No More Shadows for the Lobbyists : Congress’ Class of ’94 fuels a historic reform

In the last half-century, lobbyists have transformed Washington into a beehive of influence-peddling as they pushed for anything and everything that would help their clients, usually big-bucks businesses. Governed by only the laxest of rules, this army of persuaders--6,000 by official count and many times that in fact--has operated with impunity, the only light on their activities coming from the press and a few citizens groups. Its clout was such that it sometimes was called the third house of Congress. But soon a fresh breeze will be felt in the District of Columbia. At long last, Congress has voted for lobbying reform.

With the 1994 election, a new bunch of politicians went to Washington on promises of cleaning up government. Now they have delivered, at least in terms of passing key legislation. On Wednesday the House voted 421 to 0 to impose tough controls on lobbyists.

CLINTON ON BOARD: Some voted aye only after sniffing the wind. Some stayed away from the voting, possibly unable to bear being witness to the change but definitely incapable of stemming it. Similarly, the Senate voted unanimously--98 to 0--for an identical bill in July. President Clinton has said he will sign the legislation.

Of course influence peddling in Washington is not coming to an end, but at least the practice will now be subject to mandatory disclosure. Instead of weak, hit-or-miss regulation, lobbyists will have to register with Congress, disclose their clients and the agencies they lobby, divulge which issues and legislation they seek to influence and how much they are paid for their service. Lawyers who do any lobbying also will be subject to the regulations.

The House measure was managed by Rep. Charles T. Canady (R-Fla.), who tipped his hat to Democratic Reps. Barney Frank (Mass.) and John Bryant (Tex.) for their efforts in its behalf. “It really shows things have changed in Congress,” Canady said.

KEY SENATE CHANGE: In addition to being fueled by the congressional newcomers, this remarkable achievement was fostered by the approach of the 1996 election year. Another important factor was the Senate’s decision last July to revise its internal rules on gifts and freebies. The senators put a limit of $50 on meal checks their supporters could pick up and a ceiling of $100 on gifts from any one source in a year. The House, where most of the congressional freshmen reside, banned gifts altogether, except those from a relative or friend.

In 1994, insider relationships were the cause of anger among the electorate, which made it a throw-the-rascals-out year and which clearly figured that anyone who had been working in Washington’s welter of lobbyists for more than a couple of terms was probably a rascal.

The lobbyists will remain insiders by way of their knowledge and contacts, but now they will feel the nation’s hot glare if they are tempted to slide back into their old ways. And Americans should reserve some heat for those Senate and House members who failed to participate in these two historic votes.