Although the need for such action had long been apparent in Washington, it was not until 1946 that a federal statute was enacted for the regulation of general lobbying activities. Prior to that year, Congress had, on a number of occasions, investigated lobbying practices, and as a result had enacted measures which reached a limited number of groups engaged in them. The Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, the congressional act in 1936 affecting the shipping interests, and the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 were important regulatory measures, but they reached only a few of the groups exerting direct and continuous influence in Washington. The Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of August 2, 1946, is more general in its coverage; and it has been in force long enough for its effectiveness to be tested.
In this article, it is my purpose (1) to supply a brief historical background for the measure referred to; (2) to examine the statute's provisions; (3) to appraise the objections raised to it; (4) to examine the actual administration of the act and point out the difficulties of enforcement, particularly during its first year; and (5) to offer recommendations for strengthening the law.
Type American Government and Politics Information American Political Science Review , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , April 1948 , pp. 239 - 271 Copyright © American Political Science Association 1948Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)
1 S. 1095, 70th Cong., 1st Sess.
2 Senate Report 342, 70th Cong., 1st Sess., 1928, pp. 2, 3.
3 House Report 2081, 74th Cong., 2nd Sess, p. 3. An earlier investigation of lobbying practices in which the National Association of Manufacturers figured prominently occurred in 1913. Cf. House Report 113, 63rd Cong., 2nd Sess.
4 House Report 2925, June 2, 1936.
5 U. S. Code, 1940, title 15, ch. 2C, secs. 79(h) and 79(i). See also Forms U-12(1)—A and B of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
6 See U. S. Code, title 46, sec. 1225; U. S. Maritime Commission General Order No. 9, July 13, 1937; and Forms 807–1 and 807–2, together with accompanying instructions for such forms.
7 U. S. Code, title 22, secs. 611–621; Executive Order No. 9176, Federal Register, Vol. 7, June, 1942, p. 4127. See Report of Attorney-General to the Congress of the United States on the Administration of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 as amended for the period from June 28, 1942, to December 31, 1944 (June, 1945). Also Ettinger , Karl E. , “ Foreign Propaganda in America ,” Public Opinion Quarterly , Vol. 10 (Fall, 1946 ), pp. 329 – 342 .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 U. S. Code, title 18, sec. 241a, approved January 13, 1940.
9 A fuller story of the state lobby laws has been told elsewhere. See especially Logan , E. B. , “ Lobbying ,” Supplement to the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , July, 1929 Google Scholar ; Zeller , Belle , “State Regulation of Lobbying,” in The Book of the States, 1948–49 , pp. 124 – 130 Google Scholar ; Zeller , Belle , Pressure Politics in New York ( 1937 ), pp. 251 – 262 Google Scholar , for detailed examination of the administration of the New York State lobbying law.
10 New York Times, Mar. 24, 1946.
11 Brewer , F. M. , “ Congressional Lobbying ,” Editorial Research Reports , Vol. 1 , No. 18 (May 8, 1946 ), p. 320 .Google Scholar
12 Cong. Rec., Vol. 92, p. 2156.
13 This resolution, H. Res. 557, and another similar in purpose, H. Res. 416, introduced earlier by Representative Smith of Maine, did not pass.
14 The Reorganization of Congress; A Report of the Committee on Congress of the American Political Science Association (1945), p. 80.
15 Hearings before the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, 4 parts, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., March 13, 1945, to June 29, 1945. See especially helpful comments of George H. E. Smith, research assistant to the Senate minority leader at page 411 of these hearings. After the close of the hearings, the writer submitted to the Joint Committee, upon request, a memorandum on the subject of “Federal Regulation of Lobbies.” For the text of this memorandum, see Print of Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, June, 1946, pp. 65–69, and Galloway , George B. , Congress at the Crossroads ( 1946 ), pp. 302 – 307 .Google Scholar
16 Senate Report 1011, 79th Cong., 2nd Sess, p. 27.
17 Public Law 601 (Senate Bill 2177), 79th Cong., 2nd Sess.
18 Senate Report No. 1400, 79th Cong., 2nd Sess., May 31, 1946, p. 27.
19 Cong. Rec., Vol. 80, p. 9751.
20 Screws v. United States, 325 U. S. 91, at p. 136: “It is axiomatic, of course, that a criminal statute must give a clear and unmistakable warning as to the acts which will subject one to criminal punishment. And courts are without power to supply that which Congress has left vague.”
21 Senate Report No. 1400, 79th Cong., 2nd Sess., p. 28.
22 For an examination and interpretation of the provisions of the Federal Lobbying Act, see the brief filed on January 28, 1948, by the National Association of Manufacturers in the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia. See also Columbia Law Review, Vol. 47, Jan. 1947, pp. 98–109; Yale Law Journal, Vol. 56, Jan. 1947, pp. 304–332.
23 Cong. Rec., Vol. 92, July 25, 1946, p. 10138; on June 17, 1936, Representative Smith said: “It [the lobbying bill] does not apply to organizations formed for other purposes whose efforts to influence legislation are merely incidental to the purposes for which formed….” (Cf. Cong. Rec., Vol. 80, p. 9751.)
24 Contrast this language with that of Representative Smith, who sponsored lobbying legislation ten years earlier: “The amendment proposes to change that language by striking out the words ‘in whole or in part’ and by inserting the word ‘principally.’ The reason for that amendment is, it was brought to my attention, and I think to the attention of other members of the committee, that there were many organizations of national scope who have large memberships of thousands and some of millions of members organized principally for other purposes than affecting legislation, but many of those organizations do from time to time become interested in legislation, and they undertake to do something about it. It was not thought necessary or proper that that class of organization, because a minor part of its funds were devoted to purposes of influencing legislation, should be required to report all of the dues of their hundreds of thousands of members, and for that reason this amendment is proposed so that it would not apply except where the money is collected for the principal purpose of undertaking to influence legislation or the election of Federal officers….” Cf. Cong. Rec., Vol. 80, March 27, 1936, p. 4535.
Unlike the bills sponsored by Senator Caraway in the 70th Congress and Senator Black in the 74th Congress, the lobbying act of 1946 does not specifically define lobbying. It may, of course, be construed that the acts and practices under the Statutes that require the filing of statements may be called lobbying. In Senate bill 1095 of the 70th Congress: “A lobbyist, within the meaning of this act, is one who shall engage, for pay, to attempt to influence legislation, or to prevent legislation, by the National Congress.” In Senate bill 2512 of the 74th Congress: “Lobbying … shall consist of any effort to influence the action of Congress upon any matter coming before it, whether it be by distributing literature, appearing before committees of Congress, or interviewing or seeking to interview individual members of either House of Representatives or the Senate.”
These definitions were patterned after the broader one in the House report of 1913, which defined lobbying as the “activities of a person or a body of persons seeking to influence Congress in any way whatever.” Cf. House Report 113, 63rd Cong., 2nd Sess., 1913, p. 15.