Gordian Knot
It's Friday, so I'll keep this brief. Thanks again to those who participated, and thanks also to TPM Café for hosting the discussion.
I'm encouraged, in a dark way, that other commentators, like me, are pretty much stumped in terms of coming up with solutions to reduce the influence of lobbyists. People ask for hard suggestions all the time, and it's hard to give answers that aren't pie-in-the-sky. Of course, I'm discouraged for the same reason; the difficulty is figuring out what to points to the intractable nature of the problem and the way that lobbyists are so entirely interwoven into the political system.
Whether they're another branch of government or a "mirror-image of Congress," as Ted wrote, the role of lobbyists is unlikely to be curtailed any time soon. That's especially true because - the next president's domestic agenda will obviously be wrapped up in dealing with the economy. Fixing lobbying, as Stephen writes, is going to be "WAY down the list" of priorities.
Both Ted and Sam emphasized that the media needs to do a better job of keeping an eye on lobbyists. It's rarely been a top priority at major outlets and that's surely going to become even worse as newsrooms shrink.
OK, so I have no good news to offer. But how about a tip for investigative reporters?
To the extent that lobbying is covered, the focus is usually on direct lobbying of members of Congress and administration officials. A growing part of the business - and one that often doesn't even have to be reported under disclosure laws - is the PR work done by lobbyists. One under-covered angle, I think, is the way that special interest groups and lobbyists use think tanks and universities to directly and indirectly promote their clients' agendas.
ABC News recently reported on how APCO Worldwide (one of the firms I met with for the Turkmeniscam project) had paid an institute at Johns Hopkins University to prepare reports on Kazakhstan, an APCO client.
I have a story today at the Harper's website on how the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska had made donations (through a holding company) to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Council on Foreign Relations. Deripaska also bought himself a position on a Harvard University panel.
Politicians aren't the only ones on the take from special interest groups.
Yep, whoever's got the money has got the clout.
The stacked deck: Business financed lobbyists. By contrast, AFL-CIO has 6 paid lobbyists on Capitol Hill and are 74th on the list headed by business lobbyists. Environmental protection, child welfare, human rights don't even make the list. Five-hundred American companies have permanent offices in DC - 61,000 lobbyists.
But, to limit money is to limit speech - 'free' money being a form of 'free' speech. The Supremes have said so. Time to 'stack' the Court?
October 24, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Surely someone has suggested mandatory public review of legislation prior to votes? Sunlight is the best disinfectant and the enforced discipline of deadlines, cooling off periods, and the certainty of review would do wonders for coherent lawmaking.
Pie in the sky? If so, then the cause is surely lost.
October 24, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Our lobbying and Congressional problems lay in a 19th Century opinion by the USSC in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. The best legal minds money could buy established, incorrectly many say, the US idea of corporate personhood. This gave Corporations proof against self-incrimination, right to privacy (little transparency), free speech, and to lobby government.
Since this arose as a local suit, let’s start a reversal process at the local (State) level, though it would have to be a National effort to find some egregious corporate offender with negative publicity. A stellar legal team could cause quite a stir and bring home how the initial ruling was flawed and continuously misapplied through the years. At the least, the fight could be joined, and properly handled, compel Congress to eat its own and squelch the rampant greed that prevails inside The Beltway.
One effect would be Faux Corporate news (indeed all Corporate news) losing its shield to lie or distort, and either report the news, without passing through their censors, or to label as commentary, or face losing its FCC license and/or face law suits for defamation, etc, etc.
October 24, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lobbyist and the media are both part of the same pie. The only way to take one out of the recipe is to take out the other. Once the media decided they were on one side of this election, as opposed to the other, they became part of the problem. I hope we have a free media when this is over.
October 24, 2008 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problems, I think, are pretty well defined in that our political system and government are broken. Large corporations and "special interests" simply write the legislation they want passed and hand it to congresspeople along with a large check, and it gets passed. This cannot be eliminated because the very people who benefit, i.e. the congresspeople, are the only ones who can eliminate the problem, which would require them to vote against their own self-interests. As we no longer have government "for the people, of the people and by the people", the social contract between the government and the people should be null and void.
October 25, 2008 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't matter who has the money or how much of it, if the money is not useful to the elected officials. By instituting a system of complete public financing at all levels of US government, the ability of lobbyists, corporations, industries, and other agents and elements of predatory wealth will be completely nuetered with respect to the imbalance of power between those interests and the people's interests.
Legislators are human and so cannot help but to be entices, seduced and otherwise corrupted by the big money interests. No one can resist it. It is only a question of how far under their influence a legislator becomes. Thus, the removal of that power from the system entirely restores the freedom and independence of legislators to do what is right vs what is necessary to curry favor with the people who can raise and otherwise supply serious money to them when they need it. It is the only way.
Lobbysists in and of themselves are not necessarily all that bad or influential. It is their ability to command resources for campaigns that makes them powerful in the legislative process. Once the dependence of legislators upon the money of those representing predatory wealth is removed, legislators will have the ability to focus on the good of the nation and their constituents from a far stronger position. Once the influence of this money is removed from the system, public opinion then gains a great deal more power and all to the good. Legislators will not so easily ignore either the opinions or te interests of the common people who currently have no voice whatsoever as so clearly demonstrated in the recent triumph of the lobbyists regarding the great heist bill (aka Wall Street bailout).
In addition to eliminating the influence of these interests we can also require television broadcasters to provide free time to candidates and parties, we can forbid the hiring of legislators by any corporate interests within 5 years of their service as legislators and compensate legislators with a generous pension that would payout upon leaving public service, we can forbid any sort of gifts, honoraria, or other things of value to legislators, and we can require strict and detailed reporting requirements about any and all contact between them.
None of it matters at all if there is no public financing of campaigns.
Having said all that, good luck if you think Obama will do anything to advance public funding or any signficant/substantive action to limit or eliminate the influence of predatory wealth on our system. He won't. This system has been very good for him and he's human too. He's not going t bite the hand that has fed him since he became a state legislator.
October 25, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Public financing of elections - simple as that!
just think of it - legislators could spend their time working on policy rather than kissing up to special interests.
October 27, 2008 2:32 AM | Reply | Permalink