I was wondering if lobbyist serve any useful function or if they are just in the ass of politics.
The first big lobbyist in the US was probably New York State journalist and political boss, Thurlow Weed, who was nicknamed “the wizard of the lobby”.
But the main purpose lobbying groups serve is to organize people with special interests and communicate those interests to legislators.
There’s a whole article on lobbyists in this week’s *Time *magazine.
The article was fairly critical of them, with a title of “Government for Sale: How Lobbyists Shaped the Financial Reform Bill.” (Link goes to an abridged version of the article.)
However, the article interviewed a few, and many are proud of what they do. One of them stated that they attempt to prevent “unintended consequences” in the massive pieces of legislation coming out of Washington these days.
I remember back in the 80s, when no politicians wanted to fund AIDS research or treatment, the only way funding ever got started was because of lobbyists. Even so, it was very much of an uphill battle.
People tend to be awfully attached to the First Amendment - even if they forget sometimes that that amendment has an awful lot of parts to it.
One of those parts was the right to petition. Now, for this right to be fully realized it cannot be solely vested in individuals. It must also be granted to groupings of people united for a common purpose - this includes churches, political organizations, unions, industry groups, and others.
These groups often appoint spokespeople for their cause - these spokespeople can take very specialized forms sometimes. Some specialize in being the public face of the group, others are experts in legislative or public affairs. But all of them attempt to get the message of the organization into the public eye and/or legislation.
In my experience, when this is done for groups one supports it is seen as a healthy and natural thing, while similar activity by the opposition is seen as a corrosive and potentially corrupting influence. This isn’t universal, but it certainly is common.
I know from personal experience that our engineering lobbyists have kept some horrendous legislation from being passed in our state. The lobbyists provide information to the legislators, explain bills, and answer questions.
There are so many varied bills which come up each year - there is no way an individual legislator is going to be able to research them all in time to make an informed vote. Lobbyists provide a very useful service.
Generally speaking, I’m not a fan of what lobbyists have become in this country.
On the other hand, I’ve worked with a few, and they’ve accomplished what they were hired for. In a word, that was education. When complex legislation is offered up, it behooves interested parties to make sure that the legislators understand what that bill will actually DO when it’s passed. We successfully used lobbyists to educate the congressmembers and their staffs. Of course, at the same time other people were using other lobbyists to present conflicting information…
There are two kinds of lobbyists: The ones who support the causes which I am in favor of, and the ones who are against my causes.
The first group help to pass a great deal of beneficial legislation. The second group help to pass a great deal of bad legislation.
O’DSullivan Dam in Washington state was named for a lobbyist. The guy it was named for was hired by the farmers in central Washington to push for the construction of Grand Coulee Dam. It took him years to convince Congress, so I guess they named it after him for his perseverance.
They are important to the people they are lobbying for.
If you are an American, then right now in Washington there is probably a lobbyist who is representing at least one of your interests. Probably many.
Believe in conservationism? Environmental protection? There are dozens of lobbying firms working towards that end.
Strongly pro-choice? Strongly pro-life? Are you a passionate member (or support) of organized labor? Do you work for a U.S. based manufacturing firm? Are you a professional (Doctor/Lawyer/etc)? Are you a senior citizen? A minority? Are you a small business owner? Are you a rich owner of a large corporation?
Really the list goes on and on.
We have 535 individuals who are in Congress (actually 534 or something right now.) They represent 300 million people, to realistically reach even your local Senator or U.S. Congressmen you can’t do it alone. Lobbying groups come about when people who want to advance certain interests pool resources because that is the only way to effectively get the attention of representatives with hundreds of thousands to millions of constituents. Letter writing campaigns and things of that nature certainly work sometimes, but in the grand scheme of things, to have the consistent access and attention you need organized, professional lobbying.
That’s the “function” lobbyists can serve if you take the “best” view of things. Of course in the real world man is fallible. Because of this many lobbyists have crossed the line into vague and legalized forms of bribery, and because of this many Americans have come to view lobbyists as a cancer upon the system whose sole function is to buy politicians and their votes. I think it can get that bad, but I don’t think it is universally that bad. I think some politicians still handle things the right way, and I think some lobbyists perform their function ethically.
How many good politicians and ethical lobbyists there are, out of the total, I can’t begin to guess.
Maybe it goes without saying but the problem with lobbyists isn’t that this is the way to get representatives to hear the views of groups with common desires. It’s the part where the lobbyists come bearing gifts.
You want to simplify it so that only the views are heard and nothing more? Only allow lobbyists to have meetings in the representatives office, with disinterested third parties as witnesses. No money or gifts may change hands - not even a cup of coffee. Lobbyists are barred from all offsite meetings with said representatives. No quid pro quos - just let the ideas speak for themselves.
I know - keep dreaming. The foxes are the ones that make the henhouse rules.
How you gonna enforce that? D.C. ain’t that big a city and there are only so many steakhouses and golf courses. If congressdude is at a hotel bar nursing a brew and lobbyist sits down at the stool next to him and says hi, what’s supposed to happen? He storms out in the middle of his drink? That’s all that “lobbyists” were initially … guys who hung out in lobbies and struck up conversations with pols.
I understand what you’re trying to accomplish–and believe me, I agree with the sentiment–but this just isn’t feasible. Let’s take an example.
You’re in a dispute over proposed legislation affecting a piece of land. Your opponents have been sending in tons of misleading and outright incorrect information, including photos that are faked, manipulated, or cropped to make your opponents’ point. At some point, it makes sense to bring the legislator(s) involved out to the land and SHOW them what’s going on. Your proposal prevents that.
Which, as an aside, is one reason the recent U.S. SCOTUS decision Citizens United vs. the FEC is so misunderstood.
If we recognize a right to free speech for groups of citizens assembled, what defines and distinguishes such groups? A labor union has a right to spend its money to influence a political campaign and the development of legislation. An industry association has a right to spend its money to influence a political campaign and the development of legislation. But opponents of the *Citizens United *decision argued that corporations don’t have a right to spend their money to influence campaigns and legislation.
Often argued because corporations aren’t people. Well, neither are unions, or churches, or chambers of commerce. What makes a private company’s right to free speech any less legitimate than anyone else’s?
(paraphrased dialog from “Suspect” starring Cher & Dennis Quaid):
Cher (as a lawyer interviewing potential jurors): What is your occupation?
Quaid: I’m a congressional advisor.
Cher: “Congressional advisor” - is that another name for “lobbyist”?
Quaid: I dunno, isn’t “mouthpiece” another word for “lawyer”?
Do real life lobbyists take offence at that title?
In the full article I linked to above, one of the profiled lobbyists has “LOBYIST” for the license plate of his Mustang convertible, so I guess not.