K Street Confidential

K Street Confidential columnist Jeffrey Birnbaum was online to discuss the intersection of business, politics and government on Monday, Oct. 2 at 1 p.m. ET .

Birnbaum's Oct. 2 column discusses how many e-mails sent to Congress through lobby groups' Web sites end up in an electronic trash bin .

The transcript follows.

____________________

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Good Day!

Thanks for writing in.

Let's get started. There are a lot of questions to answer!

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: Bill Oldaker, a lobbyist and bigtime fundraiser for Dems, was hired by former lobbyist who is now a top House Appropriations Committee aide, to provide ethical advice about his move back to the Hill. Oldaker also lobbies for earmarks. Doesn't that constitute a flagrant conflict of interest? I.E, how can Oldaker provide arms-length ethics counsel to a guy who can help determine the fate of his earmarks requests?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Oldaker is a respected member of the campaign-finance/ethics bar in DC. If a lawmaker needs a lawyer, he or she often goes to Oldaker or someone like him. I am not aware that Oldaker lobbies for earmarks. If he does, then you are correct: there is probably a story there. And I will ask him. But otherwise, I don't see that much of a conflict.

Conflicts occur all the time, by the way. The best way to deal with them is to disclose them, if they cannot be avoided entirely.

_______________________

Pasco, Wash.: Thanks for taking my question. Scandal Scandal -- Where does the WH lobbying report go from here. Is there any follow up to verify that spending was actually made and whether any of the staff who reportedly got tickets, etc. violated any rules?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I'm not sure which lobbying report you are referring to. Could you please write back and let me know? I would be happy to answer.

_______________________

Reston, Va.: What do you think of the republican reaction to Foley?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: No one can say that the GOP reaction to Foley was flawless.

It was, in fact, very poor.

The Republicans should have taken more aggressive action earlier. I can understand why they didn't; the initial e-mails were weird but tame. And the leaders did the right thing by questioning Foley about them.

But they should have looked further, and they didn't. As a result, when the more graphic instant messages turned up on Friday, Foley had to resign and the GOP leaders were not only blindsided, but also looked like they didn't care enough to ask tougher questions.

The entire incident is being seen by Democrats as a metaphor for the Republican-controlled Congress. They say that Foley's resignation is a fitting last day of session before Election Day. History will show us--one way or the other--if they are correct.

_______________________

Dallas, Tex.: The intersection is between the lobbyist (representative of business) and the office holder, be he legislator, administration or Jurist. How can we make that a legitimate, legal intersection, with no money involved, ever?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: The only way is to impose public financing of elections and to bar private donations.

To many, that's an attractive notion. But it probably has Constitutional problems (limiting free speech) and also has this additional political problem: voters don't want to pay for politicians' elections.

It's a solution that nobody wants to choose.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: On washingtonpost radio a few minutes ago you mentioned that the report you mention in your column today has generated more negative reaction than any other study you've reported on... why do you think people are so upset?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: The Web site companies whose e-mail systems were tested are the entities who were angry.

They were angry at being exposed, or angry at being unfairly accused, or both.

But they sent me plenty of e-mails last week as I was preparing the column. They complained that the study was too small and unfair.

As a result, I only used the single, most important finding of the study--that six of the ten largest Web site companies that put together e-mail programs for lobby groups fail to deliver even half of the e-mails sent through their sites.

I didn't point out which companies did best or not well under the study because the study's details were disputed. Instead I used the evidence that e-mails were having trouble getting through to launch into a broader discussion about the issue of constituent communications.

_______________________

Pittsburgh, Pa.: Isn't email good for contacting Congress? I thought the Congressional Mgmnt Study said it was?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: E-mails that are written by a person and clearly so are ok. Program produced e-mails are less so.

The study also showed that a lot of the staffers who have to deal with the torrent of e-mails think they are fake. That belief is what is behind the widespread effort in Congress to shut down e-mails that come through any method other than a real person going onto the lawmaker's Web site.

Lawmakers are trying to discourage people, in effect, from going to the Home Builders or the trial lawyers' sites and send e-mails through those places. The lawmakers strongly suspect that e-mails generated from those places are computer generated.

The interest groups deny that charge. But perceptions carry a lot of weight in these matters.

_______________________

Shady Side, MD: All this talk about ex.-U.S. Rep. Foley, but what is the status of charges against sitting U.S. Rep. Jefferson who was taped accepting bribes?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: For Jefferson: he is under investigation but no charges have been leveled against him.

And for Foley, same answer.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: I heard your radio interview just now. You said that people in the industry were mad at you because of this story. Why do you think that is? Maybe you touched a nerve?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Yes, maybe.

I am still thinking through the entire question. I bet you all can help me.

Is it a good or a bad thing that interest groups gin up large numbers of their members to e-mail messages to Congress?

Is it too easy to do, and therefore not valid? Or is it Democracy in action in the modern day?

_______________________

Austin, Tex.: It's unfortunate that after 8+ years of technological innovation and millions of motivated constituent messages delivered, the "problem" is now blamed largely on the messenger, and not the elected officials. Why has our government not taken advantage of the increased constituent interest and found ways to leverage the technology and communications for their benefit? Instead, they have played whack-a-mole with the new communication mediums and spent significant resources to reduce the correspondence. This is the real problem that needs to be addressed.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Well, that's one way to look at the problem. The lawmakers are the bad guys--keeping constituents at bay.

Do the Web site folks have some blame to bear as well for sending so many e-mails?

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: As you have been following, congressmen are now making it more difficult to contact them via e-mail. What can advocacy groups do to ensure that their e-campaigns receive attention from congressmen? Or, how can they convince Congress that the campaigns are truly grass-roots, not Astroturf?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I'm afraid if an interest group incites a flood of e-mails, that's Astroturf lobbying by definition.

That doesn't mean the cause isn't just or that the e-mails aren't actually coming from real people.

Rather, it's now so common for every interest from nail manufacturers to roofers to organize e-mail campaigns that the value and credibility of such efforts appears to have been undermined.

_______________________

Manalapan, N.J.: I understand how freedom of expression rights keep the contributions flowing, but it also seems that uncontrolled campaign spending is detrimental to equal representation. Why isn't more attention paid to spending limits, and to a truthful campaign advertising?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: The Supreme Court has said that spending limits can be an impediment to free speech. That makes such restrictions hard to enact.

As for truthful campaigns, that's policed by TV stations and the candidates' opponents. But there is no government watchdog on such things--and we should probably be glad for that. Why would you believe the government? It would have a stake in that kind of judgment, don't you think?

_______________________

Anonymous: I read that the Pres. candidates will need 500 million dollars to get elected. This is obscene. Is it impossible and or naive to think our elected officials can find some way to police themselves to make our govt. equal to all.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: It would be lovely, I agree.

But how we get that to happen is still a mystery.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: In your article you correctly pointed out that Congressional offices get so much e-mail that it is difficult to keep a handle on, much less read it all. However, another problem that was not mentioned is that one of the biggest problems with e-mail is the amount of spam that it attracts.

I have an e-mail set up to take comments on a proposed regulation. In the last 30 days I got one legitimate comment, 260 reports from my administrator about spam quarantine reports, 81 pieces of spam the filter didn't catch, and 62 e-mails from other government agencies announcing training or seminars. I can't imagine how much spam a congressional e-mail attracts. However, it make it difficult to take e-mails seriously, if only because it is so difficult to figure out which ones are legit.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Most congressional offices don't have e-mail addresses like you and me.

They have Web forms that must be filled out before an e-mail can be sent.

That tends to cut down on the kind of spam you are talking about. What the lawmakers don't want is political spam, meaning thousands of e-mails on the same topic generated by interest groups.

_______________________

Baltimore, Md.: The problem is, too many e-mails, on whatever side of the political spectrum, are generated using the same exact language. When a Congressman (or an aide) gets 200 or 300 such e-mails, it is evident that not a lot of thought as gone into each one.

But the communication expressed in a original language, and in a temperate tone, is generally taken seriously, because it reflects the fact that the writer took time to personally think through the issue at hand.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Yes, this is what studies have shown.

_______________________

Sanibel, Fla.: Good column today. It was the same way with telegrams and faxes and trumped up telephone calls in years past. A congressman or senator would need a staff of hundreds to read all that stuff. Why didn't corporate America come to that same logical conclusion years ago, before they were bedazzled by all these scammers on K Street?

Your colleague, Peter Stone, over at National Journal, says in a new book soon to be published, that the lobby industry has "bought" our government. In that it is many times the size (in dollars used to run it) the cost of operating the legislative and executive branches combined, would you agree with Stone?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Peter Stone is an excellent reporter. I look forward to his book. But conclusions such as the one you mention are a little to facile for my taste.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Where can I get a copy of the study you reported on?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Call Capitol Advantage, which I think has offices in northern Virginia.

_______________________

Indianapolis, Ind.: Seems to me that the email deliverability problem is contributing to citizen apathy in politics. Do you think citizens expect a response from their Member of Congress? If so, if email is not being delivered then people can't get a response and then they feel like no one in D.C. is listening!

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Yes, I think the distance that voters feel between themselves and their elected representatives is made worse by e-mail disasters like the one I've written about today.

_______________________

Former Hill Staffer: Congressional offices have limited resources. In my old Senate office we had nine people working almost full time on constituent correspondence and six legislative assistants. As a taxpayer, I'd rather see more resources devoted to developing legislation than organizing and responding to thousands of mass e-mails.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: An excellent point and one that I have often heard and read.

Any one else want to weigh in?

_______________________

Danville, Ill.: Why doesn't Congress decide what form of communication they will pay attention to?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Congress speaks with many voices--535 of them to be exact.

Web site companies are trying to get Congress to standardize its e-mail system, but so far to no avail.

I doubt there will ever be such an agreement. Congress does not act in unison--or does rarely.

_______________________

Atlanta, Ga.: Not only emails but what about phone calls?I remember that the Janet Jackson 'Breastgate' generated tens of thousands of phone calls to the FCC. Only later did we find out that approx.99% of them were at the behest of Brent Bozell's org. That send out emails to their loyal herd telling them to call the FCC and complain.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Phone calls are another source of "Astroturf" communications. They are controversial as well, and are often directed by lobby groups electronically.

At least though, the caller knows when the phone call gets through.

_______________________

Falls Church, VA: Your columns are interesting to read - do you ever do speeches? Just wondering if you ever offer your insights to local organizations at their meetings, etc.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Yes, thank you for asking.

For local organizations, such as civic groups, the Washington Post encourages its reporters and columnists to give speeches. David Jones in the Post's public relations department is in charge of these referrals and he does a tremendous job.

_______________________

Program produced e-mails are less so: Why? If money = "free speech", then why doesn't tech savvy? So if I'm rich, I can have all the speech I can buy, but if I'm technically skilled my "free speech" is limited?

What is the difference between one person buying lots of speech with his money, and another creating lots of speech with technical skills?

Seems like another rationalization for legalized bribery to me.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Money and its uses in the political system is one of the most difficult policy questions that face Washington.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Is a study funded by an organization which subsequently finds itself the winner really a study worth noting? Why not discuss the common goal of working with congress to let the every day activists' voice be heard constructively instead of being viewed as spam?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I publish studies that have a broad public interest, which this one does.

I also have a pretty good sense for what is fair and what isn't.

For instance, my senses tell me that this question was written by one of the many very angry Web site companies that didn't do so well in the study.

I did not use the numbers for each of the companies (such as yours, whoever you are) because I concluded that the survey was not comprehensive enough to make those numbers perfect statistically. I also doubt that any citizen would have any idea which Web site operator is running which interest-group site. Therefore, naming the vendor made no sense.

But after listening all week to complaints about the study, it was clear to me that a lot of e-mails were not getting through from lobby group Web sites, certainly not as e-mails, and that was a fact worth publishing.

_______________________

Any one else want to weigh in?: Sure. To the poor overworked staffer...

How many hours are spent prepping for fundraisers? Meeting lobbyists? Working out legislation with fundraisers and lobbyists to make them happy and keep the checks rolling in? I'll make you a deal. You use all that time on the public's business instead, and we won't complain when you blow off our e-mails for the same purpose. Deal?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: An offer worth considering . . .

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Won't lobbyists continue to proliferate as long as Congress embraces them as fundraisers? And doesn't this suggest that unless the public insists on public financing of campaigns, the influence of lobbyists means we'll for campaigns now or pay a helluva lot later for the all the favors done for lobbyists?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Yes.

And yes.

_______________________

Anonymous: Regarding money in politics and free speech. In your opinion did McCain/Feingold hurt or help this problem?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Hurt and helped, in my view.

Lawmakers can't raise the big money called soft money for the political parties any more, thanks to McCain-Feingold. That's good.

But the money is still being raised in huge volume and being funneled through interest groups of one kind or another. Often, there's no disclosure or little disclosure about that money. That's not good.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Why so soft? If these allegations are indeed true, these non-compliant companies are committing fraud! Who are some of the customers/constituents being silenced? I want to know if the orgs I interact on behalf of are delivering my heartfelt messages or not. If 'we the people' are going thru the hoops of supplying the info requested and answering the math problems then how can we be sure our work is worth the effort? Shouldn't there be some sort of validation or (I can't believe I'm saying this!!!) regulation?

What's so hard about delivering an email? I'm SURE they're getting my credit card numbers correct when they ask for my donation!

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I think that after this column, a lot of lobby groups will be asking very hard questions to their vendors to find out how much of the e-mail is really getting through.

The companies that have good answers will keep their business; the others won't, I suspect.

_______________________

Oak Brook, Ill.: What did the Leadership know and when did they know it? Why did they allow a sexual predator lose in the Capitol?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: On the issue of Mark Foley, the GOP leadership has a lot to explain. Why didn't they investigate further when they heard that the parents of a page complained? Why weren't the Democrats informed as well as the Republicans? And how widespread was Foley's behavior? Who else knew? These are the questions that will dog the leaders for a while, I suspect.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: Will Congress ever get serious about lobbying reform, or will it continue to wax indignant about the need for change while holding tight to the status quo, in which lobbyists raise a lot of campaign cash and pick up the tab for congressional fun and games?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: So far Congress has not taken the issue of lobbying reform seriously.

Will that change? If Democrats take control of one or both chambers of Congress, I expect some action on lobbying. How much? I am a skeptic that much will happen, after the failed promises of this year.

_______________________

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Wow! That hour just flew by.

I'm sorry I didn't get to all of your questions.

But let's try this again in a couple weeks.

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