Is Lobbying Really All That Bad?

2009-01-26
By Eric Easter

Ethics has been the mainstay of President Barack Obama’s political career. At the beginning of each of his previous elected positions he made enacting ethics legislation one of his first orders of business. So it was fairly predictable that the issue would fit prominently in the new President’s agenda, and early. Still, his strenuous attack on the business and process of lobbying on his first day in office came as somewhat of a surprise, especially to lobbyists.

To his credit, Obama focused on the two most aggressively “shady” aspects of the practice – the so-called “revolving door” of government officials going into lobbying and vice versa, and the practice of giving and receiving gifts. He didn’t castigate the role of lobbyists overall, but he didn’t need to -- that was implied.

On its face, the symbolic gesture of placing limits on lobbying shows a President in tune with the considerable lack of trust America has in its government and Washington in general. Lobbyists, wrong or right, lie at the center of that mistrust. But beneath the surface, the lobbying issue is not always so black and white. If any industry represents shades of grey, it’s the field of lobbying.

To answer the question posed, “Is lobbying all that bad?” the answer is firmly no.

In the best circumstances, lobbyists provide a depth of expertise in subjects that overtaxed congressional staffers and administration officials simply cannot maintain. Complicated issues in business and policy often contain nuances that should be fully understood before enacting legislation that can have long-term impact. In those instances, good lobbyists  serve as unofficial advisors who help guide decision-makers to a smarter decision.

The problem, of course, is that not all lobby groups are created equal. The wealthier and better prepared will almost always get their voices heard first. Likewise, not all public officials are created equal, and the public cannot always be certain that their representatives are making the effort to hear all sides and weigh all options equally.

Some of the best and the worst aspects of our daily lives are results of lobbying. The loose ethical loophole that allows drug companies with products approved for one purpose to secretly market those drugs for secondary uses is a result of effective lobbying.  On the other hand, we now have seat belt and auto safety laws largely because of aggressive lobbying.  Do we throw the gains out with losses for the sake of appearance?

When most people think lobbies, they envision Big Tobacco, Big Pharma and the kid-suing Recording Industry Association. But the Children’s Defense Fund  is a lobby. So is Mothers Against Drunk Driving, as are organizations advocating for pilots, teachers, the elderly and the disabled.

As for the revolving door of lobbyists moving from government to the private sector and back again, you can’t really sign an executive order limiting ambition. Public service is a higher calling. But the new President cannot force people to make their passion for service a lifelong commitment.

If one aspires to the kind of lifestyle that can afford quality schooling and the price of homes in Washington, one of the major attractions to high-profile public service (beyond the desire to serve your country) is the possibility that you can eventually “cash out” into more lucrative private enterprise.

That kind of salary upgrade doesn’t have to be in lobbying, of course, but that’s the easiest route. If you eliminate future ambition as a motivator, who is left to sign up for duty? In the best case scenario you draw in people truly committed to service. But in the worst case scenario,  the most highly qualified people for government service won’t be able to afford it for the long term.

No one imagines that the creation of rules that clamp down on lobbying will eliminate the peddling of influence.  The serious use of influence occurs in much more subtle ways than the obvious.

Let’s face it, by private sector standards, Congressmen, Senators and government officials don’t make competitive money relative to their skills. Even the most honest are vulnerable to simple human need and emotion.  They have plenty of power but no money, and that bothers most people in DC. You don’t have to actually be invited onto a lobbyist’s private jet to be influenced. All you need to do is see the jet and be reminded that you don’t have one to have your values compromised.

The President seems to understand that lobbying won’t end because of his new rules, but the symbolism of a strong get-tough policy does much to put people on notice that a new sheriff is in town. And sometimes the threat is more than enough.

But ultimately, the key to ending the undue influence of lobbyists is to tighten even further the laws governing campaign financing. Then, all of us need to vote for better and more honest public servants.

Eric Easter is Chief of Digital Strategy for Johnson Publishing Company, Inc.  He writes about politics, culture and technology.