ABSTRACT
Lobbying has been accepted as legitimate practice and played an important
part in the U.S. It helps to raise the voice of special interests as well as inform
them of the legislative process. In order to be successful in doing business with
U.S. enterprises the number of which is increasingly high, it is essential to
understand lobbying thoroughly. Thus, this study was conducted with the hope of
providing some fundamental concepts relating to lobbying in the U.S. as well as
current laws on lobbying in the Obama Administration. The results were achieved
through analyzing, synthesizing, comparing as well as contrasting and evaluating
documents. The findings revealed that there were three basic first-ever lobbying
polices in the Obama Administration, namely the revolving door bans, stimulus
funds lobbying restrictions and lobbyist gift ban. Also, it was found that those
policies got high-level criticism from the public, especially from interest groups,
concerning their effectiveness,. Besides, they were believed to cause negative
effects on the U.S. politics, respectively mass de-registration, diminished
transparency, and, lack of information and experienced staff in the government. In
a nutshell, it was concluded that though the Obama Administration desired to
advance the goal of increased transparency, the results were not as high as the
President had expected before.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTENT
PAGE
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………….
i
Abstract
………………………………………………………………………………. ii
List of tables, figures and
abbreviations……………………………………………… vi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1Statement of the problem and the rationale for the
study……………………… 1

……… 21
3.4 The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995
………………………………… 22
3.5 The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007
………………… 25
CHAPTER 4: LOBBYING IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
4.1 Policy changes
……………………………………………………… 27
4.1.1 Revolving door bans
……………………………………………… 28
4.1.2 Restrictions on contacts between lobbyists and executive branch
officials 30
4.1.3 Lobbyist gift bans
……………………………………… 33
4.2 Public responses to changes
4.2.1 Responses to the revolving door bans
……………………………… 35
4.2.2 Responses to stimulus fund lobbying restrictions
……………………… 38
4.2.3 Responses to lobbyist gift bans
…………………………………… 40
4.2.4 Effects
…………………………………………………………… .43
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSSION
5.1 Summary of main findings
5.1.1 Changes
……………………………………………………………… 46
5.1.2 Responses to changes
………………………………………………… 47
5.2 Limitations of the study

Constitution. The right of people to lobby is protected by the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of speech […] or
the right of the people peaceably […] to petition the government for a
redress of grievances.
Madison, J. (n.d.)
Lobbying began to be used intensely in the U.S between 1869 and 1877.
With such a long history, it has increasingly played a fundamental part in
enhancing American democracy. Claimed by Biggs & Helms (2006), lobbying is
“an inextricable part of policy production process” (p.113). In other words,
lobbying plays an indispensable role in the U.S. politics.
After Vietnam joined WTO in 2006, the number of U.S. partners has
increased greatly. One of the most important things to do business successfully
with them is having a thorough understanding of lobbying – a legal practice which
plays a crucial role in influencing government policies to support the interests of
companies. Despite such great influence and significance, lobbying is little known
to Vietnamese people. In Vietnam, there are no laws concerning lobbying; thus,
lobbying activities are “not officially recognized” (cited in Trung Kien, 2007).
Moreover, lobbying in Vietnam is often bound with negative meanings and
misunderstood. People usually think about “bribery” or “to get in by the back
door” when mentioning lobbying (cited in Doan Trang, 2010). In this situation,
there is a need to give a clear and precise definition of lobbying to replace those
misperceptions.
Furthermore, there are a number of new rules and regulations in lobbying
policies addressed by the incumbent President Barack Obama that Vietnamese
enterprises need to know and understand. Therefore, it is necessary to do research
on lobbying in the U.S to help Vietnamese companies get fundamentals as well as
current laws on lobbying.
At the Faculty of English Language Teacher - University of Languages and
International Study (FELTE – ULIS), American Studies has been included in the
syllabus recently to provide the English majors background knowledge, so that

the topic. Nevertheless, because of the limited time, this paper mainly draws upon
the major resources of books, articles, magazines and websites.
1.4. Significance of the study
Once the study is completed, it is expected to have some decent benefits.
In the first place, it will partly fill the gap in the literature and serve as a
reference source for other researchers who are interested in the same or related
topics.
Secondly, this paper can serve as a supplementary material for both
teaching and learning at FELTE – ULIS. The findings from the study can provide
the teachers with an overall picture of lobbying in the U.S. with focus on the
presidency of Barack Obama, which can help them improve the course book in
order to make it more informative.
Furthermore, the researcher also hopes that this study, to some extent, can
help students widen their knowledge by providing them information about
lobbying in the U.S., especially current laws relating to lobbying. English majors,
especially those who wish to do business with U.S partners in the future, can use it
as a supplementary material not only in their learning but in their careers.
Moreover, the study can help those who may concern have clear and
precise perception of lobbying practice.
1.5. Methodology of the study
This is a secondary research which is conducted in comparative
document analysis approach. The very first phase is collecting data. Documents
related to lobbying reforms in Obama administration are gathered from books,
magazines, internet and other relevant sources. These documents are then
analyzed, synthesized, compared, contrasted and evaluated to find the answers to
the research questions.
Overall, this paper is carried out through following phases:
Phase 1: Collecting data.
Phase 2: Processing data: the data are analyzed, synthesized, compared,
contrasted and evaluated.

from the U.S. Congress. In their studies, scientists propose definitions based on
their opinions and their findings, whereas every time enacting new laws to
regulate lobbying, the Congress provides different definitions so that they can be
more suitable to the new laws and help to achieve the objectives.
Stephanos Anastasiadis (2006) stated that lobbying initially was “the act of
special interests approaching someone with political power” (p.9). Gradually,
along with the development of the U.S. society, it has changed so much far from
the early days that various definitions have been provided. In 1960, the so-called
“father of lobbying research” Lester Milbrath was the first researcher to analyze
lobbying from a communication perspective when claiming that “communication
is the only means of influencing or changing a perception; the lobbying process,
therefore, is totally a communication process” (p.24). Sharing the same viewpoint,
forty-five years later, Dondero & Lunch (2005) added that lobbying is “a two-way
communication process” (p.87). Lobbyists, in their views, are great
communicators to legislators. However, according to Berg (2009), when it comes
to lobbying, it is often described as a minor and specific activity, not a process.
Undergraduate public textbooks define lobbying as a function of public
affairs. In Toth (1986), lobbying is recognized as a specialized area of public
relations. Heath and Cousino (2000) supported that it is a function of issue
management. More specifically, Cutlip, Center and Broom (2000) defined
lobbying as “a function of public affairs which builds and maintain relations with
government primarily for the proposal of influencing legislation and regulation”
(cited in Berg, 2009, p.1).
From the perspective of purpose, lobbying is considered any attempt to
influence legislative process. In this light, Zorack (2000) put it that it is “the right
of any citizen or interest group to petition government or Congress and provide
information designed to influence the passage or defeat of any legislation of the
United States” (p.24). Recognizably, Mayhew (1997, p. 218) further defined the
concept of lobbying by proposing that it is “a process of influence that travels
along routes sustained by exchanges of information” in which “both parties have

of legislative-administrative decisions by public
authorities through interested representatives”.
Koeppl (2000, p.71).
Lobbying is “a process of influence that travels
along routes sustained by exchanges of
information” in which “both parties have an
opportunity to make their message influential as
well as informative”.
Mayhew, (1997, p.218).
Lobbying is “the act of publicly representing an
individual, organization, or idea with the object of
persuading targeted audiences to look favorably on
– or accept the point of view of – the individual, the
organization, or the idea”.
Edgett, (2002, p. 1), cited in
Berg, 2009.
In conclusion, it can be seen that lobbying is interpreted in different ways
from different aspects. Some scientists describe it as a specialized activity while
the others recognize it as a whole process seeking to exert influence on legislative
decisions. However, obviously, the point that all the aforementioned definitions of
lobbying have in common is the focus on the purpose, tool and object of lobbying.
The definition adopted in this research paper is of Koeppl (2000): lobbying is “the
attempted or successful influence of legislative-administrative decisions by public
authorities through interested representatives. The influence is intended, implies
the use of communication and is targeted on legislative and executive bodies” (p.
71).
2.1.2 Process of lobbying
Lobbying is a process which requires technical competence, thoughtful
analysis and critical inquiry, all of which are directed toward achieving the best
results for a client or employer (Association of Accredited Lobbyists to the

2.2 Lobbyist
2.2.1 Definitions of lobbyist
Public and scientists have different viewpoints on lobbyists, which makes
defining lobbyist still under debate.
Scandals in lobbying have earned lobbyists poor reputation that sets their
stereotype: highly-paid, well-dressed and smoking cigar white men corrupting
Congressmen to influence public policies on behalf of the rich and well-connected
special interests (Waldman, 2000). They were even defined as “political villains”
in “disreputable industry which related mostly to dishonesty and corruption”
(Cook, 2009, p.2).
However, there are also positive perceptions on lobbyists. Thompson
(1985) recognized lobbyists as “representatives who act concurrently with, and
supplement the capabilities of those who are selected at the polls” and that they
“filled roles that in many ways were comparable to those of legislators” (p.140).
By contrast, Dondero and Lunch (2005) concentrate on the jobs of lobbyists as
well as recognize their roles in society when defining them as “the eyes and ears
of the public, information providers, representatives of their clients and
constituents, shapers of the government agenda, movers of legislation, coalition
builders, and campaign contributors”(p. 87).
It can be said that lobbyist’s image depends on citizen and public
officials’ perceptions. In other words, the meaning of lobbyist is in the eye of the
beholder. Despite different ways of defining lobbyists, one common point is that
most of them focus on the role of lobbyists: representation of individual or
organization interests. The definition adopted in this paper is from Webster’s New
World Dictionary of American English: lobbyists are the people “acting for a
special interest group […] to influence the introduction of or voting on
legislation or the decision of government administrators” (1994, p. 793).
2.2.2 Types of lobbyist
For a long time, both political scientists and the U.S. Congress have tried
their best to classify lobbyists. Admittedly, defining types of lobbyist is not a

and local governments who represent their agencies to other government and
legislative branch. They call themselves legislative liaisons instead of lobbyists
because of the negative connotation of the term lobbyist (Thomas, 2004). Yet in
practice they are actual lobbyists. They include representatives of state university,
elected and appointed officials of local governments, heads and senior staff of
federal and state government agencies.
1
Seeking to influence decisions of policymakers through close contacts with them. (Patterson, 2000).
2
A form of lobbying in which interest groups use public pressure as a means of influencing officials.
Volunteer lobbyists are the representatives of local groups or small
nonprofit organizations. They are not well-paid and their salaries are based on
their commitments to a cause. They depend on moral arguments to sell their
causes to the governmental staff and provide political perspectives or viewpoints
(Cigler & Loomis, 1991). They usually lack the status of political insiders or
access to big campaign contributions and large organizations.
Accounting for a very small number (only 1-2% in lobbying community),
private “hobbyists” or self-appointed lobbyists are prominent individuals who
lobby to gain their economic interests (Thomas, 2004). The subjects of their
activities may be pet projects, personal benefits, for or against a policy or decision.
All lobbyists, regardless of type, seek to maintain a reputation of honesty,
expertise and credibility by providing useful and honest information. Still, each of
them has his own strategies and tactics of influence.
2.3 Revolving door
This term is used to describe the employment cycle from “public service to
private representation” (McGuire, 2000, p.113), which is a popular trend in the
U.S. politics nowadays. To put it simply, government officials, after having
worked in different positions in Congress, executive branch departments and
regulatory agencies, leave public sector and join lobbyist community in
Washington. These individuals often lobby on the issue that they are interested in

were registered to lobby on behalf of clients. Besides, a recent review of U.S.
House disbursement data and federal lobbying records shows that in the period
from 2009 to 2011, at least 378 House staffers made a movement to lobbying. 527
revolving door lobbyists was part of the Bush Administration, compared to 358
during the Clinton Administration. Today that number is 326 in the Obama
Administration.
The existence of revolving door raises several concerns. Firstly, former
officials can “cash in” on their experience. As discussed earlier, corporations and
organizations often seek for ex-staffers because of their expertise. When leaving
their offices, besides close networks with their colleagues, former employees bring
with them valuable knowledge of insiders in legislation which is not available to
others. In effect, they can gain large amount of money thanks to those advantages.
Another common criticism is that staffers-to-lobbyists could be simply
trading on their political connections. Although lobbyists argue that their huge
earnings are due to their expertise, the question whether they are really paid for
“what they know” or “who they know” remains under debate (Draca, Fons-Rosen
& Vidal, 2010). In addition, the prospect of being well-paid can probably have
influence on officials’ actions. They may be well affected by the promises of
getting high-paying jobs by corporations and organizations that have the same
interests with officials’ actions while serving in public service.
Furthermore, the leave of staff causes a huge loss to Congress. It is clear
that each term Congress loses a number of experienced officials. It means that
their offices have to recruit new employees that are often less experienced.
Certainly, the offices which lack staff with political expertise ought to seek for the
aids from the outside lobbyists. Also, revolving door can make a bad impression
that Washington is linked to corrupting interrelationship, thus decreasing public
confidence in the government.
The first attempt to regulate revolving door took effect at the federal level
in 1978 with the Ethics in Government Act. According to the Act, former staffers
in the executive branch of government were required to wait in a so-called “cool

“un-American activities” in the U.S. The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA)
was enacted as a result of the investigations by this committee.
The 1938 Act was passed in order to restrict the influence of foreign
agents on the U.S. public policy. The law was first aimed at the Nazi movement
4
3
Organizations through which an interest group raises and distributes funds for election purposes.
(Patterson, 2000)
4
Movement in Germany to cause Germans believe that Germans were "racially superior" and that the Jews,
deemed "inferior," were an alien threat to the so-called German racial community (Holocaust
Encyclopedia, 2000).
or “Nazi propaganda
5
”, but then it was extended to include “pro-communist
propaganda”.
The FARA focused mainly on providing the public disclosure of identity
and financial interests of people engaged in lobbying. In the Act, the definitions of
“foreign agent” and “foreign principal” were given. “Foreign agent” was anyone
working as lobbyist or representative for “foreign principal”. “Foreign principal”
was defined as a foreign government or political party under the laws of a foreign
nation.
Under the FARA, all foreign agents were required to register their names,
addresses and their clients to the Secretary of the Senate. They must also report all
their lobbying activities to the Secretary, including the details of lobbying
contacts, the expenditure, the subject of discussion and the name of public official
lobbied. Besides, any paper or information propagated by foreign agents has to be
clearly labeled.
There were several amendments to the FARA, including a general
revision in 1942 and major amendments in 1966. The 1942 revision, (1) provided

It is revealed that the number of registrations reached a peak of 511 at the
beginning of 1966. However, it dropped steadily to 446 at the end of 1968, and
then rose again until it reached 481 in 1972.
However, according to the GAO (1974), there was high incidence of late
filing and the large number of insufficient supplemental statements. Especially, it
was noted that, (1) 261 (67%) of the 392 required statements were not submitted
within the time limits, and, (2) 154 (70%) of the 222 supplemental statements
were incomplete or lacked sufficient details, (GAO, 1974).
Since its last substantive reform, many FARA failures and shortcomings
in lobbyist registration have been pointed out. The major loopholes were the lack
of enthusiasm by the Department of Justice in enforcing the Act; failure to clarify
exactly who had to register and what were the disclosure requirements; and,
inability to regulate any contact between lobbyists and public officials that did not
take place in the U.S. Despite the outcry from the public and several members of
Congress to update the FARA, Congress failed to pass any substantive reform.
That is why all of the major loopholes that exist in the original version are still in
effect today.
3.2 The Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946
In 1940s, the fact that lobbyists became more tactical in their activities
and the number of lobbyists was increasing greatly required the enactment of an
effective law to regulate this legal process and “assure more fairness, transparency
and responsibility” (Mihut, 2008).
Unlike the FARA which was for foreign agents, the Federal Regulation
of Lobbying Act of 1946 (FRLA) was for domestic lobbyists, which was passed to
provide a lobbyist registration system and disclosure of those attempting to
influence Congress. Another purpose of the law was to provide public information
about the pressures which influenced policy making process.
The FRLA, similar to the FARA, focused entirely on providing lobbying
disclosure. It required lobbyists who sought to influence legislation in Congress to
register with the Clerk of the House and submit quarterly financial reports which

application to direct contacts with a member of Congress by individuals or organizations whose principal
purpose is lobbying.
8
A directory listing individuals and organizations in Washington who engage in legal services, government
affairs, public relations and lobbying. (GAO, 1991).