TheWeekInCongress

TheWeekInCongress.com

TheWeekInCongress.com 2006

LOBBY REFORM: WHY IS THE MONEY NECESSARY ?

The Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal is unfolding. In response, Congress, over several months will attempt to craft and pass legislation addressing taxpayer’s concerns with the lack of ethics in the lobbying process on Capitol Hill.

The bills are being promoted as ethical reforms, but it is the position of TheWeekInCongress.com that ethics will not be a prime consideration in any of them. The simple fact that we are facing this unfolding debacle of abuse is evidence enough that money in the lobbying and campaign processes is the problem and anything short of taking money completely out of the process is fool’s play.

Recently quoted in the New York Times Kenneth A. Gross, a former associate general counsel of the Federal Election Commission said, "You can't legislate morality, and you'll never get a system where everybody is on equal footing. We've been tinkering with the system, more than tinkering with the system, since Watergate, and whatever law is passed it takes about 30 days - no, 30 minutes - to undo it."

Here is one way lobbying works: The lobbyist meets the lawmaker or staff, explains reasons to support or oppose a bill, leaves.

Here is another way: The lobbyist meets the lawmaker or staff, explains reasons to support or oppose a bill, donates money to the lawmaker’s campaign, leaves.

And another: donate money from the lobbyist’s client to the legislator’s campaign without ever meeting the legislator.

There are many ways to pass the money and most would seem unnecessary if simply informing the legislator of concerns and interest in bill details is the goal of a lobbyist. Some involve hosting fundraisers or buying meals for the legislator and staff, others involve paying for travel, food and lodging for ‘fact finding’ trips or trips to someplace (usually very nice) to discuss a bill or a vote, attend a meeting or a presentation on the issue. In some cases, a non-lobbying groups supportive of the legislator or the legislator’s political party will produce a convention or training seminar for lawmakers and charge lobbyists a fee to attend where they gain access to the legislators. Others trips, despite the appearance of legitimacy, are little more than vacations donated to the legislator and family. And family members of legislators have found themselves employed by lobbying companies or their clients.

So what’s wrong with a lobbyist donating money?

Two things: First and foremost the money presents the potential for quid pro quo. We should note that “quid pro quo” is little more than a fancy name for something that happens daily all over the world when consumers buy something. Money is given in exchange for a product or service.

Using money to influence a vote does not require a grand scheme or brilliant execution. It is the easy way to go. Besides creating the potential for a decision based on a sense of obligation, introducing money to the lobbying process can add an influence that speaks to a financial need the legislator may have that is unrelated to a greater understanding of the bill. There may be a need for campaign funds; a desire to play golf in a warm climate or foreign country and as we have seen recently, even to pay for expensive parties for a lawmaker’s child. Suddenly money is available for those things.

Lobbying is an attempt to influence a lawmaker. We ask: If a lawmaker hears the facts from a lobbyist but is at impasse because of a bill detail, will cash clarify the impasse? Would you prefer that your elected officials, when unconvinced that a bill provision is good for you, attempt to amend the bill, speak out against it or ignore the provision in exchange for money? If the money is there, the potential to ignore the bill’s problems is also there.

But not everyone agrees that lobbying influences decisions. In a recent interview Richard Bond, former chairman of the Republican National Committee said, “"If anybody honestly and truly believes that because some corporation throws a member a party that the member is in their pocket, they go to the Oliver Stone school of politics."

To that we respond: If money from lobbyists doesn’t influence a legislator’s actions, why is it given?