Following up on proposed
Congressional ethics legislation, lobbyists in Washington are indicating that any new ethics laws passed will be little concern to them. What sweethearts...
Some of Washington's top lobbyists say that they expect to find ways around congressional efforts to impose new restrictions on lobbyists' dealings with lawmakers in the wake of the Jack Abramoff corruption scandal, and that any limits will barely put a dent in the billions of dollars spent to influence legislation.
...
"I wouldn't classify those changes as major," said Dan Danner, executive vice president of the National Federation of Independent Business. "Between charitable events and fundraising events, there will still be lots of ways to get in front of members [of Congress]."
...
But many lobbyists said they consider these bills more of a nuisance than an impediment to their ability to work their will. (Washington Post) {Emphasis mine}
Thats a big slobbery raspberry followed by a full throated round of "na...na...na-na...na, you can't stop me." Their effrontery is unsurpassed. Richard Reeb thinks this is okey dokey, remarking that "lobbying is free speech." (
Claremont Institute)
1 Lobbying, in strict basic terms, is indeed free speech. Its not the lobbying, per se, thats problematic, but moreso the admission fee. The lobbying efforts of most Americans, usually a phone call or simple letter, have very little impact unless accompanied by the green glow of legal tender. The greener the glow the greater the influence. What the lobbyist industry does only remotely resembles lobbying, but is more aptly termed "bribery."
Bill Moyers touched upon the magnitude of this during his March 14, 2006 speech at Wake Forest Divinity School.
Read the entire speech, it is very much worth every minute of the time spent on it.Some simple facts:
The number of lobbyists registered to do business in Washington has more than doubled in the last five years. That’s 16,342 lobbyists in 2000 to 34,785 last year. Sixty-five lobbyists for every member of Congress.
The total spent per month by special interests wining, dining, and seducing federal officials is now nearly $200 million. Per month.
But it’s a small investment on the return. Just look at the most important legislation passed by Congress in the last decade.
There was the energy bill that gave oil companies huge tax breaks at the same time that Exxon Mobil just posted $36 billion in profits in 2005, while our gasoline and home heating bills are at an all-time high.
There was the bankruptcy “reform” bill written by credit card companies to make it harder for poor debtors to escape the burdens of divorce or medical catastrophe.
There was the deregulation of the banking, securities, and insurance sectors, which led to rampant corporate malfeasance and greed and the destruction of the retirement plans of millions of small investors.
There was the deregulation of the telecommunications sector which led to cable industry price-gouging and the abandonment of news coverage by the big media companies.
There was the blocking of even the mildest attempt to prevent American corporations from dodging an estimated $50 billion in annual taxes by opening a P.O. box in an off-shore tax haven like Bermuda or the Cayman Islands.
In every case these results were driven by the demands of Big Money in the form of campaign contributions and the cost of lobbying. (TomPaine)
We must ask, whom does this so-called lobbying benefit and whom do our elected officials really represent? Sure, there are a number of lobbyists that serve the public's interest, but the organizations they work for are simply outgunned by the high dollar business lobbies. They cannot adequately compete because the playing field is horribly skewed. Total lobbyist spending rose from $1.4 billion in 1998 to $2.2 billion in 2004. (
opensecrets.org) I'm not sure how much more of this "free" speech we can stand.
Moyers further addressed the obscene sums of money necessary to run for public office.
The average cost of running and winning a seat in the House of Representatives – the so-called “People’s House” – now tops one million dollars. The chairman of the Federal Election Commission said just this weekend that anyone who expects to run for the nomination for president – the nomination – in 2008 will need to have raised one hundred million dollars by the end of 2007. That money isn’t going to come from regular folks – less than one half of one percent of all Americans made a contribution of $200 or more to a federal candidate in 2004. No, the men and women who have mastered the money game have taken advantage of this fundamental weakness in our system – the high cost of campaigns – to sell democracy to the highest bidder. (TomPaine)
see also (Washington Post: Money's Going to Talk in 2008)
To be exact, 0.39% (1,141,183) of the US population donated $200 or more and 0.09% (256,861) gave $2,000 or more. According to opensecrets.org, "less than two-tenths of 1 percent of the U.S. population gave 86 percent of all itemized campaign contributions for the 2004 elections." (
opensecrets.org) This is far, far, far from equal representation, and certainly reaches new levels of audacity to say that this is promoting the common good.
The Washington lobbyist is not seldom more fortunate than the Washington claimant. -Mark Twain
The Guilded Age1 The Claremont Institute is a neo-conservative think tank following in the philosophical footsteps of Leo Strauss. (
Wikipedia)