« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
I can't count how many times I read stories last year about the new culture of fear on K Street. In the wake of the Jack Abramoff and Duke Cunningham prosecutions, the story went, lobbyists were now shifty-eyed, hunted creatures. Suddenly their every move was suspect. Even an innocent campaign contribution could be construed as a crime.
But, with the Republican Congress in power, the reforms never came. And all in all, 2006 was a banner year for lobbyists. According to Political Money Line, special interests spent nearly $2.6 billion on lobbying last year, $229 million more than 2005.
But now the reforms have come, courtesy of the Democratic Congress. And while it's unclear whether they will really change the culture of Washington, one thing is clear: they will make lobbying a lot less fun.
No gifts, no meals, no sports tickets, no trips from lobbyists are allowed anymore. And breaking that ban could land a lobbyist with up to five years in prison. Witness, courtesy of The New York Times, what a sad state this has put influence peddling in:
....[W]orse still for [veteran lobbyist H. Stewart Van Scoyoc], under the new law he is required to certify each quarter that none of the 50 lobbyists in his firm bought so much as a burger or cigar for someone on a lawmaker’s staff....Another lobbyist recently scaled back the menu at a breakfast briefing for lawmakers, offering bagels and cream cheese instead of ham and eggs. The rules permit lobbyists to provide refreshment of “only nominal value.” The House ethics committee guidelines suggest “light appetizers and drinks, or soda and cookies,” a standard that is known as “the toothpick test.”....
Lobbyists complain that Congress is unfairly punishing them for the misdeeds of its own members, not to mention ruining the social lives of innocent and underpaid staff members.
“All those people who grew up in the system — who aren’t evil-doers, just good people — used to be able to entertain and have fun,” lamented Jim Ervin, a veteran military industry lobbyist.
No more sushi (a favorite of ex-Rep. Bob Ney's, a "sushiholic"), no more well-done filet mignon (Duke Cunningham's preference), not even ham and eggs. Bagels (and probably plain ones at that). How's a lobbyist supposed to get anything done?
Well, it's not so bleak, it turns out. While lobbyists are prevented from their more traditional avenues of access, they can still throw political fund-raisers -- in fact the new bill may have the perverse effect of increasing the importance of those events. And the requirements melt away when lawmakers and lobbyists find themselves side by side at “widely attended events” -- then the lawmakers can be made more comfortable.
Furthermore, all these requirements might serve to professionalize influence peddling even more, since corporations might be unsure of how to comply with the new laws. Rather than risk going to jail for buying a representative a cheeseburger, why not hire someone who knows the loopholes?
Even the "bundling" provision of the new bill, which will require that lawmakers disclose when lobbyists solicit and provide a group of individual contributions (as, for instance, from company executives), might not turn out to be a bad thing, the Times points out:
But lobbyists say the recognition may only encourage them to bundle. Ties to lawmakers are calling cards for clients.“That is not going to be viewed as the mark of Cain or anything,” Lawrence O’Brien III, a Democratic lobbyist and fund-raiser, said dryly. “It could be perceived as bragging rights.”
But if there's one group for whom this bill is plainly good news, it's muckrakers. The bundling provision allows a journalist to keep tabs as to who's bragging about access to a lawmaker, and the earmark provisions make it much easier to follow an earmark from the lobbyist to the lawmaker:
A self-described “earmarks guy” who specializes in spending items, [James Dyer] said the new rules were an invitation to scandal hunters. For the first time, the law will require disclosure of both the lawmakers who sponsor such items and the campaign contributions of the lobbyists who seek them.“It is a road map that says, ‘Hey, come look at me; I have got my name against an earmark,’ ” he said.
Update: Actually, as The Washington Post points out, it's unclear who will be supervising all these new filings. So we'll have to wait and see whether the new system of disclosure is what it's cracked up to be.
Comments (16)
Anonymous wrote on August 7, 2007 10:23 AM:"“All those people who grew up in the system — who aren’t evil-doers, just good people — used to be able to entertain and have fun,” lamented Jim Ervin, a veteran military industry lobbyist."
And every Who down in Whoville cries boo hoo hoo...
f&^k 'em
someparisian wrote on August 7, 2007 10:58 AM:Fuck the unpaid or underpaid staffers who work on the Hill? Politics isn't a lucrative profession for everyone. I'd rather the people who work on the hill have a few perks than see all the brightest young graduates go work in the private sector, or as, y'know, lobbyists.
Rionn Fears Malechem wrote on August 7, 2007 11:19 AM:But, they aren't innocent perks. In addition to creating a sort of a debt to the event's funders, the events themselves reinforce a culture of elitism.
Xman wrote on August 7, 2007 11:27 AM:Until lobbyists have to get in the big, long line that other constituents have to stand in to see their representatives, there will be abuse. And even then, there will be crooks buying a place in line...or paying someone to stand in line for them.
kthejoker wrote on August 7, 2007 11:53 AM:As a state employee, we're allowed to accept gifts that are under $50. What's "nominal value", anyway? I don't see how ham and eggs vs. bagels and cream cheese is drawing the line. Just put a real dollar limit on provided gifts and be done with it.
BAR wrote on August 7, 2007 12:01 PM:I'm amazed how much traction the "lobbyist" issue has gotten. Granted, there are bad ones out there, for sure, but they've become enemy #1. Where do people thing bills introduced by Democrats come from? I think you gotta get some of the money out of there, but some of this is silly.
johnnydoughey wrote on August 7, 2007 12:18 PM:Please notice that this congress did absolutely nothing to reign in corruption within its ranks.
"could land a lobbyist with up to five years in prison."
Notice that the elite are still just as elite and noingly receiving illegal gifts will put the other guy in prison.
Does anyone out here believe that this would have slowed Duke Cunningham down for one second?
This is happening throughout our system. Those who read local and state news see daily where the penalties for public servants are minimum because "he/she has spent their lives serving the public". Rubbish. This corruption needs to be stopped, and it must come from the top. Once again, these guys have snubbed their nose at the common folk out here who must follow three paces behind them in submission....
thomas wrote on August 7, 2007 12:30 PM:A thousand mile journey begins with a single step. A guess we can say it's a start but we have almost a thousand miles to go (minus a single step).
wrb wrote on August 7, 2007 1:24 PM:The only thing that will bring good government is a lifetime ban on lawmakers and staff every becoming lobbyists. The people would be much better served if they are eventually to return to their districts rather than graduate into a beltway ruling class.
This is what people should start demanding.
Neo wrote on August 7, 2007 6:13 PM:I gather that the "Update" was done after awakening from this fairy tale.
By Thanksgiving, the lobbyist's rule book will have been finalized, and business as usual will go on till the next "reform."
kilo wrote on August 7, 2007 6:38 PM:is that a lobbyist crying? My soul has recharged at last!
wrb wrote on August 7, 2007 8:36 PM:of course a more forceful strategy might be more likely to result in good, sooner.
Hang all lobbyists. Now
Billy C. wrote on August 7, 2007 9:09 PM:I used to work as a lobbyist. They are easy to vilify because no one understands what they do or how they do it. The NYT article was right on one count: the lawmakers make the rules. If you want better laws, elect better lawmakers.
Better still, come talk to me when voter participation heads north of 50%...or even when it approaches 50%. One of the most disappointing things about the reformers out there is that most of appear to just need someone to blame for their own failings. Lobbbyists and the "government class" are the popular target.
I have met the real enemy and he is us.
Pay attention to the entire process and participate. Sniping at targets of opportunity does not improve the process and does nothing improve the country.
I enjoy this website, but I wonder how much the discourse really helps as opposed to simply giving people a place to vent.
Thank you for letting me vent.
eyeball wrote on August 7, 2007 10:59 PM:
heh wrote on August 7, 2007 11:11 PM:i think this IS significant. small, yes, but important - so long as it takes root, why? because austerity, disclosure and accountability are important steps toward seriousness and away one would hope from cynicism.
Does anyone out here believe that this would have slowed Duke Cunningham down for one second?
This is happening throughout our system. Those who read local and state news see daily where the penalties for public servants are minimum because "he/she has spent their lives serving the public". Rubbish. This corruption needs to be stopped, and it must come from the top. Once again, these guys have snubbed their nose at the common folk out here who must follow three paces behind them in submission..
***********and I will add : W H I L E they spend the People's money.
Term limits is the answer. Cunningham et al had gotten comfy in their jobs. Cut them loose after 3 terms. The ones who SAY they will leave voluntarily renegg on their promises, its just too cozy up once elected and the lobbyists fluff the pillows.
and the poor underpaid staffers? excuse me, but I feel this way, you go into public service to help your country and system of government not to get you or your family rich....now there is a novel idea.
What happened to honor?
Doc wrote on August 8, 2007 12:35 AM:$2.6 BILLION on lobbying ...
Does anyone know where all that money went? Legally, when a lobbyist gives money to an elected official, I thought there was a limit on the amount given and constraints on how the elected officials could use it.
Does anyone know?