Rush and repent - FT.com The British government's concession on Friday night to revise its controversial lobbying bill by amendment was a tactical decision. By responding to legitimate concerns over the threat it posed to free speech, ministers hoped to ensure rapid passage through the House of Commons this week. The retreat is welcome. But it fails to resolve other flaws in a hastily-drafted bill which, as it stands, should be rejected. The revised legislation will do little to shed light on the relationship between politicians and those who seek to influence their decisions. Barely one per cent of lobbying will be captured because the bill exempts vast swaths of the industry from disclosing meetings with ministers or officials. That alone would be reason enough to demand it be withdrawn. But the government is also seeking to deal a blow to political opponents by tacking measures on to the bill that curb non-party campaign spending and widen the range of activities that should come under the cap. Aimed at restraining the big trade unions, the measure threatened to prevent charities, blogs and other interest groups from campaigning on policy issues during an election year. The government's amendment goes some way towards closing this dangerous loophole. But there are still concerns over the uncertainty created by the requirement to include activities such as rallies, media and staff costs in the spending cap, rather than just political material such as leaflets. It may make sense to widen the definition of what constitutes election campaigning. Yet the speed with which this bill is being pushed through parliament means that there is little clarity over how the rules should apply to different types of activity. The independent Electoral Commission has also criticised the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny. The government has acted with undue haste, simply in an effort to ensure that the law is in place a year before the general election. This is not good lawmaking. The bill should be withdrawn. Campaign measures should be decoupled from the lobbying proposals and considered independently. In any case, legislation affecting political funding and elections should be the subject of cross-party agreement. A delay should also provide an opportunity to revise the lobbying proposals. Making sure that public policy decisions are open to proper scrutiny will resonate more with voters than hasty partisan coups.