Lobbyists Are Good People, Too
Shocking news in this season of lobbyist bashing -- many lobbyists not only are good people but also represent real people.
And even more shocking news: Without lobbyists, government could not function efficiently and perhaps not at all, going all the way back to George Washington.
Last year, 15,965 lobbyists registered under the Lobbyist Disclosure Act, according to OpenSecrets.org.
The top five organizations in amounts spent for lobbying from 1998 to 2008 are the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ($427 million), the American Medical Association ($195 million), General Electric ($178 million), the American Hospital Association ($158 million) and AARP ($148 million).
An interesting fact: Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae -- failed companies forced to be taken over by Uncle Sam, paid for by the rest of us -- spent a total of $96 million and $80 million on lobbying, respectively, during that 10-year period. Looks as if they could have put that money to better use, such as paying down their debts or cleaning out their portfolio of toxic assets.
Another interesting fact: General Motors spent $96 million and Ford Motor $80 million on lobbying during the same time period. Wonder whether it would have been better to spend that money on producing and marketing smaller cars with increased mileage or electric/hybrid technologies as Toyota did during same time period?
But those who criticize lobbyists as being all bad are both wrong and hypocritical.
They are wrong because lobbyists spend much of their time with members of Congress and their staffs providing factual and expert information about legislation that affects their clients. Their clients are companies that employ people, real people, sometimes hundreds of thousands of people who deserve to be considered when laws are made. The First Amendment protects petitioning and communicating with government.
They are hypocritical to use the word "lobbyist" as an unqualified pejorative because what is a "bad" lobbyist for some is a "good" lobbyist for others.
For instance, the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts of America hire lobbyists. Are they bad? In the past three years, guess which "special interest" spent more than $20 million on "special interest" lobbying? The American Cancer Society. You get my point.
What is negative about lobbying is the absence of transparency -- when the powerful and the wealthy have secret influence on members of Congress or the executive branch.
In secrecy, public officials -- shock again -- might be tempted to act contrary to their independent judgment or the public interest, but rather in return for campaign contributions and other favors. Such a quid pro quo, of course, is bribery and criminal.
So what is the answer? Total transparency. (That expression should be a redundancy, but some people say transparency and then don't really mean it.)
Here's a simple proposal:
Every lobbyist visiting a member of Congress or the executive branch to influence official action (the definition of lobbying) should first be required to sign in on an online, real-time computer (and thus, immediately accessible to all).
Information to be disclosed before the meeting should include the lobbyist's name, the client represented, the amount paid by month or year for lobbying, the specific purpose of the meeting, the position to be taken by the lobbyist, the legislation to be discussed, the action to be requested (the "ask" or "asks," to be updated after meeting), and the amount of current and prior campaign donations made by the client, the lobbyist and relatives associated with both.
Every time, every meeting. It's as simple as that.
Of course, this could be somewhat burdensome, but lobbyists are well-paid and have staff to help them with this information. Some lobbyists might claim this would require the revelation of confidential information of value to competitors. That's an understandable concern.
But the answer is this: If you are worried about competitors knowing about what you are asking a public official, then don't ask. Once you go to a public official to ask for something, you lose your right to confidentiality. Period.
The effect of this "total transparency" lobbying reform proposal would be a level playing field for all: When a lobbyist asks a legislator or executive branch official to do something, they both know that the public will know everything and, thus, any actions taken will be accountable to the public.
With total transparency, lobbyists and the officials they try to influence will have to ask themselves the question "would I mind if this lobbying meeting is fully reported in all respects in tomorrow's newspaper?"
If the answer is yes and the meeting is canceled for that reason, that is a good thing for the public -- and certainly for the lobbyist and the legislator as well, who probably do not want to risk going to jail.
Lanny Davis is a prominent Washington lawyer and a political analyst. From 1996 to 1998, he served as special counsel to President Clinton. From 2005 to 2006, he served on President Bush's five-member Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. This article appears in today's Washington Times.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I have to disagree.
To say that the problem isn't with the lobbyists but with a lack of transparency, is like saying thieves are not criminals because houses should have better security systems.
Maybe most lobbyists are good, honest folks. So are most priests. But when a good priest remains silent about a criminal colleague, he loses all claim to "good".
http://the
Thank you. To equate the term lobbyist to "evil" is just too simplistic and black and white. There are lobbyists who lobby for things that benefit the greater good.
The unfortunate thing is that the groups who have the most money available to hire lobbyists are the ones who have MORE financial profit as their top priority.
XME: To equate the term lobbyist to "evil" is just too simplistic and black and white. There are lobbyists who lobby for things that benefit the greater good.
The unfortunate thing is that the groups who have the most money available to hire lobbyists are the ones who have MORE financial profit as their top priority.
===
Exactly so. It's not the individual lobbyist we're condemning here. It's the whole SYSTEM.
The lobbyist SYSTEM as it exists today is just a mechanism for putting private greed above public responsibility.
"Without lobbyists, government could not function efficiently and perhaps not at all..."
Isn't this like saying that without Pimps, Hookers would be at an economic disadvantage?
The lobby oriented system we have today is WRECKING the country.
Legislation is supported - and passed - not based on what is best for America, but rather based on what is best for those with the money to get their will enacted into law.
The reason we don't have a decent national health care system is because of pharma, insurance and medical lobbyists.
The reason we don't have an energy policy is because of of energy company lobbyists.
The reason the big three automakers are having terminal convulsions is because of their lobbyists.
Yes, some lobbyists represent "good guy" organizations. Yes, lobbyists can be good husbands and wives, mothers and fathers. But the whole system is ROTTEN to the core.
Lanny Davis is WRONG.
This is the funniest thing Ive seen in weeks!
"Without lobbyists, government could not function efficiently and perhaps not at all"
Function efficiently????
Legislators should operate the way judges do.
You can argue your case before a judge. Bring in the testimony of experts and witnesses. You can present evidence. But you CANNOT create any type of financial relationship. Period. Can't donate to them. Can't send them on a nice trip somewhere. Can't buy time with them that other people can't get.
You try to influence a judge using cash in any way, and it is bribery. It should be the same for Congress.
I am so sick of the "They only contributed $X to my campaign. Do you think I'd sacrifice my principles for X$?!?!" excuse pols always give. Yes, you'd sell your own mother for contributions because that is what funds the lifeblood of your re-election campaign.
Put simply, lobbyist would not spend the obscene dollars they spend if they didn't think they bought results. Period. If you take money out of the picture, we don't get things like an energy policy written by the energy companies and a prescription drug bill that actually FORBIDS competition.
Knowing better than ordinary people about the necessity and goodness of lobbyists would read much better were it written by a person who has spent no time as a lobbyist, as the pay received for servces rendered may cloud the judgement of the writer.
OK, let's try this....
PAID lobbyists are persona non grata.
There is NOTHING keeping regular citizens from lobbying.
Why in the WORLD does the Boy and Girl scouts NEED TO PAY A LOBBYIST?
This IS the point!
Isn't it the job of our elected Representatives to KNOW their constituents and "Represent" their needs? Or is that too much like work?
The job of our elected representatives is to serve their constituents' interests. Where are the people's lobbyists? Giant corporations and industries don't need lobbyists; they already have lots of power and influence.
A corporate lobbyist is, by definition, NOT representing the interests of state constituents. It represents the interests of a corporation. The interests of corporations is to maximize shareholder profit. That doesn't fit with the needs of We, the People.
Congress has the Interwebs if they want to know something. They don't need to get it from a whole Street dedicated to lobbying.
Your flummery is amusing but (to use your term) transparent. Stop trying to justify a corruption of our government by claiming it is a part of the government.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
