of the data be furnished either by the enforcement agency or the Clerk of the House to the Press, Radio, and Periodical Press Galleries at stated intervals in sufficient number to permit distribution to each accredited member of the galleries. Copies of the compiled lobbying data should also be sent at weekly intervals while Congress is in session to the presiding officers of each House in sufficient numbers to permit distribution to each Member of Congress.
Furthermore, the Attorney General should be specifically required to evaluate in his annual report to Congress the working of the Lobbying Act during the past year, to interpret the information yielded under the act and to suggest improvements through administrative or legislative action. It would also be highly advisable for the appropriate congressional committees to annually evaluate the act. understand that that power is granted by the Legislative Reorganization Act to this committee and the corresponding committee on the House side.
5. The act should be revised to require the filing of statements and registration of “persons” who exert their influence upon any Federal bureau, agency, or Government official. The Congress having taken the first step in requiring registration of persons exerting influence upon the legislative body, the extension of its provisions to the administrative agencies would be a simple matter.
It would be further recognition of the fact that the pressure upon the administrative division is considerable.
I might add that the Black bill in the Senate, S. 2512, of the Seventy-fourth Congress, had a similar provision.
6. The act should specifically prohibit the employment of any person to promote or oppose legislation when compensation is contingent in whole or in part upon the passage or defeat of legislative matters,
I might say that you will find such provisions in practically all the States that have lobbying laws. It isn't prohibited in the Federal law-I looked at the record and I came upon a legislative agent who registered and stated he was to be retained at a certain salary but if he succeeded in getting the excise tax on furs reduced from 20 to 10 percent he would get an additional fee, and if this tax was eliminated completely he would get still another fee. I think that is bad.
Senator McCLELLAN. Do you remember who that was?
Professor ZELLER. Yes. I am just citing that as an example. There may be others. In the Congressional Record of January 29, 1948, on page 741, a gentleman by the name of Thomas J. Downs is recorded, and in answer to question 4 on Form B, how much he is paid and is to receive, he states the following:
Ten thousand dollars per annum as a retainer as Washington counsel on all matters affecting the economic and legal welfare of the industry, plus a fee of $15,000 in the event the excise tax on furs is cut from 20 to 10 percent, plus an additional fee of $25,000 in the event the entire excise tax on furs is repealed on or before July 1, 1948. That is just an example what I happened to come across.
Senator ROBERTSON. Will you explain to me the significance of that? Does it have any bearing on what I was saying, whether it removed the excise tax on furs or not?
Professor ZELLER. It is not what it does to the Members of Congress, but it is the lengths to which some of the legislative agents would go in order to accomplish their purposes when so much extra compensation is involved. I think it may encourage under the general heading of legitimate lobbying practices the sort of thing we want to discourage.
Recommendation 7. The exemption granted in section 308 to newspapers or other regularly published periodicals should also be extended to the radio.
In section 308, among those exempted from registration, are newspapers and other published periodicals acting in the regular course of their business. It seems to me the exemption should be extended to include radio as well.
8. The contradictions in sections 307 and 311 as they affect the Corrupt Practices Act should be resolved making it clear that only duly organized State and local party committees are exempted from the provisions of the Lobbying Act and that others may be required to file under the Lobbying and Corrupt Practices Acts depending on their activities.
It doesn't seem very clear, and I think the language can be clarified there.
Conclusions: No one doubts that it is a nuisance to require such full information from private organizations, yet the time is opportune to insist upon it. These groups have grown accustomed in the past two decades to furnishing more and more information to the Government. Teeth should be put into the lobbying title at the earliest practical moment. It is far better for the Congress to clarify its position than for the courts to do so, but since the N. A. M, is now in the courts we may get an interpretation from this source with reference to these lobby provisions.
Groups engaged in the legitimate activity of helping the people's representatives formulate public policy are in a sense clothed with a public interest. A democracy is entitled to the fullest information from all the sources that constitute its functioning parts—and who would deny that pressure groups play a valuable and indispensable part in the dynamics of government. The regulation of pressure groups and their paid agents does not interfere with the constitutional right of free speech, or free press or the right of petition. It denies to no one the high right of appeal to Congress or to the public for the purpose of influencing legislation. There should be no stigma attached to lobbying. The regulatory measure does not prohibit lobbying-it does not draw a distinction between good lobbying and bad lobbying. It simply requires organizations and their agents who influence legislation, who collect or spend money for this purpose to work in the open.' Penalties should be provided for those who fail to comply. Of course, one of the objectives of the law is to put the whole game of pernicious lobbying out of existence and the bad pressure boys out of work. This legislation may be regarded as a curb against abuse of petition, as laws of libel and slander discourage abuse of freedom of speech and of press. It is difficult to see how a sound lobbying law could be considered violative of the first or fifth amendments of the Constitution, or a bill of attainder, as charged by some organizations.
I read the very well-prepared brief of the National Association of Manufacturers, and in that brief they make the point, for example, among many others, that the penalty which provides that a convicted person under the lobbying title may not engage in influencing legislation for a period of 3 years is a bill of attainder.
In respect to that, there are seven States at the present time that have similar provisions, and I have never seen that point raised in connection with the States that do have this provision. Wisconsin is one of them; I believe Kansas is another. There are seven.
Senator BRICKER. There have been no decisions on them?
Professor ZELLER. No; the enforcement of the laws has been very lax, indeed, in most States.
Senator BRICKER. You may proceed.
Professor ZELLER. It is, of course, difficult to estimate the number of pressure groups that are active in the area of national legislation. At the time when lobbying reached a new pitch of activity (1946–47), in the battles over elimination of price controls, rent controls, the Taft-Hartley labor bill, tax reduction, just to mention a few areas of legislation, about 700 organizations and individuals were found in the lobbying files as employers of paid legislative agents during the
first year of the lobbying statute. According to the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, more than 3,000 national trade and professional associations are represented in the Capital in some manner. The National Association of Manufacturers states there are 1,500 national or regional trade associations of commercial or industrial enterprises The report of the Temporary National Economic Committee in 1941 listed 381 national organizations with permanent representatives in Washington. Many of the associations recorded under the lobbying law are not, of course, national organizazations and undoubtedly do not have permanent representatives in Washington. Eighty-two organizations in the 1941 list registered in some form under the lobbying law in 1946–47.
It must be emphasized, however, that regulatory legislation by itself, no matter how carefully drawn or how vigorously enforced, will not eliminate the predatory lobby or discourage the use of questionable or illegitimate practices by pressure groups. Significantly, the lobbying title is part of the Legislative Reorganization Act which aimed to improve and modernize the organization and operation of the Congress. By setting your own house in order, gentlemen, you take the most effective step in bringing the lobby under control. However, in 1946 Congress took only a first step toward achieving the standards of a twentieth-century Congress. Surely by placing greater professional expert and clerical assistance at the disposal of legislative committees and Members, Congress has made itself less dependent upon unofficial sources of information than ever before.
By strengthening the power of Government to formulate legislative policy in other ways you will also go a long way in providing effective regulation of pressure groups. These other ways involve narrowing the chasm between the executive and legislative branches of our National Government, more fully enforcing the provisions of the Legislative Reorganization Act, and revising such sections as have shown faulty implementation.
And then I make this final point in my prepared statement that if time permits I would like to present other recommendations that would make the Congress a more modern institution better equipped to meet the the complex and technological problems of today, but I am not going to take your time now because I think former Senator La Follettee and Representative Monroney in their two very able papers presented this morning left little for me to add.
Senator BRICKER. Thank you very much, Professor Zeller, for your presentation.
Are there any further questions?
Senator ROBERTSON. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to the witness that I am in full accord with her desire to see predatory lobbying abolished.
On your suggestion that we should strengthen the means of getting information that we need on legislation from Government sources rather than from private industry, I should like to remind you that when we were considering rationing and price control it was testified to us that there were 8,000,000 items in commerce in the United States and there was no living man that knew all about any one industry, much less all of the 8,000,000 items. And I don't know how many Government employees we would have to have to get full infor
mation even on the question of rationing and price control if they had to be thoroughly informed about 8,000,000 items before we could act. Professor ZELLER. Oh, I agree with you, Senator.
. Senator ROBERTSON. I mention that to show the problem.
Professor ZELLER. I quite agree with you, Senator. I have stated that pressure groups, and I am not using the term at all in a derogatory sense, have a very, very important role to play—I say an indispensable role to play-under our system of government
Senator ROBERTSON. But sometimes nobody knows better than the man who is going to be affected by the proposed legislation as to what it is going to do.
Professor ZELLER. Yes.
Senator ROBERTSON. You are probably familiar with the old couplet:
The butterfly beside the road
Exactly where each toothpoint goes. Professor ZELLER. I think you are quite right, Senator, that these groups frequently can give you a practical approach to the problem before the Congress that is of great value.
Senator ROBERTSON. You understand I wasn't calling you a butterfly. Professor ZELLER. I wouldn't mind if you did. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions? Senator FERGUSON. Yes; I am interested in this word “predatory." Will you give me a definition of that?
Professor ZELLER. I suppose a predatory lobbyist is one that does not and is not willing to work in the open, one who attempts to offer money illegally-certainly, those two categories.
Senator FERGUSON. Well, the latter one is an actual criminal.
Professor ZELLER. That's right. He is violating the law. When I use the term “predatory lobbyist”, I like to believe that anybody so designated is violating the lobby law as passed by the Congress of the United States.
Senator FERGUSON. You mean if they are actually violating the law, then they are predatory lobbyists? Professor ZELLER. Well, with this qualification, they are.
The language of the law is so unclear, that is, several sections of title III of the Legislative Reorganization Act are so unclear that I would hesitate to say to an organization, “You are a predatory lobby because you haven't conformed to the law.” I think it is the responsibility of Congress to write clear legislation so that most reasonable people can interpret it
Senator FERGUSON. How would you have written this law? You say Congress should write it so that everybody will understand it. You are a political scientist. How would you write it?
Professor ZELLER. I would suggest you look at my list of recommendations, which I presented while you were out of the room. It is important, in my opinion, that we remove the stigma from the term "lobbying." Now, for example, Senator Robertson said that a mem