First of all, they should be called advocates, not lobbyists.
The long-suffering lobbyist is once again the center of attention as new reports surface about the role they are playing in the senate life and campaign of Sen. John McCain — the presumptive Republican candidate for president.
In a story first reported by the New York Times, it is alleged that McCain, a man who holds himself up as the epitome of character and integrity, is far too close to a number of Capitol Hill lobbyists. They have not only had extraordinary access to him in Washington, but they populate the upper tiers of his presidential campaign. When the Times’ story broke, the emphasis was on the suggestion that McCain got too close to one lobbyist in particular and that his staff feared the relationship had become romantic.
As is often the case, the news media and the political world focused too much on the relationship and the search for a smoking gun and not enough on the real story, which boils down to personal integrity.
An Advocate’s Baggage
Back to the long-suffering lobbyist: men and women who advocate for causes before legislative bodies and the executive branch and administrative agencies of state, local and federal government. Many of them are lawyers, and it is in the spirit of an aggressive counsel that they make their case on behalf of their clients. They charge for their services, which may explain their willingness to suffer the social stigma of the term lobbyist and all the baggage that comes with it.
The term lobbyist is rarely used as a term of endearment. “My grandmother, God bless her soul, was the best lobbyist and made excellent bran muffins with raisins.” You never hear that. You are much more likely to hear the word lobbyist used with the same knowing contempt as used-car salesman, IRS agent or politician. Some do nothing to challenge their reputation. One Hartford lobbying partnership advertises itself as, “The gun you bring to a knife fight.” There is no subtlety there.
Lobbyists, by definition, are not bad. While some advocate for unpopular causes, like oil drilling in Alaska, others advocate for things like heating assistance for the poor (that two such lobbyists would probably be on opposing sides could be the subject of another column). There is nothing inherently wrong about advocating on behalf of either issue. There are legitimate arguments to be made for both, and the right to petition our government extends to the right to hire someone to help you make your case, even if it is unpopular.
Money And Influence
Everyone fears the corruption that might flow from the practice of paid advocates trying to move government in one direction or another. The combination of money being used to influence policy leads to the scrutiny of cynics, and sometimes the cynicism is well placed. Obviously, there are some lobbyists who push too far. More often than not corruption emerges not as a result of an advocate making an argument, but as the result of an elected official failing to stay true to his oath to serve the people over any one special interest.
Our desire to make lobbyists the smoking gun at the root of all that is wrong with government allows us to turn away from a more complicated problem of human nature that can’t be solved by regulation.
The McCain story in the Times was about his self-claimed ethical purity. The lobbyist at the heart of the story was only a test of that purity. Lobbyists are a symbol of our system’s short-comings, not the cause.
Dean Pagani is a former gubernatorial advisor. He is V.P. of Public Affairs for Cashman and Katz Integrated Communications in Glastonbury.
