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

A transcript follows.

____________________

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Hello everyone.

Thank you for writing in.

Today is the first day of my new column--sort of.

It's the old column, slightly renamed, and placed into the A section of the paper.

I'm very excited about the new place, and I hope you all like it, too.

I will be writing weekly as well, and that's a new challenge. I look forward to it, and I hope I can maintain the quality I have strived for up until now. I had been writing ever other week.

In any case, I will still be doing these chats, and I'm glad to start this one now.

We have a lot of questions, and, as usual, a lot of good ones.

So, let's get started.

_______________________

Virginia Beach, Va.: Mr. Birnbaum,

Many Democrats make is a point to frequently attack private gun ownership and possession. These attacks have caused the NRA membership to swell over the last 10 years or so. As a recently retired Federal Law Enforcement officer I observed many overt and subtle attempts by Congress to limit or prohibit firearms possession by the people of this country. These efferts are objective facts. The Bill of Rights was designed to limit government and ensure the rights of all "the people."

Why shouldn't Joe Average, who has never been arrested in his life, be alarmed at attempts to outlaw what is now, a lawful, and what the NRA sees as a Constitutionally protected, right? From my perspective, they are correct in their concerns.

Tom Gillikin

Special Agent, (ret)

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Thank you for this question.

As far as I know the NRA's membership has been pretty stable over the last nine years of so. I know this because have made it a point to write often about the NRA, because I am a student of its success as an interest group.

In addition, there have not been any serious gun control bills passed by Congress in recent years. What legislation has passed has generally been to the NRA's liking, including the recent bill that indemnified the makers of weapons from law suits.

The NRA thrives by instilling the fear in its loyal membership that gun control legislation is about to pass and hurt ownership privileges. In fact, the NRA has done an excellent job of protecting ownership and has to, in my view, hype the danger in order to keep its membership active, involved and contributing to the cause.

_______________________

Chesterton, Ind.: I am a member of my high school's debate team, our debate topic for January is "Resolved: That lobbyists negatively influence the legislative process in the United States." How do you feel about this issue?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I was a debater in high school and so I know that there is a pro and a con to every topic, including this one. And it's a very good topic to debate.

But I do think that the con side has a strong argument here, inherently. The right to lobby is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. So lobbying itself can't be a negative. It's a right.

The question needs to be narrowed in order to be debated cleanly. Is corporate or narrow interest lobbying good or bad for public policy? Now that one is one heck of a fight.

_______________________

Indianapolis, Ind.: Jeff, your column about the good that lobbyist do, or the good lobbyists, whichever, is appropriate. It reminds me that the other side of these transactions are legislators and government officials who also take on the same causes without expecting money for their campaigns or jobs for their kin. Unfortunately, on the very next commercial issue that gets presented to the same people frequently, many revert to business as usual. Jack Abramhoff did some good deeds, too, as did Tom DeLay. We want a system that promotes doing good deeds for the purpose of good deeds, not for plea bargaining and consideration of lighter sentences.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I don't think that the pro bono efforts I wrote about a week ago were done by any of the lobbyists in order to mask any bad intentions in their other work. They did these good deeds because they wanted to do good deeds for their own sake.

I think that people, lobbyists included, should be praised for that kind of charity, and I did so.

I also do not believe that lobbying for money is a bad thing in and of itself. Professionals of all sorts do things that are neither good nor bad for their clients or their employers. It's just the way the world works.

We can all have opinions about those endeavors, of course. I simply write about those things factually (or as factually as I can) and allow others to express those opinions--hopefully with a little more knowledge than they would have had otherwise.

_______________________

Clifton, Va.: Read your column today. And I am sorry PETA by its actions and by definition is a terrorist organization. Couldnt care less about the NRA but PETA does want to take away my right to own dogs and particpate in herding trials with them. All members of PETA should be rounded up and sent to GITMO or secret CIA prisons. BTW membership in PETA can reult in your clearance being deneied in the Federal govt since you support a terrorist organization.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I did not know that about federal clearances and PETA. I'm sure the NRA would be happy to read that.

PETA is a fascinating group and I hope to write about it more in my new column.

Anyone else out there want to talk about PETA. Anyone want to defend it?

_______________________

Chapel Hill, N.C.: In other countries they call it graft and corruption. Here in the U.S. they put a dress or suit on it invent a nice name, lobyist, and all is right. A pig with lipstick is still a pig. Will they ever be less influential? It seems as the lobbyist business grows our country has lost its innate commen sense. Pat Riley

Jeffrey Birnbaum: In my experience, lobbyists have only become more influential. Everyone has a lobbyist, by the way; but a lot of people just don't like the lobbyists who represent someone else's cause.

In any case, Democrats starting this week will make a very large show of distancing themselves from lobbyists--at least in legislation. This anti-lobbying bill will start moving in the House as early as this week.

But behind the scenes, Democrats will be working as closely with lobbyists as Republicans ever did. Lawmakers rely on lobbyists for information, for entertainment and for campaign cash. That, I am afraid, is the way the system is, and the way it will remain even after the Democrats' "ethics" bill passes in the House.

_______________________

Indianapolis, Ind.: Jeff,

What do you think will happen with NCLB legislation?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: No Child Left Behind will be a huge fight--again--I think. Stay tuned. I hope to delineate the players in that battle as well as others as I roll out my column.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va: Of the major GOP candidates-Romney, McCain and Giuliani- who do you see capturing support from supply side, low tax supporters? Will McCain's previous equivocation on the Bush tax cuts hurt him?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: On tax cutting, I bet Romney will try to win the fight for GOP loyalty. McCain likes tax cuts, but as his opposition to earmarks indicates, he's also a true fiscal conservative. That might make him lean toward tax increases if the federal budget deficits get bad enough. I do think that the supply siders suspect him a bit. As for Giuliani, he's suspect in general by many elements of the Republican base, including the supply siders.

_______________________

Victoria, B.C.: What do you think of Canada's approach to managing undue political influence?

Canada has banned campaign contributions by Corporations and Unions and personal contributions have been capped such that rich individuals cannot have undue financial influence.

Lobbyists are still allowed and operate to promote their views but can no longer use campaign contributions or any other form of payment-by-proxy to influence politician votes.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I know it doesn't seem that way, but corporations and unions cannot contribute to candidates in this country either (their political action committees can, which are pools of money collected from people who work for those groups). In addition, we have in this country very strict limits on campaign giving (though it's hard to tell sometimes).

As for preventing lobbyists from donating to candidates, that's an idea that has a lot of merit. And lots of lobbyists say they would applaud it. But so far I haven't seen it being proposed by the politicians in charge who benefit mightily from the lobbyists' giving.

_______________________

Aspen, Colo.: Everyone hates lobbyists that don't support their political point of view -- calling them every name they can think of. Why not direct your anger at the politicians and their votes instead? No lobbyist gets anymore chance to vote than you do, if you don't like the legislative results, it is the legislator you should replace. Stop voting for folks who don't support your point of view, don't hate people who are merely exerting their first amendment right to go to their government and offer a point of view. Look in the mirror if you don't like what legislators do, no corporation gets to vote for them, only we citizens. We are the problem, not the lobbyists.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Well spoken, I think.

Anyone else want to defend lobbyists? Or to attack them?

I do believe that lobbyists have a huge advantage that average citizens do not have. They know the players in Washington and have more access to them, largely because of campaign contributions.

But it's also a two-way street. Lawmakers have to be willing to do lobbyists bidding in order for the system to "work." And that they do, frequently, and surely that is a major part of the problem.

Indeed, it is worth noting that lawmakers plan to circumscribe very few of their own actions in the ethics bill due to come before the House starting this week. Almost all of the restrictions and demands are placed on those mean old lobbyists.

_______________________

Oakton, Va.: Jeff,

Great column on the NRA today; I hope that the pro- vs. anti-gun passions don't cloud the very valuable points that you making about the role of special interest groups. On that note, anything coming in the future on AARP? BTW, I'm over 55 with a carry-card and wouldn't give a dime to either one of these groups for a variety of reasons.

Thanks.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Thank you kindly. Yes, I do expect to write about the AARP, and to also profile several other prominent groups and their colorful leaders.

I hope to have a lot of fun, and provide a lot of news and insight, from my new perch.

And by the way, the entire page will be renamed In the Loop. No more Federal Page.

And that will be the point of its offerings--to keep readers in the loop of the latest Washington happenings.

Keep watching!

_______________________

Lakeville, Minn.: Who, really controls our Governmant? It doesn't seem to matter what party gets in - we seem to keep going down self defeating courses of action. Our deficite keeps exploding, we keep "borowing" from the social security funds and not making its use a part of our accountable budget & expenses. We keep trying to expand our beliefs to the outside world against the majority opinion of our people, etc., etc.. Who really is in charge and is it planned for our nation to implode on itself?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Luckily, no one is in charge.

That we have a single leader in Washington, or that there is one person we can blame for things, is one of the country's biggest myths.

It would certainly be a lot easier if we had a government "boss." In fact, power is widely dispersed in the capital. Not even the president has the authority to make things happen just by asking for them.

Well, maybe some limited actions and a lot of military acts. But we have an elaborate system of checks and balances that tends to keep everyone humble and no one too powerful.

That's a good thing for me, since I explore the limits of power every day as part of my work.

But it's also good for all of us I think. It is one of the great achievements of our founding fathers.

_______________________

Long Beach, Calif.: Please tell me where in the constitution it says it MUST always be allowed that thrid parties will be paid to represent the desires of others.

Further... since the george washington on my dollars doesn't talk... money does not = speech... can you show me where the constitution says otherwise?

WHY can't we outlaw the PAID business of 3rd party lobbying when American citizens already have the right and multi-fold ability to petition the government without a paid 3rd party involved?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Our Constitution doesn't require lobbyists to be paid for their services, but it also does not prohibit it. It does allow the petitioning for redress of grievances--and that's lobbying.

The Supeme Court has decided that money is tantamout to speech and, therefore, limits cannot be placed unreasonably on expenditures for political causes.

I can understand that you don't like either answer. But there they are.

Anyone else want to complain? The more bitter the better.

_______________________

Oakton, Va.: Jeff,

Ref your response to "who controls the Government?" (Gasp!) You mean that the guys wearing the tin foil-lined hats are wrong about the CIA/Nixon/Ford/Bush cabel who had Saddam rushed to his execution before he could talk??? (I know that you don't need to publish this in the chat--I just couldn't resist.)

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Well, I couldn't resist publishing it.

Thanks for writing in. And yes, that's what I mean (more or less).

_______________________

Tampa, Fa.: Re NRA: We need to keep in mind that the Constitution does NOT give a personal right to own, possess, or use firearms. This is privilege Congress is free to restrict in any way and to any extent necessary to protect the public.

The NRA's power now stems from redistricting. As the Republicans gerrymandered Congressional districts to exaggerate their own power, they also exaggerated the political power of their allies and fellow travelers in the NRA.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I think the NRA would disagree with you.

I know it would, in fact.

Any NRA member want to dispute this point about the right to bear arms?

As for the NRA's power, I think it goes well beyond computer-driven redistricting.

NRA members care passionately about gun ownership and volunteer in massive numbers, and vote in even larger numbers on election day. That's a huge power, in addition to the carefully used funding that the NRA directs into key races.

_______________________

Toronto: Jeffrey,

This question may seem from left-field, but do you ever feel that you are "selling out" by letting yourself appear on FOX news?

-Tom

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Never.

I believe it is a privilege to be a regular commentator on television and on Fox. I speak my mind and give honest analyses, and that is what Fox wants from me. I think people who dislike Fox do so without watching it very closely, or for extended periods. I believe it is a first-rate media outlet.

I particularly trust and admire Brit Hume and the other people I work with closely at Fox. They are very professional and demanding, which is the way journalism should be. Fox has very high standards and I am proud to work for the organization.

_______________________

Oakton, Va.: Anyone who says that money doesn't talk is deaf. The same rationale for prohibiting paid lobbyists was tried just after the Civil War when Congress forbade any payment higher than $10 for representing a veteran's claim. Look how well that has worked out. Money in political discourse is a necessary evil. Like everything else, it must be carefully scrutinized without unduely restricting it.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I like the way you put that.

And I will check into the post Civil War precedent.

Thanks.

_______________________

Aspen, Colo.:"WHY can't we outlaw the PAID business of 3rd party lobbying when American citizens already have the right and multi-fold ability to petition the government without a paid 3rd party involved? "

Because we're not a fascist government, we're a nation of laws that apply to everyone, including those with whom you disagree. Corporations, labor unions, environmental groups, the elder lobby, the NRA, PETA, -- they ALL have a right to work on behalf of those who pay them to work on their behalf, and thank god they do. Congress shall make NO law abridging. . . not Congress shall make no law unless you are really pissed off at the group that speaks out to Congress and with whom you disagree.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I get the point. I will make it a point to see if third-party lobbying can be abridged.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: As a former Hill staffer (non-lobbyist), I point out that lobbyists often bring a tremendous amount of intricate, issue specific knowledge to the table that often benefits the legislative process. But give members and their staff a little credit. They recognize who the lobbyists or associations represent. Moreover, they know there are two sides to most issues.

Curious how you think lobbying reform will play out?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: A pro-lobbyist view. At last!

I think that the House will pass a number of lobbying restrictions, the Senate will pass some and all of them will have loopholes--especially the fact that campaign finance laws will not be altered.

Lobbying will continue to be a critical force in DC.

_______________________

West Lafayette, Ind.: Sir:

I realize that you deserve some artistic license in your work, but NRA members do not consider our organization's constant vigilance in defense of liberty as a move to "send its members into fits of paranoid rage". If you have followed the Second Amendment actions of Congress over the past thirty-odd years, you must admit that the Democrat Party is never a friend of lawful firearm ownership in the United States. Forewarned is forearmed.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I guess if you take the long view . . . But in the short run, the NRA's fears, I believe, are overstated.

_______________________

Tucson, Ariz.: Jeff,

Re. "NRA Sounds Alarm of Not-So-Imminent Threat".

Thanks for this piece. It's not often that the credit for preventing the horror of a Gore or Kerry Presidency is properly attributed. It was a huge miscalculation on their part to expose their core beliefs as they did when donning "hunting" gear. We "gun nuts" have a saying that points out that the Second Amendment is not about hunting. Politicians that think they can assure America of their stance as a Second Amendment supporter and use this method are simply not in touch.

I am certain however that your assertion that "no one expects gun legislation this year", will not serve as assurance for the members. We always expect legislation.

Also, I would suggest that your reference to "fits of paranoid rage" stem from stereotypical views of NRA members as knuckle dragging toothless white guys. Actually I'm braced by this reference as it shows that this useful image lurks in the psyche of the uninformed. In fact, we are actually pretty average folks. While I do suppose there are "gun-nuts"

around, I believe that most, and I would say all the members I know, are indistinguishable in any given group of Americans. Yes Jeff, we walk among "real" Americans undetected.

I'm not sure where the pamphlet to which you allude will end up. There has been much debate as to it's origin and ownership. I have viewed the parts that have been out there and find it interesting. But it left me unsure as to whom it may be speaking. I certainly don't need to be talked to in the manner in which it speaks. This has me wondering if the creators suffer from the same affliction as the Brady's that being that NRA Neanderthals can be, on cue, given to "fits of paranoid rage". I find it hard to believe that the N.R.A. leadership thinks that it's members need to be talked to like this. If they do, I would be disappointed.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I have read other NRA dispatches not much different than this one, by the way. Sorry to disappoint . . .

_______________________

Watertown, Wis.: Hi Jeff,

I have always appreciated your commentary on FNC but you're way off base in your column on the NRA. If one were to read your column and not know the proposals and positions of some of the people in the following paragraph I can see where you would confuse a lot of people.

The document is filled with sinister-looking caricatures of supposed anti-gun figures such as filmmaker Michael Moore, comedian Rosie O'Donnell, New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (R) and CBS News anchor Katie Couric. One chapter attacks Democratic lawmakers such as Sens. John F. Kerry and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and derides them as a "Gang of Opportunists." Other NRA enemies are "One-World Extremists," "Animal Rights Terrorists" (such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and "Illegal Alien Gangs."

Michael Moore has advocated the complete disarmament of the American people as has Rosie O'Donnell. Bloomberg is on a personal jihad at this moment to shut down gun stores. Ms. Couric has talked about the need to take guns out of the hands of citizens for years. Jon Carry has voted for every anti-gun bill that he has ever seen. Ted Kennedy is the worst of all of them. All of these people say the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what it says Jeff. They say there is no "individual right" but only a "collective right" as in the National Guard.

I can't believe you are naive enough to have been fooled by what these people, and many other on the left, have said over and over again about firearms. Are you part of the gun banning crowd? I would really like to know where you stand. What does the 2nd Amendment mean to you? Have you ever taken a firearm training course? A permit to carry course? Do you own firearms?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I used to shoot with my father. And I do not have a position on gun control. My position is that I need to follow what the NRA does. It is a very important group.

_______________________

Londonderry, N.H.: Why is it that when interviews & pictures of Bush at his Crawford ranch are always taken out in a field or on a dirt road ?? Is his ranch so ugly that he doesn't want anyone to see it? How can he call it a ranch when the only animals on it are his two dogs??

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I'm afraid that's what his ranch looks like.

_______________________

Aspen, Colo.:"As the Republicans gerrymandered Congressional districts to exaggerate their own power"

Just another example of someone who thinks the other side is evil, but when our side does the exact same thing, well, that's just fine.

Political parties have been "gerrymandering" districts since there were political parties drawing district lines. It didn't start with Republicans and won't end with Democrats. Get over yourselves!

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Here's a response to an earlier comment (for fairness' sake.)

_______________________

Jeffrey Birnbaum: OK all, I have to go. Thanks for writing in and let's do this again soon.

Also please look for my column, a week from today, on the new In the Loop page!

_______________________

Harrisburg, Pa.:"petitioning for redress of grievances--and that's lobbying." Since when did seeking a special earmark become a redress of a grievance? So you believe that paying someone to get a legislator to support a bridge to nowhere is a grievance? Wow! No wonder we have so many problems.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Just a few more . . .

Well, one person's pork is another's benefit. Such is the way of narrow interest legislation.

_______________________

Tampa, Fla.: I misspoke. I think that while the NRA is formidable on its own, I think gerrymandering exaggerates its power, if only slightly. As for constitutional rights, the NRA is free to disagree, just a Ken Lay was free to disagree with reality and swear that Enron was a great buy at $90 per share. As former Chief Justice Warren Burger said, the idea that the Constitution creates an individual right to bear arms is one of the "greatest frauds" ever perpetrated on the American public. No amount of David Irving-esque historical fabrication can change this.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Thanks for the additional comment . . .

_______________________

Woodbridge Va: Re NRA & Second amendment -- People who never bother to read history continue to insist the Second amendment is a collective right given to the state militias rather than an individual right. Jefferson, Madison and george mason (the father of the bill of rights) spin in their graves at this interpetation.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: And here is the defense of gun ownership as a right.

Again, thanks everyone and see you soon!

_______________________

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.