K Street Confidential

K Street Confidential columnist Jeffrey Birnbaum was online to discuss the revolving door between lobbying groups and the government.

Read more in today's colum: Shutting the Revolving Door on Sudan .

A transcript follows .

K Street Confidential appears every other Monday in the Washington Post business section.

____________________

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Hello all,

Thanks for writing in.

Lobbying legislation will be on the Senate floor this week. The House will be moving soon.

There's a lot of consider and talk about, that's for sure.

Please feel free to ask about as wide a range of things as you wish. Lobbying covers a lot of territory.

So, let's get goin'.

_______________________

Denver, Colo.: I am hoping you can settle a dispute. I know a hardcore Republican who is bound and determined that the Abramoff scandal is a bipartisan issue. I believe that I read somewhere that the Indian Tribes that donated money to Harry Reid actually donated less money to him while they were clients of Mr. Abramoff than they had in the past. Do you know if this is true or the best way for me to find this information? Thank you for your time.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Thanks for the question.

I don't know the direct answer to your question: whether Reid received less from Abramoff's clients after Abramoff took over the account.

I do understand the overall debate about partisan or bipartisan. So far, Republicans have been the target of Abramoff related, publicly known and officially sanctioned accusations.

Abramoff and his former partner Michael Scanlon have pleaded guilty. Abramoff's plea agreement mentions a Republican congressman widely identified as Bob Ney, a Republican from Ohio, and a couple GOP aides. Scanlon is a Republican, having worked on Capitol Hill for Tom DeLay.

Also, Randy "Duke" Cunningham, last week sentenced to jail, is a Republican involved in matters that are completely separate from Abramoff, but nonetheless have been discussed in the same breath.

Also, in a separate inquiry, a Democratic congressman, Bill Jefferson of Louisiana is being looked at for possible accusations of wrong-doing, as the Post has reported.

The question is then: will only Republican get whacked in the wake of Abramoff? So far, it looks that way, but things could change.

Bigger question: Will the public see the scandal issue as Republican and punish Republicans at the ballot box? Or will all incumbents be pained with the same brush? Or, third, that the public won't care one way or the other.

Those questions are still very much up in the air.

Hope this helps.

So, Republicans are involved--so far. What we also know is that Democrats did have funds directed to their campaign from Abramoff's team. There are certainly some questionable events and interactions that Democrats had with Abramoff and his lobbyists.

_______________________

Sanibel, Fla.: The Dubai port issue raises interesting lobbying questions. Bessides Vin Webber, Bill Cohen, President Clinton, Bob Dole, Madeline Albright, who else is working for them? There are many DC lobbyists who work CFIUS issues, including Richard Perle and Frank Carlucci.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Sounds like you know more about this than I do.

I didn't know that Bill Cohen was involved. I know that Madeleine Albright's firm has helped Dubai Ports World on China issues and that it did recommend that the Dubai firm needed lobbying help and suggested Downey McGrath, a well-regarded Washington firm now working for Dubai Ports World.

Weber, I think, has done work for Dubai, but not Dubai Ports World directly. At least that was the last I heard.

CIFIUS, the committee that checks on foreign investment in the U.S., is a much bigger issue than Dubai Ports World and there are lots of lawyers who have that in their practice.

Dole is lobbying the Bush administration, not Congress, according to a statement from his office. That's the interesting one, I think.

The Democratic Party of North Carolina has complained about Mr. Dole's lobbying since his wife, Sen. Elizabeth Dole, will be involved with legislation on the matter. The Doles say there's no conflict and Mrs. Dole has said she has serious questions about the deal.

Nonetheless, the issue does remind us how close inside Washington can become.

_______________________

Ken Caryl Valley, Colo.: Enjoy you on the tube.

Your opinion on Gingrich's op-ed piece that proposed no fund raising within the District of Columbia? Sounds like a bonanza for northern Virginia and southern Maryland. My wife is CEO of a $7 billion corporation, and we get dunning/begging letters from every "pol" whose committee assignment has anything to do -- however remotely -- with her business. And you want to guess how many invitations to fund raisers we get from out-of-staters? How about this -- no Congressperson may solicit funds outside the boundaries of his/her district or, for Senators, state? It would work for me.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Thanks for the kind word.

And yes, your proposal has stirred a lot of interest. A good friend of mine who says she's not a lobbyist but deals with Congress a lot has said she likes the idea quite a bit of allowing only donations from inside a district or state.

And, truth be told, it has a lot of surface appeal.

Then again, some districts have more donors than others. You would probably see a rise in the number of rich people running and winning who can self-finance. Also, the biggest boon for the middle class in giving is Internet contributing and that would be cut out under the proposal.

That said the proposal might be Constitutional and would certainly spark a lively debate. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like Congress is going to be campaign finance issues at all.

The lobbying issue is being kept so far within the lobbying and lawmaker realm. Campaign donations aren't being discussed. Experts have told me that will leave out of the equasion many of the most significant "reforms" and that's too bad.

_______________________

Yarmouth, Maine: Hi Jeff,

Thanks for your time.

How do we (the US) break the stranglehold of the lobbyists on the US and many State governments? I contend it is unhealthy when a democracy places so little importance on elections - and such great influence on lobbyists. It seems corporations have more influence and more rights than citizens.

Here's a factoid: Sourced from the book "Perfectly Legal" who got their data from the GAO: In 1960, 40% of US gov't revenue came from Corporations. In 2002, that identical figure is between 8% and 9%. Does this seem fair? - among other things, it certainly exemplifies the influence from K street.

Thanks, Steve

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I get many inquiries from people who agree with you.

The part that I agree with most is that lobbying and lobbyists are bigger now than ever and wield a great deal of influence. More than ever.

It's not just corporate lobbyists. I made that mistake early in my career. There are all sorts of interests that have power and exercise it thoroughly.

As for why corporate tax payments have fallen so much as a percentage, more than growing corporate influence is to blame. But, I agree, that's a big part of the reason.

Maybe I will look more closely into that question and write a story. Thanks for the idea.

_______________________

Lorton, Va.: What role did Abramoff have in postal reform legislation, which is pending conference action on the Hill?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I am sorry. I must utter three words you almost never hear from a Washington person:

I don't know.

_______________________

E. Lansing, Mich.: Do you think anything will really be accomplished to decrese the stranglehold of the lobbyists on our political process? Or will the changes be mearly cosmetic?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I think that both of your questions are a little too strong.

I don't think lobbyists have a stranglehold. They are much more influential than ever. In fact, they are stronger in ways that are different in quality as well as quantity.

But they don't dictate outcomes for the most part--at least not yet.

The changes in train on Capitol Hill are more than cosmetic. So far at least, earmarks are about to be made harder to get and easier to discover. The revolving door will probably swing more slowly. And there will probably be a lot more disclosure about how lobbyists and lawmakers interact.

Those are noteworthy and, in some cases, significant.

They will not change the power of lobbyists, however. That will continue to be strong and will probably grow. There's just too much money at stake in Washington for lobbying not to thrive no matter what Congress does.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: What kind of reforms can Congress make to limit lobbyists like Robert J. Cabelly from working with governments Congress doesn't agree with? And how do you make that kind of law in a land of freedoms so that it doesn't infringe on civil liberities or people's right to offer advice and do business?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Thank you for this excellent question.

Barring lobbying isn't possible. It's a right protected by the First Amendment.

What Frank Wolf, the Virginia congressman, would like to do is require top former government officials to stay away from lobbying activities, especially in their area of expertise, for a long time after they leave government.

That's a common device to cut down on the so-called revolving door. Lawmakers now can't lobby their former colleagues for a year after they leave Capitol Hill. The pending Senate bill would double that to two years.

Certainly Congress can bar lobbying for certain governments, I guess, if they are officially deemed the enemy. But short of that, such cooling off periods would be a way to discourage cashing in on government expertise.

That, at least, is Rep. Wolf's hope.

_______________________

DC lobbying: Oh great. We don't have a vote, and now we aren't allowed to donate to anyone?

Yeah, that's a great idea. Let's not restrict junkets or other goodies. Let's not make the numbers public, and require a public release of a meeting agenda. And lord knows let's not lower conribution limits.

Lets make sure DC residents are screwed! What brilliance.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Ah, another country heard from.

You are correct, though. I didn't address that part of the earlier question. Sorry.

Preventing fundraisers in the District of Columbia would lead to more fundraisers in the suburbs. I agree.

Other proposals, though, would prevent registered lobbyists from raising and/or giving funds. Those are serious, or at least would be if Congress were open to debating campaign fundraising laws this year.

Which they don't appear likely to.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: Obviously the Jack Abramoff scandal has brought a lot of attention to the lobbying industry, but it seems like the issues being brought up in Congress about lobbying are common sense. So why did it take a big to-do like Abramoff and now Cunningham to get the country's attention? Surely politicans have been unethical before now!

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Congress is best at reacting, not acting on its own.

In all matters, lawmakers often need a crisis, or at least a very serious situation, before they find themselves pushed enough by public opinion to change entrenched ways.

The Abramoff and Cunningham cases fit that description. Other scandals in years' past have led to previous "reforms."

Such is the way things work in the nation's capital.

_______________________

Lobbying not to Thrive: Simple. Public financing of campaigns. Thus endeth the problem.

Barring that, reduction of donation limits to $500/person, per candidate would do wonders as well.

There are answers...you folks just don't like them.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I don't know exactly which folks you're talking about. But taxpayers have often reacted badly in polls to public financing. They don't like the idea of paying for politicians' campaigns.

The lower limits is certainly worth debating. The last time Congress changed campaign finance laws a few years ago they increased the limits so lawmakers could spend less time raising the money they needed. They also exchanged the higher limits to ending so-called soft money to the political parties.

Then again, time has passed. Why not try lower levels?

The only trouble is that money seems always to find a way into the system, especially the big bucks.

_______________________

Rome, N.Y.: Has anyone noted that the hostess of the infamous hunting party was a lobbyist? How is lobbying in the executive branch regulated?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Executive branch officials have stricter limits on them about gifts and travel than do members of Congress.

As for regulations on lobbying beyond that, it's all pretty much a free for all. LObbyists are supposed to say if they lobbying the executive branch but they don't have to give much detail.

And yes, everyone who read the stories about Cheney's accidental shooting would have seen that a hostess was a lobbyist.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Since he's retiring from the House, do you think Bill Thomas will go into lobbying ("counseling" for the first couple of years, of course)?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I don't know what he will do. He could certainly make a bundle as a lobbying or "counselor."

He might also want to go into the Bush administration in some capacity.

It is common for top former lawmakers to do a variety of things, including some lobbying-like work, and I wouldn't be surprised if Thomas goes that route if he doesn't stay in government somewhere.

He is one of the smartest lawmakers in Washington, but is not very well liked. He can be abrasive.

He is term limited as chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee at the end of this year so continuing to work as a lawmaker wouldn't be that much fun or exciting for him, that's for sure.

_______________________

don't like the idea of paying for politicians' campaigns: Polls are great. If you spin the question in the way you just did, of course they won't like it.

Now try this one...

"Would you support changing the present system of special interest and lobbying firm finaincing of political campaigns for a public one, where a specific federal dollar amount is given each qualifying candidate?"

Betcha the polling would be a bit different.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: You may be right. But spinning the words isn't the best way to find out what people really think. Direct questions posed without too many qualifiers would probably produce a better and more usable response.

_______________________

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Thanks everyone for writing in.

I look forward to our next discussion, probably in a couple weeks after my next K Street Confidential column appears.

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. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.