By David Baumann, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Friday, Aug. 18, 2006

A now-defunct lobbying firm under federal investigation has acknowledged that it failed to report some $260,000 in lobbying fees between 2002 and 2005, according to records filed in recent days in the Secretary of the Senate's Office. The firm, Copeland Lowery Jacquez Denton and White had already acknowledged underreporting some $1.4 million in fees.

	Copeland Lowery Jacquez Denton and White had already acknowledged underreporting some $1.4 million in fees.

In recent days, lobbyists from the firm filed documents showing that it underreported income from San Bernardino County, the City of San Bernardino, and the Inland Valley Development Agency -- all local government units in Southern California that are in the district of the House Appropriations Committee chairman, Jerry Lewis, R-Calif. National Journal reported last month that San Bernardino records show thousands of dollars in bills and cancelled checks made out to Copeland Lowery that were not reported in the lobbying documents, as required by federal law.

A spokesman for the former partners in the lobbying firm acknowledged there were inaccuracies in the original reports, but that with the assistance of outside counsel the lobbyists are making a "diligent attempt" to make sure the records are corrected. That review is continuing.

The FBI, the Pentagon's Defense Criminal Investigative Service, and the Internal Revenue Service are investigating the firm's relationship with several California cities and towns, and with Lewis. At the time the inaccurate reports were filed, Jeff Shockey, who is now deputy staff director of the House Appropriations Committee, was listed as a Copeland lobbyist on the reports. He formerly worked for the firm. On the amended reports, Letitia White, a former longtime Lewis aide who then went to Copeland, is listed as having filed the reports.

Records turned over as part of the federal investigation show that Copeland Lowery may have been sloppy in disclosing the money it received from the San Bernardino clients, but was anything but slack in other parts of its recordkeeping. For instance, the firm sent San Bernardino bills each month including specific details of its lobbying activities, including about the earmarked projects it had succeeded in obtaining in appropriations bills. The firm also kept careful track of when the county paid its bills.

But in the reports filed in recent days with the Senate, the firm reported that between 2002 and 2004, it had underreported about $60,000 in income it received from the City of San Bernardino for lobbying on appropriations matters. The firm also acknowledged that between 2002 and 2004, it failed to report about $80,000 it received from the Inland Valley Development Agency. That agency includes several California local governments that are trying to redevelop the former Norton Air Force Base. Finally, the firm filed reports stating that between 2002 and the end of 2005, it failed to report $120,000 in payments from San Bernardino County. The exact amounts are difficult to determine, since lobbyists do not have to report income under $10,000 received from a client over a six-month period.

San Bernardino County last month granted Innovative Federal Strategies, a firm that includes Letitia White and former Rep. Bill Lowery, R-Calif., a former Copeland Lowery partner and longtime friend and colleague of Lewis, a six-month $99,000 lobbying contract.

Earlier this year, Copeland Lowery filed a huge number of amended reports for other clients and its spokesman said some of those records detailed underreporting of income, while others listed overreported income.

Under federal law, lobbyists must report their income to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House. However, laws governing the accuracy of those reports can be vague, Washington ethics attorneys told National Journal last month. But former House of Representatives Counsel Stanley Brand said that if the lobbyists were found to have intentionally filed false reports, they could face civil penalties. Principals also could be charged under statutes dealing with filing false statements.

Need A Reprint Of This Article?
National Journal Group offers both print and electronic reprint services, as well as permissions for academic use, photocopying and republication. Click here to order, or call us at 877-394-7350.