Watchdog Blog

Bundlers in Limbo

Yesterday, Roll Call ($) pointed out that a hard-won ethics reform is languishing because the Federal Election Commission (FEC) remains without a quorum.  The political wrangling over the Commission – and downright stubbornness of the Republicans in their insistence on the appointment of Hans von Spakovsky has left candidates and lobbyists in limbo.

Public Citizen worked to pass the landmark lobbying and ethics reform bill last year in the wake of continual congressional scandals.  One of the benefits of this new law is that it requires federal candidates – running for Congress or the presidency – to disclose if lobbyists are “bundling” campaign contributions of their behalf.  The FEC is supposed to implement and enforce this new law, and they are out-of-commission (so to speak).

Roll Call quoted Taylor Lincoln, research director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division:

The delay in implementing the rule is depriving the public of important information. It’s best the public knows as much as it can.  We’d rather have disclosure of all the bundlers, but lobbyists are the best place to start. By definition, they’re in business to ask the government for favors, so their contributions should be looked at the most skeptically.

Lobbyists Playing Bigger Role in Presidential Fundraising

The number of lobbyists raising money for the 2008 presidential candidates already has eclipsed the total for the entire 2004 campaign, according to a Public Citizen study released today.

So far, candidates still in the race have recruited 142 federal lobbyists to raise money for their campaigns, compared to 136 lobbyist fundraisers in 2004.

A clearinghouse of the 2008 presidential candidates’ big fundraisers is available at www.WhiteHouseforSale.org.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has 59 lobbyist-bundlers raising money for him, almost twice as many as former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who has the second-highest number. Among Democrats, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) has garnered the most support from lobbyists, 20, a predictable outcome because her two main remaining competitors have eschewed support from individuals currently serving as lobbyists.

The roster of known lobbyist-bundlers for McCain grew substantially on Monday, when his campaign held a fundraiser at a tony Washington steakhouse. Among 29 co-chairs listed on an invitation for the event were 24 registered lobbyists. Lists of the lobbyists raising money for each candidate are included in the study’s appendix.

Download the Public Citizen study [pdf].

Fair Elections Gets Stump Time

Our friends over at Common Cause highlight the recent Democratic debate in Nevada where public funding of elections got some air play.  Senator Obama explained: 

Ultimately, what I would like to see is a system of public financing of campaigns and I am a co-sponsor of the proposal that is in the Senate right now.  That's what we have to fight for.

Watch it.

In fact, all of the Democratic candidates have expressed their support for a congressional public funding system modeled on those in Arizona and Maine.  Senator Clinton announced her support back in April.

The publicity is great.  However, in the meantime, nearly all of the candidates could be doing a lot more to disclose where their private money is coming from.  Yesterday, we sent letters to candidates asking them (again) to make the information on how much money their bundlers are raising for their campaigns public. 

A keystone benefit of public funding is that special interest money can no longer buy influence with candidates.  Until we fix the presidential public financing system, the voters at the very least have the right to know who is bankrolling the candidates.

Candidates Still Not Disclosing: Public Citizen Demands More on Bundlers

Public Citizen today sent letters to the seven major presidential candidates who have yet to provide any insight into how much their top fundraisers have raised. The letters asked the candidates to promptly disclose the names of bundlers who have brought in at least $100,000. The letters note that this minimal standard for disclosure was set by then-Gov. George W. Bush in his 2000 presidential campaign.

All of the candidates who have a realistic chance of capturing their party’s nomination are using bundlers, but only Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have provided any insight into how much their bundlers have raised. Obama names bundlers who have raised at least $50,000, $100,000 and $200,000; Clinton discloses bundlers who have raised at least $100,000.

The eventual winner of this presidential election will almost certainly feel a debt of gratitude to his or her bundlers. Voters have a right to know who these superfundraisers are before they choose which candidate to send to the Oval Office.

Letters to the candidates can be viewed here.

A New Chance to Make Presidential Campaigns about Voters Not Dollars

Today, amid considerable fanfare, bipartisan legislation was introduced in both houses of Congress to overhaul the way we finance the presidential campaigns. It is long, long overdue.

In 2008, winning the nation’s highest elective office is going to cost $1 billion between the two major party candidates. The figure is even higher if you include the vast sums spent by all the other candidates, parties and political committees.

Let’s put this figure into a little perspective. Viable presidential candidates must raise at least $100 million each by the end of 2007, before even entering the actual election year. This means collecting five $2,300 campaign contributions “every single hour, every single day, including weekends and holidays, for an entire year,” estimates political scientist Michael Malbin.

And then the fundraising really kicks into gear next year.

Where does all this money come from? Mostly from the same special interests who have business pending before the federal government. In order to make sure that jingle of the pocket books of any particular special interest are heard loud and clear, businesses and wealthy special interest groups will be represented by a “bundler.”

Bundlers usually are CEOs or lobbyists of a business or industry. They will approach a campaign and receive tracking identification from the campaign, say, a tracking number. The bundler then reaches out to all the managers and other individuals of the business or industry and ask them to mail in their individual campaign contributions of $2,300 (the legal limit from an individual to a federal candidate), and write the company’s tracking number of the check. That way the campaign knows which business or industry is responsible for those contributions.

Bundlers Lurking in the Smoky Backroom Again in 2008

Bundlers bring more to the table than just cash. Just ask anyone on the receiving end of a Norman Hsu or Jack Abramoff special delivery. While not all bundlers will be as obviously scandal-tainted as a man wearing a bright yellow prison jumper, Hsu and Abramoff weren’t the first, and likely won’t be the last big fundraisers to bring along a little corruption with the loot.

Bundling is the new smoked-filled room of campaign fundraising. In fact, bundlers are starting to knock other means of financing right off the map. They are swamping the candidates with more money from than the frontrunners could possibly get from the presidential public financing system, thus helping to hasten its tragic demise.

Whether bundlers deliver $50,000 or $1 million, they expect something in return. The favor may be as simple as a photo opportunity that allows them to enhance their status with business associates, or it may be even more nefarious, like a government contract or tax break. In a world of six- and seven-figure campaign contributions, corruption and scandal may not be far behind.

Become a Bundler and Travel the World

WhiteHouseforSale.org has become the go-to source for finding out who is bundling for whom.

Many wonder what all these people are paying for. What happens to bundlers who “invest” in the winning candidate?  If Bush's treatment of his bundlers is any indication, then the current crop of bundlers can look forward to rewards like easy access to power and appointments to plum positions here and overseas.

Read and watch CBS's investigation of the bundlers behind the presidential candidates, including comments from Congress Watch division director Laura MacCleery.

What do bundlers get for all their dough?

Charles Swindells became Ambassador to New Zealand; John Palmer, the ambassador to Portugal. Charles Cobb's wife, Susan got the post for Jamaica. All raised at least $100,000.

What's most troubling about bundling is the common occurrence of industry shills buying their way into positions of power with piles of campaign contributions.  At the regulatory agencies, this cronyism can translate into relaxed enforcement, big tax breaks and special earmarks for big business.  It seems that bundling is a seriously good investment.

New Report on Lobbyists-Fundraisers

Today, Public Citizen released a new report on its website www.WhiteHouseforSale.org comparing current lobbyist-fundraisers to those from the 2004 presidential campaign.

There is more and more news of candidates returning money from fundraisers with illicit pasts.  You would think the presidential hopefuls would be persuaded to end the practice of allowing lobbyists to funnel money into their campaigns, but so far most have remained hooked on this bundled cash.

One key finding of our report is that the number of lobbyist-fundraisers for 2008 is fast approaching the number from the 2004 election cycle. The total number of lobbyist-fundraisers for the entire 2004 cycles was 136. As of today, based on the best data available (many campaigns have not been forthcoming with information on their fundraisers – Rudy Giuliani’s office, for example, has not responded to our requests for a list of his bundlers) there are already 92 federal lobbyists fundraising for presidential candidates. 

With more than a year left in the 2008 season, there is reason to believe many more lobbyists will stake a claim on a candidate and bundle contributions to a campaign.  So far, fewer than 30 percent of 2004 lobbyist-fundraisers have shown up on the 2008 candidates’ lists of fundraisers; most are still sitting on the sidelines waiting for a front runner to emerge (many likely see fundraising for a loser as a bad investment ...).

The Real Dirt on Presidential Fundraisers

The newspapers lit up this week with revelations that Norman Hsu, a top fundraiser for Hillary Clinton, not only may have violated campaign finance laws by laundering contributions through family members but is also a fugitive facing jail time.

While the press enjoyed a reprieve from the dog days of August, partisans delighted in the chance to score some points. Michelle Malkin, Washington’s reigning queen of indignation and a stand-in host on the “fair-and-balanced” network, gleefully taunted, “What say you now, Hillary?” on her blog. Malkin later opined that even Clinton’s pledge to return Hsu’s contributions could not erase the “stain.” Oooooooh.

Clinton’s troubles are about the same as the unpleasant circumstance Mitt Romney faced in mid-August when news broke that a Maryland grand jury had returned a 23-count indictment against a co-chairman of his national finance committee. Ouch. Malkin’s blog item scolding Romney for his failure to perform due diligence on the co-chairman, Alan B. Fabian, is available here. (Oops. Curiously, a review of Malkin’s archive was unable to unearth any such item.)

Aside from the fact that partisans will use campaign finance scandals for their own advantage, here is what the Hsu and Fabian episodes really show: Our campaign finance system attracts unsavory fundraisers - and candidates have little incentive to ferret out the bad apples. In reality, their true incentive is to remain blithely ignorant of their donors’ histories.

Laura MacCleery on WVOX

Last week, Laura MacCleery, director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch division, spoke to New Yorkers about the recently passed Lobbying and Ethics bill, the role of lobbyists in campaign fundraising, Fair Elections, and presidential bundlers.

Listen to her interview on WVOX.

Romney Should Come Clean About Tainted Bundler

The indictment last week of Alan Fabian continued a rich tradition of major presidential fundraisers – or bundlers – running aground with the law.

If convicted, Fabian will follow in the footsteps of Jack Abramoff, Ken Lay and Thomas Noe, to name a few presidential bundlers who were subsequently convicted of felonies. And Fabian would enjoy a rare distinction among convicted bundlers: He would manage to taint not one, but two presidential candidates, Bush in 2004 and Mitt Romney in the current cycle.

A federal grand jury in Maryland indicted Fabian on nine mail fraud counts, nine money laundering counts, one obstruction of justice count, two bankruptcy fraud counts, and two perjury counts in a scheme that allegedly defrauded several companies and financial institutions of $32 million. Read about it in the Boston Herald and the Boston Globe

For its part, the Romney campaign is providing lessons in how to do the absolute least to make amends when the law comes knocking on a bundler’s door. In the wake of the indictment, the campaign announced that it was returning Fabian’s $2,300 contribution, but not the untold thousands (or hundreds of thousands) that Fabian brought in from other sources. The campaign wouldn’t even say if it would return the money contributed by Fabian’s wife.

“The money he helped raise was donated by people who have not been accused of any wrongdoing, and so there is no reason for returning it,” a campaign spokesman said.

In point of fact, there is plenty of reason to be suspicious of money raised by Fabian if the allegations against him prove true. Corrupt bundlers sometimes hit their fundraising targets by furnishing money to others on the condition that they contribute it to candidates. This shortcut was one of the things that landed Bush bundler Thomas Noe in the slammer. (Stealing from the Ohio’s Bureau of Workers' Compensation fund was the other.)

But there is a more fundamental question that remains unanswered: Who did give to Romney at Fabian’s behest?

The modern era of bundling took root in George W. Bush’s first campaign when the campaign figured out how to track the money arranged by bundlers without having to comply with disclosure requirements that would kick in if the bundler actually handled the checks. Bundlers had the contributors they solicited send checks directly to the campaign with their bundler’s number written on the check. The Bush campaign agreed to provide some information about who its bundlers were but not who the bundlers solicited contributions from.

If Romney really wanted to demonstrate that his Fabian-arranged donors were clean, the least he could do is say who they are.

White House for Sale on Counterspin

Laura MacCleery, director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch division, was interviewed about the White House for Sale project on FAIR's CounterSpin last Friday, August 10th.

Listen to hear Laura explain the role of bundlers and the state of transparency thus far in the 2008 presidential election (roughly two-thirds of the way through the program).

Tying it all together

Yesterday morning, the Washington Post explored how the dash for cash puts pressure on lower level employees and others to pony up when the boss has signed on to financially support a candidate. The Post found that 526 secretaries, administrative assistants and executive assistants have contributed to the presidential candidates in the first half of this year, a roughly four-fold increase from the 127 donors with those occupations who contributed during the same time period four years ago.

In a somewhat dismissive aside, the Post cited Former Federal Election Commissioner Scott Thomas' reading that pressuring low-paid subordinates isn't even necessarily illegal as long as supervisors don't "facilitate" the donations. Bundlers would, however, be breaking the law if they are reimbursing their employees under the table. The paper seemed to be making light of what seems to be a credible explanation. What are we supposed to think when an employee, who may only take home $20,000 to $30,000 a year after taxes, is forking over as much as a tenth of their paycheck to a candidate?

They talk big, but will candidates deliver the fundraising transparency we need?

Originally posted on Laura MacCleery's diary at MyDD

Last night, Presidential hopeful Barack Obama reiterated once more that he does not take money from lobbyists:

OLBERMANN: Thirty seconds. Senator Obama, I know you and Senator Edwards have taken a firm stand against accepting money from lobbyists, yet you allow them to raise money for you and, as the phrase goes, "Bundle it." What's the difference between those things?
OBAMA: No, no. I do not have federal registered lobbyists bundling for me, just like I don't take PAC money.  (APPLAUSE) And the reason that's important is because the people in this stadium need to know who we are going to fight for. And I want to be absolutely clear that the reason I'm in public  life, the reason I came to Chicago, the reason I started working with  unions, the reason I march on picket lines, the reason that I'm  running for president is because of you... (APPLAUSE) ... not because of the folks who are writing big checks. And that's a clear message that has to be sent, I think, by every candidate.

Click here for full transcript. 

Presidential Candidates Debate Lobbyist Campaign Contributions

At the Yearly Kos convention this past weekend, presidential candidates sparred over accepting contributions from lobbyists (which would include having lobbyists as bundlers). They all agreed, however, on the need for public funding of elections.

Congress Delivers on Lobbying and Ethics Reform!

Finally – real ethics reform passed in Congress!  Yesterday the Senate approved S. 1 – the “Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007” – with a veto-proof majority of 83 to 14. On Tuesday, the House also passed the bill with flying colors by 411 to 8.

This terrific legislation will give the public important new information about the cozy relationships between industry lobbyists and members of Congress, and limit the outrageous gifts and travel junkets that laid the groundwork for the culture of corruption on Capitol Hill.   

Today marks the final chapter of a long struggle. We first kicked off the drive to fix Capitol Hill over three years ago. Back then, our “wish list” of reforms was largely ignored by members of Congress and the media – even laughed at as a political impossibility. Then Jack Abramoff’s world – and that of many prominent members of Congress – started to unravel. 

As the investigations into kickbacks and bribes became indictments, our call for reform – and the increased public disgust with Washington – became more and more difficult to ignore. When Abramoff worked out a plea deal in January 2006 to name those whom he bribed to the FBI, you’d have thought the gig was up. But the leadership of the 109th Congress burrowed into the warm sand like ostriches and ignored the need for reform.  In return for their indifference, the voters changed up the Congress in 2006, citing corruption as a top concern.

But institutional change is hard even for a Congress elected on a promise to “end the culture of corruption.” As the bill moved forward, the “K Street” crowd lobbied hard, warning members not to bite the hands that keep lawmakers fat and happy. Public Citizen’s activists did not back down, sending thousands of faxes, emails and making hundreds of call to the Hill to tell Congress it must see this through. 

The Debate Heats Up on Bundlers

In this week’s CNN/YouTube debate, former Sen. Mike Gravel (D-Alaska) took on Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on the question of his bundlers. 

Here’s the exchange:

GRAVEL: We're not united. I'm not united on many of their views. And I want to take on Barack Obama for a minute, who said he doesn't take money from lobbyists. Well, he has 134 bundlers. Now, what does he think that is?

And, besides that, he has received money from a Robert Wolf, the head of the USB (sic) bank in the United States, who raised $195,000 -- from this bank -- wait a second -- who has lobbyists in Washington...

COOPER: Your time is up.

GRAVEL: ... and it's a foreign-owned bank.

COOPER: Senator Obama, I'm going to have to let you respond.

OBAMA: Absolutely.

Well, the fact is I don't take PAC money and I don't take lobbyists' money.

And the bundlers -- the reason you know who is raising money for me, Mike, is because I have pushed through a law this past session to disclose that.
And that's the kind of leadership that I've shown in the Senate.

That's the kind of leadership that I showed when I was a state
legislator. And that's the kind of leadership that I'll show as president of the United States.

GRAVEL: Wait a minute...

I’ll have to sort this out later….

Kudos to Gravel for bringing some attention to the role that bundlers play in presidential politics.  But what do we really know about bundlers?

White House for Sale

Welcome to White House for Sale 2008! 

This new and revitalized destination site gives you the scoop on big bundlers who are powering today’s billion-dollar race to the White House.  Bundlers have enormous influence in determining election winners because they funnel huge sums from other people to candidates.  Candidates, for their part, often bestow cutesy titles on them (remember Bush’s “Rangers” and “Pioneers”?) and reward them with access and plum government positions if they win.

In the 2004 presidential campaign, more than 60 of Bush’s big bundlers were federal lobbyists, including disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, whose influence-peddling scandal laid down breadcrumbs into several congressional offices as well as the Interior Department and landed Abramoff in prison.  Bush’s bundlers back in 2000 included former Enron CEO Ken Lay, who was subsequently allowed to help choose two of the five regulators charged with overseeing energy companies.  We all remember what happened there.

We think it's long past time for the “For Sale” sign on the White House lawn to come down and stay down.  So, we are at it again for the 2008 campaign.  This time, the task is more challenging because most of the major candidates are opting out of public financing and being showered with cash collected by bundlers.

The current crop of White House hopefuls is actually worse than the very minimal disclosure standards set by Bush, Dean and Kerry.  In 2004, those candidates made bundlers’ names readily accessible and provided at least some insight into how much money bundlers raised.  So far in this election, only one 2008 candidate (Barack Obama) is disclosing anything about how much his bundlers are raising.

We don’t plan on letting that slide.  We are going continue to demand disclosure by bird-dogging the candidates and relentlessly pursuing better disclosure of the big donors.

What opposition?

This past week the House finally passed the long-awaited lobbying reform bill.  After months of wrangling, significant reforms in the relationship between lobbyists and Congress passed overwhelmingly. 

Check out Craig Holman's excellent piece in The Politico.  Here's what Craig has to say about those who fought the reforms:

The curmudgeons were those in the middle layer of the caucus – folks who have been around Capitol Hill for 10 or 20 years. Members such as Reps. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), Allen Boyd (D-Fla.) and Alcee L. Hastings (D-Fla.) railed against the reforms. These lawmakers have close fundraising relationships with the lobbying corps and perhaps also are eyeing million-dollar lobbying jobs in the near future. Hastings, now serving his eighth term, scoffed at the reformers, who “want Congress to be in sackcloth and ashes.”

The old bulls’ opposition was so vocal that Democratic leaders continued to water down the bill to buy their votes. In the most tragic cut of all, a back-room deal was worked out to strip the reform bill of its revolving door restrictions in exchange for a vote to send the measure to the floor. But Abercrombie et al. still continued to decry other provisions, such as the bundling disclosure, threatening to kill the measure on the floor.

Though these guys still voted against the reform bill, they were about the only ones. The measure passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 396-22.

This is a hard-won victory that we share with our allies in the House, our coalition partners, the voices of reason in the media and blogosphere, and most of all, with our very committed activists. 

Now let's make sure the members of the conference committee don't shred these reforms when joining the Senate and House versions of the bills.

So Much for the Cleanest Congress in History

Those screwy Democrats - not much good news on the lobbying reform front.

While the Democratic leadership and freshmen Dems clearly want some substantial lobbying and ethics reform legislation, the "old bulls" in the Democratic caucus do not want business-as-usual to change much. These are the members who have been around Congress for 10 or 20 years and now dominate chairs on various committees.

The old bulls made it clear earlier that they would join Republicans and defeat the entire bill. So, leadership worked out a deal this morning: that all the revolving door provisions, including the simple extending the cooling off period from one year to two years, would be removed from the bill, if they would support an amendment to disclose campaign bundling by lobbyists along with the base disclosure bill. That deal went though. It means that the floor rule will be designed to prohibit introduction of the revolving door amendment I had been working on.

Following that deal, Democrats overwhelming defeated amendments to disclose grassroots lobbying, and to prohibit lobbyists from organizing and paying for convention parties and other events honoring Members.

The Republican caucus is quite happy with the bill so far, with Lamar Smith (R-Texas) pointing out that it resembles the lobbying reform bill the Republicans approved in the 109th Congress (but which perished in conference) - and which we denounced as "warm spit."

Not a very impressive performance by a Democratic caucus that promised to make this Congress "the cleanest in history."

Unbundle the Abramoffs

Public Citizen activists have been encouraging members of Congress to provide more information about lobbyists who bundle campaign contributions.  Check out today's editorial in The Washington Post:

THE HOUSE Democratic leadership is to meet this week to determine the content of the lobbying reform package it says is one of its top priorities. The key test of the leadership's seriousness on this issue will be whether the proposal includes a provision to require lobbyists to disclose the bundles of cash they collect for lawmakers' campaigns.

Such a requirement was contained in the Senate lobbying bill passed in January. The head of the House Democrats' campaign committee, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), sponsored a similar requirement last year and is pushing it again this time around -- despite the crimp it could put in his ability to raise money for his troops. But other influential House members are said to be balking, worried that merely requiring lobbyists to reveal the bundles could reduce the number and size of such donations.

This is, of course, precisely why disclosure is essential. The influence that lobbyists wield can't be gauged by looking at their individual contributions. Their power comes in their capacity to deliver a stack of checks to grateful lawmakers. A lawmaker knows how much he or she is indebted to a lobbyist. So, you can be sure, does the lobbyist. The only ones in the dark are the public.

This provision wouldn't ban bundling, just shine some sunlight on it. It wouldn't apply to all big fundraisers, just ones who make their livings lobbying the legislators for whom they're bringing in the bundles. House Democrats must keep this in mind: They're in power in large part because of the cozy, and in some cases corrupt, relationships their predecessors had with lobbyists. If they want to stay in power, they need to demonstrate that they are willing, finally, to do something about this.

We couldn't agree more.

Funny Money Hits the Hill

If members of Congress think that the fight to clean up Washington ended on Nov. 7, they are sorely mistaken.

Yet there are still plenty of politicians here who DO NOT want to change a thing.  Others who ran on cleaning up Washington still have not delivered.  It's easy for politicians to get a little too comfortable with the way things work in DC…

The truth is you gotta keep on bugging them.

Public Citizen and other reform groups have been prodding Congress to put their lobbying and ethics reform bill back on the front burner.   We don’t want the political momentum for bold reform to lose steam and are asking folks to pull out all the stops to keep it going until it gets passed.

That is why we are delivering "funny money" lobbyist cash to reps. on behalf of their constituents.  Our activists are demanding to know who how much bundled campaign contributions are coming from lobbyists and what for-profit grassroots lobbying firms are spending big bucks to influence Congress on controversial legislation.

We figured -- money talks in Washington.  Take a second to send your own and say it's time for real change, and not chump change.

Clinton puts 'Rangers' to shame - Clinton Should 'Tell All' About Bundlers

Today, the Washington Post editorialized about Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-N.Y.) one-million-dollar ask of supporters for her presidential bid. This dwarfs the $200,000 which Bush asked prospective Rangers to raise. Every four years, the bar for presidential fundraising shoots skywards - 2008 will surely take us to new stomach-turning heights.

The Federal Election Commission sets contribution limits at $2,300 per person for the primary, and allows another $2,300 per person for the general election. Big donors get around these limits by driving truck loads of cash through a loophole known as bundling. It allows people (especially those of the lobbyist variety) to keep funneling money to candidates long after reaching their personal limit. Examples of bundling include lobbyist who host fundraisers or corporate CEO who ask employees to make donations.

If running for president means asking supporters to gather this obscene amount of money, the public deserves to know who the bundlers are, whose money they are bundling and how much they bundle. Both Bush and Kerry chose to tell the public this information in the 2004 election, but such disclosure of bundling is entirely voluntary. It should be mandatory.

Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Marty Meehan (D-Mass.) are co-sponsoring a bill (H.R. 633) that would require disclosure of bundling by lobbyists for all presidential and congressional candidates. The Senate already passed this measure in their lobbying and ethics reform bill (S. 1). You can take action here to ensure the House does the same.