The Congress of the United States of America is a political institution that impacts almost every facet of American life. The legislation that the Congress passes can range from the speed that your car can legally go, to the tax of certain groceries; from regulating coal plant carbon dioxide emissions, to enacting a healthcare bill. Understanding the wide range of Congress’ abilities, it is apparent that they hold much influence in shaping the Nation. This is true in that the Congress makes the laws that every American citizen is obligated to follow, as well as, among many other Constitutional duties, allocating monies. As a result of the power that the legislators have - especially in allocating money - the way that the actors stand on an issue is critical – especially to those who have a vested interest in any certain policy. This is where lobbying comes into the mix. While utilizing an analytical approach, the effect that lobbying has on the policy making process is made apparent.
With that said, before one can progress into a deeper understanding of the effect that lobbying has on the policy making process of the United States, one must understand what lobbying fundamentally is. The origin of the term ‘lobbying’ is rooted in a time before cameras were allowed into the House and Senate. “In order for a representative or senator to be seen by the public, a card - issued by someone in the lobby outside of the session - had to be sent to them while they were in session so that they would come out into the lobby and be seen by the public.” (Everett, C-SPAN) This became known as lobbying. However, as time has progressed, so has the meaning of the word ‘lobbying.’ Currently, ‘lobbying’ is defined, in a nutshell, by Walter J. Oleszek in his book, “Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process,” as, “commercial and industrial interests; labor unions; ethnic, ideological, health care, education, environmental, and racial groups; professional organizations; state and local governments; citizen groups; and representatives of foreign interests – all from time to time and some continuously – seek by one method or another to exert pressure on Congress to attain their legislative goals.” (Oleszek, 39-40) Examples of some aforementioned lobbying entities are: The Chemical Manufacturers Association, The National Association of Television Programs, The National Association for Home Care and Hospice, The American Defense International, and The National Rifle Association. All lobbyist industries – in one way or another – attempt to pressure Congress in an effort to attain their legislative goals. Additionally, the larger the association, the more power the association wields. This is elucidated clearly in how “The National Rifle Association (NRA) is especially feared in rural and Southern districts, where it has many, and often fervent adherents.” (Sinclair, 23)
Pressure from lobbying comes in two basic forms. These forms are: grassroots lobbying and AstroTurf lobbying. Grassroots lobbying is when associations send people from their district to lobby (i.e., teachers, environmentalists and small business owners) right to the Congress. Letters and other formal means of communication are also additional, good examples of grassroots lobbying. The following video is an excellent example of grassroots lobbying.
In the video, Parker Page, representative for Children's Television Resource and Education Center, lobbies the Senate Committee of Governmental Affairs in an effort to pressure Congress to require a harsher rating system for violent video games due to the detrimental effect that they have on children. In this great example of lobbying, the expert (Parker Page) lobbies Congress to hold Nintendo and Sega accountable for the negative effects of violence in video games on children. Due to his expertise, his lobbying holds special weight. Since he is knowledgeable about the effects of violent video games, his information is considered honest, good information, and, as a result, is more easily accepted than one who does not have expertise. The second form of lobbying, AstroTurf lobbying, is when lobbyists use a mean like automated calling to reach out to the legislators that they are trying to convince. It’s called “AstroTurf lobbying” because, like AstroTurf, it is artificial. As a result of this artificiality and the loss of the personal touch that grassroots lobbying exemplifies, AstroTurf lobbying is not very effective in convincing legislators.
Through the aforementioned methods of lobbying, lobbyists have the potential to exert a massive amount of pressure on Congressional legislation. However, it’s the information that makes lobbyists potent - information is, in a way, their currency and their blood. For a myriad of reasons (not enough time, interest, etc.), citizens and legislators can’t know everything on all issues. Therefore, lobbyists use their currency of information to fill the ‘gaps’ of information for the citizens and legislators. It is two-way information – the lobbyists provide information to members of their association, allied association/s, and voters while also providing information to legislators. As former Illinois Senator, Everett Dirksen (R), says in an interview, “he [the lobbyist] is expected to know his business…he is expected to be a very knowledgeable person and know what the issue is all about. His information is supposed to be authentic. After verification of this, he is then supposed to come to a committee and testify. He might also give out press releases in an effort to tell his story.” (Everett, C-SPAN)
Understanding the importance of information for a lobbyist, and the fact that legislators rely on the information to fill in the ‘gaps’ of their specialization in the given policy, the information provided must be honest. Honest information is very good, and will be very effective in achieving the desired end of the lobbyist. Dishonest information is very bad and has the potential to be deadly to a lobbyist’s career. If a lobbyist gives bad information, even once, their informative legitimacy from then on is suspect.
Continuing, it’s necessary to understand that although lobbying’s aforementioned forms are important, it’s lobbying’s function that is the most vital part in making it relevant to the current-day policy making process. With that said, lobbying organizations, whether operating through the grassroots level to influence public opinion or through direct contact with members of Congress, “perform some important and indispensable functions.” (Oleszek, 39)
Lobbying’s first function is to help inform both the Congress and the public about problems and issues. Lobbying helps fill the pockets of information that voter and legislator alike might need to know more about. Given the importance of information to lobbyists, this is a major function of lobbying.
The second function of lobbying is to stimulate public debate. Lobbyists make the public aware of the issues; and, through this newfound awareness of the issue, debate ensues to help work out a policy. A good example of this is when the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops), while discussing the Healthcare bill presented before the House these last couple years, stimulated debate about abortion’s place in the Healthcare bill, and pressured the House into getting rid of subsidies used to purchase plans that cover abortions.
The third function of lobbying, - while also being one of its most admirable functions - opens a path to Congress for the wronged and needy. Somebody is bound to be adversely effected by the decisions made by government. Contrary to the stigma that lobbyists endure that calls them corrupt, lobbyists represents the interests of the people – young or old, rich or poor - without reservation. The following video is an example of this.
In the following video, Acy Cooper, Louisiana Shrimp Association Vice-President, advocates that British Petroleum be held accountable and remain present in the Gulf region after their oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico and drastically hurt the shrimping industry in 2009. This is a great example of lobbying giving a voice to those who were wronged.
The final function of lobbying is to make it known to Congress “the practical aspects of proposed legislation: whom it would help/hurt, who is for it, and who is against it.” (Oleszek, 40) An example of this was when “a bill entitled the Gasoline for America’s Security Act, which Republicans attempted to pass in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and Rita in fall 2005, was strongly opposed by environmentalists; supporters were forced to delete language that would have made it easier for utilities to expand without installing new antipollution equipment.” (Sinclair, 22) This bill apparently struck a nerve with the environmentalists and, through lobbying, those who were hurt by the act, and those who were against the act were both exposed.
Over the years, a major point of contestation about lobbying has been over earmarks. Earmarking is “a legislative provision that directs funds to be spent for a specific project, a bridge or a university research center, for example. Typically, the project is sought by a member for a project in his or her district or state.” (Sinclair, 117) An additional type of earmark is “narrowly drawn tax provisions that are specifically targeted to benefit one or a small number of people.” (Sinclair, 118) It’s true that “the media portrays all earmarks as pork” when, in fact, “most earmarks are for worthy purposes.” (Sinclair, 118) It’s unfortunate, but accurate that lobbyists can use earmarks for selfish reasons. However, most voters do not understand that most earmarks go towards noble causes instead of just pleasing lobbyists. Earmarks can be used to fund research projects at a university, building additional farming complexes on a local farm, etc. Most earmark pursuits are noble, and not purported by malicious lobbyists.
Early in the year 2010, the Supreme Court had ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporations, labor unions, and nonprofit groups could “spend unlimited funds from their own treasuries to fund political campaign advertising…Democrats [then] drafted a bill that greatly strengthened campaign finance disclosure requirements.” As an example, any group that ran television commercials would have to disclose its top donors in the ad.” (Sinclair, 23) This court case opened the door for lobbying associations to pour as much money into the campaign as they wished. Lobbying in this manner has led many Americans to believe that lobbying is becoming or is already corrupt.
So, understanding that money is at the core of lobbying, and the fact that most people believe that earmarks are spent solely on pleasing lobbyists, the legislative branch –over the last two decades - has responded with increasing lobbying reform. The LDA (Lobbying Disclosure Act) of 1995 and the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (HLOGA) of 2007 increased regulation and transparency in lobbying. The LDA requires any lobbyist who is compensated for his/her actions, whether an individual or firm, and whose lobbying expenses exceed certain thresholds, to register and file with the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate within 45 days after the lobbyist first makes a lobbying contact with covered officials in the legislative and executive branches of the federal government on behalf of a client. Lobbyists also must file semiannual reports to the Clerk and Secretary on their activities. These reports identify the name of the registrant, lobbyists the registrant employs, client, and the broad issue areas in which the lobbying was carried out. The HLOGA reads, “generally, concern has been expressed that current lobbying disclosure requirements may be inadequate to track all the activities of lobbyists in a manner that assures a level of transparency sufficient to allow a broad understanding of the influence and motivations that animate public policy making. Some observers believe that one solution to this purported problem is to link data collected under lobbying disclosure and campaign finance disclosure laws to achieve a clearer understand of roles lobbyists play.”
Further lobbying reform happened in “2007, when the House adopted rules requiring ‘detailed lists of every earmark and its sponsor, a public certification from every member that they have no financial interest in any earmark request, and identification of earmarks ‘air dropped’ [i.e. inserted] in conference.’ In 2009, all members were required to post online their earmark requests and justifications. In 2010 that House Appropriations Committee decided that it would not approve requests for earmarks that are directed at for-profit entities. The Senate requires all members to post information on their earmark requests on their official Web sites at the time the request is made…[with that said,] in 2011, both the House and the Senate agreed to forgo earmarks for at least two years.” (Sinclair, 120) In the following video, majority leader, Senator Bill First, (R) Tennessee, discusses S. 2349, the Lobbying Reform Bill, and shows appreciation to the Senate for passing the amended Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006.
This video elucidates lobbying reform and how the legislative branches are making strides to make lobbying more transparent and accountable.
In conclusion, through the two basic forms of lobbying, the function of lobbying: informs legislators and their constituents, allows the wronged and needy to be heard, while also exposing the practical aspects of proposed legislation. Additionally, although lobbying has been a point of contestation and reformation for many people over the last several decades, it is needed in the United States policy process because, through it, everyone, regardless of station in life, has the potential to be heard. This potential to be heard is a part of what makes America great!
Works Cited
Everett Dirksen on Lobbying. Senator Everett Dirksen. C-Span Archives. C-Span, 3 Mar. 1963. Web. 11 Nov. 2011 .
Oleszek, Walter J. Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2011. Print.
Sinclair, Barbara. Unorthodox Lawmaking: New Legislative Processes in the U.S. Congress. Washington, D.C.: London: CQ; SAGE, 2012. Print.
0 comments:
Post a Comment