S-865-119
Held at the desk.
Sponsored by Gary Peters (D-MI)
What it does
This bill would amend the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to require registered lobbyists to state, as part of their registration filings, whether they are claiming an exemption under Section 3(h) of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Section 3(h) of FARA exempts individuals who are already registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act from also having to register as foreign agents. The bill adds this disclosure as a new required item — item (8) — to the existing list of information lobbyists must provide when registering.
Who benefits
The general public and researchers who monitor foreign influence in U.S. policymaking, who would gain clearer visibility into which lobbyists are operating under the FARA exemption. Journalists and watchdog organizations tracking foreign-linked lobbying activity. Members of Congress and their staff who rely on disclosure data to assess potential conflicts. Domestic lobbying firms that do not represent foreign interests, who may benefit from a more level and transparent competitive environment.
Who is hurt
Lobbying firms and individual lobbyists who represent foreign governments or foreign principals and currently use the Section 3(h) FARA exemption — they would face an additional disclosure obligation. Law firms and consultants whose business model involves advising foreign clients through the LDA exemption pathway, as increased transparency may invite greater scrutiny of their work. Foreign governments and foreign-owned entities that retain U.S. lobbyists may face reputational or political exposure if their use of the exemption becomes more visible.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Section 3(h) FARA exemption is widely used as a loophole that allows lobbyists working on behalf of foreign governments to avoid the more rigorous disclosure requirements of FARA, while the public and policymakers have no easy way to identify who is using it. They contend that this single checkbox requirement imposes minimal burden on registrants while meaningfully closing an information gap — enabling oversight bodies, journalists, and the public to identify which lobbyists are relying on the exemption and to assess whether that reliance is appropriate.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill addresses a problem that existing law already handles: lobbyists using the Section 3(h) exemption are already registered under the LDA and subject to its disclosure requirements, meaning the additional checkbox adds bureaucratic complexity without producing substantively new accountability. They contend that if the real concern is inadequate FARA enforcement or the breadth of the exemption itself, a disclosure checkbox is an indirect and insufficient remedy — and that the bill may create a false impression of transparency without addressing the underlying enforcement gaps at the Department of Justice.
Constitutional context
No significant constitutional issue is raised by this bill. Congress has broad authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 18) and its inherent power to regulate the legislative process to impose disclosure requirements on those who petition the government. The bill does not delegate new rulemaking authority to an agency, so the major questions doctrine and post-Loper Bright concerns are not implicated.
Checks and balances
Congress gains marginally more informational oversight of foreign-linked lobbying activity; the executive branch (specifically the Department of Justice, which enforces FARA) is not granted new authority, and no new agency rulemaking is required.
Historical precedent
The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 and its 2007 amendments (Honest Leadership and Open Government Act) have previously expanded lobbyist disclosure requirements, including bundling disclosures and more frequent reporting, establishing a pattern of incremental transparency additions to the LDA framework.