Michael Bennet plans to introduce a bill that would place further curbs on the influence industry. Lobbying for lobbyists on Capitol Hill

With the nation’s influence industry facing congressional proposals that could further crimp how it operates, leaders are responding as they best know how — by using lobbyists for lobbyists.

“We need a consistent presence, and it seems hypocritical for me not to register,” said Howard Marlowe, president of the American League of Lobbyists, who in April registered as a federal lobbyist to represent the interests of the league’s members.


Marlowe is joined by Michael Willis, a former legislative aide to Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.) in actively lobbying on behalf of the American League of Lobbyists.

Between April and June, federal records show Marlowe or Willis made contact with the White House, House of Representatives, Senate and Office of the Vice President to lobbying on issues including lobbying reform, lobbying disclosure, campaign finance laws and rules governing gifts.

And they could become busier yet.

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) plans to reintroduce legislation that would, in part, seek to ban former members of Congress from ever becoming lobbyists and extending to six years a lobbying cooling-off period for top congressional staffers. The nation, Bennet spokesman Adam Bozzi said, “is ready for Washington to take more steps for reform.”

In the House, Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) has filed a bill that aims to tighten a variety of lobbying rules, including forcing lobbyists to disclose which specific members of Congress they’ve met with — such disclosure is not presently required.

“With trust in government at an all-time low, transparency in everything we do is paramount to restoring it,” Quigley said upon introducing the bill last month.

Consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen is also planning to launch a campaign next month to convince lawmakers to expand lobbying disclosure, said Craig Holman, the organization’s federal lobbyist.

“I find it fairly humorous that they are disclosing and registering their lobbying activity so they can go and fight against regulation and full disclosure,” Holman said. “We will certainly combat any efforts by ALL to combat expanded disclosure.”

The American League of Lobbyists and Public Citizen do agree on one issue: that a provision requiring formal registration of people who spend 20 percent or more of their work time lobbying is inadequate.

The threshold, both Marlowe and Holman said, should be lower — perhaps 10 percent or 15 percent — to force “senior advisers” and other nonregistered influence brokers to disclose their activity, with Marlowe saying the American League of Lobbyists would actively lobby the government in favor of such transparency measures and generally supports “people who are operating in the dark being put out into the sunlight.”

Beyond that, though, there’s little agreement among many lobbyists and public interest advocates as to how lobbying laws should change. And some powerful voices in the influence arena are primed to join Marlowe in defending against certain provisions in the Quigley and Bennet bills — particularly the yet-to-be-filed Bennet measure.

Former Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), who now works on legislative and government affairs issues for lobby shop Venable LLP, derided Bennet’s proposal as “misplaced,” arguing that campaign cash, not the act of lobbying, is more likely to unduly influence lawmakers.

“Lobbyists help members. Any corrupting influence is not coming from individuals giving information,” said Stupak, who still falls under a one-year lobbying prohibition for former House members, and therefore, is not registered to lobby. “The focus should be on money, not speech, if you’re worried about corrupting influences. Public financing needs to be considered.”

Rep. Bill Paxon (R-N.Y.), a longtime registered lobbyist, said the Bennet proposal would “be cutting off the No. 1 supply of skilled lobbying talent in Washington.”

He added: “There’s nothing inherently wrong with lobbying. In Congress, you’d be hurting no one but yourself.”

Indeed, lobbyists largely suffer from an image problem that makes it easy for some politicians “to use the lobbying community as a scapegoat,” former American League of Lobbyists President Dave Wenhold said.

If Congress wants to force lobbyists to report each and every contact they have with a lawmaker, then members of Congress should also be required to report every meeting they have with each other, Wenhold said. They’re the ones who are elected to serve the public, and therefore, should be held to a high standard when it comes to disclosing their activity, he said. But banning former congressional members from lobbying is problematic, and potentially afoul of the Constitution’s first amendment, he added.

Lobbyists who work against lobbying restrictions is of particular concern to Sarah Dufendach — the legal affairs vice president and registered federal lobbyist for public interest group Common Cause.

Not all lobbyists are the same, she argued, and those working on behalf of corporate clients often have significantly more resources to fight disclosure and transparency proposals than public interest lobbyists like her have to support them.

As for former members of Congress, “they are a whole different category of human being,” Dufendach said. “They all have privileged information. Should you be able to turn that into a big, fat paycheck? There at least needs to be a much longer cooling off period put in place.”

Later this year, Marlowe says the American League of Lobbyists “will definitely get involved and take a position” on legislation aiming to curtail rights lobbyists today have, although the league hasn’t yet formally solidified its strategy. While declining to offer specifics, prime targets, he said, would be any provision the league considered “totally unrealistic.”