Aaron's Real Opinions (Yikes!)

LOBBYIST REFORM

The topic of lobbying reform is being debated throughout the nation -- from thousands of county courthouses and offices to the halls of Congress.  To date, there has been little substantive reform.

The job of a lobbyist is to convince an elected or appointed official or legislative body to make a decision favorable to the lobbyist’s employer or sponsor.  Changes in laws can mean millions or even billions of dollars in opportunities and profits to an organization, so it is no wonder there are tens of thousands of lobbyists in America. 

For example, if a change in a tax law generated a benefit of $50 million to a company, isn’t it rationale for that company to spend $1 million lobbying to effect that change?  Decisions at the federal level often involve billions of dollars so companies or even business sectors suddenly have great financial incentive to seek such benefits or changes.  It’s really simple arithmetic, to wit: “Should we spend millions of dollars in order to make billions?”  Everyone knows the answer.  Most people, in the same position, would act identically because this is logical behavior.

The problem is the average American does not participate in this process.  The average citizens is not wining and dining elected and appointed officials.  Nor are they taking them on trips, helping them organize political campaigns, donating money or doing fundraising.  Most Americans naively assume or want to believe elected officials are “public servants” -- truly serving the public interest.  The truth is citizens are being outspent, out-organized, and outgunned at every level of government and they often don’t even know it.

Certainly organizations have the right to communicate what their needs and desires are.  And there should be no limits on the ability of a person or organization to communicate -- in the same way as any citizen -- with his, her or its elected officials or the appointed officials who affect their welfare.

At the same time, there is nothing wrong with placing limits on the forms of communication used to do this as well as on the gifts and benefits which today can be bestowed on officials.  After all, these people are supposed to be public servants and should have the interests of the vast majority of citizens as their primary concern.  In America today, this simply isn’t always the case.

The reality is such vast sums of money are involved that organizations and individuals with so much at stake can’t help but want to try to find ways to influence legislative and administrative decisions.  Knowing this reality helps all of us understand what reasonable limitations on lobbyists should be.

Lobbyists attempt to gain influence by making campaign contributions, donating to special accounts, sponsoring and hosting events, buying meals, providing tickets to events, getting contributions from third parties. providing transportation (from short car rides to international trips via jet to exotic destinations), donating to programs or organizations related to their targets, and doing whatever they can to please elected and appointed officials. 

All of this corrupts the democratic process and needs to be stopped.  It gives lobbyists an unfair advantage over the nation’s citizenry and America’s best interests -- which is exactly what lobbyists are seeking.

Much of this financial activity is insidious because lobbyists rarely are overtly bribing their targets.  More frequently, they are using these opportunities as a means to get access to and spend time with the official they want to influence.  It is this access which gives them such an advantage.

There also is the fact organizations can hold out the carrot of a good job after a legislator or other official ends his or her public service.  To go from a position which may pay as little as $30,000 to one which may pay $1 million would be of interest to almost anyone who has bills to pay. 

A municipal, county or state official who can go from $50,000 a year to $150,000 may find he or she does not want to offend a prospective employer.  And a federal officeholder making $150,000 annually may be attracted to the opportunity to make $750,000 a year. 

The arithmetic is obvious.  And Americans have seen a “revolving door” in Washington and in their own state capitals as elected officials become lobbyists, lobbyists become elected officials, and a bizarre version of musical chairs ensues -- with some participants getting two chairs.

This is why there should be a minimum two-year “cooling off” period for any elected or appointed official.  It means that, if you accept a position as a public servant, you cannot come back and lobby your elected and appointed officials, with whom you have special relationships, until you have been gone from your job for two years.

Is this a sacrifice for elected officials?  Yes, it is, but it also would help restore confidence in a system which appears corrupt at every level.  There is more which needs to be done but a substantial cooling-off period would be a good start at separating the personal financial interests of public servants and those who seek their favor.

To reform the regulation of lobbyists, it would be a mistake to embark on an effort to create a new set of complex rules and regulations.  These would only serve to add regulatory costs, add compliance costs, confuse everyone, and not serve the public interests.  It would be far superior to adopt clear, easy-to-understand, easy-to-follow regulations, and then enforce those rules.

The importance of simplicity cannot be underestimated.  Simplicity makes it easy to follow the rules.  Simplicity makes it easier and less expensive to enforce the rules.  Simplicity means compliance will be far greater -- which should be everyone’s objective in the end.  And simplicity means resources once spent writing and interpreting a maze-work of rules can be shifted to compliance and enforcement -- making the rules even more effective.

Reform should mean eliminating all gifts and benefits of any kind from a lobbyist or organization of any kind to elected or appointed officials.  This would mean no free travel, no holiday gifts, no free meals, no special trips, no cash donations, no speech fees or honoraria, no appearance fees, no donations to organizations related in any way to the government officials, or anything else.  The premise would be simple: if you want something from the government, you should have to get it on the merits, not because you are providing government officials with some benefits.

When one considers the questions, the answers become obvious.  Why should a publicly-elected legislator or appointed official go on a trip sponsored and paid for by a special interest group?  This is even more questionable because everyone knows such trips give special access to officials which normal citizens don’t have.  The same applies to speeches and honoraria.

If a government official needs to go on a “fact-finding mission,” it should come out of the appropriate public budget.  If the travel cannot be justified by a public agency or department, it should not be authorized.  The same applies to any kind of gifts, too.  Why should public officials be allowed to receive gifts from those they regulate when everyone knows the only reason they are getting gifts is because they regulate these gift-giving people and organizations?

It may be difficult to image a political system in which lobbyists are prohibited from giving elected officials gift, financial assistance, travel, or support of any kind -- either directly or indirectly -- but this clearly would resolve the perceived undermining of the democratic process voters see today.

Does a “zero tolerance” policy make sense?  Yes, it does because eliminating all of these conflicts would be better for government officials because it would make their decisions appear unbiased.  They could not be accused of having been “bought” or unduly influenced because the lobbyists and organizations involved would have no financial relationship to these officials.  This would restore confidence in government.

Should a lobbyist who unwittingly gives an elected official a stick of gum be tarred and feathered?  Of course not and, certainly, while intent should be a factor, a zero tolerance policy makes the rules easy to follow.  You do not have to think about what qualifies as acceptable behavior and what does not.  You no longer have to calculate the value of a gift or benefit to determine whether or not a certain dollar threshold level was exceeded.  With a zero tolerance approach, you always know what is and what is not permissible.  This kind of rule is far easier to follow because one never gets to a secondary level of analysis -- such as trying to accurately value a gift or action -- , because no transaction  has occurred in the first place.

Most lobbyists and organizations seeking beneficial government treatment would be delighted to have their causes considered on the merits.  Today, many of them feel tremendous pressure to make campaign contributions, raise funds, provide jobs, donate to related and unrelated pet causes of elected officials, arrange junkets and vacations, and spend time and money massaging the egos of elected and appointed officials.  If they had to make their cases without all the sideshows and side deals, most would be pleased.  And that is because the majority of lobbyists are honest and ethical.  They simply want to have the opportunity to make their case.

If such a “zero tolerance” regulation were adopted, it would help return our democracy to the people.  It would restore confidence in our government.  It would improve the image of American businesses, which no longer would be seen as seeking unfair advantages.  And it would make life simpler and easier for everyone -- elected officials, organizations seeking government aid, lobbyists, and citizens.  It is time for a change and for the ascendancy of leadership on this issue.

Sorry, your browser doesn't support Java(™).