Legal Aspects of Regulating Lobbying in the United States of America and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author reviews history and peculiarities of the legal regulations of lobbying in USA and Canada, points out the tendencies of the legislation development. USA and Canada are among the first countries, which included legal regulations on the lobbying relations in the state government. The author explores the evolution of development of the lobbying legislation in the USA, and in particular reviews the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1976, Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, as well as evolution of the Canadian legislation, where the Act on Lobbying of 1989 is in force, which had substantial changes during the last ten years. Taking into consideration the territorial form of state, the author reviews not only the federal legislation, but also laws on the level of states and provinces of these federations. Besides, the author covers the activity of the control bodies, order of registration and reporting by lobbyists of their professional activity, reveals pro and cons of the legal regulations of such institution as lobbying. In the article there is the list of information, which should be provided by lobbyists to the control bodies and the author correctly mentions that this list in USA is much wider, comparing to Canadian regulations. In the article the author reviews the liability for violations of lobbying legislation. In particular, in the USA the criminal liability is applied up to 5 years of imprisonment and financial penalties up to 200 thousand US dollars. Based on the USA and Canada experience the author reveals the key issues, which should be fixed by the legal regulations in the country and in particular: the clear definition of the lobbying and lobbyist, necessity of disclosure on the information about client and amounts paid, fixing in the control mechanisms and liability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".