Obama's New Lobbying Proposals are a Mixed Bag

January 30, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (15)

By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

I shook my head the other night when President Obama called for further restrictions on how much lobbyists are allowed to contribute to political campaigns. First such a proposal is almost certainly unconstitutional: The Supreme Court has ruled that money in politics is protected as free speech, and while this (allegedly conservative) court has demonstrated a willingness to overturn precedent, that doesn't seem like one they'll go after. Beyond that, it further illustrates a problem I've had with the Obama administration's approach to lobbyists: It assumes that they are all evil.

The fact of the matter is that lobbyists are a mixed bag: some good, some bad. And while the ratio may well be lots bad, some good, lobbying is still a constitutionally protected activity. We all have the right to petition our government for redress of grievances. The fact that someone does that for a living shouldn't legally diminish their ability to participate in the political process.

The irony is that such a rule would probably get some support from ... lobbyists. As a lobbyist friend of mine wrote to me this morning, "I would love it if they capped campaign donations from lobbyists b/c I'm tired of all the fundraising calls and really don't want to give my money to federal campaigns."

To be fair, Obama has some pretty good lobbying proposals as well. I'm a big believer in disclosure, and as The Hill reports, he wants to force anyone who lobbies to register as a lobbyist. Currently only people who spend at least 20 percent of their time lobbying have to register. Lowering the threshold would, The Hill notes, ensnare non-lobbyist lobbyists like former Democratic Senate Leader Tom Daschle. Obama also wants new rules requiring that all lobbyists list their government contacts (currently only foreign lobbyists are required to do so).

But my lobbyist friend makes another good point: There's only so much that regulations can accomplish. At some point politicians have to take responsibility for their behavior. "My problem is that no one is talking about accountability for elected officials," my friend writes. "From what I can tell only the lobbyists have to disclose.  And we're not the ones who are paid with taxpayer $$.  Elected officials were responsible for 50% of the Jack Abramoff problem and they haven't done a thing to change THEIR behavior or increase their accountability to their constituents on these issues."

Good point.

Tags:
Barack Obama,
politics,
lobbying

Reader Comments Read all comments (15)

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

The last thing any politician in Washington wants is a war on lobbyists. Lobbyists walk around with briefcases full of money.

Heather Czerniak of WI 7:16AM February 02, 2010

Do you realise that the governments lawyers in this Supreme Court case were asked if a candidates name is mentioned in a negative light in a book during an election year would they actually advocate banning it from print? The governments lawyers said yes. Hello! What country or constitution are they representing?

The media gatekeepers are actually muzzling those who they disagree with already and their bias is quite obvious. To be honest when have you ever heard Sarah Palin's name mentioned in a positive light by the main stream media or the not so main stream like USNEWS for example?

Seriously when you consider that the SEIU, Hollywood and the MSNBC's of the world spread what I consider their crap with impunity, you can't really mean you stand with a restriction of free speech just because you dont like who has money do you? If you dont like the free speech of those you disagree with, you dont deserve to have it yourself. Please go live in Iran or somewhere else. At the very least reconsider your position.

Jeff of WI 5:57AM February 02, 2010

Perception is reality for a lot of folks. They watch an hour of CNN/MSNBC/Fox News or read a provoking headline and these perceptions form their reality. I read many comments from people who have used this perception as their reality.

Having said that, how many people have actually read the case let alone read the cliff notes of the case? How many have even a smattering legal background to understand the established background the provided the foundational background and basis for the Supreme Court ruling? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say .0005% have.

So tell me Ron of UT, how does this ruling differ from what Unions/PACs/Special Interest groups have been doing?

david of ID 1:38AM February 02, 2010

Robert Schlesinger

Robert Schlesinger

Robert Schlesinger is managing editor for opinion at U.S. News and World Report, overseeing all opinion editorial content. He is the author of "White House Ghosts: Presidents and Their Speechwriters." E-mail him at rschlesinger@usnews.com. Follow him on Twitter: @rschles.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement