« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
DOT Defends Lobbying Congress For Auto Industry
The Department of Transportation said in a letter earlier this week that anti-lobbying measures do not apply to its officers who contact members of Congress on behalf of the auto industry.
DOT announced this stance in a letter from the agency’s acting general counsel responding to the head of the House Committee on Oversight and Government’s request for information. The committee wants to hear more about an alleged plan to pressure members of Congress into persuading the Environmental Protection Agency to deny California a waiver allowing it to raise carbon emission standards.
DOT’s head lawyer Rosalind Knapp argued in her response that anti-lobbying law only applies when agencies call on private citizens to lobby Congress on their behalf. She also said that she advised several officials that it would not violate anti-lobbying provisions if they contacted members of Congress directly:
DOTs actions in no way violated anti-lobbying restrictions, as those provisions apply to and prohibit “grass roots” lobbying intended to encourage third parties, members of special interest groups, or the general public to contact members of Congreess or State legislatures in support of or opposition to a legistlative matter.
The executive director of The Project on Government Oversight Danielle Brian said the “grass roots” language comes from a case under the Reagan administration where the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin were accused of illegally lobbying Congress. The case made it illegal for agencies to get community members involved in lobbying, but allowed agencies to contact members of Congress directly.
Despite the historical standard, Brian said she still thinks DOT’s argument is worth challenging. “I think its important not to just accept the executive branch’s opinion on what is acceptable,” Danielle said. “Congressional lawyers need to look at that law as well.”
Waxman is still pursuing the issue. He responded to the letter from DOT’s general counsel Knapp saying that there is a "need for a thorough examination of the facts”
“DOT’s head lawyer Rosalind Knapp ... said that she advised several officials that it would not violate anti-lobbying provisions if they contacted members of Congress directly.”
Is Heideh Shahmoradi worth supporting? Not likely. Who delegated these calls to Shahmoradi?
June 14, 2007 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does the law only apply to indirect lobbying through a private individual or also to direct lobbying? You tell me.
Text of 18 U.S.C. 1913 [emphasis added]:
No part of the money appropriated by any enactment of Congress shall... be used *directly* or indirectly to pay for any ... telephone [call] ... intended or designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress ... or an official of any government [such as "your governor's office"], to favor, adopt, or oppose, by vote or otherwise, any ... policy ...
There is an exception for asking for legislation or policy needed "for the efficient conduct of the public business," but that does not cover asking for a policy statement that would "greatly impact the auto facilities within your district."
The DOT letter also suggests that the law does not apply to business before the Executive Branch. Apparently, they do not consider themselves to be included among "an official of any government."
June 14, 2007 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
"need for a thorough examination of the facts”
Thar be a new sheriff in town. Woo-yah!
June 14, 2007 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does the law only apply to indirect lobbying through a private individual or also to direct lobbying? You tell me.
Text of 18 U.S.C. 1913 [emphasis added]:
No part of the money appropriated by any enactment of Congress shall... be used *directly* or indirectly to pay for any ... telephone [call] ... intended or designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress ... or an official of any government [such as "your governor's office"], to favor, adopt, or oppose, by vote or otherwise, any ... policy ...
There is an exception for asking for legislation or policy needed "for the efficient conduct of the public business," but that does not cover asking for a policy statement that would "greatly impact the auto facilities within your district."
The DOT letter also suggests that the law does not apply to business before the Executive Branch. Apparently, they do not consider themselves to be included among "an official of any government."
Posted by: Richard M. Mathews
Date: June 14, 2007 08:57 PM
Thank you for this.
There's no way an Executive branch/administrative agency can legally lobby, directly or otherwise, for or against a party or policy. It can request Congress for changes to the regulations it is mandated to enforce.
It cannot, in short, act in behalf of that which it is instead required to regulate, against its own mandate.
Knapp is simply arguing that the Executive branch is actually exempt from the rule of law -- even though the law says it is not.
June 15, 2007 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rosalind - another "Loyal Bushie" who probably got her degree from Regent and her job from Rove.
June 15, 2007 5:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, but see a Republican lawyer said is was legal so that makes everything okay.
June 15, 2007 7:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh lawzy me - it's okay for companies, industry groups, and government departments to lobby Congress - but NOT CITIZENS. Having so many darn lawyers involved in everything certainly leads to seemingly ludicrous positions, rulings, pontifications, and silliness.
June 15, 2007 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh lawzy me - it's okay for companies, industry groups, and government departments to lobby Congress - but NOT CITIZENS. Having so many darn lawyers involved in everything certainly leads to seemingly ludicrous positions, rulings, pontifications, and silliness. Have all these folks forgotten about us, out here, the people who should be telling THEM what we want done?
June 15, 2007 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink