Surprise! Lobbying Industry Grows Along With Government
Cato's David Boaz catches a Naderite speaking the truth:
"…the amount spent on lobbying . . . is related entirely to how much the federal government intervenes in the private economy."
It's a fairly obvious point, yet it flies in the face of two consistent leftist policy goals (or at least stated leftist policy goals): more federal involvement in the economy, and less influence on the federal government by lobbyists. Not surprisingly, health care interests are doing the most active lobbying right now, just as Congress and Obama are pushing a major overhaul of the health care system. As Boaz notes, lobbying firms are already salivating at the coming windfall over the climate change debate.
All this money the private sector is spending to influence how the laws are written is money not spent on developing new business plans, R&D, or otherwise contributing to the broader economy (though it does contribute to D.C.'s). It's part of the cost of major new government initiatives that isn't generally considered.
I think lobbyists get a bad rap. Sure, most of them are spineless and unprincipled. That doesn't make them any different than most people in Washington. But I can't begrudge anyone who wants to spend $1 million to prevent the government from enacting laws or regulations that are going to cost his business $10 million. Everyone wants to denigrate lobbyists. But they're really only conduits between the governing and the governed. If there's something sleazy about what they do, it's because politicians and policymakers apparently respond to sleaziness. Lobbyists exist because the government has put power on the table to be divvied up in the first place. The way to reduce the influence of lobbyists in government is to reduce the influence of government everywhere else. Nothing else is going to work.
Of course, that's never going to happen. So instead, the solution from both parties, though it's generally more supported by Democrats, is to restrict the right of individuals, groups, or businesses to have a say in how the government operates, be it through campaign finance restrictions or stricter lobbying rules. Put another way, they want to pass unconstitutional laws limiting political speech so they can better pass unconstitutional expansions of government power that aren't tainted by the appearance of impropriety.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I made this point in an academic setting while GWB was still fucking things up and Obama was just getting started with the lobbyist rhetoric.(he's been really popular among academia in Saint Louis since his IL senate days) I was summarily laughed at and told if Clinton/Edwards wins it will be lobbyists as usual and if Obama wins they will be, "run out of DC." Oh silly leftist academics.
I guess common sense is just too complicated for some.
Lobbyists are what lobbyists are. I wouldn't say they are any more spineless and unprincipled than a lot of other professions or people.
Ok, guess my first comment was deemed unworthy and was banished. I'll make my point in a different manner. The typical response to this is that we simply must have the right kind of people in power who are "immune" to special influence. They're right over there, next to the unicorn.
Lord Acton, your party is on line one. Paging Lord Acton...
Why don't ya'll learn, when Obama says something he means the exact opposite. Lobbying is part of the industry. Half the shit Washington does is done to milk lobbying dollars for ex-congressmen and their cronies.
I'm shocked, shocked to find that lobbying is going on here!
Your check sir Mr. Libertate.
Glad we had that talk Pro. See for tee time at 9am tomorrow?
hello sir,
i like your comment and your discussion of this topic is very awesome topic of teachers because in this era there is most appropriate role for students and carrier is depend on the teachers.
administration jobs in london--administration jobs in london
namishasingh, you wouldn't happen to be related to an incredibly wealthy member of Nigerian royalty, would you?
"they want to pass unconstitutional laws limiting political speech so they can better pass unconstitutional expansions of government power that aren't tainted by the appearance of impropriety."
well put
You know, that's a good point. And here's another: it's the elected representatives taking the rent-seeking capital, at least in the form of wining and dining. I think the solution is rather clear here. Keep the lobbyists, get rid of the legislature.
You want to pay me for my support? Fine, you get my single vote, and I'll sign a contract stipulating such. Anyone's free to do the same with anyone else, or represent themselves and whoever else will let them.
And wasn't this the candidate who promised to not have lobbyists in his administration? Hum!
And wasn't this the candidate who promised to not have lobbyists in his administration?
They're *ex-*lobbyists, duh!
No, they're *reformed* lobbyists. Now in 12 step programs and all that.
I think lobbyists get a bad rap. Sure, most of them are spineless and unprincipled. That doesn't make them any different than most people in Washington. ... If there's something sleazy about what they do, it's because politicians and policymakers apparently respond to sleaziness.
I can personally vouch for the unashamed sleaziness of at least one lobbyist. And it wasnt because of politicians. It was because he was just an amoral scumbag.