Well, it seems like we are all agreed that lobbying is under-regulated and does not receive enough scrutiny in the media. Ted, you specifically point to the dangers posed by a passive press. And of course, the big fallout from Ken's Harper's piece was not the story itself but the media reaction to it, and specifically the controversy over his use of under-cover techniques. So maybe that can lead us in an interesting direction. I had no problem with it, and in fact found it all quite thrilling and often hilarious (an under-appreciated aspect of Silverstein's work...). On the other hand, that is more or less a one-shot story. You can't cover lobbying regularly by going undercover or in any way misleading your sources - just like any other beat. So while it was an enlightening and entertaining to get into what can be a tired subject, it is not really sustainable. And when the press does cover lobbying, it is usually these odd scandals that are way off the norm and don't really tell you much at all - Abramoff's frauds (which really had nothing to do with lobbying, per se) and John McCain's indiscretions.

There is all sorts of sleazy stuff that goes on every day and is accepted as normal on Capitol Hill - but why does the press accept it as normal? In all of these big policy debates - the financial bailout, health care, the energy crisis - most reporters write about lobbying as a given, and don't question the tactics by which these corporations wield their power over lawmakers. And the politicians are all pretty blaise about it as well. I remember talking to Sen. Patrick Leahy as he was walking into a massive corporate sponsored faux-Mardi Gras put on by Sen. John Breaux at the 2000 Convention, the whole thing paid for by hundreds of thousands of unaccountable dollars from coal and nuclear and oil companies, and Leahy said "hey, it's just a party with friends" or something like that. And that's from a pretty stolid liberal.