WASHINGTON – How do you feel about well-paid insiders who have the ear of lawmakers, ample cash to contribute to re-election campaigns and who appear to have a way of influencing legislation that you don’t have?
Not so cheerful, I’d say.
But let me ask it this way: If you owned a piece of property that was zoned for residential use and next to a strip mall, what would you do if you wanted to get it classified for commercial use so you could sell it to Lassus Brothers or a Baskin-Robbins franchisee?
I bet you’d hire yourself a lawyer, someone who knows how the zoning board works, possibly someone who knows the board members and what arguments were most successful in other rezoning cases. If your lawyer served on the church council with one of the board members or coached another board member’s kid in Little League, so much the better.
In other words, you’d position yourself to get the best outcome for your case. You wouldn’t break the law, and you wouldn’t expect your lawyer to do anything underhanded. But you’d use your assets – the lawyer’s skill with similar cases and her personal relationships – to perhaps tip the scale your way.
If the property owner on the other side of the strip mall goes to the zoning board with the forms filled out wrong, cops an attitude while presenting his case and can’t answer the questions the board members ask, are you going to fire your lawyer because you have an unfair advantage?
Yeah, right.
What you are doing with your lawyer at the zoning board is, essentially, lobbying. You hired someone with a skill set and connections you don’t have to talk to a government entity on your behalf.
You have every right to do so. In fact, the Constitution guarantees it.
The First Amendment is clear: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech … or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble … and to petition the government.”
Perhaps your interest in asking the government to do (or not do) something has a wider range than your little piece of property next to the strip mall.
People who own a business, join a union or care passionately about abortion or gun laws or environmental issues or Israel or immigration do what Americans do when they want to be sure their elected government helps their cause. They organize around their concerns, and they try to get their voices heard. Often they hire a professional who knows the ins and outs of government to plead their case (and so they don’t have to take time off their jobs).
These folks are not corrupt. Neither is their money. Lobbyists are their hired hands.
Do some lobbyists act unethically? Yes. Do some members of Congress respond with equally unethical behavior? Yes. Does that mean all lobbyists and lawmakers are crooked? Of course not.
“Fire all the lobbyists” is a silly rallying cry. What it means, really, is, “I don’t feel that my elected official is listening to me,” and “I think if you have money, you get your way.”
There’s no way to make lawmakers be more responsive (except to vote for their opponent, but by then it is too late). There’s also no getting around the fact that people with resources get their way far more often than those without. But there is a way to see whether your instinct is correct about money having too much sway.
In recent years, Congress has taken steps to require more reporting. Lobbyists must file reports about who they are, who their clients are, how much they are paid and what legislation they are working on.
Lawmakers are banned from accepting gifts and meals from lobbyists, and when lobbyists do financial honors for a member of Congress (such as donating to a foundation set up by a lawmaker), that must be reported. President Obama pledged to not appoint lobbyists to administration posts, and he appears to be applying the same standard to boards and commissions.
Can more be done to ensure that citizens retain the right to petition the government but that their lobbyists don’t have inappropriate advantages?
Sure. Members of the Senate could report their campaign donations (and expenses) electronically instead of the secretive on-paper way they use to make tracking campaign finance needlessly difficult. More of them could follow the lead of Sen. Richard Lugar, who for years has voluntarily filed electronic versions of his on-paper reports.
All reporting – be it campaign contributions, “in honor of” donations, lobbying registrations – could be more frequent and easily reviewed online.
Federal lawmakers who created charities or foundations could report the names of donors and how much they contribute, a step beyond the reporting required of lobbyists.
More members of Congress could seek constituent input more frequently. Of late, Rep. Mark Souder has joined the many House members who have town hall meetings via telephone. Lugar and Sen. Evan Bayh could do the same, perhaps focusing on one telephone area code at a time.
My list revolves around disclosure and listening to more people. It does not ban contact between lobbyists and lawmakers or their staffs.
The founders of this country thought lobbying was a fine idea – so important, in fact, that they put it into the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. If free speech, the right to assemble and the right to petition the government don’t add up to lobbying, I don’t know what does.
