By Doug Pinkham
Public Affairs Council President
April 7, 2010
There is a ritual that takes place every few months when the government releases data on money spent lobbying Congress and federal agencies in the last quarter. The news media start churning out stories highlighting the growth of the "influence industry."
A quick search of Google News teaches us that the National Automobile Dealers Association spent nearly $900,000 in the fourth quarter of 2009, Intel spent $1 million, United Technologies spent $3.7 million and the Service Employees International Union spent $683,000. For those who just can't get enough of these reports, you can read in the Appleton Post-Crescent that the University of Wisconsin spent $460,000 last year - more than four times what it paid for lobbying a decade ago!
Meaningless numbers, all of them. Publishing data on lobbying expenditures is like announcing the amount of money Twentieth Century Fox spent marketing Avatar ($150 million). Or the number of taxis in New York City (13,087). Or the number of calories in a glass of wine. (Answer: A glass of champagne has only 192 calories, but a glass of port - at 340 calories - can make you, well, portly.)
There's no context to any of these figures. We don't know whether the numbers are too large or too small. Did Twentieth Century Fox over-hype its top movie project? Can the New York City economy sustain more cab drivers? Does it matter how fattening your glass of Merlot is?
In the same vein, perhaps Honda spent too little ($585,000) in the fourth quarter given the poor state of the auto industry. Or maybe the National Association of Realtors (NAR) came close to breaking the bank by spending $5.6 million. Or was the government's new tax credit for first-time home-buyers proof of NAR's influence and the need to shore up the U.S. housing market?
The answer to all of the above is that we don't really know. It's just too difficult to judge numbers, especially when they are presented in isolation. One thing is certain, though. Lots of people believe money spent on advocacy could be better spent elsewhere. These include anti-government organizations on the right, campaign finance groups on the left and some shareholder groups in the middle. All seem to deplore the fact that folks are actually spending time and money talking with Congress.
"I think it's an insidious system," said the executive director of Common Cause in Wisconsin, when confronted with the news that the University of Wisconsin had lobbied to get research funding from the government. "It's too bad that you have to spend huge amounts of money to hire politically affected lobbyists to make your case."
I'm not sure which part of the system he feels badly about: that lobbyists are expensive, that you need to hire ones with experience, or that the federal government won't pass out research dollars without being asked.
Let's face it. You do have to make your case to get Congress' attention. Without a paid advocate or a grassroots organization behind you, your voice could get lost in the clash of opinions that weigh in on even the smallest matters of public policy.
Despite the difficulty - or perhaps because of it - companies, unions, associations, universities and even local governments are spending record amounts trying to affect policy. But why is that bad?
The First Amendment offers five protections: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to "assemble peaceably" and the right "to petition the government for a redress of grievances." If we're going to scrutinize how much money is spent petitioning government, why don't we track spending by churches, publishers, cable news companies and bloggers?
And what about all those people exercising their right to assemble? According to the U.S. Travel Association, U.S. companies spent more than $200 billion on business travel in 2008. That's quite a bit more than they spent on lobbying.
Many will insist that lobbying deserves closer oversight because of the potential for corruption. Fair enough. That's why the United States has arguably the toughest lobbying laws in the world and why lobbying expenditures are reported in the first place. But at some point, politicians, watchdog groups, the news media and others need to step back and allow lobbyists room to demonstrate they deserve the public's trust. The vast majority will behave honorably, as they have in the past. But because vilifying lobbyists has become both a national pastime and an election-year strategy, everyone in the advocacy profession must live under the threat of new, even tougher restrictions.
That's not good for democracy. The Bill of Rights was added to the U.S. Constitution to preserve civil liberties when many were concerned about the power and influence of government. Now, for a host of reasons, we are again living in such a time. No matter what one's political preferences, civil liberties ought to matter more than ever. And the place to start, as we figure out the best way to make policy in the public interest, is by underscoring all of our basic rights, not picking and choosing which ones deserve to be protected.
Comments? Email me at http://pac.org/contact/blog.
