Lobbying in Washington: Is There a Cure?
Let me begin by complimenting my fellow commentators for their insightful reactions to Ken's excellent book. There is considerable consensus among us about the important and often negative role that lobbying plays, and I hope TPM readers are finding this conversation enlightening.
I'd like to make five additional points, mostly in reaction to Ken's original post.
First, how important is lobbying? Critical in many cases, but not always. The Founding Fathers believed that allowing that the interplay of contending factions would prevent the "tyranny of the majority," and it follows that when competing interest groups are roughly balanced, then lobbyists may actually enhance the responsiveness of a democratic order. Indeed, some political scientists argue that lobbies provide a "legislative subsidy," in effect making democracy work better by providing free labor to under-staffed legislators. But problems do arise when the playing field is slanted: if lobbying organizations on one side are more numerous, wealthier, better connected, etc., than the opposing groups, the policymaking process will tend to reflect their greater clout, even when the policies they advocate are not in the national interest.
Second, will recent reform efforts have much impact? Heavens no. Asking Congress to institute genuine reforms is like asking Jack Daniels to organize an AA meeting. Scandals like the Abramoff affair trigger cosmetic reforms, but the new restrictions will do nothing to weaken the nexus of money and power that drives politics in the Land of the Free.
Third, will Obama or McCain initiative significant reforms? Definitely not. The winner of the election will have shown themselves to be an adept operator in the existing system and will have little incentive to change it. And the next President will have a few other items on his agenda (the economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.). Fixing lobbying is (and should be) WAY down the list.
Fourth, would real campaign finance reform solve this problem? Public financing of national elections and a ban on private contributions would reshape the lobbying landscape and weaken those groups whose influence depends on campaign contributions. But it would not end the phenomenon of lobbying; it would merely channel their activities in new directions and reshape the balance of power between competing groups. More importantly, it ain't gonna happen (see point three above).
Lastly, we should not lose sight of the difference between foreign countries that buy influence through professional PR firms--a phenomenon Ken exposes with wit and audacity in his book--and lobbying by American citizens who have a strong commitment to a particular foreign country. Because the United States is a melting-pot society that has drawn its population from all over the world, it is only natural that some of its citizens have a strong attachment to some other country, and it is entirely legitimate to express that attachment in the political system. Thus, domestic groups that try to shape U.S. policy toward some foreign country (of which there are many examples) can operate within the American political system in ways that foreign countries cannot. The real tragedy, of course, occurs when domestic lobbies (e.g, AIPAC) are able to sell policies that harm both the United States and the foreign country they seek to help.
I think public financing of elections is the first step. I understand your point about lobbyist channeling their activities in another direction. But our system allows way too much influence from lobbyist.
Have you ever heard a US Senator talk about how much money they need to raise and how much time they spend raising money to get elected?
I think the ultimate goal is to get politicians back to following the will of the voter. Our election system needs to reflect this goal.
October 24, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Public financing is the ONLY means by which to level the playing field. The lobbying arms of predatory wealth are so vastly more powerful than any other group that the system has become irretrievably corrupt. Unless and until legislators are free of having to beg these interests for campaign cash (and other favors that cost money)they will never be able to serve the public interest as they should. As long as legislators are dependent upon corporate lobbyists, that is who they will respond to and serve. It's that simple.
October 24, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
oleeb,
I agree, public financing is the way to go, but I'd also add some free broadcast time by the networks. But I think the wealthy contributors like the status quo as it gives them the edge.
The cost of modern campaigns probably experiences 10 or 15 percent rise in costs per election. They should welcome a big cut in how much they are able to spend because it will cut the time they have to spend raising money and running around the country or the state to campaign.
As I posted on another thread; I'd like to see a rule that states lobbyists may only meet with those in Congress inside the Congressman's office in DC or back home. Heh, good luck with that.
October 24, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I heartily agree that airtime is a huge factor in the costs of campaigns. Seems to me we literally own the airwaves and that the corporations who rent them from us for nothing could easily be compelled by law to provide plenty of free airtime. But elections have become an advertising boon to the tv stations and networks. They won't let that go without a fight either and who will fight for them? Of course, their millionaire lobbyists!
October 24, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
oleeb,
excellent point.
October 25, 2008 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone whose work was shown to be worthless by both Alan Dershowitz and Noam Chomsky, as yours was, has no business spouting nonsense here.
October 24, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kudos to TPM for providing Stephen Walt with a public platform. His courage has resulted in his banishment from the MS press but his message is leaking through.
October 24, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry to disappoint you, but this TPM reader is not finding "this conversation enlightening". This TPM reader is finding "this conversation" sadly disappointing. I don't agree with you that "Fixing lobbying is (and should be) WAY down the list". I believe it should be (and long ago) WAY up the list.
When I cast my vote for any number of people I would like to have represent our interests in my home state and at the Federal level, nowhere on the ballot do I find the name of a single lobbyist. I expect our reps to know what their constituency wants and (more importantly) needs.
The "cure for lobbying in Washington", in my opinion (which has only "common sense" as its source of authority), rests with the average citizen. Unfortunately the average citizen is not well-enough informed, not able to resist the obsessive, superficial, self-destructive quest of "The American Dream" (which, for TPM readers who may not know, is a term first used by James Truslow Adams in his book The Epic of America, written in 1931) and not courageous enough to participate in a consumer revolution now, while there is still a whisp of hope.
Although extremely simple, the solution to this "issue" will never be realized as long as average citizens, like myself, don't seem to have the wisdom to know that all we have to do is turn back the clock to a simpler time in this county.
If we could stop personal spending on everything not absolutely essential to our daily survival for a year or two, stay home with our families and really get to know each other, discover the fascinating adventures hidden within the lives of our neighbors, convert all our extra toys to "cash on hand" (perhaps trading what we can't sell to someone who has an urgent need for those items, and even gifting some of our toys to the neediest among us), and give sincere, humble thanks that a majority of us, without having to make real & painful sacrifice for the privilege, have lived extremely comfortable lives, lobbyists might then be deprived of their profit-motivated rationale for existence. They would have nothing to sell because no one is buying.
Economic terrorism can work both ways. Organized Trade-Union strikers, albeit at great personal sacrifice and risk of life and limb "in-the-moment" to achieve a more secure life, with greater liberty to pursue happiness "at-some-undetermined-future-moment", have proven this concept both valid and true.
During the Great Depression, people had each other. In the "next Great Depression" - coming sooner than anyone might care to admit - I fear we've lost that most important link. These days, people not only lock their doors, they reinforce their windows with wrought-iron bars.
I'm old enough to have lived in a much simpler United States. The happiness and freedom our citizens experienced when I was a youth is impossibleto describe to anyone today who is under 40 years of age. Even if they believed the description, they still wouldn't understand its meaning, or what they've lost since that time. One had to be there then to understand what it was like in the U.S.A. at that time (1950-1975).
Your opinion that neither McCain nor Obama will be able to initiate significant reforms demonstrates, from my perspective, a lamentable lack of insight. I might agree with you regarding McCain's role as a reformer, should he be elected President. But Obama, whether elected or not, has already begun the process of reformation in this country by reinstating a variable in an extremely complicated equation of which everyone begs for forumlization, and which has seemed all but forgotten in recent times. That variable also happens to be, as I perceive it, Obama's incentive. The variable? HOPE.
October 25, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink