For some time, the Washington Post has argued for disclosure of "bundling."  An individual who collects and transmits checks would provide relevant information about the activity, such as dates and total amounts.  The rationale, repeated by the Post this morning ("Bundles of Influence" at A14), is that the amount raised is more telling, because it is more influential, than the individual check signed.  In today’s editorial, the Post is pleased that change may be on the way, as Senators Obama and Feingold propose an amendment to the leadership package to require this and other disclosure by lobbyists, including disclosure of fundraising events "arranged."

      If this measure passes, it would mark another advance in the direction of Congressional regulation, through rule or federal lobbying law, of Member campaign finance activity.  The House has approved a rule prohibiting the payment of campaign funds, for campaign travel, on certain private aircraft, intended to bar most of the condemned uses of corporate aircraft.  This restriction limits Members beyond any restriction now in force under federal campaign finance laws that sanction campaign fund payment for private plane travel but regulate the fares.  The FEC has considered and made changes to its rules but none as extensive as the House rule.  Congress did not elect to address the issue as part of the package of reforms in the McCain Feingold legislation.

      The FEC has also maintained on the books for decades a provision that would compel disclosure of bundling, or "conduit" contributions.  11 C.F.R. § 110.6.  Under those rules, the conduit, i.e. the bundler, would have to report these contributions to the FEC and the candidate, and the candidate to whom the funds are transmitted would have to identify the "conduit" on their reports.  There is some reporting under this rule but not much.  One reason is some measure of uncertainty about where a candidate’s own fundraising ends and a "bundler’s" begins.  In other words, if a candidate seeks out the fundraising assistance of an individual, is the individual’s support part of the campaign’s own efforts, reportable by the campaign, or is this "conduit" activity subject to separate disclosure?

     At any rate, with a measure like Obama-Feingold, the Senate would ensure that, for one class of donors raising money for one class of candidates, bundling disclosure would have new life.  Lobbyists who bundle or arrange fundraising events for incumbent candidates would have to publicly report this activity.  In the years ahead, it should become clear whether this action by rule, initially effective only for incumbents, will more generally drive the development of the law.  There is no obvious reason why bundling, even by lobbyists, should be any less a matter of concern to its critics if it is conducted for the benefit of challengers.  Or for political party or other committees.  The logic of this reform would seen to compel application of the principle to a broader range of donors—for example, to the President of the Company retaining lobbyists, and not just to the lobbyists themselves. 

     This logic, once accepted for certain campaign finance issues such as bundling, can be employed in addressing others.  Within the Obama-Feingold measure, for example, is a proposed rule that would limit the entertainment of Members at national party conventions.

     Whether changes in House and Senate rules or the lobbying laws, enacted by incumbents to govern their own activities, will move the campaign finance laws more generally is a question that only the years ahead will answer.  But there is some chance of it.

Bob Bauer