Sunday, July 12, 2009

Opinion

Michael Barone

In Defense of Lobbyists

June 12, 2008 03:52 PM ET | Michael Barone | Permanent Link | Print

Barack Obama has long said that his campaign will not accept contributions from lobbyists, and now that he is the presumptive nominee, the Democratic National Committee won't accept them, either. John McCain says that his campaign won't employ lobbyists, and volunteers are now queried about possible lobbying activity in the past. It's only a matter of time until someone calls for a law requiring every lobbyist to paint a big, red "L" on his forehead.

Behind this stigmatization of lobbyists is the notion that the failure to produce legislation in the public interest stems from the existence of lobbyists. Which is obviously nonsense. We couldn't abolish lobbying without repealing the First Amendment, which gives all of us, even those who are paid to do it, the right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances." And the government could not sensibly do business without lobbyists.

As Hillary Clinton recognized at the YearlyKos convention last August. While Obama and John Edwards were lambasting lobbyists, Clinton said: "You know, a lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans. They actually do. They represent nurses. They represent, you know, social workers. They represent . . . yes, they represent corporations. They employ a lot of people."

Lobbying is as American as apple pie, going back to colonial times. The Rev. Increase Mather lobbied in London for a new charter for Massachusetts. Benjamin Franklin was the colonial agent—lobbyist—for Pennsylvania and other colonies. When the federal government was created, lobbyists for varied interests naturally swarmed to the capital—first New York, then Philadelphia and Washington.

It is a simple fact of life that when Congress writes laws and the executive branch writes regulations that channel vast flows of money—and laws and regulations that have vast moral implications—citizens affected by those words are going to try to make sure they're written the way they want. They're going to hire the best people they can find to do so. They want lobbyists with connections—and with expertise. They can help lawmakers understand how the words they write will affect "real Americans."

That's why I was pleased to see Clinton defend lobbying not only for those whom her Democratic audience considers good interests (nurses, social workers) but for those they don't (corporations). Implicitly, she's rejecting the distinction made by the head of the Humane Society of the United States, who recently contrasted "special-interest lobbyists" (presumably those working for profit-making interests) with "socially responsible lobbyists" (those working for nonprofits). But even lobbyists for nonprofits have a monetary motive: to keep their (often six-figure) salaries flowing in.

Embarrassing. Yes, K Street is not perfect. Old, entrenched interests tend to be well represented. New and growing industries and morally motivated constituencies that are unorganized tend to be underrepresented. The high-tech industry figured it could get along without much representation in Washington until Microsoft got slapped with an antitrust suit a decade ago. Now it hires lobbyists in droves.

Not much of this will change in a McCain or Obama administration. The campaigns are embarrassing themselves now by stigmatizing lobbyists. Obama's initial choice to head his vice presidential selection committee was Jim Johnson, who as CEO of Fannie Mae in the 1990s ran one of the most effective lobbying operations in town. McCain has had at his side through the campaign Charlie Black, who was a very successful lobbyist for more than 20 years. More important, both candidates are proposing healthcare, carbon-emission, and tax changes, legislation that will—and should—face heavy lobbying. Which is fine: Such laws will have enormous ramifications, and everyone who wants to should chime in. Even—if I can use that dreaded word again—lobbyists.

Tags: lobbying

Tools: Share | | Comments (21) | Print

Reader Comments

Lobbyists

The notion" That the failure to produce legislation in the public interest stems from the exisitence of lobbists" is not nonsense as you stated. On the contrary, I belive most Americans see Lobbists and the money they provide to politicans as a major cause of the courruption of our system of government.

In Defense of Lobbyists..my Aunt Fanny!

I, just me, with one single solitary vote, can never, ever have the effect, clout or even a faint voice which compares with theeffect, loud voice and deafening shout of a lobbyist organization. The entire premise of the article is ludicrous. Back in the day of Pres. Ulysses Grant, when the term "lobbyist" was coined in reference to those who sought the President's ear after dinner in the hotel lobby, when the President was traveling...it wasn't so bad. It was just individuals (some representing groups), wanting to make sure there side was heard. Nowadays, it's huge organizations such as AMA, NRA, etc. to name a few, who have highly paid people (some former legislators and cabinet officials) who wield great cash-influencing power... and who expect something in return. do I need to go on...?

Lobbyists figure out ways to reward members of Congress

How to you think so many of them enrich themselves while in office? Barone's piece is not truthful about the major effect of lobbyists. Lobbyists have a big influence on creating loopholes from taxes and for other advantages and actually help craft laws that are not in the public interest. The present Bankruptcy Law was basically written by the Credit Card companies and has very difficult provisions for the ordinary citizen. If the lobbyists were more restricted in what they can do, then the members and their staffs might have to draft laws themselves. Perhaps that would eliminate the practice of writing 1000 page bills.

Add your thoughts

Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

advertisement

U.S. News Weekly

Subscribe Today

Order the new U.S. News Weekly digital magazine at a special low introductory price!

Michael Barone is a senior writer for U.S.News & World Report and principal coauthor of The Almanac of American Politics. He has written for many publications—including the Economist and the New York Times.

advertisement

NEWSLETTER

Sign up today for the latest headlines from U.S. News & World Report delivered to you free.

RSS FEEDS

Personalize your U.S. News with our feeds of blogs and breaking news headlines.

U.S. NEWS MOBILE

U.S. News daily briefings are also available on your mobile device.

People who read this also read ...

Thomas Jefferson St.

End the Running of the Bulls

Another runner dies in the primitive event; the magnificent animals all eventually meet the same fate.

Kerry Keeping Watch on Obama and Afghanistan

Liberals will look to the Vietnam vet to give credibility to the administration's handling of the war.

No House Vote for Michael Jackson

He was a great singer, a great dancer, a philanthropist, and a troubled man.

Buffet Wrong on Second Stimulus

Even White House sources are downplaying such talk. Buffett should, too.

Obama Makes a Useless Climate Change Stand

Strong talk doesn't bring international cooperation.

Abortion Rare? When Paradise Freezes Over

Obama's point man with conservatives shipped off to comfy Malta post.

Legalize Marijuana, Balance Budgets

Do it in California ... and every other state, for that matter.

Senate Dems: No Healthcare Benefits Tax

This is one where they should defer to public opinion

Public Opinion

Is Obama Socialist?

Many in the GOP hurl the term at the Dems, but what does it even mean?

Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our Terms and Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
Make USNews.com your home page.