United States General Accounting Office
GAO Report to Congressional Committees
April 1999
FEDERAL LOBBYING
Differences in
Lobbying Definitions
and Their Impact
GAO/GGD-99-38
GAO United States
General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548
General Government Division
B-276377
April 15, 1999
The Honorable Fred Thompson, Chairman
The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman, Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Governmental Affairs
United States Senate
The Honorable Henry J. Hyde, Chairman
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Minority Member
Committee on the Judiciary
House of Representatives
The Honorable Charles T. Canady, Chairman
The Honorable Melvin L. Watt, Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on the Constitution
Committee on the Judiciary
House of Representatives
To increase public disclosure of the identity and extent of the efforts of
lobbyists who are paid to influence decisionmaking by federal legislative
and executive branch officials, Congress enacted the Lobbying Disclosure
1 2
Act of 1995 (LDA). LDA, as amended, requires paid lobbyists to register
with Congress and semiannually report on their lobbying activities. LDA
also requires us to review the reporting of lobbying activities by
organizations that have employees who lobby on the organizations’ behalf
and have the option to report their lobbying expenses under LDA using the
definitions of lobbying in either (1) LDA or (2) the applicable Internal
Revenue Code (IRC) provision—IRC sections 4911 or 162(e)—that they
3
use for tax purposes. Section 4911 imposes taxes on lobbying
expenditures over certain limits incurred by certain IRC section 501(c)(3)
4
tax-exempt nonprofit organizations, commonly known as public charities.
IRC section 162(e) generally concerns the denial of income tax deductions
by businesses for lobbying.
1
Pub. L 104-65.
2
Lobbying Disclosure Technical Amendments Act of 1998, Pub. L 105-166.
3
We are not required to review the reporting of lobbying activities by lobbying firms that are hired to
represent clients.
4
Public charities include entities organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific,
public-safety testing, literary, or educational purposes; for the prevention of cruelty to children or
animals; or to foster amateur sports. Churches and their integrated auxiliaries cannot use IRC section
4911.
Page 1 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
B-276377
As agreed with your offices, our objectives for this report were to
• describe the differences between the LDA and IRC section 4911 and 162(e)
definitions of lobbying;
• determine the impact that differences in the definitions may have on
registration and reporting under LDA, including information on the
number of organizations using each definition and the expenses they have
reported; and
• identify and analyze options, including harmonizing the three definitions,
that may better ensure that the public disclosure purposes of LDA are
realized.
The LDA definition of lobbying differs significantly from the definitions of
Results in Brief lobbying under IRC sections 4911 and 162(e). Most significantly, the LDA
definition covers only contacts with federal officials. The IRC definitions
cover contacts with federal, state, and local officials as well as attempts to
influence the public through grassroots lobbying, such as television
commercials on a bill under debate in Congress or a state legislature. Also,
the definitions differ in their coverage of contacts with federal officials,
depending on whether the contact concerns a legislative or nonlegislative
matter. For example, for contacts with federal executive branch officials
about nonlegislative matters, LDA covers about 4,600 officials, or 10 times
the number of such officials that IRC section 162(e) covers; IRC section
4911 does not cover contacts with officials in such circumstances.
The differences in the lobbying definitions can affect whether
organizations register under LDA. An organization that engages or expects
to engage in certain lobbying activities during a 6-month period, including
incurring at least $20,500 in lobbying expenses, is required to register
under LDA. The definition an organization uses in calculating its lobbying
expenses determines the expenses it counts toward the $20,500 threshold.
When using the LDA definition would result in expenses of more than
$20,500, an organization may be able to use the applicable IRC definition to
keep its lobbying expenses below $20,500 or vice versa. However, no data
exist to determine (1) the number of organizations that met the threshold
under LDA’s definition but are not registered as a result of using an IRC
definition or (2) whether any registered organizations that may have met
the threshold under an IRC definition did not do so under the LDA
definition.
In addition to affecting whether an organization is required to register
under LDA, the lobbying definition an organization uses affects the
information it must disclose on its semiannual lobbying report. An
Page 2 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
B-276377
organization can switch between the LDA definition and the applicable
IRC definition from one year to another, and it can choose the definition
that enables it to disclose the least information.
When using an IRC definition, an organization must report its total
lobbying expenses for all activities covered by that definition, including
grassroots lobbying and federal, state, and local government lobbying.
However, all of these expenses are reported in one total amount, so the
lobbying reports do not indicate the amount related to different levels of
government and types of lobbying activities. Also, when organizations
report information other than expenses, such as the issues on which they
lobbied, they are required to report only information related to federal
government lobbying, regardless of whether they use the LDA definition or
one of the IRC definitions to calculate expenses. Thus, when using an IRC
definition, organizations can report expenses that do not relate to other
information disclosed on their lobbying reports.
Because of the differences in definitions, information disclosed on
lobbying reports filed by organizations using the IRC definitions is not
comparable to information on reports filed by organizations using the LDA
definition. Further, the information that is reported under the IRC
definitions, particularly expense data, can be unrelated to LDA’s purpose
of disclosing efforts to influence federal decisionmaking—e.g., when the
information includes expenditures for state and local lobbying. Under the
IRC definitions, organizations can also disclose less information than
under the LDA definition, such as for contacts with officials in the
executive branch about nonlegislative matters. On the other hand, if
organizations contact lower level executive branch officials about
legislation, then using an IRC definition could result in more information
being disclosed than under the LDA definition
Of the organizations that lobbied on their own behalf and had the option of
using an IRC definition for reporting expenses under LDA, most used the
LDA definition. Less than a third elected to use the IRC definitions.
Specifically, for the July through December 1997 reporting period, 1,306
used the LDA definition; 157 and 361 used the IRC section 4911 and 162(e)
definitions, respectively. The organizations that reported using the IRC
5
section 162(e) definition had the highest mean and median expenses.
5
The mean is the sum of all the expenses of organizations using a particular lobbying definition divided
by the total number of organizations using the definition. The median is the midpoint of all expenses
reported by organizations using a particular lobbying definition, when those expenses are arranged in
order from lowest to highest.
Page 3 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
B-276377
Because the differences among the three lobbying definitions can
significantly affect who registers and what they report under LDA, the use
of the IRC definitions can conflict with LDA’s public disclosure purpose.
Options exist for reducing or eliminating these potential conflicts with
LDA’s purpose. These options include (1) harmonizing the definitions,
(2) eliminating the authorization to use the IRC definitions for LDA
purposes, or (3) requiring those organizations that choose an IRC
definition to include only expenses related to federal lobbying under that
IRC definition when they register and report under LDA. The options, in
varying degrees, could improve the comparability of reports filed by
lobbyists and the alignment of registrations and reporting with LDA’s
purpose of increasing public disclosure of efforts to lobby federal officials
in order to influence their decisionmaking. However, each option includes
trade-offs between better ensuring LDA’s purpose and other public policy
objectives and could result in additional reporting burden in some cases.
Congress passed LDA and IRC sections 4911 and 162(e) at different times
Background and for different purposes. LDA, which was enacted in 1995 and became
effective on January 1, 1996, requires organizations that lobby certain
federal officials in the legislative and executive branches to register with
the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.
It also requires lobbying organizations that register to semiannually report
expenditures and certain other information related to their lobbying
efforts. Congress intended LDA’s registration and reporting requirements
to provide greater public disclosure of attempts by paid lobbyists to
influence decisions made by various federal legislative and executive
branch officials.
Unlike LDA, neither IRC section 162(e) nor section 4911 was intended to
6
facilitate the public disclosure of lobbying. IRC section 4911, which was
enacted in 1976, provides for a limit on the amount of lobbying by
7
501(c)(3) organizations and thereby helps clarify the extent to which these
public charities can lobby without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.
Section 162(e), as amended in 1993, denies the federal income tax
6
When tax-exempt organizations use IRC section 4911 to calculate their lobbying expenses for tax
purposes, they report those expenses on their Form 990 federal tax returns. Because these tax returns
are available to the public on request, IRC section 4911 also facilitates some public disclosure of
lobbying, albeit not in the same manner or to the same extent that Congress requires under LDA.
7
IRC section 4911 applies to 501(c)(3) organizations that elect to report their lobbying expenses under
the provisions of IRC section 501(h), which provides for specific dollar limits on lobbying expenses.
IRC section 501(h) is a safe harbor for 501(c)(3) organizations that lobby. Those 501(c)(3)
organizations that do not elect to report under 501(h) must limit their lobbying activities to an
insubstantial portion of their total activities, but the test for determining if amounts are insubstantial is
less precise than the test used under IRC section 501(h).
Page 4 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
B-276377
deductibility of certain lobbying expenses for businesses. It does not
otherwise place restrictions on lobbying activities.
Registration LDA requires lobbying organizations, such as lobbying firms, to register
with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of
Representatives no later than 45 days after they first make a lobbying
contact on behalf of a client. Also, organizations that have employees who
lobby on behalf of the organizations—the organizations on which this
8
report focuses—must register under LDA. The lobbying registration
includes such information as the registering organization’s name and
address; the client’s name and address; the names of all individuals acting
as lobbyists for the client; the general and specific issues to be addressed
by lobbying; and organizations substantially affiliated with the client,
including foreign organizations. An organization that has employees who
lobby on the organization’s behalf must identify itself as both the
registering organization and the client, because the organization’s own
employees represent the organization.
LDA includes minimum dollar thresholds in its registration requirements.
Specifically, an organization with employees who lobby on the
organization’s behalf does not have to register under LDA unless its total
9
lobbying expenses exceed or are expected to exceed $20,500 during the 6
month reporting period (i. e., January through June and July through
10
December of each year). LDA also includes minimum thresholds for
determining which employees must be listed as lobbyists in the lobbying
registration. Under LDA, to be listed as a lobbyist, an individual must make
more than one lobbying contact and must spend at least 20 percent of his
or her time engaged in lobbying activities on behalf of the client or
employing organization during the 6 month reporting period. An
organization must have both $20,500 in lobbying expenses and an
employee who makes more than one lobbying contact and spends at least
20 percent of his or her time lobbying before it is required to register under
LDA.
8
Individual lobbyists register only if they are self-employed, in which case, the self-employed lobbyist is
considered to be a lobbying firm.
9
LDA provides that the minimum dollar thresholds for registration will be adjusted every 4 years based
on the Consumer Price Index, which measures the changes in the prices of goods and services.
10
A lobbying firm receives and reports income and must use the LDA definition. Such a firm also does
not have to register on behalf of a client unless the firm’s total income for lobbying on behalf of the
client exceeds or is expected to exceed $5,000 during the 6 month reporting period.
Page 5 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
B-276377
Reporting All organizations that register under LDA must file lobbying reports with
the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House of Representatives for
every 6 month reporting period. The lobbying reports filed under LDA by
organizations that lobby on their own behalf must include the following
disclosures:
• total estimated expenses relating to lobbying activities (total expenses are
reported either by checking a box to indicate that expenses were less than
$10,000 or by including an amount, rounded to the nearest $20,000, for
11
expenses of $10,000 or more);
• a three-digit code for each general issue area (such as AGR for Agriculture
and TOB for Tobacco) addressed during lobbyists’ contacts with federal
government officials;
• specific issues, such as bill numbers and references to specific executive
branch actions that are addressed during lobbyists’ contacts with federal
government officials;
• the House of Congress and federal agencies contacted;
• the name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist; and
• the interest of the reporting organization’s foreign owners or affiliates in
each specific lobbying issue.
Unless it terminates its registration, once a lobbying organization registers,
it must file reports semiannually, regardless of whether it has lobbied
during the period.
Option of Using IRC Under LDA, lobbying firms that are hired to represent clients are required
to use the LDA lobbying definition. However, LDA gives organizations that
Lobbying Definitions lobby on their own behalf and that already use an IRC lobbying definition
for tax purposes the option of using the applicable IRC lobbying definition
(IRC sections 4911 or 162(e)), instead of the LDA lobbying definition, for
• determining whether the LDA registration threshold of $20,500 in
semiannual lobbying expenses is met and
• calculating the lobbying expenses to meet the LDA reporting requirement.
11
Organizations are to include those expenses associated with their efforts to lobby as well as payments
to third parties, such as lobbying firms. When discussing lobbying expenses, this report focuses on
expenses directly incurred by organizations lobbying on their own behalf. Organizations lobbying on
their own behalf are to include payments made to lobbying firms in their report to Congress, and
lobbying firms are to report their income from such payments in their separate reports to Congress. As
a result, some overlap exists between the reporting of organizations lobbying on their own behalf and
lobbying firms they may have hired.
Page 6 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
B-276377
For all other purposes of the act, including reporting issues addressed
during contacts with federal government officials and the House of
Congress and federal agencies contacted, LDA provides that organizations
using an IRC definition must (1) use the IRC definition for executive
branch lobbying and (2) use the LDA definition for legislative branch
lobbying.
By allowing certain organizations to use an IRC definition to calculate
lobbying expenses, LDA helps those organizations avoid having to
calculate their lobbying expenses under two different lobbying
definitions—the LDA definition for reporting under LDA and the applicable
IRC definition for calculating those expenses for tax purposes. An
organization that chooses to use the applicable IRC definition, instead of
the LDA definition to calculate its lobbying expenses, must use the IRC
definition for both lobbying reports filed during a calendar year. However,
from one year to the next, the organization can switch between using the
LDA definition and using the applicable IRC definition.
Under LDA, we are required to report to Congress on (1) the differences
Objectives, Scope and among the definitions of certain lobbying-related terms found in LDA and
Methodology the IRC, (2) the impact that any differences among these definitions may
have on filing and reporting under the act, and (3) any changes to LDA or
to the appropriate sections of the IRC that the Comptroller General may
recommend to harmonize the definitions.
As agreed with your offices, our objectives for this report were to
• describe the differences between the LDA and IRC section 4911 and 162(e)
definitions of lobbying;
• determine the impact that differences in the definitions may have on
registration and reporting under LDA, including information on the
number of organizations using each definition and the expenses they have
reported; and
• identify and analyze options, including harmonizing the three definitions,
that may better ensure that the public disclosure purposes of LDA are
realized.
To identify the differences among the LDA and IRC lobbying definitions,
we reviewed the relevant statutory provisions. We also reviewed related
regulations and guidance, including guidance issued by the Secretary of
the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives. We also
reviewed journal articles and an analysis of the definitions of lobbying and
met with registered lobbyists, representatives of nonprofit and business
Page 7 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
B-276377
organizations, and other parties who were knowledgeable about the
different statutory definitions and their effect on lobbying registrations.
To determine the differences among the LDA and IRC lobbying definitions
regarding the number of federal executive branch officials covered for
contacts dealing with nonlegislative matters, we reviewed the LDA and
IRC statutory definitions of covered executive branch officials that apply
for lobbying contacts on nonlegislative matters. To determine the number
of officials covered by these definitions, we counted the number of
Executive Schedule Levels I through V positions listed in sections 5312
through 5316 of Title 5 of the United States Code. In several cases, these
sections of Title 5 list federal boards and commissions as having Executive
Schedule positions but do not specify the number of such positions. In
these cases, we did not attempt to determine the number of positions and
counted only one position for each such listed board or commission. Thus,
our estimate of the number of Executive Schedule Levels I through V
positions is understated. Further, to determine the number of officials
covered, we obtained data from
• The United States Government Manual 1998/1999 on cabinet-level officials
and the number of offices in the Executive Office of the President;
• the Department of Defense (DOD) on military personnel ranked 0-7 and
above as of September 30, 1997;
• the U.S. Coast Guard, the Public Health Service, and the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on the number of commissioned
corps ranked 0-7 and above as of February 1999;
• the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) Central Personnel Data File
on the number of Schedule C officials as of September 30, 1997; and
• Budget of the United States Government, Appendix, Fiscal Year 1999 on
the actual full-time-equivalent employment for fiscal year 1997 in each
office of the Executive Office of the President.
To determine the impact that differences in the definitions may have on
registration and reporting under LDA, we first had to define how we would
measure impact. We defined impact as (1) the way differences among the
definitions can affect who must register with the Secretary of the Senate
and the Clerk of the House of Representatives and what lobbying expenses
and related information must be included in those reports; (2) the number
of organizations that reported using the LDA and IRC section 4911 and
162(e) definitions when reporting lobbying expenses and related
information for July through December 1997; and (3) the lobbying
expenses reported under each of the three definitions for this period.
Page 8 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
B-276377
To determine the way differences among the definitions can affect who
must register and what they must report, we reviewed, analyzed, and
categorized the general effects of the differences that we found among the
definitions under our first objective. We also looked for possible effects
during our reviews of statutes, regulations, guidance, and journal articles.
Finally, we discussed the possible effects of the differences among the
definitions with registered lobbyists, representatives of nonprofit and
business organizations, and other knowledgeable parties.
To identify the number of organizations that reported using the definitions
of lobbying in LDA or IRC to calculate their lobbying expenses for July
through December 1997 and to determine the lobbying expenses reported
under LDA that were calculated using one of the three definitions, we
obtained data on all lobbying reports filed with the Secretary of the Senate
during this period from the new lobbying database of the Senate Office of
Public Records. Only the lobbying reports for one semiannual period—July
through December 1997—were available from the new database when we
began our analysis in October 1998. Using the database, we identified the
number of organizations that lobbied on their own behalf and filed reports
for the period July through December 1997. We also analyzed the reported
expenses of these organizations and determined the mean and median
expenses reported under each of the three definitions. Because lobbyists
did not round their lobbying expenses to the nearest $20,000 in some
cases, as required by LDA, we rounded all reported expenses to the
nearest $20,000 before conducting our analysis.
Officials from the Senate Office of Public Records said that they had not
verified the data in the database, and we did not perform a reliability
assessment of the data contained in this database. However, we reviewed
the lobbying reports of all organizations whose lobbying expenses were
recorded in the database as being less than $10,000, which is the minimum
amount required to be recorded on the lobbying form, but had erroneous
Senate Office of Public Records codes. We corrected any errors we found
before conducting our analysis.
To identify and analyze options that may better ensure that the public
disclosure purposes of LDA are realized, we relied on (1) information we
collected from our review of the relevant literature on lobbying, including
statutory provisions, regulations, and guidance; and (2) our findings for
our first two objectives.
We did our work during two periods. From November 1996 through April
1997, we reviewed the differences in the LDA and IRC definitions of
Page 9 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
B-276377
lobbying-related terms. As agreed by the Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs and the House Subcommittee on the Constitution,
Committee on the Judiciary, we postponed completing our review until
data on lobbying expenses became available. The second period of our
review was from October 1998 through January 1999, after we obtained
data on lobbying expenses from the new lobbying database of the Senate
Office of Public Records. We did our work in Washington, D.C., and in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We
obtained technical comments on a draft of this report from the Internal
Revenue Service and incorporated changes in the report as appropriate.
The Clerk of the House of Representatives, the Secretary of the Senate,
and the Department of the Treasury had no comments on the report.
The contacts, activities, and expenses that are considered to be lobbying
Significant Differences under the LDA lobbying definition differ in many ways from those covered
Exist Among LDA and by the IRC definitions. Most significantly, LDA covers contacts only with
IRC Definitions federal officials; the IRC definitions cover contacts with officials in other
levels of government as well as attempts to influence the public through
grassroots lobbying. Also, the definitions differ in their coverage of
contacts with federal officials depending on whether the contact was on a
legislative or nonlegislative matter.
Table 1 and the following sections present some of the key differences in
coverage under the different definitions. Appendix I discusses these
differences in more detail; and appendix II provides a detailed table of the
differences among the definitions concerning coverage of the federal,
state, and local levels of government.
Page 10 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
B-276377
Table 1: Key Differences in Coverage of
Contacts, Activities, and Expenses Contacts, activities, and Covered under
Under the Three Definitions of Lobbying expenses LDA IRC section 4911 IRC section 162(e)
Contacts with state No Yes Yes
government officials
Contacts with local No Yes Yesa
government officials
Grassroots lobbying— No Yes Yes
attempts to influence the
public on legislative
subjects
Contacts with federal
government officials
In the legislative branch
Regarding legislative Yes Yes Yes
subjects
Regarding nonlegislative Yes No No
subjects
In the executive branch
Regarding legislative Yes Yes Yes
subjects
Regarding nonlegislative Yes No Yesa
subjects
Note: Yes and no indicate whether an activity or expense is counted in any manner under each
definition. However, if an activity or expense is covered by two or more definitions, substantial
differences may exist in the specifics of what is covered in each definition. See appendices I and II for
more detailed explanations of these differences.
a
Although IRC section 162(e) covers these types of contacts in some circumstances, the coverage is
limited, as discussed in the following sections.
Source: GAO analysis of LDA and IRC sections 4911 and 162(e).
Lobbying State and Local LDA covers only the lobbying of federal government officials, so
organizations using the LDA definition would not include any information
Officials in their lobbying reports about lobbying state and local officials. But both
IRC lobbying definitions cover contacts with state government officials to
influence state legislation. In addition, both IRC definitions cover contacts
with local government officials to influence local government legislation,
but IRC section 162(e) provides an exception for contacts with local
legislative officials regarding legislation of direct interest to the
organization.
Grassroots Lobbying The LDA lobbying definition covers only lobbying of federal government
officials, so organizations using the LDA definition would not include in
their lobbying reports any information related to attempts to influence
legislation by affecting the opinions of the public—that is, grassroots
lobbying. Both IRC lobbying definitions cover grassroots lobbying, such as
television commercials; newspaper advertisements; and direct mail
Page 11 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
B-276377
campaigns to influence federal, state, and local legislation, including
referenda and ballot initiatives.
Lobbying Federal To determine if a lobbyist’s contact with a federal government official is
covered by one of the three lobbying definitions, one must (1) have certain
Government Officials information about the government official, such as whether the official is
in the legislative or executive branch; and (2) know whether a legislative
or nonlegislative subject was addressed during the contact. The three
definitions differ in many ways regarding the officials and subjects they
cover.
The LDA definition does not distinguish between covered legislative and
executive branch officials on the basis of whether the subject of the
lobbyist’s contact is legislative or nonlegislative in nature. The IRC
definitions define covered officials differently, depending on whether the
subject of the lobbying contact was legislative or nonlegislative in nature.
When the subject of a lobbyist’s contact concerns a nonlegislative matter,
such as a regulation, grant, or contract, LDA covers more officials than the
IRC definitions cover. When the subject of a lobbyist’s contact is a
legislative matter, both IRC definitions potentially cover more levels of
executive branch officials than the LDA definition does.
Under LDA, lobbying organizations’ contacts with all Members of Congress
and employees of Congress and approximately 4,600 executive branch
officials are covered for either legislative or nonlegislative subjects. In
contrast, under IRC section 4911, contacts with legislative or executive
branch officials, including Members of Congress and the President, about
any nonlegislative subject do not count as lobbying. Also, under IRC
section 162(e), contacts with Members of Congress and other legislative
branch officials do not count as lobbying if they deal with a nonlegislative
subject; and very few executive branch officials are covered if contacts are
about nonlegislative matters. As table 2 shows, LDA covers 10 times the
number of executive branch officials that IRC section 162(e) covers for
nonlegislative matters; it also contrasts with IRC section 4911, which does
not cover federal officials for nonlegislative contacts.
Page 12 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
B-276377
Table 2: Approximate Number of
Executive Branch Officials With Whom Approximate number
Contacts About Nonlegislative Matters covered under
Could Be Counted as Lobbying Under LDA IRC section IRC section
the Three Lobbying Definitions Levels of officials and/or offices 4911 162(e)
President, Vice President; Executive Schedule 50 0 50
level I, cabinet-level officials, and their
immediate deputies
Executive Schedule levels II through V 610 0 0
(excluding cabinet-level officials and their
immediate deputies)
Uniformed Services at or above O-7 960 0 0
Officials serving in a confidential, policymaking, 1,420 0 0
or advocating position (Schedule C
appointees)a
Entire office of the Executive Office of the 1,180 0 20
President (excluding the White House Office)
White House Office of the Executive Office of 380 0 380
the President
Total 4,600 0 450
Note: Numbers in the table are a mixture of (1) authorized positions, which may or may not be filled at
any given time; (2) filled positions; and (3) full-time-equivalent employment, which represents one full-
time employee or one or more part-time employees who collectively complete 2,080 work hours in a
given year. All numbers are rounded and approximate. The estimate of the number of authorized
positions at Executive Schedule levels II through V is understated because it does not include
estimates of the number of members of federal boards and commissions when 5 U. S. C. 5313-5316
does not specify the number of such members.
a
Schedule C appointees are political appointees (graded GS/GM-15 and below) in positions that
involve determining policy or require a close confidential relationship with the agency head or other
key officials of the agency.
Source: 5 U. S. C. 5312-5316; U.S. Government Manual; OPM; DOD; U. S. Coast Guard; Public
Health Service; NOAA; Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1999—Appendix.
For contacts on legislation, LDA covers contacts with Members of
Congress, employees of Congress and the approximately 4,600 executive
branch officials shown in table 2. In contrast, for contacts on legislation,
the IRC definitions cover Members of Congress, employees of Congress,
and any executive branch officials who may participate in the formulation
of the legislation. Therefore, for contacts addressing legislation, the IRC
definitions potentially cover more levels of executive branch officials than
the LDA definition does.
Exceptions to the Lobbying LDA contains 19 exceptions to the definition of lobbying; however, for the
most part, these exceptions make technical clarifications in the law and do
Definitions not provide special exceptions for particular groups. The IRC section
162(e) definition has one exception in the statute, which is for contacts
with local government legislative branch officials on legislation of direct
interest to the organization. In addition, IRC section 162(e) has seven
Page 13 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
B-276377
exceptions, which are provided for by Treasury Regulations and which are
technical clarifications of the statutory provisions.
IRC section 4911 has five exceptions, and two of these could allow a
significant amount of lobbying expenses to be excluded from IRC section
4911 coverage. The first is an exception for making available the results of
nonpartisan analysis, study, or research. Due to this exception, IRC section
4911 does not cover 501(c)(3) organizations’ advocacy on legislation as
long as the organization provides a full and fair exposition of the pertinent
facts that would enable the public or an individual to form an independent
opinion or conclusion. The second significant exception under IRC section
4911 is referred to as the self-defense exception. This exception excludes
from coverage lobbying expenses related to appearances before, or
communications to, any legislative body with respect to a possible
decision of such body that might affect the existence of the organization,
its powers and duties, tax-exempt status, or the deduction of contributions
to the organization.
According to IRS officials, this exception provides that a 501(c)(3)
nonprofit tax-exempt organization can lobby legislative branch officials on
matters that might affect its tax-exempt status or the activities it can
engage in without losing its tax-exempt status, and such lobbying will not
be counted under the IRC section 4911 definition. According to IRS
officials, this exception does not cover lobbying on state or federal
funding.
For those organizations that lobby on their own behalf, the choice of using
Differences in either the LDA definition or the applicable IRC definition can significantly
Definitions Can affect whether they must register with the Secretary of the Senate and the
Significantly Affect Clerk of the House of Representatives. In addition, the lobbying definition
an organization uses can materially affect the information, such as federal-
Registration and level lobbying, it must disclose on its semiannual lobbying report. Allowing
Reporting Under LDA organizations to use an IRC definition for LDA reporting can result in
organizations disclosing information that may not be comparable, is
unrelated to LDA’s purpose, or that falls short of what LDA envisions.
However, of the 1,824 organizations that lobbied on their own behalf and
filed reports under LDA from July through December 1997, most reported
using the LDA definition. Those organizations that used the IRC section
162(e) definition had the highest mean and median expenses reported.
Page 14 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
B-276377
Differences in Definitions The lobbying definition an organization uses, which governs how it
calculates lobbying expenses, can affect whether the organization is
Can Affect Who Must required to register under LDA. If (1) the actual or expected expenses of
Register an organization lobbying on its own behalf exceed or are expected to
exceed the $20,500 LDA threshold for a 6-month period, and (2) the
organization has an employee that makes more than one lobbying contact
and spends at least 20 percent of his or her time lobbying during the same
6-month period, then the organization must register. Lobbying activities
and contacts that count toward the $20,500 and 20 percent thresholds
depend on which lobbying definition—LDA, IRC section 4911, or IRC
section 162(e)—an organization uses. If an activity is not covered under a
particular definition, then the expenses related to that activity do not
count toward the lobbying expenses of an organization using that
definition.
In some cases, allowing organizations to use an IRC definition instead of
the LDA definition could result in the organization having covered
lobbying expenses below the $20,500 threshold and no employees who
spend 20 percent of their time lobbying; however, if the organization used
the LDA definition, its lobbying expenses and activities could be above the
LDA registration thresholds. For example, for an organization that
primarily focuses its lobbying efforts on lobbying federal officials about
nonlegislative matters, using an IRC definition is likely to result in lower
covered lobbying expenses than using the LDA definition and, therefore,
could result in an organization not meeting the $20,500 registration
threshold. This could occur because any contacts with legislative branch
officials about nonlegislative matters are not covered under either IRC
sections 4911 or 162(e). Also, for contacts on nonlegislative matters, IRC
section 4911 does not cover executive branch officials, and IRC section
162(e) covers only about one-tenth of the executive branch officials that
LDA covers. Thus, an organization could spend over $20,500 lobbying
federal officials who are covered by LDA for nonlegislative matters, with
the possibility that none of these expenses would count toward the
registration requirement if the organization used an IRC definition.
It is also possible that an organization could have over $20,500 in lobbying
expenses and one or more employees spending 20 percent of their time
lobbying by using an IRC definition, when using an LDA definition would
put its covered expenses below $20,500 and put its lobbying employees
under the 20-percent threshold. For example, the IRC definitions
potentially cover contacts with more executive branch officials than LDA
covers when those contacts are about legislation. So, if an organization
lobbies executive branch officials not covered under LDA in order to
Page 15 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
B-276377
influence legislation, those contacts would count as lobbying under the
IRC definitions but not under the LDA definition. This could result in the
organization’s covered lobbying expenses being above the $20,500
threshold and in an employee’s time spent on lobbying being above the 20
percent threshold.
However, no data exist to determine the number of organizations (1) that
are not registered under LDA as a result of using an IRC definition or (2)
that met the thresholds under an IRC definition but not under the LDA
definition.
Similarly, the individuals who must be listed as lobbyists on an
organization’s lobbying registration can be affected by the choice of
definition. Individuals must be listed as lobbyists on the registration if they
make more than one lobbying contact and spend at least 20 percent of
their time engaged in lobbying activities for their employers during the 6
month reporting period. Using an IRC definition instead of the LDA
definition could result in an individual not being listed as a lobbyist on his
or her organization’s registration or subsequent semiannual report. For
example, this could occur if a lobbyist spends most of his or her time
lobbying high-level officials at independent federal agencies about
regulations, contracts, or other nonlegislative matters, because the IRC
definitions do not consider such contacts as lobbying.
Differences in Definitions Just as the choice of definition affects whether an organization must
register under LDA with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the
Can Affect What Must Be House of Representatives, the choice of definition also can materially
Reported affect the information that is reported semiannually. Because an
organization can switch from using the LDA definition one year to using
the applicable IRC definition another year and vice versa, organizations
can use the definitions that enable them to minimize what they must
disclose on their lobbying reports.
The three definitions were written at different times for different purposes,
so what they cover differs in many ways, both subtle and substantial.
These differences result in organizations that use one definition reporting
expenses and related information that organizations using another
definition would not report. The reported expenses and other information
may provide less disclosure and may be unrelated to what is needed to
fulfill LDA’s purpose of publicly disclosing the efforts of lobbyists to
influence federal officials’ decisionmaking.
Page 16 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
B-276377
Whether an organization uses the LDA definition or the applicable IRC
definition, it is required to disclose on its lobbying report its total
estimated expenses for all activities covered by the definition. Thus,
organizations using the LDA definition must report all expenses for
lobbying covered federal government officials about subject matters
covered by LDA. Similarly, organizations using an IRC definition must
disclose on their lobbying reports all expenses for activities that are
covered by the applicable IRC definition, including federal, state, and local
government lobbying and grassroots lobbying.
However, organizations report only their total expenses, so the lobbying
reports do not reveal how much of the reported expenses were for
individual activities and for what level of government. Thus, even if an
organization using the LDA definition reported the same total lobbying
expenses as an organization using an IRC definition, it would be
impossible to tell from the lobbying reports how similar the two
organizations’ federal lobbying efforts may have been. In addition, an
organization reporting under an IRC definition would be, in all likelihood,
including expenses that are not related to LDA’s focus on federal lobbying
because the IRC definitions go beyond lobbying at the federal level. An
organization reporting under an IRC definition could also be reporting less
information on federal level lobbying than would be provided under the
LDA definition, which Congress wrote to carry out the public disclosure
purpose of LDA. For example, the IRC definitions include far fewer federal
officials in their definitions for lobbying on nonlegislative matters.
Also, an organization using the IRC section 4911 definition could exclude
considerable lobbying expenses from its lobbying report, if its lobbying fell
under the IRC section 4911 exception for nonpartisan analysis or the self-
defense exception. For example, in 1995, a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt nonprofit
organization lobbied against legislation that would have sharply curtailed
certain activities of charities. On its 1995 tax return, the organization,
which used the IRC section 4911 definition to calculate its lobbying
expenses for tax purposes, reported about $106,000 in lobbying expenses.
However, in a letter to a congressional committee, the organization stated
that its 1995 lobbying expenses totaled over $700,000; it cited the self-
defense exception as a reason for excluding about $594,000 in lobbying
12
expenses from its tax return.
12
This example occurred before LDA took effect on January 1, 1996, but it illustrates how using the IRC
section 4911 definition can result in an organization not reporting lobbying expenses. In this case, an
unknown part of the $700,000 was for grassroots lobbying, which would not be reportable under the
LDA definition.
Page 17 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
B-276377
In contrast to reporting expenses, when reporting information other than
expenses on the LDA lobbying reports, organizations are required to report
only information related to federal lobbying. This information includes
issues addressed during lobbying contacts with federal government
officials and the House of Congress and federal agencies contacted.
Therefore, if an organization uses an IRC definition and includes expenses
for state lobbying and grassroots lobbying in its total lobbying expenses, it
is not required to report any issues or other information related to those
nonfederal expenses.
Further, LDA provides that for reporting information other than expenses
for contacts with federal executive branch officials, organizations using an
IRC definition to calculate their expenses must use the IRC definition for
reporting other information. But for contacts with federal legislative
branch officials, organizations using an IRC definition to calculate their
lobbying expenses must use the LDA definition in determining what other
information, such as the issues addressed during lobbyists’ contacts and
the House of Congress contacted, must be disclosed on their reports.
Because of this latter provision, organizations that use an IRC definition
and lobby legislative branch officials about nonlegislative matters are
required to disclose the issues addressed and the House of Congress
contacted, even though they are not required to report the expenses
related to this lobbying.
Most Organizations For the July through December 1997 reporting period, lobbying firms that
had to use the LDA definition to calculate lobbying income filed reports for
Reported Using the LDA 9,008 clients. In addition, for this reporting period, 1,824 organizations that
Definition lobbied on their own behalf and were able to elect which definition to use
in calculating their lobbying expenses filed lobbying reports. Of the 1,824
organizations, 1,306 (71 percent) used the LDA definition to calculate their
lobbying expenses. Another 157 organizations (9 percent) elected to use
the IRC 4911 definition. Finally, 361 organizations (20 percent) used the
IRC 162(e) definition to calculate their lobbying expenses. (See table 3.)
Page 18 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
B-276377
Table 3: Number of Organizations That
Used One of the Three Lobbying Number of organizations that used definition
Definitions to Calculate the Lobbying Lobbying expenses IRC IRC
Expenses Reported Under LDA From reported LDA section 4911 section 162(e)
July to December 1997 Less than $10,00013 433 15 20
$10,000 or more 873 142 341
Total 1,306 157 361
Source: GAO analysis of the Secretary of the Senate lobbying database.
Data do not exist that would enable us to estimate the number of
organizations that may not be registered because they used an IRC
definition but would have had to register had they used the LDA definition.
Because computerized registration data were available only for one 6-
month period when we did our analysis, we did not analyze changes in
registrations over time. Thus, we do not know whether, or to what extent,
organizations switch between definitions from year to year as allowed by
LDA.
Reported Expenses Were Organizations that lobbied on their own behalf and reported using the IRC
section 162(e) definition had the highest mean and median expenses
Highest Under IRC Section reported. These organizations had 87 percent higher mean lobbying
162(e) Definition expenses than organizations that reported using the LDA definition and 58
percent higher mean lobbying expenses than those using the IRC section
4911 definition. Organizations that reported using the IRC section 162(e)
definition had $180,000 in median expenses; organizations that reported
using the LDA definition and those that reported using the IRC section
4911 definition each had median expenses of $80,000.
It is possible that some of the differences among the mean and median
expenses of organizations using the different definitions could reflect more
extensive and expensive lobbying efforts by those organizations that used
the IRC section 162(e) definition. However, it is not possible to determine
how much of the differences are due to what is covered by each definition
or the extent of the lobbying efforts by the organizations using the
different definitions. The main reason for this, as discussed earlier, is that
although the lobbying reports filed under LDA show total lobbying
expenses, they do not show the amount spent on different lobbying
13
Organizations that lobby on their own behalf do not have to register if their lobbying expenses for the
6 month reporting period are below $20,500. However, until a registered organization terminates its
registration, it must file lobbying reports, even if its lobbying expenses are below the $20,500
registration threshold.
Page 19 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
B-276377
activities. Therefore, data do not exist that would help explain the reasons
for the differences.
Table 4 shows the total, mean, and median expenses for organizations
using each of the three lobbying definitions that reported having $10,000 or
more in lobbying expenses from July to December 1997.
Table 4: Total, Mean, and Median
Lobbying Expenses for Organizations Calculated under
That Reported Having $10,000 or More IRC IRC
in Lobbying Expenses From July to Lobbying expenses LDA section 4911 section 162(e)
December 1997 Total $258,060,000 $49,700,000 $188,520,000
Mean $295,601 $350,000 $552,845
Median $80,000 $80,000 $180,000
Source: GAO analysis of the Secretary of the Senate data.
Table 4 includes only data on organizations reporting lobbying expenses of
$10,000 or more, because organizations with less than $10,000 in expenses
check a box on the LDA reporting form and do not include an amount for
their expenses. Because, as shown in table 3, many more of these
organizations used the LDA definition than used either of the IRC
definitions, it follows that the largest total amount of all expenses reported
was under the LDA definition.
Because the differences among the three lobbying definitions can
Options That May significantly affect who registers and what they report under LDA, the
Better Ensure That the current statutory provisions do not always complement LDA’s purpose. As
Public Disclosure discussed earlier, allowing organizations to use an IRC definition for LDA
purposes can result in organizations (1) not registering under LDA, (2)
Purposes of LDA Are disclosing information that may not be comparable, and (3) disclosing
Realized information that is unrelated to LDA’s purpose or that falls short of what
LDA envisions. Options for revising the statutory framework exist; LDA
requires us to consider one option, harmonizing the definitions; and we
identified two other options on the basis of our analysis. Those options are
• eliminating the current authorization for businesses and tax-exempt
organizations to use the IRC lobbying definitions for LDA reporting and
• requiring organizations that use an IRC lobbying definition to include only
expenses related to federal lobbying covered by that IRC definition when
the organizations register and report under LDA.
The options address, in varying degrees, the effects of the differences on
registration and reporting, but all have countervailing effects that must be
balanced in determining what, if any, change should be made.
Page 20 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
B-276377
Harmonizing the Definitions In addition to charging us with analyzing the differences among the three
lobbying definitions and the impact of those differences on organizations’
registration and reporting of their lobbying efforts, LDA charges us with
reporting any changes that we may recommend to harmonize those
definitions. Harmonization implies the adoption of a common definition
that would be used for LDA’s registration and reporting purposes and for
the tax reporting purposes currently served by the IRC definitions.
Harmonizing the three lobbying definitions would ensure that
organizations would not have the burden of keeping track of their lobbying
expenses and activities under two different definitions–one for tax
purposes and another for LDA registration and reporting purposes.
Requiring the use of a common definition would also mean that no
alternative definitions could be used to possibly avoid LDA’s registration
requirement and that all data reported under the common definition would
be comparable.
However, developing a lobbying definition that could be used for the
purposes of LDA, IRC section 4911, and IRC section 162(e) would require
Congress to revisit fundamental decisions it made when it enacted each
definition. For example, if a common definition included state lobbying
expenses that are included under the current IRC definitions, then the
current objective of LDA to shed light on efforts to influence federal
decisionmaking would essentially be rewritten and expanded. On the other
hand, if a common definition did not include state lobbying expenses,
fundamental decisions that were made when the statutes containing the
IRC definitions were written would be similarly modified. Adopting a
harmonized definition of lobbying could result in organizations disclosing
less information on lobbying reports, if the new definition covered less
than what is covered by the current LDA definition. In addition, a new
definition would not be used only by organizations lobbying on their own
behalf, which currently have the option of using an IRC definition for LDA
reporting, but also by lobbying firms, which currently must use the LDA
definition for their clients’ lobbying reports.
Eliminating the Current Eliminating the current authorization for using the IRC lobbying
definitions for LDA purposes would mean that consistent registration and
Authorization for Using an reporting requirements would exist for all lobbyists, and the requirements
IRC Lobbying Definition for would be those developed by Congress specifically for LDA. This would
LDA Purposes result in all organizations following the LDA definition for LDA purposes;
thus, only the data that Congress determined were related to LDA’s
purposes would be reported. However, this option could increase the
reporting burden of the relatively small number of organizations currently
using the IRC definitions under LDA, because it would require them to
Page 21 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
B-276377
track their lobbying activities as defined by LDA while also tracking the
activities covered under the applicable IRC lobbying definition.
Requiring Organizations The last option we identified would require organizations that elected to
use an IRC definition for LDA to use only expenses related to federal
Using IRC Definitions to lobbying efforts as defined under the IRC definitions when they determine
Use Only Expenses for whether they should register and what they should report under LDA. This
Federal Lobbying for LDA would improve the alignment of registrations and the comparability of
Registration and Expense lobbying information that organizations reported, because organizations
that elected to use the IRC definitions would no longer be reporting to
Reporting Congress on their state, local, or grassroots lobbying. The reporting of
expenses under this option would be similar to the reporting of all other
information required under LDA, such as issues addressed and agencies
contacted, which are based on contacts with federal officials.
However, this option would only partially improve the comparability of
data being reported by organizations using different definitions.
Differences in the reported data would remain because the LDA and IRC
definitions do not define lobbying of federal officials identically. LDA
requires tracking contacts with a much broader set of federal officials than
do the IRC definitions when lobbying contacts are made about
nonlegislative matters.
In addition, because differences would remain between the LDA and IRC
definitions of lobbying at the federal level under this option, organizations
might still avoid registering under LDA and might still report information
that would differ from that reported by organizations using the LDA
definition. For example, because the IRC lobbying definitions include
fewer federal executive branch officials when a contact is about a
nonlegislative matter, organizations using an IRC definition might still have
expenses under the $20,500 threshold for lobbying; whereas, under the
LDA definition they might exceed the threshold. Finally, this option could
impose some additional reporting burden for the relatively small number
of organizations currently using IRC definitions for LDA purposes.
Reporting only federal lobbying when they use an IRC definition could
result in some increased recordkeeping burden if these organizations do
not currently segregate such data in their recordkeeping systems.
The three lobbying definitions we reviewed were adopted at different
Conclusions times to achieve different purposes. What they cover differs in many subtle
and substantial ways. LDA was enacted to help shed light on the identity
of, and extent of effort by, lobbyists who are paid to influence
decisionmaking in the federal government. IRC section 4911 was enacted
Page 22 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
B-276377
to help clarify the extent to which 501(c)(3) organizations could lobby
without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status, and IRC section 162(e) was
enacted to prevent businesses from deducting lobbying expenses from
their federal income tax. Because the IRC definitions were not enacted to
enhance public disclosure concerning federal lobbying, as was the LDA
definition, allowing organizations to use the IRC definitions for reporting
under LDA may not be consistent with achieving the level and type of
public disclosure that LDA was enacted to provide.
Allowing organizations to use an IRC definition instead of the LDA
definition for calculating lobbying expenses under LDA can result in some
organizations not filing lobbying registrations, because the use of the IRC
definition could keep their federal lobbying below the LDA registration
thresholds. On the other hand, under certain circumstances, organizations
could meet the thresholds when using the IRC definition but would not do
so if they used the LDA definition. We do not know how many, if any,
organizations are not registered under LDA that would have met the
registration thresholds under LDA but not under the applicable IRC
definition.
Giving organizations a choice of definitions to use each year can
undermine LDA’s purpose of disclosing the extent of lobbying activity that
is intended to influence federal decisionmaking, because organizations
may disclose very different information on lobbying reports, depending on
which definition they use. When an organization can choose which
definition to use each year, it can choose the definition that discloses the
least lobbying activity. Further, if an organization uses an IRC definition
for its lobbying report, the report can include expenses for state, local, and
grassroots lobbying that are unrelated to the other information on the
report that only relates to federal lobbying. Also, if an organization uses an
IRC definition, its lobbying report can exclude expenses and/or other
information about lobbying that is not covered under the selected IRC
definition (e.g., contacts about nonlegislative matters) but that
nevertheless constitutes an effort to influence federal decisionmaking. In
this situation, less information would be disclosed than LDA intended.
Because the differences among the LDA and IRC lobbying definitions can
significantly affect who registers and what they report under LDA, the use
of the IRC definitions can conflict with LDA’s purpose of disclosing paid
lobbyists’ efforts to influence federal decisionmaking. Options for reducing
or eliminating these conflicts exist. These options include (1) harmonizing
the definitions, (2) eliminating organizations’ authorization to use an IRC
definition for LDA purposes, or (3) requiring those that use an IRC
Page 23 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
B-276377
definition to include only expenses related to federal lobbying under the
IRC definition when they register and report under LDA. The options, to
varying degrees, could improve the alignment of registrations and the
comparability of reporting with Congress’ purpose of increasing public
disclosure of federal lobbying efforts. However, each option includes
trade-offs between better ensuring LDA’s purposes and other public policy
objectives and could result in additional reporting burden in some cases.
In our opinion, the trade-offs involved in the option of harmonizing the
definitions are disproportionate to the problem of LDA registrations and
reporting not being aligned with LDA’s purpose. Harmonizing the
definitions would best align registrations and reporting with LDA’s
purposes if LDA’s definition is imposed for tax purposes as well, which
would significantly alter previous congressional decisions about how best
to define lobbying for tax purposes. Adopting a common lobbying
definition that includes activities, such as state lobbying, that are covered
under the current IRC definitions would require a rewrite and expansion of
LDA’s objective of shedding light on efforts to influence federal
decisionmaking. Such major changes in established federal policies that
would be required to harmonize the definitions appear to be unwarranted
when only a small portion of those reporting under LDA use the IRC
definitions.
The trade-offs for the other two options are less severe. Eliminating
organizations’ authorization to use a tax definition for LDA purposes
would ensure that all lobbyists register and report under the definition that
Congress wrote to carry out LDA’s purpose. However, eliminating the
authorization likely would impose some additional burden on the relatively
small number of organizations currently using IRC definitions for LDA.
Requiring that only expenses related to federal-level lobbying under the
IRC definitions be used for LDA purposes would not align reporting with
LDA’s purposes as thoroughly as eliminating the authorization to use an
IRC definition for LDA would. Under this option organizations could still
avoid registering under LDA when the use of an IRC definition results in
total expenses falling below the LDA registration threshold. The option
also could impose some additional recordkeeping burden for the relatively
small number of organizations currently using the IRC definitions.
Page 24 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
B-276377
If Congress believes that the inclusion of nonfederal lobbying expenses
Matters for and the underreporting of lobbying efforts at the federal level due to the
Congressional optional use of the IRC lobbying definitions seriously detract from LDA’s
Consideration purpose of public disclosure, then it should consider adopting one of two
options. Congress could remove the authorization for organizations to use
an IRC definition for reporting purposes. In this case, data reported to the
Senate and House would adhere to the LDA definition, which Congress
enacted specifically to achieve LDA’s public reporting purpose.
Alternatively, Congress could allow organizations to continue using the
IRC definitions but require that they use only the expenses related to
federal-level lobbying that those definitions yield when they register and
report under LDA. The data reported would be more closely aligned with
LDA’s purpose of disclosing federal level lobbying efforts, but some
differences would remain between the data so reported and the data that
would result from applying only the LDA definition. If either of these
options were considered, Congress would need to weigh the benefit of
reporting that would be more closely aligned with LDA’s public disclosure
purpose against the additional reporting burden that some organizations
would likely bear.
On February 11, 1999, we sent a draft of this report for review and
Agency Comments and comment to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, the Secretary of the
Our Evaluation Senate, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Commissioner of the
Internal Revenue Service. Representatives of the Clerk of the House of
Representatives, the Secretary of the Senate, and the Secretary of the
Treasury told us that no comments would be forthcoming. On February 17,
1999, we met with officials from the Internal Revenue Service, and they
provided technical comments on a draft of this report. On the basis of their
comments, we made changes to the report as appropriate. In a letter dated
March 5, 1999, the Chief Operations Officer of the Internal Revenue
Service stated that IRS had reached general consensus with us on the
technical matters in the report.
Page 25 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
B-276377
We are sending copies of this report to Senator Carl Levin; Senator Ted
Stevens; Senator William V. Roth, Jr., Chairman, and Senator Daniel P.
Moynihan, Ranking Minority Member, Senate Committee on Finance;
Representative Bill Archer, Chairman, and Representative Charles B.
Rangel, Ranking Minority member, House Committee on Ways and Means;
the Honorable Gary Sisco, Secretary of the Senate; the Honorable Jeff
Trandahl, Clerk of the House of Representatives; the Honorable Robert E.
Rubin, Secretary of the Treasury; and the Honorable Charles O. Rossotti,
Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Copies will also be made available to
others upon request.
The major contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV. Please call
me on (202) 512-8676 if you have any questions.
Michael Brostek
Associate Director,
Federal Management and Workforce Issues
Page 26 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
Page 27 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
Contents
Letter 1
Appendix I 30
Comparison of LDA and IRC Definitions 30
Comparisons of LDA Grassroots Lobbying 30
and IRC Definitions Lobbying State and Local Officials 31
Differences Based on the Federal Officials Contacted 31
Differences Based on Subjects Addressed During 35
Lobbying Contacts
Exceptions to the Lobbying Definitions 36
Appendix II 39
Coverage of Different
Contacts, Activities,
and Expenses Under
the Three Definitions
of Lobbying
Appendix III 46
Exceptions to the LDA Lobbying Definition 46
Exceptions to the LDA Exceptions to the IRC Section 4911 Lobbying Definition 48
and IRC Lobbying Exceptions to the IRC Section 162(e) Lobbying Definition 49
Definitions
Appendix IV 50
Major Contributors to
This Report
Tables Table 1: Key Differences in Coverage of Contacts, 11
Activities, and Expenses Under the Three Definitions
of Lobbying
Table 2: Approximate Number of Executive Branch 13
Officials With Whom Contacts About Nonlegislative
Matters Could Be Counted as Lobbying Under the
Three Lobbying Definitions
Page 28 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
Contents
Table 3: Number of Organizations That Used One of the 19
Three Lobbying Definitions to Calculate the Lobbying
Expenses Reported Under LDA From July to December
1997
Table 4: Total, Mean, and Median Lobbying Expenses for 20
Organizations That Reported Having $10,000 or More in
Lobbying Expenses From July to December 1997
Table I.1: Approximate Number of Executive Branch 32
Officials With Whom Contacts About Nonlegislative
Matters Could Be Counted as Lobbying Under the
Three Lobbying Definitions
Table II.1: Coverage of Federal Lobbying 39
Table II.2: Coverage of State Lobbying 44
Table II.3: Coverage of Local Lobbying 45
Abbreviations
DOD Department of Defense
IRC Internal Revenue Code
LDA Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
OPM Office of Personnel Management
U.S.C. United States Code
Page 29 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
Appendix I
Comparisons of LDA and IRC Definitions
The types of activities and contacts that are covered by the Lobbying
Comparison of LDA Disclosure Act of 1995 (LDA) lobbying definition are significantly different
and IRC Definitions from those covered under the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) definitions.
First, LDA does not cover grassroots lobbying. The IRC lobbying
definitions cover grassroots lobbying, such as television advertisements
and direct mail campaigns, that are intended to influence legislation at the
federal, state, or local levels. Second, LDA covers lobbying only at the
federal level. However, both IRC definitions cover lobbying of federal
officials, as well as state and local government officials.
The IRC definitions potentially cover contacts with more levels of
executive branch officials than LDA covers when those contacts are about
legislation. However, when contacts are about nonlegislative subject
matters, such as regulations or policies, LDA covers contacts with a
broader range of federal officials than the IRC definitions. Further, LDA’s
definition of lobbying includes legislative matters and an extensive list of
nonlegislative matters. IRC section 4911 only covers lobbying contacts that
address specific legislative proposals. IRC section 162(e) covers lobbying
contacts on legislative and nonlegislative subjects, but its coverage of
legislative subjects is somewhat more limited than LDA’s coverage, and its
coverage of nonlegislative subjects is not clearly defined.
Grassroots lobbying—efforts to influence legislation by influencing the
Grassroots Lobbying public’s view of that legislation—is covered under the IRC definitions but
not under the LDA definition. Grassroots lobbying campaigns can use such
means as direct mailings and television, radio, and newspaper
advertisements and can be very expensive. Both IRC section 4911 and IRC
section 162(e) cover grassroots lobbying at the federal, state, and local
levels. However, IRC section 4911 has a narrower definition of grassroots
lobbying than IRC section 162(e) does.
Under IRC section 4911, grassroots lobbying is defined as any attempt to
influence legislation through an attempt to affect the opinions of the
general public or any segment thereof. To be considered grassroots
lobbying under IRC section 4911, a communication with the public must
• refer to a specific legislative proposal,
• reflect a view on such legislative proposal, and
• encourage the recipient of the communication to take action with respect
to such legislative proposal.
IRC section 162(e) does not have the same stringent tests that IRC section
4911 has for determining if a communication with the public is grassroots
Page 30 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
Appendix I
Comparisons of LDA and IRC Definitions
lobbying. Under IRC section 162(e), communications with the public that
attempt to develop a grassroots point of view by influencing the general
public to propose, support, or oppose legislation are considered to be
grassroots lobbying. To be considered as grassroots lobbying under IRC
section 162(e), a communication with the public does not have to
encourage the public to take action with respect to a specific legislative
proposal. Therefore, the IRC section 162(e) grassroots lobbying provision
is likely to encompass more lobbying campaigns than IRC section 4911
does.
The LDA lobbying definition covers only contacts with federal government
Lobbying State and officials and does not require lobbyists to report any expenses for contacts
Local Officials with state and local government officials. This is consistent with LDA’s
overall purpose of increasing public disclosure of the efforts of lobbyists
paid to influence federal decisionmaking. The IRC lobbying definitions
also cover contacts with federal government officials. However, in contrast
to LDA, the IRC lobbying definitions require that expenses for contacts
with state officials to influence state legislation be included in lobbying
expenses. Further, both IRC lobbying definitions cover contacts with local
government officials to influence local government legislation; but
coverage of local government contacts is limited under IRC section 162(e),
because that section has an exception for contacts with local councils on
legislation of direct interest to the organization. (Contacts with state and
local government officials to influence something other than legislation,
such as a state or local policy or regulation, are not covered by either of
the IRC definitions.)
The amounts spent lobbying state governments can be significant. For
example, in 1997, under state lobbying disclosure laws, reported spending
on lobbying state government officials was $144 million in California, $23
million in Washington, and $23 million in Wisconsin.
Whether a lobbyist’s contact with a federal government official counts as
Differences Based on lobbying under any of the three lobbying definitions depends, in part, on
the Federal Officials whether the contact is with a covered official. Covered officials are
Contacted defined by several factors, such as their branch of government, the office
they work in, and their rank. All three definitions include as lobbying
lobbyists’ contacts with legislative branch officials—Members and
employees of Congress—to influence legislation. However, for contacts
with executive branch officials to influence legislation and contacts with
either legislative branch or executive branch officials on legislative
matters, such as regulations and contracts, the definitions of what is
counted as lobbying differ significantly.
Page 31 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
Appendix I
Comparisons of LDA and IRC Definitions
Under LDA, contacts with any covered government officials about any
legislative or nonlegislative matters covered by LDA are considered
lobbying contacts, and their associated expenses must be reported.
However, under the IRC definitions, whether the contact is on legislative
or nonlegislative matters determines which officials are covered. For
contacts to influence legislation, any executive branch officials who may
participate in the formulation of legislation are covered under both IRC
definitions. But, for nonlegislative matters, IRC section 4911 covers no
executive branch officials, and IRC section 162(e) covers very few
executive branch officials.
Covered Executive Branch Many of the executive branch officials covered by LDA for contacts on any
lobbying subject are not covered by IRC section 162(e) when contacts are
Officials for Contacts on intended to influence nonlegislative matters. Also, none of the executive
Nonlegislative Matters branch officials covered by LDA are covered by IRC section 4911 for
contacts on nonlegislative matters, because IRC section 4911 covers only
contacts to influence legislation.
For contacts to influence the official actions or positions of an executive
branch official on nonlegislative matters, IRC section 162(e) provides a list
of covered executive branch officials. LDA’s list of covered executive
branch officials includes all the officials on the IRC section 162(e) list, plus
several more categories of officials. LDA’s list applies to contacts on any
matter covered by LDA—legislative or nonlegislative. Table I.1 shows that
LDA covers about 10 times the number of officials that IRC section 162(e)
covers for nonlegislative matters.
Table I.1: Approximate Number of
Executive Branch Officials With Whom Approximate number
Contacts About Nonlegislative Matters covered under
Could Be Counted as Lobbying Under LDA IRC section IRC section
the Three Lobbying Definitions Levels of officials and/or offices 4911 162(e)
President, Vice President; Executive Schedule 50 0 50
level I, cabinet-level officials, and their immediate
deputies
Executive Schedule levels II through V (excluding 610 0 0
cabinet level officials and their immediate
deputies)
Uniformed Services at or above O-7 960 0 0
Officials serving in a confidential, policymaking, or 1,420 0 0
advocating position (Schedule C appointees)a
Entire office of the Executive Office of the 1,180 0 20
President (excluding the White House Office)
White House Office of the Executive Office of the 380 0 380
President
Total 4,600 0 450
Page 32 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
Appendix I
Comparisons of LDA and IRC Definitions
Note: Numbers in the table are a mixture of (1) authorized positions, which may or may not be filled at
any given time; (2) filled positions; and (3) full-time-equivalent employment, which represents one full-
time employee or one or more part-time employees who collectively complete 2,080 work hours in a
given year. All numbers are rounded and approximate. The estimate of the number of authorized
positions at Executive Schedule levels II through V is understated because it does not include
estimates of the number of members of federal boards and commissions when 5 U. S. C. 5313-5316
does not specify the number of such members.
a
Schedule C appointees are political appointees (graded GS/GM-15 and below) in positions that
involve determining policy or require a close confidential relationship with the agency head or other
key officials of the agency.
Source: 5 U. S. C. 5312-5316; U.S. Government Manual; OPM; DOD; U. S. Coast Guard; Public
Health Service; NOAA; Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1999—Appendix.
As shown in table I.1, LDA and IRC section 162(e) include contacts with
the President and Vice President and Cabinet Members and similar high-
ranking officials and their immediate deputies. In the Executive Office of
the President, LDA includes all contacts with all offices; IRC section 162(e)
includes only all officials in the White House Office and the two most
senior level officers in the other agencies of the Executive Office of the
President. Further, LDA includes contacts with officials in levels II through
V of the Executive Schedule, which includes agency heads and deputy and
assistant secretaries; IRC section 162(e) does not. Also, LDA includes
contacts with officials at levels O-7 and above, such as Generals and
Admirals, in the uniformed services. Finally, LDA includes contacts with
all Schedule C appointees, who are political appointees (graded GS/GM-15
and below) in positions that involve determining policy or require a close,
confidential relationship with the agency head or other key officials of the
agency.
The narrow scope of IRC section 162(e)’s list of covered executive branch
officials can result in organizations not including on their lobbying reports
expenses or other information, such as issues addressed, relating to
contacts with very high-ranking officials. For example, if an organization
made contacts to influence an official action or position with the top
official at most independent agencies, including the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, the General Services Administration, the
Export-Import Bank, and the Federal Communications Commission, these
contacts would not be considered as contacts with covered executive
branch officials and therefore would not be covered by the IRC section
162(e) definition. Similarly, contacts on nonlegislative matters with the
heads of agencies within cabinet departments, such as the heads of the
Internal Revenue Service, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, the Bureau of Export Administration, and the Food and
Drug Administration, would not be considered as contacts with officials at
a high enough level for the list of covered executive branch officials under
the IRC section 162(e) definition. However, contacts with all of these
officials would be covered under the LDA definition of lobbying.
Page 33 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
Appendix I
Comparisons of LDA and IRC Definitions
Covered Executive Branch The two IRC definitions generally provide the same coverage of contacts
with executive branch officials for influencing legislation. The two
Officials for Contacts on definitions provide that a contact with “any government official or
Legislation employee who may participate in the formulation of legislation” made to
1
influence legislation must be counted as a lobbying expense. Thus, these
definitions potentially cover many more levels of executive branch
officials than are included on LDA’s list of covered executive branch
officials. LDA’s list of covered officials is shown in table I.1 and applies to
both legislative and nonlegislative matters. Therefore, contacts with
officials in the Senior Executive Service or in grades GS/GM-15 or below
who are not Schedule C appointees would generally count as lobbying
contacts under the IRC definitions if such contacts were for the purpose of
influencing legislation and those officials participated in the formulation of
legislation. But such contacts would not count as lobbying contacts under
the LDA definition, because LDA does not include these officials as
covered executive branch officials.
Covered Legislative Branch Neither IRC section 162(e) nor IRC section 4911 covers contacts with
legislative branch officials on nonlegislative matters. The two IRC
Officials for Contacts on definitions cover only legislative branch officials in regard to contacts to
Nonlegislative Matters influence legislation. However, LDA counts as lobbying any contacts with
Members of Congress and congressional employees on any subject matter
covered by LDA. Therefore, a lobbyist who contacts Members of Congress
to influence a proposed federal regulation would be required to count
these contacts in lobbying expenses calculated under the LDA definition
and to disclose the issues addressed and the House of Congress contacted.
Covered Legislative Branch LDA and the two IRC definitions cover the same federal legislative branch
officials for contacts made to influence legislation. LDA covers contacts
Officials for Contacts on with any Member or employee of Congress for contacts on any legislative
Legislation or nonlegislative subject matter covered by the act. Both IRC definitions
cover contacts with any Member or employee of Congress for contacts
made to influence legislation.
1
IRC section 4911 differs somewhat from IRC section 162(e) concerning contacts with executive
branch officials for influencing legislation. Specifically, according to the Treasury Regulations for IRC
section 4911, contacts with executive branch officials to influence legislation only count as lobbying if
the principal purpose of the contact is to influence legislation. However, under IRC section 162(e), the
principal purpose of a contact does not have to be for influencing legislation for a contact with an
executive branch official to be counted under that section’s provisions regarding contacts to influence
legislation.
Page 34 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
Appendix I
Comparisons of LDA and IRC Definitions
The subject matters for which contacts with officials count as lobbying are
Differences Based on different under the three lobbying definitions. LDA provides a
Subjects Addressed comprehensive list of subjects about which contacts with a covered
During Lobbying official are considered to be lobbying. For example, for nonlegislative
matters, the list includes, in part, “the formulation, modification, or
Contacts adoption of a federal rule, regulation, Executive order, or any other
program, policy, or position of the United States Government.” Under IRC
section 4911, the only subject covered by lobbying contacts is “influencing
legislation.” Under IRC section 162(e), the subjects covered are
“influencing legislation” and “influencing official actions or positions” of
executive branch officials. The phrase “official actions or positions”
applies to contacts on nonlegislative matters.
Further, more specific information about what was covered in a lobbyist’s
contact is needed under IRC sections 4911 and 162(e) than is needed under
LDA to determine if the contact should count as lobbying.
Coverage of Legislative For legislative matters, LDA covers “the formulation, modification, or
adoption of Federal legislation (including legislative proposals).” In
Matters contrast, for legislative matters, the IRC lobbying definitions list only
“influencing legislation,” which, according to the Treasury Regulations,
refers to contacts that address either specific legislation that has been
introduced or a specific legislative proposal that the organization supports
2
or opposes.
Under both IRC definitions, a contact to influence legislation is a contact
that refers to specific legislation and reflects a view on that legislation.
Therefore, a lobbyist’s contact with a legislative branch official in which
the lobbyist provides information or a general suggestion for improving a
situation but in which the lobbyist does not reflect a view on specific
legislation would not be considered to be a lobbying contact under the IRC
definitions. For example, the Treasury regulations for IRC section 162(e)
provide an example of a lobbying contact in which a lobbyist tells a
legislator to take action to improve the availability of new capital. In this
example, the lobbyist is not referring to a specific legislative proposal, so
the contact does not count as lobbying. However, according to the
Treasury Regulations, a lobbyist’s contact with a Member of Congress in
which the lobbyist urges a reduction in the capital gains tax rate to
increase the availability of new capital does count as lobbying, because the
2
According to IRS officials, contacts to influence the nomination and confirmation of officials subject
to Senate confirmation are considered to be contacts to influence legislation under the IRC lobbying
definitions. For the purposes of this report, the LDA provision relating to nominations and
confirmations is treated as a nonlegislative matter.
Page 35 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
Appendix I
Comparisons of LDA and IRC Definitions
contact refers to a specific legislative proposal. In contrast, because LDA
covers legislation from its formulation to adoption, the fact that a specific
legislative proposal was not addressed during a lobbyist’s contact with a
government official does not prevent the contact from being counted as a
lobbying contact.
Coverage of Nonlegislative LDA’s list of nonlegislative matters under its definition of “lobbying
contact” seems to include most activities of the federal government. The
Matters list includes
• the formulation, modification, or adoption of a federal rule, regulation,
executive order, or any other program, policy, or position of the United
States Government;
• the administration or execution of a federal program or policy (including
the negotiation, award, or administration of a federal contract, grant, loan,
or permit, or license); and
• the nomination or confirmation of a person for a position subject to
confirmation by the Senate.
IRC section 4911 does not include any nonlegislative matters in its
lobbying definition.
The only nonlegislative matter included under the IRC section 162(e)
lobbying definition is “any direct communication with a covered executive
branch official in an attempt to influence the official actions or positions of
such official.” However, neither IRC section 162(e) nor its regulations
define what is meant by “official actions or positions,” thus leaving the
interpretation of what activities to count up to the lobbyist. Some lobbyists
might consider an official action to be almost anything a federal official
does while at work, while others might consider that official actions must
be more formal actions, such as those requiring the signing of official
documents.
LDA contains 19 exceptions to the definition of lobbying and IRC sections
Exceptions to the 4911 and 162(e) contain 5 and 7 exceptions, respectively. These exceptions
Lobbying Definitions are listed in appendix III.
Although LDA includes an extensive list of exceptions, for the most part
these exceptions make technical clarifications in the law and do not
provide special exceptions for particular groups. Many of the LDA
exceptions are for contacts made during the participation in routine
government business, and some of these are for contacts that would be
part of the public record. For example, these include (1) contacts made in
Page 36 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
Appendix I
Comparisons of LDA and IRC Definitions
response to a notice in the Federal Register soliciting communications
from the public and (2) a petition for agency action made in writing and
required to be a matter of public record pursuant to established agency
procedures. Other exceptions are for contacts dealing with confidential
information, such as contacts “not possible to report without disclosing
information, the unauthorized disclosure of which is prohibited by law.”
LDA includes four exceptions for particular groups, including an exception
for contacts made by public officials acting in an official capacity; an
exception for representatives of the media making contacts for news
purposes; an exception for any contacts made by certain tax-exempt
religious organizations; and an exception for contacts made with an
individual’s elected Member of Congress or the Member’s staff regarding
the individual’s benefits, employment, or other personal matters.
Of the five exceptions to the IRC section 4911 lobbying definition, two
could allow a significant amount of lobbying expenses to be excluded from
IRC section 4911 coverage. The first is an exception for making available
the results of nonpartisan analysis, study, or research. Due to this
exception, IRC section 4911 does not cover 501(c)(3) organizations’
advocacy on legislation as long as the organization provides a full and fair
exposition of the pertinent facts that would enable the public or an
individual to form an independent opinion or conclusion.
The second significant exception under IRC section 4911 is referred to as
the self-defense exception. This exception excludes from coverage
lobbying expenses related to appearances before, or communications to,
any legislative body with respect to a possible decision of such body that
might affect the existence of the organization, its powers and duties, tax-
exempt status, or the deduction of contributions to the organization.
According to IRS officials, this exception provides that a 501(c)(3)
nonprofit tax-exempt organization can lobby legislative branch officials on
matters that might affect its tax-exempt status or the activities it can
engage in without losing its tax exempt status, and such lobbying will not
be counted under the IRC section 4911 definition. According to IRS
officials, this exception does not cover lobbying on state or federal
funding.
The IRC section 162(e) definition has one exception in the statute, which is
for contacts with local government legislative branch officials on
legislation of direct interest to the organization. In addition, IRC section
162(e) has seven exceptions, which are provided for by Treasury
Regulations. These seven exceptions provide technical clarifications to the
Page 37 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
Appendix I
Comparisons of LDA and IRC Definitions
statutory provisions and do not appear to exclude a significant amount of
expenses that would be counted as lobbying expenses under the other
lobbying definitions. For example, the IRC section 162(e) exceptions
include (1) any communication compelled by subpoena, or otherwise
compelled by federal or state law; and (2) performing an activity for
purposes of complying with the requirements of any law.
Page 38 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
Appendix II
Coverage of Different Contacts, Activities,
and Expenses Under the Three Definitions of
Lobbying
This appendix contains detailed information about which contacts,
activities, and expenses are covered under the definitions of lobbying for
LDA, IRC section 4911, and IRC section 162(e). Table II.1 shows the
coverage of federal lobbying. Table II.2 shows the coverage of state
lobbying, and table II.3 shows the coverage of local lobbying.
Table II.1: Coverage of Federal Lobbying
Contacts, activities, and expenses Covered under
LDA IRC section 4911 IRC section 162(e)
Efforts in support of lobbying contacts, Yes Yes Yes
including preparation and planning activities, 2 U.S.C. 1602 (7) Treas. Reg. § 26 U.S.C.
research, and other background work 56.4911-3(a) 162(e)(5)(C)
Contacts to influence legislation
Contacts with legislative branch officials
Members of Congress Yes Yes Yes
2 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C.
1602(8)(A)(i) & 4911(d)(1)(B) 162(e)(1)(A) &
(4)(A) (4)(A)
Employees of Congress Yes Yes Yes
2 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C.
1602(8)(A)(i) & 4911(d)(1)(B) 162(e)(1)(A) &
(4)(C) & (D) (4)(A)
Contacts with executive branch officials
a a
President, Vice President; Executive Yes Yes Yes
Schedule level I, cabinet-level officials, and 2 U.S.C. 1602(8) 26 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C.
their immediate deputies (A)(i) & (3)(A), (B) 4911(d)(1)(B) 162(e)(1)(A) &
& (D) (4)(A)
a a
Executive Schedule levels II, III, IV, and V Yes Yes Yes
(excluding cabinet-level officials and their 2 U.S.C. 1602(8) 26 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C.
immediate deputies) (A)(i) & (3)(D) 4911(d)(1)(B) 162(e)(1)(A) &
(4)(A)
a a
Uniformed services at or above O-7 Yes Yes Yes
2 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C.
1602(8)(A)(i) & 4911(d)(1)(B) 162(e)(1)(A) &
(3)(E) (4)(A)
a a
Officials serving in a confidential, Yes Yes Yes
policymaking, or advocating position 2 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C.
(Schedule C appointees) 1602(8)(A)(i) & 4911(d)(1)(B) 162(e)(1)(A) &
(3)(F) (4)(A)
a a
Entire office of the Executive Office of the Yes Yes Yes
President 2 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C.
1602(8)(A)(i) & 4911(d)(1)(B) 162(e)(1)(A) &
(3)(C) (4)(A)
a a
White House Office of the Executive Office of Yes Yes Yes
the President 2 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C.
1602(8)(A)(i) & 4911(d)(1)(B) 162(e)(1)(A) &
(3)(C) (4)(A)
a a
The two most senior officers of each agency Yes Yes Yes
in the Executive Office of the President 2 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C.
1602(8)(A)(i) & 4911(d)(1)(B) 162(e)(1)(A) &
(3)(C) (4)(A)
Page 39 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
Appendix II
Coverage of Different Contacts, Activities, and Expenses Under the Three Definitions of
Lobbying
Contacts, activities, and expenses Covered under
LDA IRC section 4911 IRC section 162(e)
b
Contacts with any executive branch officials Maybe Yes Yes
who may participate in the formulation of 26 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C.
legislation 4911(d)(1)(B) 162(e)(1)(A) &
(4)(A)
Contacts to influence rules, regulations,
or executive orders
Contacts with legislative branch officials
Members of Congress Yes No No
2 U.S.C.
1602(8)(A)(ii) &
(4)(A)
Employees of Congress Yes No No
2 U.S.C.
1602(8)(A)(ii) &
(4)(C) & (D)
Contacts with executive branch officials
c
President, Vice President; Executive Yes No Maybe
Schedule level I, cabinet-level officials, and 2 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C.
their immediate deputies 1602(8)(A)(ii) & 162(e)(1)(D) &
(3)(A), (B) & (D) (6)(A),(B) & (D)
Executive Schedule levels II, III, IV, and V Yes No No
(excluding cabinet-level officials and their 2 U.S.C.
immediate deputies) 1602(8)(A)(ii) &
(3)(D)
Uniformed services at or above O-7 Yes No No
2 U.S.C.
1602(8)(A)(ii) &
(3)(E)
Officials serving in a confidential, Yes No No
policymaking, or advocating position 2 U.S.C.
(Schedule C appointees) 1602(8)(A)(ii) &
(3)(F)
Entire office of the Executive Office of the Yes No No
President 2 U.S.C.
1602(8)(A)(ii) &
(3)(C)
c
White House Office of the Executive Office of Yes No Maybe
the President 2 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C.
1602(8)(A)(ii) & 162(e)(1)(D) &
(3)(C) (6)(C)
c
The two most senior officers of each agency Yes No Maybe
in the Executive Office of the President 2 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C.
1602(8)(A)(ii) & 162(e)(1)(D) &
(3)(C) (6)(C)
Contacts regarding the administration of a
program or policy
Contacts with legislative branch officials
Members of Congress Yes No No
2 U.S.C.
1602(8)(A)(iii) &
4(A)
Page 40 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
Appendix II
Coverage of Different Contacts, Activities, and Expenses Under the Three Definitions of
Lobbying
Contacts, activities, and expenses Covered under
LDA IRC section 4911 IRC section 162(e)
Employees of Congress Yes No No
2 U.S.C.
1602(8)(A)(iii) &
(4)(C) & (D)
Contacts with executive branch officials
c
President, Vice President; Executive Yes No Maybe
Schedule level I, cabinet-level officials, and 2 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C.
their immediate deputies 1602(8)(A)(iii) & 162(e)(1)(D) &
(3)(A), (B) & (D) (6)(A), (B), & (D)
Executive Schedule levels II, III, IV, and V Yes No No
(excluding cabinet-level officials and their 2 U.S.C.
immediate deputies) 1602(8)(A)(iii) &
(3)(D)
Uniformed services at or above O-7 Yes No No
2 U.S.C.
1602(8)(A)(iii) &
(3)(E)
Officials serving in a confidential, Yes No No
policymaking, or advocating position 2 U.S.C.
(Schedule C appointees) 1602(8)(A)(iii) &
(3)(F)
Entire office of the Executive Office of the Yes No No
President 2 U.S.C.
1602(8)(A)(iii) &
(3)(C)
c
White House Office of the Executive Office of Yes No Maybe
the President 2 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C.
1602(8)(A)(iii) & 162(e)(1)(D) &
(3)(C) (6)(C)
c
The two most senior officers of each agency Yes No Maybe
in the Executive Office of the President 2 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C.
1602(8)(A)(iii) & 162(e)(1)(D) &
(3)(C) (6)(C)
Contacts with executive branch officials to
influence official actions or positions of the
officials
d
President, Vice President; Executive Yes No Yes
Schedule level I, cabinet-level officials, and 2 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C.
their immediate deputies 1602(8)(A) & 162(e)(1)(D) &
(3)(A), (B) & (D) (6)(A), (B), & (D)
d
Executive Schedule levels II, III, IV, and V Yes No No
(excluding cabinet-level officials and their 2 U.S.C.
immediate deputies) 1602(8)(A) &
(3)(D)
d
Uniformed services at or above O-7 Yes No No
2 U.S.C.
1602(8)(A) &
(3)(E)
d
Officials serving in a confidential, Yes No No
policymaking, or advocating position 2 U.S.C.
(Schedule C appointees) 1602(8)(A) &
(3)(F)
Page 41 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
Appendix II
Coverage of Different Contacts, Activities, and Expenses Under the Three Definitions of
Lobbying
Contacts, activities, and expenses Covered under
LDA IRC section 4911 IRC section 162(e)
d
Entire office of the Executive Office of the Yes No No
President 2 U.S.C.
1602(8)(A) &
(3)(C)
d
White House Office of the Executive Office of Yes No Yes
the President 2 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C.
1602(8)(A) & 162(e)(1)(D) &
(3)(C) (6)(C)
d
The two most senior officers of each agency Yes No Yes
in the Executive Office of the President 2 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C.
1602(8)(A) & 162(e)(1)(D) &
(3)(C) (6)(C)
Contacts to influence the nomination or
confirmation of official subject to
e
confirmation by the Senate
Contacts with legislative branch officials
Members of Congress Yes Yes Yes
2 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C.
1602(8)(A)(iv) & 4911(d)(1)(B) 162(e)(1)(A)&
(4)(A) (4)(A)
Employees of Congress Yes Yes Yes
2 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C.
1602(8)(A)(iv) 4911(d)(1)(B) 162(e)(1)(A)&
&(4)(C) & (D) (4)(A)
Contacts with executive branch officials
a a
President, Vice President; Executive Yes Yes Yes
Schedule level I, cabinet-level officials, and 2 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C.
their immediate deputies 1602(8)(A)(iv) & 4911(d)(1)(B) 162(e)(1)(A)&
(3)(A), (B) & (D) (4)(A)
a a
Executive Schedule levels II, III, IV, and V Yes Yes Yes
(excluding cabinet-level officials and their 2 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C.
immediate deputies) 1602(8)(A)(iv) & 4911(d)(1)(B) 162(e)(1)(A)&
(3)(D) (4)(A)
a a
Uniformed services at or above O-7 Yes Yes Yes
2 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C.
1602(8)(A)(iv) & 4911(d)(1)(B) 162(e)(1)(A)&
(3)(E) (4)(A)
a a
Officials serving in a confidential, Yes Yes Yes
policymaking, or advocating position 2 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C.
(Schedule C appointees) 1602(8)(A)(iv) & 4911(d)(1)(B) 162(e)(1)(A)&
(3)(F) (4)(A)
a a
Entire office of the Executive Office of the Yes Yes Yes
President 2 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C.
1602(8)(A)(iv) & 4911(d)(1)(B) 162(e)(1)(A)&
(3)(C) (4)(A)
a a
White House Office of the Executive Office of Yes Yes Yes
the President 2 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C.
1602(8)(A)(iv) & 4911(d)(1)(B) 162(e)(1)(A)&
(3)(C) (4)(A)
a a
The two most senior officers of each agency Yes Yes Yes
in the Executive Office of the President 2 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C.
1602(8)(A)(iv) & 4911(d)(1)(B) 162(e)(1)(A)&
(3)(C) (4)(A)
Page 42 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
Appendix II
Coverage of Different Contacts, Activities, and Expenses Under the Three Definitions of
Lobbying
Contacts, activities, and expenses Covered under
LDA IRC section 4911 IRC section 162(e)
Attempts to influence the general public No Yes Yes
regarding legislation, referenda, ballot 26 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C.
initiatives, constitutional amendments, and 4911(d)(1)(A) & 162(e)(1)(C) &
treaties (e)(2) (4)(B)
26 U.S.C.
4911(e)(2)
a
IRC sections 4911 and 162(e) do not specify which executive branch officials are covered when
contacts are made to influence legislation. However, under IRC sections 4911(d)(1)(B) and
162(e)(4)(A), if contacts are made to influence legislation with any government official or employee
who may participate in the formulation of legislation, then those contacts fall under the IRC definitions
of lobbying.
b
Contacts with executive branch officials are covered under LDA if the officials are on LDA’s list of
covered executive branch officials. LDA has no requirement that executive branch officials must
participate in the formulation of legislation for contacts with them to be covered.
c
IRC section 162(e) includes as lobbying “any direct communication with a covered executive branch
official in an attempt to influence the official actions or positions of such official.” However, unlike LDA,
this IRC section does not specifically name nonlegislative matters about which contacts with covered
officials will be considered as lobbying. Further, it does not define what “official actions or positions”
are.
d
LDA specifically names several nonlegislative matters, such as federal rules, regulations, executive
orders, and the administration or execution of a federal program or policy, about which contacts with
covered executive branch or legislative branch officials will be considered as lobbying. The provision
that defines as lobbying “any direct communication with a covered executive branch official in an
attempt to influence the official actions or positions of such official” is from IRC section 162(e).
e
According to IRS officials, contacts to influence the nomination or confirmation of an official subject to
confirmation by the Senate are considered to be contacts to influence legislation under IRC sections
4911 and 162(e). See Treasury Regulations 1.162-20(b)(ii)(3) and 56.4911-2(b)(4)(ii)(B) example 6.
Page 43 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
Appendix II
Coverage of Different Contacts, Activities, and Expenses Under the Three Definitions of
Lobbying
Table II.2: Coverage of State Lobbying
Contacts, activities, and expenses Covered under
LDA IRC section 4911 IRC section 162(e)
Efforts in support of lobbying contacts, No Yes Yes
including preparation and planning activities, Treas. Reg. § 26 U.S.C.
research, and other background work 56.4911-3(a) 162(e)(5)(C)
Contacts to influence legislation
Contacts with legislative branch officials
Members of state legislature No Yes Yes
26 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C.
4911(d)(1)(B) & 162(e)(1)(A) &
(e)(2) (4)(A)
Employees of state legislature No Yes Yes
26 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C.
4911(d)(1)(B) & 162(e)(1)(A) &
(e)(2) (4)(A)
Contacts with executive branch officials who No Yes Yes
may participate in the formulation of legislation 26 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C.
4911(d)(1)(B) & 162(e)(1)(A) &
(e)(2) (4)(A)
Contacts to influence rules, regulations, or No No No
executive orders
Contacts regarding the administration of a No No No
program or policy
Contacts with executive branch official to No No No
influence official actions or positions of the
official
Attempts to influence the general public No Yes Yes
regarding legislation, referenda, ballot 26 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C.
initiatives, and constitutional amendments 4911(d)(1)(A) & 162(e)(1)(C ) &
(e)(2) (4)(B)
26 U.S.C.
4911(e)(2)
Page 44 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
Appendix II
Coverage of Different Contacts, Activities, and Expenses Under the Three Definitions of
Lobbying
Table II.3: Coverage of Local Lobbying
Contacts, activities, and expenses Covered under
LDA IRC section 4911 IRC section 162(e)
Efforts in support of lobbying contacts, No Yes Yes
including preparation and planning activities, Treas. Reg. § 26 U.S.C.
research and other background work 56.4911-3(a) 162(e)(5)(C)
Contacts to influence legislation
a
Contacts with legislative branch officials No Yes Maybe
26 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C.
4911(d)(1)(B) & 162(e)(1)(A) &
(e)(2) (e)(4)(A) & (e)(2)
a
Members of local council No Yes Maybe
26 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C.
4911(d)(1)(B) & 162(e)(1)(A) &
(e)(2) (e)(4)(A) & (e)(2)
a
Employees of local council No Yes Maybe
26 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C.
4911(d)(1)(B) & 162(e)(1)(A) &
(e)(2) (e)(4)(A) & (e)(2)
Contacts with executive branch officials who No Yes Yes
may participate in the formulation of legislation 26 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C.
4911(d)(1)(B) 162(e)(1)(A) &
(e)(4)(A)
Contacts to influence rules, regulations, or No No No
executive orders
Contacts regarding the administration of a No No No
program or policy
Contacts with executive branch official to No No No
influence official actions or positions of the
official
Attempts to influence the general public No Yes Yes
regarding legislation, referenda, ballot 26 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C.
initiatives, and constitutional amendments 4911(d)(1)(A) & 162(e)(1)(C)&
(e)(2) (e)(4)(B)
26 U.S.C.
4911 (e)(2)
a
IRC section 162(e)(2) includes an exception for lobbying local government legislative branch officials
concerning legislation that is of direct interest to the taxpayer. Therefore, only contacts with local
government legislative branch officials about legislation that is not of direct interest to the taxpayer are
covered by the IRC section 162(e) lobbying definition.
Page 45 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
Appendix III
Exceptions to the LDA and IRC Lobbying
Definitions
1
Title 2 of the United States Code contains 19 exceptions to LDA’s lobbying
Exceptions to the LDA definition. Under Title 2, the term “lobbying contact” does not include a
Lobbying Definition communication that is:
1. made by a public official acting in the public official’s official capacity;
2. made by a representative of a media organization if the purpose of the
communication is gathering and disseminating news and information to
the public;
3. made in a speech, article, publication, or other material that is
distributed and made available to the public, or through radio, television,
cable television, or other medium of mass communication;
4. made on behalf of a government of a foreign country or a foreign
political party and disclosed under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of
2
1938;
5. a request for a meeting, a request for the status of an action, or any other
similar administrative request, if the request does not include an attempt to
influence a covered executive branch official or a covered legislative
branch official;
6. made in the course of participation in an advisory committee subject to
the Federal Advisory Committee Act;
7. testimony given before a committee, subcommittee, or task force of
Congress, or submitted for inclusion in the public record of a hearing
conducted by such committee, subcommittee, or task force;
8. information provided in writing in response to an oral or written request
by a covered executive branch official or a covered legislative branch
official for specific information;
9. required by subpoena, civil investigative demand, or otherwise
compelled by statute, regulation, or other action of Congress or an agency,
including any communication compelled by a federal contract, grant, loan,
permit, or license;
1
2 U.S.C. 1602(8)(B).
2
22 U.S.C. 611 et seq.
Page 46 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
Appendix III
Exceptions to the LDA and IRC Lobbying Definitions
10. made in response to a notice in the Federal Register, Commerce
Business Daily, or other similar publication soliciting communications
from the public and directed to the agency official specifically designated
in the notice to receive such communications;
11. not possible to report without disclosing information, the unauthorized
disclosure of which is prohibited by law;
12. made to an official in an agency with regard to—(1) a judicial
proceeding or a criminal or civil law enforcement inquiry, investigation, or
proceeding; or (2) a filing or proceeding that the government is specifically
required by statute or regulation to maintain or conduct on a confidential
basis–if that agency is charged with responsibility for such proceeding,
inquiry, investigation, or filing;
13. made in compliance with written agency procedures regarding an
adjudication conducted by the agency under section 554 of Title 5 or
substantially similar provisions;
14. a written comment filed in the course of a public proceeding or any
other communication that is made on the record in a public proceeding;
15. a petition for agency action made in writing and required to be a matter
of public record pursuant to established agency procedures;
16. made on behalf of an individual with regard to that individual’s
benefits, employment, or other personal matters involving only that
individual, except that this clause does not apply to any communication
with—(1) a covered executive branch official, or (2) a covered legislative
branch official (other than the individual’s elected Members of Congress or
employees who work under such Member’s direct supervision)–with
respect to the formulation, modification, or adoption of private legislation
for the relief of that individual;
17. a disclosure by an individual that is protected under the amendments
3
made by the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 under the Inspector
4
General Act of 1978 or under another provision of law;
3
5 U.S.C.A. sec. 1211 et seq.
4
5 U.S.C.A. App. 3.
Page 47 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
Appendix III
Exceptions to the LDA and IRC Lobbying Definitions
18. made by (1) a church, its integrated auxiliary, or a convention or
association of churches that is exempt from filing a federal income tax
return under paragraph (2)(A)(i) of such section 6033(a) of Title 26, or (2)
a religious order that is exempt from filing a federal income tax return
under paragraph (2)(A)(iii) of such section 6033(a); and
19. between (1) officials of a self-regulatory organization (as defined in
section 3(a)(26) of the Securities Exchange Act) that is registered with or
established by the Securities and Exchange Commission as required by
that act or a similar organization that is designated by or registered with
the Commodities Future Trading Commission as provided under the
Commodity Exchange Act; and (2) the Securities and Exchange
Commission or the Commodities Future Trading Commission,
respectively, relating to the regulatory responsibilities of such organization
under the act.
5
Title 26 of the United States Code contains five exceptions to the lobbying
Exceptions to the IRC definition in IRC section 4911. Under IRC section 4911, the term
Section 4911 Lobbying “influencing legislation”, with respect to an organization, does not include:
Definition
1. making available the results of nonpartisan analysis, study, or research;
2. providing technical advice or assistance (where such advice would
otherwise constitute influencing of legislation) to a governmental body or
to a committee or other subdivision thereof in response to a written
request by such body or subdivision, as the case may be;
3. appearances before, or communications to, any legislative body with
respect to a possible decision of such body that might affect the existence
of the organization, its powers and duties, tax-exempt status, or the
deduction of contributions to the organization;
4. communications between the organization and its bona fide members
with respect to legislation or proposed legislation of direct interest to the
organization and such members, other than communications that directly
encourage the members to take action to influence legislation;
5. any communication with a government official or employee, other than
(1) a communication with a member or employee of a legislative body
(where such communication would otherwise constitute the influencing of
5
26 U.S.C. 4911(d)(2)
Page 48 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
Appendix III
Exceptions to the LDA and IRC Lobbying Definitions
legislation), or (2) a communication the principal purpose of which is to
influence legislation.
6
Title 26 of the United States Code contains a single exception to the
Exceptions to the IRC lobbying definition in IRC section 162(e):
Section 162(e)
Lobbying Definition 1. appearances before, submission of statements to, or sending
communications to the committees, or individual members, of local
councils or similar governing bodies with respect to legislation or
proposed legislation of direct interest to the taxpayer.
In addition, the Treasury Regulations contain eight exceptions:
2. any communication compelled by subpoena, or otherwise compelled by
7
federal or state law;
3. expenditures for institutional or “good will” advertising which keeps the
taxpayer’s name before the public or which presents views on economic,
financial, social, or other subjects of a general nature but which do not
8
attempt to influence the public with respect to legislative matters;
4. before evidencing a purpose to influence any specific legislation—
determining the existence or procedural status of specific legislation, or
the time, place, and subject of any hearing to be held by a legislative body
9
with respect to specific legislation;
5. before evidencing a purpose to influence any specific legislation—
preparing routine, brief summaries of the provisions of specific legislation;
6. performing an activity for purposes of complying with the requirements
of any law;
7. reading any publications available to the general public or viewing or
listening to other mass media communications; and
8. merely attending a widely attended speech.
6
26 U.S.C. 162(e)(2)(B)(i).
7
Treasury Regulation section 1.162-29(b)(3).
8
Treasury Regulation Section 1.162-20(a)(2).
9
This exception and the following four exceptions are from Treasury Regulation Section 1.162-
29(c)(3).
Page 49 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
Appendix IV
Major Contributors to This Report
Richard W. Caradine, Assistant Director, Federal Management and
General Government Workforce Issues
Division, Washington, Terry L. Draver, Assignment Manager
D.C. Kathleen M. Peyman, Evaluator-in-Charge
Mary F. Ernsberger, Evaluator
Kiki Theodoropoulos, Evaluator
Alan N. Belkin, Assistant General Counsel
Office of the General Rachel DeMarcus, Assistant General Counsel
Counsel Jessica A. Botsford, Senior Attorney
Page 50 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
Page 51 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
Page 52 GAO/GGD-99-38 Federal Lobbying Definitions
Ordering Information
The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional
copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address,
accompanied by a check or money order made out to the
Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and
MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more
copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Order by mail:
U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 37050
Washington, DC 20013
or visit:
Room 1100
th th
700 4 St. NW (corner of 4 and G Sts. NW)
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, DC
Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax
number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony.
To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past
30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touch-tone phone. A
recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these
lists.
For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,
send e-mail message with “info” in the body to:
info@www.gao.gov
or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:
http://www.gao.gov
United States Bulk Rate
General Accounting Office Postage & Fees Paid
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001 GAO
Permit No. G100
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Correction Requested
(410094)
Federal Lobbying: Differences in Lobbying Definitions and Their Impact
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1999-04-15.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)