I'm going to speak to this not as journalist, but more as somebody specifically looking at lobbying.
I realize this came up in the GRIC presentation. I think it's actually a very good point, but I think it's trumped by the necessity to have some form of recording of meetings. As I said, I suggest you put them on the registry and that you don't put people's names on them but put a box for bureaucrats or non-political and a box for aides.
Especially with the case that was brought up with mergers and acquisitions--and that's the only case I can think of where this is relevant--I suggest that the people wait two weeks before they have to do this. I just think that lobbyists working on cases like that are going to have to be very careful. I don't necessarily think you should make an exemption. Exemptions make for diluted public policy. I feel that there were too many exemptions before and you just got into a mishmash of trying to make regulations. There are legal problems with that. I think you shouldn't make flat exemptions.
If they're going to be contacting public office holders for their particular events, it will encourage them to be very picky about which clients and which things they actually have to contact public office holders for. Maybe it will reduce the amount of insider lobbying that goes on. But I don't think there should be an exemption. Maybe we can extend that rule to two or three weeks, maybe a month, before they'd have to register those meetings so they have to proceed with caution. But I don't think they have that strong a case.