MyDD :: Lobbyists vs. People

Lobbyists vs. People

by InigoMontoya, Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 09:21:37 PM EST

Hillary Clinton has provoked much derision in some quarters with her statement that "lobbyists are people too." I perhaps might not have put it quite that way, but she has a point.

Lobbyist are people who work on behalf of various causes, trying to engineer legislation for that cause or causes and to obtain votes for that legislation.

The lobbyists Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Tobacco, the National Rifle Association, and the various so-called Right to Life groups can promptly go to hell, do not pass Go, do not pay $200 as far as I'm concerned. Continued below the fold....

But their are lobbyists whose work I approve of, whose work represents me and my interests and the interests of many Democrats. Lobbyists for the teachers unions, environmental groups, patient groups, students, feminist groups, gay rights groups are all lobbyists too, their function and process virtually indistinguishable from those of the Bad Guys.

And some are wildly variable in shades of gray. I'm a member of the both the National and California Association of Realtors but routinely withhold the portion of my dues that go to their PACs because they have a habit of supporting Republican troglodytes who are good only on real estate issues and seldom on the side of the consumer. If there's a real estate issue that needs my help, I reserve the right to evaluate and send money earmarked for that purpose at that time.

The point is that to decry "lobbyists" or to slam candidates who are not on board with blanket condemnation is a cheap rhetorical trick that doesn't hold up on sustained examination. Moreover, it's symptomatic of a stark Manichean dualistic view of the world that doesn't map too well to political realities.

Tags: Lobbyists, Hillary, Clinton, People, 2008 (all tags)

Permalink :: 17 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Lobbyists vs. People (2.00 / 0)

The whole lobbyists line of attack is one of the reasons why they haven't caught up with her.

Its not an effective line of attack.

Its not enough to say nobody's perfect then you go on the attack , that dog won't hunt.

Obama/Edwards both have their own issues with lobbyists/special interest.

It might move a few votes on the margins but its not very effective.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 09:26:36 PM EST

"good lobbyists" don't drive the train (none / 0)

If they were, we wouldn't have horrible energy bills and a Medicare prescription drug benefit written on behalf of the insurance companies.

I have a friend who lobbies the Iowa legislature for some good environmental groups. But he is not calling the shots at the statehouse.

My problem with Hillary is that she is being supported by some of the industries that continually try to frustrate progress.

John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

by desmoinesdem on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 10:01:13 PM EST

"good lobbyists" don't drive the train (none / 0)

You see, DMD, I understand that. Or at least that the Good Lobbyists aren't always out in front. (Still doesn't justify demonizing lobbyists, imho.) But I'm a shades-of-gray kind of guy and recognize that not only do you have to evaluate a candidate across many issues but in several dimensions.

There's very little black and white in this [political] world and lots of shades of gray. I suspect that I'd have trouble with some of my own positions if I ever held elected office (not that that's happening...my brand of liberalism is far too conservative for Santa Monica).

I can live with most of Hillary's issues, including some that would greatly annoy some of the more Progressive Dems. As a candidate, she passes the Commander-in-Chief threshhold which I think any candidate has to pass to be elected...Obama, frankly, doesn't but Edwards does in my book. (I also find Obama to be a bit of a naif on the issue of partisanship but that's another story.)

But, for me, Hillary beats Edwards up and down the field on both my assessment of electability and assessment of effectiveness once in office. Hillary may be a bitch(!) but I think she's demonstrated an ability to be simultaneously tough and at the same time get votes in the Senate on issues that other people couldn't. (N.B., about the characterization of Hillary, I've heard a story that I'm inclined to credit about her walking with a group of staff, absolutely reaming one of them out while never losing the smile that people saw at a distance. Calculating? Yeah. Effective and disciplined? Yeah.)

After this disaster with Bush/Cheney, I'm looking for someone who can repair some of the damage and lead. It's all a fuzzy-logic calculus but that's the way it's got to be for me because I can't ascribe many absolutes to my values. Okay, so it would be hard for me to vote for an anti-Choice candidate but that's generally not a problem with any Democrat running for President.

by InigoMontoya on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 10:56:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Demonize? (none / 0)

I don't think either Obama or Edwards have "demonized" lobbyists--they are simply saying that it is a good idea to NOT take money from people who's very job is to influence politicians votes.

Let the lobbyists influence votes with the power of their arguments rather than the power of their pocketbooks. Doesn't that make sense?

by Mystylplx on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 12:30:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Demonize? (none / 0)

If you don't take money from those who are in agreement with you, the other side is going to take money from their's anyway. I don't believe in unilateral disarmament, which is one reason I think Edwards' decision to accept Federal funding limits was devastatingly stupid. You can work to change the rules but you play by them as they are until they're changed.

I'm sure there are still Naderites who are smug about their moral purity by purporting to see no difference between Bush and Gore in 2000. The kick in the ass that I'd like to give them shows what I think about such stances.

Fwiw, of the $600 I've given this year, $500 was to Tom Allen. The only reason that the money was pried out of me was because of a very good pitch by a PAC called Save Our Senate Majority. Moreover, because my donation was bundled with several dozen other donors, Allen took the time to come cross country to California to speak to us, to listen, and to answer questions (unfailingly polite until they were all answered). I see nothing wrong in having donated to an "evil" PAC.

Sure, there's a difference between this PAC, Emily's List, the NRA, and Proctor & Gamble, but you can't a priori go around defining "good" and "bad." Lobbying and lobbyists are inherently neutral; it's their causes that are good or bad according to our individual stances.

by InigoMontoya on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 09:15:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Demonize? (none / 0)

You ignored my point and just spouted nonsense. I'm NOT a Naderite, so you can drop that bit of hyperbole right now. And really don't care how much you've given this year or to whom--if you're a paid professional lobbyist then the candidates should not have accepted your donations.

by Mystylplx on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 12:16:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

withholding your dues (none / 0)

Good for you. I dropped our AAA membership when I found out they go to Congress and lobby against any and all air quality standards, claiming to represent however many million American drivers.

As if we drivers don't also have an interest in clean air!

John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

by desmoinesdem on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 10:02:21 PM EST

Re: withholding your dues (none / 0)

I keep my AAA membership even though I don't approve of all their activities but I respect your choice. See reply to your other.

by InigoMontoya on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 10:43:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lobbyists vs. People (none / 0)

Of course it's a cheap rhetorical trick and that is why John 'mud-slinger' Edwards was rightly booed by the audience in Las Vegas when he started attacking Hillary on the issue.

by reasonwarrior on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 10:35:04 PM EST

Re: Lobbyists vs. People (none / 0)

Lobbyists are people too. Sure, and they get the same number of votes I get, one.

I get one day in four years to exercise my democratic rights. They are at full time the other 799 working days. The odds are stacked against me.

by Shaun Appleby on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 11:49:19 PM EST

Re: Lobbyists vs. People (none / 0)

You're missing the point, Shaun, which is that lobbyists often work at causes that you and I both approve of and don't deserve blanket contempt as a rhetorical tactic.

by InigoMontoya on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 01:28:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lobbyists vs. People (none / 0)

Then let them vote. Who's on my side anyhow? The Sierra Club? You're joking, right?

by Shaun Appleby on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 01:42:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lobbyists vs. People (none / 0)

No, I'm not. Lobbying allows individual voters to magnify their efforts. One senior calling a Senator does diddly. AARP calling a Senator gets attention. Ditto NEA, LCV, NOW, and a lot of other efforts.

If I spent some time on GOogle, I could probably come up with lobbyists for dozens of organizations and issues that you'd agree with.

Lobbying is a tool that's intrinsically morally neutral. What matters is what you're lobbying for.

If you have a child that you want to get into a particular teacher's class for the coming year, it's easy enough to talk to the principal. If you want to influence federal education policy, it's a lot easier to do it through a collective group, i.e. lobbying, than it is solo. Heck, I've supported lobbying efforts of the PTSA that were a heck of a lot more effective than if I had just written a few letters myself.

by InigoMontoya on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 04:04:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lobbyists vs. People (none / 0)

I'm a firm believer in class-action suits. What possible benefit could I derive from supporting a system where lobbyists of any kind are exerting an influence on my elected representative which marginalises my own? I don't expect them to answer my letters, but they surely want my vote. That's why I am here.

Whether by direct contribution, professionalism, persistence or other indirect influence the lobbyist profession is driven by money and personal connections. Many ex-staff and even politicians end up as lobbyists and get paid handsomely. A small army of staff are employed in an industry like so many condottieri. Political parties of foreign countries use them to make their case. AIPAC has an influence inconsistent with it's electoral representation it two sovereign countries. Whatever influence these lobbyists have, for good or ill, can only come at the expense of my own. And you can't tell me that wealth is not a factor.

I also firmly believe in the regulatory role of government, like every good Democrat should, I reckon. How can the regulatory role of our elected Democrats not be targeted by lobbyists hired by the very entities legislators are obliged to regulate through law? That's what they're paid to do.

Leave cuddling up with corporations to the Republicans, they love it, and there's nothing in their ideology which specifically abhors it. We're not good at it by experience or inclination.

by Shaun Appleby on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 04:58:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lobbyists vs. People (none / 0)

The fact that we're not good at it by experience or inclination doesn't invalidate the concept of collective action via lobbyists who educate, persuade, pressure, cajole, and upon occasion threaten.

Fwiw, I'm firmly in your camp about the regulatory role of government, a role that has been gutted under the Bush so-called administration.

Politicians may want your vote, but the cold hard truth is that they listen to someone who is representing hundreds or thousands of votes. Failure to recognize this is why so many times Democrats act like the proverbial rube who brings a knife to a gun fight.

But lobbying is only a tool. Castigating lobbyists is like castigating television because of so much crap that's on it or castigating the Internet because it assists pornographers and pedophiles.

Lobbying is the process of hiring one to represent many in behalf of a cause. I suppose one could argue against campaigns hiring field workers instead of just letting voters make up their own minds by reading authorized position papers in the privacy of their own closet but somehow that seems like a non-starter too.

The real core of the problem you're trying to address is campaign financing. The unrelenting search for funds is the single most corrosive influence in politics. Until you detach politicians for the need for money, the corporations are going to find ways to exert out-sized influence.

by InigoMontoya on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 09:00:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lobbyists vs. People (none / 0)

I agree about public financing. And from your previous example I am not opposed to organised public advocacy, either, though I believe the system as it now stands invites abuse. But I think the Edwards and Obama campaign stances on lobbyist contributions, however flawed and admittedly just the tip of the proverbial iceberg, is a winning strategy for the Democratic party.

The point about Hillary's intransigent position is not just that it reveals a different approach to government or previous commitments she has made to interest groups, both public and corporate, but that it renders useless a very effective campaign position for Democrats as a whole, just one more example of her way or the highway I suppose.

by Shaun Appleby on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 09:14:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lobbyists vs. People (none / 0)

I'm many things as an individual. I'm the husband of someone who works for the state of California, I'm the father of a college student, I'm self-employed, I'm a supporter of environmental causes, I'm a supporter of the arts, I'm pro-Choice, etc. (just off the top of my head in 20 seconds).

If you think you can or should be able to limit my ability to act collectively via lobbyist with other family members of state workers, parents of college students, self-employed people, environmentalists, supporters of the arts, and others who are pro-Choice to make my voice heard in a way that wouldn't be nearly as effective as an individual, I have a message for you: up yours.

I'll fight to see my views and interests represented the best way I can. And you can do the same.

by InigoMontoya on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 09:07:47 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.