I'm getting sick and tired of listening to people criticize Washington "lobbyists" as the root of all evil. I dare say a vast majority of these critics don't even have a working understanding of what a lobbyist is or does. It reminds me of the constant demagogic pummeling "trial lawyers" got from the Bush administration, as if representing injured plaintiffs in tort cases is somehow inherently less moral than defending corporate interests.
So what exactly is a lobbyist? A lobbyist is simply a person - usually an expert in his or her field - hired to try and influence legislation on behalf of a "special interest" - another nebulous term meant to scare and/or outrage you. Except that everyone has a different definition of "special interest". While a Democrat might be outraged that some heavy industry is trying to weaken environmental controls, a Republican might be furious that an anti-crime group is urging Congress to pass tougher gun laws. Interests are interests are interests. Calling an interest "special" is just a way for your opposition to marginalize your cause. It's not unlike when bigots refer to gay rights activists as wanting "special" rights when in fact all they are asking for is "equal" rights. The idea of a "special" interest goes against our collective idea of fair play, but in reality we are simply talking about specific causes, many of them valid.
So a "special interest group" is not unlike a union: one worker has little power; a band of workers has much greater leverage and collective bargaining ability. And since one person may not have much political influence, banding together as a group to collectively try and influence the political process is not in and of itself a bad thing. Further, lobbyists are often an important part of pinpointing issues for legislators to look at and then educating them and their staffs on the subject.
How a lobbyist goes about winning that influence? Well, that's what we're really objecting to. Especially if there is some sort of financial quid pro quo. But objecting to the sickening influence of money in the political process is not the same as objecting to lobbying, per se, and we should not mistake the issue by targeting lobbyists for extinction.
The First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people... to petition the Government for redress of grievances" (this right actually dates back to the Magna Carta, except that we were dealing not with congresses but with kings). This is, in essence, what a lobbyist does. On behalf of whatever group is hiring her, a lobbyist petitions the government, often attempting to influence agendas, votes or specific legislation. Want a civil rights expert with Washington contacts to appeal for more protections for the LGBT community and educate lawmakers on gay rights issues? Hire a lobbyist. Determined to buy your manufacturing plant more time to clean up its toxic waste? Hire a lobbyist.
You too have the right to petition your government for redress. Will it listen to you? Give you access? Pay attention to you? Not bloody likely. That's the real problem. The real problem is that most of us can't afford access and therefore will not to be taken seriously. Lobbyists per se aren't to blame, they're just doing their jobs. The real bad actors here are the politicians, congressional staffs and administration officials who won't grant access to individuals. But then again, can you blame them? There are a lot of nuts out there - just read the user comments on your typical political blog, left or right. Government officials have to have a way to separate the wheat from the chaff. Are you more likely to take a meeting with an articulate, well prepared expert who's representing a vast group of people or the crazy guy who keeps calling your executive aide screaming about socialism?
Yes, of course, there is potential for abuse and corruption in the lobbying process - we see it all the time - but there's no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Lobbyists are formally registered and have to file reports twice a year about the contacts they've made. There are protections and regulations in place. Now it's possible that those protections are woefully insufficient. But any attempt to limit lobbyists' influence should be done only as it relates to unethical or illegal behavior. And most of that illegal behavior is ultimately the fault not of the lobbyist, but of the elected official who is swayed by it. I suppose the argument boils down to who you believe is more responsible - the guy who offers the bribe... or the recipient who doesn't immediately reject it out of hand. I don't blame Monica Lewinsky for showing the President her thong as much as I blame Bill Clinton for not grabbing her by the lapels and angrily tossing her out of the Oval. And that defense contractor who allegedly bought Duke Cunningham's house in exchange for millions of dollars in defense contracts would have received bupkes had Cunningham not been seduced by the offer. If it were not for the complicity of those with the power, we'd only talking about attempted crimes.
So lobbyists are not really the problem... corruption is the problem. And, to the best of our ability, we should root out and fight corruption wherever we find it. And if transparency plus reasonable restrictions and regulations regarding lobbying help us do that, then fine (and to the extent that the Obama administration is trying to voluntarily, prophylactically fight corruption by limiting lobbyists from serving in administration jobs, I mostly applaud it - but I'm glad they've allowed themselves waivers as an out clause). But let's not forget that pesky little First Amendment. And just as a terrorist attack doesn't justify us shredding the Constitution, neither does political corruption justify mindlessly smearing and scapegoating an entire industry of often well meaning activists who are simply exercising their Constitutional right to petition their government.
If your congressman, senator or president is unduly allowing lobbyists to influence official decisions - especially for illegal gain - or if they only allow access to the lobbyists who contribute the most money, or the ones who shower them with gifts and favors, then by all means fire them. You can do that in the voting booth. If laws have been broken, they should also be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Corrupt lobbyists and politicians are no doubt scum and everything we can legally do to end the egregious influence of money and corporate power in the political process, we should. And when an administration as ethically bankrupt as the Bush-Cheney crowd literally allows the lobbyists and massive financial contributors to write the laws, we should scream bloody murder. But don't pretend that, across the board, the words "lobbyist" and "corruption" are interchangeable.
Hating all lobbyists is like hating all lawyers or hating all unions, even if they serve a valuable purpose. It's mindless and ignorant - but it's convenient and great for scoring cheap political points.
Search This Blog
