I would like to add that this may be a necessary evil. If there are so many laws, it's to provide a framework for everything.
I understand that you are now independent, and will be completely autonomous in your management and investigation procedures.
I'll come back to the example Mr. Peterson gave a few moments ago: we cannot do indirectly what we are not permitted to do directly. So if someone is appointed to a board of directors and paid as a director because he or she has worked with the federal government in the past, and then leaves without being paid, that person is doing indirectly what he or she could not have done directly. In my view, the intent of the legislation is to give you the power to examine that kind of thing.
Do people often call you to ask whether they are in fact lobbyists? Do some people take the time to call you to discuss the issue with you, or does that happen only rarely?