Post #161 - Money and politicians; In defense of lobbyists?
February 2010
Introduction
An earlier post criticized Congress as inept and corrupt "protectors" of the public interest in the context of consumer credit and credit card law. The criticism was primarily based on Congress' own admissions that it failed to protect the public interest and that lobbyist influence played a major role in the failure.Admissions by powerful
U.S. - Japan joint training exercise
Philippine Sea - December 2010
In defense of lobbyists
A Google search of the phrase "in defense of lobbyists" got about 840,000 hits. That was too many. Limiting the search to posts in the last year got 17 hits. That was too few. Anyway, the PC eventually spotted several fundamentally different arguments floating around in cyberspace in defense of lobbyists. There was no defense of special interest money in politics, so this has to be limited to defenses of lobbyists and how they operate.Defense #1 - It's free speech and if you don't hire lobbyists, the government may unfairly whack you: One popular defense for lobbyists is that you can't muzzle them because whatever they say to politicians and anyone else in government is protected free speech (argued by Michael Barone in the U.S. News and World Report). Others, like the Wall Street Journal have made the same point.
Mr. Barone also said: "The high-tech industry figured it could get along without much representation in Washington
The PC concedes that the free speech argument is true. However, the argument is beside the point. It ignores the question of whether or not lobbyists and their special interest money does more harm than good. Just because what they do is legal does not make it necessarily a good thing. If you disagree just consider these two things for a moment. First, abortion is legal in the
Getting back to the point, the question is whether, despite being legal, does arguing a free speech defense for lobbyists necessarily mean they are more good than bad? Does that justify the money? For the PC, that defense fails to justify why it is that their money is needed if all they want to do is simply talk to people in government. The PC has no quarrel with lobbyists talking to government so long as money is not involved. In any event, the defense ignores consideration of whether lobbyist activities are, on balance, more good than bad.
USAF C-130 Hercules
Supplying forward operating base Sweeny
Zabul province, Afghanistan - February 2011
Mr. Barone's point about needing lobbyists to protect an industry from regulation or lawsuits is disturbing. It again points to the power of money to buy "justice". It is apparent that from Mr. Barone's point of view, Microsoft should never have been sued for antitrust violations and having lobbyists would have prevented such a frivolous lawsuit. But, what if it was the case that Microsoft really and truly did (and still does) violate antitrust laws? Would lobbyists have been able to stop legitimate law enforcement? Probably.
And, if lobbyists really are needed to prevent improper government action as Mr. Barone says, then the American public was somehow* fooled into voting for politicians in that bad government. That leaves heroic and selfless lobbyists to stand as a bulwark against dumb American voters in defense of their altruistic special interests. Does anyone buy that? The PC doesn't buy it because it is rubbish. Voters vote for who they are convinced to vote for and/or believe in.
* Could that have been at least partly due to political spin or political advertisements the lobbyists and partisans buy to deceive and distract the public? As the PC argued in post 123, post 125 and elsewhere, lobbyists and partisans are masters of spin and deception.
One thing that is certain, lobbyists are usually highly motivated. As Mr. Barone points out: "But even lobbyists for nonprofits have a monetary motive, i.e., keeping their (often six-figure) salaries flowing in." That seems to jive with at least some lobbyist salary figures. It doesn't get much clearer than that, does it?
Because it is largely irrelevant, defense #1 fails to convince the PC that lobbyists confer a net benefit over the costs. It ignores the role of money in politics. Mr. Barone's arguments reinforce the PC's suspicion that, on balance, lobbyists operating under the system we now have are a significant detriment to American law and society.
Defense #2 - Lobbyists make Democracy work better: Another argument is that lobbyists "toil in the public interest" to make Democracy work better and to help many Americans exercise their constitutional right outlined in the First Amendment to "petition the government."
It is true that spending money is protected free speech and recently* spending money became a whole lot more protected than it was last month. It is also true that some lobbyists advocate about "pure social" issues, e.g., for or against abortion, and not directly to make money for a business or labor union interest.
Navy E-2C Hawkeye landing on U.S. carrier
Pacific Ocean - February 2011
* See the January 21, 2010 Citizens United v. FEC, Supreme Court decision.
The question then becomes this: Does the allegedly net good that pure social lobbyists create offset the the PC's perceived net negative that the money lobbyists create? That is a hard call because your definition of benefit flowing from laws around a social issue will vary with your personal beliefs. Just consider abortion once again.
Hypothetically speaking, if lobbyists contributed huge amounts of cash to people in Congress and that got abortion to be made illegal, would that be more good than bad? How do you put a positive or negative value on something like that?
On the other hand, one can estimate the economic effects of lobbyists playing with money in a largely business context. For example, in post 155, the PC complained about losses to the U.S. U.S.
The PC sees this argument as showing that lobbyists can do both good and harm. In PC opinion, the scale tips against lobbyists when they accompany their efforts to influence government with campaign contributions. There is no way to distinguish honest government from government bought by special interest money. And, the amounts of money on the special interest side dwarfs the good on the social interest side when unaccompanied by cash contributions.
Of all the defenses for lobbyists the PC came across, this one has the most persuasive weight. Not all lobbyists are working against the public interest, and that mitigates for some social benefit flowing from some lobbyists at least some of the time.
Defense #3 - Lobbyists merely reflect Americans and their values; We all form into groups to better allow our interests to better compete for scarce resources and even the founding fathers knew that and blessed it: A blog post at something called The Daily Beast by Andrew Keen defended lobbyists. According to the post, Mr. Keen's credentials include (1) writing the "controversial" book Cult of the Amateur, (2) being the "Anti-Christ of Silicon Valley" and (3) being the most hated person on the internet. Interesting credentials. Mr. Keen made three points or arguments in his defense of lobbyists.
Argument 1: According to Mr. Keen (quoting Hillary Clinton), lobbyists are good for America because “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.”
Argument 2: Mr. Keen also asserted that lobbyists are good and necessary because: "Small has become the new big in the United States Madison
Argument 3: Finally, Mr. Keen argued this: "Americans should unashamedly cherish the value of a political system specifically designed to balance the competing interests of many rival corporations, lobbyists, and PACs. So, on January 20, I urge my fellow citizen to spare a thought for the lonely K Street
Navy C-130 Hercules
Engine maintenance - North Carolina - February 2011
As an initial matter, the PC observes that Mr. Keen ignores the role of money in lobbyist activities. That omission undercuts all of his arguments, unless his comment about "horse-trading democracy" means that political corruption is OK. If that is his argument, he should have just come out and directly said it.
Regarding argument 1 by Mr. Keen, the PC and everyone else knows that lobbyists represent whoever pays them. The whole point of advocacy in politics is to represent some interest or another. And, of course, corporations who employ lots of people will tend to hire lobbyists. If nothing else, they can afford to hire lobbyists and make campaign contributions. What Mr. Keen's argument 1 side-steps is whether those corporate contributions really do buy (1) net benefits for all of the employees in the industry and (2) net benefits for America and Americans as a whole.
Just consider the Frontline story about the credit card and financial services industry. Some of the arguments against lobbyists in this post are based on that story. Specifically, lobbyists and money advocating for the financial services industry helped buy and maintain essentially complete deregulation until recently. The ultimate upshot was massive damage to the economy and unnecessary human suffering. That damage was counterbalanced by massive profits flowing to the people at the top of the industry. Was it worth it? Did America
So, exactly who were those lobbyists primarily working for? The financial services industry and all of its employees, its customers or the people at the top of that industry? Think about it. When a corporation lobbies Congress using money and lobbyists to get laws passed to make it harder (or impossible) for labor to unionize, is that for the Corporation's and employee's benefit? When lobbyists and wealthy individual and corporate special interests buys from Congress an ability to engage in tax evasion on a massive scale with minimal liability and essentially no chance to get caught, whose interests are those lobbyists serving? When a corporation lobbies Congress using money and lobbyists to get laws passed to repeal environmental protection laws, whose interests are those lobbyists serving - all of the little people? These questions can go on and on.
Regarding argument 2 by Mr. Keen, the PC is unsure of what he means by a "cult of the honest small donor" and how that affects anything. Just because there are lots of individual small donors coming online in politics, the PC fails to see how that changes anything. As the PC sees this, regardless of which party is in power, the big guys with the big cash are the ones that get big "access" and valuable votes. Lobbyists are generally equal opportunity influence peddlers. They are perfectly happy to work with Democrats or Republicans, particularly when the issue is primarily money. On individual social issues, maybe there is some bias to one party or the other.
In any event, the PC is willing to bet that an individual who contributed $150 to President Obama's presidential campaign in 2008 is not going to get either a half-hour meeting with the President or a law passed by Congress to make his neighbor cut down a tree that is blocking his view. But, some lobbyist backed by $25 million in campaign contributions just might get a meeting and/or a law for his employer.
Mr. Keen points out
U.S. Navy submarine tender USS Frank Cable
50 caliber gun training - Philippine Sea - January 2011
The only thing even close to angels on the side of America
Finally, the PC takes issue with Mr. Keen's assertion in argument 3, that "Americans should unashamedly cherish the value of a political system specifically designed to balance the competing interests of many rival corporations." That argument is bogus. It is based on the false premise that political system specifically designed to balance the competing interests. The political system we now have is designed to benefit players who pay to play. The more you pay, the more you play. Not all corporations and special interests can afford that. In fact, most can't even get in the door.
One of the PC's complaints about politics is the capacity of partisan arguments to persuade based on false premises. That is one of the most subtle and effective debate (propaganda, actually) tactics in existence. In this case, Mr. Keen's argument is that lobbyists are equally effective for all because competing interests balance each other. That is nonsense. If that were true, then why is it that only the top 0.01% (or thereabouts) of Americans, which includes corporations as "entities" with free speech rights, can commit tax avoidance and evasion on a mass scale while the remaining 99.99% of us taxpayers as real people cannot? Obviously, competing interests are not equal. It isn't even close.
This defense of lobbyists is interesting and has several facets. Nonetheless, it is not persuasive. It ignores the capacity of money to aid lobbyists in corrupting politics for the benefit of a few and to the detriment of the public interest as a whole. Just listen to the Frontline broadcast and then decide how nice, fair and balanced things were in the case of the financial services industry providing financial services to "unbanked" customers. To the PC, that sorry situation looked like there was no balance whatever on the side of the public interest. Madison
Defense #4 - Lobbyists work for a living: Senate majority leader Harry Reid (Democrat- Nevada) said this in defense of lobbyists: "People should understand that lobbyists, per se, are someone's father, mother, son, daughter . . . They work for a living." Geez, that defense is worse than feeble - it is downright silly. Like the vast majority (at least 95%) of Americans, the PC has parents and kids and works for a living. No one the PC knows was hatched from an egg or sprouted from under a rock. Everybody is in the same boat. This "argument" is mentioned because of who the argument comes from. No wonder some people in Congress* cannot see the reality of how and why lobbyists are so effective. They truly live in a happy world of purple unicorns and sweet-smelling flowers. This defense is epic fail.
* But not politicians like Senator Shelby. As pointed out in the Frontline interview, he knows perfectly well about the power of lobbyists to control government to the detriment of the public interest.
Defense #5 - Lobbyists are only middlemen: David V. Johnson (someone the PC knows nothing about and can find nothing about) says this: "After all, a lobbyist is only a middleman between special interests and persons in power. A director of a healthcare corporation, on the other hand, is a special interest."
Once again, the PC fails to see how this gets at the concern that lobbyists, armed with money, may corrupt government thereby hurting the economy and the public interest. So what if you call a lobbyist a middleman, a hired gun, a fishmonger or anything else? That is irrelevant to what a lobbyist advocating for a special interest is supposed to do, i.e., advocate for the special interest that is paying the lobbyist's (large) salary and expenses.
Such advocacy does not necessarily need to be for the public benefit because it is supposed to be for the special interest's benefit. Congress is supposed to protect the public interest, not special interests. Their job is to influence Congress for their own benefit. This isn't rocket science. It is high school level common sense. The PC gives this excellent lobbyist defense a well-deserved grade of: Fail.
Defense #6 - Lobbyists bring sense to the table and, they are passionate little sprites: Hilary Rosen (search for "passionate people"): a Democratic party strategist said this in defense of lobbyists: "In defense of lobbyists, because I used to be one, there is some sense to the table lobbyists bring. So much of this debate is actually being generated not inside of Washington but outside of Washington
The PC likes this one. It's sneaky. The PC agrees that lobbyists "bring sense to the table". They have to because they know their interest's needs and concerns. People in Congress cannot possibly have the needed level of knowledge. People in Congress have neither the competence, training or time. People in Congress spend half of their time lobbying lobbyists to get campaign contributions, so of course those lobbyists will "bring sense to the table". Their "sense" includes a whole lot of cash along with information and advocacy about their specific concerns, which are sometimes legitimate public interests and sometimes not.
Japanese landing craft landing on USS Essex assault ship
East China Sea - December 2010
Again, this defense ignores the 4 ton gorilla in the room, i.e., why it is that lobbyists pay money to make their points? If lobbyists were advocating obviously good things, then those arguments would not need to be accompanied by money. If Ms. Rosen is correct and it is "really the debate that matters", then why is such an exuberant abundance of money involved? And, by the way, the PC is "passionate" but none of its arguments are accompanied by payments to anyone in Congress. Of course, that is why those arguments fall on deaf ears. This defense of lobbyists fails.
Defense #7 - Lobbyists don't often give piles of cash to corrupt politicians; they just persuade legislators and regulators on behalf of their clients - and anyway, the threat to politicians is only implied: This defense is absolutely great. I. Nelson Rose, poker player and gambling law expert says: "Lobbyists rarely give bundles of cash to corrupt politicians. Their main goal is to persuade legislators and regulators on behalf of their clients. They do this by providing information that no one else can. For example, lobbyists for tribes with casinos have done a good job of educating members of Congress on the meaning of sovereignty. . . . . Today, organizations like the Poker Players Alliance (PPA) are arguing that millions of Americans want their favorite past-time made legal. This provides political cover. And lawmakers also need to get reelected. I personally like the implied threat in the name of the leading advocacy group in California Hawaii
Oh, good grief. A lobbyist who doesn't know he is a lobbyist. Where is one to begin with this blunderbuss? It is comforting to know that lobbyists only "rarely" give bundles of cash to corrupt politicians. That makes the PC feel a whole lot better. And, at least legislators now know all about American Indian sovereignty. Thank goodness for the restraint and teaching ability of lobbyists.
Actually, this defense is mainly a variation of the lobbyist defense that some lobbyists advocate for what members of the public want from government. In this case, poker players appear to want looser or no restrictions on gambling, or poker at least. The question is whether or not those lobbyists would be more persuasive if their "implied threat" was accompanied by millions of dollars in campaign contributions. Like defenses #1 - #7 above, this one ignores the question of money and thus fails.
Defense #8 - For every Jack Abramoff there are at least two "nice"lobbyists: This defense is wonderful. According to this defense (posted by Pete Abel, someone the PC knows nothing about), "Qualitatively and quanititatively, “lobby” is not a four-letter word - nor is it a reliable indicator of evil. For every Jack Abramoff, there are two or more ethical, civil, decent people who ply their trade lobbying. . . . the best lobbyists are not those who take a scorched-earth approach to pushing their clients’ interests. To the contrary, the best are those who are willing to tell their clients, “No,” as in “No, you’re not going to get everything you want, so let’s get realistic and talk about compromise, about what you can live without.” "
Hm. Think about that first part. Assume that there are 12,000 lobbyists swarming over Congress and other parts of the federal government. Further assume that for every Jack Abramoff-type "bad" lobbyist, there are three "nice" lobbyists. That leaves a mere 3,000 little Jack Abramoffs running amuck in Washington
Think about the second part of the defense. It makes the PC's point - lobbyists, scorched earth or not, are there to serve their own self-interest. Nothing surprising about that, is there? Hm. How many "scorched-earth" type lobbyists are there? Sounds like most of them. Creepy. This defense is feeble and fails because it ignores the role of money.
Defense #9 - Stop bashing lobbyists because you are uninformed and don't know what you are talking about: This comes to us from the grumpy side of cyberspace. The writer and self-described "free radical" Reverend Adam Carl eloquently defends lobbyists this way: "I'm getting sick and tired of listening to people criticize
Well, what can you say in the face of that cannon blast? Lobbyists are good and that is that. But, wait!!! This defense does mention money by calling it a "sickening influence". The PC couldn't agree more - the money is sickening. This is a great defense. It's sort of like the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" type argument. Or, more loosely, sort of like former Vice President Cheney shooting his friend in the face with a shotgun. Somehow, the act (or sentiment) just doesn't quite get to where it tries to go.
Anyway, these defenses could go on and on, but that gets to be repetitive.
Conclusion
The corrosive influence of many lobbyists (post 20) and inept political leadership (post 12) have been PC concerns for a long time. The PC has argued that the two party system is more illusion that reality. A few others argue the same point. The PC sees the role of lobbyists coupled with their campaign contributions as a significant part of the glue holding the illusion together.Both parties cater to special interest money while bashing the ethics, morals and legality of the opposition. That happens regardless of their own ethical, moral and legal lapses (post 22, post 147). Congress will never regulate itself, adding to its contempt for the rule of law (post 139). In spite of the intense the partisan bashing, neither side is honest about the real priority, money.
Only one of the lobbyist defenses the PC found even mentions money and that one calls money in politics "sickening". Obviously, there is no way to defend the money. It is there to buy votes. The players in the game spin it by euphemistically calling it "buying access".
Just listen to the Frontline interview or read the transcript. Both Democrats and Republicans publicly and clearly admit that lobbyists can and have hurt the public interest. If you can look at reality without much bias or too much emotion, common sense tells you that lobbyists are a key part of the machinery that corrupts American Democracy and politics.
Obviously, the politicians are there to protect lobbyist interests, not the public interest. In view of the situation where even defenders of lobbyists cannot persuasively defend their own activities, a reasonable conclusion is this: Lobbyists, at least ones operating in the economic arena, inflict significantly more harm than good on the American economy and the public interest. That is true in the area of consumer credit, as suggested by the Frontline news report. It is also true in the even more important (lucrative) area of tax law and policy (argued in post 154 and post 155).
When or if the day ever comes that special interest money is taken out of the picture, then the PC will be more than happy to reconsider its low opinion of lobbyists who work against the public interest.
---------------------------------------
The Pragmatic Caucus: Home of transparent politics and pragmatic policies; Because opaque politics and ideological policies failed.
No comments:
Post a Comment