International Politics

	Vol. 227 No. 5
JOHN MCCAUGHEY, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR, WASHINGTON

Defense of lobbyists. “We know of no spectacle so ridiculous,” wrote the great British historian, Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800-1859), “as the British public in one of its periodical fits of morality.” Macaulay would have been perfectly at home in Washington, where moral indignation (and humbug) against lobbyists runs high in the midst of the “Casino Jack” Abramoff scandal. Lobbyist Abramoff and his pals made millions of dollars by effectively cheating or defrauding Indian tribes (he called them “monkeys” and “morons”), bloated with tons of money from casino operations. Abramoff was their Washington lobbyist.

Since then, Abramoff (who pled guilty to fraud) has cooperated with federal prosecutors in the hope of earning a reduced sentence, but the Washington pols (mostly Republicans, but not exclusively) worry that his evidence this summer will incriminate them, especially as the November mid-term election nears. It is not likely – but you never know – that this could lose the Republicans control of the House of Representatives or the Senate. The entire House is up for re-election.

Politicians’ reaction has been frantic breast-beating and loud calls to, at all costs, curb lobbyists’ influence on Capitol Hill. Arguments in favor are cogent and persuasive; in Washington, results go mostly to the highest bidder. Thus, the public no longer trusts Congress to make decisions untainted by special interests. A practice of secret “holds,” whereby a senator can block action on a bill without revealing that he is the blockage source, can enormously affect an industry, including oil and gas. The notorious, unsupervised “earmark” system (insertion of goodies into bills), which has grown exponentially, was exploited ruthlessly by Abramoff and others specializing in “pork,” a.k.a. legislative fat. It is the earmark of every bill nowadays.

Abramoff was a hubristic, greedy fool, who destroyed his own career and appeared after court for the paparazzi in a big, black belted raincoat and fedora like some fifth-rate goon from The Sopranos television show. Now, he is, pathetically, a star witness in a case that could end the careers of at least half-a-dozen lawmakers. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, a former Republican congressman (California), has already admitted to taking $2.4 million in bribes in exchange for earmarks. Former Republican House Leader Tom DeLay (Texas) is also implicated. By the way, IPAA had ranked Cunningham’s voting record as being 85% favorable to the oil and gas industry, and Delay’s record has been 100% favorable.

Consequences. This is getting serious. Registered lobbyists, who are former members or officers of the House (and their spouses) are now barred by new regulations from using the House gym in the basement of the Rayburn House Office Building. What is to become now of their abdominal muscles?

Soon, congressmen and their staff may not even be allowed to ride in corporate jets (especially planes belonging to oil companies – the horror!) Already, staffers complain privately that lobbyists are not sending the accustomed crates of booze up to staff parties. Where will this all end? Apparently, even fact-finding trips to famous golf courses in Scotland may be banned. Of course, truthfully, this debate about Casino Jack and the Great Lobbying Scandal is all balls. A huge case can be made in favor of lobbyists.

As James Srodes, veteran Washington political/ economics correspondent, told this column, “Without lobbyists to provide the facts, government could not operate, since it has no capacity to gather the facts on its own (look at a Congressional hearing). Lawmakers, their staff and the industry CEOs very quickly learn which lobbyists honestly represent the interests of their constituencies. Government agencies have lobbyists, too (an overlooked fact), since they must represent their interests in Congress, especially when it comes to forming new regulations. Some agencies do better than others. Energy does a pretty good job, but the Pentagon is always in trouble.”

Washington works on SchadenFreude: rejoicing in the misfortunes of others. A good lobbyist points knowingly to that misfortune, without palpably rejoicing. A huge, $3 trillion federal budget (as the government accretes more money and power) is bound to draw lobbyists, just as a jar of honey attracts bees to a picnic table. A million dollars or so, wisely spent in Washington, can benefit a company far more than $10 million spent on a dry hole. The return on capital from lobbying can be so great, that no efforts by lawmakers to rein it in will ever likely succeed.

No easy answers. Lobbying cannot be banned. Americans have a constitutional right “to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” And every industry, including oil and gas, has many grievances, real or imagined. If an earmark involves no provable incident of a favor being traded, then it is legal. And if the congressman can show that he was not trying to enrich himself (but only trying to win re-election), that is legal as well.

In short, lobbying in a democracy has become a necessary evil and capping a lobbyist-bought lunch for a politician to a maximum of $25 (say to the nearest McDonalds?) won’t do a great deal of good for governance. But does one really want a politician who can be bought for a Big Mac (even super-sized) and a Coke? Capitol Hill’s ethics laws are scandalously ill-enforced, but perhaps that neglect is not a bad thing. In any case, congressmen don’t want to change the way that Congress works, because it works just fine for them now. In Washington, it is the subtle lobbying behind the scenes between the politicians, themselves, that really matters, not the lobbying by the K Street crowd in Armani suits and Gucci shoes.

This is why all the rhetoric about tough new changes and reform is just humbug. Experience shows that no amount of lobbying reform will lead to enforcement. Every decade or so, politicians promise to mend their ways. But, of course, they never do.