Candidates Taking Aim at Lobbyists

By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 15, 2006

The dirtiest word on the campaign trail this year is "lobbyist."

In close contests from Connecticut to California, Republicans and Democrats are attacking each other for getting too close to "special interests" and lobbyists. The accusation, a longtime election staple, is carrying greater heft than usual, election experts agree, thanks to the guilty plea of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff in January and the recent e-mail scandal of former representative Mark Foley (R-Fla.).

"The lobbyist has become the prime caricature for having too much power in Washington," said Evan Tracey of TNS Media Intelligence/CMAG, a nonpartisan research firm that monitors political commercials. "Lobbyists and special interests are the biggest bogeymen of this election."

Candidates and independent organizations have run more than 300 political ads suggesting that the incumbents, the challengers or both have been co-opted by narrow interests or, worse, have actually lobbied. Many more such ads are planned in the tightest House and Senate races.

In one congressional district in eastern Florida, each candidate has tried to lay the taint of lobbying on the other. Rep. E. Clay Shaw Jr. (R) upbraided his Democratic rival, state Sen. Ron Klein, a lawyer, for working as a lobbyist at the local level -- a suggestion that Klein dismissed as "a personal attack." In response, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) bought ads accusing Shaw of championing special aid to drug companies in Medicare legislation.

Maryland's Senate contenders, Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele (R) and Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin (D), have also traded insinuations in TV ads that the other is too sympathetic to "special interests."

Lobbyists have never been popular, and Democratic leaders have signaled for months that "corruption" would be central to their assault on the GOP. But as ethical misdeeds on Capitol Hill have multiplied, politicians of both parties are betting big that voters will reject candidates who appear to be too involved with professional favor-seekers.

"First there was Abramoff; now there's Foley," said Paul A. Miller, president of the American League of Lobbyists, a lobbyist trade group in the capital. "Corruption has risen to play a major role in this election, and lobbyists are a target."

Allegations of lobbying are as likely to come from Republicans as from Democrats. In the rematch of Rep. Michael E. Sodrel (R-Ind.) and former representative Baron P. Hill (D), Sodrel disparaged Hill for joining a D.C.-based lobbying firm last year rather than returning home after his defeat for reelection. "It speaks volumes about him," said Cam Savage, Sodrel's campaign manager.

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) has been attacked by her Republican opponent for sponsoring more than $11 million in earmarked appropriations for the clients of Ron Dotzauer, a former boyfriend, current campaign adviser and head of a lobbying firm.

"This is a year in which Congress has been rocked by scandal, much of it between members of Congress and lobbyists," said Elliott Bundy, spokesman for Mike McGavick, Cantwell's challenger. "We have discussed how her connections to this lobbyist have affected her official duties."

Democrats berate Republicans for their lobbyist connections with equal vigor. The DCCC put up ads in Arizona against Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R) that charged him with taking more than $4 million in contributions from "lobbyists and special interests." And in California, a group called Americans for Conservation went after Rep. Richard W. Pombo (R) for advocating the sale of public land "after mining lobbyists threw him a fundraiser."

The DCCC also paid for TV ads against Rep. Nancy L. Johnson (R-Conn.) that asked, "When Washington special interests wine and dine Nancy Johnson, what do you think they talk about?" The punch line: "It probably isn't you."

Tracey said dozens of similar ads are playing across the country. Portraying politicians as being in the thrall of unpopular interests, he said, "is an easy catch phrase that seems to work," especially in what is shaping up as a year in which many voters are dissatisfied with the federal government.

Millionaire candidates who are funding their own campaigns are particularly heavy users of the anti-lobbyist theme. Typical is Jim Pederson, the Democratic business executive running for Senate from Arizona. His slogan is "Nobody's Senator But Ours." In one of his commercials he proclaimed: "I'm even willing to finance much of my campaign with my own money to keep my independence from special interests."

Polls suggest that expressing such disdain could be a winning tactic. The latest USA Today-Gallup survey showed that no other issue topped "corruption in government" as Election Day nears: 86 percent of those asked said that corruption will be either important or very important to their decision at the ballot box -- the same percentage that named the Iraq war as important to them.

Democrats have a clear advantage on the issue, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll this month. When respondents were asked which party they trusted to handle various issues, Democrats led Republicans on ethics by 19 points. The chief reason apparently is that most of the lobbyists and lawmakers caught misbehaving -- including Abramoff and Foley -- are Republicans.

But no one has welcomed an accusation of excessive coziness with lobbies and lobbyists; candidates invariably cry foul for fear of the political fallout. Cantwell's campaign has said the senator was helping her constituents with the controversial earmarks, not Dotzauer. Other lawmakers on the receiving end of such attacks also say the ads overlook the good intentions of their public service.

Lobbyists believe they have been wronged as well. The American League of Lobbyists sent letters and press statements to Republican and Democratic campaign committees complaining that the attacks against it are unfair, and also hypocritical because the parties are constantly leaning on the league for contributions. "If you think we're the biggest problem in the system, return our money," league president Miller said. He said no one has taken up his challenge.

Nonetheless, whenever lobbying becomes an issue in a race, both sides react quickly. In Missouri, Democratic Senate candidate Claire McCaskill aired an ad that inquired about Sen. James M. Talent (R): "What kind of a person takes $280,000 from oil companies, then gives them $14 billion" in legislated benefits? The National Republican Senatorial Committee shot back that the commercial distorted the senator's "record more than a fun-house mirror ever could."

In Minnesota, both candidates for a House seat have expressed queasiness about the lobbying that was done by a railroad to secure federal loans, including help it received from Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.). During the two years before his election to the Senate in 2004, Thune was paid $220,000 to lobby for the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad. As a senator, he proudly championed the railroad's effort to expand a federal program so that it could be eligible for a record $2.3 billion loan to assist its expansion in Minnesota.

In the district that includes Rochester, Minn., Rep. Gil Gutknecht (R) said he is "troubled" by the process that led to the law's change and intends to negotiate the best deal he can for his constituents. His Democratic challenger, Tim Walz, said he wants the law rescinded and has made his opposition a focus of his campaign.

"Lobbyists are writing the legislation that's going through," he charged. "This is a breakdown of government in general, and the people are appalled."