I just want to add that it's not only “who”, but what they're doing, so it goes beyond just having their name on the registry. That's essentially what we had in 1989: a name on the registry. It's also who they're seeing, what they're doing, and why they're doing it, which is the important part of the transparency as well. How much information do you require from the lobbyist in terms of their activities and who they're seeing?
I must say that the last modification of the act took a giant step in forcing the disclosure of who they're seeing. Now, you still don't know who all was at the meeting, and you don't know what they were really talking about, so in terms of transparency we still have a way to go. But it's the activity, as well as the people, that is very important in any legislation.