I understand that your wife has good intentions here, but in all seriousness, do you realize how costly it would be to have every discussion recorded in some way? Not only that, but how do you define "meets with?" I work for a state-level lobbying firm, and I can tell you that the majority of lobbying takes place outside of a legislator's office--at a dinner/reception, on the steps of statehouse, etc.
Also, keep in mind that many lobbyists are former members of the body they're lobbying--therefore they have "floor rights." In other words, alumni of a body have the right to enter the floor of that body even after they've left. For example, look at how many former members on both sides of the aisle attend the President's State of the Union speech.
Add to that the Constitutional issues of "right to petition," and you've got a non-starter. If you want to shed light on lobbying, don't restrict their access to legislators, restrict the money like Connecticut did yesterday. Did I say that? Oops. Don't tell my bosses.
I do understand that this sort of proposal would make lobbying somewhat more expensive and inhibit spontaneous opportunistic discussions with lawmakers.
The first issue is just part of the cost of doing business. Generally, the amount spent on lobbying activities and the amount of money at stake that motivates the lobbying would dwarf whatever the costs of recording conversations. And technology, using small digital recorders with timestamps, could be used to minimize the costs.
The second result would generally be a good thing. If lobbyists had to actually make appointments to talk to lawmakers in whatever setting, this would greatly facilitate keeping track of who is influencing them. The whole point is to put all citizens on an equal footing for access, and be able to track both money and communication when it comes to the publics business. I'm not advocating restricting access, just monitoring it.
Restricting money is more difficult since that would be opposexdc
I do understand that this sort of proposal would make lobbying somewhat more expensive and inhibit spontaneous opportunistic discussions with lawmakers.
The first issue is just part of the cost of doing business. Generally, the amount spent on lobbying activities and the amount of money at stake that motivates the lobbying would dwarf whatever the costs of recording conversations. And technology, using small digital recorders with timestamps, could be used to minimize the costs.
The second result would generally be a good thing. If lobbyists had to actually make appointments to talk to lawmakers in whatever setting, this would greatly facilitate keeping track of who is influencing them. The whole point is to put all citizens on an equal footing for access, and be able to track both money and communication when it comes to the publics business. I'm not advocating restricting access, just monitoring it.
What sumbodhi is suggesting is a major overhaul of our system of government. The lobbyist who commented points out that the idea of sending reporters to every dinner is undoable. However, what if the entire system were changed, so that there were no more private dinner deals made in the first place. The present system invariably leads to chronyism, with its revolving door between corporate leaders, lobbyists, and lawmakers. There should be a balance between rights to petition the government and government accounability and transparency. This citizen has become completely fed up with how inaccesible our federal government has become to the un-connected, and how little informantion is available regarding how legislators come to the conclusions that are supposed to be in their constituents' best interests instead of in the interests of the few who currently have access to them through this corrupt lobbyist system.
Lobbying should simply be outlawed. Interested groups could Lobby or hire a spokesperson, but their pay would be held to the same levels of any other administrative public worker. The problem is the profit. Take the profit out of it. Lose the corruption.
Don't take this the wrong way--because I know you mean well--but these ideas are all pretty unrealistic. Here's why:
1. You can't keep a lobbyist from speaking to an elected official. First off, there's this pesky little thing known as the First Amendment, which guarantees the right to "petition" elected officials for "redress of grievances". That's the definition of lobbying. If you're going to outlaw lobbying, you'd better be prepared to amend the Bill of Rights. I don't know that you would get much popular support for that.
2. Furthermore, simply recording conversations wouldn't stop anything. A large part of lobbying is helping to write the actual language of legislation--I've written a few amendments to bills myself that were offered by lawmakers. Legislative staffs don't have all day to write up every little provision for every little issue, so they rely quite a bit on language from government affairs people in order to get things done. We've already done the work. If they agree with our position, why duplicate the effort?
3. How do you define what qualifies as lobbying? I've got a number of personal friends in the legislature (who I used to campaign together with for D's) that I regularly talk to about Democratic politics as well as personal things like their family life. Are you going to require that my discussions about my friend's wife's cancer treatments be recorded? How about when I talk to him in confidence about my dislike of President Bush? Don't you think that would help out things like the K Street Project?
4. Lobbying really isn't the problem. The problem is a disinterested populace. Look, our firm and each individual lobbyist registers every year with the State Board of Ethics for every client we represent. You can look us all up on the listing at http://ethics.state.md.us. You can also look up the indivudual donations of any lobbyist, organization or corporation by checking the database at http://elections.state.md.us. So if you really were concerned that someone in the Assembly was "on the take", you could find out.
There are plenty of instances where unethical behavior has taken place, but the ultimate answer for that is at the ballot box. Still, these people still get overwhelmingly re-elected. So instead of wringing our hands at all lobbyists, perhaps we should be wringing our hands at the voters who refuse to hold those few bad apples accountable on Election Day.
5. I disagree with the position that recording every conversation between lobbyists and officials wouldn't cost much. Think about this: An average lobbyist speaks to legislators or their staffers (you were planning on recording that too, right?) about 15 different times per day. Imagine the administrative cost that would go into not only providing the equipment (are you wiring these guys up like an informant?), but also the monitoring and tech support. You'll also need to add staff to administer the public/oversight access to the records, and because of the privacy issues involved they would need to have legal training of some kind.
Come to think of it, I wonder whether or not one of our clients could land the multi-million dollar contract to provide these services...sounds like a pretty big chunk of change to me.
6. Before making a blanket assumption that restricting lobbyist discussions helps the progressive cause, realize that this isn't the case. We represent a mix of corporate, non-profit, and issue-oriented clients--so it's not like progressive issues aren't well represented as well. One of our clients this year was an association of public school teachers who help the hearing-impared. We helped them get dedicated funds for their service which is badly underfunded in most states. We also represent these clients at reduced rates. Require lobbyists to pay for the recording of their conversations with lawmakers, and I can guarantee you that all lobbying will cease for anyone but the highest-paying clients (see: large corporate interests).
In other words, be careful what you wish for. =]
Thanks for a thoughtful response. You make a lot of good points, although some are in response to other peoples posts that don't represent my position. I never advocate restricting access or speech, just making it more equal for all citizens.
As someone with expertise in the area, can you offer some suggestions to make the whole system more transparent? I certainly agree with your disclosure requirements and voters doing some due diligence. How can we know what interest group wrote a piece of legislation or an amendment? How do non-profits compete with corporate interests? How can we promote equal access and equal influence, at least in theory?
It seems to me to be in the best interests of lobbyists to know who is advocating a position or policy, and which legislators they are influencing, so that all can have equal knowledge and access. More transparency would help everyone except those who benefit from secrecy.
Sumbodhi:
I understand that your wife has good intentions here, but in all seriousness, do you realize how costly it would be to have every discussion recorded in some way? Not only that, but how do you define "meets with?" I work for a state-level lobbying firm, and I can tell you that the majority of lobbying takes place outside of a legislator's office--at a dinner/reception, on the steps of statehouse, etc.
Also, keep in mind that many lobbyists are former members of the body they're lobbying--therefore they have "floor rights." In other words, alumni of a body have the right to enter the floor of that body even after they've left. For example, look at how many former members on both sides of the aisle attend the President's State of the Union speech.
Add to that the Constitutional issues of "right to petition," and you've got a non-starter. If you want to shed light on lobbying, don't restrict their access to legislators, restrict the money like Connecticut did yesterday. Did I say that? Oops. Don't tell my bosses.
December 2, 2005 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do understand that this sort of proposal would make lobbying somewhat more expensive and inhibit spontaneous opportunistic discussions with lawmakers.
The first issue is just part of the cost of doing business. Generally, the amount spent on lobbying activities and the amount of money at stake that motivates the lobbying would dwarf whatever the costs of recording conversations. And technology, using small digital recorders with timestamps, could be used to minimize the costs.
The second result would generally be a good thing. If lobbyists had to actually make appointments to talk to lawmakers in whatever setting, this would greatly facilitate keeping track of who is influencing them. The whole point is to put all citizens on an equal footing for access, and be able to track both money and communication when it comes to the publics business. I'm not advocating restricting access, just monitoring it.
Restricting money is more difficult since that would be opposexdc
December 5, 2005 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do understand that this sort of proposal would make lobbying somewhat more expensive and inhibit spontaneous opportunistic discussions with lawmakers.
The first issue is just part of the cost of doing business. Generally, the amount spent on lobbying activities and the amount of money at stake that motivates the lobbying would dwarf whatever the costs of recording conversations. And technology, using small digital recorders with timestamps, could be used to minimize the costs.
The second result would generally be a good thing. If lobbyists had to actually make appointments to talk to lawmakers in whatever setting, this would greatly facilitate keeping track of who is influencing them. The whole point is to put all citizens on an equal footing for access, and be able to track both money and communication when it comes to the publics business. I'm not advocating restricting access, just monitoring it.
December 5, 2005 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
What sumbodhi is suggesting is a major overhaul of our system of government. The lobbyist who commented points out that the idea of sending reporters to every dinner is undoable. However, what if the entire system were changed, so that there were no more private dinner deals made in the first place. The present system invariably leads to chronyism, with its revolving door between corporate leaders, lobbyists, and lawmakers. There should be a balance between rights to petition the government and government accounability and transparency. This citizen has become completely fed up with how inaccesible our federal government has become to the un-connected, and how little informantion is available regarding how legislators come to the conclusions that are supposed to be in their constituents' best interests instead of in the interests of the few who currently have access to them through this corrupt lobbyist system.
December 4, 2005 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lobbying should simply be outlawed. Interested groups could Lobby or hire a spokesperson, but their pay would be held to the same levels of any other administrative public worker.
The problem is the profit. Take the profit out of it. Lose the corruption.
December 5, 2005 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't take this the wrong way--because I know you mean well--but these ideas are all pretty unrealistic. Here's why:
1. You can't keep a lobbyist from speaking to an elected official. First off, there's this pesky little thing known as the First Amendment, which guarantees the right to "petition" elected officials for "redress of grievances". That's the definition of lobbying. If you're going to outlaw lobbying, you'd better be prepared to amend the Bill of Rights. I don't know that you would get much popular support for that.
2. Furthermore, simply recording conversations wouldn't stop anything. A large part of lobbying is helping to write the actual language of legislation--I've written a few amendments to bills myself that were offered by lawmakers. Legislative staffs don't have all day to write up every little provision for every little issue, so they rely quite a bit on language from government affairs people in order to get things done. We've already done the work. If they agree with our position, why duplicate the effort?
3. How do you define what qualifies as lobbying? I've got a number of personal friends in the legislature (who I used to campaign together with for D's) that I regularly talk to about Democratic politics as well as personal things like their family life. Are you going to require that my discussions about my friend's wife's cancer treatments be recorded? How about when I talk to him in confidence about my dislike of President Bush? Don't you think that would help out things like the K Street Project?
4. Lobbying really isn't the problem. The problem is a disinterested populace. Look, our firm and each individual lobbyist registers every year with the State Board of Ethics for every client we represent. You can look us all up on the listing at http://ethics.state.md.us. You can also look up the indivudual donations of any lobbyist, organization or corporation by checking the database at http://elections.state.md.us. So if you really were concerned that someone in the Assembly was "on the take", you could find out.
There are plenty of instances where unethical behavior has taken place, but the ultimate answer for that is at the ballot box. Still, these people still get overwhelmingly re-elected. So instead of wringing our hands at all lobbyists, perhaps we should be wringing our hands at the voters who refuse to hold those few bad apples accountable on Election Day.
5. I disagree with the position that recording every conversation between lobbyists and officials wouldn't cost much. Think about this: An average lobbyist speaks to legislators or their staffers (you were planning on recording that too, right?) about 15 different times per day. Imagine the administrative cost that would go into not only providing the equipment (are you wiring these guys up like an informant?), but also the monitoring and tech support. You'll also need to add staff to administer the public/oversight access to the records, and because of the privacy issues involved they would need to have legal training of some kind.
Come to think of it, I wonder whether or not one of our clients could land the multi-million dollar contract to provide these services...sounds like a pretty big chunk of change to me.
6. Before making a blanket assumption that restricting lobbyist discussions helps the progressive cause, realize that this isn't the case. We represent a mix of corporate, non-profit, and issue-oriented clients--so it's not like progressive issues aren't well represented as well. One of our clients this year was an association of public school teachers who help the hearing-impared. We helped them get dedicated funds for their service which is badly underfunded in most states. We also represent these clients at reduced rates. Require lobbyists to pay for the recording of their conversations with lawmakers, and I can guarantee you that all lobbying will cease for anyone but the highest-paying clients (see: large corporate interests).
In other words, be careful what you wish for. =]
December 5, 2005 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for a thoughtful response. You make a lot of good points, although some are in response to other peoples posts that don't represent my position. I never advocate restricting access or speech, just making it more equal for all citizens.
As someone with expertise in the area, can you offer some suggestions to make the whole system more transparent? I certainly agree with your disclosure requirements and voters doing some due diligence. How can we know what interest group wrote a piece of legislation or an amendment? How do non-profits compete with corporate interests? How can we promote equal access and equal influence, at least in theory?
It seems to me to be in the best interests of lobbyists to know who is advocating a position or policy, and which legislators they are influencing, so that all can have equal knowledge and access. More transparency would help everyone except those who benefit from secrecy.
December 7, 2005 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink