Mary Clay Berry

(This is the second of two newsletters on lobbying and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974.) “RESPA, RESPA, on the wall, Who’s the fairest of them all? Could it be William Proxmire? No, for his name rhymes with quagmire.” — A poem from a constituent to Sen. Proxmire, Summer 1975   WASHINGTON–The passage of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 headed off, at least for the time being, any serious attempt by Congress to lower real estate settlement costs and introduce competition into the settlement process. The title insurance industry and their Washington lawyer, William T. Finley Jr. of Sharon, Pierson, Semmes, Crolius & Finley, had failed to get Congress to repeal a 1970 law which gave the Department of Housing and Urban Development authority to regulate settlement costs where federally-insured loans were involved. But HUD had stopped trying to use this authority and the companies hoped the subject would not come up again before Congress for several years. They were to be disappointed. The second chapter of the RESPA story

(This is the first of two newsletters on lobbying and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974.) “Who ever heard of the title insurance industry?” — An anonymous Washington lobbyist   WASHINGTON–One morning this winter, at hearings on banking reform legislation, a California congressman looked down at a panel of witnesses who were urging the committee to pass the bill in question because of what it would do for the consumer and cautioned them not to be too hasty. “That’s the way we got in trouble with RESPA,” he said. “RESPA was supposed to help the consumer.” The witnesses, representatives of savings and loan banks across the country, snickered nervously. They all remembered RESPA. Consumers probably don’t remember RESPA. The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 got little attention outside a few banking, housing and real estate trade journals. But bankers remember RESPA because, during the six months it was in effect, it caused them countless bookkeeping headaches. Realtors remember RESPA because one of its provisions made them nervously wonder whether their commonly-accepted

“Let us make sure it is clean.” — Sen. Charles Mathias, R-Md., during the mark-up of the 1975 Supplemental Legislative Branch Appropriations bill   WASHINGTON–This is a story about an ex-senator, some former colleagues, and an empty office building at the foot of Capitol Hill. It is also a story about power and friends in the right places. It is an important story, not because of the subject matter itself, an office building whose owners were anxious to either rent or sell it as quickly as possible, but because of what it reveals about the importance of personal contacts in the world of Congress. Briefly, the owners of the building offered to rent part of it to the General Services Administration, which handles housekeeping for the federal government, for $2.8 million. When this fell through, they approached the Senate about renting the entire building for $3.2 million plus some additional expenses. And, when this proposal seemed to be foundering over questions of uncertain jurisdiction, the owners of the building retained former senator George Smathers, now

“‘…The guys that get on top of things and really ride them for all they’re worth, they’ve got the horses.’ ‘They also listen now and then to people who know what they’re talking about,’ Richmond said. ‘Even though they are lobbyists, and make their living that way,’” George V. Higgins, A City on a Hill   WASHINGTON–Pushed by outside groups, circumstances, and an internal perception of the need to come to grips with lobbying, committees on both sides of Capitol Hill will this spring draft legislation which is intended to give the public a better idea who is lobbying Congress for whom and to what purpose. The emphasis will be upon disclosure, and rightly so, for any attempt to regulate lobbying activity is certain to run afoul of the First Amendment which gives citizens the right to petition their government. If lobbying disclosure bills reach the floor of either house, they are likely to pass for, after the shocks of Watergate and revelations of corporate bribery both here and abroad, a vote against lobbying reform