2016 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists' Compliance with Disclosure Requirements
Published: 2017-03-31T00:00:00

Fast Facts:
Lobbyists must register with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House when they take on new clients, and file reports disclosing their lobbying activities, income, and certain political contributions.
In our most recent review of compliance with these requirements, we found that
90% of lobbyists filed new client reports,
83% could provide documentation for income, and
94% filed political contributions reports.
We also found that some lobbyists were unclear about the need to disclose certain previous jobs—including certain executive agency positions. These findings are generally consistent with our prior reports on the subject.

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The LDA, as amended, requires lobbyists to file quarterly lobbying disclosure reports and semiannual reports on certain political contributions. The law also requires that GAO annually audit lobbyists' compliance with the LDA. GAO's objectives were to (1) determine the extent to which lobbyists can demonstrate compliance with disclosure requirements, (2) identify challenges to compliance that lobbyists report, and (3) describe the resources and authorities available to USAO in its role in enforcing LDA compliance, and the efforts USAO has made to improve enforcement. This is GAO's 10th report under the mandate.
GAO reviewed a stratified random sample of 78 quarterly disclosure LD-2 reports filed for the third and fourth quarters of calendar year 2015 and the first and second quarters of calendar year 2016. GAO also reviewed 2 random samples totaling 160 LD-203 reports from year-end 2015 and midyear 2016. This methodology allowed GAO to generalize to the population of 46,450 disclosure reports with $5,000 or more in lobbying activity, and 22,820 reports of federal political campaign contributions. GAO met with officials from USAO to obtain status updates on its efforts to focus resources on lobbyists who fail to comply.
GAO provided a draft of this report to the Attorney General for review and comment. The Department of Justice provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate. GAO is not making any recommendations in this report.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: For the 2016 reporting period, most lobbyists provided documentation for key elements of their disclosure reports to demonstrate compliance with the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, as amended (LDA). For lobbying disclosure (LD-2) reports filed during the third and fourth quarters of 2015 and the first and second quarters of 2016, GAO estimates that
90 percent of lobbyists filed required reports for the quarter in which they first registered; the figure below describes the filing process and enforcement;
83 percent (down from 92 percent in 2015) could provide documentation for income and expenses; and
94 percent filed year-end 2015 LD-203 reports as required.
These findings, with the exception of fewer lobbyists who could produce documentation for income and expenses, are generally consistent with prior reports GAO issued for the 2010 through 2015 reporting periods. Although the estimated decline in lobbyists who could document expenses is notable, the decrease is not statistically significant.
As in GAO's other reports, some lobbyists were still unclear about the need to disclose certain previously held covered positions, such as paid congressional internships or certain executive agency positions. GAO estimates that 15 percent of all LD-2 reports may not have properly disclosed 1 or more previously held covered positions. However, over the past several years of reporting on lobbying disclosure, GAO has found that most lobbyists in the sample rated the terms associated with LD-2 reporting as “very easy” or “somewhat easy” to understand.
The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia (USAO) stated it has sufficient resources and authority to enforce compliance with the LDA. USAO continued its efforts to bring lobbyists into compliance by prompting them to file reports or applying civil penalties.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 (HLOGA)  amended the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to require lobbyists to file  quarterly lobbying disclosure reports and semiannual reports on certain  political contributions. HLOGA also increased civil penalties and added  criminal penalties for failure to comply with lobbying disclosure  requirements. In addition, HLOGA requires us to annually audit the extent  of lobbyists’ compliance with the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, as  amended (LDA), by reviewing publicly available lobbying registrations and  other matters. This is our 10th report under this mandate.
As with our prior reports, our objectives were to (1) determine the extent  to which lobbyists can demonstrate compliance with the requirements for  registrations and reports filed under the LDA; (2) identify any challenges  and potential improvements to compliance by lobbyists, lobbying firms,  and registrants; and (3) describe the resources and authorities available  to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia (USAO) in its role  in enforcing LDA compliance and the efforts it has made to improve that  enforcement.
To determine the extent to which lobbyists can demonstrate compliance,  we examined a stratified random sample of 78 quarterly lobbying  disclosure (LD-2) reports with income and expenses of $5,000 or more  filed during the third and fourth quarters of calendar year 2015 and the  first and second quarters of calendar year 2016. We selected the  randomly sampled reports from the publicly downloadable database  maintained by the Clerk of the House of Representatives (Clerk of the  House). This methodology allows us to generalize some elements to the  population of LD-2 reports. We then contacted each lobbyist or lobbying  firm in our sample. We asked them to provide written documentation for  key elements of their LD-2 reports, including the amount of income  reported for lobbying activities, the amount of expenses reported, the  houses of Congress or federal agencies lobbied, lobbying issue areas,  and the names of lobbyists listed in the report. We also reviewed whether  lobbyists listed on the LD-2 reports properly disclosed prior covered  official positions, and whether the lobbyists filed the semiannual report of  federal political contributions. All lobbyists in our sample responded to our  requests to discuss documentation with us. A complete description of our  methodology can be found in appendix I. Appendix II contains a list of  lobbyists and clients whose LD-2 reports we randomly selected for our  review.
To determine whether lobbyists reported their federal political  contributions as required by the LDA, we analyzed stratified random  samples of year-end 2015 and midyear 2016 semiannual political  contributions (LD-203) reports. The samples contain 80 LD-203 reports  that have contributions listed and 80 LD-203 reports that list no  contributions. We selected the randomly sampled reports from the  publicly downloadable contributions database maintained by the Clerk of  the House (see appendix III for a list of lobbyists and lobbying firms  randomly selected for our review of LD-203 reports). We then checked  the contributions reported in the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC)  database against the contributions identified in our sample to determine  whether all contributions reported in the FEC database were also  reported on the LD-203s as required. We contacted lobbyists and asked  them to provide documentation to clarify differences we observed. This  methodology allows us to generalize to the population of LD-203 reports  both with and without contributions.
To determine whether lobbyists were meeting the requirement to file an  LD-2 report for the quarter in which they registered, we compared new  registrations (LD-1) filed in the third and fourth quarters of 2015, and the  first and second quarters of 2016 to the corresponding LD-2 reports on  file with the Clerk of the House.
To assess the reliability of the data used, we reviewed available  documentation and interviewed knowledgeable officials. We found the  data to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting objectives.  The details of the data reliability assessments are in appendix I.
To identify challenges and potential improvements to compliance, we  used a structured web-based survey to obtain views from lobbyists  included in our sample of reports.
To describe the resources and authorities available to USAO and its  efforts to improve LDA enforcement, we interviewed USAO officials and  obtained information about their system’s capabilities to track  enforcement and compliance trends, and the referral data that it receives  from the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House.
The mandate does not require us to identify lobbyist organizations that  failed to register and report in accordance with LDA requirements. The  mandate also does not require us to determine whether reported lobbying  activity or political contributions represented the full extent of lobbying  activities that took place.
We conducted this performance audit from April 2016 to March 2017 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The LDA requires lobbyists to register with the Secretary of the Senate  and the Clerk of the House and to file quarterly reports disclosing their  lobbying activity. Lobbyists are required to file their registrations and  reports electronically with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the  House through a single entry point. Registrations and reports must be  publicly available in downloadable, searchable databases from the  Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House. No specific statutory  requirements exist for lobbyists to generate or maintain documentation in  support of the information disclosed in the reports they file. However,  guidance issued by the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the  House recommends that lobbyists retain copies of their filings and  documentation supporting reported income and expenses for at least 6  years after they file their reports.
The LDA requires that the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the  House provide guidance and assistance on the registration and reporting  requirements and develop common standards, rules, and procedures for  LDA compliance. The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House  review the guidance semiannually. It was last revised June 15, 2016, to  (among other issues) clarify the treatment of outside retained lobbyists,  clarify issues around rounding income and expenses, and state that  lobbyists should identify the specific organizations or bureaus lobbied.  The guidance defines terms in the LDA, elaborates on the registration  and reporting requirements, includes specific examples of different  scenarios, and explains why certain scenarios prompt or do not prompt  disclosure under the LDA. The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of  the House’s Offices told us they continue to consider information we  report on lobbying disclosure compliance when they periodically update  the guidance. In addition, they told us they e-mail registered lobbyists  quarterly with guidance on common compliance issues as well as  reminders to file reports by the due dates.
The LDA defines a lobbyist as an individual who is employed or retained  by a client for compensation, who has made more than 1 lobbying contact  (written or oral communication to covered officials, such as a high-ranking  agency official or a Member of Congress made on behalf of a client), and  whose lobbying activities represent at least 20 percent of the time that he  or she spends on behalf of the client during the quarter. Lobbying firms  are persons or entities that have one or more employees who lobby on  behalf of a client other than that person or entity. Figure 1 provides an  overview of the registration and filing process.
Lobbying firms are required to register with the Secretary of the Senate  and the Clerk of the House for each client if the firms receive or expect to  receive more than $3,000 in income from that client for lobbying  activities. Lobbyists are also required to submit an LD-2 quarterly report  for each registration filed. The LD-2s contain information that includes:  the name of the lobbyist reporting on quarterly lobbying activities;  the name of the client for whom the lobbyist lobbied; a list of individuals who acted as lobbyists on behalf of the client  during the reporting period; whether any lobbyists served in covered positions in the executive or  legislative branch such as high-ranking agency officials or  congressional staff positions, in the previous 20 years;  codes describing general issue areas, such as agriculture and  education; a description of the specific lobbying issues; houses of Congress and federal agencies lobbied during the reporting  reported income (or expenses for organizations with in-house  lobbyists) related to lobbying activities during the quarter (rounded to  the nearest $10,000).
The LDA also requires lobbyists to report certain political contributions  semiannually in the LD-203 report. These reports must be filed 30 days  after the end of a semiannual period by each lobbying firm registered to  lobby and by each individual listed as a lobbyist on a firm’s lobbying  report. The lobbyists or lobbying firms must:  list the name of each federal candidate or officeholder, leadership  political action committee, or political party committee to which he or  she contributed at least $200 in the aggregate during the semiannual  period;  report contributions made to presidential library foundations and  presidential inaugural committees;  report funds contributed to pay the cost of an event to honor or  recognize a covered official, funds paid to an entity named for or  controlled by a covered official, and contributions to a person or entity  in recognition of an official, or to pay the costs of a meeting or other  event held by or in the name of a covered official; and  certify that they have read and are familiar with the gift and travel  rules of the Senate and House and that they have not provided,  requested, or directed a gift or travel to a member, officer, or  employee of Congress that would violate those rules.
The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House, along with  USAO are responsible for ensuring LDA compliance. The Secretary of the  Senate and the Clerk of the House notify lobbyists or lobbying firms in  writing if they are not complying with the LDA reporting. Subsequently,  they refer those lobbyists who fail to provide an appropriate response to  USAO. USAO researches these referrals and sends additional  noncompliance notices to the lobbyists or lobbying firms, requesting that  they file reports or terminate their registration. If USAO does not receive a  response after 60 days, it decides whether to pursue a civil or criminal  case against each noncompliant lobbyist. A civil case could lead to  penalties up to $200,000 for each violation, while a criminal case—usually  pursued if a lobbyist’s noncompliance is found to be knowing and  corrupt—could lead to a maximum of 5 years in prison.
section_title: Lobbyists Filed Disclosure Reports as Required for Most New Lobbying Registrations
paragraphs: Generally, under the LDA, the lobbyist must register by filing an LD-1  form with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House within  45 days of being employed or retained to make a lobbying contact on  behalf of a client. Thereafter, the lobbyist must file quarterly disclosure  (LD-2) reports detailing the lobbying activities. Of the 2,803 new  registrations we identified for the third and fourth quarters of 2015 and the  first and second quarters of 2016, we matched 2,513 of them (89.7  percent) to corresponding LD-2 reports filed within the same quarter as  the registration. These results are consistent with the findings we have  reported in prior reviews. We used the House lobbyists’ disclosure  database as the source of the reports. We also used an electronic  matching algorithm that allows for misspellings and other minor  inconsistencies between the registrations and reports. Figure 2 shows  lobbyists filed disclosure reports as required for most new lobbying  registrations from 2010 through 2016.
subsections: section_title: For Most LD-2 Reports, Lobbyists Provided Documentation for Key Elements but Fewer Lobbyists Provided Documentation for Their Income and Expenses
paragraphs: For selected elements of lobbyists’ LD-2 reports that can be generalized  to the population of lobbying reports, our findings have been consistent  from year to year. Most lobbyists reporting $5,000 or more in income or  expenses provided written documentation to varying degrees for the  reporting elements in their disclosure reports. For this year’s review,  lobbyists for an estimated 83 percent of LD-2 reports provided written  documentation for the income and expenses reported for the third and  fourth quarters of 2015 and the first and second quarters of 2016. Figure  3 shows that for most LD-2 reports, lobbyists provided documentation for  income and expenses for sampled reports from 2010 through 2016.  Although the estimated decline from 92 percent in 2015 to 83 percent in  2016 is notable, our analysis does not provide sufficient evidence of a  statistically significant decrease in the percentage of lobbyists who have  documentation for income and expenses. The difference in the estimates  may be due to random variation or factors we have not yet identified.
Figure 4 shows that for some LD-2 reports, lobbyists did not round their  income or expenses as the guidance requires. In 2016, we identified 26  percent of reports that did not round reported income or expenses  according to the guidance. We have found that rounding difficulties have  been a recurring issue on LD-2 reports from 2010 through 2016. As we  previously reported, several lobbyists who listed expenses told us that  based on their reading of the LD-2 form they believed they were required  to report the exact amount. While this is not consistent with the LDA or  the guidance, this may be a source of some of the confusion regarding  rounding errors. In 2016, the guidance was updated to include an  additional example about rounding expenses to the nearest $10,000. In  2016, 9 percent of lobbyists reported the exact amount of income or  expenses.
The LDA requires lobbyists to disclose lobbying contacts made with  federal agencies on behalf of the client for the reporting period. This year,  of the 78 LD-2 reports in our sample, 31 reports disclosed lobbying  activities at federal agencies. Of those, lobbyists provided documentation  for all lobbying activities at executive branch agencies for 11 LD-2  reports. Figures 5 through 9 show that lobbyists for most LD-2 reports  provided documentation for selected elements of their LD-2 reports from  2010 through 2016.
section_title: For Some LD-2 Reports, Lobbyists May Have Failed to Disclose Their Previously Held Covered Positions
paragraphs: The LDA requires a lobbyist to disclose previously held covered positions  in the executive or legislative branch, such as high-ranking agency  officials and congressional staff, when first registering as a lobbyist for a  new client. This can be done either on the LD-1 or on the LD-2 quarterly  filing when added as a new lobbyist. This year, we estimate that 15  percent of all LD-2 reports may not have properly disclosed 1 or more  previously held covered positions as required. As in our other reports,  some lobbyists were still unclear about the need to disclose certain  covered positions, such as paid congressional internships or certain  executive agency positions. Figure 10 shows the extent to which lobbyists  may not have properly disclosed 1 or more covered positions as required  from 2010 through 2016.
section_title: Some Lobbyists Amended Their Disclosure Reports after We Contacted Them
paragraphs: Lobbyists amended 10 of the 78 LD-2 disclosure reports in our original  sample to make changes to previously reported information after we  contacted them. Of the 10 reports, 4 were amended after we notified the  lobbyists of our review, but before we met with them. An additional 6 of  the 10 reports were amended after we met with the lobbyists to review  their documentation. We consistently find a notable number of amended  LD-2 reports in our sample each year following notification of our review.  This suggests that sometimes our contact spurs lobbyists to more closely  scrutinize their reports than they would have without our review. Table 1  lists reasons lobbying firms in our sample amended their LD-1 or LD-2  reports.
section_title: Most LD-203 Contribution Reports Disclosed Political Contributions Listed in the Federal Election Commission Database
paragraphs: As part of our review, we compared contributions listed on lobbyists’ and  lobbying firms’ LD-203 reports against those political contributions  reported in the Federal Election Commission (FEC) database to identify  whether political contributions were omitted on LD-203 reports in our  sample. The sample of LD-203 reports we reviewed contained 80 reports  with contributions and 80 reports without contributions. We estimate that  overall for 2016, lobbyists failed to disclose 1 or more reportable  contributions on 5 percent of reports. For this element in reports prior to  2014, we reported an estimated minimum percentage of reports  disclosing contributions based on a one-sided 95 percent confidence  interval rather than the estimated proportion as shown here. Estimates in  the table have a maximum margin of error of 9.6 percentage points. The  year to year differences are not statistically significant.
Table 2 illustrates that from 2010 through 2016 most lobbyists disclosed  FEC-reportable contributions on their LD-203 reports as required. In  2016, 9 LD-203 reports were amended in response to our review.
section_title: Most Lobbying Firms Found It Easy to Comply with Disclosure Requirements and Understood Lobbying Terms
paragraphs: As part of our review, 73 different lobbying firms were included in our  2016 sample of LD-2 disclosure reports. Consistent with prior reviews,  most lobbying firms reported that they found it “very easy” or “somewhat  easy” to comply with reporting requirements. Of the 73 different lobbying  firms in our sample, 14 reported that the disclosure requirements were  “very easy,” 52 reported them “somewhat easy,” and 5 reported them  “somewhat difficult” or “very difficult” (see figure 11).
Most lobbying firms we surveyed rated the definitions of terms used in  LD-2 reporting as “very easy” or “somewhat easy” to understand with  regard to meeting their reporting requirements. This is consistent with  prior reviews. Figures 12 through 16 show what lobbyists reported as  their ease of understanding the terms associated with LD-2 reporting  requirements from 2012 through 2016.
section_title: U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia Actions to Enforce the LDA
subsections: section_title: U.S. Attorney’s Office’s Resources and Authorities to Enforce LDA Compliance
paragraphs: U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) officials stated that they continue to have  sufficient personnel resources and authority under the LDA to enforce  reporting requirements. This includes imposing civil or criminal penalties  for noncompliance. Noncompliance refers to a lobbyist’s or lobbying firm’s  failure to comply with the LDA. According to USAO officials, they have  one contract paralegal specialist who primarily handles LDA compliance  work. Additionally, there are five civil attorneys and one criminal attorney  whose responsibilities include LDA compliance work. In addition, USAO  officials stated that USAO participates in a program that provides Special  Assistant United States Attorneys (SAUSA) to USAO. Some of the  SAUSAs assist with LDA compliance by working with the Assistant United  States Attorneys and contract paralegal specialist to contact referred  lobbyists or lobbying firms who do not comply with the LDA.
USAO officials stated that lobbyists resolve their noncompliance issues  by filing LD-2s, LD-203s, or LD-2 amendments or by terminating their  registration, depending on the issue. Resolving referrals can take  anywhere from a few days to years, depending on the circumstances.  During this time, USAO uses summary reports from its database to track  the overall number of referrals that are pending or become compliant as a  result of the lobbyist receiving an e-mail, phone call, or noncompliance  letter. Referrals remain in the pending category until they are resolved.  The category is divided into the following areas: “initial research for  referral,” “responded but not compliant,” “no response/waiting for a  response,” “bad address,” and “unable to locate.” USAO focuses its  enforcement efforts primarily on the responded but not compliant group.  Officials say USAO attempts to review pending cases every 6 months.
Officials told us that after four unsuccessful attempts have been made,  USAO confers with both the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the  House to determine whether further action should be taken. In some  cases where the lobbying firm is repeatedly referred for not filing  disclosure reports but does not appear to be actively lobbying, USAO  suspends enforcement actions. USAO monitors these firms, including  checking the lobbying disclosure databases maintained by the Secretary  of the Senate and the Clerk of the House. If the lobbyist begins to lobby  again, USAO will resume enforcement actions.
section_title: Status of LD-2 Enforcement Efforts
paragraphs: USAO received 2,709 referrals from both the Secretary of the Senate and  the Clerk of the House for failure to comply with LD-2 reporting  requirements cumulatively for filing years 2009 through 2015. Table 3  shows the number and status of the referrals received and the number of  enforcement actions taken by USAO to bring lobbying firms into  compliance. Enforcement actions include USAO attempts to bring  lobbyists into compliance through letters, e-mails, and calls. About 51  percent (1,367 of 2,709) of the total referrals received are now compliant  because lobbying firms either filed their reports or terminated their  registrations. In addition, some of the referrals were found to be compliant  when USAO received the referral. If lobbyists were compliant by the time  USAO received the referral no action was taken. This may occur when  lobbying firms respond to the contact letters from the Secretary of the  Senate and the Clerk of the House after USAO received the referrals.  About 49 percent (1,331 of 2,709) of referrals are pending further action  because USAO could not locate the lobbying firm, did not receive a  response from the firm after an enforcement action, or plans to conduct  additional research to determine if it can locate the lobbying firm. The  remaining 11 referrals did not require action or were suspended because  the lobbyist or client was no longer in business or the lobbyist was  deceased.
section_title: Status of LD-203 Referrals
paragraphs: LD-203 referrals consist of 2 types: LD-203(R) referrals represent  lobbying firms that have failed to file LD-203 reports for their lobbying  firm, and LD-203 referrals represent the lobbyists at the lobbying firm who  have failed to file their individual LD-203 reports as required. USAO  received 1,672 LD-203(R) referrals (cumulatively from 2009 through  2014) and 2,978 LD-203 referrals (cumulatively from 2009 through 2014)  from the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House for lobbying  firms and lobbyists for noncompliance with reporting requirements. LD- 203 referrals may be more complicated than LD-2 referrals because both  the lobbying firm and the individual lobbyists within the firm are each  required to file a LD-203. However, according to USAO officials, lobbyists  employed by a lobbying firm typically use the firm’s contact information  and not the lobbyist’s personal contact information. This makes it difficult  to locate a lobbyist who may have left the firm.
USAO officials reported that, while many firms have assisted USAO by  providing contact information for lobbyists, they are not required to do so.  According to officials, USAO has difficulty pursuing LD-203 referrals for  lobbyists who have departed a firm without leaving forwarding contact  information with the firm. USAO uses web searches and online databases  including LinkedIn, Lexis/Nexis, Glass Door, Facebook, and the Sunlight  Foundation websites to find these missing lobbyists. However, it is not  always successful. When USAO is unable to locate lobbyists because it  does not have forwarding contact information to find a lobbyist who has  left a firm, USAO has no recourse to pursue enforcement action,  according to officials. Table 4 shows the status of LD-203 (R) referrals  received and the number of enforcement actions taken by USAO to bring  lobbying firms into compliance. About 56 percent (929 of 1,672) of the  lobbying firms referred by the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the  House for noncompliance from calendar years 2009 through 2014 are  now considered compliant because firms either filed their reports or  terminated their registrations. About 44 percent (742 of 1,672) of the  referrals are pending further action.
Table 5 shows that USAO received 2,978 LD-203 referrals from the  Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House for firms where one or  more lobbyists failed to comply with LD-203 reporting requirements for  calendar years 2009 through 2013. It also shows the status of the  referrals received and the number of enforcement actions taken by USAO  to bring lobbyists into compliance. In addition, table 5 shows that about 52  percent (1,533 of 2,978) of the referrals are now in compliance because  all of the listed lobbyists had come into compliance by either filing their  reports or no longer being registered as a lobbyist. About 48 percent  (1,436 of 2,978) of the referrals are pending further action because USAO  could not locate one or more lobbyists, did not receive a response from  one or more lobbyists, or plans to conduct additional research to  determine if it can locate one or more lobbyists.
Table 6 shows that USAO received LD-203 referrals from the Secretary of  the Senate and the Clerk of the House for 4,129 individual lobbyists who  failed to comply with LD-203 reporting requirements for any filing year  from 2009 through 2013. It also shows the status of compliance for  individual lobbyists listed on referrals to USAO. About 55 percent (2,282  of 4,129) of the lobbyists had come into compliance by filing their reports  or are no longer registered as lobbyists. About 45 percent (1,847 of  4,129) of the referrals are pending action because USAO could not locate  the lobbyists, did not receive a response from the lobbyists, or plans to  conduct additional research to determine if it can locate the lobbyists.
USAO officials said that many of the pending LD-203 referrals represent  lobbyists who no longer lobby for the lobbying firms affiliated with the  referrals, even though these lobbying firms may be listed on the lobbyist’s  LD-203 report.
section_title: Status of Enforcement Settlement Actions
paragraphs: According to USAO officials, lobbyists who repeatedly fail to file reports  are labeled chronic offenders and referred to one of the assigned  attorneys for follow-up. According to officials, USAO monitors and reviews  chronic offenders to determine appropriate enforcement actions. This  may lead to settlements or other successful civil actions. However,  instead of pursuing a civil penalty, USAO may decide to pursue other  actions such as closing out referrals if the lobbyist appears to be inactive.  According to USAO, in these cases, there would be no benefit in pursuing  enforcement actions.
USAO officials reported to us that in 2016, they added a new chronic  offender’s letter to their system. The text of the letter includes a list of all  the chronic offender’s currently outstanding (i.e., non-compliant) referrals.  The outstanding referrals referenced get an associated enforcement  action recorded that indicates it was referenced in the letter. This should  provide greater transparency over the chronic offender process.
According to USAO officials, they have four active cases involving chronic  offenders that they are investigating. In one of those cases, they  anticipate the government will either settle with the lobbying firm and its  members or file a civil complaint against them shortly. They expect to  resolves these four cases sometime in 2017. USAO reported that it  continues to review its records to identify additional chronic offenders to  consider for further action and will likely open more cases by the end of  the year.
Officials told us that USAO did not criminally prosecute any persons or  organizations under the Lobbying Disclosure Act by USAO in 2016.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Attorney General for review and  comment. The Department of Justice provided technical comments,  which we incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney General, Secretary of  the Senate, Clerk of the House of Representatives, and interested  congressional committees and members. In addition, this report is  available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-2717 or jonesy@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report  are listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Our objectives were to determine the extent to which lobbyists are able to  demonstrate compliance with the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, as  amended (LDA) by providing documentation to support information  contained on registrations and reports filed under the LDA; to identify  challenges and potential improvements to compliance, if any; and to  describe the resources and authorities available to the U.S. Attorney’s  Office for the District of Columbia (USAO), its role in enforcing LDA  compliance, and the efforts it has made to improve LDA enforcement.
We used information in the lobbying disclosure database maintained by  the Clerk of the House of Representatives (Clerk of the House). To  assess whether these disclosure data were sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of this report, we reviewed relevant documentation and  consulted with knowledgeable officials. Although registrations and reports  are filed through a single web portal, each chamber subsequently  receives copies of the data and follows different data-cleaning,  processing, and editing procedures before storing the data in either  individual files (in the House) or databases (in the Senate). Currently,  there is no means of reconciling discrepancies between the two  databases caused by the differences in data processing. For example,  Senate staff told us during previous reviews they set aside a greater  proportion of registration and report submissions than the House for  manual review before entering the information into the database. As a  result, the Senate database would be slightly less current than the House  database on any given day pending review and clearance.
House staff told us during previous reviews that they rely heavily on  automated processing. In addition, while they manually review reports  that do not perfectly match information on file for a given lobbyist or client,  staff members will approve and upload such reports as originally filed by  each lobbyist, even if the reports contain errors or discrepancies (such as  a variant on how a name is spelled). Nevertheless, we do not have  reasons to believe that the content of the Senate and House systems  would vary substantially. Based on interviews with knowledgeable officials  and a review of documentation, we determined that House disclosure  data were sufficiently reliable for identifying a sample of quarterly  disclosure (LD-2) reports and for assessing whether newly filed lobbyists  also filed required reports. We used the House database for sampling LD- 2 reports from the third and fourth quarters of 2015 and the first and  second quarters of 2016, as well as for sampling year-end 2015 and  midyear 2016 political contributions (LD-203) reports. We also used the  database for matching quarterly registrations with filed reports. We did not  evaluate the Offices of the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the  House, both of which have key roles in the lobbying disclosure process.  However, we did consult with officials from each office. They provided us  with general background information at our request.
To assess the extent to which lobbyists could provide evidence of their  compliance with reporting requirements, we examined a stratified random  sample of 78 LD-2 reports from the third and fourth quarters of 2015 and  the first and second quarters of 2016. We excluded reports with no  lobbying activity or with income or expenses of less than $5,000 from our  sampling frame. We drew our sample from 46,540 activity reports filed  for the third and fourth quarters of 2015 and the first and second quarters  of 2016 available in the public House database, as of our final download  date for each quarter.
Our sample of LD-2 reports was not designed to detect differences over  time. However, we conducted tests of significance for changes from 2010  to 2016 for the generalizable elements of our review. We found that  results were generally consistent from year to year and there were few  statistically significant changes after using a Bonferroni adjustment to  account for multiple comparisons. For this year’s review, we identified  that the estimated change in the percent of LD-2 reports that provided  written documentation for the income and expenses from 2015 to 2016 is  notable but not statistically significant. We also compared the 2016  estimate to each of the prior years. These comparisons showed that the  estimated percentage of lobbyists who provided documentation for  income and expenses in 2016 does not represent a statistically significant  change from 2010, 2011, 2014, and 2015 but is statistically significantly  different from estimates for 2012 and 2013. These changes are identified  in the report. The inability to detect significant differences from year to  year in our results may be related to sampling error alone or the nature of  our sample, which was relatively small and was designed only for cross- sectional analysis.
Our sample is based on a stratified random selection and it is only one of  a large number of samples that we may have drawn. Because each  sample could have provided different estimates, we express our  confidence in the precision of our particular sample’s results as a 95  percent confidence interval. This interval would contain the actual  population value for 95 percent of the samples that we could have drawn.  The percentage estimates for LD-2 reports have 95 percent confidence  intervals of within plus or minus 12.5 percentage points or fewer of the  estimate itself.
We contacted all the lobbyists and lobbying firms in our sample and,  using a structured web-based survey, asked them to confirm key  elements of the LD-2 and whether they could provide written  documentation for key elements in their reports, including  the amount of income reported for lobbying activities,  the amount of expenses reported on lobbying activities,  the names of those lobbyists listed in the report,  the houses of Congress and federal agencies that they lobbied, and  the issue codes listed to describe their lobbying activity.
After reviewing the survey results for completeness, we interviewed  lobbyists and lobbying firms to review the documentation they reported as  having on their online survey for selected elements of their respective LD- 2 report.
Prior to each interview, we conducted a search to determine whether  lobbyists properly disclosed their covered position as required by the  LDA. We reviewed the lobbyists’ previous work histories by searching  lobbying firms’ websites, LinkedIn, Leadership Directories, Legistorm, and  Google. Prior to 2008, lobbyists were only required to disclose covered  official positions held within 2 years of registering as a lobbyist for the  client. The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007  amended that time frame to require disclosure of positions held 20 years  before the date the lobbyists first lobbied on behalf of the client. Lobbyists  are required to disclose previously held covered official positions either on  the client registration (LD-1) or on an LD-2 report. Consequently, those  who held covered official positions may have disclosed the information on  the LD-1 or a LD-2 report filed prior to the report we examined as part of  our random sample. Therefore, where we found evidence that a lobbyist  previously held a covered official position, and that information was not  disclosed on the LD-2 report under review, we conducted an additional  review of the publicly available Secretary of the Senate or Clerk of the  House database to determine whether the lobbyist properly disclosed the  covered official position on a prior report or LD-1. Finally, if a lobbyist  appeared to hold a covered position that was not disclosed, we asked for  an explanation at the interview with the lobbying firm to ensure that our  research was accurate.
In previous reports, we reported the lower bound of a 90 percent  confidence interval to provide a minimum estimate of omitted covered  positions and omitted contributions with a 95 percent confidence level.  We did so to account for the possibility that our searches may have failed  to identify all possible omitted covered positions and contributions. As we  have developed our methodology over time, we are more confident in the  comprehensiveness of our searches for these items. Accordingly, this  report presents the estimated percentages for omitted contributions and  omitted covered positions, rather than the minimum estimates. As a  result, percentage estimates for these items will differ slightly from the  minimum percentage estimates presented in prior reports.
In addition to examining the content of the LD-2 reports, we confirmed  whether the most recent LD-203 reports had been filed for each firm and  lobbyist listed on the LD-2 reports in our random sample. Although this  review represents a random selection of lobbyists and firms, it is not a  direct probability sample of firms filing LD-2 reports or lobbyists listed on  LD-2 reports. As such, we did not estimate the likelihood that LD-203  reports were appropriately filed for the population of firms or lobbyists  listed on LD-2 reports.
To determine if lobbyists met the LDA’s requirement to file a report in the  quarter of registration for the third and fourth quarters of 2015 and the first  and second quarters of 2016, we used data filed with the Clerk of the  House to match newly filed registrations with corresponding disclosure  reports. Using an electronic matching algorithm that includes strict and  loose text matching procedures, we identified matching disclosure reports  for 2,513, or 89.7 percent, of the 2,803 newly filed registrations. We  began by standardizing client and lobbyist names in both the report and  registration files (including removing punctuation and standardizing words  and abbreviations, such as “company” and “CO”). We then matched  reports and registrations using the House identification number (which is  linked to a unique lobbyist-client pair), as well as the names of the  lobbyist and client.
For reports we could not match by identification number and standardized  name, we also attempted to match reports and registrations by client and  lobbyist name, allowing for variations in the names to accommodate  minor misspellings or typos. For these cases, we used professional  judgment to determine whether cases with typos were sufficiently similar  to consider as matches. We could not readily identify matches in the  report database for the remaining registrations using electronic means.
To assess the accuracy of the LD-203 reports, we analyzed stratified  random samples of LD-203 reports from the 22,820 total LD-203 reports.  The first sample contains 80 reports of the 9,461 reports with political  contributions and the second contains 80 reports of the 18,126 reports  listing no contributions. Each sample contains 40 reports from the year- end 2015 filing period and 40 reports from the midyear 2016 filing period.  The samples from 2016 allow us to generalize estimates in this report to  either the population of LD-203 reports with contributions or the reports  without contributions to within a 95 percent confidence interval of within  plus or minus 9.6 percentage points or fewer. Although our sample of LD- 203 reports was not designed to detect differences over time, we  conducted tests of significance for changes from 2010 to 2016 and found  no statistically significant differences after adjusting for multiple  comparisons.
While the results provide some confidence that apparent fluctuations in  our results across years are likely attributable to sampling error, the  inability to detect significant differences may also be related to the nature  of our sample, which was relatively small and designed only for cross- sectional analysis. We analyzed the contents of the LD-203 reports and  compared them to contribution data found in the publicly available  Federal Elections Commission’s (FEC) political contribution database. We  consulted with staff at FEC responsible for administering the database.  We determined that the data are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of  our reporting objectives.
We compared the FEC-reportable contributions on the LD-203 reports  with information in the FEC database. The verification process required  text and pattern matching procedures so we used professional judgment  when assessing whether an individual listed is the same individual filing  an LD-203. For contributions reported in the FEC database and not on  the LD-203 report, we asked the lobbyists or organizations to explain why  the contribution was not listed on the LD-203 report or to provide  documentation of those contributions. As with covered positions on LD-2  disclosure reports, we cannot be certain that our review identified all  cases of FEC-reportable contributions that were inappropriately omitted  from a lobbyist’s LD-203 report. We did not estimate the percentage of  other non-FEC political contributions that were omitted because they tend  to constitute a small minority of all listed contributions and cannot be  verified against an external source.
To identify challenges to compliance, we used a structured web-based  survey and obtained the views from 73 different lobbying firms included in  our sample on any challenges to compliance. The number of different  lobbying firms is 73, which is less than our original sample of 80 reports  because some lobbying firms had more than 1 LD-2 report included in our  sample. We calculated responses based on the number of different  lobbying firms that we contacted rather than the number of interviews.  Prior to our calculations, we removed the duplicate lobbying firms based  on the most recent date of their responses. For those cases with the  same response date, the decision rule was to keep the cases with the  smallest assigned case identification number. To obtain their views, we  asked them to rate their ease with complying with the LD-2 disclosure  requirements using a scale of “very easy,” “somewhat easy,” “somewhat  difficult,” or “very difficult.” In addition, using the same scale we asked  them to rate the ease of understanding the terms associated with LD-2  reporting requirements.
To describe the resources and authorities available to USAO and its  efforts to improve its LDA enforcement, we interviewed USAO officials.  We obtained information on the capabilities of the system officials  established to track and report compliance trends and referrals and on  other practices established to focus resources on LDA enforcement.  USAO provided us with reports from the tracking system on the number  and status of referrals and chronically noncompliant lobbyists and  lobbying firms.
The mandate does not require us to identify lobbyists who failed to  register and report in accordance with the LDA requirements, or  determine for those lobbyists who did register and report whether all  lobbying activity or contributions were disclosed. Therefore, this was  outside the scope of our audit.
We conducted this performance audit from April 2016 to March 2017 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: List of Lobbyists and Clients for Sampled Lobbying Disclosure Reports
paragraphs: The random sample of lobbying disclosure reports we selected was  based on unique combinations of House ID, lobbyist, and client names  (see table 7).
section_title: Appendix III: List of Sampled Lobbying Contribution Reports with and without Contributions Listed
paragraphs: See table 8 for a list of the lobbyists and lobbying firms from our random  sample of lobbying contributions reports with contributions. See table 9  for a list of the lobbyists and lobbying firms from our random sample of  lobbying contribution reports without contributions.
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Clifton G. Douglas Jr. (Assistant  Director), Shirley Jones (Assistant General Counsel) and Katherine Wulff  (Analyst-In-Charge) supervised the development of this report. James  Ashley, Ann Czapiewski, Sara Daleski, Kathleen Jones, Hilary Kelly,  Krista Loose, Amanda Miller, Sharon Miller, Ulyana Panchishin, Stewart  W. Small, and AJ Stephens made key contributions to this report.
Assisting with lobbyist file reviews were Parul Aggarwal, Isabel Band,  Giny Cheong, Joshua Garties, Alexandra Gebhard, Erika Huber, Kerstin  Hudon, Emily Hutz, Cheryl Jones, Jessica Mausner, Joshua Miller, Alan  Rozzi, and Lauren Shaman.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists’ Compliance with New  Disclosure Requirements. GAO-08-1099. Washington, D.C.: September  30, 2008.  2008 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists’ Compliance with  Disclosure Requirements. GAO-09-487. Washington, D.C.: April 1, 2009.  2009 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists’ Compliance with  Disclosure Requirements. GAO-10-499. Washington, D.C.: April 1, 2010.  2010 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists’ Compliance with  Disclosure Requirements. GAO-11-452. Washington, D.C.: April 1, 2011.  2011 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists’ Compliance with  Disclosure Requirements. GAO-12-492. Washington, D.C.: March 30,  2012.  2012 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists’ Compliance with  Disclosure Requirements. GAO-13-437. Washington, D.C.: April 1, 2013.  2013 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists’ Compliance with  Disclosure Requirements. GAO-14-485. Washington, D.C.: May 28, 2014.  2014 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists’ Compliance with  Disclosure Requirements. GAO-15-310. Washington, D.C.: March 26,  2015.  2015 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists’ Compliance with  Disclosure Requirements. GAO-16-320. Washington, D.C.: March 24,  2016.