C. Simon Davidson
Q: I am a House staffer with a question about splitting restaurant
checks with lobbyists. Like many staffers, I often go out after work with other
House and Senate staffers, and sometimes lobbyists join us, too. When they do, I
know that the new ethics rules forbid them from paying for our meals. Therefore,
to avoid a violation, we simply divide the total cost of the meal among the
number of diners. Last week, however, a friend who joined us took issue with our
method of splitting up the check. She said that, when lobbyists join us, the
ethics rules require each diner to pay specifically for the items that they
consume. Is she right? Or is our normal check-splitting method enough?
A: As trivial as some people might find the subject of splitting
restaurant checks, the issue you have raised actually merits close scrutiny.
This is true for two reasons. First, the House ethics committee has said so. In
the case of potential gift rule violations, the House Ethics Manual states that
Members and staffers must be “especially careful” about “small group and
Second, your issue concerns so many Members and staffers. As you point out,
Members and staffers frequently dine with lobbyists. Under the Congressional
gift rules, every meal with lobbyists raises the risk of a violation. Even if
you are mindful of the rules, it can be difficult to remain compliant.
Fundamentally, you are right that the House and Senate ethics rules prohibit
lobbyists from paying for staffers’ meals. The new rules generally prohibit
gifts from lobbyists, and a meal at a restaurant would certainly qualify as a
gift. While the rules are silent regarding how to split restaurant checks, the
Senate Ethics Manual does address the issue. Because of the similarity between
the House and Senate gift rules, the Senate manual’s reasoning likely would
apply in the House as well.
The Senate manual states that if someone else pays for a staffer’s meal, it
is a gift and therefore is prohibited unless it meets an exception to the gift
rule. However, if a staffer dining in a group pays an amount equal to the
staffer’s “proportionate share of the total meal,” the staffer has not received
a gift at all.
Your question boils down to how to ensure that you have paid your
“proportionate share of the total meal.” Your favored method seems reasonable.
After all, people use your method to split checks all the time. However, popular
as it might be, there is a risk that the ethics committees might view it as not
The risk lies in the potential that the food and drink items that you consume
might cost much more than the lobbyists’. Suppose a lobbyist joins you and a
staffer for dinner. The lobbyist orders a $10 salad while you and the other
staffer splurge on $100 each worth of Kobe beef and pricey wine. If you were to
follow your approach and split the $210 check three ways, you and the staffer
would pay only $70, or $30 less than the cost of what you consumed. Meanwhile,
the lobbyist would pay $60 more than the cost of his salad. The risk is that the
ethics committees might deem this to be a $30 gift to each of you, in violation
of the rules. Moreover, while in your case the violation would be completely
innocent, it is conceivable that less virtuous staffers and lobbyists might use
your method as an end-around the ban on gifts from lobbyists.
Perhaps, then, the ethics committees would prefer your friend’s rule that
each diner must pay only for the items of food and drink they consume. However,
it is far less practical. In fact, it may even be impossible to follow.
Setting aside waiters’ resistance to providing so many separate checks, the
biggest problem with your friend’s rule would arise when diners share food and
drink items during the course of a meal. Take appetizers, like a $12 plate of
calamari shared among three diners. Seems easy, right? Four dollars for each of
you. Not so fast. What if one of you eats most of it? Or, if the lobbyist has
just one bite? Must everyone count their individual calamari rings? Wine is an
even bigger curveball. Suppose you order two $100 bottles among the three of
you, and one guzzles much more of it than the others? To comply, do you need to
bring beakers to dinner?
In light of these problems, neither your approach to splitting checks nor
your friend’s seems ideal. Yours runs the risk of a violation, while adhering
perfectly to your friend’s rule just doesn’t seem practical.
So what are you to do? Given the frequency of meals like yours, and the
uncertainty about how to comply, staffers like you could benefit from guidance
from the ethics committees. Nowhere does the ban on gifts from lobbyists intrude
more upon the daily lives of staffers than in the context of group meals.
Eating out with lobbyists can now result in needless anxiety. It would go a
long way toward alleviating that anxiety if staffers knew that when they dine
with lobbyists, they will not violate the gift rules so long as they make a
good-faith effort to pay their share. This seems a reasonable standard to me,
and, in most circumstances, your method of splitting a dinner tab evenly should
be enough to meet the standard. But, only the ethics committees can say for
© Copyright 2007, Roll Call Inc. Reprinted with permission. Widely regarded
as the leading publication for Congressional news and information, Roll Call has
been the newspaper of Capitol Hill since 1955. For more information, visit