Building on other comments in this dialog, here are six steps for reforming the sphere of special interest influences (apologies for the length):

1. Modify the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) to include paid grassroots lobbying.

Early in 2007, the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters, OMB Watch, Public Citizen, and U.S. PIRG were united in supporting disclosure of grassroots lobbying as part of the Senate's original reform of the LDA. The language would have required all advocacy groups, lobbying firms, and other entities that encourage the public to lobby Congress to report what they spend and what they are paid to stimulate grassroots action.

That provision - and later, more modest versions - was excoriated by American Civil Liberties Union, direct-mail giant American Target Advertising, and social conservative groups such as National Right to Life, the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, and the Traditional Values Coalition. They argued that grassroots reporting requirements infringe on citizens' First Amendment rights to free speech and to petition the government. Ultimately, disclosure of grassroots lobbying was dropped from the legislation.

It is striking that since 1976, charities electing to operate under a lobbying expenditure test have been required to disclose both direct and grassroots lobbying. Yet there has been no successful First Amendment challenge to such disclosure. So what is so different from OMB Watch disclosing to the IRS our grassroots lobbying and asking the National Rifle Association or its political and lobbying arm to disclose to Congress its grassroots lobbying? Are charities more influential than, say, the pharmaceutical companies or the insurance industry?

The tax law for charities has worked and can easily be applied to all entities, not just charities. Here is how we would apply it. First, all entities required to register under the LDA would be required to disclose grassroots lobbying communications in which money has been expended, as defined by Section 4911 of the tax code. Second, any entity that currently does not register under the LDA but spends more than a specified dollar threshold on grassroots lobbying would be required to register and report on its activities. The dollar threshold should be set high enough to ensure that most bloggers, for example, are not required to register and report. (Bloggers and others distributing information through the Internet, however, should make clear when they have been paid by another entity to promote a particular policy position on legislation.) Third, reporting would include a description of the grassroots lobbying activity, amount spent, and information about any consultants or consulting firms used to implement the grassroots lobbying communications.

No individual that responds to a grassroots lobbying campaign by contacting their elected leaders would be required to disclose their actions.

2. Refocus the 1989 Byrd amendment (31 U.S. Code Section 1352).

The Byrd amendment generally prohibited recipients of federal contracts, grants, and loans from using appropriated funds for lobbying the executive or legislative branches in connection with a specific contract, grant, or loan. It also required that each person who requests or receives a federal contract, grant, or cooperative agreement in excess of a specified amount must disclose lobbying with non-federal funds. In 1996, the requirements were revised in several ways: (a) less information about the lobbying activity was required; (b) the semi-annual federal agency reports to Congress were eliminated; and (c) the Inspector General's annual report to Congress was eliminated. Today, the information that is collected is handled inconsistently from agency to agency, and there is virtually no public disclosure of the information.

A revamped approach should: (a) continue the prohibition on use of federal funds for lobbying for more federal funds; (b) require disclosure of all communications by all entities to influence the award of federal funds in the executive and legislative branches; (c) require disclosure of all communications by all entities intended to influence government policy outside public procedures (e.g., notice and comment rulemakings); and (d) require the Inspectors General to monitor implementation.

Ellen Miller of the Sunlight Foundation has proposed a method, complete with web mock-ups, for executive branch officials to disclose in real-time this type of lobbying. (Nancy Watzman describes this in her post on this dialog.) In addition to these quick, real-time disclosures, lobbyists should disclose added information, such as the full name, address, city, state, and zip code of the lobbying entity, the full names of individuals performing the services (and addresses, if different than the lobbying entity), amount of compensation paid or reasonably expected to be paid for the lobbying communications and whether those communications have been paid or are in-kind contributions, and a clear and detailed description of the lobbying activity, including identifiers for programs being influenced.

3. Shine a light on lobbyists and others who wield influence, starting with the creation of an online searchable website that provides information about government integrity, including:

Who is getting federal funding. This should include information on sub-awards and all forms of federal subsidies such as tax breaks and non-cash support.
How money is being spent. This includes performance metrics so the public knows money is well spent.
Who is lobbying for money from the executive branch. This includes information discussed above about executive branch lobbying.
Who is working for government in high-level positions, including where they have come from and where they go after working in government.
Transactions involving government personnel, including disclosure of gifts, meals, travel, etc.
Campaign contributions.
Lobbying activities under the LDA.

To make this proposal work, the government will need to develop identifiers for entities and lobbyists so these data can be properly tied together.

4. Institute an overhauled e-rulemaking system that ensures full disclosure and new ways of fostering public participation, thereby leveling the playing field.

The American Bar Association developed detailed recommendations, Achieving the Potential: The Future of Federal e-Rulemaking, that was nearly two years in the making and is an excellent roadmap for the types of changes that are needed. (Full disclosure: I was part of the panel developing the recommendations.)

5. As Rich Gold indicates, whistleblower protections need to be strengthened, as do transparency requirements in government.

6. Create and implement enforceable actions to stop improper behavior. For example, entities that manufacture fake letters during grassroots lobbying campaigns should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. And if the law is silent, it should be amended to stop such behavior. As another example, the LDA needs to be given teeth to allow for meaningful enforcement of the law. While the definition of lobbying may need to be expanded to cover grassroots lobbying, it is clear, as described by Craig Holman in this dialog, there is a need for more enforcement of existing requirements.