Prime Group

“We haven’t immediately eliminated the influence of lobbyists in Washington.”
President Barack Obama, March 24 White House press conference

What was expressed as a Presidential regret should, in fact, be cause for celebration by Americans of all political persuasions. And I say that as an unabashed Obama enthusiast—I backed his candidacy, was honored to be at his inauguration and applaud what he is trying to accomplish to secure and improve our nation’s future.

But, on the subject of lobbying, Barack Obama is wrong substantively, and he is close to being reckless rhetorically.

The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution assures, without qualification, the right of Americans, “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”. Citizens have long enlisted the assistance of others to seek such redress on their behalf. Lobbyists—often paid but not always—exist to do just that.

Beyond that guaranteed right—which ought to be enough to end any argument—is another reality: Most public policy issues are such that few lay citizens have either the time or the expertise required to decipher, and then alter, legislative or regulatory language. Lobbyists have precisely that expertise, and it is as legitimate a skill as oratory or litigating a case in a courtroom.

Days before his most recent press conference, the President wrote to the heads of federal departments and agencies:

“Upon the scheduling of, and again at the outset of, any oral communication (in –person or telephonic) with any person or entity concerning particular projects, applications, or applicants for funding under the Recovery Act, an executive department or agency official shall inquire whether any individuals or parties appearing or communicating concerning such particular project, application, or applicant is a lobbyist registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. If so, the lobbyist may not attend or participate in the telephonic or in person contact, but may submit a communication in writing.” (emphasis added)

Among other things, the stated goal of these guidelines is to prevent what the White House considers to be “undue influence”. It argues, in effect, that any oral communications by a “registered” lobbyist on behalf of his or her clients is, by definition, undue influence; whereas oral communications by others—governors, mayors, corporate CEOs, labor leaders, Hollywood celebrities, non-lobbying lawyers, or campaign contributors (we can assume), and others are perfectly acceptable.

Thinking I must have missed something, I re-read the First Amendment; I found nothing that suggests that the right “to petition… for a redress of grievances” is limited to non-lobbyists. And, as I thought about it more, I remembered another time when people were asked, under oath, “Are you now or have you ever been…..?”

It is here where I think the President—who, by all appearances and accounts is quite smart, decent, and steady—is veering into dangerous territory. To single out a class or category of citizens for condemnation or isolation simply because of their class or category is—or ought to be—wrong.

The late and legendary California politician, Jess Unruh, once talked about the preferred relationship between legislators and lobbyists—and I will clean it up some and apologize as well for its obvious sexism— “If you can’t come up here (to Sacramento) and eat their food, drink their liquor and date their women and then vote against them, you’ve got no business being here!”

No one, including President Obama, has figured out how to legislate or regulate character. A good member of Congress—or a good federal agency executive— needs to have as part of his or her qualifications for the job a functioning “BS” detector, a commitment to check and verify, and the strength of character to either politely say “No! We’re not going to do that”, or not so politely, throw the occasional bad actor out the door.

It would also be good if the President were to keep in mind that his White House—and every federal agency—has an office of Congressional or Legislative Affairs. In those offices reside the Administration’s non-registered lobbyists, men and women who work every day trying to obtain Congressional approval of the President’s program. Moreover, if it hasn’t happened yet, I can assure the President and his advisers it will: When push comes to shove, Members of Congress will be wooed—with visits to the White House, to the Kennedy Center, to Camp David. And the harder sells will include conversations about public works projects, campaign help, and judgeships, among other things.

Undue influence? Maybe. Necessary to make representative democracy function? You bet.