K Street Confidential

K Street Confidential columnist Jeffrey Birnbaum was online to discuss ethical issues affecting the lobbying industry and other questions about the intersection of business, politics and government on Monday, July 10 at 1 p.m. ET .

His column this week, $2 Million Payment to Former Lobbyist Raises Eyebrows, Questions , focuses on the spinning of the "revolving door" between the public and private sectors.

A transcript follows.

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

____________________

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Hello everyone. Thanks for writing in.

Today my column was about the Two Million Dollar Man.

Let me know if you think that's too much to pay a former lobbyist as severance when he goes back into government--to work for a congressional committee his old firm does a lot of business before.

Or let me know what you think in general--about the state of politics and its intersection with the rest of the world.

So, let's get started!

_______________________

Sanibel, Fla.: Yes, Shockey is a shock, even in shockless Washington, D.C. But is this any different than top White House and administration officials cashing in on access to the Executive Branch when they leave their posts? There must be hundreds of those every year. The "earmark" system is just bolder and more visible than most. The barbarians are inside the gates.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Well, I think it's different in this sense: Jeff Shockey left the Copeland Lowery lobbying firm to go back into government. His employer now--the House Appropriations Committee--is key to the success of his former employer, the lobbying firm. That nearly $2 million creates the appearance of a conflict even if the transaction is as innocent as the parties say it is. Or at least that's what the lobbyists I spoke to sent unanimously.

In addition, these seasoned lobbyists agreed that the amount of the payout--$1.96 million--was devised in a way that was much more generous than was customary for such severance deals.

_______________________

Sanibel, Fla.: Jeffrey:

As a follow-up. As rank as the earmark lobbyists have become, how about the burgeoning industry of former FCC commissioners and staff. Their firms make far more then earmarkers for access to the most powerful regulatory industry in D.C., and they don't even have to register.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Thanks for the second question.

The revolving door in Washington spins out many, many similar stories, that's for sure!

_______________________

Anonymous: NO WONDER AMERICANS HATE THE NATIONS CAPITAL?

Let me see. This story is only now getting any publicity in the press. Those Americans must hate the nation's capital because they have bias or a prior knowledge of corruption in the nations capital.

Where is the (R-Ca) identification, so that we can inform Americans who should be 'hated'?

"You've probably never heard of Jeffrey S. Shockey. So, for simplicity's sake, think of him as the Two Million Dollar Man. The 40-year-old congressional staffer last year collected nearly $2 million in severance payments from his former employer, a lobbying firm that specializes in winning benefits from the committee he now serves. Many longtime Washingtonians are shaking their heads in disbelief over the payout's enormous size, its ad hoc method of calculation and the fact that Shockey received it while working as a senior congressional aide."

No wonder Americans hate the nation's capital.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about here.

It's clear that R-Calif. is the designation of Shockey's once and current boss and of his partner, former representative Bill Lowery. Those are in the story--though not in the first two paragraphs.

And the distaste for Washington? Well, I don't know about you, but I've read a thousand stories in this genre before (actually, I've probably written that many). And they are, taken together, an important reason why poll ratings for Washington and Washington politicians are so low.

_______________________

Elma, N.Y.: Stories about in-the-beltway shenanigans may make good copy, but what is the chance for real reform? Recent Congressional history shows that reform proposals usually die a slow death, and voters seem to care more about getting their own than reforming the increasingly corrupt system. Is there any political muscle behind Congressional reform? And if there is, where is it located?

John G.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Glad you asked.

The House and Senate have each passed a version of a lobbying/ethics bill. Neither is very strong and both rely largely on beefed up disclosure.

Despite a promise by the Republican leaders in the House and Senate to finish a bill by July 4, the measure still languishes. The House has yet to name negotiators to a House-Senate conference Committee.

In general, lawmakers believe that voters don't care much about "corrpution" as an issue and anticipate that voters won't give them much credit for cleaning things up even if they try.

So there is a chance that Congress could finish up this year without even bothering to pass a final ethics bill and send it to the President's desk.

If there are indictments of members of Congress, that could change--and quickly. But I sense a complete lack of enthusiasm for the bill, even in the wake of the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal and other infamous misdeeds on Capitol Hill.

_______________________

Indianapolis, Ind.: The founding fathers had some wonderful ideas; it's too bad those ideas didn't work very long. Our democracy has evolved into this "pay to play" system. The system provides and trains for fraud and corruption, packaging viruses that will kill us as "free market, first amendment" rights. Politicians, who now populate all three branches of government, don't listen to people anymore. Only money talks to them. There are more "Duke" Cunningham's out there and many more in training, oblivious to what is happening. The cures were killed in committee, Congressional and corporate.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I know a lot of people feel this way, and I can't blame them.

But a lot of lawmakers are very good people who care about public service. The same for executive branch officials.

And many lobbyists that I know aren't out to steal things. Not at all. They are working for causes they believe in--even if others may not.

The question is: will "corruption" become a compelling political issue in the mid-term elections? I don't yet know the answer, but will be pursuing the question for a good part of this year.

Any thought on that matter? Please write in!

_______________________

Sun Prairie, Wis.: Good day, Jeff. Your Monday column raises this question: how much corruption is taken for granted in Washington?

I don't mean just by politicians (or their staffs), but by the press. It's not quite to the point where corruption that doesn't lead to a criminal conviction isn't news, yet. But it's getting there. With respect to this Shockey matter, what seems clear is that this new, highly placed staffer on the House Appropriations Committee has been bought. Since there is a (barely) plausible alternative explanation, though, even experienced observers of K Street like yourself are talking only of "questionable appearances" and things of that nature.

Forgive me for putting it this way, but though this approach can preserve contacts and keep the Post out of trouble, it is hard to see how it will change anything in Washington. And if it can't do that, what is the point?

washingtonpost.com: Today's K Street Confidential: $2 Million Payment to Former Lobbyist Raises Eyebrows

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I'm not sure I understand your question, but if you are asking why we bother to write about situations like Shockey's even though we can't (and don't) allege criminal activity, then I think you are missing a lot of the point of Washington journalism.

The fact that lobbyists are shaking their heads in disbelief at Shockey's payout is worth writing because they are the experts. And if they smell something wrong, something probably is.

There's a saying in DC: the worst abuses are perfectly legal. That may be the case here.

_______________________

Washington, DC: Jeffrey,

Are congressional earmark requests subject to FOIA inquiries?

Thanks

Jeffrey Birnbaum: FOIA means Freedom of Information Act. And, no,

FOIA requests ferret out secrets from the executive branch of government, not the legislative branch.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: We have seen a lot in The Post about K Street connections to DeLay, Abramoff, Reed, Norquist and some Executive Branch officials but nothing connecting this enterprise to Bush or Chaney. Despite the milieu they oversee could it be they are really "above it all"?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I don't know, but I've read a lot of about connections to Bush and Cheney, including a story last week about Abramoff visiting the White House more than we had heard about before.

And no, I don't believe that any of the characters you mentioned are or were oblivious to the power of lobbying and lobbyists.

Do you?

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Your column today tries to imply that an exit payout by a lobbying firm to a departing member is nefarious. How is that any different than an equity partner in a law firm getting paid when he or she becomes a judge? How much did Chief Justice Roberts receive from Hogan and Hartson when he was confirmed? I'm sure it happens with much greater frequency than lobbying firms. Or do you think that lobbyists should be treated differently than anyone else and not be allowed to have equity in their firms? Would it be better for a federal employee to have a financial stake in his/her former lobbying practice?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: This wasn't a straight up partnership arrangement of the kind you mention. There was not written agreement giving a certain share of the firm to Shockey. If there were, Shockey could have been paid his share, after the firm was valued by an outsider and a hefty discount was applied, and that would have been the end of the story. That's all customary in such departing partnership deals. But Shockey's firm was built differently, as my story details. He got perhaps double or even triple the amount that's standard practice for departing partners in his circumstance, according to the many veteran lobbyists I spoke to.

_______________________

Chicago, Ill.: Legal or not, the payout to Shockey is conflict of interest. The man was getting large payments from his former lobbying firm while working as a Congressional aid.

Under Republican leadership, the Capitol, the place that was once known as the "people's house," appears to have a "for sale" or at least "for rent" sign on it. The whole practice looks like a legal sacking of the Federal Government.

I believe that this incident should do more than just raise eyebrows. It should motivate the press corps to look under the rug and find out what's really going on. It may be that the kind of "slight of hand" that was occurring at Enron, may be going on in the government as well. Comments?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Newspapers have written about the Shockey transaction and will continue to.

Separately, federal prosecutors in Los Angeles are asking hard questions about the connections between Shockey's old firm, Copeland Lowery, and Chairman Jerry Lewis.

That thread will also be watched very closely, I'm sure.

_______________________

Buffalo, N.Y.: What is the current political make up of K Street? What percent are Republicans and what percent Democrats?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I' afraid that's impossible to know. I wish I could be of more help.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: Isn't this really nothing more than graft in advance? And legal graft at that?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: That's the way skeptics have read the payout and Shockey, Lewis and Copeland Lowery all disagree with the characterization.

_______________________

Falls Church, Va.: After reading today's column, I was wondering if you could get your Web site staff to play the song "It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp" while these stories are on screen.

washingtonpost.com: I'll see what we can do about theme music for the future :)

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Thanks for the suggestion! We'll work on that.

_______________________

Pleasant Hill, Calif.: Corporations may be considered as people for tax reasons, but are not people and therefore, do not possess any "right" to freedom of speech.

Can we get public funding of elections, if this point is pressed, and the law clarified?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I don't see public financing in our future absent some horrific scandal.

Voters don't seem to want to subsidize politicians--and who could blame them?

_______________________

Sherman, Texas: The amount is pretty 'shock'ing, but the fact that some of the Shockey clients include municipal areas which are using their public funds to lobby for interests which often are antithetical to the public's interest is even more revolting.

Do you see any movement actually happening toward the cleanup that all of our congresspeople were calling for when the Abramoff affair first was exposed?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Some movement, but not much.

The steam has gone out of the lobbying "reform" effort.

One reason: lawmakers aren't hearing from their constituents.

Do you care out there, or not?

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: I know just about zero about "K Street" but am not shocked by the person's pay. Sounds like envy to me.

I expect that the average person who is not involved will have the same thought. If it were in his contract, so what?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Ok then. Next time, maybe a departing lobbyist go for even more of a buyout! How about $3 million, or $4 million?

Maybe that's the way the get better folks in government service.

Not.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: Want real lobbying reform? Simply prohibit any Congressional staffer or member from being allowed to lobby any member of Congress, staff member, or Executive branch member for 10 years. That way the revolving door would slam shut immediately.

Questions abour freedom of speech are moot, paid speech is not protected.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I'm not sure the Supeme Court would agree with you on paid speech, but your suggestion is duly noted.

_______________________

Harpswell Maine: How about if members of Congress auctioned off ear-marks online with net auction proceeds to go to directly to their personal bank account?

That's essentially the system Republican members of Congress are operating.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I like this one, too. E-Bay earmarks. Sounds very American.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: While there may be some in the lobbying business that are not above par, I think it is important to point out that the public should not hold all lobbyists in contempt and believe all are doing illegal activities. Its akin to saying the entire medical profession is evil if a few doctors are found to be acting inappropriately. Yes I am a lobbyist, and I know MANY other lobbyists who are not only extremely ethical but also are not making big bucks. So cut us some slack and stop assuming the entire lobbying profession is some pack of wolves.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I agree with you, and said so earlier in this chat.

I'm afraid, though, the public doesn't like your profession in general--in much the same way that it doesn't like mine.

I don't see how we can change that deeply ingrained perception.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Shockey's revolving door trips seem to confirm Matthew Continetti's statement in "The K Street Gang" that DeLay turned K Street into co-congressional staff. Do you agree and would the reforms Congress might approve restrict this?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: One version of the lobbying bill would extend the time during which former lawmakers would be prevented from coming back and lobbying Congress. That would help with this problem, but wouldn't solve it, I think. Besides, I bet the final bill won't change the so called cooling off period much if at all.

_______________________

Chicago, Ill,: You mention that the Congressional Leadership (aka, the Republicans in Congress) believe that the public doesn't have much interest in ethics and corruption. I think they're right only because the public doesn't understand what it's costing them. I think if people understood the actual cost of corruption, they would become interested. I think the interest in the Enron scandal shows that once the public understands the costs, and how we're all getting hurt, they'll take an interest. So, Jeffery, get cracking and start working on the equivalent of "Effects of Corruption for Dummies."

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Now that's a terrific idea. Stay tuned!

_______________________

Lancaster, Pa.: My question is just how involved with The K Street Project is my U. S. Senator Rick Santorum? He is up for reelection this year and the answer will affect my vote. Thank you.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Santorum says that he has nothing to do with the K Street Project. But, as I've written before, he long handed out (or allowed to be handed out) at a regular meeting with lobbyists a jobs list prepared by the Republican National Committee. That is what most people consider to be the heart of the K Street Project, which encouraged companies and trade associations to hire Republicans for important K Street positions. Santorum once even allowed a jobs list to be handed out at a lobbyists' meetings after he said the meetings would be ended and he would not longer hand out the lists. The list was quickly collected, however, and its distribution was declared to have been a mistake by Santorum staffers.

_______________________

Re: Do you care out there, or not? : Tell me - just HOW do we do what you suggest? Do you really think the elected ones would listen? They all have their agenda's and I really don't think it is "for the people". They are interested in their booty cash $.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Writing your elected represenative would be a good start. And yes, lawmakers do care--a lot--about what blocs of their voters think.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: I do think that all media/press could/should pay more attention to the key committee chairs, especially the ones who are controlling where our tax dollars go. You note that several lobbyists questioned the deal but did not want to be quoted for "fear of angering Lewis." What exactly do they fear and why? Thanks.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: They fear losing their chance to get earmarked appropriations for their clients. They fear angering the Republican leadership and therefore losing the chance for their clients' to be heard by the congressional majority. These are commercial fears and probably well considered.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: That payment should mark the firm involved and its clients as "red flags" and every earmark they receive given special scrutiny by Washington reporters.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I do think that earmarks in general and Copeland Lowery earmarks are being watched much more closely. Not just by reporters but by prosecutors in Los Angeles as well.

_______________________

Rockville, MD: Not?

I liked Nelson Rockefeller. I had rather have someone with money than not. I want good honest government and want to pay enough that people can stay honest. What about Bill Gates? Could he run for office?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I think Gates has decided that the job he wants is dispensing his billions to charity. He's a country unto himself.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: Re: corruption as an electoral issue - how does this cut? For every Cunningham and Ney (Rs) there's a Jefferson and Mollahan (Ds).

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Yes both Republicans and Democrats have lawmakers under scrutiny by federal investigators. But will the issue cut on Election Day? That is one of the key question of politics 2006 and we don't yet have a good handle on the answer.

_______________________

Indianapolis, Ind.: Corruption will not be an issue in the mid terms. Members of the club have already mutually agreed, as ladies and gentlemen, that they will only damage themselves by advancing public knowledge of this behavior on any agenda for debate. The word has already gone out throughout the major political party organizations to " let's just focus on the issues, the American people elected us to do. Don't bring up anything that makes us all (especially us) look bad, locally and nationally." Jeff, we're headed downhill. To these politicians, burying the discussion is their way of cleaning up politics. You guys in the press are our only hope. Do your job well and don't be intimidated.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Thank you for the kind words of encouragement. We will continue to watch, of course. But I don't share your view about everything being pre-baked as far as the election goes. Voters actually do get to decide. They could decide "corruption" doesn't matter or isn't serious enough to "toss the bums out." Then again, they may decide the opposite and create a wave of change in Congress this November. Who knows? I know that I don't.

_______________________

Los Angeles, Calif.: Why don't you include photos of the individuals disccussed in your stories (a "mugg shot" would be appropriate) and a phone number/email address for the committee on which they work? It would make it easier for the rest of the country to make sure the individuals understand the they hold greedy individuals in contempt, not the entire federal government.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: We tried to find one of Shockey and failed. This morning we were told one was available, so next time we write about him we will try to publish it. But you are correct. The story is better when a photo is included.

_______________________

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Thanks so much for the great discussion.

Let's do it again after my next column in a couple weeks.

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.