Senate Ethics Committee Responds to Democracy 21 Request on
November 22, 2005 for Committee Investigation of Jack Abramoff and
Intervention by Senators at the Interior Department

On November 22, 2005, Democracy 21 wrote to the Senate Ethics Committee calling for an ethics investigation 'to determine whether Senators engaged in official acts to influence a case-specific regulatory matter at the Interior Department that benefited lobbyist Jack Abramoff's clients, and received contributions and financial favors from Abramoff and these clients, in violation of Senate ethics rules.'

In a letter sent today to Democracy 21 by the Senate Ethics Committee, the Committee stated that it 'has decided to defer, at this time, its determinations as to the allegations referred to in your November 22, 2005, letter to the Committee and in other press accounts about the Abramoff matter.'

The Senate Ethics Committee letter also revealed that 'the Department of Justice has made the Committee aware that it has concerns about the impact an Ethics Committee investigation may have on the Department's ongoing criminal investigation into Abramoff-related matters.'

A copy of the Senate Ethics Committee letter is enclosed and a copy of the November 22, 2005 letter from Democracy 21 to the Committee is available at www.democracy21.org.

The Democracy 21 letter was sent to the Senate Ethics Committee last November, following an Associated Press story (November 17, 2005), which reported that 'numerous Representatives and Senators intervened in a case-specific regulatory matter with Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton to urge the Interior Department to reject a request from the Jena tribe of Choctaw Indians for a new casino in Louisiana.' (A similar request for an ethics investigation was also sent to the House Ethics Committee last November. No response has been received from the House Committee.)

According to the AP story, 'Nearly three dozen members of Congress, including leaders from both parties, pressed the government to block a Louisiana Indian tribe from opening a casino while the lawmakers collected large donations from rival tribes and their lobbyist, Jack Abramoff.'

According to today's Senate Ethics Committee letter to Democracy 21:

As a matter of general practice, and absent special circumstances, where the Committee has sufficient reason to believe that a law enforcement entity is conducting a criminal investigation in a matter that may overlap with matters of potential interest to the Committee in carrying out its investigative authority, the Committee will defer action on its part pending resolution of the criminal investigation. Moreover, the Department of Justice has made the Committee aware that it has concerns about the impact an Ethics Committee investigation may have on the Department's ongoing criminal investigation into Abramoff-related matters.

The Senate Ethics Committee letter further stated, 'Therefore, based upon the Committee's general practice, and upon consideration of the views of the Department of Justice, the Committee has decided to defer, at this time, its determinations as to the allegations referred to in your November 22, 2005, letter to the Committee and in other press accounts about the Abramoff matter.'

According to Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer, 'While we appreciate the Senate Ethics Committee responding to our letter, we remain deeply concerned that to the public's knowledge, there has not been any investigation in this Congress by the Senate Ethics Committee or the House Ethics Committee of any of the lobbying scandals relating to lobbyist Jack Abramoff's improper conduct on Capitol Hill involving Members and congressional staff.'

'The failure to conduct any congressional ethics inquiry into the Abramoff scandal and the complete collapse of the House Ethics Committee make clear why it is essential to establish an independent, nonpartisan Office of Public Integrity in Congress, as set forth in legislation introduced yesterday by Representatives Christopher Shays (R-CT) and Marty Meehan (D-MA),'Wertheimer stated.

'Previous major congressional scandals have involved both criminal investigations and ethics committee investigations and both are surely called for in the Abramoff affair which could turn out to be the biggest congressional scandal of modern times,'Wertheimer stated.

'The Justice Department and the congressional ethics committees each have their own responsibilities here, both of which are extremely important and must be carried out,'Wertheimer stated. 'The Justice Department is responsible for pursuing violations of the criminal laws. The ethics committees are responsible for ensuring that members of Congress comply with congressional ethics rules, regardless of whether any laws have been broken.'

According to Wertheimer, 'In the end, there must be a comprehensive ethics investigation in Congress to determine whether Members and congressional staff violated congressional ethics rules in their dealings with Jack Abramoff.'

According to Wertheimer, 'Democracy 21 will contact the Justice Department to request that they make clear the parameters of their 'concerns about the impact an Ethics Committee investigation may have on the Department's ongoing criminal investigation into Abramoff-related matters,' as stated in the Senate Ethics Committee letter.'

'We also will continue to pursue congressional ethics investigations of the Interior Department case addressed in our November 22, 2005 letters to the Senate and House Ethics Committees, and of the entire Jack Abramoff affair, until members of Congress fulfill their responsibilities to the institution and the American people,'Wertheimer stated.

In a footnote, the Senate Ethics Committee letter pointed out that 'Neither this decision to defer, nor any statement in this letter, should be taken to indicate that the Committee has made any determination as to whether the allegations in your letter, or related allegations, against any named Member or Senate employee have merit or provide a sufficient basis for the undertaking of an inquiry by the Committee.'




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


February 17, 2006

Dear Mr. Wertheimer:

This responds to your November 22, 2005, letter to the Senate Select Committee on Ethics referencing allegations in a November 17, 2005, Associated Press story that 'Nearly three dozen members of Congress, including leaders from both parties, pressed the government to block a Louisiana Indian tribe from opening a casino while the lawmakers collected large donations from rival tribes and their lobbyist, Jack Abramoff.' In your letter you also quote the AP story as stating that 'Many intervened with letters to Interior Secretary Gale Norton within days of receiving money from tribes represented by Abramoff or using the lobbyist's restaurant for fund-raising....' You further cite the AP story as stating that 'there were nine Senators 'who wrote letters urging the Bush administration to reject a Louisiana Indian casino as they collected political money from rival tribes, their lobbyists Jack Abramoff and his associates between 2001 and 2004.' You specifically cite Members of both political parties in your letter.

Your letter 'calls on the Senate Ethics Committee to promptly investigate these latest revelations about the activities of Jack Abramoff and the serious questions raised by the AP story about whether Senators violated Senate ethics rules in this matter.' The Committee is also aware of other reports in the press concerning alleged improper conduct by Senate Members and staff in connection with lobbying and fund-raising by Jack Abramoff and other associated with him.

As a matter of general practice, and absent special circumstances, where the Committee has sufficient reason to believe that a law enforcement entity is conducting a criminal investigation in a matter that may overlap with matters of potential interest to the Committee in carrying out its investigative authority, the Committee will defer action on its part pending resolution of the criminal investigation. Moreover, the Department of Justice has made the Committee aware that it has concerns about the impact an Ethics Committee investigation may have on the Department's ongoing criminal investigation into Abramoff-related matters.

Therefore, based upon the Committee's general practice, and upon consideration of the views of the Department of Justice, the Committee has decided to defer, at this time, its determinations as to the allegations referred to in your November 22, 2005, letter to the Committee and in other press accounts about the Abramoff matter*.

The Committee takes with the utmost seriousness its duty to investigate and, when merited, undertake other appropriate Committee action when it receives a competent complaint, allegation of, or other information about misconduct by a Member, officer or employee of the Senate. The Committee also fully appreciates the significant level of public concern that exists regarding 'Abramoff-related' allegations. The Committee believes strongly, however, that the interest of the American public in this matter will be best served at this time by allowing the criminal investigation to proceed without the risk of being impeded, even if unintentionally, by a potentially overlapping, non-criminal investigation by this Committee. By proceeding in this manner the Committee also expects that any related investigation it may undertake would be more efficient, more effective and more comprehensive.

Thank you for your interest in these serious matters. The Committee welcomes any further information or discussion you may wish to provide.

Sincerely,

George V. Voinovich Tim Johnson
Chairman Vice Chairman


*Neither this decision to defer, nor any statement in this letter, should be taken to indicate that the Committee has made any determination as to whether the allegations in your letter, or related allegations, against any named Member or Senate employee have merit or provide a sufficient basis for the undertaking of an inquiry by the Committee.

Capital Bits & Pieces Vol. VI , No. 17 Released: Friday, February 17, 2006

Contact: Elenia Saloutsi
202-429-2008
esaloutsi@democracy21.org

For the latest reform news and to access previous reports, releases, and analysis from Democracy 21, visit www.democracy21.org.

Growing Role for Lobbyists: Raising Funds for Lawmakers
Friday, January 27, 2006

LINK

An article appeared today in The Wall Street Journal entitled, "Growing Role for Lobbyists: Raising Funds for Lawmakers.'

The article begins, 'Nearly three years ago, Gregg Hartley left his job as a top aide to Republican Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri to become a lobbyist. Mr. Hartley began helping companies like BellSouth Corp., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Viacom Inc. get audiences with Mr. Blunt and other top House Republicans and win some important legislative battles.'

The article continues, 'At the same time, Mr. Hartley was helping his old Capitol Hill boss raise campaign money and offering him political advice. Mr. Hartley is now assisting Mr. Blunt in his bid to succeed Rep. Tom DeLay as House majority leader. For the last three weeks, the lobbyist has offered strategic advice during regular visits to Mr. Blunt's office in the U.S. Capitol, according to people familiar with the meetings.'

The article adds, 'Mr. Hartley's dual roles highlight a practice that is becoming more common in Washington: Lobbyists are serving as principal fund-raisers for lawmakers they're trying to sway.'

According to the article, 'The Justice Department public-corruption and bribery case against lobbyist Jack Abramoff and a half-dozen members of Congress has refocused attention on the financial ties between lawmakers and lobbyists. While Mr. Abramoff's lobbying activities crossed the line into illegality, the practice of lobbyists raising large amounts of money for lawmakers is both legal and commonplace in Washington today.'

The article states, 'Federal Election Commission records show that 71 lawmakers now list lobbyists as treasurers of their re-election or political action committees. In 1998, the number was just 15, according to a review of FEC reports by the Center for Public Integrity. Lawmakers attribute the change to the sharply rising costs of running campaigns.'

The article continues, 'In the wake of the current lobbying scandal, lawmakers from both parties have been scrambling to introduce bills to reform the lobbying industry. But none of the leading proposals would ban lobbyists from continuing their fund-raising activities for members of Congress.'

According to the article, 'We are carping on trifles here,' said Sen. Richard J. Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, during a Senate hearing on lobbying reform Wednesday. 'Why is it that we warm up to all these lobbyists? It isn't for a meal . . . . We know when it comes time to finance our campaigns, we're going to be knocking on those same doors.'

The Wall Street Journal
Growing Role for Lobbyists:
Raising Funds for Lawmakers
By Brody Mullins
January 27, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Nearly three years ago, Gregg Hartley left his job as a top aide to Republican Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri to become a lobbyist. Mr. Hartley began helping companies like BellSouth Corp., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Viacom Inc. get audiences with Mr. Blunt and other top House Republicans and win some important legislative battles.

At the same time, Mr. Hartley was helping his old Capitol Hill boss raise campaign money and offering him political advice. Mr. Hartley is now assisting Mr. Blunt in his bid to succeed Rep. Tom DeLay as House majority leader. For the last three weeks, the lobbyist has offered strategic advice during regular visits to Mr. Blunt's office in the U.S. Capitol, according to people familiar with the meetings.

Mr. Hartley's dual roles highlight a practice that is becoming more common in Washington: Lobbyists are serving as principal fund-raisers for lawmakers they're trying to sway. Bruce Gates, the top political strategist for Mr. Blunt's main rival to become Majority Leader, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, also is a lobbyist for private clients. William Oldaker, a lobbyist with numerous health-care clients, oversees fund raising for two dozen Democratic lawmakers, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts.

The Justice Department public-corruption and bribery case against lobbyist Jack Abramoff and a half-dozen members of Congress has refocused attention on the financial ties between lawmakers and lobbyists. While Mr. Abramoff's lobbying activities crossed the line into illegality, the practice of lobbyists raising large amounts of money for lawmakers is both legal and commonplace in Washington today.

Federal Election Commission records show that 71 lawmakers now list lobbyists as treasurers of their re-election or political action committees. In 1998, the number was just 15, according to a review of FEC reports by the Center for Public Integrity. Lawmakers attribute the change to the sharply rising costs of running campaigns.

In the long-running debate about whether lobbying money corrupts politics, Mr. Hartley's relationship with Mr. Blunt shows how deeply the financial ties run between Capitol Hill and the lobbyists on K Street. Advocates of change argue that lawmakers who rely on lobbyists become unduly beholden to them, and thus more willing to help their clients.

"By putting a lobbyist in charge of your political operations, you are conflicted from the start," argues Alex Knott of the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity, which favors reducing the role of money in politics.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Blunt says there's nothing wrong with the congressman's close relationship with the lobbyist. In the leadership race, says his spokeswoman, Jessica Boulanger, the only involvement of Mr. Hartley "has been in the capacity of an old friend." Mr. Hartley hasn't called other members of Congress on Mr. Blunt's behalf, she notes. Mr. Blunt declines to comment. Mr. Hartley declines to discuss his fund-raising activities.

In the wake of the current lobbying scandal, lawmakers from both parties have been scrambling to introduce bills to reform the lobbying industry. But none of the leading proposals would ban lobbyists from continuing their fund-raising activities for members of Congress. House Speaker Dennis Hastert wants to ban lawmakers from accepting privately financed trips. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist would prohibit lawmakers' spouses and children from lobbying.

"We are carping on trifles here," said Sen. Richard J. Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, during a Senate hearing on lobbying reform Wednesday. "Why is it that we warm up to all these lobbyists? It isn't for a meal.... We know when it comes time to finance our campaigns, we're going to be knocking on those same doors."

The lobbying reform legislation proposed by Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican, wouldn't ban lobbyists from raising money for members of Congress. But it would require them to disclose when they host fund-raisers for politicians. Rick Davis, the Republican lobbyist who helps run Mr. McCain's political operations, notes: "You would be hard pressed to find a single important lobbyist who is not involved in fund raising."

Lobbyists say they aren't violating any rules by moonlighting as fund-raisers. "I'm not a rule maker, I'm a game player," says David Girard-diCarlo, a managing partner at Philadelphia-based law firm Blank Rome who serves as national finance director for Republican Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. Blank Rome has numerous lobbying clients. Mr. Girard-diCarlo oversees a group of more than 40 Washington lobbyists who hope to raise $4 million for Mr. Santorum's re-election bid. "The senator is most appreciative" of such fund-raising help, says Mr. Santorum's spokesman, Robert Traynham.

In addition to providing help with direct fund raising, Mr. Hartley is one of many lobbyists also helping members of Congress to raise money for specialized funding organizations called leadership PACs. Mr. Blunt and hundreds of other lawmakers in both parties have formed such PACs in order to help fellow party members facing close re-election races. Under federal election rules, lawmakers cannot donate more than $4,200 per election cycle from their own re-election coffers to the campaign of any colleague. But they can funnel as much as $10,000 per election cycle from leadership PACs to another campaign.

Reciprocal Support

In practice, such financial support from politically secure lawmakers for the re-election efforts of vulnerable colleagues often translates to reciprocal support down the road. Lawmakers draw on such support when angling for leadership positions within Congress.

"Leadership PACs originated as a way for one member to garner support from other members when seeking a leadership position in the House or Senate," Mr. Blunt wrote to the FEC in 2003. "More recently, leadership PACs have enabled the Republican party to maintain its majority in the House of Representatives."

When Republicans took over Congress in 1994, about 90 lawmakers operated such leadership PACs, which together raised a total of $28 million, according to the FEC. In the last election cycle, more than 300 leadership PACs took in $127 million.

Corporations represented by Mr. Hartley have donated more than $150,000 to Mr. Blunt's leadership PAC, the Rely On Your Beliefs Fund, known as the ROY B. Fund. Mr. Gates, the lobbyist with ties to Mr. Boehner, is treasurer of Mr. Boehner's leadership PAC, The Freedom Project. Mr. Boehner is Mr. Blunt's main rival for the majority leader post.

Both lawmakers are now recruiting congressional supporters for their majority-leader campaigns. Of the roughly 150 House Republicans who have announced who they will vote for, most have endorsed the candidate who has given them the most campaign money. Of Mr. Blunt's 91 publicly announced supporters, 68 have received money totalling $690,000 from Mr. Blunt's PAC, according to the Campaign for a Cleaner Congress, a congressional watchdog group.

Mr. Hartley, a 52-year-old fan of muscle cars and rock 'n' roll, was running a legal aid organization in his native Missouri when he met Mr. Blunt, who then worked as a country clerk. In 1992, Mr. Hartley raised money for Mr. Blunt's unsuccessful campaign for governor.

Four years later, Mr. Hartley helped Mr. Blunt, who is now 56, win a seat in Congress. Mr. Blunt, an ideological conservative, rose fast on Capitol Hill, winning the respect of moderate Republicans for his nonconfrontational approach. In 1999, when Rep. Dennis Hastert of Illinois was named speaker of the House, Rep. Tom DeLay tapped Mr. Blunt to replace Mr. Hastert as chief deputy whip.

Several years after arriving in Washington, Mr. Blunt married Abigail Pearlman, a lobbyist for the tobacco and food giant Altria Group Inc. Mr. Blunt's son, Andrew, is a lobbyist in Missouri whose clients include Altria, United Parcel Service Inc. and the former SBC Communications. Another son, Matt, is the current governor of Missouri.

When Mr. DeLay became majority leader in 2003, Mr. Blunt rose to Republican whip, the party's top House vote-counter. A few months later, Mr. Hartley left Capitol Hill to become a lobbyist with Cassidy & Associates, one of Washington's oldest and most successful lobbying firms.

Mr. Hartley's first clients were companies that had contributed money to Mr. Blunt and received legislative support from him. For example, Mr. Blunt had backed the Baby Bell phone companies in their battles with long-distance carriers and cable TV operators, and the Baby Bells had backed him with donations. They became Mr. Hartley's clients.

In July 2003, Mr. Hartley was hired by a coalition of major television networks -- General Electric Co.'s NBC, Viacom Inc.'s CBS, News Corp.'s FOX and Walt Disney Co.'s ABC. The networks were seeking to loosen rules governing their ownership of local TV stations.

Fierce Opposition

The Federal Communications Commission had proposed allowing the networks to own local stations covering 45% of U.S. households, up from the previous limit of 35%. By the time Mr. Hartley was hired, local broadcasters had mounted fierce opposition to the change, and more than two-thirds of Congress had announced their opposition to the move.

Mr. Blunt, however, joined other House Republican leaders in blocking the measure from reaching a floor vote. The standoff ended with a compromise: the network ownership limit was lifted to 39%. Mr. Hartley's network clients considered it a victory.

During this lobbying battle, Mr. Hartley was helping Mr. Blunt raise campaign money. Cassidy & Associates made available its skybox at Washington's MCI Center for a fund-raiser at a Simon and Garfunkel concert. Mr. Blunt reimbursed Cassidy for the cost of the seats. Last fall, Mr. Blunt rented the skybox again for a fund-raiser during a U2 concert.

At Cassidy, Mr. Hartley hired two former aides of Mr. Blunt and the husband of a third. After Mr. Blunt launched his campaign to replace Mr. DeLay as majority leader three weeks ago, Mr. Hartley began advising Mr. Blunt and his staff on the race, according to Republican aides involved in the matter.

"Roy has the trust and confidence in him that he had when Gregg was his chief of staff," says Drew Maloney, a lobbyist and former aide of Mr. DeLay who backs Mr. Blunt's campaign for majority leader. Dan Mattoon, a close adviser to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, calls Mr. Hartley "a very important part of Roy's outside operation."

Mr. Hartley joined a small group of lobbyists who have helped plot strategy and raise money for other Republican leaders, such as Messrs. DeLay and Hastert. In January 2004, Mr. Hartley attended a dinner meeting hosted by Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff at Signatures, Mr. Abramoff's now-defunct Pennsylvania Avenue restaurant, to discuss ways to persuade Republican lobbyists and their clients to give more campaign contributions to Republicans.

During the 2003-04 election cycle, Mr. Hartley himself donated $74,500 to Mr. Hastert, Mr. DeLay and other congressional Republicans. He is on pace to match that level of giving once again in the 2006 election season.

Political Gifts in '05 Top $186,000
Scandals Elsewhere Do Little to Inhibit Va. Lawmakers
By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 5, 2006; C01

LINK

RICHMOND -- Lobbyists, companies and trade associations paid to send Virginia lawmakers on trips to Mexico, Sweden, Israel and Taiwan and showered them with dinners and tickets to theme parks, NASCAR races and football games, according to records filed for 2005.

One lawmaker joined a lobbyist for a $3,600 moose-hunting trip in Canada. Four others attended a trade association convention at the Atlantis resort on Paradise Island in the Bahamas, a trip valued at more than $7,500 for the group. A Prince William County delegate took $800 worth of Redskins tickets.

Altogether, Virginia lawmakers accepted more than $186,000 in gifts last year, according to a Washington Post analysis of disclosure documents released last week. Gifts totaling more than $11,000 were accepted during the give-and-take of last year's legislative session, when lobbyists frequently appear before legislators in committee rooms less than 24 hours after treating them to expensive dinners or buffet receptions.

In Congress, Republicans and Democrats are proposing strict limits on gifts in the wake of the influence-peddling investigation that centers on lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The national GOP has proposed a limit of $20 for dinners and an annual limit of $50 for gifts. Democrats are pushing for a total gift ban in Congress.

"Given the corruption and lobbying scandals that have been revealed in Washington, it's clear that any legislature in the country should be examining its gift and travel rules and adopting strict, new limits," said Fred Wertheimer, the founder of Democracy 21, a nonpartisan group that advocates for tougher ethics rules.

After two high-profile scandals involving lobbyist malfeasance in Annapolis, the Maryland General Assembly passed bills in 2001 aimed at reforming the industry. Among them were moves to prohibit lobbyists from buying meals for legislators and the creation of a system to license lobbyists and subject them to sanctions for breaking state ethics laws.

This year, the legislature is not considering any additional lobbying restrictions.

"We've done so much more than other states," said Sen. Paula C. Hollinger (D-Baltimore County), who chairs a committee with jurisdiction over issues related to lobbyists. "We've already done the major stuff."

In Richmond, the lobbying scandals in Maryland and the nation's capital appear to have done little to discourage the practice of accepting lobbyist-paid trips and gifts. A bill to ban gifts during the General Assembly session died in committee on a tie vote last week, and a bill to reduce disclosure requirements for gifts and dinners was unanimously approved in a House committee.

Under Virginia law, there are no limits on the gifts lawmakers may receive. The only requirement is that items valued at more than $25 be disclosed publicly after the year in which they are accepted. Data on gifts are compiled by the Virginia Public Access Project.

Lawmakers in Virginia receive many presents when they return to the General Assembly each year. There are gift baskets from constituents, cookies from Girl Scouts and trinkets from groups hoping to curry favor with committee members. Many are valued at less than $25 and are never reported.

Sen. R. Creigh Deeds (D-Bath), who ran unsuccessfully for attorney general last year, pointed to recent gifts scattered around his third-floor office: a disposable camera, a travel clock, a can of peanuts, four scarves, a book and numerous umbrellas.

"So many people bring umbrellas and coffee cups," Deeds said. "God bless America. There's so much stuff!"

But many of the gifts to Virginia lawmakers go beyond coffee mugs.

Del. Watkins M. Abbitt Jr. (I-Appomattox) joined John W. Jones, the executive director of the Virginia Sheriffs' Association, for a moose hunt in Newfoundland, accepting $3,593 to defray the cost. Sen. Yvonne B. Miller (D-Norfolk) accepted hundreds of dollars worth of tickets to the opera "La Traviata," Norfolk State University baseball and football games and a home builders' gala called the Homerama. Del. L. Scott Lingamfelter (R-Prince William) said he accepted two $400 box seats at a Redskins game from a friend but gave one of them away.

House Majority Whip M. Kirkland Cox (R-Colonial Heights) accepted 12 baseball tickets, four tickets to the circus, a pass to the University of Virginia vs. Virginia Tech football game and three dinners. Several lobbyists he describes as personal friends paid $6,417 to fly Cox and three of his sons to Pinehurst, N.C., in a private jet for the U.S. Open golf tournament.

"It was a chance for my boys to see the U.S. Open," Cox said, adding that he had intended to drive but that a schedule change made that impossible. "I felt a real obligation to make sure I had the right price [for the flight]. I think the system worked."

Many of the gifts come from the state's largest and most influential companies, which have a permanent lobbying presence in the halls of the General Assembly.

Anheuser-Busch, which owns Busch Gardens in Williamsburg, handed out $2,839 worth of theme park tickets to lawmakers last year. Its chief competitor, Paramount's Kings Dominion, gave out $2,269 in tickets. Both companies lobby every year to make sure public schools start after the lucrative Labor Day weekend.

The Virginia Auto Dealers Association is lobbying feverishly this year to kill proposals by Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) and leading Senate Republicans and Democrats to increase the tax on new cars.

In June, the group spent about $7,500 to bring four lawmakers, including House Democratic Caucus Chairman Brian J. Moran (Alexandria), to its annual convention in the Bahamas. Moran said he reported a gift of $1,347 after paying for part of the three-day trip with his own money.

"The campaign laws are based on disclosure," Moran said. "The congressional action is reactive to an obvious problem. The case hasn't been made that there's a link between the [trips] and scandal here. The case hasn't been made."

Dominion Resources, which runs the state's power company, paid for two senior Republican senators -- Commerce Committee Chairman William C. Wampler Jr. (Bristol) and Transportation Committee Chairman Martin E. Williams (Newport News) -- to join company executives on a Georgia bird-hunting trip, for a total cost of nearly $2,000.

"We've always said disclosure is the most important piece of reform," said Eva Teague Hardy, the company's chief lobbyist.

Wampler called the trip "an opportunity to visit with the chief executive and senior management of one of Virginia's major employers." He added that the trip "gave me the opportunity to pitch southwest Virginia as a possible site for a major investment."

Hardy said she and other company lobbyists have never joined the hunts with lawmakers, leaving that to the executives. She said the trips are not designed to pressure lawmakers to vote on the company's behalf because everyone knows they will eventually become public.

Disclosure "is a very strong deterrent," she said.

The most prevalent gift during the General Assembly is dinner. Associations, trade groups, lobbyists and others frequently wine and dine lawmakers at restaurants and scheduled receptions.

Dominion paid $1,250 to take 10 lawmakers to dinner at Morton's steakhouse in January 2005. Three weeks later, the company paid $427 to take seven lawmakers to an Italian restaurant in Richmond named La Grotta.

Altria, the parent company of Richmond-based cigarette maker Philip Morris, paid nearly $7,700 to take lawmakers to dinner during the 2005 session, mostly to Ruth's Chris Steak House.

Many of those dinners would no longer have to be reported if House Bill 543 passes this year and is signed by the governor. The bill was introduced by House Majority Leader H. Morgan Griffith (R-Salem), who said he did it because of a commission that studied the issue.

The bill would raise from $50 to $100 the threshold for reporting when a lobbyist or company takes a lawmaker to dinner.

"That's what the commission recommended. That's just an effort to modernize," Griffith said. Like others, he said Virginia's system of disclosure prevents abuses.

But Wertheimer disagrees.

"Disclosure is not enough for these kinds of activities," he said. "We had extensive disclosure requirements in Congress. In and of themselves, particularly with the lack of any system of enforcement, they did not prevent the scandals that occurred."

Staff writer Matthew Mosk contributed to this report.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

"Most Wanted" Corporate Human Rights Violators of 2005