The Capitol's Culture of Capital

By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Monday, January 23, 2006

If you think lawmakers are about to crack down on lobbyists, think again.

Sure, something called lobbying reform will slice through Congress like a warm knife through butter. But don't expect the legislation to transform how Washington works.

The only way to achieve fundamental change is to reduce the influence of money. Anything short of that is window dressing.

Unfortunately, superficial alterations are all that most lawmakers will accept. To go deeper and attack the capital's cash-driven culture would threaten what they care most about: getting reelected.

How else to explain the craziness on Capitol Hill?

Members of Congress are falling over themselves to denounce Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist who pleaded guilty to conspiring to bribe lawmakers and bilk his clients. They say they want to prevent Abramoff-like scandals in the future.

Yet a lot of what they're suggesting would do nothing of the sort. Abramoff and his business partner, Michael Scanlon, have admitted to violating laws that were already on the books. In other words, not a single new rule or statute is needed to serve as a deterrent to others for the crimes they committed.

So why are lawmakers so eager to act? One word: politics.

Republicans are desperate to pass something -- anything -- that appears to clear the capital (and, more importantly, themselves) of the Abramoff odor. Before the next election in November, Abramoff is likely to implicate a half-dozen GOP lawmakers and lobbyists. So the more distance the party can put between the lobbyist and Congress, the stronger are its chances of retaining its majority.

Democrats are pushing their own lobbying bills largely as a way to publicize that Abramoff is a Republican and that the lawmakers he ensnared in controversy are for the most part Republicans, too. The more the Democratic Party can dirty the GOP with Abramoff fallout, the stronger are its chances of regaining majority control.

All of which leaves the question of how to actually fix the mess in Washington pretty much beside the point.

Hence the recommendations we see. The plans offered by both parties deal too often with petty issues and sidestep anything life-changing. And the concerns that are addressed are dealt with ineffectively.

The most severe-sounding proposals would ban or sharply restrict travel and gifts, such as meals, given to lawmakers by outsiders. These provisions have moved to the forefront of the effort because Abramoff flew lawmakers to golf outings in places such as Scotland and feted them free-of-charge at his since-closed restaurant Signatures (so named because it was near the National Archives where the Declaration of Independence is housed).

But both proposals are minor in the scheme of things. According to PoliticalMoneyLine.com, Congress's 535 members on average went on only two privately paid trips last year, the same average as in 2004.

What's more, the peak annual cost of those travels, in 2003, reached only $3.9 million, a pittance compared with almost anything the government does. The annual federal budget is $2.5 trillion .

As for the meals ban, that, too, would represent a minuscule infringement compared with lobbyists' many other, much more potent methods of persuasion.

Lobbyists and their clients annually pour billions of dollars into sophisticated grass-roots lobbying campaigns, lobbying-related foundations and think tanks, and lawmakers' reelection coffers. That's where the real power is applied. But not a single senior lawmaker is suggesting cutting back any of those advantages.

Besides, the current gift rule is supposed to deprive lawmakers of lavish dinners. Anything more than $49.99 per sitting or a cumulative $99.99 per calendar year is prohibited. The problem is that the rule is routinely violated because no one enforces it. Short of creating a restaurant police, it's hard to see how an outright ban or a lower limit would change anything.

Except maybe for the worse. As I've written before, the bans wouldn't be airtight. In practice, lobbyists -- or anyone else from outside Congress -- could still pay for lawmakers' travel and meals. All they'd have to do is make those gifts part of fundraising events and, voila! , the transaction would be just fine.

As hard as it may be to believe, lawmakers would be allowed to accept a dinner or a trip only if the sponsors also handed over checks for their reelection campaigns, which would underwrite the fun. That specter, of course, would only add to the horrible reputation that the Abramoff cash-for-favors disgrace has already given them and would run counter to everything they say they want to accomplish.

Which isn't to say that nothing in the bills is worthwhile. On the contrary, the Abramoff affair is being used as an excuse to beef up what has long been an anemic disclosure regimen for lobbyists.

Abramoff obviously disregarded reams of existing disclosure requirements, so it's doubtful that additional regulations would make any difference to criminals like him. Nonetheless, the public (and reporters like me) would benefit mightily if Congress approved a vast expansion of lobbyists' public reports. Democracy functions better the more completely voters are informed about their government.

We should all welcome more detailed and more frequent reports online that tie all of lobbyists' financial giving to their lobbying activities. Thank you, Mr. Abramoff, if that happens.

In addition, a few proposals in the mix would make a major dent in business as usual. But in typical fashion, not all of them will make it through. One notable-but-troubled initiative from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) would force lobbyists for the first time to disclose their public relations and grass-roots activities, which is the largest type of lobbying. Pressure is mounting inside and outside Congress to reject the provision, thus raising the possibility that the fastest-growing part of the influence industry will remain a dark secret.

The House Republican plan also apparently has yet to embrace the curtailment of one of the true outrages of the lobbying world: lawmakers' use of corporate jets. McCain would force members of Congress to pay the charter rate for use of those planes, which would effectively end the practice. But the House bill, as far as we know, would continue charging lawmakers only the cost of a first-class ticket for the extravagant gift, a price that's a tiny fraction of the actual cost of a nonstop corporate flight.

Instead, lawmakers are vilifying lobbyists, which is a little like picking on trial lawyers (at least in a PR sense). They're completely avoiding the real problem: money, money, money.

"These proposals don't go to the heart of the matter," complained Thomas J. Downey, a former Democratic House member from New York and longtime head of a lobbying firm. "To leave the public with the belief that members are all good and lobbyists are all bad begs the essential question of what is wrong with the system. What's wrong is the money flow."

Analysts see two significant ways to squeeze Washington's growing addiction to money. The first is instant and total disclosure via the Internet of all funds expended to affect legislation, regulation or elections. On the theory that sunlight is the best disinfectant, this option would proscribe nothing, report everything, and let the voters decide what's acceptable and what's not.

The second option, pressed by pro-government activists who doubt that "everything" will ever be reported, would limit how funds can be spent or collected. This group would radically reduce or even ban lobbyists and lobby groups from raising or giving funds to Washington-related endeavors, especially elections. Some would also cap what candidates can spend. Their ultimate goal is to replace privately funded elections with taxpayer dollars.

A hybrid notion would make campaign donations anonymous. Assuming that contributions would somehow stay anonymous, the money would not provide anyone or any interest any additional clout. Then again, it's hard to know how multimillion-dollar gifts to independent groups, such as 527s, could ever be shielded in this way.

Each of these ideas has deficiencies -- constitutional, practical and otherwise -- but reform advocates say some combination of them is needed.

"If Congress doesn't reform fundraising, lobbying reform will be meaningless," said James J. Blanchard, a former Democratic congressman from Michigan and now a sometime lobbyist. When he served in the House in the 1970s and 1980s, he devoted 10 percent of his time to raising money. Now his successors use up 50 percent, and the people they shake down for the dough most often are -- you guessed it -- lobbyists.

"It's a total obsession and a tragedy," Blanchard said. Unless that's changed somehow, he added, so-called reform is "just tinkering at the margins."

Jeffrey H. Birnbaum writes about the intersection of government and business every other Monday. His e-mail address iskstreetconfidential@washpost.com. He will be online to discuss proposed lobbying law changes noon today athttp://www.washingtonpost.com/business.