By Doug Pinkham
Public Affairs Council President

January 6, 2010

Corporate Washington offices have not only survived recession-driven cutbacks better than other company functions; they have become more strategically important as Congress and the White House reshape the economic and political landscape. That's the conclusion of a new benchmarking report published last week by the Public Affairs Council.

Here are the highlights of the survey of 80 Washington office senior executives.

• Staffing is up. The median staff size of a corporate Washington office has risen to four professionals during the past three years. (The median number was three when the survey was last conducted in 2006.) Despite economic pressures, 80% of surveyed companies said professional government relations staffing has increased or remained the same during this period.
• Budgets are stable. The median budget remained between $1.5 million and $2 million during the three-year period. More surveyed companies reported flat budgets than either increases or decreases.
• Lobbying expenses are up. The median D.C. corporate office spent about $900,000 on lobbying last year, according to the survey. As with staffing, this represented a slight upward trend. For most companies, lobbying expenses have remained stable or have increased - only 10% reported a decline.
• Coalitions are hot. Nearly half the companies polled said their firm has become more involved in political coalitions during the past three years - and many are working with non-traditional partners on policy issues. These include customers (31%), think tanks (21%), suppliers (17%) and organized labor (16%).
• Trade associations are playing an active role. Despite the increased reliance on coalitions, companies don't appear to be abandoning trade associations. More than 85% said they use trade groups for lobbying, regulatory affairs, issue analysis/monitoring and issue advocacy. Almost three out of four rely on them for bill tracking, and nearly half coordinate grassroots campaigns with their trade associations.
• Business groups are less essential. Just over half of respondents reported they used business associations for issue advocacy - and that was the most common reason stated for involvement. The percentage of companies relying on business groups for lobbying or issue analysis has dropped to 49%, while regulatory affairs usage has dropped to 37%. In many categories, the use of trade associations was more than double that of business associations.
• Washington offices are taking on new duties. Most D.C. offices are now set up to do more than government relations; many have responsibilities for trade/export compliance, public relations, sales or legal services for their companies. In the 2006 survey, the majority of Washington offices said they focused exclusively on government relations.
• Corporate experience is more important than Hill experience. As I mentioned in my Dec. 2 post, only 40% of senior Washington office executives surveyed had a Capitol Hill background (compared to 50% in 2006), and only 26% came from an executive-branch agency (compared to 35% in 2006). "Companies have learned that a Washington presence helps them explain corporate goals, technology innovations and the impact of proposed regulations on jobs, earnings and markets," notes the report. In many cases it's much more important to have a background in business operations or a sophisticated knowledge of policy issues than top-notch political contacts.

**************

You may have noticed the editorial in Monday's New York Times that bemoans the growth of lobbying and calls for publicly subsidized elections. What you may not have noticed is the series of handy "Ads by Google" in the online edition of the Times that make it convenient for readers to hire their own special-interest advocates. Here is what the opening page of the editorial looked like with these keyword-targeted ads highlighted:

In other words, says the Times, lobbying is the devil's work - but, if you must lobby, please patronize our advertisers.

OK, maybe that target was too easy. But it does seem incongruous that many media companies that equate lobbying with corruption either employ lobbyists or pay for lobbying through their trade associations. According to OpenSecrets.org, the Newspaper Association of America spent nearly $700,000 on lobbying last year and the National Newspaper Association spent another $260,000. Is that too much? Too little? It's not for me to judge. But neither is it fair for the Times to conclude without evidence that growth in the lobbying business is scandalous - especially when the paper is supporting advocacy efforts for its industry.

Comments? Email me at http://pac.org/contact/blog.