Lobbying is an ideal profession for a student of Jefferson, which I am. It was Jefferson who wrote Madison to say "I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive." Since much of what lobbyists do is prevent government from becoming too oppressive, lobbying is a very Jeffersonian pursuit.
This creates a natural conflict with those groups which favor the active government that Jefferson so feared. Those groups, who proclaim their support of active government by labeling themselves "activists," have made it an annual rite of spring to call for more government control over lobbying. Ironically, in so doing they become lobbyists themselves.
That suggests a revealing question. What, exactly, is a lobbyist?
Most people picture a lobbyist as a well-paid, well-dressed agent of a wealthy company, and many do fit that description. But that's only one part of the picture.
To balance those corporate lobbyists you will find union delegates. In the high-ceilinged halls outside our Legislative chambers - lobbyists are, after all, actually found in lobbies - you will find agents of heavy industry positioned next to back-to-nature environmentalists. There will be champions of young and old, rich and poor, people with medical afflictions, and those whose job it is to heal them. You will also find those self-styled "activists."
You might define a lobbyist as someone who represents special interests. The trouble is, all of us have an interest we consider special.
|
 | | Quote from Thomas Jefferson |
|
Every Spring the State's Commission on Lobbying reports the total amount spent on lobbying in the previous year, and the report is inevitably followed by a call for "reform" by the activists. The amount spent on lobbying increases every year by about the same percentage that the state's budget and its overall economy increase. Yet this is seen as evidence of the need for "reform." The activists always imply that an increase in lobbying expenditures indicate that government is for sale.
While activists imply that government is for sale to the highest bidder, the facts belie this notion. The largest single amount spent on lobbying last year was the $1.8 million spent by New York Life Insurance Company. They still failed to achieve their number one goal. If government were really for sale, as the "reformers" want us to believe, then the highest bidders would always get what they want.
The reform proposals themselves are revealing. One pretends to solve the imagined problem of government for sale by prohibiting Legislators from holding fundraisers during the Legislative sessions, but allowing them to hold fundraisers when the session is over. This makes no sense. If government were actually for sale, how would forcing Legislators to raise money in the off session change that problem?
Another proposed reform demands that lobbyists wear visible identification tags, an idea eerily akin to the medieval practice of making lepers wear bells, to warn away all who came near.
Also high on the list of reforms is a proposal to require that lobbyists report the numbers of the bills they work for or against, rather than broad areas of concern they report today. This betrays a basic misunderstanding of the process. Because lobbyists are an important source of information in the legislative process, they are often able to influence proposed legislation before it is even introduced. Bills that haven't been introduced don't have numbers, so changing the current requirement in the name of reform would deny the public valuable information that is now available. Listing broad areas of concern demands that lobbyists provide information which is more useful, even though it is less specific.
The fact that these reforms are nothing of the kind doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement. The state's lobbying law expires this year, and it should be reauthorized in its current form before the legislature adjourns this summer.
There is also one action the Lobbying Commission should take, and it only requires the Commission catch up with modern technology, not a change in state law. The periodic reports every registered lobbyist must file should be converted from paper to computer software. Reports could then be filed by computer modem and downloaded to the Lobbying Commission's website. It would then be available for immediate public inspection, rather than waiting for staff to compile and publish reams of paper reports.
It would be an actual improvement, not a sham masked in the guise of "reform."
So how would Jefferson view lobbying today? It's hard to tell. He detested Hamilton and Burr, both of whom did some lobbying during their careers, but his objections were for personal and political, not professional reasons.
In the end he would probably seek the same thing as today's lobbyists: reasonable government, rather than an energetic and oppressive one.
