Political Corruption in America: The Lobbying Problem

Political Corruption in America: The Lobbying Problem

On June 10, 2015, the New York Times published a column by the thoughtful political journalist Thomas Edsall about the wealth gained by lobbyists in Washington, DC. (Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/10/opinion/the-lobbying-bonanza.html?smid=nytcore-ipad-share&smprod=nytcore-ipad). Edsall writes that lobbyists are being paid millions of dollars a year, and that many people in Washington are rich as a result. As of 2012, more than a dozen lobbying group executives made more than $2 million a year. There are stores in DC that sell suits for nearly $5,000. As I wrote in an earlier post on corruption (9/22/14, https://mpands.wordpress.com/2014/09/22/to-get-along-go-along-political-corruption-in-america-part-1/ ); for the whole series, see the posts of 9/22/14, 9/29,14, and 10/6/14), the DC metro area is getting richer every day–much richer than most of the country. Edsall goes on to argue that the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on lobbying each year influences public policy, often in favor of the rich. What can be done about this?

In order to deal with the lobbying problem, it’s going to be necessary to face up to some harsh realities. The first is that all members of Congress are part of the problem. Let me repeat: all members of Congress–not just the ones in the party you dislike–are part of the problem of corruption in Washington, of which lobbying is just one symptom, not a cause. As I explained in an earlier blog post (see above for series list), Members of Congress are: 1) often wealthy (median net worth more than $1 million); 2) exceptionally well-paid and protected by very generous health benefits, pensions and large staffs (top ten percent or better on every point); 3) face almost no competition for re-election; and 4) are automatically eligible to become members of the wealthy lobbyists’ club. Edsall says: “A former member of Congress entering the influence business can easily double or triple his or her government salary….” Do you think that people whose jobs meet all these criteria are likely to bite the hand that feeds them? Really?

In short, becoming a member of Congress means becoming part of a system of corrupt influence–if you think of lobbying as corrupt, as many people do.  But that’s the second reality you need to come to terms with–lobbyists who don’t actually violate existing laws such as bribery statutes, but instead simply buy and sell political influence, are not inherently corrupt, they are “power brokers.” In other words, they get paid for collecting and concentrating influence, and then using it on designated targets. How is that different from buying and selling companies, or being a sports agent representing a major NFL quarterback who is negotiating with an NFL team? There has to be a market for political influence for lobbyists to get rich, just like there have to be NFL teams (with TV stations and fans who pay a lot to broadcast and watch them) for quarterbacks and sports agents to get rich.  Can we get rid of this market for political influence?

This brings us to the third harsh reality–the public creates the market for political influence by demanding money (or tax breaks) and services from the government. People today don’t typically object to such demands (though they would if they believed, as President Andrew Jackson did, that the rich and powerful would inevitably win that contest).  Instead, they object to the idea that the rich and poor don’t have a level playing field when it comes to lobbying. But let’s look more closely at what lobbyists do, and how their influence works, to see whether that can realistically be changed to create a level field.

Take a fictional lobbying organization that represents tens of thousands of senior citizens in Washington. I’ll call it GRIP. GRIP has hundreds of staff members, most of whom are well-paid professionals. It gets the money to pay them from its members. It would be pleasant to think that GRIP’s members belong to it just because they think senior citizens are nice people, and want to help them without getting anything in return. Pleasant–but wrong. Most of GRIP’s members will directly benefit from its activities, which usually involve trying to protect or expand government benefits for senior citizens. GRIP has the ability to communicate almost instantly with its members if Congress does something it doesn’t like. GRIP’s lobbyists are not above telling members of Congress that GRIP members may (will?) vote against them–or withhold campaign contributions–or both–if Congress votes the wrong way on GRIP issues. GRIP isn’t fundamentally different from most lobbying organizations. It just happens to represent one of the politically most potent groups in American politics–one that might even determine the outcome of the 2016 presidential election by deciding the outcome of the election in Florida. When GRIP speaks, Congress listens. So how can we get rid of the influence of GRIP and similar lobbyists?

We need to start by recognizing that you can’t legislate GRIP–or any other legitimate lobbying group–out of business. GRIP’s members wouldn’t stand for it, especially if GRIP were singled out. So unless all lobbying groups are put of business, GRIP will stick around. So, you say, let’s put them all out of business. What would happen then? If ordinary senior citizens who had been GRIP members started to lobby Congress instead, would we stop them (ignoring for this purpose any First Amendment rights)? Suppose they took their friends along? Wouldn’t that be a lobbying group; and would we outlaw it? If not, what’s the difference between people and their friends lobbying and their hiring someone to lobby for them?

Although existing laws should be reviewed carefully to make certain that the public knows how much money lobbyists spend, and where that money goes, it’s not clear how much else should be done (other than to clamp down hard on lobbying for foreign governments and perhaps also foreign corporations with government ties). The real source of the problem may instead be voters who support the existing system of Washington corruption (pay, benefits, lobbying club eligibility, no term limits, etc.) by mindlessly re-electing their Congressmen and Congresswomen even if all they do is to protect the status quo. If you want government reforms, don’t spend too much time worrying about lobbyists. Concentrate instead on persuading your neighbors that government policy needs to change, and that if it doesn’t, they should join you in throwing out their Congressmen and Senators who won’t go along. When following the “don’t rock the boat” philosophy dominant in Washington now becomes a surefire way to lose a Congressional seat, then, and only then, Congress will change–lobbyists or no lobbyists.