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 reviewed December 15, 2014. The last revision was on February 15, 2013, to (among other issues) update the reporting thresholds for inflation. The guidance provides definitions of terms in the LDA, elaborates on the registration and reporting requirements, includes specific examples of different scenarios, and provides explanations of why certain scenarios prompt or do not prompt disclosure under the LDA. The Secretary of the Senate and 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 on common compliance issues and 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 one lobbying contact (written or oral communication to a covered executive or legislative branch official 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. 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 over $3,000 in income from that client for lobbying activities. Lobbyists are also required to submit a quarterly report, also known as an LD-2 report (LD-2), for each registration filed. The LD-2s contain information that includes: the name of the lobbyist reporting on quarterly lobbying activities and 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 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 they made contributions equal to or exceeding $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 that 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. Generally, under the LDA, within 45 days of being employed or retained to make a lobbying contact on behalf of a client, the lobbyist must register by filing an LD-1 form with the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate. Thereafter, the lobbyist must file quarterly disclosure (LD-2) reports detailing the lobbying activities. Of the 2,950 new registrations we identified for the third and fourth quarters of 2013 and first and second quarters of 2014, we matched 2,659 of them (90 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 and used an electronic matching algorithm that allows for misspellings and other minor inconsistencies between the registrations and reports. Figure 1 shows lobbyists filed disclosure reports as required for most new lobbying registrations from 2010 through 2014. For selected elements of lobbyists’ LD-2 reports that can be generalized to the population of lobbying reports, unless otherwise noted, our findings have been consistent from year to year. We used tests that adjusted for multiple comparisons to assess the statistical significance of changes over time. 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 93 percent of LD-2 reports provided written documentation for the income and expenses reported for the third and fourth quarters of 2013 and the first and second quarters of 2014. Figure 2 shows that for most LD-2 reports, lobbyists provided documentation for income and expenses for sampled reports from 2010 through 2014. Figure 3 shows that for some LD-2 reports, lobbyists rounded their income or expenses incorrectly. We identified 21 percent of reports as having rounding errors. We have found that rounding difficulties have been a recurring issue for LD-2 reports from 2010 through 2014.lobbyists who reported 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 2014, 6 percent of lobbyists reported the exact amount of income or expenses. Lobbyists for an estimated 94 percent of LD-2 reports filed year-end 2013 reports for all lobbyists listed on the report as required. All but two lobbying firm filed LD-203s for the lobbying firm itself before we preformed our check. The firm that had not filed an LD-203 filed one as soon as we brought it to the firm’s attention. The other firm did not respond to our request for the information about filing the LD-203. Figure 8 shows that lobbyists for most lobbying firms filed contribution reports as required in our sample from 2010 through 2014. All individual lobbyists and lobbying firms reporting lobbying activity are required to file LD-203 reports semiannually, even if they have no contributions to report, because they must certify compliance with the gift and travel rules. The LDA requires a lobbyist to disclose previously held covered positions 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 14 percent of all LD-2 reports did not properly disclose one or more previously held covered positions as required. Figure 9 shows the extent to which lobbyists failed to properly disclose one or more covered positions as required from 2010 through 2014. Lobbyists amended 19 of the 100 LD- 2 disclosure reports in our original sample to make changes to previously reported information after we contacted them. Of the 19 reports, 10 were amended after we notified the lobbyists of our review, but before we met with them. An additional 9 of the 19 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. As part of our review, we compared contributions listed on lobbyists’ and lobbying firms’ LD-203 reports against those political contributions reported in the 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 2014, lobbyists failed to disclose one or more reportable contributions on 4 percent of reports. Table 2 illustrates that from 2010 through 2014 most lobbyists disclosed FEC reportable contributions on their LD-203 reports as required. In 2014, nine LD-203 reports were amended in response to our review. As part of our review, 93 different lobbying firms were included in our 2014 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 93 different lobbying firms in our sample, 16 reported that the disclosure requirements were “very easy,” 54 reported them “somewhat easy,” and 13 reported them “somewhat difficult” or “very difficult”. (See figure 10). 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 11 through 15 show what lobbyists reported as their ease of understanding the terms associated with LD-2 reporting requirements from 2010 through 2014. USAO officials stated that they continue to have sufficient personnel resources and authority under the LDA to enforce reporting requirements, including 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 assigned full time, as well as five civil attorneys and one criminal attorney assigned part time for LDA compliance work. In addition, USAO officials stated that the USAO participates in a program that provides Special Assistant United States Attorneys (SAUSA) to the 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, 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. USAO attempts to review pending cases every 6 months, according to officials. 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 filling 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. As of February 26, 2015, USAO has received 2,308 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 2014. Table 3 shows the number and status of the referrals received and the number of enforcement actions taken by USAO in its effort to bring lobbying firms into compliance. Enforcement actions include the number of letters, e-mails, and calls made by USAO. About 52 percent (1,196 of 2,308) 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. Therefore no action was taken. This may occur when lobbying firms respond to the contact letters from the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House after USAO has received the referrals. About 48 percent (1,101 of 2,308) of referrals are pending further action because USAO was unable to locate the lobbying firm, did not receive a response from the firm, 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. LD-203 referrals consist of two 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. As of February 26, 2015, USAO had received 1,551 LD-203(R) referrals and 2,745 LD-203 referrals from the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House for lobbying firms and lobbyists for noncompliance with reporting requirements cumulatively for calendar years 2009 through 2014. 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, lobbyists employed by a lobbying firm typically use the firm’s contact information and not the lobbyists personal contact information. This makes it difficult to locate a lobbyist who may have left the firm. USAO reported that, while many firms have assisted it 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. While USAO utilizes web searches and online databases including LinkedIn, Lexis/Nexis, Glass Door, Facebook and the Sunlight Foundation websites to find these missing lobbyists, 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 in its effort to bring lobbying firms into compliance. About 46 percent (714 of 1,551) of the lobbying firms referred by the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House for noncompliance from 2009 through 2014 reporting periods are now considered compliant because firms either have filed their reports or have terminated their registrations. About 54 percent (836 of 1,551) of the referrals are pending further action. Table 5 shows that as of February 26, 2015, USAO had received 2,745 LD-203 referrals from the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House for lobbyists who failed to comply with LD-203 reporting requirements for calendar years 2009 through 2014. It also shows the status of the referrals received and the number of enforcement actions taken by USAO in its effort to bring lobbyists into compliance. In addition, table 5 shows that 44 percent (1,211 of 2,745) of the lobbyists had come into compliance by filing their reports or are no longer registered as a lobbyist. About 56 percent (1,525 of 2,745) of the referrals are pending further action because USAO was unable to locate the lobbyist, did not receive a response from the lobbyist, or plans to conduct additional research to determine if it can locate the lobbyist. Table 6 shows that as of February 26, 2015, USAO had received LD-203 referrals from the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House for 3,841 lobbyists who failed to comply with LD-203 reporting requirements for any filing year from 2009 through 2014. Table 6 shows the status of compliance for individual lobbyists listed on referrals to USAO. Table 6 shows that 48 percent (1,861 of 3,841 of the lobbyists had come into compliance by filing their reports or are no longer registered as a lobbyist. About 52 percent (1,980 of 3,841) 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. 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, which 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 finalized a settlement in the amount of $30,000 for Alan Mauk & Alan Mauk Associates, Ltd to address failure to file for several years. According to officials USAO is close to finalizing a settlement with another firm for repeated failure to file. We provided a draft of this report to the Attorney General for review and comment. The Department of Justice provided a technical comment, which we incorporated into the draft 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) 512-6806 or mihmj@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. 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 enforcement of the LDA. 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. For this review, 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 2013 and the first and second quarters of 2014, as well as for sampling year-end 2013 and mid-year 2014 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 100 LD-2 reports from the third and fourth quarters of 2013 and the first and second quarters of 2014. 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 46,599 activity reports filed for the third and fourth quarters of 2013 and the first and second quarters of 2014 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 2014 for the generalizable elements of our review and 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. These changes are identified in the report. 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 was designed only for cross-sectional analysis. A Bonferroni adjustment is a statistical adjustment designed to reduce the chance of making a type 1 inferential error, that is, concluding that a difference exists when it is instead an artifact of sampling error. The adjustment raises the threshold for concluding that any single difference is “statistically significant” so that overall the chance of making at least one type-1 error when making multiple comparisons does not exceed a specified level. population value for 95 percent of the samples that we could have drawn. The percentage estimates for LD-2 reports have a 95 percent confidence intervals of within plus or minus 12.1 percentage points or less 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 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 conducted interviews with the lobbyists and lobbying firms to review documentation they reported as having on their online survey for selected elements of their 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 it 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 the LDA’s requirement for lobbyists to file a report in the quarter of registration was met for the third and fourth quarters of 2013 and the first and second quarters of 2014, 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 2,659, or 90 percent, of the 2,950 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 30,524 total LD-203 reports. The first sample contains 80 reports of the 9,787 reports with political contributions and the second contains 80 reports of the 20,737 reports listing no contributions. Each sample contains 40 reports from the year- end 2013 filing period and 40 reports from the midyear 2014 filing period. The samples from 2014 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 plus or minus 9.5 percentage points or less. 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 2014 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 is sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We compared the FEC-reportable contributions reporting 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 93 different lobbying firms included in our sample on any challenges to compliance. The number of different lobbying firms total 93 and is less than our sample of 100 reports because some lobbying firms had more than one LD-2 report included in our sample. We calculated our 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 the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia (USAO) and its efforts to improve its enforcement of the LDA, we interviewed officials from USAO. We obtained information on the capabilities of the system officials established to track and report compliance trends and referrals, and other practices established to focus resources on enforcement of the LDA. USAO provided us with updated 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. We conducted this performance audit from June 2014 to March 2015 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. The random sample of lobbying disclosure reports we selected was based on unique combinations of lobbyist and client names (see table 7). 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. In addition to the contact named above, Bill Reinsberg (Assistant Director), Shirley Jones (Assistant General Counsel) and Katherine Wulff (analyst-in-charge) supervised the development of this report. Amy Bowser, Crystal Bernard, Kathleen Jones, Davis Judson, Stuart Kaufman, and Anna Maria Ortiz made key contributions to this report. Assisting with lobbyist file reviews were Dawn Bidne, Linda Collins, Joseph Fread, Ricky Harrison Jr, Shirley Hwang, Melissa King, Barbara Lancaster, Courtney Liesener, Heidi Nielson, Patricia Norris, Alan Rozzi, Karissa Schafer, Sarah Sheehan, Angela Smith, Natalie Swabb, and Nell Williams. 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.

Summary: LDA 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) audit 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 eighth report under the mandate. GAO reviewed a stratified random sample of 100 quarterly disclosure LD-2 reports filed for the third and fourth quarters of calendar year 2013 and the first and second quarters of calendar year 2014. GAO also reviewed two random samples totaling 160 LD-203 reports from year-end 2013 and midyear 2014. This methodology allowed GAO to generalize to the population of 46,599 disclosure reports with $5,000 or more in lobbying activity, and 30,524 reports of federal political campaign contributions. GAO also 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 a technical comment, which GAO incorporated as appropriate. For the 2014 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 and political contributions (LD-203) reports filed during the third and fourth quarter of 2013 and the first and second quarter of 2014, GAO estimates that 90 percent of lobbyists filed initial LD-2 reports as required for new lobbying registrations (lobbyists are required to file LD-2 reports for the quarter in which they first register). 93 percent could provide documentation for income and expenses. However, 21 percent of these LD-2 reports were not properly rounded to the nearest $10,000 and 6 percent of those reports listed the exact amount. 94 percent filed year-end 2013 reports as required. 14 percent of all LD-2 reports did not properly disclose one or more previously held covered positions (certain positions in the executive and legislative branches) as required. 4 percent of all LD-203 reports omitted one or more reportable political contributions that were documented in the Federal Election Commission database. These findings are generally consistent with prior reports GAO issued for the 2010 through 2013 reporting periods and can be generalized to the population of disclosure reports. 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 with regard to meeting their reporting requirements. However, some disclosure reports demonstrate compliance difficulties, such as failure to disclose covered positions or misreporting of income or expenses. In addition, lobbyists amended 19 of 100 original disclosure reports in GAO's sample, changing information previously reported. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia (USAO) stated it has sufficient resources and authority to enforce LD-2 and LD-203 compliance with LDA. It has one contract paralegal working full time and six attorneys working part time on LDA enforcement issues. USAO continued its efforts to follow up on referrals for noncompliance with lobbying disclosure requirements by contacting lobbyists by e-mail, telephone, and letter. Also, USAO has finalized a settlement with a lobbyist to resolve multiple instances of noncompliance and is in the process of finalizing another settlement.