Democrats and lobbying - The Providence Journal

Democrats and lobbying
01:00 AM EST on Monday, December 11, 2006
BERKELEY, Calif. As the ascendant Democratic majority takes center stage in the Washington political drama, one of the emerging (and poll-tested!) motifs is a promise to end the “culture of corruption.”

Nancy Pelosi, the new speaker of the House, is busy practicing her lines: “The Democratic ethics package will break the link between lobbyists and legislation.…The American people want greater integrity in Washington, and Democrats pledge to make this the most honest, ethical, and open Congress in history.” Democratic leaders are declaring that reforms will be a legislative priority: No more gifts, no more travel, no more of those ugly appurtenances of legal bribery.

But, wait, what’s that scurrying noise, stage left? Why, it sounds like the steady march of former Democratic staffers heading off to Washington lobby firms, lured by the appeal of quadrupling their salaries now that their political connections are suddenly valuable. Why, even Nancy Pelosi’s own former chief of staff, George Crawford, has reportedly been hired to lobby on behalf of biotech company Amgen. It adds up to a clever bit of dramatic irony that makes all those histrionics about “The People’s House will not be an auction House” (Pelosi, again) seem at best quixotic (and at worst, insincere).

To understand why the proposed reforms are bound to be ineffectual, let’s ask a purposely naïve question: Why are lobbying firms so eager to hire Democrats? If private interests achieve so much influence through nefarious perks like gifts, meals, and plane rides (the banning of which will supposedly end the culture of corruption), why should lobbying firms care about the partisan pedigree of their hires? After all, a Republican can presumably trade away a steak dinner for a surreptitious tax write-off just as well as a Democrat.

The answer, of course, is that personal connections matter (surprise!). Washington, D.C., is a city of dense interpersonal networks, and it turns out that if you want to get a friendly audience before a member of Congress, it sure helps to hire a trusted former colleague to make your case.

One problem is that these kinds of connections come at a very high price. A former Democratic staffer with solid ties on Capitol Hill is going to cost you a few hundred grand. Which means that generally only those organizations with bulging political budgets (mostly the large corporations and wealthy trade groups that dominate the lobbying landscape) can purchase that kind of access. A related problem is that congressional staffers increasingly rely on transitioning to lobbying careers post-Hill to pay off their mortgages and send their kids to college. And as they do, they become more likely to lend sympathetic support to today’s lobbyists, who might have a job for them tomorrow. Connections, connections, connections.

Sure, we could slow the “revolving door” — increase the amount of time that former members have to wait before they can lobby their colleagues from one, to say, two years, as Democrats have proposed. But even if you take away all the former members and all the former staffers, you would still have a cadre of lobbyists who are specialists at the personal charm game, who are experts at establishing rich friendships and relationships just by hanging around. And who often win trust by providing a wide range of legislative support services beyond the capacity of harried and overworked congressional staffs.

But there is one way to at least weaken the link between lobbyists and legislation: take the private money out of campaigns. These days, winning campaigns cost on the order of millions of dollars, especially close ones. And fundraising is always much easier when lawmakers take the time to meet with a potential donor’s lobbyists than when they don’t. Problem is, as with lobbying, the vast majority of campaign money comes through a limited number of wealthy organizations. Which means that as long as candidates rely on private money to get re-elected, they are going to keep prioritizing the concerns of major campaign donors over other potential issues? Unfortunately, public funding of elections remains entirely off-stage in the current discussions of lobbying reform.

So then, let the Democrats speak boldly of ending the “culture of corruption.” There is certainly no great harm in banning private gifts and meals and travel, in increasing disclosure on earmarks and slowing the revolving door. But the trail of former Democratic staffers ascending to six-figure lobbying jobs suggests getting to the heart of unequal influence in Washington will require a kind of ugly introspection that is rare in politics.

A good test will be to watch closely what happens with the Democrats’ campaign promises to go tough on the pharmaceutical industry and negotiate bulk discounts for Medicare. Will the Democrats stick to their populist guns? Or will a small army of jovial pharmaceutical lobbyists, armed to the hilt with scientific studies, campaign cash, and connections, send those of us who care about the integrity of the political process reaching for more Prozac?

Lee Drutman, a frequent contributor, is the co-author of The People’s Business: Controlling Corporations and Restoring Democracy.

http://www.projo.com/opinion/columnists/content/CT_Drut11_12-11-06_3F37QCM.11e1fc9.html#