Thanks to this story, I just found out that there’s such a thing as lobbying offices- pay them money, and they’ll lobby the government for whatever you want.
Doesn’t the idea of lobbyists (especially mercenary lobbyists) kind of fly in the face of democracy? I thought the idea was the will of the people was what was important, not how much money is used to influence politicians. The story points out a particularly egregious example- the House Speaker’s brother’s lobbyist office promises “unparalleled access to top decision-makers.”
Seriously… are lobbyists supposed to be part of the whole democratic process?
First, let me offer a disclaimer, which is that I work for a law firm which does executive branch lobbying (with the FCC). But I don’t see a problem with it. If our clients will be affected by a law or rule change, I don’t see what’s wrong with them telling the FCC how they’ll be affected and how they’d like the laws or rules changed.
And since our clients are businessmen and not lawyers, I don’t see what’s wrong with us taking those arguments and framing them in legal language in the way we think the FCC will best respond to. Our clients don’t have the time or the inclination to draft the arguments themselves.
Why? The lobbying system is certainly imperfect, and it is susceptibe to corruption which IMO is not well-enough policed, but it’s actually a really good system of transferring political interest into policy. If people are really interested in an issue, they’ll be willing to pay for it. And the lobbyists who get hired do a lot of research and policy-crafting that the government doesn’t have the resources for. Whereas if folks think they care about an issue but it’s really not that important to them, they won’t be willing to spend money on it and therefore it’s perfectly appropriate to discount their interest in the face of people who care about the issue much more and are therefore willing to risk money on it.
Disclosure: I’m a lawyer in D.C. My firm has a (rather small) federal lobbying practice, although it does a lot of lobbying in the California state government, where the firm has its main office. I’ve done a very little research work in support of our D.C. lobbying group, but I don’t really work with them very often. When I was in law school I had a job at a firm with a big lobbying practice and for a while most of my work was research for that group. I also used to work next door to the Willard Hotel, which is where the term “lobbying” was coined.
I don’t think anyone would argue that trying to persuade a congressman to vote your way is wrong, even if you’re getting paid by someone else to do it. The problem is when the people doing the persuading are the same people donating many thousands of dollars to campaign funds. I don’t have an easy answer, but there’s your problem.
That’s a silly argument that ignores the reality of a lot of situations. People don’t have the equal ability to pay for the lobbying. A large development firm, for instance, will have a greater ability to pay for a slew of lobbyists to get their way, while working poor in a blighted area likely won’t be able to pay for even one - even if they pool their resources.
Implicit in your post is the notion that poor people’s interests are of no concern and that the imbalance that lobbying automatically creates between the wealthy and the middle and lower classes is, if not a good thing, certainly not a bad one.
I disagree. I am not sure what the solution is, but I am sure that lobbying is, overall, detrimental to the interests of regular folks.
Yes, that must be why wages keep rising so quickly and we have universal health coverage and the social safety net is so strong and secure. And why the minimum wage is more than the living wage. :rolleyes:
Good lobbyists don’t guarantee success. The NRA is one of the top three most powerful lobbying organizations anywhere, and they failed to stop the 1994 assault weapons ban.
Granted, lobbyists don’t guarantee success… but the fact that there are lobbying firms seems to at least imply that money can buy the law. If this wasn’t the case, the lobbying firms wouldn’t exist, correct?
Rich people and large coporations are likely (IMHO) to be able to (try to) influence lawmakers more effectively than poor people and small corporations. It’s the way of the world. If you couldn’t hire paid lobbyists, the rich people and large corporations would be able to pay for more transporation and housing costs so they (or their representatives in the case of corporations) can lobby. The poor and the small corporations are too busy living and trying to make ends meet to lobby.
There are things about the present system that make me uncomfortable. I fear there is a tendency for votes to go in the direction where the most money is thrown. But, I’m not convinced that eliminating lobbyists solves the underlying problem that money talks and rich people and large corporations have more money available to support their stance- regardless of what that stance may be or how the logisitics work.
I can shed a little light on this, since my non-profit organization does a fair amount of lobbying (well within the prescribed limits of the law.)
What is a lobbyist? Legally, it’s someone who talks to government about laws/regulations who is not acting on their own behalf. (There’s no law preventing you from calling up your local Senator and complaining that a proposed law is going to raise your taxes or slice your social net or just basically sucks.)
Lobbyists have to register with the people they’re lobbying. That’s designed to keep the process “transparent” so naive, first-term Representative Mr. Smith will know that attractive Ms. X is only showing interest in his work because she’s trying to get Company Z’s best interests written into that new law.
Note: I am not registered to lobby. I have to be very careful about what I say to government types when I contact them for any reason. (I’m not, for example, allowed to say anything about pending legislation, other than to answer a specific question.) However, our Executive Director is registered, and she speaks on behalf of our organization.
Big businesses (and big everything else) keep lobbyists on the payroll, ready to run down to the Capitol and visit every member of Congress at the drop of a hat.
But what do you do if you aren’t big? You get a lobbyist for hire – someone who’s already registered, someone who’s familiar with the issues you’re interested in and someone who knows who to talk to for the maximum effect.
In that respect, it’s no different from hiring a lawyer when you get arrested or sued. Sure, you could argue your case yourself, but you’d probably screw it up badly, not to mention the time and effort you’d have to put into preparation.
Lobbying is just an institution. Paid lobbyists are just a tool of those who use the institution. Certainly people have corrupted it, but by itself, it’s neither good nor bad.
Maybe it’s supposed to be regulated and transparent, but the idea that someone could have the potential to influence pending legislation by slipping some cash to a congressman’s brother really rubs me the wrong way.
To those in the know, how often does lobbying cross the line between convincing and bribing? How often (if ever) do people ever buy dinners and learjets for their favorite politicians?
Lobbyists don’t bribe. They simply help line up campaign contributions.
As far as dinners go, it’s awfully hard to be working into the middle of the night on some piece of legislation and not have someone buy dinner for everyone in the room. That’s perfectly legal (within reason), and required to be reported.
Lobbyists don’t buy Learjects anymore, either. However, here in the great state of Missouri, business interests are allowing the Governor to use their planes to fly around the state, rather than the state-owned planes. Of course, both the Governor and the businesses have to put a value on it and report it.
The Governor defends this as “saving taxpayer money.”
