| AU experts examine the influence, ethics, and uncertain future of lobbying BY MIKE UNGER Jack Abramoff, black fedora perched atop his head, black trench coat fastened snugly around his body, emerged from U.S. District Court in Washington in early January after pleading guilty to tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials. The disgraced defendant looked more like a mobster sent straight from central casting than a lobbyist, the profession in which he achieved fortune then infamy. It hardly seems possible for any defendant to have appeared more guilty, short of holding a smoking gun. For millions throughout the country, Abramoff’s Corleone-inspired image has become the face of the lobbying industry, an unfortunate reality as unfair as Enron representing all of corporate America. “Lobbying has always been misunderstood and negatively characterized,” exhorts Patrick Griffin, a lobbyist and academic director of AU’s Public Affairs and Advocacy Institute, which under the direction of AU distinguished professor James Thurber has placed more than 140 former students in jobs on Capitol Hill. “It’s unseemly to some folks, but I think it has an important role in our system.” Lobbyist Robert Healy, senior director for Wexler and Walker Public Policy Associates, defines that role this way: “In a formal sense, lobbying is kind of the midpoint between the constitutional right to petition your government and actually getting it done.” What follows is an examination of the industry through the eyes of players with ties to AU. To a person they believe lobbying is a necessary but broken part of the political process, but one that is not damaged beyond repair. Here’s how they’d start fixing it. The Academics
Shortly after Abramoff’s January 3 guilty plea, Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Committee on Rules, picked up the phone and called Professor James Thurber, Washington’s preeminent academic on lobbying. Dreier had just been tapped by House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) to spearhead the Republicans’ lobbying reform effort. “He called me in the middle of my class and said, ‘Jim, can you come down here for lunch to talk to me about the bill?’” Thurber recalls. “I went down there . . . and we sat for two hours and went through the bill. I didn’t write the bill; I just jumped in to help out a bit. It’s the environment. It’s moving forward.” Thurber, director of AU’s Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies (CCPS), started the Public Affairs and Advocacy Institute 14 years ago. The issues that surfaced with the Abramoff scandal have been fodder for his lectures for years. 
Professor James Thurber, left, with Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.). “I talk about the law, but I also talk about the core of ethics and how, if you want to succeed in this town, you have to be a professional,” he says. “One thing you never do is lie. You never spin, even if it may go against your case. It’s important for students to struggle with those values related to advocacy. We have a democracy with First Amendment rights. We have freedom of speech, and we have to be very careful about restricting that. But you have to regulate yourself.” Tom Susman is an attorney at Ropes and Gray, and an adjunct professor at AU’s Washington College of Law. “The Abramoff issue is sort of at the heart of what’s of concern to people in the lobbying world, and that’s the relationship between money and influence,” he says. “He arranged for trips for members of Congress. He had people give campaign contributions to members. He circumvented the restrictions. You say all right, we have money and favors being requested and we have actions taken by officials; that goes on every day in Washington. The problem is that if you have things of value being given right about the time the favors are requested or action is taken, you raise an inference that there’s a quid pro quo. Are there likely large numbers of lobbyists doing exactly those same kinds of things? Yes, there are, but it’s very hard to prove. “You need to draw clear lines for a workable way to separate money and influence, but you can’t get rid of either,” Susman says. “Influence is protected by the First Amendment, and frankly, so is money.” Thurber would start by closing the revolving door that often leads from the floor of Congress to K Street. Forty-three percent of the 198 members who left Congress since 1998 and were eligible to lobby have done so. Prior to 1998, that figure was about 20 percent, Thurber said. Many reformers want to double, from one year to two, the “cooling off” period that bars former legislators from becoming registered lobbyists. In recent years, traffic along the Capitol to K Street corridor has increased markedly. The most prominent case might have been that of former congressman Billy Tauzin (R-La.), who in early 2004 stepped down as chairman of the House committee that regulates the pharmaceutical industry to become the new president and CEO of the drug industry’s top lobbying organization, drawing the ire of several Washington watchdog groups. “It’s a sad commentary on politics in Washington that a member of Congress who pushed through a major piece of legislation benefiting the drug industry gets the job leading that industry,” Public Citizen president Joan Claybrook told USA Today in late 2004. Tauzin was able to make this move by exploiting a loophole that allows former members to immediately head associations, as long as they don’t directly lobby members, Thurber said. “I think it creates distrust in government by the American people,” he says. “We have a fragile democracy, and if you dissipate trust in democracy, it’s very hard then for the institution to implement policy and have it accepted. Most Americans think Congress is corrupt, that lobbyists are corrupt; they don’t think of it as First Amendment rights, and that’s bad. It undermines democracy, and I don’t think there’s anything bigger than that.” Despite the lumps taken by the lobbying profession in recent months, Thurber remains convinced of its relevance in the legislative process, and continues to teach his students an honest and ethical lobbying model that he believes produces results. “The most effective lobbyists in town have coalition building, advertising, they have blogs, Web sites, they use e-mail. They also have issue campaigns,” he says. “They [succeed] because they have grass roots, top roots, and Astroturf. Grass roots, they have people out there. Top roots, they can mobilize them. They have leaders out there, leaders in every little town in America. They have state offices everywhere. Astroturf, that means fake top roots. They can mobilize people. They are most effective, not because of money, but because of people. People can vote. “If you want to have a successful lobbying operation, grass roots, top roots, and Astroturf is one of the most effective ways because you’re going to scare somebody, and they’re going to think that they’re not going to get reelected if there’s a whole lot of organized people in the district,” Thurber says, his voice growing with excitement. “That’s the ultimate power in a democracy, to fire somebody, not to reelect them. “Every generation that comes along seems to distrust Congress more and more. We need to have more transparency, and have people start to trust the process, and know that most people are clean, they’re not pushing the line.” continued next page >> top |
