K Street Confidential

K Street Confidential columnist Jeffrey Birnbaum was online Monday, Dec. 11 at 1 p.m. ET to discuss the intersection of business, politics and government.

A transcript follows.

____________________

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Hello All,

Thanks for writing in.

Democrats take over Congress next month and all sorts of changes are in store. One is the vast number of investigations that committees are likely to do.

Today, my column is about the many consultants who are preparing to help defend the companies on the griddle.

But there's a lot more we can discuss about the new Congress as well.

Please write in early and often and we can talk about what the change will mean on Capitol Hill and on K Street.

Now we might as well get right to the questions.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: What is the difference between corporate lobbying and legalized bribery. Seriously with all the money infused in the process how do you distinguish the two?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Lobbying is a protected right in the Constitution. Giving money to candidates for federal office is also ok under all sorts of rulings.

Are campaign contributions legalized bribery? I think you can say so--up to a point. Bribery is a very serious charge and a very specific one. It's when an official does something specific in exchange for something of value. The connection between campaign donations and lawmakers' official actions is rarely to well-defined.

Prosecutors have been loath to charge lawmakers with bribery over the donations they receive, at least partly because the law also gives citizens permission to contribute to lawmakers' campaigns up to specific limits.

On the other hand, otherwise legal campaign gifts have been mentioned in charges against Jack Abramoff and his colleagues. Lots of lawyers in downtown DC believe there's a chance that the Justice Department will be looking more closely at otherwise legal donations and considering filing bribery charges. We will have to see. . .

_______________________

Dupont Circle: I've read a couple of short items in the paper about the FCC Chairman trying to force a commissioner to vote on something. It sounds like a great story for you -- influence and Washington and all that. What's up?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Thanks for the tip. I'll take a look. Do you know anything more about this?

_______________________

Sun Prairie, Wisc.: Good morning, Jeff. Could you talk a bit about the staff resources House and Senate committees will have next year to do oversight and investigations if the executive branch, relative to what they've had in the past?

Will committees in general (and key committees like House Energy and Commerce or Senate Judiciary in particular) have staff in adequate numbers to greatly increase substantive "O&I"? Will the staff they do have be talented and experienced enough for O&I to be effective?

Press coverage of Congress next year will focus on what members or Senators are doing, but we both know that legislators without adequate staff support can't do much in this area. How much has changed here over the last 15 years or so?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I don't know the budgets of the committees you mention, but I have not heard from any of the soon-to-be chairmen of those panels that they will lack for funds.

In fact, I expect that there will be a rush of very talented people to Capitol Hill and specifically to those committees. A lot of Democrats in town and around the country are extremely excited at the prospect of having power for a change. They are eager to help in whatever way they can, including the staging of oversight investigations.

In addition, committee chairman have long borrowed staff from agencies in the executive branch to supplement their in-house staffs. I don't know if the fact that Congress is in Democratic hands and the executive branch is in Republican hands will make such "detailing" more difficult. But I suspect that the powerful chairmen in Congress will be able to requisition as much talent as they need.

So . . . companies beware!

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: How will lobbyists fare under the new Democratic Congress?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I think they'll have a tough time initially. Democrats in charge of both the House and Senate plan as their near-first order of business to crack down on lobbyists. The House, in particular, is thinking about banning gifts and travel from lobbyists to lawmakers.

Then again . . . these same ideas were tried this year and nothing, I repeat, nothing happened. I'm not holding my breath that all the high-profile votes we're likely to see at the beginning of next year will actually turn into changes by the end of the year.

The exception could be in the House. I hear that there's a chance at least that rules of the chamber will be changed imposing those gift bans. If that happens, then lobbyists will be forced to deal in a more arms-length way with lawmakers.

But you are probably asking a broader question: will there be less lobbying next year, or will lobbyists have less influence on the process? To both I answer, no, not at all. In fact, Democratic lobbyists are being hired and created at a blistering pace. That means, I think, that 2007 will bring more lobbying than ever, not less, because all the Republican lobbyists will still be around helping their clients block legislation (for the most part).

What's more, a different set of lobbyists will see their currency rise next year. Labor lobbyists, environmental lobbyists and the like will have a lot of power. Or at least a lot more power than they've had for the last dozen years when Republicans were in charge on Capitol Hill.

So, lobbyists will not go out of fashion or out of power. A different set of them will have extra influence, that's all.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I was reading last week's chat on whether liberals should work for defense contractors and be pro-military. Remembered that Clinton White House aide who snubbed the general at the White House? Well there is it and so many others. Respect for those who are lower-class, less education, and moving a lot should be given by the lobbyist.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Thanks for reading--and for writing in.

Being "liberal" is not the same as being anti-military. I think it would be a mistake to assume that Democrats, for example, shouldn't represent military contractors. That's a bias that does not make sense to me.

If anyone disagrees, let me know. The chat is here for the purpose.

_______________________

Washington: Uh! The Republican committee staff members were also talented and professional.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Yes they are. I did not mean to imply otherwise. I was saying that lots of Democrats who are talented will be taking jobs in Congress to handle the investigations. One does not preclude the other.

_______________________

Boise, Idaho: Hi Jeff,

Is anyone in the Senate gearing up to do the type of investigation that Truman did during World War 2?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Indeed, they are. We should expect a long string of investigations into how well or poorly the military and its contractors have done in Afghanistan and Iraq. That may be what the committees focus on most at least initially. These could be very inflamatory--and probably televised as well.

_______________________

Sun Prairie, Wisc.: Well, Jeff, you know Washington a lot better than I do. But based on one of the things you wrote about in your Post column today -- the fact that defending some potential targets of investigations pays much better than doing the investigations -- as well as the fact that Democrats haven't run any of the relevant committees in a long time, I'd be surprised if next year didn't start out with a lot of showy hearings that didn't produce very much in terms of real oversight or investigations.

I'd keep an eye on committee staff if I were you.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Good suggestion. And you are correct that the most meaningful and productive hearings often take months to develop--and behind the scenes. So we may have a burst of hearings that are mostly angry but not substantive--to be followed by some real revelations. I guess that means some of the really damaging stuff could start coming out as we get closer to the next election. I bet that isn't a coincidence. Do you?

_______________________

Let the spin begin!: Okay all you knee-jerk-cons, here's the challenge for the day, after controlling both houses of congress and the White House, in spite of job growth and a supposedly growing economy, more Americans are living below the poverty level, and more are living just above it than ever before. We rank 27th in infant mortality in the world. Add to that, serious questions about breaches fo constitutional law, isolation by the international community and a clearly failing excursion in the middle east, and, oh yeah, the architect of 9-11 was allowed to slip away in Afghanistan.

So here's the challenge/question? What the hell have you people been doing?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: So, here's a challenge for conservatives.

Anyone care to respond?

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: Why are lobbyists also portrayed as being "bad?" Some of them actually fight for good causes.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Yes they do. But in the world of Washington, everyone believes that his or her cause is "good." I have long since stopped using the word "good" in relation to lobbyists. I prefer the word effective. I also don't presume to know who is right and who is wrong in legislative battles. I don't impose my own notions of who is good and who is not. I prefer to write about what are the results, often in dollars and cents, of governmental actions. And to explain how one group won and another lost.

_______________________

Minneapolis, Minn.: Unbelievable that Jefferson or LA was reelected. Do you see this as a go ahead to lobbying susceptible congressmembers?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Lobbyists don't need such a sign to do their jobs. They're at it all the time.

The reelection of Rep. William Jefferson is a real headache for the Democrats and the incoming speaker, Nancy Pelosi. How do they deal with a lawmaker in their caucus who is under federal investigation? How does it make them look clean and pure? (It doesn't.)

In general, I think the Democrats will have a hard time saying they are a lot more ethical than the Republicans are as business as usual goes on, well, as usual.

_______________________

Liberals and being anti-military: I'm sure that John F. Kennedy, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barry McCaffrey would like to have a word with anyone who accuses liberals of that. Aside from which both Gore and Kerry proposed increases in funding for military families and the military in their election year budgets. Bush didn't propose any increases for military families and only limited increases for the military as a whole.

He's also cutting services to returning Iraq war vets. Liberals aren't anti military, Bush is.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: So there, you conservative liberal-bashers. Thanks for taking my challenge and responding to the earlier posting.

Anyone else want to weigh in?

_______________________

FCC Issue: The Commission has been deadlocked 2-2 for several months on the AT&T-BellSouth proposed merger. One of the (Republican) commissioners had heretofore recused himself, citing an industry connection in his relatively recent past. But last week the FCC's General Counsel ruled that he has no conflict, and the Chairman has been urging him to take a position, and break the deadlock in favor of the merger -- presumably before the Democratic Congress takes over and has anything to say about it.

However, John Dingell and Ed Markey have already sent out press releases blasting the move, and subpoenae, hearings, and such may not be far behind come January 3.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: And thank you for these details on the FCC. That IS a huge fight--one of the biggest in Washington--and this is as good a place as any to talk about it more.

The FCC, I'm on it (or one of my colleagues anyway).

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Jeff: If I were to run for Congress I would clearly state that I LOVE golf, steaks, and other great trips given by lobbyists, but for every minute I give them to discuss their pet project I would give equal time to those who have the opposite view. For instance 2 hours discussing gun legislation with the NRA over a steak dinner, and scotch and cigars will equal 2 hours of anti-gun lobbists over a cup of coffee. Why would you oppose this?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I wouldn't except . . .

The steak dinner is probably a violation of existing congressional rules that limit single gifts to lawmakers to no more than $50. The dinner, in Washington anyway, surely would cost more.

Second, the anti-gun lobby probably couldn't afford the cigars and steak dinner you want in response. You would more likely get an office visit and coffee provided by you.

That's one of the basic unfairnesses of the system--one of many, many.

_______________________

Herndon, Va: Do you think the Dems will hold "all" lobbyist to the same standard? For example will the lobbyist for the NAACP or the Sierra Club be restricted along with the lobbyist for Lockheed Martin or a drug maker. Also do you think any new rules should apply to the media and they should not be allowed any access to members of Congress that would not be afforded to the ordinary guy off the street?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I don't see a way to discriminate among lobbyists. A lobbyist is a lobbyist is a lobbyist. At least according to rules and laws. I also don't see a good reason to discriminate, other than outright bias.

Rules governing the press are separate and different than rules governing lobbyists. No one has suggested, that I'm aware of, that Congress crack down on the media. At least not yet.

_______________________

Pittsburgh, Pa.: How many of 2006's departing Senators do you expect will become lobbyists, and for whom? Obviously I'm thinking of our local soon-to-be-ex-Senator Santorum. But what about, say, Lincoln Chafee -- is there any organization decent enough to deserve him as a lobbyist?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I would not be surprised if Santorum became a lobbyist (he's worked very closely with lobbyists for years). But I have not heard where he might go. If anyone out there has, please let me know.

As for Chafee, I am not aware that his basic goodness, to the extend he has such, would disqualify him from lobbying. He may not need the money, however, if I read financial disclosure statements correctly. So he may choose to do something else.

_______________________

"Lobbying is a protected right in the Constitution.": Aaaaarggghh! No, no it is not.

The people have a Constitutional right to petition for the remittance of grievances.

There is nothing in there about hiring professional parasites to do it for you. There is nothing in there about hiring consulting firms to fake up some astroturf. There is nothing in there about "The Corporations have a right to..."

Please stop misrepresenting that clause. Thank you.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Sorry, friend. But lobbying is what lobbyists do. And that is petitioning for redress of grievances. To me, that's a constitutional right. I will continue to say so.

Unless . . . you can show me when the Supreme Court or any other authoritative body makes the distinction that you do between professional lobbyists and citizen lobbyists. I eagerly await your reply.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Wow, here we are in the Twilight Zone. Liberals are anti-military. Yet is there anything more anti-military than taking the country into a war of choice which has gutted the military, left us vulnerable and killed almost 3000 soldiers?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Another broadside against conservatives and in favor or pro-military liberals!

Anyone else out there? The floor is open.

_______________________

Sympathy for lobbyists: In your article today, you portray the lobbyist who took the job partially so that he could send one of his 4 kids to a private school that costs $26,000 / year. Are we supposed to feel sorry for him that he put himself and his kid in that position? What's wrong with public schools (I'm sure he lives somewhere with excellent schools)? It's this type of elitism that makes common people and most people outside DC hate lobbyists, whether or not they toiled for the government for many years.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: This IS a central issue. Thanks for your view.

_______________________

D.C.: Do you think the House will go back to the GOP in January 2009?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: That's the big question and what a lot of the activity over the next two years in Congress will be about. If the Democrats deliver on their promises, they have a shot at keeping control. But if they fall into do-nothing-ness then their majority is in jeopardy.

_______________________

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Thanks for writing in anyone. I had too many questions than I could answer.

I'll be back again in a couple weeks. Please write in then.

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.