Monday, January 23, 2006; 12:00 PM
K Street Confidential columnist Jeffrey Birnbaum was online at Noon ET, Monday, Jan. 23 to discuss the state of lobbying in Washington.
In today's
 |
A transcript follows .
Birnbaum also recently wrote an analysis of the proposed Congressional lobbying bills:
____________________
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Hello everyone.
Lobbying is "in" or, I guess, "out," depending on your point of view.
Certainly, it's a hot topic.
So let's get right down to it. Thanks for writing!
_______________________
Arlington, Va.: There has been much written about lobbying reform but not much, if anything, written about the influence of Congressional spouses who lobby - yet fail to register as lobbyists.
Do you think Congress has the guts to address the matter of undisclosed influence peddlers who also enjoy the privileges that come with a Congressional spouses pin?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Sounds juicy. I know of lot of congressional spouses who lobby, and childen of lawmakers, too. But I don't know of any who lobby but didn't register.
If you know of any please let me know.
_______________________
Fairfax, Va.: Why is The Post covering the Abramoff scandal primarily as a problem about our political fundraising and lobbying system to the exclusion of Abramoff's role as a Republican operative on a mission to gain and keep Congress under Republican control in perpetuity? If I am wrong please cite one Post article that focuses on how what Abramoff has done has systematically benefitted Republican efforts to maintain American as a one-party state.
washingtonpost.com: To read The Post's coverage of Jack Abramoff, click
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Well . . . we have written that Abramoff gave his own money, and raised plenty of money, for Republicans.
We also have said that he directed his clients' money to both Republicans and Democrats.
He was as committed as any Republican lobbyist to the GOP cause, and maybe more so. But not to the exclusion of getting things done, which require bipartisan efforts.
_______________________
Orlando, Fla.: Why not make lobbyists be more visible in the Capitol?
Perhaps they could be required to wear bright red jackets. Then when TV cameras take pictures of a hearing the public would see who is paid/paying to sit there. Constituents visiting the House or Senate would see the lobbyists meeting Senators or Congressmen. Visibilty might make some elected officials think twice before ushering them into his or her office.
Jeffrey Birnbaum:
Funny.
Maybe they should wear a red-colored L.
Just kidding.
Lobbyists have every right to lobby, and they should be permitted to do so without such humiliations.
_______________________
Woodbridge, Va.: Is it true that the Republicans proposed ban on third-party paid travel only applies to groups that are registered as lobbyists? If so, that would make the ban toothless since we know that Abramoff had no problem creating sham non-profits that were used as fronts for his lobbying efforts.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: I am not aware that the travel ban would touch lobbyists only. To the contrary, it already is illegal for registered lobbyists to pay for lawmakers' travel directly. The proposed ban would apply to privately paid travel of any sort--except for travel paid for (in-kind or indirectly via campaign contributions) through electoral fundraising efforts.
That exception of course is a gaping loophole in the current regimen of proposals.
_______________________
Brooklyn, N.Y.: Hi Jeffrey-
There's a lot of controversy brewing as to whether or not Jack Abramoff "directed" money to Democrats. What are your thoughts?
Along similar lines, why can't we see the entire graphic entitled "A Lobbying Machine?" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2006/01/18/GR2006011801026.html
Do you know how much Mr. Abramoff's Indian clients gave to Democrats before he started representing them versus afterwards? Is there any report on that story?
THANKS!
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Don't know the latest numbers.
But Abramoff, in conjuction with his lobbying team, did direct tribal contributions to both Republicans and Democrats.
Republicans overall got about twice as much as Democratic candidates for office.
There's not a lot of dispute there.
_______________________
Silver Spring, Md.: Mr. Birnbaum, it seems you -- as well as other journalists at establishment media outlets -- have an enorous potential conflict of interest in reporting and commenting on this story. If grassroots restrictions make it more difficult or imposible for groups like the National Right to Life Committee, or Cindy Sheehan, or labor unions to raise funds, organize, and be heard, that means establishment media will enjoy a greater share of speech and opinion. This fact may not bother you, but it is a giant conflict of interest, wouldn't you agree?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: A very good point, which I would translate as follows:
If non-press groups are restricted in their ability to express themselves, doesn't that give disproportionate advantage to established press outlets?
That's one of the many arguments that I think will keep large scale efforts to squeeze money out of the system from happening this time around.
I think, though, that more disclosure about grassroots activities would be in order and wouldn't abridge any First Amendement rights.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Why aren't the existing disclosure requirements enforced more stringently? For instance, lobbyists are required (under the House-Senate Guidance) to disclose the bills they work on (by number and title) and their interest in those bills. Yet, many of the reports I've seen DON'T have such detailed disclosure. Abramoff's are a good example. The "what I lobbied for" is all of about three words. Clearly not sufficient disclosure, don't you think?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: The enforcement of all these matters is in the hands of well-meaning employees of the House and Senate whose job is not to make trouble for their bosses--the members of Congress.
That must change if any serious policing is ever to happen.
The congressional ethics committees would also have to become more active in enforcing rules. Right now their job is to try to keep lawmakers out of trouble, not put them into any--no matter how terrible their violations.
_______________________
Virginia: Does the Washington Post have a lobbying contract? A legislative attorney? Do they sponsored congressional reception? What happnened if your reporters came into contact with congressional staff for social only?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: I assume that the Post lobbies. But I don't--for the Post or anyone else--nor do any of its reporters.
_______________________
Virginia: Mrs. Daschle for example. a lot of people are sacred of her because of whom her husband is/was.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: I believe that Mrs. Daschle was (and maybe is) a registered lobbyist, not an unregistered one.
_______________________
Germantown, Md.: Why do the House and Senate have TOTALLY separate public disclosure systems for the lobbying reports? Can't these guys come up with ONE system that works?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: It is one of the most ridiculous, self-defeating and easily solved of the many lobbying disclosure problems out there. Let's hope that the new lobbying law will add some real teeth and some real oversight to the new rules and end the haphazard system you speak about.
_______________________
Cheverly, Md.: I disagree strongly with the premise of your article:
Money, even in great amounts, only lubricates the edges of the political machinery. The strongest lobbies (NRA, AIPAC, pro/anti-abortion groups) are not those that dispense cash a'la the oil industry, but those who can deliver a substantial number of One-Issue Voters. These groups will stop having influence (and stop grossly distorting the mainstream of politics) ONLY when we act to stop the district gerrymandering that has resulted in a US House with only 20-25 competitive seats. In Washington, it is and always will be about votes and power and not money. Money is a sideshow - not immaterial, but not the biggest problem by far.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: I'm not sure I agree.
Money buys votes, or at least the ability to round up enough of them to win elections.
And as for keeping change away from Congress, I don't believe things are that set in concrete.
Voting often happens in waves and a wave can wash change, sometimes huge change, into a legislature no matter who tightly gerrymandered it appears.
That's a possiblity in 2006.
_______________________
History Question: To your knowledge, has there ever been a member of Congress who refused to accept contributions from lobbyists? If so, how effective were such members?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: I know there are members who don't accept PAC contributions.
Yours is a good question. I don't know off hand any who refused money from registered lobbyists.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Have any of the members of Congress who have proposed changes to the lobbying rules consulted with the respective bodies' Committees on Ethics, to your knowledge, to see if the proposals actually make 'operational' sense? Or are the proposals an attempt to grab headlines?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: There's been a lot of consulting with insiders and outsiders.
Will the changes work? Who knows.
The history of such things is that Congress will over-react, leave huge loopholes and foster many unintended consequences.
That will probably happen no matter how many people are consulted.
_______________________
Rochester, N.Y.: You write "We also have said that he directed his clients' money to both Republicans and Democrats." Is there any evidence that he directed money to Democrats? Or is that just something that is easy to say and keeps the Republicans off your back with their "bias complaints"?
The charts I have seen (many of them on your website) say that many of Abramoff's clients gave LESS money to Democrats after they hired Abramoff than they did before.
Is it fair to conclude that this issue is just too complicated for reporters and that rather than get at the truth, they find it easier to repeat simplistic fallacies? Is that the lesson here?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: I wrote a story on the subject.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Follow-up to question about existing authority to enforce the 1995 Act:
Actually, the House Clerk's office and the Senate Secretary's office have NO authority to enforce the Lobbying Disclosure Act. All they can do is refer matters to the Justice Department.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Yes, but they do write letters to people whose filings need help in some way. That's a subtle form of enforcement.
_______________________
Portland, Ore.: It seems to me that the problem isn't lobbying, but money associated with lobbying.
A lobbyist hosts a fundraiser, perhaps provides air transportation, etc. seems more like a kind of bribery than any kind of advocacy.
Are we just always going to be stuck with this? Is there any good way for a representative running for office can accept a donation and also listen to an argument on a cause?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: There are lots of proposals out there.
Restricting lobbying donations, making contributions anonymous, having instant and complete disclosure of all giving and the like.
Maybe there isn't a perfect way but there are plenty of good ones.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Mr. Birnbaum,
Amen to your column this morning. As a lobbyist who plans to keep an eye on these so-called reform measures, it's ridiculous to think reform can happen without talking about the continued influence of money. There are some offices on the Hill that won't talk to you until a personal and/or PAC check magically shows up at the re-election headquarters. If Congress want real reform, ban DC fundraisers for those Members outside the metro area. I would love to send my PAC checks to my association's members and have them attend the events in their congressional district or state.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: You may get your wish.
_______________________
Arlignton, Va.: Do you find it riduculous when politicians claim they're going to clean up Washington and reduce corruption. I imagine what they really want is their name of a bill to be used in their next campagin commercial, which will be funded by the same people the bill is targeting. Historically, money and power have always been glued to the hip. I think it would be impossible to find an example of a nation state in history where that was not the case. Why do we kid ourselves that a new law is going change that centuries-old relationship?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Hope springs eternal.
_______________________
Sanibel, Fla.: It has been estimated by Larry Noble and others that lobby industry expenses, as opposed to actaul billings, are anywhere from five to ten times the $2 plus billion reported under the Lobby Disclosue Act of 1995. If true, this makes the lobby industry several times the amount spent to run the Congress and White House combined. Does this suggest that the lobby industry is the most powerful force in Washington?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: I'm afraid that may be true these days.
As for getting the correct number, that's why disclosure of grassroots lobbying would help, don't you think?
_______________________
Eldersburg, Md.: Why is Abramoff the fall guy? Does anyone think the casino investors were just a bunch of innoncent people? And as for the pols, they'll walk off with a slap on the wrist. This is more beltway fodder. I think Jimmy Hoffa would have laughed himself to death before doing something so stupid.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: We haven't seen the end of this scandal. Don't assume who will get off and who won't.
This might become one of the largest congressional scandals in history. Stay tuned.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Jeffrey,
Sometimes looks help too and not just money.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Fair enough.
And there are plenty of meritorious parts to the proposals, especially on disclosure.
_______________________
Rochester, N.Y.: How realistic is to think that anything in the congressional/lobbying world will change without a real change in House leadership (whether that be replacing Hassert and Blunt with other Republicans, or by putting Democrats in charge of the House in November)? Will the lobbying "reforms" suggested by the Republicans change anything in and of themselves? (I won't ask about the Democratic bill since it has no chance of being passed).
Thanks.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: We're about to find that out. We're about to get several new leaders in the House and their devotion to "reform" is a big issue in the race.
_______________________
Sunland, Calif.: Has there been any talk of having an independent commission study the lobby situation and come up with suggested changes in the law to fix things?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Yes, there is such a proposal, but it sounds more like a stalling tactic to me than a serious effort to improve things.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Other than Abramoff, Safavaian & Scanlon, who do you expect to be the next few victims of this scandal, in the next few months?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: This is just a guess: Watch for staffers-turned-lobbyists as the next victims followed soont thereafter by lawmakers themselves.
_______________________
Alexandria, Va.: It seems to me that any lobbying reform proposal that depends primarily on "disclosure" is far too weak. The current disclosure rules provide little information to the public, can not be verified by any third party, and have no enforcement mechanism for registered lobbyists or their clients who are in violation of House and Senate rules--which only apply to members of Congress and their staffs. My idea for real reform would be an independent regulatory commission akin the Federal Election Commission. This bipartisan commission would require more specific reports from lobbyists about the nature of their contacts with government officials (including the White House and executive agencies), the money spent on those activities, and their clients. Most importantly, the commission would have rulemaking and enforcement authority over lobbyists, as long as those rules were not an infringement on 1st Amendment civil liberties. Why has nobody in power proposed anything like this yet, when many state governments already do it?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Well, that is precisely one of the options being discussed to police the new rules and laws under consideration.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Another follow-up: The House and Senate letters ONLY deal with whether or not a line was skipped or a form not filed. They NEVER look into the two essential elements of the existing disclosure system: (1) How much was spent on lobbying? or (2) What did the lobbyists actually lobby on. Doesn't it make sense to give Congress some authority to audit the reports and check to make sure that both the money disclosed and the issues worked are actually accurate?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: That's why I think a more elaborate and tough enforcement system needs to be imposed.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Instead of focusing all of their attention on lobbyists and their activities, why not put the onus on Members of Congress to disclose the meetings they have with lobbyists/constituents/interest groups? After all, it is the Members and their staffs who are entrusted with protecting the public's interest not the lobbyists.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: A lovely notion.
But don't hold your breath. This is a beat-up-on-lobbyists season.
_______________________
Mt. Pleasant, D.C.: Why the concern about travel? Does anybody really believe that a Congressional vote can be bought with a trip to an offshore oil rig -- even if it includes a really delicious dinner?
I guess I'd like to think that even the U.S. Congress is not that cheap of a date. What concerns me more is how many Members have never left the country before.
Education is not such a terrible thing, methinks.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: I agree in part. Votes would be bought cheap in exchange for such favors. But not many average folks can offer such amenities, so the system, as always, is skewed in favor of those who can afford to offer the gifts.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Is new lobbying legislation really needed? It seems that the issue lies with the enforcement, or lack thereof, with the current laws.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Better enforcement is essential. But Congress also wants to beef up disclosure as well, and that would be a good idea. So, why not let them do it?
_______________________
Williamsburg, Va.: Dear Mr. Birnbaum,
I can understand that asking lobbyists to wear a red jacket might be pushing it too far however, what about lobbyists wearing some kind of sign indicating who they are lobbying on behalf? I worked for a nonprofit lobbying group this summer and I'm sure they and many other such groups would have no objection. It is only organizations who are using illegal forms of lobbying to get their legislation passed that would. I think the American people deserve to know who their representatives are listening to.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: That's why extra disclosure will be part of the legislation that will pass pretty soon.
_______________________
Anonymous: What is the difference between a registered lobbyist and a unregistered lobbyist? Is there a rule/law/regulation that one has to be registered?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Yes, there are lots of rules about who must register. In my view they are too constricting. There are thousands and thousands of people who lobby but don't have to register. The definition should be widened beyond those people who either lobbying lawmakers directly or prepare those who do, which is essentially the rule about who must register.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: What websites could you suggest that provide for transparency regarding lobbying? An example is opensecrets.com, for fundraising.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Yes, that's a good one and so is politicalmoneyline.com
_______________________
Cheverly, Md.: The Post and others have written articles portraying the Casino-running tribes as hapless victims of Abramoff. My impression, however, is that inefficacy was not one of Abramoff's many flaws. The Inidans ponied up so much money because he delivered clear and positive results for them. Is there some abusive side (excepting his derisive remarks in private) to the Abramoff-Tribal relationship that is not clear to me?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Abramoff pocketed millions without providing services, according to his plea. He may have gotten a lot done, but not as much as he was charging for.
_______________________
Fixed in two words: Public financing.
Viola. Establish public financing of political campaigns and all of this goes away.
The rest is just so much hoo-ha.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: That's one view.
Problem is that voters probably won't much like paying the bills for politicians. And all sorts of money will inevitably flow into the system from other angles, which will keep things off balance.
That's simply the way of the world. Money finds its level in politics.
_______________________
Anonymous: Call me cynical but wasn't the whole point of the K Street project and redistricting to ensure power stays in republican hands, even if there is a scandal of historical nature? There was a story in the Post the other day about how the public wasn't interested in the story.
Unless FOX and talk radio discuss it I'm afraid the project will be successful.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Well, I work for Fox News as a contributor, so I'm glad to hear how much clout it has.
More seriously, there are lots of aspects to power. Money is a very very big part. Then again, the voters decide.
_______________________
Southern West Virginia: Newt Gringrich is no hero of mine. I can't stand the man. He is a "family values" hypocrite if ever there was one, but his idea to allow contributions to candidates to come only from their constituents is the best suggestion so far!
That should be the rule from Dog Catcher to President.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: There may be a few First Amendment problems with that one, but it's an idea that will get a hearing this year. Sadly, lammakers appear addicted to money as their way to keep power, so it's future is in doubt.
_______________________
Washington D.C.: Personal experience tells me that campaign contributions, even dinners, airtravel etc. do not "buy" votes. It may warp access. But what it really does is buy a place on the House/Senate calendar. The ability of groups to set the agenda with the leadership is a far bigger problem. It even puts the leadership in a conflict of interest. I have personally seen the leadership make their own Members walk the plank (as in there is no chance of passage) just so an association executive can get out a newsletter. The impact of these things is far more intense on the respective party leadership than the rank and file.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: I don't want to oversell those things either, but access is influence in the nation's capital.
_______________________
Sunland, Calif.: So when do you think we will see some legislation on this matter get passed?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: By March or April for final passage is my guess.
_______________________
Lobbyists Vs. Congress: Is the problem that lobbyists are buying the votes of Reps and Senators, or (as it seems to me) is the problem that Reps and Senators are buying the votes of their constituents? Pork-barrel spending is done not to reward lobbyists but to get money back to their districts. Ted Stevens' Bridge to Nowhere is an unabashed vote-buying scheme. Abramoff should be so brazen.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Good point, the buying is all around.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: To follow-up on the question about who must register, the existing law has a 20 percent threshold that says if you spend less than 20 percent of your time lobbying then you don't have to register. Also, the law specifies that associations and other nonprofits don't have to register unless ONE of their employees spends 20 percent or more of their time lobbying. These things make sense, but again, there is NO oversight, so those who claim the 20 percent exemption are never challenged.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Thank you for the clarification.
_______________________
Silver Spring, Md.: George Will made a nice point the other day saying that voters themselves bear much of the blame for such things as earmarks, as they tend to vote for the legislators that bring money back to their district. Couldn't a similar argument be made that the reason money buys such influence in Congess is because voters are too lazy to pick up a newspaper before an election, and instead rely upon expensive, misleading television advertising, the most significant campaign expense? At some point, don't citizens themselves have to acknowledge their role in the system?
washingtonpost.com:
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Yes, the best way for voters to say "enough is enough" is to vote. Sadly, voting rates have gotten better lately but still are too low.
_______________________
New York, N.Y.: Sumptuary Laws, which were part of the ancient regime of King Louis XV, required people to dress in clothes appropriate to their stations and positions at court. So maybe it's not such a bad idea for lobbyists to identify themselves to Congress and to the public. It would be funny, though. (Althouth red ties and blue shirts may just do it.)
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Red ties and blue shirts won't be distinguishing. What about red shirts and blue ties? Just kidding.
_______________________
West Coast: Can we expect to see Policy Think Tanks and Universities locate small offices at world-class resorts and golf courses, so "educational" events could be held there for politicians?
Also, we can expect GOP lobbyists to sprinkle small donations to damn near every democrat in congress to insulate against the next scandal?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: To the first, those would be off limits in the travel ban goes through (though they sound like fun).
And yes for the second. If it looks like Democrats might gain more seats in Congress, the money will flow more to them.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: What is the prognosis for earmarking legislation regarding lobbying reform?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: There'll be something, but exactly what is hard to understand. More hearings and few narrow projects would be my guess.
_______________________
Money finds its level in politics: Not with the other half of that. Make election/campaign finance violation come with a mandatory sentence of at least 10 years in jail, with Life being an option.
This ain't private sector white collar crime. This is the subversion of our system of govt. and the democratic process. Arguably Treason. Let's stop treating this like a class D misdemeanor.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Harsh. Don't count on it.
_______________________
Arizona Bay, Ariz.: Since you work for Fox News atleast admit that it isn't really "fair and balanced." Hannity, O'Reilly, Hume, etc DO NOT give equal time to BOTH sides of a story.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: If you look narrowly at any one segment or host in any media outlet you might find things that are less than balanced. But overall I defend Fox News vigorously. It offers terrific, fair coverage on many many many topics and is much better than its competition. Brit's show is by far the best political show on TV.
_______________________
Harrisonburg, Va.: Hey, I'm with the guy who suggested the red jackets. So, if the red jackets will humiliate these people, at least have them wear a 3x5 namecard with Lobbyist indicated. If they're registered, then they should be proud to wear the Lobby Label.
I'm a teacher. I wear a 3x5 that tells my principal who hired me that I am not a terrorist trolling his school for victims. If I have to wear a label, then so should lobbyists.
And tourists should wear a Tourist badge.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: The idea is yours so you may have your say. Cheers!
_______________________
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Gosh, I had way too many questions to answer this time around. Thanks so much for that. Let's chat again soon, probably after my next column in a couple weeks. All best and cheers!
_______________________
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
