Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktThis article in the Atlantic addresses the “money and politics” problems and touches on what successful lobbyists offer members of Congress: expertise and research. Congressional staffers are not typically paid that well and they’re overworked, so they rely on well funded and staffed people to do their research, draft their white papers, etc. for them. I’d include coalition building in that. The whole thing is worth a read.
The article links to a Ezra Klein piece, also worth reading, on lobbying that includes this nugget from a book that he was reviewing:
The lobbyist today is ethical, and well educated. He or she works extremely hard to live within the letter of the law. More than ever before, most lobbyists are just well-paid policy wonks, expert in a field and able to advise and guide Congress well. Regulation is complex; regulators understand very little; the lobbyist is the essential link between what the regulator wants to do and how it can get done…. Most of it is decent, aboveboard, the sort of stuff we would hope happens inside the Beltway.
Couldn’t have said it better.
Also, every so often a member will gloat that he returned money from his budget that would have been spent on staff. That just tells me he’s not hiring well. You learn very quickly how well or poorly a particular member is staffed.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: political process |
All Things in Moderation 
Thanks for this post, nova. Interesting. What’s your perspective on it?
LikeLike
I’m sure lobbyists are experts and largely policy wonks. I am also sure they almost almost always behave within recognize ethical and legal rules. However, isn’t the issue that lobbyists represent the interests of their client whereas our elected officials our supposed to represent the interests of the voters? To the extent that there is a conflict between what is best for voters and what is best for the lobbyists client, we should arguably be concerned that the lobbyists have what appears to be a louder voice and more influence. Of course, the nova and libertarian response (some conservatives too) would be to give the federal government less influence. However, that’s sort of a tangent to some extent. Anyway, given how it is impossible for me to keep up with all the regulations in the field of health care and I’m a health care attorney, I do recognize the value a lobbyists can provide to a politician or staff member who has other policy areas they also have to address.
LikeLike
Okie, NoVA said he “could not have said it better”.
In my experience with lobbying the TX Lege, lobbying went on in parallel at two different levels. At one level were the fundraisers/winers+diners. These were usually the “executive directors” of the associations; e.g.:Insurance institute, petroleum institute, trial lawyers, banking association, auto dealers association, board of realtors, medical association, etc. They bought access for the second level.
They bought access for lawyers and experts to provide committee testimony and write and edit legislation. There is an independent Texas Legislative Council that vets bills for cost and effect. It too welcomes input from the lawyers and experts working for the lobbies.
There is no doubt in my mind that the great majority of lawyers and experts attempt to give careful evaluations of their proposals while presenting them in a positive light, or provide factually supportable critiques for laws their lobby opposes. Partly from professional pride and partly in order to maintain credibility in the long run, they do not try to mislead. There is little doubt in my mind that, in a typical case, say, insurance legislation, it will make more sense written by an insurance lawyer than by a legislative staffer, and leave many fewer traps for the unwary. Legislation writing is actually difficult when it comes to complex subjects with lots of moving parts.
The careful legislator in TX will ask for a lobby expert from the lobby that opposes proposed legislation to give him a critique of the statute proposed by the supporting lobby. Typically, the careful legislator in TX will then have more insight into the proposed legislation’s strengths and weaknesses, and be able to argue better within committee. Back around 2000, I heard McCain describe this as part of typical US Senator prep for committee work, too.
The whore legislator in TX would just ask the executive director of the association to buy more tickets to his fundraiser and not bother him with a bunch of reading.
For years, one of my cousins was Washington DC tax partner at King-Spalding, the Atlanta law firm. She would prepare analyses of every tax change any K-S client [e.g.; Coke, Nestles, Ted Turner] liked or did not like, and go to the committee members, essentially to give tax lectures and leave study materials for the staff. She became one of the most trusted tax people in the Capitol, because she did not invent crap.
I suspect DC operates at two levels, as well. K-S lawyers get in because Coke gives money. Labor lawyers and economists get in because unions give money. The system has serious problems, but the worker bees [lawyers and experts] are currently essential to the operation of government, and are not themselves corrupt, I would guess, from my experience.
LikeLike
Lobbyists are the rightful consequences of our need to ‘redress grievances’ and shouldn’t be demagogued out of hand. But I still find Thank You For Smoking a hilarious book.
LikeLike
Mark’s post is my experience — you’re either a door opener or the expert. If you’re a good enough expert, that will open doors too.
And Thank You for Smoking is fantastic. MOD squad. cracks me up every time.
LikeLike
” The whore legislator in TX would just ask the executive director of the association to buy more tickets to his fundraiser and not bother him with a bunch of reading.”
I suspect there is another class of legislator that approaches problems ideologically & thus doesn’t bother to consult with those opposed to his/her view. I wouldn’t dispute the contention that lobbyists are critical to the function of government, but I would argue that legislators who merely pass through proposals written & developed by a lobby without a critical review are contributing to bad government.
LikeLike
Mark (and nova), sorry I did not at all make my question clear. “It” in “what’s your perspective on it” referred to the discussion in the links about significantly increasing funding for legislative staffs in lieu of current “legislative subsidy.” Having just finished reading the links in entirety, I suppose by stream of consciousness I assumed you would read my mind and know what I meant. Sorry about that.
As I was reading the links, I had thoughts similar to what ashot expressed in his comment. And with public distrust of government apparently at such a high level, would eliminating the “appearance of impropriety,” even if none actually exists, help ameliorate public perception and thus alleviate perceived disenfranchisement?
At state level, it sounds like OK operates (or did) much like TX, although it has been quite a long time since I had any firsthand knowledge of it. OK legislative research staff used to be (don’t know current structure) divided by functional areas rather than assigned to particular legislators, although each legislator had staff for other purposes. But same bi-level lobbying.
LikeLike
The Ezra Klein article is very interesting because it explains that lobbyists spend most of their time cozying up to sympathetic congressman and staffers.
LikeLike