PLEASE stop the blanket condemnation of "lobbyists" in this campaign!

[EffieBlack]

For some time, I've been frustrated by the consistent, wholesale attacks on "lobbyists" as if lobbying is a dirty word and an even dirtier activity. Lobbying is not, in and of itself, a bad thing - ALL Americans have the constitutional right to seek redress from their government. Frankly, I'm sick of this knee-jerk bashing of "lobbyist" as if it's ipso facto a dirty word. There are many people in Washington who register as lobbyists because they advocate for legislation as part of their work - legislation that advances the causes that most of claim to believe in and that protects and improves the lives of people who often can't speak for themselves.

The NAACP has lobbyists. The Human Rights Campaign has lobbyists. The ACLU has lobbyists. The National Organization for Women has lobbyists. The American Association of People with Disabilities has lobbyists. The AFL-CIO (and most other unions) have lobbyists. The Children's Defense Fund has lobbyists. LaRaza has lobbyists. NARAL has lobbyists. The American Association of Justice, formerly the American Association of Trial Lawyers (BIG Edwards' supporters) have lobbyists. (And before the Obama people start nyah nyahing Edwards, they should consider the fact that one of Obama's top people used to work for that organization - as a lobbyist).

Let's be clear: the problem is not the lobbyists, but the money that a small group of greedy and corrupt lobbyists have been able to use to leverage their influence.

It's ironic that, in the midst of a heated argument about who was more responsible for the passage of the Voting Rights Act, so many people either have forgotten or just don't know that, while Lyndon Johnson, Martin Luther King, and many other civil rights activists were instrumental in the Act's passage, it was a LOBBYIST who probably should get most of the credit for this achievement. Clarence Mitchell, the NAACP's Washington Bureau director and their long-time lobbyist, was known as "the 101st Senator" for his strong presence, brilliant legislative strategizing, and effective lobbying for critical civil rights legislation. Among those who were there and/or who have studied and know the real history of this period, Clarence Mitchell - "the Lion in the Lobby" - gets most of the credit for the enactment of these laws.

Given all of this, the attacks we're seeing here tonight against Rodney Slater, the dismissal of him as "Hillary's lobbyist" and suggestions that he has no business speaking up in support of Clinton, are beyond the pale.

Rodney Slater, the former Secretary of Transportation, is an enormously accomplished and respected man. He was born dirt poor in Arkansas, picked cotton as a child, attended segregated, inferior schools, yet managed to go to college, where he excelled. He worked his way through law school and after law school, rose up through Arkansas government. He is a good and decent man of unquestionable integrity and is greatly respected around the country.

Secretary Slater is an attorney working for a major law firm that includes a government relations department, so it is perfectly normal for him to acknowledge that he's lobbyist in order to ensure that he's staying within the law and reporting all of his contacts with legislators, limited though they may be. That does not make him or all other lobbyists crooked or evil or contemptible.

Now, if Matthews or anyone else can point to any questionable or dirty clients that Secy. Slater has represented, unethical behavior on his part, or any legislation that he has tried to get passed that was harmful to the interests of ordinary people, that's another question. But throwing the term "lobbyist" at someone as an ad hominem attack that somehow invalidates any viewpoint they may have is tired.

[mojowork_n]

1. It's just short-hand, not ad hominem

Sure, unions and child welfare advocates have lobbyists.

But they're not the "K Street" (Republicans Only) variety, who actually go out and *write legislation*, the way the Oil Industry wrote Cheney's (still secret) Energy policy. Just before that industry started setting all-time records for profits, and earnings.

The FIRE (Finance, Insurance & Real Estate) sector, Big Pharma, Big AgBiz, defense contractors, Halliburton/KBR (Cheney's investment in those companies shot up over 3000% while he's been in office), all the Abramoff as-yet-not-completely-documented rip-off's, Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, Tom DeLay, Trent (I think I'll retire, now, before they throw me in jail, too) Lott...

"Lobbyists" is short-hand for all of that.

They don't call it the "Culture of Corruption" in D.C. for no reason. The word leaves a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths, through no fault of Mr. Slater, or the fine folks who advocate for renewable energy, or health care for the homeless.

[redqueen]

24. Thank you. (nt)

[Cameron27]

2. It's shameful

to see so many respected people getting so much disrespect on this board. Rodney Slater deserves better that. Thank you Effie, I'm so sick of it, that I'm posting here less and less each day.

K&R

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

3. Who or what has Rodney Slater lobbied for?

People might change their minds and refrain from the attacks if they knew he was lobbying for interests in the public good. If he's purely a good guy, people might be more apologetic. You're right about the fact that a host of worthy organizations have lobbyists. But let's face it. Lobbying has become a dirty word because of the tremendous abuse on the part of insiders who have parlayed government jobs and all the contacts that come with them into lucrative lobbyist positions that don't always favor the interests of the people.

[sandnsea]

4. I think they all suck

I think just about any organization can get so large and entrenched that their own interests become more important than resolving the problem they were created to address. I don't think lobbyists help the process at all. The people aren't bad, they're doing what the system requires. I just think we'd be better off without lobbyists altogether. Let the people from the business or interest group do their own lobbying, the way they used to.

[EffieBlack]

7. If you want to get rid of lobbyists, you'll need to amend the Constitution

And you'll also have to hope that the people you elect to Congress will just do the right thing on their own without any input from you or anyone else who shares or represents your interests, since, under your scenario, that would be banned.

You seem to believe that lobbyists are only people who are hired outside of a company for the express purpose of lobbying for them. That's not the case. A lobbyist is anyone or anything that has contacts with certain government officials (ususally Members of Congress, Administration officials or their staffs) for the purpose of influencing legislation or policy. Many organizations - including many of those that I cited - do not generally hire outside lobbyists to do this. Instead, they have someone on their staff do it - which makes that person a lobbyist and that organization a lobbying entity. There are also organizations - such as some of the ones I mentioned - that are not large enough or do not have sufficient resources to afford to pay a staff person to do this work, so they hire an outside expert who can represent them as needed on a part-time and, sometimes, pro bono basis. Those outside experts are also lobbyists.

So, arguing that we should "let people from the business or interest group do their own lobbying" does not recognize how this really works. Many of these organizations DO their own lobbying. But when they can't, there's absolutely nothing wrong with them hiring someone to do it for them. In fact, if they weren't able to do so, they'd be drowned out by the larger special interests who have more money, more time, and more resources.

[sandnsea]

9. The reason nonprofits have to register lobbyists

Is because of the actions of the corporate lobbyists. Their model was copied by others. Many large groups do pay outside lobbyists. If we didn't have the whole lobbying system, then the people directly employed by a business or nonprofit wouldn't be called lobbyists. They'd be called the group they represent which would help people have a better idea of who was doing what in Washington.

[EffieBlack]

12. I'm sorry, but you're just plain wrong

Lobbying is lobbying, not because of the existence of a "system," but because it's lobbbying, plain and simple, regardless who is doin it.

[sandnsea]

14. No, rich lobbyists with their expensive fundraisers

are not the same as the person working directly for some particular interest group. Laws were passed to reign in lobbying firms. Spin it any way you want, (that's what lobbyists do), but people know better.

[EffieBlack]

18. You can fuss and accuse all you want, but you're still wrong.

A lobbyist is a lobbyist, regardless how much money they spend on fundraisers or whether they spend any at all. That's just a fact, regardless how much you insist otherwise.

Now, you can argue that the EFFECTIVENESS of a lobbyist is determined by whether or how much they spend - you'd be partly right, but also partly wrong since, as I noted in another post, some of the most effective and influential lobbyists spend very little money and don't give a dime in political donations. But your insistence that whether one is a lobbyist is determined by their financial clout is just wrong.

Perhaps you should take some time to actually learn something about this before you continue posting about this. You can start here: http://lobbyingdisclosure.house.gov/amended_lda_guide.html
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/04nov20031500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2001/aprqtr/pdf/26cfr56.4911-0.pdf

[sandnsea]

21. You're arguing legal terminology

that had to be created because of the proliferation of lobbyists. If there weren't lobbying firms corrupting the system, this wouldn't even be a topic of conversation and your profession wouldn't be slandered. Quit lumping it all in the same basket, and you wouldn't have to defend your career choice anymore. Unless you're one of those corrupting the system.

[EffieBlack]

23. Whatever

You clearly know nothing about this issue, but that obviously doesn't stop you from pontificating about it, making assumptions about me (something else you know nothing about), and throwing around accusations.

Your combination of blatant ignorance and obnoxious certaintude is interesting, but hardly illuminating and not worth any further engagement with you on the issue on my part.

[truedelphi]

5. As far as i am concerned, it is insurance lobbyists that

Are responsible for 22,000 uninsured people dying each year.

Countless inusred die because of things not being approved.

Half of all bankruptcies.

I would be more than happy to see all lobbyists go away, even the good ones, if it meant the end of the insurance gestapo brigade.

[EffieBlack]

8. I don't want to see all of the lobbyists go away

I want to see the overwhelming money influence taken out of the process.

Without lobbyists, there'd be no:

No 1964 Civil Rights Act
No 1965 Voting Rights Act
No 1968 Fair Housing Act
No Minimum Wage
No SCHIP Program


We would have:
Poll taxes (no 24th Amendment)
Supreme Court Justice Robert Bork
U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Charles Pickering
U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Claude Allen
U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Terrence Boyle

. . . among other things.

Yes, the insurance industry is bad. Their lobbyists are up to no good. But we can't throw the baby out with the bathwater - eliminating all lobbying in order to get at them would only mean that the good lobbyists and the important work they do would be gone while you can bet the insurance industry would still be going strong.

[truedelphi]

11. Well your post is sorta lumping chihuahuas with rabid pit bulls

IF the lobbyist is not backed by large amounts of funding, I don't even know that they really are what the inner belt way person thinks of as a lobbyist.

And the way to make the Monied Lobbyist go away is probably something like a state by state amendment to the Constitution. The Supreme Court has already ruled that sizeable campaign contributions are not bribery but just a "personal" expression protected by the First Amendment guaranteeing free speech to all "persons".

[EffieBlack]

15. Whether one is a lobbyist has nothing to do with how much money is spent on lobbying

There are two definitions of lobbying - the IRS's definition and the definition set by the House and Senate.

IRS Definition

The IRS divides lobbying into two categories: 1) Direct Lobbying and 2) Indirect Lobbying.

Direct lobbying is defined as any communication to a local, state or federal legislator, or any member of their staff, that addresses "specific legislation, which includes bills, resolutions, repeal proposals, referendums or similar items at the federal, state and local level" and expresses a view of that legislation. This includes proposals that have not yet been introduced as legislation.

Grassroots lobbying is defined as any communication directed to the general public (rather than a legislator or their staff) that is refers to specific legislation, reflects a view on the legislation and "encourages the recipient ...to take action with respect to the legislation."

Under IRS rules, the minute a non-profit organization spends a penny on any such activity, they are engaging in lobbying. Lobbying expenditures include staff time and any direct costs such as postage, copying, supplies, travel, etc. Because it is virtually impossible for any organization to engage in this activity without incurring some cost, pretty much any of the foregoing communications constitutes lobbying. The IRS permits non-profits to lobby, provided their expenditures fall under certain amounts - how that amount is calculated, depends upon how the organization elects to be classified under the IRS code, but generally it is $1 million (although it can be more). Anything that exceeds the cap can jeopardize the organization's non-profit status.

Lobbying Disclosure Act

The House and Senate have also enacted laws related to lobbying. The Lobbying Disclosure Act does not prohibit or limit lobbying (although House and Senate ethics rules do). Instead, it requires that anyone lobbying Congress or the Executive branch register as lobbyists or lobbying organizations and regularly report their activity.

The Lobbying Disclosure Act defines lobbying both broader ad more narrowly than the IRS does. Under the LDA, lobbying is defined as "{a}ny oral, written or electronic communication to a {Senator, Member of Congress or certain Administration officials} that is made on behalf of a client." A lobbyist is defined as "{a}ny individual (1) who is either employed or retained by a client for financial or other compensation (2) whose services include more than one lobbying contact; and (3) whose "lobbying activities" constitute 20 percent or more of his or her services on behalf of that client during any three month period." An organization whose own staff engage in lobbying on its behalf falls within these defintions.

While this definition is broader than the IRS definition in that it applies to contacts with the Executive Branch (the IRS definition applies only to legislators and their staffs), it is also narrower since it does not apply to indirect or grassroots lobbying.

And, trust me, in the beltway, even those who don't spend a lot of money on lobbying but still engage in the activity are definitely thought of as lobbyists. In fact, some of the most prominent, visible and effective lobbyists are those who represent non-profit organizations that don't spend a large sum of money on lobbying activities. The amount of money doesn't determine whether someone is a lobbyist.

I hope this is helpful to you and anyone else interested in this subject.

[truedelphi]

26. So has the non-monied lobbyist achieved something that makes my life worthwhile

1) Are we close to Universal Health Care?

Oops, the Big Pharma, Big Insurance Company Lobbyists have seen to it that even if Hillary Clinton is our next President, we will not have Universal Single Payer Health care, but mandated health care (Which is sort of, as one other DU'er put it, like telling the homeless they are mandated to buy a house.)

2) Through the help of non- big money lobbyists, are we close to ending the revolving door between the FDA and the Big Boys and Girls of The pharmaceutical companies?

Oops, no, actually the way we now find out a prescription drug, vaccine or treatment is harmful is after it is out in the public and people die from it. And despite having lobbyists that are from "non-profits" the FDA hasn't actually established a team of independent scientists to review aa new device, drug, vaccine or procedure - it relies on the investigations of the same company that wants to put the drug on the market. And the revolving door between posts at the FDA and executive level jobs at Big Pharma is revolving as efficiently as ever. Approve a drug today and be given an executive level post at Merck three years from now.

3) Through the non-big money lobbyists, are we close to straightening out the Greenspan, Univ. of Chicago Economic theories that have imperiled the middle class? Has some pro-consumer group of lobbyists achieved the ban on lowering corporate taxes and re-vamping the middle income person's tax rate?

Nope - in fact even as I type this, we are told that the middle income tax person's tax cuts will have to wait - we need to cut the Corporate Tax Rate from 35% to 25% so that profits from new manufacturing centers that the corporations are sure to build on our shores might add to an economic recovery. (And pigs will fly, just wait and see!)

I could go on and on. But the Big Money Lobbyists are ensuring the status quo. For every small victory that the non-monied lobbyist achieves,a dozen are achieved by Big Money for the Rich

[Lucinda]

6. Thanks for posting this!

K&R

[auburngrad82]

10. If I give money to a candidate who I think will vote for my values, I'm lobbying

on behalf of my values, right?

A lobbyist gives money to a politician who he/she feels will govern in a way that will benefit that organization, group or constituency. So if I give money to a candidate based on the fact that I feel he/she will protect the environment and will work towards improved foreign relations, etc then I am lobbying for my beliefs. My donation, while not on the level of corporations, is aimed at what I want in a candidate.

[EffieBlack]

16. No - that's not lobbying.

Lobbying is NOT the same as giving money. Lobbying means you have been in contact with the politician. Now, unfortunately, sometimes giving money makes it easier to get direct access to a politician. But giving someone money is not the same as lobbying.

[avaistheone1]

13. I think ALL lobbyists have to go.

They definitely pollute our democracy and our system of representative government.

There has to be a better way. How do other countries do it?

[EffieBlack]

19. Lobbying is an essential part of our representative government

Not only does the Constitution give us the right to seek redress from our government (which is lobbying, plain and simple), it is critically important that we have the ability to influence our representatives on issues that we care about. Everytime you call or email or write to your member of Congress to complain about the war or to urge impeachment or to demand an increase in the minumum wage, we are lobbying. And thank God we can.

As I've said. Lobbying isn't the problem - most of it is done for valid and important purposes. Lobbyist aren't the problem - most of them are decent, committed people. The problem is the influence of big money in the lobbying process, not lobbying itself.

[mojowork_n]

25. OK, you've convinced me.

Where do I sign up?

The sheer, unrelenting forcefulness of your argument (you can't persuade/herd people toward the choice you want them to make if you stop or give up) has convinced me.

So do you think I could start out by doing any free-lance editing, policy wonking, or paragraph tweaking from long distance?

(Straight up, if there's any word-slinging that needs to be done, and I can be of assistance, please let me know.)

Your point is well taken. Those of us living some distance from the seats of power sometimes see Washington as a sort of veiled, frenetic blur of activity, and the mysteries of how an earmark actually gets turned in to pork (Ted Stevens and that damned bridge to nowhere, how'd that happen?) are obviously beyond our limited capacities to fathom.

[EffieBlack]

20. Delete - dupe

It was so nice, I said it twice!

[jasmine621]

17. OMG. An intelligent post! Good for you.

And yes, I know all about Clarenc Mitchell's work and a few others who worked hard and should also be acknowledged for their role in helping get that legislation passed. But really, this is really not about who did the most for civil rights. It's all about engineering, publicizing, and driving a negative and destructive wedge between the Clintons and the black population that supported them in the 90's. It's about revenge, denial, hate, and nullification. You have to admit that the Rovians are really good at what they do. They really know how to push the voters' buttons.

[dionysus]

22. "lobbyists are people too!" HRC