Post #3 - Money, lobbyists & politics, part 2

Post #2 considered a defense of lobbyists based on a free speech argument and found it unable to justify or explain away the allegedly corrupting influence of special interest money on politics. This post will consider other defenses. It may be the case that two or more defenses together make a convincing case that the influence of special interest money on politics is more good than bad.

The premise is that the influence of lobbyists backed by special interest money on politics is generally detrimental to the public interest. The argument is that special interest money is a major reason for the failure of our political institutions. Obviously, if you do not believe that our institutions including, the Democratic and Republican parties, have failed then the arguments presented here will probably be unpersuasive or irrelevant. Like most contested issues in politics, people will disagree.

Defense 2 - Lobbyists are just exercising their
right to petition the government

This argument has been articulated several times. The bill of rights of the constitution provides a right for people to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Like the free speech argument discussed in post #2, this argument is true. However, like the free speech argument, it is beside the point of what the role of special interest money might be. Petitioning the government can be good, bad or indifferent for the public interest.

Like the free speech argument, this argument can be accompanied by the argument that lobbyists "toil in the public interest". As discussed in post #2, the persuasive power of that depends on your definition of the public interest. Special interests always argue that what they want for their special interest is in the public's interest.

That routinely happens, including in cases where lobbyists on opposite sides of an issue both argue they are on the public's side. Those arguments are invariably accompanied by assertions that the opposition is working for the special interest to the detriment of the public interest.

Defense #3 - Lobbyists represent many people

This defense has been raised by a number of people, e.g. Hillary Clinton. In her lobbyist defense, Clinton said that "a lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans. They actually do. They represent nurses. They represent, you know, social workers. Yes, they represent corporations that employ a lot of people."

Once again, this is a defense that is is literally true but it ignores the role of special interest money in representing all those people. It also assumes that what special interests want is in the public interest. It is fair to ask, is what the nurses or corporations want necessarily in the public's interest? What they want will be at least party in their own interest, but that says nothing about any effect on the public interest. If there is benefit to the public, then why is so much money needed? Why can't the lobbyist argument win without a pile of cash?

Defense #4 - Lobbyists balance

competing interests

Another lobbyist defense argues that our political system is "specifically designed to balance to competing interests of many rival corporations, lobbyists and PACS." The question for this defense is whether you believe it or not. Is our political system really designed to balance competing interests? Assuming it is, then why is so much special interest money needed to do the balancing? Why don't special interest arguments win or lose on the merits with no campaign contributions required?

As I understand politics, our system at the national level and the local level is a pay to play system. The more a special interest pays, the more it plays. The term "play" arguably is a euphemism for access to power and "pay" is a euphemism for buying votes or favors. Of course, special interests, lobbyists and politicians all deny that characterization.

So, does that system balance competing interests? Does a lobbyist working for a cash strapped non-profit fighting against an oil company lobbyist armed with millions of dollars in cash feel the balance? A reasonable guess is that the cash-poor lobbyist gets little access and influence compared to the rich lobbyist.

Does that look like a political system "specifically designed to balance to competing interests"? The fact that competing interests may fight over an issue does not explain the role of money or why it needs to be involved. If anything, it looks like our political system is favors wealthy interests at the expense of poor ones.

Defense #5 - If you don't like lobbyists,
you don't like yourself

This argument goes like this: Lobbies mirror our own interests and when Americans say "they hate lobbyists, what they are really saying is that they hate themselves." That is an interesting argument. It seems to imply that anything your personal lobbyist wants must be in the public interest because otherwise you would hate yourself. Strange logic. Flawed logic.

What if my lobbyist argues for something I oppose because I am in the numerical or monetary minority in my special interest group? And if my lobbyist argues for something I want, does that necessarily make it in the public interest? Special interests may not necessarily coincide with the public's interests.

For example, rich individuals and corporations do not want to pay taxes and they contribute money so that their lobbyists can get congress to exempt them from paying a lot of taxes. That has created tax loopholes to the tune of at least $100 billion annually for corporations alone. Our tax system "is hemorrhaging with offshore tax havens costing us, according to the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, over $100 billion a year in lost revenue." That certainly is in the interest of the beneficiaries. But, is it in the public interest?

Anyway, this lobbyist defense is silent on why special interest money needs to be involved or whether it is good or bad.

Conclusion for part 2

Lobbyist defenses #2-5 discussed in this post just do not address the role of special interest money in the whole process. Given that, lobbyist defenses 1-5 alone or together do not convincingly show that special interest money is more good than bad. If all that special interest money was so good for us all, then why is America up to its eyeballs in irate alligators? Why has our system failed? Defenders of the status quo have had things their way for decades. Where are the public benefits of all that special interest spending on our political institutions? Where's the beef?