By: Jeanne Cummings

Tucked deep inside the lobbying reform bill the Senate passed in January is a relatively small provision, overlooked during the broad debate, that only now is sending shock waves through business circles.Its aim: illustrate in real dollars the connection between deep-pocketed corporate interest groups and friendly legislation. Its targets: the pharmaceutical industry, energy firms, big financial houses and -- by name -- the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, Business Roundtable, National Federation of Independent Business and Emergency Committee for American Trade."What we all have to understand is that the problem is not that some lobbyist is going to buy a $20 lunch for a senator or a congressman," said Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.), the amendment's author, in an interview. "The issue is that the House and Senate tragically are dominated by big-money interests that make huge campaign contributions. We wanted to demonstrate how the system works."To that end, Sanders wants a commission to tally the corporate political donations that the targeted sectors made in the two years before the Republican-controlled Congress passed legislation favorable to those industries.The provision is just one of several planks in the quickly passed lobbying reform Senate bill -- passed on a vote of 96 to 2 -- that's now coming under intense fire in the House, where vast sections of the legislation are idling in the Judiciary Committee. The House Democratic leadership remains committed to passing legislation. But the struggle illustrates the difficulties the leaders have in keeping their vow to shed some light on the role of lobbyists while also maintaining critical ties to an industry that is a major source of campaign cash. Lobbyists raised more than $22 million for candidates in the 2005-06 election cycle, ranking 12th among all industries, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics. That sum doesn't include donations generated by events lobbyists host or solicitations they made on behalf of candidates.The Democrats' challenge has only increased with the passage of time, which has given opponents a chance to pore through the Senate bill and pick their targets. That explains why some chairmen are trying to break pieces of the broader Senate bill into separate legislation, allowing them to go forward while heated negotiations ensue over other sections. The House Committee on Oversight and Reform, for example, last week pushed ahead on a measure requiring lobbyists to disclose conversations with executive branch officials. That proposal, prompted by revelations of White House visits by convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, has bipartisan support. But it faces vigorous opposition from grass-roots groups that claim the definition of "lobbyist" is too sweeping and could chill citizen participation in policy debates.Other lobbyists want to soften the Senate bill's requirement that they disclose all donations that they solicit or generate. They are telling lawmakers they'd rather quit hosting events than reveal the amounts they raise from their own clients. Others complain that such a requirement would vastly complicate their normal disclosure reporting process, forcing them to adopt campaign-style record-keeping of their receptions."It's hard to know how all this shakes out politically," said Marc Elias, a campaign finance lawyer who has briefed lobbyists on the new rules.Nonpartisan money and political watchdog groups are frustrated that hearings haven't even been held on their top priority: appointment of an independent investigator of ethics complaints. And the National Right to Life Committee's Douglas Johnson is annoyed that a provision he helped kill in the Senate earlier this year is alive again in the House; it would require groups to disclose how much they paid lobbying firms to help gin up letter-writing and phone-call campaigns to Capitol Hill."There is no valid public policy purpose in incumbent politicians seeking to regulate who gets to talk to their constituents about what they are doing in Washington," he said.The Sanders section targeting the business community now is drawing corporate lobbyists into the fight. Under the provision, a bipartisan commission would be created and charged with tracking the amount of political donations pharmaceutical companies and aligned trade associations made in the two years leading up to passage of a new prescription drug program for seniors, a program that was designed with heavy input from the industry.The commission would make a similar tally of donations from banks, financial services companies, credit card firms and their friendly trade associations in the two-year run-up to passage of new bankruptcy rules favored by the industry. It would do the same calculation for donations from oil, gas, nuclear and coal industries before passage of the 2005 energy bill. Contributions from chamber and other big-business trade groups -- and "any other free trade organization funded primarily by corporate entities" -- made during the 24 months before passage of the free-trade accord with Central America and the Dominican Republic (known as CAFTA) would also be made public.Sanders' provisions would not identify the lawmakers who received the donations; rather, it calls for the total amount of money given to candidates and incumbents.The section had largely gone unnoticed until a lawyer sent a copy to the chamber recently. "Clearly, some member of the Senate has an ax to grind with the business community," said Bill Miller, the chamber's political director.When told of the business community's angst, Sanders said simply: "Good!"Critics note that Sanders isn't asking the commission to tally contributions from environmental groups opposed to the energy bill or unions that fought against CAFTA. They also say the work is unnecessary, since interested parties can review Federal Election Commission disclosure reports and do their own math.Sanders responds that the union and environmental donations would be dwarfed by the corporate checks; besides, it was the industry groups that pushed passage of the legislation, not the other way around.The chamber's Miller says business lobbyists will try to kill the provision, first by keeping it out of the House measure and then by stripping it in conference.But Sanders vows, "We're going to do our best to make sure it stays in."-- Jeanne CummingsSenator Sanders Gives First Senate Floor Speech on Ethics Legislation