Campaign finance legislation, known as the DISCLOSE Act is expected to come up for a vote in the House this month, after Democrats struck a deal with the National Rifle Association to exempt them from the new disclosure rules. What is your reaction to the deal? Will this make the bill harder to pass Congress? Should the NRA have been exempted? Separate from the deal, would the bill achieve the goals its co-sponsors have outlined, which is to prevent corporations and unions and other third parties from spending so much money in the election process that it distorts our democracy?

Sen. Michael Bennet, D- Colo. introduced a far-reaching bill on April 28 aimed at "closing the revolving door" that would permanently ban House and Senate members from ever lobbying the Hill and ban staff from lobbying for 6 years. And earlier this year, House Financial Services chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass. banned one of his former staff members from lobbying his committee. Clearly there is concern from some parts of Capitol Hill about the "revolving door" and members and staff using their experience to advise K Street clients.

What do you think about this bill? I can imagine a scenario where people who leave the Hill would just "strategize" instead of registering to lobby. Is this concern about the revolving door well-placed? Is it necessary? I certainly know many people feel frustrated that former Capitol Hill staff might be playing a role in blocking legislation that could be good for the public, isn't but aren't the lawmakers themselves responsible for pulling the lever and voting, not the lobbyists?

How should a lobbying firm or lobbyist conduct t

A bipartisan group of lawmakers, Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del., Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. and Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md. are expected this week to unveil a bill, called the DISCLOSE Act, to respond to the Supreme Court's January ruling in Citizens United vs the FEC. The Court struck down decades-old limits on corporate and union spending in elections.

While some polls have shown the public is deeply opposed to the ruling, Castle is the only Republican who has joined with Democrats on the legislation, which would beef up campaign disclosures and impose new limits on political involvement in elections by government contractors and foreign governments. Does the bill have a chance of going anywhere in Congress? If it passed, what would the impact be on elections? Would it provide the necessary transparency for voters to know who is backing candidates in elections, or would chill free speech?

I think the economy will likely be the key decider in the November elections. Unemployment remains stuck at 9.7 percent and even President Obama's economic advisers don't expect major improvement by November. Democrats will likely lose House and Senate seats, but expect to retain control of both chambers, while Republicans believe they can defeat enough Democrats to create divided government in 2011.

Yet, the economy is growing and adding jobs, albeit slowly, as the March employment numbers showed late last week.

Because many of you on K Street and in the advocacy world are able to detect the early signs of recovery and job creation, I thought I'd ask you where you are seeing some of those green shoots this spring and what it might mean for the election.

In which segments of the U.S. economy are you seeing expansion? Is economic growth occurring in certain business sectors and specific parts of the country that could prove important in the midterm elections?

In places where growth and recovery are discernible, do you believe Democrats will ge

Now that the House has passed health care reform, how do you think Washington will change? What does it mean for the interest groups that fought the legislation and what does it mean for those who supported it?

What does it mean for President Obama and for the 2010 election?

Will there be more bipartisanship, less bipartisanship for the rest of the year? One lobbyist told me the Senate would shut down if reconciliation was used to move health care reform, will that happen? Will anything else pass Congress this year?

The election is only 8 months away and there's even less time for Congress to act, so here's a question for Democrats and a question for Republicans.

What are the top 3 legislative things the Democrats can do to maintain their congressional majority?

What are the top 3 legislative things the Republicans can do to win back the majority?

A Democratic lobbyist was lamenting to me the other day that it's been increasingly difficult to knit together bipartisan support on issues important to his clients, so I thought a bipartisan question would be in order given the events of this week.

This week, the Senate passed a jobs stimulus bill -- its first piece of significant bipartisan legislation in quite awhile; this week, President Obama is holding a bipartisan meeting on health care reform. Will this bipartisanship continue? Has the log jam been broken? Do Democrats and Republicans really want bipartisanship?

How has the growth in the intensity of partisanship in D.C. been affecting the profession?

We all know that social media and the Internet have had a tremendous impact on recent elections - Scott Brown's Senate election in Massachusetts is the freshest example. To what extent have your advocacy and lobbying campaigns embraced social media? What technology tools do you find the most useful? Do you use Facebook or Twitter? How can lawmakers and their staffs tell the real grassroots campaigns from "Astroturf" campaigns? If a grassroots campaign is generated by corporate or union dollars, does that make it an "astroturf" campaign?

President Obama laid out some more restrictions on lobbyists during his State of The Union address Wednesday evening.

He said lobbyists should be required to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with Congress and the administration and they should face new limitations on campaign contributions to federal candidates.

What do you think of these latest rules? Will they reduce the influence of "special interests" and "powerful interests?" As a journalist, I love the idea of more transparency, but are these ideas workable? As to the issue of campaign finance, many lobbyists have told me over the years, they'd be happy to give up fundraising, but can lobbyists be singled out to be limited or banned from contributions? Won't that run into Constitutional problems?

The big news out of the Supreme Court this morning is the long awaited decision on the Citizen's United vs FEC case.

The Court has overturned several key precedents on campaign finance law. What impact will this case have on elections and democracy?

Given the outcome of the Massachusetts Senate race Tuesday night, what strategy do you think President Obama and congressional Democrats should now pursue to get their agenda through Congress?

Should they abandon the health care bill? Or move left or right on policy issues?

What strategy should Republicans pursue?

With a final agreement for a health care reform package expected to drop within the next few days, I'd like to know, in terms of advocacy and lobbying, which industry groups and which interest groups (and not politicians or political parties) do you think are the winners and the losers of this debate? Which was a mixed winner and loser?

As a starting point, I said a few weeks ago I thought PhRMA was among the most effective lobbying groups in 2009. Are they a winner? Health Care for America Now, a coalition of progressive interest groups including unions, lobbied hard for a public option, but didn't get one. Are they a loser in this?

Where would you rank other groups? Abortion supporters? doctors? drug makers (brand name and generic), health insurers? hospitals? large employers? medical device makers? senior citizens? small businesses? states? unions?

I know that for many industry groups, the answer isn't clear. They may like some aspect of the legislation, and hate other aspects of it. The health insurance industry, for example, gets millions of new customers, b

Much of the lobbying in 2009 was focused on health care reform, climate change and financial services reform. What do you think will be the most lobbied issues in 2010?

I had long thought climate change legislation would be the next big bill in 2010 but now I don't think it will move because the health care debate has eaten up much of the Democrats' and the Obama administration's political capital. Tell me experts if you think I'm wrong.

I do think the administration will continue to sucessfully push for financial services reform and some kind of jobs stimulus bill and we will see those on the top of Congress's agenda. Further, given tax cuts from the Bush administration years will be expiring, I expect tax reform to make a return to the lobbying scene.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Citizens United against the FEC, which many legal scholars think could alter the campaign finance landscape, I would expect debate about how our campaigns are funded to again become a hot issue. Will President Obama weigh in?

Also I want to know if peopl

Which advocacy and/or lobbying campaigns do you think were the best and the worst of 2009?

Here are my thoughts:

I think the pharmaceutical industry conducted one of the most successful advocacy and lobbying campaigns of the year when it comes to health care reform. The industry, via PhRMA, struck a deal with the White House in the early summer to forgo $80 billion in profits over ten years to help pay for reform. In exchange the industry agreed to support the Democrats' plans and spent lots of money on advertising in support of the legislation. The White House stuck by the drug industry even when it looked like congressional Democrats were going to try to force more cost savings on the industry. The health insurers also made promises for cost savings to pay for reform, but that didn't save them from getting savaged by the administration and Democrats this year.

From a PR standpoint, I think the clean coal industry suffered the biggest setback this year. After spending many millions of dollars on trying to build support for its viewpoint, the American Coalition f

Many in the reform community have suggested making changes to the campaign finance system as a way to balance the influence of interests with money and those without money who are petitioning the government.

Since we have been talking about the theme of lobbyists' influence on public policy, do you think it makes any sense to take lobbyists out of the campaign finance system? Should they be banned from hosting fundraisers, from bundling contributions, from serving on political action committee boards? Lobbyists have often told me over the years they feel they have to give campaign contributions as part of their job and they'd rather spend that money on something else.

But is this constitutional? Is it wise? Would it just further accelerate people trying to find ways not to register as lobbyists?

Should the definition of lobbying include other areas of the influence industry including grassroots lobbying and public relations work? Should the threshold for registering to lobby drop below 20 percent - for example, if a person spends 10 percent of his or her time lobbying, should they be required to register?

Given the outcry I have heard from many in the advocacy and lobbying community that President Obama's lobbying rules are more symbolic than substantive, what do you think would result in real reform? Expanding the definition of lobbying?

Currently a person falls under the legal definition of a lobbyist based on several criteria including whether or not that person spends more than 20 percent of his or her time lobbying and makes more than one contact with a "covered" official during a quarter. Grassroots and public relations work are currently exempted from that definition.

President Obama wants to reduce the influence of "special interests" in public policy. To that end, he signed an executive order limiting the ability of registered lobbyists to get jobs in the administration; he imposed new communications restrictions on lobbyists wanting to talk to executive branch officials on stimulus projects; and he banned lobbyists from serving on government advisory boards. Have these actions reduced the influence of special interests in public policy? Has "lobbying" become a dirty word?