Department of Semantics
Your chance to help lobbyists rebrand themselves. What's a good new title for the profession?
Advertisement
Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!
Ads are how we pay the bills!
The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars
House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor
Special Guests
Big names and big brains
Special Features
Pressing topics and trends
Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.
All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.
- HEALTH CARE MUSINGS
by dickday
- Moral Hazards
by TheraP
- THEY'RE NOT ALL CRAZY, BUT THEY ARE DIFFERENT
by Deanie Mills
- Why Kucinich Voted No
by Lulu Strauss
- The Tao of Cao: a *Iighthearted* view of how to SWITCH PARTIES!
by Overreach THIS!
- Health Reform Bill Implementation: "2010 or 2013?" (Josh's Front Page Comment)
by OldenGoldenDecoy
- Right-wing trolls strive to form labor union
by William K. Wolfrum
- H1N1 Virus - If You Need Health/Emergency Care Who Pays?
by coonsey
- So the House Health Care bill passed...
by cmaukonen
- LOSERS OF THE WEEK: 11-08-09
by nemokc
- John Boehner's performance Saturday night
by flavius
- Free enterprise is a cruel joke as far as health care in this country is concerned.
by Blake Fleetwood
- Hard Cold World: A Music-Video Blog
by Rutabaga Ridgepole
- How do we pressure the Senate?
by mrnola
- 2010 or 2013 Revisited
by Ickyma
- Bounced by American YOYO
by San Fernando Curt
- Sen. Lieberman, what an opportunist ?
by Thabo Mda
- My Collection
by sebans
- H1N1 Virus - If You Need Health/Emergency Care Who Pays?
by coonsey
- Hard Cold World: A Music-Video Blog
by Rutabaga Ridgepole
- Free enterprise is a cruel joke as far as health care in this country is concerned.
by Blake Fleetwood
- Neurostin
by Neurostin
- Bon Jovi circles back to Jersey stadium rock
by gebruiger
- Moral Hazards
by TheraP
- 2010 or 2013 Revisited
by Ickyma
- Job Interviewing Tips
by Archanfel
- On Berlin
by The_Letter_B
- Right-wing trolls strive to form labor union
by William K. Wolfrum
- Health Reform Bill Implementation: "2010 or 2013?" (Josh's Front Page Comment)
by OldenGoldenDecoy
- How do we pressure the Senate?
by mrnola
- John Boehner's performance Saturday night
by flavius
- More Americans Are Pro-Life. So what?
by J. Clarence
- Why Kucinich Voted No
by Lulu Strauss
- HEALTH CARE MUSINGS
by dickday
- The Tao of Cao: a *Iighthearted* view of how to SWITCH PARTIES!
by Overreach THIS!
- LOSERS OF THE WEEK: 11-08-09
by nemokc
- So the House Health Care bill passed...
by cmaukonen
- One Vote, One Answer.
by MNPundit
- THEY'RE NOT ALL CRAZY, BUT THEY ARE DIFFERENT
by Deanie Mills
- Thank You, Mitch Stewart ...
by RM
Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.
How about "policy advocates"
January 24, 2006 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Racketeer.
January 24, 2006 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think "Privateers" is a lovely word in need of reviving. Applicable to all good folk who work towards relieving us of the public treasury.
January 24, 2006 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Policy Fluffer.
January 24, 2006 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Symbiants.
.
January 24, 2006 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
ummm, "Bribers" ?
January 24, 2006 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
January 24, 2006 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Information Laison (with Extreme Prejudice)
January 24, 2006 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about Markup Manager? Or Legislative Advocate? Or Congressional Staff Out-Sourcing Consultant?
January 24, 2006 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
FOREIGNID: 86412
FOREIGNPARENTID: 0
FOREIGNCOMMENTERID: 12337
AUTHOR: koho
DATE: 01/24/2006 03:38:19 PM
January 24, 2006 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Legislatorial Determinater!
January 24, 2006 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Private legislative banker
January 24, 2006 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Think like a government employee: "Budgetary Benefit Facilitator"
January 24, 2006 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Corruption Engineers" or perhaps "Constitutional Demolition Specialists" or to be kind "Congressional Compensation Expeditors"
January 24, 2006 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not all lobbyists are unprincipled moneygrubbers looking to write or influence legislation that will make it easier for specific special interests to cheat people out of their hard-earned money or otherwise behave unethically At least I hope not. But enough of them are that I would suggest we call them "Johns." I say that because Republicans have gained control of K Street and, in the interest of fundraising to build a permanent Republican majority, they have been like an unfaithful wife (unfaithful to the American people) who sells her services (prostitutes herself) to the highest bidders. And lobbyists are the ones arranging the purchase of those services.
January 24, 2006 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wouldn't that be pimps?
January 24, 2006 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the Washington Post version, i think.
January 24, 2006 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
urlegislators, graft engineers, plutocratic bagmen.
January 24, 2006 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
deputy director of intelligence at homeland security
January 24, 2006 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about Monetary Redistribution Consultants?
January 24, 2006 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bagmen does the trick. It's succinct and accurately descriptive.
January 24, 2006 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lawyers
January 24, 2006 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trixie Stiffers.
Your father is a trixie stiffer, dear. He helps poison other peoples' babies and make sure no one can find out why it happens while we get to use solid gold toilet paper!
January 24, 2006 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
FOREIGNID: 86426
FOREIGNPARENTID: 0
FOREIGNCOMMENTERID: 49
AUTHOR: dyuguchi
DATE: 01/24/2006 04:07:26 PM
January 24, 2006 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Law Brökers -- you can pronounce it either breakers or brokers!
January 24, 2006 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you are looking for something catchy, how about Liasons of Largess?
Or Private Liasons to Congress.
Personally, my preference is to call them what they are. That is bottom feeding war profiteers and souless, pathetic pigs at the trough.
But that's just my opinion..........
P.S. I understand all "lobbyists" aren't evil or even bad. My comments above are directed only at the bottom-feeders. You know who you are.
January 24, 2006 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
If this were a poll, Johns or Courtiers would get my vote, though it's a tough choice among many worthy candidates.
January 24, 2006 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Legal Crisco
Bribesmades
January 24, 2006 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about "illegal". As in lobbying by paid operatives is "illegal". Only citizens acting on their own behalf should be able to deal with their representatives.
I realize this runs into first amendment issues, but only because corporations are treated like people in the eyes of the law. Getting rid of that is the first step to reform.
Corporations are not people and shouldn't have the same "rights". Especially as commercial speech is not speech. If it were the same we wouldn't have restrictions on truth in advertising and the release of corporate earnings information.
So the law recognizes that there are limits to what corporations can "say", just not to politicians, apparently.
Nothing will change until the money is taken out of running for office. We need public financing and/or free TV air time for candidates.
January 24, 2006 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
A few off the top of my head:
FelonsThat dude from Lord of the Rings II that kept whispering in the king of Rohan's ear.
Congressional Sugar Daddies
Travelocity for Congress-persons
Wankers
And my favorite:
Indian Givers (read: Abramoff)
January 24, 2006 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously a bunch of liberals, eat more Freedom Fries you tartuffels!
Democracy Enablers
Freedom Underwriters
Good Souls (if they give to Republicans)
January 24, 2006 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Budget Brokers
January 24, 2006 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quid Pro Quarterback
props out to the author Bribesmade...that's genius.
January 24, 2006 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
and in the spirit of the Clear Sky Initiative
Integrity Bringers
Truth Educators
Politician Educators
The People's Lobbyists
(especially good for like the tobacco companies. "Billions of People smoke. We are just helping them get to their smokes with as few government intervention as possible.")
January 24, 2006 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bribemeister?
Protectors of Childen and Mothers?
January 24, 2006 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congressional Process Specialists
Perquisite Professionals
Access Facilitators
Beneficiary Liaisons
Legislative Entrepreneurs
Ethics Consultants
January 24, 2006 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fascist Underwriters (FUs)
K Street Korrupters
January 24, 2006 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ombudsman.
January 24, 2006 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Former Republican Congressman.
January 24, 2006 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ghostwriter.
January 24, 2006 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
<a href="http://www.house.gov/hastert/">Speaker</a&g
t; Motivationalists.
January 24, 2006 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I prefer the generic: concession-tender This makes no distinction made between peddler and pedlee.
January 24, 2006 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about no replacement at all, just a proliferation of euphemistic names for various lobbying firms.
So every lobbyist, would instead be a "member" of:
Americans for National Security
Americans for a Responsible Budget
Americans for Healthy Lives
Americans for an Engaged Citizenry
Of course, you can guess what the lobbyists and their backers would be advancing (intentionally or not) by these fictitious names (I'm assuming none have already been taken): the opposite. Just kidding... kind of.
Plus, it's hard to sully the term "member" as everyone's a member of some group, but few people are lobbyists (or whatever replacement term you may fathom.)
January 24, 2006 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
FOREIGNID: 86446
FOREIGNPARENTID: 0
FOREIGNCOMMENTERID: 2809
AUTHOR: womanhattan
DATE: 01/24/2006 05:03:35 PM
January 24, 2006 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Baloney Sandwich Artists
Brumidiots, after the tile floors in the Senate hallways
Badvocates
Desperate Fishwives--although that gives a bad name to fishwives
January 24, 2006 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's a good new title for the profession?
The term "lobbyist," is quite quaint, since lobbyists no longer do their jobs in lobbies of buildings. How about "skyboxers"? or "Scotland golfists?" or "Restauranteurs" or "Signaturists"?
As in, "the health care skybox heavily influenced the Medicare bill. Skyboxers skyboxed hard to remove certain classes of lifesaving medication from Medicare coverage."
-womanhattan
January 24, 2006 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Goodfellas, anyway
January 24, 2006 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Legislation Drafting Specialists
January 24, 2006 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thug prostitutes.
January 24, 2006 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Borg.
January 24, 2006 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Private Interest Enablers ("PIE")
January 24, 2006 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
FOREIGNID: 86454
FOREIGNPARENTID: 0
FOREIGNCOMMENTERID: 2923
AUTHOR: SteinL
DATE: 01/24/2006 05:24:16 PM
January 24, 2006 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
oh, how about that other name they already have,
LIARS
January 24, 2006 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Pushers?
Sellout Specialists?
January 24, 2006 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republican Asset Transfer Specialists
Pot Bellied Pork Grinders
Corporate Whores
January 24, 2006 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Potomic Ponce
January 24, 2006 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
maybe they should simply be called "Republicans"
January 24, 2006 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
FOREIGNID: 86460
FOREIGNPARENTID: 0
FOREIGNCOMMENTERID: 12360
AUTHOR: gavbrown1
DATE: 01/24/2006 05:46:03 PM
January 24, 2006 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
that's possibly too harsh.
January 24, 2006 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
maybe, "The Assassins of Democracy" would be a jolly alternative.
January 24, 2006 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
how about palm grease monkeys
January 24, 2006 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, I was just thinking, shouldin't we check to make sure they are branded before they are RE-branded? Does anyone have a HOT BRANDING IRON ?
January 24, 2006 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
K-Street Walker sums it up.
January 24, 2006 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Back Door Man.
January 24, 2006 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Promotion Executives.
Hey, that's what the music biz calls their bagmen.
January 24, 2006 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
January 24, 2006 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
FOREIGNID: 86469
FOREIGNPARENTID: 86409
FOREIGNCOMMENTERID: 12230
AUTHOR: Jim from Roswell
DATE: 01/24/2006 06:10:19 PM
January 24, 2006 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was going to suggest "Legislationists" but I see someone already did further down the thread. Thanks for stealing my thunder.
January 24, 2006 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Legislation Out Source Specialist - LOSS
January 24, 2006 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Policy advocates
January 24, 2006 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Taurine Stool Waxers
January 24, 2006 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sleaze Czars
January 24, 2006 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Black Jack Snake Oil Salesman
January 24, 2006 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pay-to-play brokers
January 24, 2006 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
FOREIGNID: 86477
FOREIGNPARENTID: 0
FOREIGNCOMMENTERID: 12365
AUTHOR: maccoffee
DATE: 01/24/2006 06:26:48 PM
January 24, 2006 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I liked Josh Marshall's "government relations consultant", but given the penchant for acronyms in government, the official moniker would have to be "GRC".
In the vein as "life coach" I offer Legislative Coach.
January 24, 2006 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Policy pimps.
January 24, 2006 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
FOREIGNID: 86480
FOREIGNPARENTID: 0
FOREIGNCOMMENTERID: 5421
AUTHOR: porsillo
DATE: 01/24/2006 06:40:40 PM
January 24, 2006 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Policy point person.
January 24, 2006 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Worthless motherfuckers that deserve to be put to death?
Sorry, I've been drinking. Bad monkey, bad, bad.
January 24, 2006 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
FOREIGNID: 86483
FOREIGNPARENTID: 0
FOREIGNCOMMENTERID: 5421
AUTHOR: porsillo
DATE: 01/24/2006 06:45:52 PM
January 24, 2006 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
So while I know that, in reality, they are largely corporate muscle, I think I'll just call them the K Street Klan.
January 24, 2006 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cloak-Roomists
Vestibulers
Foyeristas
January 24, 2006 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
FOREIGNID: 86486
FOREIGNPARENTID: 0
FOREIGNCOMMENTERID: 10870
AUTHOR: sdanielles
DATE: 01/24/2006 07:07:58 PM
January 24, 2006 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
FOREIGNID: 86487
FOREIGNPARENTID: 86468
FOREIGNCOMMENTERID: 10870
AUTHOR: sdanielles
DATE: 01/24/2006 07:09:49 PM
January 24, 2006 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
how about latency cheapjacks
January 24, 2006 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Concerned Public Servants
January 24, 2006 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
outsourced staffer
January 24, 2006 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pork Pimp
January 24, 2006 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
FOREIGNID: 86492
FOREIGNPARENTID: 0
FOREIGNCOMMENTERID: 12374
AUTHOR: enigmattering
DATE: 01/24/2006 07:42:31 PM
January 24, 2006 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ned Beattys
I'm gonna make you squeal like a pig. Weeeeeeee!
January 24, 2006 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Revolving Doormen
Turd Polishers
Goldfingerers
Verminettes
The common brown-nosed hall weasel
Future Felons of America!
January 24, 2006 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Buck Buddy
January 24, 2006 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Our fallback has always been "LOBSTER" and I don't see a reason to change.
January 24, 2006 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . . on second thought "alcoholics" usually is a pretty good fit.
January 24, 2006 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Covert Manipulators
Bribery Reformists
Republican
January 24, 2006 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. I was thinking of this exact analogy except that the lobbyists are more the pimps or Madames, if you will, setting up the action between the Johns (corporations) looking to get off (in one way or another) and the Prostitutes (the congresspersons or staffers) who are willing to get fu give a little to get a lot of money (and power that goes with it) in exchange.
I also agree that not all lobbyists operate shamefully. Lets not forget that not every non-profit organization is a shell or laundering agency.
January 24, 2006 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well the GOP tried to kill the filibuster by rebranding the nuclear option, the "constitutional option".
So they can rebrand lobbbyists, "Constitutional Petition Officers". That way when they register as, um, lobbyists, they can be given a badge so they can get out of speeding tickets too.
January 24, 2006 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
2. Policy Custodians
3. Legislative Escorts
4. Clockers
5. Rent Boys
6. Pecuniary Pot Stickers7. Channel Program Managers
8. Legislation Acceptance Underwriters9. PAC-suckers
January 24, 2006 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indictment Pending
January 24, 2006 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why not:
Professional Political Petitioners
Prostitute Political Petitioners
Petitioning Political Prostitutes
Lipstick on a Pig?
January 24, 2006 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democracy Guardian
Jesus Liason
Mom/Apple pie Agent...
January 24, 2006 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
undertakers of sound policy for the republic
January 24, 2006 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
FOREIGNID: 86506
FOREIGNPARENTID: 0
FOREIGNCOMMENTERID: 9438
AUTHOR: okiescott
DATE: 01/24/2006 10:24:37 PM
January 24, 2006 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
My suggestion is that TPM and all good reformers and associated wonky goo-ggo-good-government-crats de-emphasize the corrupt lobbying part of the Abramoff scandal and focus more on extortin, racketerring and money laundering. I've read that Abramoff corrupted several of the Native American tribal governments, and there was apparently some kind of corrupt tinkering with Tyco executives too. So the Abramoff scandal is about much more than corrupt lobbying.
In fact, I think that your normal every-day corrupt lobbying is so much more innocent and bush league and innocuous (in some sense) that what happened with Abramoff and Delay, that this is precisely why the GOP wants to emphasize the corrupt lobbying part of the scandal as part of its defensive spin campaign
Which, from polling data, seems to be having some succes in making the scandal appear biparrtisan. Even though Abramoff was about as bipartisan as Rove and Norquist.
I say forget the focus on lobbying (at least here at TPM) until the public understands this is a much bigger scandal than, say, the Keating scandal or Abscam, or any other recent, mere, corrupt lobbying scandal. This is much bigger and deserves its own category. Certainly, corrupt lobbying is weak tea compared to some of the crimes committed.
I say, lets think up fun and catchy names for:
--shake down
--bust-up
--extortion
--Native American and corporate election tampering
--money laundering
--slush funds
--illegal campaign contributions
January 24, 2006 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Abra-nauts
January 24, 2006 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
In that vein, might I suggest "Petitioners for a redress of greivances?" Or just Petitioners?
January 24, 2006 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Without me getting into my personal pros and cons (did I say cons) or a long-winded rant (more than enough has come before me) about lobbying in general... Let me say:
In the halls and offices of the California Capitol they have been using a different term to describe a lobbyist [actions] for quite a long time. Here's a short snippet from today's opinion page of the LA Times titled; Sacramento's scandal-in-waiting. Authored by; Jamie Court, president of the Santa Monica based Foundation for Taxpayers and Consumer Rights.
(Original page: LA Times Opinion | January 24, 2006 may req. subspt.)
Yes sir ... the citizens just can't do without "strategic services" ....
Also: Jamie Court is the author of 2003 book "Corporateering" -- "when corporations exceed their traditional role in a marketplace to dominate the cultural sphere and compromise individuals' rights, freedoms, power, and the democratic systems that protect them."
You may also wish to read some of the posts of Jamie's over at the Huffington Blog: Jamie's Posts
~OGD~
January 25, 2006 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
January 25, 2006 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indict Mentor
Personal legislation coach
tactical banker (strategic banker?)
financial motivation specialist
January 25, 2006 2:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Law Brokers". Lol.
January 25, 2006 3:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Josh,
How about "CP's"
Congressional Pimps.
January 25, 2006 4:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Convicts-in-waiting
January 25, 2006 6:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
S nake Oil
H yping
I diots
T alking to politicians
January 25, 2006 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
FOREIGNID: 86518
FOREIGNPARENTID: 0
FOREIGNCOMMENTERID: 4070
AUTHOR: goraidh
DATE: 01/25/2006 08:16:05 AM
January 25, 2006 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sea Dogs
January 25, 2006 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can I win a trip to St. Andrews?
January 25, 2006 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Enablers.
January 25, 2006 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kneepad pushers?
Gateways to Graft?
January 25, 2006 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Policy Auctioneers
Wheel Greasers
January 25, 2006 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem isn't the name, it's the behavior, which as someone else pointed out, is more accurately pimp. Lobbyists represent legitimate positions of their constituents, and their proper role is to educate legislators, NOT to pay for elections. The entire process is perverted and corrupted under the present rules. Very nearly ALL of our senators and house members think lobbyists are the cookie jar. The change we need isn't language, it's Clean Elections, public financing of campaigns. Any other solution is just putting lipstick on the pig.
Let me make it perfectly clear: I have no problem with a lobbyist talking with my elected representatives; what bothers me is when said lobbyist hands over a check, or organizes a fundraiser. The congressman listens because that's his job, to make informed decisions; not because he's getting a monetary consideration. There's another way, and it's about time we got around to it. It's obvious.
February 5, 2006 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink