For most issues, the window for lobbying is much shorter in 2010 because of the midterm elections. Especially after the July 4th recess, it will be more difficult to get Members of Congress and their staffs to pay attention to anything that is not seen as assisting in their re-election. I agree that the congressional leadership has used up considerable political capital, and it will be hard to appeal to Members to take votes that could easily be spun by their political opponents. However, President Obama is past due to spend some political capital on the campaign finance issues he has, to date, mostly ignored in his first year despite a litany of promises on the campaign trail. His decision to first push health care reform before taking on the money system in Washington may be one of the reasons the ultimate health care bill will not be as groundbreaking as many in the progressive community had hoped for. The same will likely be said of financial reforms if early returns are any indication.

There are things the President can do that won’t be politically costly to rank-and-file Members. He should begin by nominating new Commissioners to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) who are willing to enforce the laws passed by Congress rather than undermine and ignore those laws. The President will also have the opportunity to lead the charge to fix whatever problem the Supreme Court creates with its ruling in the Citizens United case.

The Presidents initial attempt to fill an expired term on the FEC was sadly a status quo nomination of a union attorney made for political expediency. The nomination went nowhere but the President must do better going forward. The sitting FEC has refused to enforce the laws on the books and recently completely ignored congressional intent in the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 (HLOGA) by creating a massive loophole that will allow Senators to once again fly corporate jets for pennies on the dollar. Then-Senator Obama had championed the ban as a key component to curbing the disproportionate influence of deep-pocketed special interests in Washington. Fixing the FEC will also mean replacing Majority Leader Reid’s one-time personal attorney whose term is expired but still sits on the Commission.

While the Administration has taken great strides with its restrictions on lobbying activities it must do more to truly change the way business is done in Washington. Cleaning up the agency charged with enforcing the laws related to financing elections is a good place to start. If earlier decisions from the Roberts Court are any indication, to say nothing of oral argument in Citizens United, there will likely be a need for a legislative fix once the decision is announced in order to keep a tsunami of newly unregulated money from swamping the 2010 midterm elections.

Such actions will require the President to go head-to-head with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell who cares deeply about these money-in-politics issues and vehemently opposes any and all checks on the flood of campaign contributions coming into Washington. McConnell has been less than cooperative so far with the President on most of the issues the Senate has taken up, but some in the Administration fear that taking on McConnell on these campaign finance issues will start a war that will carry over beyond the 2010 elections when most predictions have the Democrats losing their filibuster-proof majority. Will Obama be willing to run that risk in order to live up to his campaign promises?

The agenda in 2010 should be governed by the political survival instincts of the majority in Congress (plus the "must do" annual items) -- not to mention the rising political lust of the minority -- and that means jobs creating legislation will be in the forefront. Whenever a chance arises for a jobs proposal, we will see a jobs amendment -- even beyond a larger, early large jobs stimulus package. There will be other legislation sprinkled in here and there; as Bara says, financial services reform of some kind likely will pass. Card check? I expect a vote at some point because the labor unions will want Members on record before the election, but I do not expect it to pass. The agenda beyond that is debt limit, SGR, war supplemental, budget, perhaps some flailing around on climate change/cap and trade (to the political delight of the GOP), which takes us back to the jobs issue -- in a negative sense. That also involves the EPA endangerment finding and expected regulations, which should prompt some Congressional response. Also the highway bill could be considered a jobs measure. Then that oldie but goodie, a Continuing Resolution -- and we see what the election results mean for a lame duck. Spending and deficit reduction (such as the Conrad/Gregg entitlement commission on the debt limit) should get some attention, too, reflecting the fact that the American people are gagging on dollar signs.

Assuming congressional Democrats can resolve differences in the House and Senate health care reform bills and get a bill to the president for signature early in 2010, President Obama’s State of the Union speech is almost assuredly going to focus like a laser beam on the federal deficit and curbing the unsustainable spending that was deemed necessary during this president’s first year in office. Before recess, Congress pushed through a short-term increase in the statutory debt limit. But the long-term fiscal stability of the nation is in flux, as are the budgets of most states.

In October, the White House announced that the federal budget deficit reached $1.4 trillion in the fiscal year that ended in September, prompting finger-pointing from both political parties about who is to blame and universal agreement that deficit-reducing measures must be instituted as the economy recovers. The White House is being urged by a bipartisan group of senators to support the creation of a bipartisan fiscal task force to address the nation’s long-term budget crisis. The bill already has 35 co-sponsors and will likely be offered next month on the Senate floor as an amendment to increase the statutory limit on the public debt. If enacted, this commission would presumably have broad power to make painful decisions about new taxes and spending on entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security.

Fiscal concerns are equally pronounced at the state level. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 25 states raised taxes in 2009 and another 12 are considering doing so to fill budget holes and hopefully avoid disruptions in services such as education and assistance for the elderly and disabled.

With political pressure building to get these deficits under control, tax reform and deficit reduction will become huge lobbying issues in 2010 for a wide range of sectors, including the association and nonprofit communities, because federal and state legislators in desperate need of new revenue raisers could potentially target our community to offset new spending. Last year saw at least two states introduce new tax proposals on membership organizations, both of which were fortunately defeated. But we’re anticipating that the dire budgetary outlook for states could lead to other revenue proposals that could adversely impact the association and nonprofit communities.

While deficit and debt reduction and tax reform are issues that need to be addressed responsibly, it will be incumbent on organizations to guard against new proposals that threaten the health and effectiveness of their respective industries and professions.

Issues being lobbied in 2010 will look a lot like the issues that were lobbied in 2009. Since we are now in an election year, it will limit what Congress and the Administration can accomplish (a good thing) and will make it difficult to introduce any new issues unless it is job/economy related.

Health Care will quiet down after January. The so-called "jobs" bill will likely get a lot of attention from the lobbying community in early 2010 including groups who will benefit from increased funding, tax cuts or other programs. Efforts to beat back a financial services reform bill seem to be dwindling and it looks like something will be done, but the industry will likely look for ways to make it less stringent as it moves throught he Senate. Homeland security and terrorism will get re-newed attention. Tax cuts are always popular in an election year.

In 2010 the Democrats will need the support of one of their strongest allies, organized labor. It is unlikely card check will get done (especially since moderate Dems have already taken some tough votes) but they will take up some other pro-labor issues to appease the unions.

I can't say what will be the most lobbied issue, but I can say this - we will see more lobbying than ever before. Why? Because big government and big lobbying go hand in hand. The current administration and congressional majority are both eager to expand the size and scope of government. As these efforts move forward, many of the same organizations that generally favor this expansion of government - Common Cause, Public Citizen, U.S. PIRG, etc. - will release breathless reports about the need to further restrict lobbying and political speech through the use of ... more government.

You can't claim that you want to remake the U.S. health system, enact major new restrictions on industry for the purpose of trying to control the climate, revamp (i.e. increase) regulation of the financial sector, spend several hundred billion or more on another "jobs bill," put a "pay Czar" in charge of private sector pay for much of the economy, and then think that you're not going to get more lobbying, or that you can control it by restricting our political rights through more lobbying restrictions or "campaign finance reform." Democracy doesn't work that way.

You can have big, unrestrained government and lots of lobbying, or small, restrained government and less lobbying. Efforts to artificially restrain lobbyists - a symptom, not the cause of what ails democracies - tend to benefit those they are designed to hamper, i.e. those with the financial wherewithal to hire and maintain the best, best connected, and in some cases most ruthless full time lobbyists.

The first 2010 primary election (Illinois) is less than a month away. In my home state of Texas, we’re at two months and counting. There are a bunch in May and so on. Election season has begun.

The point being, if it’s not about something that’s going to get a member reelected I can’t image that it’s going to get a whole lot of attention on the Hill. Certainly a member’s political advisors would argue for that. For that reason, issues related to jobs and the economy should take precedence over everything else.

If an interest group is trying to introduce something into the Congressional bloodstream for the next few months, it would be best advised to lead the argument with why the initiative is needed to either create jobs or to save jobs that otherwise are being destroyed or sent overseas.