Lobbyists Catch the Gravy Train for Prodding GOP Obstructionism

If the big corporations and powerful special interests have their way, there's going to be a lot of obstruction and filibustering over the next two years. Jeffrey H. Birnbaum has the details on the front page of today's issue of The Washington Post.

The Democrats' takeover of Congress this month has turned official Washington upside down.

Labor and environmental representatives, once also-rans in congressional influence, are meeting frequently with incoming Democratic leaders. Corporations that once boasted about their Republican ties are busily hiring Democratic lobbyists. And industries worried about reprisals from the new Democrats-in-charge, especially the pharmaceutical industry, are sending out woe-is-me memos and hoping their GOP connections will protect them in the crunch.

[...]

Companies caught in the Democrats' cross hairs, such as oil and drug firms, are hiring Democratic lobbyists, but they're holding on to their Republican lobbyists. They reason that they will need to persuade Republican lawmakers to block bills they dislike in the Senate, where 60 out of 100 votes are required to pass anything of consequence. Democrats hold only a 51 to 49 majority.

[...]

Even as additional Democratic lobbyists are hired, Republican lobbyists don't expect much falloff in business because GOP lawmakers will be key to stopping legislation that corporations oppose. "You may need to bring other voices to the table as well, but it's not like a light switch being thrown when someone else is in control," said GOP lobbyist Mark Isakowitz of Fierce, Isakowitz & Blalock.

This is what we have to look forward to for the next two years: Senate Republicans, goaded on by high-paid corporate lobbyists, disregarding the clear message of change sent to Washington by voters and actively impeding the progressive platform being forwarded by the newly-elected Democratic Congress.

Mitch McConnell, the incoming Senate Minority Leader, has already made a not-so-veiled threat to tie up the business of the Senate should the chamber's Democrats fail to confirm the President's slate of extremist jurists to the federal bench. He also has a record of filibustering in his past, most notably trying to stop campaign finance reform legislation. How far will McConnell and his colleagues go? Will the Republicans shut down the federal government as they did a decade ago? Will they filibuster the much-needed increase in the federal minimum wage? Will they filibuster easing the President's draconian restrictions on stem cell research? Will they filibuster changes to the Medicare Part D program to ease costs for seniors? Will they filibuster port security and other 9/11 Commission recommendations for homeland security? Will they filibuster efforts to offer real oversight for America's Iraq policy? Will they filibuster any move to start bringing our armed forces out of harm's way in the Iraqi civil war? Will they filibuster lobbying and ethics reform?

More and more, the Republican Party is becomign the party of "no", before using the power of their majority to not even allow votes on key policies, now, it seems, using the filibuster to block legislation needed to move America forward. But if the Senate Republicans and their wealthy lobbyist supporters believe that they will be able to reclaim their seat of power in two years by simply obstructing for the duration of the 100th Congress, they are terribly mistaken. Any attempt Republicans make at blocking the Democrats' highly-popular platform will be met by strong disapprobation by voters and the Republican Party will be reduced to an even smaller minority on Capitol Hill during the 111th Congress.



Display:


GOP needs more than that (none / 0)

If the GOP use a filibuster everything strategy, then they're mad.

What I'd expect that they'll do is pour sand in the machine on the pretext of repairing it. Not just trying to run down the clock (longer sitting hours will make that more difficult) but acting under the high principle of bipartisanship (ho, ho, ho!) to offer lots of helpful amendments, make the best use of parliamentary manoeuvers, and seek to divide the Dems wherever possible.

So that when Bush vetoes, it can be painted as more in sorrow than anger, as a result of Dem intransigeance.

The way that the Dems are supposedly going to handle the ethics bill on the House floor increases the risks for both parties.

Interesting times.


by skeptic06 on Thu Nov 23, 2006 at 06:32:48 AM EST

The standout point... (3.00 / 1)

...in the Post piece - now I've read it! - is

A sizable number of Democrats plan to take lower-paying staff jobs in Congress as a way to serve in the government and to exercise the power of the majority for a change. On one important panel, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, both top aides will be ex-lobbyists.

Do we think this motivated by altruism, or a desire to increase their sales value on returning to lobbying?

Folks worry about the revolving door between government and, say, defense contractors; I'm not sure that a revolving door between lobbying firms and Congressional staff isn't a tad more disturbing!


by skeptic06 on Thu Nov 23, 2006 at 06:44:01 AM EST

Not Minumum Wage or 9/11 Commission (none / 0)

There will be no veto of the min wage or 9/11 Commission reccommendation legislation. The first is too popular, the second too inconsequential (symoblic legislation) to bother with.


by Davidsfr on Thu Nov 23, 2006 at 08:13:49 AM EST

Re: Lobbyists Catch the Gravy Train for Prodding G (none / 0)

Which GOP Senators are the most likely to vote with the Democrats?
Hagel, Snow, Specter, Who else?
by phastphil on Thu Nov 23, 2006 at 08:19:22 AM EST

Re: Lobbyists Catch the Gravy Train (none / 0)

Kind of an interesting situation in Texas, where the state's lobbyists were de facto operatives for the Republican Party.

They're now being asked to show a plan to prove they can work with the Dem congress (well, the Dems want them fired, but Perry is giving them an out):

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/ne ws/stories/nation/11/22/22osfr.html


by Bush Bites on Thu Nov 23, 2006 at 09:24:46 AM EST

This is why we should have gotten rid of (none / 0)

the filibuster. It is essentially a conservative tool. I cannot understand why progressives didn't see this when we had the chance to let GOP go nuclear.


The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.
by Populism2008 on Thu Nov 23, 2006 at 09:29:59 AM EST

Make the Filibuster Backfire Against the GOP! (3.00 / 2)

If they want to filibuster legislation that most Americans want, then let 'em.  But here's the key:

Make them actually filibuster.  Make them get up on the Senate floor, and talk for days to block a vote, so their obstruction can be on C-SPAN day after day, where the American people can see it.

None of this wimpy "we couldn't pass a cloture vote, so we'll agree to go on to the next order of business."  If the Dems do that, nobody will see the GOP blocking votes, blocking the changes the people want.  Make 'em talk and talk and talk, late into the evening, to keep the Dems from voting.

Here's the deal on filibustering: originally, there were no rules at all limiting debate in the Senate; the idea was that you shouldn't vote until everyone had their say.

Then in the mid-19th century, some Senators started the practice of debating endlessly in order to prevent votes.  Others felt they were hijacking the process, of course.  And at the time, a 'filibuster' was a kind of pirate.  (William Walker, of 1850s Nicaragua infamy, had that tag attached to him.)   Hence the application of that tag to the endless talker in the Senate.

It wasn't until the early 20th century that Senate Rule 22 was instituted, which allows the Senate to bring debate to an end via a cloture vote.  At the time, it required a 2/3 vote; that was changed to a 3/5 vote in the 1970s.

But cloture is an additional tool for bringing debate to an end, no more and no less.  If the floor is open, and nobody's talking, a vote can be called for.

So if we've got legislation we know Americans support, and the GOP defeats our cloture votes, make 'em keep talking, because if we keep the floor open and they stop talking, we can bring the issue to a vote, cloture or no cloture.


by RT on Thu Nov 23, 2006 at 11:24:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is why we should have gotten rid of (none / 0)

The nuclear option, as it was going to be executed by the Republicans, was to have no bearing on legislative business. Just executive business -- that is, nominations. Actually, it was even more specific than that -- just judicial nominations.

The same process could have been used effectively to end any kind of filibuster, or change any rule. But if we had lit the fuse ourselves and let it detonate, we still wouldn't be rid of the legislative filibuster.


by Kagro X on Thu Nov 23, 2006 at 01:11:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do members of Congress wear price tags? (none / 0)

I recall reading about a new member of the house calling lobbyists and telling them how much money he wanted. Apparently this was unusual but it worked. I suppose the lobbyisits will have to revise their "Blue Book".

It is business as usual if a lobbyist can get a committee staff job.


by JSN on Thu Nov 23, 2006 at 10:23:41 AM EST

Republican Party --Lobbyists agents (none / 0)

Use it against Repubs.  It will confirm the Rebranding of Republican Party  as agents of  corporations and special interest and the powerful out of step of the middle class and common man.


by jasmine on Thu Nov 23, 2006 at 10:54:34 AM EST

Re: Lobbyists Catch the Gravy Train for Prodding G (none / 0)

Hit 'em hard.  Call them obstructionists.  Call them partisans unwilling to work with the Democrats.  Call them ideologues.  Hit them hard!  Make damn sure the public, especially in 'red' states know that their senators are blocking the work of the senate.  Let the public know that lobbyists are calling the shot on the other side of the aisle.

Or, since it was their idea, do we exercise the 'nuclear option'?   I'd rather not, but these cretins need to be shown the door.  


by JJCPA on Thu Nov 23, 2006 at 11:23:38 AM EST

out there thought: McCain bet? (none / 0)

so, I had a bit of a crackpot notion:  could part of the thinking on this be the big corporations betting that the coattails of a potential McCain nomination could blunt the Dems strategic advantages in the next congressional elections?


by benchcoat on Thu Nov 23, 2006 at 12:06:38 PM EST

It's time we talked details about lobbying reform (none / 0)

Can we start working out some sort of concensus on how lobbying reform ought to work? I know there have been conversations from time to time, but I don't think there's every really been an effort to bring the netroots community together behind a single plan.

This whole people-powered, netroots thing is about the people owning their government. As such, I'd think this would be an issue we'd want to be able to speak with some clarity on. IMHO, it should be our biggest big-issue priority (with net neutrality being our biggest small-issue priority).


Progress is Personal | PCCC
by msnook on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 09:15:40 AM EST

Re: Lobbyists Catch the Gravy Train (none / 0)

Will Ms. Lieberman be lobbying for pharmaceutical companies?


cando
by cando on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 08:32:55 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.