Preview of “Lobbying in the United S..., the free encyclopedia”

2/20/13 Lobbying in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States 1/39

Lobbying depends on cultivatingpersonal relationships over manyyears. Photo: Lobbyist Tony Podesta(left) with Senator Kay Hagan(center) and her husband.

Lobbying in the United StatesFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lobbying in the United States describes paid activity in whichspecial interests hire well-connected professional advocates, oftenlawyers, to argue for specific legislation in decision-making bodiessuch as the United States Congress. It is a highly controversialphenomenon, often seen in a negative light by journalists and theAmerican public, and frequently misunderstood.[1] Whilelobbying is subject to extensive and often complex rules which, ifnot followed, can lead to penalties including jail, the activity oflobbying has been interpreted by court rulings as free speech andprotected by the Constitution. Since the 1970s, lobbying activityhas grown immensely in terms of the numbers of lobbyists and thesize of lobbying budgets, and has become the focus of muchcriticism of American governance. Since lobbying rules requireextensive disclosure, there is a large amount of information in thepublic sphere about which entities lobby, how, at whom, and forhow much. The current pattern suggests much lobbying is done by corporations although a wide variety ofcoalitions representing diverse groups is possible. Lobbying happens at every level of government,including federal, state, county, municipal, and even local governments. In Washington, lobbying usuallytargets congresspersons, although there have been efforts to influence executive agency officials as well asSupreme Court appointments. It has been the subject of academic inquiry in various fields, including law,public policy, and economics. While the number of lobbyists in Washington is over twelve thousand, thosewith real clout number in the dozens, and a small group of firms handles much of lobbying in terms ofexpenditures.[citation needed]

Contents

1 Overview2 Different types of lobbying

2.1 The focus of lobbying efforts2.2 Paid versus free lobbying2.3 Single issue versus multiple issue lobbying2.4 Inside versus outside lobbying

3 History of lobbying4 Lobbying as a business

4.1 Key players4.1.1 Lobbyists4.1.2 Corporations4.1.3 Unions4.1.4 Other players

4.2 Lobbying methods and techniques4.3 Lobbyists as educators and advisors4.4 A growing billion dollar business4.5 Examples of lobbying4.6 Lobbying as a career4.7 Effectiveness of lobbying



The lobby of the House of Commons.Painting 1886 by Liborio Prosperi.

5 Lobbying controversies5.1 Negative image5.2 Revolving door5.3 Insider's game5.4 Decision-making issues5.5 Legislative focus5.6 Systemic issues5.7 Growth of lobbying5.8 Attempts at reform5.9 Arguments for lobbying

6 The regulatory environment6.1 Disclosure and domestic regulations6.2 Foreign lobbying

7 See also8 References9 Further reading10 External links

Overview

Political scientist Thomas R. Dye once said that politics is about battling over scarce governmentalresources: who gets them, where, when, why and how.[2] Since government makes the rules in a complexeconomy such as the United States, it is logical that various organizations, businesses, individuals,nonprofits, trade groups, religions, charities and otherswhich are affected by these ruleswill exert asmuch influence as they can to have rulings favorable to their cause. And the battling for influence hashappened in every organized society since the beginning of civilization, whether it was Ancient Athens,Florence during the time of the Medici, Late Imperial China, and the present-day United States. Modern-day lobbyists in one sense are like the courtiers of the Ancien Rgime. If voting is a general way for apublic to control a government, lobbying is a more specific, targeted effort, focused on a narrower set ofissues.[1]

The term lobby has etymological roots in the physical structure ofthe British Parliament, in which there was an intermediary coveredroom outside the main hall. People pushing an agenda would tryto meet with members of Parliament in this room, and they cameto be known, by metonymy, as lobbyists, although one account in1890 suggested that the application of the word "lobby" isAmerican and that the term is not used as much in Britain.[3]

The term lobbying in everyday parlance can describe a widevariety of activities, and in its general sense, suggests advocacy,advertising, or promoting a cause. In this sense, anybody who triesto influence any political position can be thought of as "lobbying",and sometimes the term is used in this loose sense. A person who writes a letter to a congressperson, oreven questions a candidate at a political meeting, could be construed as being a lobbyist.[1][4] And a retiredschool administrator from Ohio who met with House Speaker John Boehner in 2011 to discuss socialsecurity could be considered as a lobbyist, in this sense of the term.[5]



Activist and lobbyist Flora"Grandma" Green of the SeniorsCoalition.

However, the term "lobbying" is generally means a paid activity with the purpose of attempting to"influence or sway" a public official, including bureaucrats as well as elected officials, towards a desiredspecific action often relating to specific legislation.[6] If advocacy is disseminating information, includingattempts to persuade public officials as well as the public and media, to promote the cause of somethingand support it,[6] then when this activity becomes focused on specific legislation, either in support or inopposition, then it crosses the line from advocacy and becomeslobbying.[6] This is the usual sense of the term "lobbying." Oneaccount suggested that much of the activity of nonprofits was notlobbying per se, since it usually did not mean changes inlegislation.[6]

A lobbyist, according to the legal sense of the word, is aprofessional, often a lawyer. Lobbyists are intermediaries betweenclient organizations and lawmakers: they explain to legislatorswhat their organizations want, and they explain to their clientswhat obstacles elected officials face. One definition of a lobbyist issomeone "employed to persuade legislators to pass legislation thatwill help the lobbyist's employer."[7] Many lobbyists work inlobbying firms or law firms, some of which retain clients outsidelobbying. Others work for advocacy groups, trade associations,companies, and state and local governments. Lobbyists can be onetype of government official, such as a governor of a state, whopresses officials in Washington for specific legislation.[8] Alobbyist may put together a diverse coalition of organizations andpeople, sometimes including lawmakers and corporations, and thewhole effort may be considered to be a lobby; for example, in theabortion issue, there is a "pro-choice lobby" and a "pro-life lobby".

In 2007, according to one estimate, there were more than 17,000federal lobbyists based in Washington, DC.[9] A second estimate,for 2011, suggested that the count of registered lobbyists who haveactually lobbied was around 12,000.[10] While numbers like these suggest that lobbying is a widespreadactivity, most accounts suggest that the Washington lobbying industry is an exclusive one run by a fewwell-connected firms and players, with serious barriers to entry for firms wanting to get into the lobbyingbusiness, since it requires them to have been "roaming the halls of Congress for years and years."[11]

Different types of lobbying

The focus of lobbying efforts

Generally, lobbyists focus on trying to persuade decision-makers: Congress, executive branch agenciessuch as the Treasury Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission,[12] the SupremeCourt,[13] state governments (including governors). Federal agencies have been targeted by lobbyists sincethey write industry-specific rules; accordingly, interest groups spend "massive sums of money" trying topersuade them to make so-called "carve-outs" or try to block specific provisions from being enacted.[14] Alarge fraction of overall lobbying is focused on only a few sets of issues, according to one report.[15] It ispossible for one level of government to lobby another level; for example, the District of Columbia has been



Schools superintendent Michelle Rhee

lobbies for educational reform and

ending teacher tenure.

lobbying Congress and the president for greater power including possible statehood or voting

representation in Congress; one assessment in 2011 suggested that the district needed to rethink its

lobbying strategy, since its past efforts have only had "mixed results".[16] Many executive branch agencies

have the power to write specific rules and are a target of lobbying. Federal agencies such as the State

Department make rules such as giving aid money to countries such as Egypt, and in one example, an

Egyptian-American businessman named Kais Menoufy organized a lobby to try to halt U.S. aid to

Egypt.[17] Since the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review and can render a congressional law

unconstitutional, it has great power to influence the course of American life. For example, in the Roe v

Wade decision, it ruled on the legality of abortion. A variety of forces use lobbying tactics to pressure the

court to overturn this decision.

Lobbyists represent their clients' or organizations' interests in state

capitols. An example is a former school superintendent who has

been lobbying state legislatures in California, Michigan and

Nevada to overhaul teacher evaluations, and trying to end the

"Last In, First Out" teacher hiring processes; according to one

report, Michelle Rhee is becoming a "political force."[18] State

governments can be lobbied by groups which represent other

governments within the state, such as a city authority; for example,

the cities of Tallahassee[19] and St. Petersburg[20] lobbied the

Florida legislature using paid lobbyists to represent the city's

interests. There is lobbying activity at the county[21] and municipal

levels, especially in larger cities and populous counties. For

example, officials within the city government of Chicago called

aldermen became lobbyists after serving in municipal government,

following a one-year period required by city ethics rules to abstain

from lobbying.[22]

Paid versus free lobbying

While the bulk of lobbying happens by business and professional interests who hire paid professionals,

some lobbyists represent non-profits pro-bono for issues in which they are personally interested. Pro bono

publico clients offer activities to meet and socialize with local legislators at events like fundraisers and

awards ceremonies.

Single issue versus multiple issue lobbying

Lobbies which push for a single issue have grown in importance during the past twenty years, according to

one source.[4] Corporations generally would be considered as single issue lobbies. If a corporation wishes

to change public policy, or to influence legislation which impacts its success as a business, it may use

lobbying as a "primary avenue" for this purpose.[23] One research study suggested that single issue lobbies

often operate in different kinds of institutional venues, sometimes bringing the same message to different

groups.[24] Lobbies which represent groups such as labor unions, business organizations, trade

associations and such are sometimes considered to be multiple issue lobbies, and to succeed they must be

somewhat more flexible politically and be willing to accept compromise.[4]

Inside versus outside lobbying



The Federalist Papers, in whichFramers Madison, Hamilton and Jaystrove to sway public opinion, couldbe considered according to currentusage as an outside lobbying effort.

Inside lobbying, or sometimes called direct lobbying, describes efforts by lobbyists to influencelegislation or rule-making directly by contacting legislators and their assistants, sometimes calledstaffers or aides.

Outside lobbying, or sometimes indirect lobbying, includes attempts by interest group leaders tomobilize citizens outside the policymaking community, perhaps by public relations methods oradvertising, to prompt them to pressure public officials within the policymaking community.[25] Oneexample of an outside lobbying effort is a film entitled InJustice, made by a group promoting lawsuitreform.[26]

History of lobbying

Main article: History of lobbying in the United States

The Constitution was crafted to solve the problem of specialinterests by having factions compete. It protected free speech,including the right to petition the government.[4][27] Throughoutthe nation's history, there has been lobbying at every level ofgovernment, particularly in state governments[28] during thenineteenth century, but increasingly in the federal government inthe twentieth century. The last few decades has been marked byan exponential increase in lobbying activity and expenditures.[29]

Lobbying as a business

Key players

Lobbyists

The number of registered Washington lobbyists is substantial.There was one estimate that there were 13,700 registeredlobbyists[11][30] and thousands more unregistered,[30] in 2009which led the Washington Post to describe the nation's Capitol as"teeming with lobbyists."[11] The ratio of lobbyists employed bythe healthcare industry, compared with every elected politician,was six to one, according to one account.[30] Nevertheless, thenumbers of lobbyists actively engaged in lobbying is considerablyless, and the ones occupied with lobbying full-time and makingsignificant money is even less.

Law firms. Several law firms had sizeable departments devoted to so-called "government relations",and these included firms such as Patton Boggs, Akin Gump and Holland & Knight.[31] One accountsuggested that the lobbying arms of these law firms were not held as separate subsidiaries, but thatthe law practices involved in government lobbying were integrated into the overall framework of thelaw firm.[31] A benefit to an integrated arrangement was that the law firm and the lobbyingdepartment could "share and refer clients back and forth".[31] Generally, law firms tend to bill forlobbying in the same way they bill other clients: by billable hour, although there was a report thatHolland & Knight was considering shifting to a retainer basis of payment.[32] Holland & Knight



Ellen Haas, former Under Secretaryof Agriculture for Food, Nutrition,and Consumer Services and lobbyistfor the Podesta Group in 2009.

Defense contractors such as Boeingand Lockheed Martin sell extensivelyto the government and must, ofnecessity, engage in lobbying to wincontracts.

earned $13.9 million from lobbying revenue in a recent year.[32] One law firm employs so-called"power brokers" including former Treasury department officials such as Marti Thomas, formerpresidential advisers such as Daniel Meyer.[33] There was a report that two law firms were treatingtheir lobbying groups as separate business units, and giving the non-lawyer lobbyists an equity stakein the firm.[31]

Lobbying firms. These firms usually have some lawyers in them, and are often founded by formercongressional staffers, legislators, or other politicians. One report suggested that lobbyists prefer tobe paid according to a "fixed fee", not to be paid according to an hourly billing arrangement, andthat many chose not to work for big law firms to avoid the billable hour arrangement.[31] Somelobbying groups have been bought by large advertisingconglomerates, such as InterPublic Group.[29]

Corporations

Corporations which lobby actively tend to be few in number,large, and often sell to the government. Most corporations do nothire lobbyists. One study found that the actual number of firmswhich do lobbying regularly is fewer than 300, and that thepercent of firms engaged in lobbying was 10% from 19982006,[23] and that they were "mainly large, rich firms getting in onthe fun."[11] These firms hired lobbyists year after year, and therewas not much evidence of other large firms taking much interest inlobbying.[11] Corporations considering lobbying run intosubstantial barriers to entry: corporations have to research therelevant laws about lobbying, hire lobbying firms, and cultivateinfluential people and make connections.[11][34][35][36] When anissue regarding a change in immigration policy arose, largecorporations currently lobbying switched focus somewhat to take account of the new regulatory world, butthat new corporationseven ones likely to be affected by any possible rulings on immigrationstayed outof the lobbying fray, according to the study.[23]

Still, of all the entities doing lobbying in Washington, the biggestoverall spenders are, in fact, corporations. In the first decade of the2000s, the most lucrative clients for Gerald Cassidy's lobbyingfirm were corporations, displacing fees from the appropriationsbusiness.[29] Wall Street lobbyists and the financial industry spentupwards of $100 million in one year to "court regulators andlawmakers", particularly since they were "finalizing newregulations for lending, trading and debit card fees."[37] Oneacademic analysis in 1987 found that firms were more likely tospend on lobbying if they were both large and concerned about"adverse financial statement consequences" if they did notlobby.[38] Big banks were "prolific spenders" on lobbying;JPMorgan Chase has an in-house team of lobbyists who spent$3.3 million in 2010;[37] the American Bankers Association spent$4.6 million on lobbying;[37] an organization representing 100 of the nation's largest financial firms calledthe Financial Services Roundtable spent heavily as well.[37] A trade group representing Hedge Funds



spent more than $1 million in one quarter trying to influence the government about financial regulations,including an effort to try to change a rule that might demand greater disclosure requirements for funds.[12]

Amazon.com spent $450,000 in one quarter lobbying about a possible online sales tax as well as rulesabout data protection and privacy.[39] Corporations which sell substantially to the government tend to beactive lobbiers. For example, aircraft manufacturer Boeing, which has sizeable defense contracts, pours"millions into lobbying":[40]

Boeing Co. is one of the most influential companies in airline manufacturing and hascontinually shown its influence in lobbying Congress ... Between January and September,Boeing spent a total of $12 million lobbying according to research by the Center forResponsive Politics. Additionally, Boeing has its own political action committee, whichdonated more than $2.2 million to federal candidates during the 2010 election cycle. Of thatsum, 53 percent went to Democrats. ...Through September, Boeing's PAC has donated$748,000 to federal politicians.

Chicago Sun-Times quoting OpenSecrets.org, 2011[40]

Unions

One report suggested the United Food & Commercial Workers International Union spent $80,000lobbying the federal government on issues relating to "the tax code, food safety, immigration reform andother issues."[41]

Other players

Other possible players in the lobbying arena are those who might influence legislation: House & Senatecolleagues, public opinion in the district, the White House, party leaders, union leaders, and otherinfluential persons and groups.[25] Interest groups are often thought of as "nonparty organizations" whichregularly try to change or influence government decision-making.[25]

Lobbying methods and techniques

Lobbying has much in common with highly people-intensive businesses such as management consultingand public relations, but with a political and legal sensibility. Like lawmakers, many lobbyists are lawyers,and the persons they are trying to influence have the duty of writing laws. That the disciplines of law andlobbying are intertwined could be seen in the case of a Texas lawyer who had been seeking compensationfor his unfairly imprisoned client; since his exonerated-prisoner client had trouble paying the legalexpenses, the lawyer lobbied the Texas state legislature to raise the state's payment for unfairly imprisonedprisoners from $50,000 per year to $80,000 per year; it succeeded, making it possible for his newly freedclient to pay the lawyer's fees.[42]

Well-connected lobbyists work in Washington for years, know the issues, are highly skilled advocates,[43]

and have cultivated close connections with members of Congress, regulators, specialists, and others. Theyunderstand strategy and have excellent communication skills; many are well suited to be able to choosewhich clients they would like to represent.[43] Lobbyists patiently cultivate networks of powerful people,over many years, trying to build trust and maintain confidence and friendships. When a client hires them topush a specific issue or agenda, they usually form coalitions to exert political pressure.[4] Lobbying, as aresult, depends on trying to be flexible to new opportunities, but at the same time, to act as an agent for aclient. As one lobbyist put it:



Connections count: CongresspersonTom Perriello with lobbyist HeatherPodesta at an inauguration party forBarack Obama.

It's my job to advance the interests of my associationor client. Period.

comment by a lobbyist[43]

Access is important and often means a one-on-one meeting with alegislator.[44] Getting access can sometimes be difficult, but thereare various avenues: email, personal letters, phone calls, face-to-face meetings, meals, get-togethers, and even chasing aftercongresspersons in the Capitol building:

My style of lobbying is not to have big formalmeetings, but to catch members on the fly asthey're walking between the House and theoffice buildings.

Lobbyist, commenting on access[43]

When getting access is difficult, there are ways to wear down the walls surrounding a legislator. JackAbramoff explained:

Access is vital in lobbying. If you can't get in your door, you can't make yourcase. Here we had a hostile senator, whose staff was hostile, and we had to getin. So that's the lobbyist safe-cracker method: throw fundraisers, raise money,and become a big donor.

Lobbyist Jack Abramoff in 2011[45]

Lobbyists often assist congresspersons with campaign finance[43] by arranging fundraisers, assemblingPACs,[29][23] and seeking donations from other clients. Many lobbyists become campaign treasurers andfundraisers for congresspersons. This helps incumbent members cope with the substantial amounts of timerequired to raise money for reelection bids; one estimate was that congresspersons had to spend a third oftheir working hours on fundraising activity.[29] PACs are fairly easy to set up; it requires a lawyer andabout $300, roughly.[4] An even steeper possible reward which can be used in exchange for favors is thelure of a high-paying job as a lobbyist; according to Jack Abramoff, one of the best ways to "get what hewanted" was to offer a high-ranking congressional aide a high-paying job after they decided to leavepublic office.[46] When such a promise of future employment was accepted, according to Abramoff, "weowned them".[46] This helped the lobbying firm exert influence on that particular congressperson by goingthrough the staff member or aide. At the same time, it is hard for outside observers to argue that a particulardecision, such as hiring a former staffer into a lobbying position, was purely as a reward for some pastpolitical decision, since staffers often have valuable connections and policy experience needed by lobbyingfirms.[47] Research economist Mirko Draca suggested that hiring a staffer was an ideal way for a lobbyingfirm to try to sway their old bossesa congresspersonin the future.[47]

Lobbyists, according to several sources, strive for communications which are clear, straightforward, anddirect.[43] In a one-on-one meeting with a lobbyist, it helps to understand precisely what goal is wanted.[4]

A lobbyist wants action on a bill; a legislator wants to be re-elected.[44] The idea is to persuade a legislatorthat what the lobbyist wants is good public policy.[25] Lobbyists often urge lawmakers to try to persuadeother lawmakers to approve a bill.[44]

Still, persuasion is a subtle business, requiring a deft touch, and carelessness can boomerang.[25] In oneinstance of a public relations reversal, a lobbying initiative by the Cassidy firm which targeted Senator



Senator Robert Byrd in 2005.

Robert C. Byrd blew up when the Cassidy-Byrd connection was published in the Washington Post; this

resulted in a furious Byrd reversing his previous pro-Cassidy position and throwing a "theatrical temper

tantrum" regarding an $18 million facility.[48] Byrd denounced

"lobbyists who collect exorbitant fees to create projects and have

them earmarked in appropriation bills... for the benefit of their

clients."[48]

Since it often takes a long time to build the network of

relationships within the lobbying industry, ethical interpersonal

dealings are important. A maxim in the industry is for lobbyists to

be truthful with people they are trying to persuade; one lobbyist

described it this way: "what you've basically got is your word and

reputation".[43] An untruth, a lie is too risky to the successful

development of a long-term relationship and is not worth it.[43]

One report suggested that below-the-belt tactics generally do not

work.[4] One account suggest that groping for "personal dirt" on

opponents was counterproductive since it would undermine

respect for the lobbyist and their clients.[4] And, by reverse logic,

if an untruth is told by an opponent or opposing lobby, then it

makes sense to publicize it.[4] But the general code among lobbyists is that unsubstantiated claims are bad

business.[4] Even worse is planting an informant in an opponent's camp, since if this subterfuge is ever

discovered, it will boomerang negatively in a hundred ways, and credibility will drop to zero.[4] The

importance of personal relationships in lobbying can be seen in the state of Illinois, in which father-son ties

helped push a smart-grid energy bill, although there were accusations of favoritism.[49] And there is

anecdotal evidence that a business firm seeking to profitably influence legislation has to pay particular

attention to which lobbyist it hires.[50]

Strategic considerations for lobbyists, trying to influence legislation, include "locating a power base" or a

constituency logically predisposed to support a given policy.[44] Timing, as well, is usually important, in

the sense of knowing when to propose a certain action and having a big-picture view of the possible

sequence of desired actions.[25] Strategic lobbying tries to estimate the possible responses of different

groups to a possible lobby approach; one study suggested that the "expectations of opposition from other

interests" was a key factor helping to determine how a lobby should operate.[24]

Increasingly, lobbyists seek to put together coalitions and use outside lobbying by swaying public

opinion.[25] Bigger, more diverse and deep pocketed coalitions tend to be more effective in outside

lobbying, and the "strength in numbers" principle often applies.[51] Interest groups try to build "sustainable

coalitions of similarly situated individual organizations in pursuit of like-minded goals".[6] According to

one study, it is often difficult for a lobbyist to influence a staff member in Congress directly, since staffers

tend to be well-informed and subject to views from competing interests. As an indirect tactic, lobbyists can

try to manipulate public opinion which, in turn, can sometimes exert pressure on congresspersons.[43]

Activities for these purposes include trying to use the mass media, cultivating contacts with reporters and

editors, encouraging them to write editorials and cover stories to influence public opinion, which may have

the secondary effect of influencing Congress.[43] According to analyst Ken Kollman, it is easier to sway

public opinion than a congressional staff member since it is possible to bombard the public with "half-

truths, distortion, scare tactics, and misinformation."[43] Kollman suggests there should be two goals: (1)

communicate that there is public support behind an issue to policymakers and (2) increase public support



Lobbyists. Left to right: JackAbramoff, golf organizer JasonMurdoch, former Christian Coalitionleader Ralph Reed, convicted formerBush administration official DavidSafavian, and Bob Ney.

for the issue among constituents.[25] Kollman suggested outside lobbying was a "powerful tool" forinterest group leaders.[25] In a sense, using these criteria, one could consider James Madison as havingengaged in outside lobbying, since after the Constitution was proposed, he wrote many of the 85newspaper editorials arguing for people to support the Constitution, and these writings later became theFederalist Papers.[2] As a result of this "lobbying" effort, the Constitution was ratified, although therewere narrow margins of victory in four of the state legislatures. Lobbying today generally requiresmounting a coordinated campaign, using targeted blitzes of telephone calls, letters, emails to congressionallawmakers, marches down the Washington Mall, bus caravans, and such, and these are often put togetherby lobbyists who coordinate a variety of interest group leaders to unite behind a hopefully simple easy-to-grasp and persuasive message.[25]

It is important for lobbyists to follow rules governing lobbyingbehavior. These can be difficult and complex, take time to learn,require full disclosure,[43] and mistakes can land a lobbyist inserious legal trouble.

Gifts for congresspersons and staffers can be problematic, sinceanything of sizeable value must be disclosed and generally suchgifts are illegal.[46] Failure to observe gift restrictions was onefactor which caused lobbyist Jack Abramoff to eventually pleadguilty to a "raft of federal corruption charges" and led toconvictions for 20 lobbyists and public officials, includingcongressperson Bob Ney and Bush deputy interior secretaryStephen Griles.[46] Generally gifts to congresspersons or theirstaffs or federal officials are not allowed, but with a fewexceptions: books are permitted, provided that the inside cover isinscribed with the congressperson's name and the name of one'sorganization.[4] Gifts under $5 are allowed.[4] Another exceptionis awards, so it is permitted to give a congressperson a plaquethanking him or her for support on a given issue.[4] Cash gifts payable by check only can only be made tocampaign committees, not to a candidate personally or to his or her staff; it is not permitted to give cash orstock.[4]

Wealthy lobbyists often encourage other lobbying clients to donate to a particular cause, in the hope thatfavors will be returned at a later date. Lobbyist Gerald Cassidy encouraged other clients to give for causesdear to a particular client engaged in a current lobbying effort.[48] Some lobbyists give their own money:Cassidy reportedly donated a million dollars on one project, according to one report, which noted thatCassidy's firm received "many times that much in fees from their clients" paid in monthly retainers.[48]

And their clients, in turn, had received "hundreds of millions in earmarked appropriations" and benefitsworth "hundreds of millions more".[48]

The dynamics of the lobbying world make it fairly easy for a semi-skilled operator to defraud a client. Thisis essentially what happened in the Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal. There was a concerned clientin this case, an Indian casinoworried about possible ill-effects of legislation on its gambling business;and there were lobbyists such as Jack Abramoff who knew how to exploit these fears. The lobbyistsactively lobbied against their own casino-client as a way to ratchet up their fears of adverse legislation aswell as stoke possible future contributions; the lobbyists committed other violations such as grosslyoverbilling their clients as well as violating rules about giving gifts to congresspersons. Numerous persons



went to jail after the scandal. The following are factors which can make fraud a fairly easy-to-do activity:that lobbyists are paid only to try to influence decision-makers, and may or may not succeed, making ithard to tell if a lobbyist did actual work;[43] that much of what happens regarding interpersonal relations isobscure despite rather strict disclosure and transparency requirements; that there are sizable moniesinvolvedfactors such as these almost guarantee that there will be future scandals involving fraudulentlobbying activity, according to one assessment. A fraud similar to Abramoff's was perpetuated in Marylandby lobbyist Gerald E. Evans, who was convicted of mail and wire fraud in 2000 in a case involving falselycreating a "fictitious legislative threat" against a client, and then billing the client to work against thissupposed threat.[52]

Lobbyists routinely monitor how congressional officials vote, sometimes checking the past voting recordsof congresspersons.[4] One report suggested that reforms requiring "publicly recorded committee votes"led to more information about how congresspersons voted, but instead of becoming a valuable resource forthe news media or voters, the information helped lobbyists monitor congressional voting patterns.[53] As ageneral rule, lawmakers must vote as a particular interest group wishes them to vote, or risk losingsupport.[4]

Strategy usually dictates targeting specific office holders. On the state level, one study suggested that muchof the lobbying activity targeted the offices of governors as well as state-level executive bureaucrats; statelobbying was an "intensely personal game" with face-to-face contact being required for importantdecisions.[54]

Lobbying can be a counteractive response to the lobbying efforts of others. One study suggested this wasparticularly true for battles surrounding possible decisions by the Supreme Court which is considered as a"battleground for public policy" in which differing groups try to "etch their policy preferences intolaw".[13] Sometimes there are lobbying efforts to slow or derail other legislative processes; for example,when the FDA began considering a cheaper generic version of the costly anti-clotting drug Lovenox, theFrench pharmaceutical firm Sanofi "sprang into action to try and slow the process."[55] Lobbyists are oftenassembled in anticipation of a potential takeover bid, particularly when there are large high-profilecompanies, or a large foreign company involved, and substantial concern that the takeover may be blockedby regulatory authorities.[33]

An example may illustrate. The company Tyco had learned that there had been discussion about a possiblenew tax provision that might have cost it $4 billion overall.[45] So the firm hired Jack Abramoff and paidhim a retainer of $100,000 a month.[45] He assembled dozens of lobbyists with connections to keycongressional committees with the ultimate objective being to influence powerful Senator CharlesGrassley.[45] Abramoff began with a fundraising effort to round up "every check" possible.[45] He soughtfunds from his other lobbying clients:

I had my clients understand that just as other clients who had nothing to do with them,would step up and give contributions to congressmen they needed to have some swaywith, so similarly they needed to do the same. I went to every client I could, androunded up every check we could for him.

Lobbyist Jack Abramoff in 2011[45]

Lobbyists as educators and advisors

Since government has grown increasingly complex, having to deal with new technologies, the task ofwriting rules has become more complex. "Government has grown so complex that it is a virtual certainty



that more than one agency would be affected by any piece of legislation," according to one view.[4]

Lobbyists, therefore, spend considerable time learning the ins and outs of issues, and can use theirexpertise to educate lawmakers[56] and help them cope with difficult issues.[6] Lobbyists' knowledge hasbeen considered to be an intellectual subsidy for lawmakers.[56][57] Some lobbyists become specialistswith expertise in a particular set of issues, although one study suggested that of two competing criteria forlobbyistsexpertise or accessthat access was far more important.[23][58][59]

Lobby groups and their members sometimes also write legislation and whip bills, and in these instances, itis helpful to have lawyers skilled in writing legislation to assist with these efforts.[4] It is often necessary toresearch relevant laws and issues beforehand.[1] In many instances lobbyists write the actual text of theproposed law, and hire lawyers to "get the language down pat"an omission in wording or an unclearphrase may open up a loophole for opponents to wrangle over for years.[4] And lobbyists can often advisea lawmaker on how to navigate the approval process.[56]

Lobbying firms can serve as mentors and guides. For example, after months of protesting by the OccupyWall Street, one lobbying firm prepared a memo to its clients warning that Republicans may "turn on bigbanks, at least in public" which may have the effect of "altering the political ground for years to come."[60]

Here are parts of the memo which were broadcast on the MSNBC network.

Leading Democratic party strategists have begun to openly discuss the benefits of embracingthe growing and increasingly organized Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement ... This wouldmean more than just short-term discomfort for Wall Street firms. If vilifying the leadingcompanies of this sector is allowed to become an unchallenged centerpiece of a coordinatedDemocratic campaign, it has the potential to have very long-lasting political, policy andfinancial impacts on the companies in the center of the bullseye. ... the bigger concern shouldbe that Republicans will no longer defend Wall Street companies...

Clark, Lytle, Geduldig, Cranford, law/lobbying firm, to a Wall Street client[60]

A growing billion dollar business

Since the 1970s, there has been explosive growth in the lobbying industry, particularly in WashingtonD.C.. By 2011, one estimate of overall lobbying spending nationally was $30+ billion dollars.[65] Anestimate of lobbying expenses in the federal arena was $3.5 billion in 2010, while it had been only $1.4billion in 1998.[30] And there is prodigious data since firms are required to disclose lobbying expenditureson a quarterly basis.

The industry, however, is not immune to economic downturns. If Congress is gridlocked, such as duringthe summer and early fall of 2011, lobbying activity dipped considerably, according to The WashingtonPost.[66] Lobbying firm Patton Boggs reported drops in revenue during that year, from $12 million in 2010to $11 million in 2011.[66] To cope with the downturn, some law firms compensated by increasing activityin litigation, regulatory work, and representing clients in congressional investigations.[66]

A sea-change in government, such as a shift in control of the legislature from one political party to theother, can affect the lobbying business profoundly. For example, the primarily Democratic-servinglobbying firm Cassidy & Associates learned that control of Congress would change hands from Democratsto Republicans in 1994, and the firm acquired Republican lobbyists before the congressional handover ofpower, and the move helped the lobbying firm stay on top of the new political realities.[67]



Top lobbying sectors 1998-2010[61][62]

Client Amount Spent %

1 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate $4,274,060,331 15%

2 Health $4,222,427,808 15%

3 Misc Business $4,149,842,571 14%

4 Communications/Electronics $3,497,881,399 12%

5 Energy & Natural Resources $3,104,104,518 11%

6 Transportation $2,245,118,222 8%

7 Other $2,207,772,363 7%

8 Ideological/Single-Issue $1,477,294,241 5%

9 Agribusiness $1,280,824,983 4%

10 Defense $1,216,469,173 4%

11 Construction $480,363,108 2%

12 Labor $427,355,408 1%

13 Lawyers & Lobbyists themselves $336,170,306 1%

Total $28,919,684,431 99%[63]

Note: Amounts do not include

campaign contributions.[64][65]

Examples of lobbying

There are numerous examples oflobbying activity reported by the media.One report chronicled a somewhatunusual alliance of consumer advocatesand industry groups to boost funding forthe Food and Drug Administration; thegeneral pattern of lobbying efforts hadbeen to try to reduce the regulatoryoversight of such an agency. In this case,however, lobbying groups wanted thefederal watchdog agency to havetougher policing authority to avertexpensive problems when oversight waslax; in this case, industry and consumergroups were in harmony, and lobbyistswere able to persuade officials thathigher FDA budgets were in the publicinterest.[68] Religious consortiums,according to one report, have engaged ina $400 million lobbying effort on suchissues as the relation between church andstate, civil rights for religious minorities,bioethics issues including abortion andcapital punishment and end-of-life issues, and family issues.[69]

Lobbying as a career

While national-level lobbyists working in Washington have the highest salaries, many lobbyists operatingat the state level can earn substantial salaries. The table shows the top lobbyists in one stateMarylandin 2011.

Top power-brokers such as Gerald Cassidy have made fortunes from lobbying:

Cassidy's reaction to his own wealth has been complicated. He lives large, riding around townin his chauffeured car, spending thousands on custom-made clothes, investing big money in,for example, the Charlie Palmer Steak restaurant at the foot of Capitol Hill just for the fun ofit. He has fashioned a wine cellar of more than 7,000 bottles. He loves to go to England andlive like a gentleman of the kind his Irish antecedents would have considered an anathema.

journalist Robert G. Kaiser in 2007 in the Washington Post[29]

Effectiveness of lobbying

The general consensus view is that lobbying generally works overall in achieving sought-after results forclients, particularly since it has become so prevalent with substantial and growing budgets, although thereare dissenting views. A study by the investment-research firm Strategas which was cited in The Economistand the Washington Post compared the 50 firms that spent the most on lobbying relative to their assets, andcompared their financial performance against that of the S&P 500 in the stock market; the study concluded



Top Maryland lobbyists (2011)

Lobbyist Income

Gerard E. Evans $1,232,000

Timothy A. Perry $1,217,793

Joel D. Rozner $1,215,161

Robin F. Shaivitz $1,156,368

Gregory S. Proctor Jr. $1,107,144

John R. Stierhoff $1,059,766

Michael V. Johansen $1,050,234

Nicholas G. Manis $1,016,250

D. Robert Enten $863,193

Lisa Harris Jones $857,000

Source:State Ethics

Commission[70]

There is general agreement thatmoney is a key variable in lobbying.

that spending on lobbying was a "spectacular investment" yielding"blistering" returns comparable to a high-flying hedge fund, evendespite the financial downturn of the past few years.[50] A 2011meta-analysis of previous research findings found a positivecorrelation between corporate political activity and firmperformance.[71]

There is widespread agreement that a key ingredient in effectivelobbying is money.[72] This view is shared by players in thelobbying industry.

Deep pockets speak; the money trumps it all.Anonymous lobbyist, 2002[43]

Still, effectiveness can vary depending on the situational context.One view is that large multiple-issue lobbies tend to be effective ingetting results for their clients if they are sophisticated, managed bya legislative director familiar with the art of compromise, and play"political hardball".[4] But if such lobbies became too big, such aslarge industrial trade organizations, they became harder to control,often leading to lackluster results.[4] A study in 2001 whichcompared lobbying activity in US-style congressional versusEuropean-style parliamentary systems, found that in congressionalsystems there was an advantage favoring the "agenda-setters", butthat in both systems, "lobbying has a marked effect onpolicies".[73] One report suggested that the 1,000 registeredlobbyists in California were highly influential such that they werecalled the Third House.[74]

Studies of lobbying by academics in previous decades painted apicture of lobbying being an ineffectual activity, although many ofthese studies were done before lobbying became prevalent inAmerican politics. A study in 1963 by Bauer, Pool, & Dextersuggested lobbyists were mostly "impotent" in exertinginfluence.[25] Studies in the early 1990s suggested that lobbyingexerted influence only "marginally", although it suggested thatwhen lobbying activity did achieve political impacts, that theresults of the political choices were sufficient to justify theexpenditure on lobbying.[25] A fairly recent study in 2009 is thatWashington lobbies are "far less influential than political rhetoricsuggests", and that most lobbying campaigns do not change anyviews and that there was a strong entrenchment of the statusquo.[15] But it depends on what is seen as "effective", since manylobbying battles result in a stalemate, since powerful interestsbattle, and in many cases, merely keeping the "status quo" could be seen as a victory of sorts. Whathappens often is that varying coalitions find themselves in "diametrical opposition to each other" and thatstalemates result.[6][75]

There is anecdotal evidence from numerous newspaper accounts of different groups battling that lobbying



activity usually achieves results. For example, the Obama administration pledged to stop for-profit collegesfrom "luring students with false promises", but with this threat, the lobbying industry sprang into actionwith a $16 million campaign, and their efforts succeeded in watering down the proposed restrictions.[76]

How did the lobbying campaign succeed? Actions taken included:

1. spent $16 million[76]

2. hired "all-star list" of prominent players including Democrats with White House ties[76]

3. plotted strategy[76]

4. worked with "fund-raising bundler" Jamie Rubin, a former Obama communicationsdirector[76]

5. won support from influential people including congressperson-turned-lobbyist DickGephardt, senator-turned-lobbyist John Breaux, lobbyist Tony Podesta, WashingtonPost CEO Donald E. Graham, education entrepreneur and University of Phoenixfounder John Sperling, others[76]

6. key leaders made "impassioned appeals"[76]

7. mobilization effort produced 90,000 public documents to the Education departmentadvocating against changes[76]

And sometimes merely keeping the status quo could be seen as a victory. When gridlock led to thesupposed supercommittee solution, numerous lobbyists from all parts of the political spectrum workedhard, and a stalemate resulted, but with each side defended their own special interests.[77] And whilemoney is an important variable, it is one among many variables, and there have been instances in whichhuge sums have been spent on lobbying only to have the result backfire. One report suggested that thecommunications firm AT&T failed to achieve substantial results from its lobbying efforts in 2011, sincegovernment antitrust officials rejected its plan to acquire rival T-Mobile.[78]

Lobbying is a practical necessity for firms that "live and die" by government decisions, such as largegovernment contractors such as Boeing. A study done in 2006 by Bloomberg News suggested thatlobbying was a "sound money-making strategy" for the 20 largest federal contractors. The largestcontractor, Lockheed Martin Corporation, received almost $40 billion in federal contracts in 2003-4, andspent $16 million on lobbying expenses and campaign donations.[50] For each dollar of lobbyinginvestment, the firm received $2,517 in revenues, according to the report.[50] When the lobbying firmCassidy & Associates began achieving results with earmarks for colleges and universities and medicalcenters, new lobbying firms rose to compete with them to win "earmarks of their own", a clear sign thatthe lobbying was exceedingly effective.[29]

Lobbying controversies

Lobbying has been the subject of much debate and discussion. There is general consensus that lobbyinghas been a significant corrupting influence in American politics, although criticism is not universal, andthere have been arguments put forward to suggest that the system is working properly.

Negative image

Generally the image of lobbyists and lobbying in the public sphere is not a positive one, although this isnot a universal sentiment. Lobbyists have been described as a "hired gun" without principles orpositions.[43] Scandals involving lobbying have helped taint the image of the profession, such as onesinvolving Jack Abramoff, Randy "Duke" Cunningham, and Bob Nye and others, and which featured



The image of a revolving door hasbeen used to describe the relationbetween working in government andfor lobbyists.

words such as "bribery", "lobbyist", "member of Congress" and "prison" tending to appear together in thesame articles.[2] Negative publicity can sully lobbying's image to a great extent: high-profile cases oflobbying fraud such as Abramoff's;[2] dubious father-son exchange-of-favors ties;[49] public officials suchas Newt Gingrich being accused and then denying accusations of having done lobbying and earning $1.6million from "strategic advice".[79] There are a variety of reasons why lobbying has acquired a negativeimage in public consciousness. While there is much disclosure, much of it happens in hard-to-disclosepersonal meetings, and the resulting secrecy and confidentiality can serve to lower lobbying's status.[4]

Revolving door

Since the 1980s, congresspersons and staffers have been "goingdowntown"becoming lobbyistsand the big draw ismoney.[80] The "lucrative world of K Street" means that formercongresspersons with even "modest seniority" can move into jobspaying $1 million or more annually, without including bonuses forbringing in new clients.[80] The general concern of this revolving-door activity is that elected officialspersons who were supposedto represent the interests of citizenshave instead becomeentangled with the big-money interests of for-profit corporationsand interest groups with narrow concerns, and that public officialshave been taken over by private interests.[53]

In July 2005, Public Citizen published a report entitled "TheJourney from Congress to K Street": the report analyzed hundredsof lobbyist registration documents filed in compliance with theLobbying Disclosure Act and the Foreign Agents Registration Act among other sources. It found thatsince 1998, 43 percent of the 198 members of Congress who left government to join private life haveregistered to lobby. A similar report from the Center for Responsive Politics found 370 former memberswere in the "influence-peddling business", with 285 officially registered as federal lobbyists, and 85 otherswho were described as providing "strategic advice" or "public relations" to corporate clients.[80] TheWashington Post described these results as reflecting the "sea change that has occurred in lawmakers'attitudes toward lobbying in recent years." The report included a case study of one particularly successfullobbyist, Bob Livingston, who stepped down as Speaker-elect and resigned his seat in 1999. In the sixyears since his resignation, The Livingston Group grew into the 12th largest non-law lobbying firm,earning nearly $40 million by the end of 2004. During roughly the same time period, Livingston, his wife,and his two political action committees (PACs) contributed over $500,000 to the campaign funds ofvarious candidates.

Numerous reports chronicle the revolving door phenomenon.[43] A 2011 estimate suggested that nearly5,400 former congressional staffers had become federal lobbyists over a ten-year period, and 400lawmakers made a similar jump.[47] It is a "symbiotic relationship" in the sense that lobbying firms canexploit the "experience and connections gleaned from working inside the legislative process", andlawmakers find a "ready pool of experienced talent."[47] There is movement in the other direction as well:one report found that 605 former lobbyists had taken jobs working for lawmakers over a ten-yearperiod.[47] A study by the London School of Economics found 1,113 lobbyists who had formerly workedin lawmakers' offices.[47] The lobbying option is a way for staffers and lawmakers to "cash in on theirexperience", according to one view.[29] Before the 1980s, staffers and aides worked many years forcongresspersons, sometimes decades, and tended to stay in their jobs; now, with the lure of higher-paying



Lawmaker turned lobbyist:Democratic congresspersonDick Gephardt switched tolobbying and has beenmaking millions annuallyworking for clients such asGoldman Sachs.

Occupy Wall Street protesters havebeen critical of lobbying ingovernment.

lobbying jobs, many would quit their posts after a few years at most to "go downtown."[29]

And it is not just staffers, but lawmakers as well, including high-profileones such as congressperson Richard Gephardt. He represented a"working-class" district in Missouri for many years but after leavingCongress, he became a lobbyist.[80] In 2007, he began his own lobbyingfirm called "Gephardt Government Affairs Group" and in 2010 it wasearning close to $7 million in revenues with clients including GoldmanSachs, Boeing, Visa Inc., Ameren Corporation, and Waste ManagementInc..[80] Senators Robert Bennett and Byron Dorgan became lobbyiststoo.[81] Alabama governor Haley Barbour became a lobbyist.[82] In2010, former representative Billy Tauzin earned $11 million running thedrug industry's lobbying organization. called the Pharmaceutical Researchand Manufacturers of America.[80] Many former representatives earnedover $1 million in one year, including James Greenwood and DanielGlickman.[80]

Insider's game

A similar concern voiced by critics of lobbying is that Washingtonpolitics has become dominated by elites, and that it is an "insider's game"excluding regular citizens[43] and which favors entrenched firms.[83]

Individuals generally can not afford to lobby, and critics questionwhether corporations with "deeper pockets" should have greaterpower than regular persons.[1] In this view, the system favors therich, such that the "rich have gotten richer, the weak weaker",admits lobbyist Gerald Cassidy.[29] There is concern that thosehaving more money and better political connections can exertmore influence than others.[1] However, analyst Barry Hesseniusmade a case that the excessive for-profit lobbying could becounteracted if there were more efforts to increase nonprofitlobbying and boost their effectiveness.[6][43] There is so muchmoney that it has been described as a "flood" that has a"corrupting influence",[30] so that the United States appears to be"awash" in interest groups.[2] If coalitions of different forces battlein the political arena for favorable treatment and better rules and tax breaks, it can be seen as fair if bothsides have equal resources and try to fight for their interests as best they can.[33][84] Gerald Cassidy said:

In a lot of areas, the stakes are between big companies, and it's hard to argue that one solutionis better than another solution with regard to the consumer's interest ... The issue ... is whetherCompany A's solution, or Company B's solution, based on their technology or their footprint,is the right one.

Lobbyist Gerald Cassidy[29]

A related but slightly different criticism is that the problem with lobbying as it exists today is that it createsan "inequity of access to the decision-making process".[6] As a result, important needs get left out of thepolitical evaluation, such that there are no anti-hunger lobbies or lobbies seeking serious solutions to theproblem of poverty.[29] Nonprofit advocacy has been "conspicuously absent" from lobbying efforts,



Studies have linked problems in thehousing industry with lobbyingefforts.

according to one view.[6] Critics suggest that when a powerful coalition battles a less powerful one, or onewhich is poorly connected or underfunded, the result may be seen as unfair and potentially harmful for theentire society. The increasing number of former lawmakers becoming lobbyists has led Senator RussFeingold (D-WI) to propose paring back the many Capitol Hill privileges enjoyed by former senators andrepresentatives. His plan would deprive lawmakers-turned-lobbyists of privileges such as unfettered accessto otherwise "members only" areas such as the House and Senate floors and the House gym.

Decision-making issues

A concern among many critics is that influence peddling hurtsoverall decision making, according to this criticism. Proposals withmerit are dropped in favor of proposals backed by politicalexpediency.[6] An example cited in the media is the recent battlingbetween food industry lobbyists and healthcare lobbyists regardingschool lunches. A group supported by the United StatesDepartment of Agriculture proposed healthier lunches as a way tocombat childhood obesity by limiting the number of potatoesserved, limiting salty foods, and adding more fresh vegetables, butthis group was countered by a strong food lobby backed by Coca-Cola, Del Monte, and makers of frozen pizza.[85] The foodlobbyists succeeded in blocking the proposed reforms, evenwriting rules suggesting that the tomato paste on a pizza qualifiedas a vegetable,[30] but overall, according to critics, this caseappeared to be an example where business interests won out over health concerns.[85] Critics use examplessuch as these to suggest that lobbying distorts sound governance.[85] A study by IMF economists foundthat the "heaviest lobbying came from lenders making riskier loans and expanding their mortgage businessmost rapidly during the housing boom," and that there were indications that heavy-lobbying lenders weremore likely to receive bailout funds.[83][86][87] The study found a correlation between lobbying byfinancial institutions and excessive risk-taking during 2000-2007, and the authors concluded that"politically active lenders played a role in accumulation of risks and thus contributed to the financialcrisis".[87] Another study suggested that governments tend to protect domestic industries, and have a habitof shunting monies to ailing sectors; the study suggested that "it is not that government policy picks losers,it is that losers pick government policy."[88] One critic suggested that the financial industry hassuccessfully blocked attempts at regulation in the aftermath of the 2008 financial collapse.[89]

Legislative focus

Critics have contended that when lawmakers are drawn into battles to determine issues such as thecomposition over school lunches or how much an ATM fee should be,[90] more serious issues such asdeficit reduction or global warming or social security are neglected.[30][53] It leads to legislative inertia.[91]

The concern is that the preoccupation with what are seen as superficial issues prevents attention to long-term problems. Critics suggested that the 2011 Congress spent more time discussing per-transaction debit-card fees while neglecting issues seen as more pressing.[53][92]

Systemic issues

In this line of reasoning, critics contend that lobbying, in and of itself, is not the sole problem, but only one



Lobbyists collided over school

lunches. Pizza can be served to

schoolchildren since tomato paste can

be considered as a vegetable and part

of a healthy meal.

Former convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff (left) listens to

Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig in 2011.

aspect of a larger problem with American governance. Critics

point to an interplay of factors: citizens being uninvolved

politically;[43] congresspersons needing huge sums of money for

expensive television advertising campaigns; increased complexity

in terms of technologies; congresspersons spending three days of

every week raising money;[92] and so forth. Given these

temptations, lobbying came along as a logical response to meet the

needs of congresspersons seeking campaign funds and staffers

seeking personal enrichment. In a sense, in competitive politics,

the common good gets lost:

I know what my client wants; no one knows what the

common good is.

Anonymous lobbyist[43]

A lobbyist can identify a client's needs. But it is hard for a single individual to say what is best for the

whole group. The intent of the Constitution's Framers was to have built-in constitutional protections to

protect the common good, but according to these critics, these protections do not seem to be working well:

The structure of representative government, elected by the people, was to be our system's

built-in protection of the whole of usfairly elected officeholders were to represent their

constituent groups, free from any obligations to special interests. Unfortunately, money has

corrupted the system and compromised both the fairness of the electoral process as well as the

independence and impartiality of elected officials.

Barry Hessenius in Hardball Lobbying for Nonprofits, 2007[6]

Lawrence Lessig, a professor at Harvard Law

School and author of Republic, Lost,

suggested that the moneyed persuasive power

of special interests has insinuated itself

between the people and the

lawmakers.[93][94][95] He quoted

congressperson Jim Cooper who remarked

that Congress had become a "Farm League

for K Street" in the sense that

congresspersons were focused on lucrative

lobbying careers after Congress rather than on

serving the public interest while in office.[96]

In a speech, Lessig suggested the structure of

incentives was such that legislators were

tempted to propose unnecessary regulations

as a way to further lobbying industry

activity.[97] According to one view, major

legislation such as proposed Wall Street

reforms have spurred demand for "participating in the regulatory process."[66] Lessig suggested the

possibility that it was not corporations deciding to take up lobbying, but Congress choosing to debate less-

than-important issues to bring well-heeled corporations into the political fray as lobbyists. As a result of his

concerns, Lessig has called on state governments to summon a Second Constitutional Convention to

propose substantive reform.[95] Lessig believes that a constitutional amendment should be written to limit



political contributions from non-citizens, including corporations, anonymous organizations, and foreignnationals.[98]

Our current tax system with all its complexities is in part designed to make it easier forcandidates, in particular congressmen, to raise money to get back to congress ... All sorts ofspecial exceptions which expire after a limited period of time are just a reason to pick up thephone and call somebody and say 'Your exception is about to expire, heres a good reason foryou to help us fight to get it to extend.' And that gives them the opportunity to practice what isreally a type of extortion shaking the trees of money in the private sector into their campaigncoffers so that they can run for congress again.

Lawrence Lessig, 2011[91]

Scholars such as Richard Labunski, Sanford Levinson, Glenn Reynolds,[99] Larry Sabato,[100] as well asnewspaper columnist William Safire,[101] and activists such as John Booth of RestoringFreedom.org havecalled for constitutional changes that would curb the powerful role of money in politics.[96]

Growth of lobbying

Law in the United States is generally made by Congress, but as the federal government has expandedduring much of the twentieth century, there are a sizeable number of federal agencies, generally under thecontrol of the president. These agencies write often industry-specific rules and regulations regarding suchthings as automobile safety and air quality.[100] Unlike elected congresspersons who are constantlyseeking campaign funds, these appointed officials are harder to influence, generally. However, there areindications that lobbyists seek to expand their influence from the halls of Congress deeper into the federalbureaucracy.[56][102]

President Obama pledged during the election campaign to rein in lobbying. As president in January 2009,he signed two executive orders and three presidential memoranda[103] to help ensure his administrationwould be more open, transparent, and accountable. These documents attempted to bring increasedaccountability to federal spending and limit the influence of special interests, and included a lobbyist giftban and a revolving door ban. In May 2009, the Recovery Act Lobbying Rules.[104] The Executive BranchReform Act, H.R. 985, was a bill which would have required over 8,000 Executive Branch officials toreport into a public database nearly any "significant contact" from any "private party." The purpose was toidentify lobbying activity.[105] The bill was supported by proponents as an expansion of "government inthe sunshine" including groups such as Public Citizen.[105]

But the proposals ran into serious opposition from various groups including the lobbying industryitself.[105] Opponents argued that the proposed reporting rules would have infringed on the right topetition, making it difficult not just for lobbyists, but for regular citizens to communicate their views oncontroversial issues without having their names and viewpoints entered into a government database.[106]

Opposition groups suggested that although the proposed rules were promoted as a way to regulate"lobbyists," persons described as a "private party" could be practically anybody, and that anybodycontacting a federal official might be deemed to be a "lobbyist". The U.S. Department of Justice raisedconstitutional and other objections to the bill.[107] Opponents mobilized over 450 groups including theU.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Realtors with letter writing campaigns againstthe proposed restrictions. Lobbyist Howard Marlowe argued in a "stern letter"[56] that the restriction ongift-giving to federal employees would create "fear of retribution for political donations":



The National Association of Realtorsis a special interest representinghome-selling agents. Photo: itsWashington headquarters.

Since your announcement to seek the Presidency you have consistently attacked thehonorable profession of lobbying ... Lobbyists play an important role in the legislativeprocess, serving as educators to elected officials. It is in the best interest to government to haveinformed individuals who serve as experts in every arena of public policy. Our ability toaccess and navigate the legislative process and push issues forward through a bureaucraticcluster is a vital service to the nation. The Draft Order would inhibit one of the most vital toolsin the advocate's arsenal by creating fear of retribution for political donations. Making thiskind of disclosure a part of the bidding process tarnishes a competition based onqualifications, adds an unneeded level of bureaucracy, and endangers the protection of freespeech afforded to all Americans by the First Amendment of the Constitution...

Howard Marlowe, president of the All American League of Lobbyists, in a letter toPresident Obama, May 31, 2011[56][102]

In 2011, there were efforts to "shift regulatory power from the executive branch to Congress" by requiringthat any "major rule" which may cost the economy more than$100 million must be decided by Congress with an up-or-downvote.[14] But skeptics think that such a move proposed byRepublican lawmakers could "usher in a lobbying bonanza fromindustry and other special-interest groups" to use campaigncontributions to reshape the regulatory milieu.[14]

Attempts at reform

Critics suggest that Congress has the power to fix itself, but isreluctant to sacrifice money and power. One report suggested thatthose in control had an "unbroken record of finding ways tonavigate around reform laws or turn regulatory standards to theirown advantage."[53]

Arguments for lobbying

There are counterarguments that the system is working as itshould, despite being rather messy. According to this line ofargument, the Madisonian view of politicsin which factionswere supposed to compete with other factionsis working exactlyas it should. Competing factions, or in this case, competing interest groups, square off. Battling happenswithin the federal government, but instead of by settling arguments by elections, arguments are settled bypowerful interest groups fighting each other, often financially.[1] And it might appear to members ofgroups which lost in a lobbying battle that the reason for their loss was that the other side lobbied unfairlyusing more money.[1] There are numerous instances in which opposed lobbies stalemate, and instances inwhich these stalemates have been seen as a positive result. And sometimes powerful financial interests losethe battle.

Lobbying brings valuable information to policymakers, according to another argument in favor oflobbying. Since lobbyists often become highly knowledgeable about a specific issue by studying it indepth over years, they can bring considerable expertise to help legislators avoid errors as well as grasp thenuances of complex issues. This information can also help Congress oversee numerous federal agencieswhich often regulate complex industries and issue highly detailed and specific rulings.[108] Accordingly, itis difficult for Congress to keep track of what these agencies do.[108] It has been argued that lobbyists can



This is what users saw when they tried to access Wikipedia

on January 18, 2012. Wikipedia participated in a lobbying

campaign by blacking out the encyclopedia for a day, and

encouraged users to contact congresspersons to support

positions it favored as part of an outside lobbying effort.

help Congress monitor this activity by possibly raising "red flags" about proposed administrative

rulings.[108] Further, congresspersons can quickly gauge where they stand about a proposed administrative

ruling simply by seeing which lobbying groups support the proposal, and which oppose it.[108]

Another argument in support of lobbying is that different interest groups and lobbyists, while trying to

build coalitions and win support, often amend or soften or change their positions in this process, and that

interest groups and lobbyists regulate each other, in a sense.[108]

But a more general sentiment supporting the lobbying arrangement is that every citizen can be construed as

being "represented" by dozens of special interests:[4]

Every citizen is a special interest... Blacks, consumers, teachers, pro-choicers, gun control

advocates, handicapped people, aliens, exporters, and salesmen -- are all special interests...

There is not an American today who is not represented (whether he or she knows it or not) by

at least a dozen special interest groups. ... One person's special interest is another person's

despotism...

Donald E. deKieffer, author of The Citizen's Guide to Lobbying Congress, 2007[4]

If powerful groups such as the oil industry

succeed in winning a battle in government,

consumers who drive gas-powered cars stand

to benefit a little bit, according to this view.

Even readers of Wikipedia could be

conceived as being a special interest and

represented by various lobbies. For example,

when rules were proposed in Congress to try

to curtail online piracy, opponents wondered

whether such rules might restrict sites such as

Wikipedia; on January 18, 2012, as a form of

protest and as a way to encourage readers and

contributors of Wikipedia to write their

congresspersons, the online encyclopedia was

"blacked out" for a day as part of an effort to

lobby the government.[109][110]

Another view in support of lobbying is that it

serves a helpful purpose as helping guard

against extremism.[4] According to this view, lobbying adds "built-in delays" and permits and encourages

opposing lobbies to battle.[4] In the battling, possibly damaging decrees and incorrect decisions are stymied

by seemingly unhelpful delays and waits.[4]

A slightly different view is that lobbying is no different from other professions:

Lobbying is no more perfect than is the practice of law or the practice of medicine.

Lobbyist Gerald S. J. Cassidy, 2007[29]

The regulatory environment

Disclosure and domestic regulations



Generally, the United States requires systematic disclosure of lobbying, and it may be one of the fewcountries to have such extensive requirements.[23] Disclosure in one sense allows lobbyists and publicofficials to justify their actions under the banner of openness and with full compliance of the law.[111] Therules often specify how much a lobbyist can spend on specific activities, and how to report expenses; manyof the laws and guidelines are specified in the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.[7] Transparency anddisclosure requirements mean that there are volumes of statistics available for all kinds of analysesbyjournalists, by the public, by rival lobbying efforts.[112] Researchers can subdivide lobbying expendituresby numerous breakdowns, such as by contributions from energy companies.[112]

Sometimes defining clearly who is a "lobbyist" and what precisely are lobbying activities can be difficult.According to the Lobbying Disclosure Act, several authorized definitions include:

Lobbying activities means "lobbying contacts and efforts in support of such contacts, includingpreparation and planning activities, research and other background work that is intended, at the timeit is performed, for use in contacts, and coordination with the lobbying activities of others."[23]

Lobbying contact means "any oral or written communication (including an electroniccommunication) to a covered executive branch official or a covered legislative branch official".[23]

Still, distinguishing lobbyists from a strategic adviser can be difficult, since the duties of each can oftenoverlap and are hard to define precisely.[80] There have been issues raised about what constitutes thedifference between a lobbyist and a bundler; one report described bundlers as "supporters who contributetheir own money to his campaign and solicit it from others", and there was a question whether suchpersons were really lobbyists involved with raising campaign monies for the election of Barack Obama,and whether Obama had broken his own pledge not to receive money from lobbyists.[113] The legalramifications of lobbying are further intertangled with aspects of campaign finance reform, since lobbyistsoften spend time seeking donations for the reelection efforts of congresspersons; sorting out these issuescan pose ethical challenges.[43]

There are numerous regulations governing the practice of lobbying, often ones requiring transparency anddisclosure.[7] People paid to lobby must register with the secretary of the Senate and the clerk of the Houseof Representatives within 45 days of contacting a legislator for the first time, or 45 days after beingemployed.[4][7] An exception is that lobbyists who earn less than $3,000 per client for each fiscal quarter,or whose total lobbying expenses are less than $11,500 each quarter, do not need to register.[7] Part-timelobbyists are exempt from registering unless they spend more than 20% of their working hours doinglobbying activities in any quarter. If lobbyists have two or more contacts with a legislator as a lobbyist,then they must register.[4][7] Requirements for registering also apply to companies that specialize inlobbying, or ones that have an in-house lobbyist, particularly if they spend more than $11,500 onlobbying.[7] Generally, nonprofit organizations, other than churches, are exempt from registering if theyhire an outside lobbying firm.[7] Filing must be made each quarter, and a separate file is needed for each ofthe lobbyist's clients, and include information such as the name and title of the client, an estimate oflobbying expenses, and an estimate of income the lobbyist achieved after doing the lobbying.[7]

States, in addition, are moving in the direction of greater disclosure and transparency regarding lobbyingactivities. California has an online database called Cal-Access although there were reports that it has beenunderfunded.[114][115] Money collected from registration fees are often used to pay for the disclosureservices such as Cal-Access.[74] There were complaints in Illinois that the disclosure requirements wereoften not rigorous enough and allowed lobbyists to work "without public notice" and with possible"conflicts of interest".[111] Many local municipalities are requiring legislative agents register as lobbyists to



The American Bar Association

published a book about lobbying

regulations.

represent the interests of clients to local city council members such as in the swing state of Ohio cities such

as Columbus and Cincinnati.[citation needed]

Laws requiring disclosure have been more prevalent in the twentieth century. In 1946, there was a so-

called "sunshine law" requiring lobbyists to disclose what they were doing, on whose behalf, and how

much they received in payment.[4][116] The resulting Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act (1946)

governed lobbying rules up until 1995 when the Lobbying Disclosure Act replaced it.[4] The Federal

Election Campaign Act of 1971, later amended in 2002 as the McCain Feingold Act, had rules governing

campaign contributions.[4] Each branch of Congress has rules as well.[4] Legislation generally requires

reports containing an accounting of major expenditures as well as legislation that was influenced; the

wording of some of the pertinent laws can be found in 2 U.S.C. ch.26

(http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/2/usc_sup_01_2_10_26.html) .[117]

Lobbying law is a constantly evolving field; the American Bar

Association published a book of guidelines in 2009 with over 800

pages.[118] The laws are often rather specific, and when not

observed, can lead to serious trouble.[48] Failing to file a quarterly

report, or knowingly filing an incorrect report, or failing to correct

an incorrect report, can lead to fines up to $200,000 and

imprisonment up to five years.[7] Penalties can apply to lobbyists

who fail to list gifts made to a legislator.[7][48] In other situations,

the punishment can be light: for example, Congressional aide-

turned-lobbyist Fraser Verrusio spent a few hours in jail after

pleading guilty to report taking a client to a World Series baseball

game and failing to report it.[119] Tax rules can apply to lobbying.

In one situation, the charity Hawaii Family Forum risked losing

its tax-exempt status after it had engaged in lobbying activity;

federal tax law requires charities such as that one to limit their

lobbying to 20% of their overall expenditures or else be eligible for being taxed like a for-profit

corporation.[120]

Lobbyists sometimes support rules requiring greater transparency and disclosure:

Our profession is at a critical point where we can either embrace the constructive

changes and reforms by Congress or we can seek out loopholes and continue the

slippery slide into history along side the ranks of snake oil salesmen.

Lobbyist Gerald S. J. Cassidy, 2007[29]

.

Scandals can spur impetus towards greater regulation as well. The Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal,

which started in the 1990s and led to a guilt plea in 2006, inspired the 'Legislative Transparency and

Accountability Act of 2006' (S. 2349 (http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.109s2349) ). According

to Time Magazine the Senate bill:

1. barred lobbyists themselves from buying gifts and meals for legislators, but left a loophole in which

firms and organizations represented by those lobbyists could still dole out gifts and perks;

2. allowed privately funded trips if lawmakers got prior approval from a commissioned ethics

committee;



3. required lobbyists to file frequent and detailed activity reports and have them posted publicly. Thebill was approved in 2006 by a 90-8 vote.

In 1995, the 104th Congress tried to reform Lobbying by passing the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995which defines and requires lobbyists who are compensated for their actions to register with congressionalofficials. The legislation was later amended by the Lobbying Disclosure Technical Amendments Act of1998. There were subsequent modifications leading to the Honest Leadership and Open Government Actof 2007.[23] The Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006 (H.R. 4975(http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.109hr4975) ) legislation modified Senate rules, although somesenators and a coalition of good-government groups assailed the bill as being too weak.[121] The HonestLeadership and Open Government Act of 2007 was a comprehensive ethics and lobbying reform bill,(H.R. 2316 (http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.110hr2316) ), which passed in 2007 in the Houseand Congress by a large majority.[122] A parallel Senate version of the legislation, (S. 1(http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.110s1) ), passed in 2007 by a nearly unanimous vote.[123]

After the House & Senate resolved their differences and passed an amended revision, President Bushsigned the enrolled bill into law (Pub.L. 11081 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/jureeka/index.php?doc=USPubLaws&cong=110&no=81) ).

Some states have considered banning government employees permanently from lobbying on issues theyhad worked on. For example, there was a proposal along these lines to prevent county employees inMaryland from ever lobbying on issues they had worked on. The proposal insisted that county officialspost financial disclosures as well as prohibit gifts from contractors.[21]

Jack Abramoff, emerging from prison, has spoken publicly about lobbying. In his view, regulationsdesigned to rein in the excesses of lobbying have not been effective, and that reforms and regulations havenot cleaned up the system "at all". Abramoff said lobbyists could "find a way around just about any reformCongress enacted", and gave an example:

You can't take a congressman to lunch for $25 and buy him a hamburger or a steak orsomething like that ... But you can take him to a fund-raising lunch and not only buy him thatsteak, but give him $25,000 extra and call it a fund-raiser -- and have all the same access andall the same interactions with that congressman.

Jack Abramoff, commenting on 60 Minutes, according to CNN[46]

A similar view suggested that lobbying reform efforts have been "fought tooth and nail to prevent itspassage" since the people with the power to reform would curtail their own powers and income flows.[6]

Foreign lobbying

Since commerce worldwide is becoming more integrated, with firms headquartered in one countryincreasingly doing business in many other countries, it is logical to expect that lobbying efforts will reflectthe increasing globalization. Sometimes foreign-owned corporations will want to lobby the United Statesgovernment, and in such instances, new rules can apply, since it can be particularly thorny resolvingwhether national security interests are at stake and how they might be affected.

In 1938, the Foreign Agents Registration Act[124] required an explicit listing of all political activitiesundertaken by a lobbyist on behalf of any foreign principal.[4] There had serious concerns about lobbyingfirms representing foreign entities and potentially values opposed to American principles - after Axispower agitprop was planted in American soils during World War II[125] through the efforts of public-

2/20/13 Lobbying in the United States - Wikiped

Documents

Preview of “Lobbying in the United S..., the free encyclopedia”