In Defense of Lobbyists

Reader Comments
Back to blog

yeah and they also represent foreign corporations and foreign governments. I bet every Ameican wishes they had enough money to have that sort of access to government that lobbyists do. This access is even greater because many of these lobbyists used to work in government and so have personal relationships with lawmakers.

joesnuffy of CA 12:53AM June 20, 2008

Mr. Walz is right on and has the right perspective on this issue. Lobbyists should not be publiclly funded any more than corporate ceo's or doctors. It is a service based industry and their product is helping certain organizations and industries evolve in this ever changing world. As for lobbying in its current form, it is one of the most regulated professions in the U.S. Every second of their day is written down and documented. They are very accountable and people need to realize what these people actually do to make a living.

Jim of AL 9:33PM June 19, 2008

If they're necessary, their functions/capabilities should be overtly recognized and publicly funded. They apparently provide a valuable service, which in it's current form is unregulated, unreliable, and without accountability, except to their corporate masters.
Any argument regarding the value derived from lobbyists per-se, seems to assume an inevitable perpetuation of a system of government with unmet requirements. Are lobbyists an unfunded mandate levied on corporate America, and if so, why would corporate America meet that mandate except for potential return on their investment - in many cases to the detriment of the general welfare.

Michael of MD 8:56PM June 19, 2008

As a new State Senator I was determined to accomplish improvements for the State rather than promote myself. Our State had a State owned Hail Insurance Department that had served its original purpose and now was losing $200-300,000 per year. Independent insurance companies were agreeable to provide coverage and replace the State policies. It was such a hot issue that no one would co-sponsor with me. The insurance industry lobbyist said he would support me with research and factual matters, thus to enable me to promote my bill in committee and on the Senate floor. I did not have the time or ability to do the work he performed. My bill was defeated in that session but the next session it passed without any trouble. This is often the way bills operate. I am thankful for the lobbyist. They are salesmen for the company or group that hired them.
A big problem is the legislators themselves. They want to "ride the fence" and they say "yes" to both sides of an issue. Then when the vote comes they complain that the lobbyists are to blame, when it was themselves. I also realize it is difficult for the average voter to appreciate the work of the lobbyist until they serve in the legislature.

Robert Walz of AZ 4:34PM June 19, 2008

Dear Rudy, I do not know what your profession is nor do I really care. Lobbying is a profession held my many of the most upstanding Americans. As the article states, many people do not realize the level of expertise and experience it takes for a lobbyist to be successful. I do not understand why the most vital industries in this country are the most taxed and regulated (oil, gambling, and agriculture). This same concept is applied to lobbying; why should the general public have to know where lobbyists eat for lunch or hang out after work? Nobody asks doctors where they go to have drinks after their shift. Lobbyists are not elected officials but do have families to support. The reality of greed is not just in America and I would like to know how lobbyists are the greedy ones. If you were a successful businessman or women who owned your own company, you would want the most experienced expert handling issues in your industry. Many of these despised men and women could be working in the private sector and making double what they do but they choose to use their expertise to change public policy; because from my experience many lobbyists are more informed on certain issues than the actual legislator. So next time you think about criticizing lobbyists, be glad they serve the vital purpose they do and put yourself in their shoes. What is insulting is how lobbyists who work for such causes as autism awareness, breast cancer reasearch, and other current issues are grouped into this catagory. Well written article. I would love to see a logical arguement against lobbying by someone who has expericence in the area; not just an english major who knows the differences in logic.

John of LA 11:39AM June 19, 2008

Save us from columns such as this. Who in their right mind thinks that nurses and social workers benefit as much from the activity of lobbyists as major forces such as the pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, the RCC, and other well-funded groups. And what about major corporations funneling monies to legislators via corporate executives to make it legal. What American doesn't believe that greed is the prevalent force in our government? What American doesn't know, or sense, that the rich and super rich are the primary beneficiaries of lobbyists who, incidentally, are capable of making astronomical money if they are in the right position? Please spare us. It is insulting.

Rudy Storch of MD 9:07AM June 19, 2008

The simple concept here, Larry's Nemesis, is that you have called upon a classic logic fallacy known as argumentum ad hominem. That means, for a reader level greater than Larry's Nemesis, that you attack the man to refute his argument. Should you choose to present a logical argument, you should first be trained in such arguments.

Steve of MI 12:45PM June 18, 2008

I'm going to presuppose Larry to be one of the criers or fainters at an Obama rally. He drives with a big "O" bumper sticker on his Prius and screams for unity, bipartisanship and the wealthy paying their "fair share".
I don't know if he read the column, can read, or just read the last paragraph of Barone's beautifully orchestrated argument. I'll assume he just read the last paragraph.
Bottom line, Larry misses the point of both lobbyists and this column. Lobbyists are a necessity in our political structure. Politicians need them to serve as a middle man between the policy maker and the person the policy will affect.
Lobbyists are loyal to those who pay them (legal term for those on a reader level greater than Larry's would be "client"). If the Association of Latte-drinking, Prius-driving Morons of America (LDPDMoA) hires Jim Smith to represent their concerns on the Hill, Jim will represent his clients in the manner his clients wish.
So when energy legislation is on the table, lobbyists reach out to all politicians (Democrats and Republicans) to best serve their clients.
Larry, its a simple concept.

Larry's Nemesis of OH 2:43PM June 13, 2008

hmmm....
are you saying that for say new energy legislation that Bush/Cheney/McCain would use different lobby guys to write the legislation than the Dems?
What kind of lobby folks would the Dem use to write new energy legislation?
would you say that no matter whether Bush & company or the Dems - using lobby folks would be in the best public interest since they both use lobbyists?
methinks you've been hoisted on that petard you own

Larry Gross of VA 7:27PM June 12, 2008