Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lobbying Disclosure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Government Operations committee reviews amendment expanding advertising disclosure requirements for lobbyists
Summary
A senate amendment would expand lobbying-advertising reporting year‑round and add new required details (issues/bills featured, persons named, and whether the ad expresses support/opposition), lowering ambiguity about campaign-elections overlap; committee members asked for more time and a lobbying witness before acting.
The Government Operations & Military Affairs committee heard a presentation on a senate amendment that would expand reporting requirements for paid advertising tied to lobbying.
Tim Devlin, who identified himself for the record as Tim Devlin, vice dean council, told the committee the amendment leaves current statutory definitions intact but adds reporting detail for advertising campaigns that meet the reporting threshold. "Any enacted or introduced bill or any issue featured in the advertisement or advertising campaign," he said, listing the new elements the report must include. Devlin said reports would still be required for advertising campaigns that total $1,000 or more.
The amendment keeps the existing $1,000-per-campaign reporting threshold and adds three required descriptions to the campaign report: which bills or issues are featured, any specific person featured, and whether the ad's content expresses support, opposition or neutrality toward a bill, issue or person.
Devlin also read a new subdivision that would avoid duplicative reporting when an advertisement already triggers campaign‑finance/electioneering disclosures under 17 BSA chapter 64, subchapter 4. "The advertisement report may not be filed if the lobbyist, lobbying firm or lobbying employer has already filed the necessary reports and disclosures required under 17 BSA chapter 64 subchapter 4 for the same advertisement or advertisement campaign," he said, explaining the intent was to recognize overlap with electioneering communications.
Committee members reacted cautiously. One member said, "This is a lot," and asked for time to review the amendment's new material; others requested a representative of the lobbying community or the amendment sponsor appear at a future meeting to explain real‑world impacts.
There was no formal motion or vote recorded in the committee on this item. The chair paused the discussion and asked members to reconvene after floor business so they could "digest" the changes and consider bringing a witness or sponsor back for clarification. The committee did not adopt or reject the amendment on the record during this meeting.
