The Center for Public Integrity

Take, for example, Jorge Rodriguez-Marquez, former president of Bacardi-Martini U.S.A., the domestic subsidiary of Bermuda-based liquor giant Bacardi Ltd. Between 1998 and 2002, Rodriguez-Marquez lobbied the U.S. government to intervene on behalf of his Miami company—now known as Bacardi U.S.A. Inc.—in its longstanding trademark dispute with a Cuban-French joint venture over rights to the popular rum label "Havana Club."

Among those doing Bacardi's bidding was then-Sen. Connie Mack III, Republican of Florida, who, in 1998, quietly inserted into a huge government spending bill a measure designed to block U.S. courts from recognizing trademarks expropriated by Cuba (and who followed his Senate career by lobbying for Bacardi). This 11th-hour legislative ploy proved to be so controversial that it rankled both lawmakers and American corporations, which feared retaliation by the Cuban government. The European Union lodged a successful complaint against the United States with the World Trade Organization, and in 2004 the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ruled against Bacardi.

But if Rodriguez-Marquez's lobbying had repercussions on and beyond Capitol Hill, the American public was entirely unaware. That's because the Bacardi-Martini official didn't file a single form about his activities until 57 months—that's almost five years—after he started lobbying, despite the fact that the law requires disclosure forms to be filed with the Senate and House of Representatives every six months.

As Congress struggles to maintain public trust in the midst of the lobbying scandal raging in Washington D.C., members could look to the states for ways to revamp the federal system.

A Center for Public Integrity survey that evaluated the strength of lobbying disclosure laws nationwide found the federal law to be weaker than those of 47 of the 50 states.

Since the original 2003 "Hired Guns" report, lawmakers in almost half the states — sometimes prompted by scandals — have beefed up their disclosure laws, but federal legislators haven't.

"The federal law is pretty terrible," said Robert M. Stern, president of the nonpartisan Center for Governmental Studies, who helped write California's 1974 political reform law.

"Congress should be looking to the states," Stern said, because "states have had tremendous experience with enforcing and administering these laws. They are not that hard to enforce."

While no state earned an "A" when graded on providing the public with full disclosure on behind-the-scenes lobbying in the 2003 survey, Washington state had the highest score, 87 points out of a possible 100. The federal law tied with New Hampshire, earning a failing grade of 36 — almost two and a half times lower. Only Pennsylvania and Wyoming received worse marks.

What's more, 24 states have taken steps either to strengthen their laws or to implement or improve electronic disclosure systems in the two and a half years since the Center's study. At least another eight states have considered or are working on changes.

In comparison, while the Senate Office of Public Records began putting federal lobby spending reports on the Internet in 2001, federal lobbying disclosure laws haven't been modified in the last eight years.