An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right

In Defense of Lobbyists

Ben Smith has an interesting item on Congressman-and-Obama-booster Adam Smith’s tip-toe defense of former lobbyists.*

Rep. Smith makes a good point, and we should all (including Sen. Obama) be duly cautious about painting all lobbyists with the same brush. Qualitatively and quanititatively, “lobby” is not a four-letter word — nor is it a reliable indicator of evil. For every Jack Abramoff, there are two or more ethical, civil, decent people who ply their trade lobbying.

Trust me: I’ve met and worked with several of them. In fact, seasoned staff in the House and Senate will confirm that the best lobbyists are not those who take a scorched-earth approach to pushing their clients’ interests. To the contrary, the best are those who are willing to tell their clients, “No,” as in “No, you’re not going to get everything you want, so let’s get realistic and talk about compromise, about what you can live without.”

Moreover, while I’m not a full-time lobbyist and never have been, part of my charge (in the job for which I actually earn a paycheck) is communicating our company’s perspective to elected officials at the local, state, and federal levels. In a sense, when doing that, I’m “lobbying.” Similarly, in a volunteer capacity, I’ve lobbied for the interests of families who deal with Tourette Syndrome, for lesser restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research, for campaign finance reform, and so on. In short, any time that any of us contact an elected official to make a point, we’re lobbyists.

For all these reasons, Senator Obama would be well advised to follow Rep. Smith’s lead, making sure he appropriately qualifies his remarks on lobbyists and former lobbyists, separating the worthwhile, honorable, freedom-of-speech practice and practitioners (paid and unpaid) from those who are purely in the game to manipulate the system and enrich themselves, no matter what the cost. Otherwise, the good Senator from Illinois may very well discover either that he’s facing a shortage of qualified staff or that his words have returned to haunt him.

—————-

* To the best of my knowledge, Ben and Adam are not related.



opinions powered by SendLove.to

2 Responses to “In Defense of Lobbyists”

  1. [...] ProudProgressive wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptIn Defense of Lobbyists May 21st, 2008 by PETE ABEL, Assistant Editor Ben Smith has an interesting item on Congressman-and-Obama-booster Adam Smith’s tip-toe defense of former lobbyists.* Rep. Smith makes a good point, and we should all (including Sen. Obama) be duly cautious about painting all lobbyists with the same brush. Qualitatively and quanititatively, “lobby” is not a four-letter word — nor is it a reliable indicator of evil. For every Jack Abramoff, there are two or more ethical, c [...]

  2. runasim says:

    It's not the lobbyists that cause the problem per se. It's the suspicions aroused about what they get in return for giving time, advice or money to an election campaign. Suspicions may be totally groundless, as you point out, but they can't be easlly assuaged. That's why the appearenace of impropriety is often stressed nearly as much as actual mpropritety. when a code of conduct is being developed.

    It's not about being fair or unfair to certain individuals. It's about preserving the honor of an office, or, like in this case, trust in elections and politics.

© 2003-2011 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Mode Equity