Obama’s lobbyist restrictions are ineffective and unfair constraints on speech Commentary
Obama’s lobbyist restrictions are ineffective and unfair constraints on speech
Edited by:

Melanie Sloan [Executive Director, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington]: "President Obama's March 20th memorandum aimed at "Ensuring Transparency of Registered Lobbyist Communications," will not achieve its intended purpose and is an ill-advised restriction on speech.

The memo prohibits registered lobbyists from participating in any oral communications, whether in-person or telephonic, with any official in the executive branch concerning any particular project, application, or applicant for funding under the Recovery Act. This restriction is not, however, imposed on others, who are permitted to communicate with administration officials without even any lesser form of restriction.

Most importantly, banning lobbyists from in-person and telephonic communications will not advance the stated purpose of ensuring public transparency and accountability and avoiding improper influence or pressure in the decision-making process. For example, non-lobbyists employed by potential recipients of Recovery Act funds, who are permitted oral contact with executive branch officials, may well have contributed significant funds to the presidential campaign or to the campaigns of members of Congress who sit on the committees with oversight jurisdiction over the Department of Treasury, the Federal Reserve and the expenditure of Recovery Act funds. They may hold positions of enormous power in the business world and have influence in Washington far beyond that of the average registered lobbyist. Also, nothing in this memorandum prevents a member of Congress from attempting to influence a funding decision, such as recently occurred with OneUnited Bank. Banning lobbyists from engaging in oral communications, but not bank vice presidents, corporate directors, and others who might seek to influence decision makers is unlikely to result in any real public benefit.

Instead of increasing the transparency and accountability, this prohibition will encourage participation by people who are not required to register and abide by the rules set forth in the stringent regulations that govern lobbyists, thereby decreasing transparency and accountability. Moreover, it will also discourage accurate reporting under the Lobbying Disclosure Act – especially for those who are on the cusp for meeting the definitional requirement of a "registered lobbyist."

Second, lobbying is a constitutionally protected activity. The right to petition the government equally is one of the main tenets of our country's founding principles. To state that one class of individuals may not participate in the same manner as all others is clearly a violation and discriminates against an entire group.

A better alternative would be to require disclosure of any and all communications with executive branch officials regarding a particular project, application, or applicant for funding. The name and business affiliation of the individual who engages in an oral communication about such a matter, the name of the official contacted, the date of the contact, and the subject of the contact could all be publicly available, perhaps on the Treasury Department's website. Such a transparent process would diminish the possibility of improper contacts while not unnecessarily singling out and punishing registered lobbyists to no apparent benefit."

Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.