lobbying_activities

Individual lobbying activities reported in quarterly filings. Each row is one issue area for one client — includes the specific issues lobbied on, government entities contacted, and income/expense amounts.

Data license: Public Domain (U.S. Government data) · Data source: Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API

1 row where filing_uuid = "33bbc72a-7d7d-4a4e-a52d-5199273f8d8b" and issue_code = "TEC" sorted by filing_year descending

✎ View and edit SQL

This data as json, CSV (advanced)

Suggested facets: received_date (date)

issue_code 1

filing_year 1

filing_period 1

id filing_uuid filing_type registrant_name registrant_id client_name filing_year ▲ filing_period issue_code specific_issues government_entities income_amount expense_amount is_no_activity is_termination received_date
1487831 WTA -- ADVOCATES FOR RURAL BROADBAND 33bbc72a-7d7d-4a4e-a52d-5199273f8d8b Q4 WTA -- ADVOCATES FOR RURAL BROADBAND 293836 WTA -- ADVOCATES FOR RURAL BROADBAND 2013 fourth_quarter TEC Universal Service and Intercarrier Compensation Reform -- WTA continued to share information with policymakers about how the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC's) 2011 USF/ICC Transformation Order, specially the use of the Quantile Regression Analysis (QRA), was negatively impacting rural local exchange carriers (RLECs) abilities to invest in broadband to meet their customers' information and communications needs. WTA also expressed its opposition to providing USF reimbursement support to RLECs based off of a model that does not take such carriers' uniqueness (e.g., size, service territory terrain, geography, etc.) into account. Data Only Broadband (DOBB) and Capital Budget Mechanism (CBM) -- WTA continued to advocate support for its DOBB and CBM plans. Specifically, the DOBB plan would allow RLECs to receive USF reimbursement support for their customers who choose to only take the company's broadband service. WTA lobbying effort focused on why this was important to helping increase broadband take-rates in rural areas and why this helps to meet the provisions in the Communications Act which call for comparably reasonable rates between urban and rural areas. In regard to the CBM, WTA's advocacy focused on its use as an alternative to and substitute for the current application of the QRA. USF Contributions Reform -- WTA continued to talk with policymakers about why addressing USF Contributions Reform (e.g., the way consumer contribute into the universal service fund) was appropriate as well as the benefits of doing so, especially since the Federal Communications Commission has already addressed the way USF funds are distributed through its 2011 USF/ICC Transformation Order. Evolution of the Public Switch Network (PSTN) from TDM to Internet Protocol (IP) -- WTA continued to share stories with policymakers about how RLECs' networks have evolved over the years and that they now transitioning from TDM-based to IP-based networks. WTA continued to express its support for limited broad based technical tria… Agriculture, Dept of (USDA),Federal Communications Commission (FCC),HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,Natl Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST),SENATE 85000   0 0 2014-01-19T16:00:56.137000-05:00

Advanced export

JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object

CSV options: 

CREATE TABLE lobbying_activities (
            id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY,
            filing_uuid TEXT NOT NULL,
            filing_type TEXT NOT NULL,
            registrant_name TEXT NOT NULL,
            registrant_id INTEGER,
            client_name TEXT NOT NULL,
            filing_year INTEGER NOT NULL,
            filing_period TEXT NOT NULL,
            issue_code TEXT,
            specific_issues TEXT,
            government_entities TEXT,
            income_amount INTEGER,
            expense_amount INTEGER,
            is_no_activity INTEGER DEFAULT 0,
            is_termination INTEGER DEFAULT 0,
            received_date TEXT,
            CONSTRAINT fk_activity_filing FOREIGN KEY (filing_uuid)
                REFERENCES lobbying_filings_raw(filing_uuid)
        );
CREATE INDEX idx_act_client_name ON lobbying_activities(client_name COLLATE NOCASE);
CREATE INDEX idx_act_issue_code ON lobbying_activities(issue_code);
CREATE INDEX idx_act_filing_year ON lobbying_activities(filing_year);
CREATE INDEX idx_act_filing_uuid ON lobbying_activities(filing_uuid);