K Street

K Street columnist Jeffrey Birnbaum was online Tuesday, Jan. 16 at 1 p.m. ET to discuss the intersection of business, politics and government.

A transcript follows.

____________________

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Hello everyone.

Thanks for writing in.

I wonder if any of you think that the pending ethics laws in the House and Senate will make much, if any, difference in the way lobbying works.

If you think so, please write in and defend your position.

If you think not, please do the same.

This year (who knows?) a new ethics bill could pass and become law. I wonder, Will it matter?

Be brutal. Be honest. Take me to task.

Cheers and let me know.

Now it's time to begin.

_______________________

Brussels, Belgium: Lobbyist Peter Terpeluk got his ambassadorial post because he was a Pioneer. What has become of him since his return to the U.S., and how is he coping with the new Democratic ascendancy?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I haven't spoken to Peter since his return, but I know that he is working with his old firm, American Continental Group. That's a lobbying shop.

Peter was a character in my book, The Money Men, and is a terrific fellow. He also was one of President Bush's top fund-raisers. That's how he got his ambassadorship, or so I am told.

Republican lobbyists are doing just fine even now that the Democrats hold a majority in Congress. I wouldn't worry about Peter or any of his fellow GOP lobbyists.

_______________________

Sun Prairie, Wis.: Hi, Jeff. In your Post column the other day you wrote that one of the lobbyists-turned-staffers "did not understand the issue" this arrangement raised.

Might it not have been more precise to say this gentleman "professed not to understand the issue"? Or, "claimed not to understand the issue, in the knowledge that Jeff Birnbaum is one of the very few reporters who will ever pay attention to this sort of thing"?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I thank you for the kind word here.

But I do not presume that people, especially people deep inside Washington, see things as I do. Controversies to me are often perfectly expected and commonplace to many of the folks I talk to all the time. I guess that's what makes me a journalist and makes them players in the system I cover.

I am forever at odds with lawyers, for instance. Not that I don't get along with lawyers. To the contrary, one of my best friends is a lawyer (not a joke here), though he isn't a Washington type lawyer.

In any case, lawyers see things within legal limits. That to me is looking far too closely to be useful in a political town. As for my column today, literal conflicts of interest are an entire subset of the law. My interest was not to be so narrow. I simply wanted to point out that there are all sorts of restrictions on people who leave government to become lobbyists, but that there are no restrictions (other than a few for lawyers, by the way) on people who leave lobbying to join the government. That strikes me as wrong and opens the door wide for abuse.

What do you think?

_______________________

Jupiter, Fla.: Mr. Birnbaum,

Do you believe that lobbyists have a negative influence on the legislative process as a whole? If so, please explain.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I think, first off, that lobbyists are integral to the process of legislation.

I used to believe they were outsiders to the system. I no longer do. They are players. They are principals.

As a result, what lobbies and lobbyists do makes a big difference in what legislation looks like--and also in what legislation is even considered.

In that way, therefore, lobbies and lobbyists do distort the legislative process. Bills are taken up because a powerful lobby has pushed that to happen. Bills are changed, often on the margin, to satisfy one lobby or another.

And yes, in that way, lobbies do distort what Congress and the executive branch produce. And yes, often not for the better.

_______________________

Neenah, Wis.: It seems the minimum wage increase will have the most effect on the small mom and pop businesses that are struggling from day to day to make ends meet. These are the businesses that line the main streets of small towns all over America. Of course, major businesses that weren't already paying that much will be able to absorb the increase. But how does the Mom and Pop business struggling to stay in business (and compete with major players) handle the increase?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Honestly, I don't know if your assertion is true. Do mom and pop businesses tend to pay the federal minimum wage to their employees more than do bigger businesses? And if they do, will increasing the basic wage hurt them more than those bigger employers?

I tend to doubt either one of those suggestions. I do not doubt, however, that some businesses will be hurt if they are forced to increase the wages of their employees overnight.

In this case, though, "overnight" doesn't exactly apply. After a serious debate on the issue last year, even President Bush now says he's in favor of an increase in the minimum wage--as long as there's a benefit or two thrown in the direction of those mom and pop places you're asking about.

I bet he'll get those benefits, too.

_______________________

Conflicting Door!: How is this not a conflict of interest from a company to congress? In a perfect world, this wouldn't be a conflict. However, we are people and the temptation is far to great. Why not err on the safe side and put barriers in place? From a congressional standpoint, why isn't this part of the ethics reforms of the dems? It seems like a no-brainer issue to me.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: A no-brainer to you, but it's not on the brain (or the agenda) of anyone in Congress that I can find.

But I agree with you completely. Clearly, my column today exposes a gaping hole in the system.

Thanks for writing!

_______________________

Kansas City, Kan.: Understand that senators Hutchison and Cornyn went from supporting the border fence last year (before the midterm) to opposing it now. What do you know about this?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I'm not sure I know why they did that. Do you have a clue?

_______________________

Rochester, N.Y.: Could you please initially specify the more specific nature of this online chat/interview because simply the intersection of business and government etc is a very broad, though fascinating, topic.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I take questions on a wide array of topics: politics, business, government, lobbying and the places where these things overlap.

I like to say I write about the intersection of business and politics and I am especially pleased that it is a very big intersection indeed.

Ask me a specific question, and I will give you a specific answer.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: In OpenSecrets.org's new Revolving Door Database, you can see what Peter Terpulek is doing, what he has done in the past and who his lobbying clients are:

http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/rev_summary.asp?id=13202. It's a diverse list -- from electric utility companies to an Indian tribe and some public-interest groups.

(Massie Ritsch/Center for Responsive Politics)

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Thanks Massie. You beat me to it. As soon as I got off this chat I was going to check with your excellent site. Now everyone can.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: The actions of members of Congress, and what might be influencing those actions, is very public while they're in office. But once they head to K Street or some other private interest, is there any way to track what they're up to and who they're representing? Many don't qualify as lobbyists per se, so they slip out of the public eye.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Unfortunately, if former federal officials choose not to register as lobbyists (or if, in fact, they are not lobbyists) there is no way to know what they are doing in an official way.

That's one of the great advantages of lobbyist registration. We do have at least a vague idea what some people who are influencing the government are doing. But the rules are too narrowly drawn for me. A lot of people--thousands of them--who spend their time trying to change the way government works do not have to register as lobbyists and therefore they do not. That's a loss to us all.

_______________________

RE: Jaw Dropping Hire: When you wrote that in this morning's column, what did you mean?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I wrote it. It's my column.

The instance of Matt Gelman is jaw-dropping in this sense: I was not aware of a private, corporate lobbyist working on loan to a senior member of Congress before, let alone the House's third ranking Democrat.

That was enough of a potential conflict for the House ethics committee to demand that Microsoft, Gelman's employer, stay away from the offices of his boss for at least the brief time that Gelman will be working there.

More on this next week, by the way.

_______________________

Rochester, N.Y.: When did our representatives in the Congress and the Senate become so stupid or lazy that they could not do their own research on the issues rather than being influenced by lobbiests who are profiting and corrupting their vote? Isn't this why we have special committies to review each bill? The practice of putting forth lengthy bills (hundreds of pages) and sticking something in at the last moment so it can't be discussed or objected before VOTE must go! Earmarks must go!

Carlene Woodward

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Well, you are correct that complicated legislation is a boon to lobbyists, who tend to be the experts on such things.

And it is true that lawmakers do not often know what's inside the bills or amendments they are voting for (or against.

But that's why they have staff. Even their staffers, however, are overworked given the large number of complex issues they face these days.

And yes, that is why lobbyists hold so much sway. Or one more reason anyway.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: The new spate of ethics laws are suppoed to remove the appearance of corruption, but it seems to me based on WaPo reporting that all it will remove is the appearance. One article I read suggested that the House (which passed a tougher version than the Senate plans to) will bar lobbyists from gladhanding politicians at dinners in favor of forcing lobbyists to travel with politicians and attend rallies and fund-raising events. That just sounds like the House passing a law to augment its staff, the ultimate in unethical self-dealing and perhaps a violation of the 13th Amendment.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I'm not sure I know what you mean by that last sentence, but I catch your meaning otherwise.

Thanks for your vote against the ethics bill as a cleaner of the Washington garbage. Anyone want to vote the other way out there?

_______________________

Seattle, Ore.: I have a question about your understanding of the root of the 'ethics' intended to be turned into 'law' (the transition from personal/subjective to social/objective). Where are these 'ethics' that inform the bills coming from? Do you trust the source of the underlying ethics? This affects everything most profoundly. Thanks.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I'm not sure philosophy is at the root of these bills at all. Politics is. Maybe that's the root of your confusion here.

_______________________

Moneta, Va.: It is said that the Tom DeLay "flap" is due to VERY strict ethics rules in Republican party. Apparently any person in Republican leadership position must resign if indicted. And so, Tom DeLay resigned. Could you quote the same rule the Dems have, or do they not have such a rule? And what is the current flap over Pelosi, and StarKist and DelMonte minimum wage law exemption in American Somoa tuna packing plants (Peolosi's District). Is it true that Pelosi's hotels/restaurants are NON-Union and union officials can not, by policy stay or dine at them? Odd.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: The Democrats did not have a similar resign-from-leadership-when-indicted rule in their House caucus, as I recall it. But my guess is that if a Democratic leader were indicted he or should we be, in effect, forced to resign, just as DeLay was.

The Pelosi and tuna flap involved Starkist, which, I think, has facilities in Pelosi's San Francisco district as well as extensive operations in Somoa. Somoa was exempted from the increase in the minumum wage passed by the House and, therefore, it was alleged by critics that Pelosi was behind the special deal. I don't know that she was, but in any case and as a result of the public outcry, Somoa would not be exempted ultimately if the minimum wage hike were to become law.

_______________________

Masury, Ohio: Martin Schram recently wrote a column stating, "Of course, the money that goes to special interest groups comes right out of the U.S. Treasury." The Constitution declares, "No money shall be drawn from the U.S. Treasury, but in consequences of appropriations made by law and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time." Where is this transfer of special interest billions in campaign funds published and how can this be legal?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I think my friend Schram is wrong or, at least, exagerating. The money does not come from the treasury.

Campaign giving is extensive disclosed at the Federal Election Commission (fec.gov) and at such sites as opensecrets.org and politicalmoneyline.com.

It is legal because election campaigns have to be privately funded. Individuals and interests give money to candidates' political committees within limits set by the federal government. Or at least they are supposed to.

_______________________

Ashland, Ohio: How badly does it reflect on Ms. Pelosi that Sun-Kist and the area of the large part of their employees are exempted from the minimum wage increase? I undeerstand her husband has a sizable investment.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I will check on the investment part. Thanks.

If the exemption was Pelosi's doing--and it's not clear that it was--then it would not reflect well on her.

_______________________

What I meant by the last sentence...: is that the 13th Amendment bars slavery. I think passing a law that forces others to work for you counts as slavery. It's not so bizarre, actually; the 13th Amendment is why you cannot compel the performance of labor as a remedy for contract breach.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I see what you mean. I think.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: On Senator Hutchison and Cornyn and the border fence issue Tip O'Neil said it best "all politics are local". As a native Texan I would recommend you consider the issue of the Texas agri business political interests and their possible employment of the migrant farm and ranch workers. Dumb don't vote for me cowhands the Senators are are not.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: And thank you for the explanation. That does make sense.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: Here's a proposal: limit election campaigns to six weeks, limit the content to positive proposals for governing only, and require broadcasters to deliver the campaign messages free of charge as a cost of doing business over the public airwaves. I think this would pretty much take care of our little special interest problem, don't you? Share of the public that would enthusiastically support it: 98%. Share of Members of Congress, media execs, and special interests who would oppose it with every fiber of their being? 98%. Amazing, isn't it?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I think you are almost correct. Here's where I differ: Share of Members of Congress, media execs, and special interests who would oppose it with every fiber of their being? I'd go with 99.9 per cent and therein lies the reason it probably won't succeed.

_______________________

The Revolving Door: Much attention is focused on the way senior hill or big agency staff switch seamlessly from government to lobbying positions without observing any grace period. But the situation is even more aggregious in small agencies, where less people are paying attention.

For instance, Roger Nober was appointed by President Bush to become Chairman of the Surface Transportation Board (STB)from November 2002, until Dec. 31, 2005. This is the government agency charged with regulating railroads. Upon leaving, he became a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of Steptoe & Johnson LLP, where his bio stated that he was focused primarily on transportation law and legislative matters. This firm represents railroads in disputes in front of the STB. Then last month, surprise, surprise, Roger Nober joined BNSF Railraod as Executive Vice President, Law & Secretary. Good thing nobody is paying attention!

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Well, that's a pretty typical career path in my experience.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I do wonder whether slowing the revolving door will make much of a difference. The current "cooling off" period is one year, and there are proposals to extend it to two. Those who have left government are still on salary during that time, so presumably they're providing some value to their private employers. What is that value, and how would making them wait longer to become lobbyists make a difference?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I think doubling the cooling off period to two years could well cut down the number of former lawmakers who hang around "consulting" for a year before they get down to lobbying.

So, yes, the revolving door could get jammed at least a little thanks to that "reform."

_______________________

Long Beach, Calif.: Hello Jeffrey - thanks for taking my comment. RE: Your question... I guarantee this non-reform won't make a difference. And not just because of the loopholes in it.

As long as there are third parties getting paid to spend money on pandering, obfuscating, and undermining legislation in order to angle, preserve, or create a narrow interest regardless of the benefits to the nation, individual freedom, and our economy there will be no reform.

Until the playing field is leveled where organizations and businesses are required to hire their own internal staff to petition congress on their own behafs - as private citizens must currently do for financial realities - the system will remain permanently broken.

When citizen's petition their government, you know they are representing their sincere interests. If corporations like GM were required to send their own employee we would know why and where the money came from. When K street operatives give money - you really can't know the motive, the origin, or the upshot of the legislation they write... for pay. Mercenary 3rd party lobbying must end if we are ever to have a government that serves the voters.

Can you show me where it is written in the constitution that we must allow mercenary lobbyists, as well as the ability to petition the government ourselves?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Here's another vote against the ethic legislation. Any more views out there?

_______________________

Va.: When I worked at a big law firm in D.C., some of the lawyers just worked as political appointees straight and then come back one year later with no restrictions.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: The laws have stiffened since your days here, then. There are some restrictions now for senior people.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: RE: Moneta, Va.:

Since you skipped it, I will answer. Yes, Pelosi kicked out the unions of her hotels/restaurants for cheaper, non-union help. Yet, she is labeled a hero by the unions. Funny.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: By Pelosi here, I assume you mean her husband Paul, who is an investor. Yes?

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Ethics, earmarks, favors, exceptions, special consideration and Rep. Pelosi? Her recent efforts on behalf of the CA tuna industry for a minimum wage exception and drug companies pricing considerations for seniors leave one to question if her style is really the pot calling the kettle black. Is she so blinded by her new power she thinks we are all so blinded also to her deals?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Pelosi has shown herself to be a politician and a legislator, which almost always means compromise.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: As you know this process so well, who are the first 3 people that come to mind as tose that will benefit from this process?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: There are a lot more than three. Dozens of major players (as measured by their campaign donations and lobbying expenditures) gain tremendously every year from their participation in the federal process.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: RE: Washington, D.C.: RE: Moneta, Va.:

No, I mean Nancy. They are both co-owners, so I dont see what the difference is. Stop running around the question.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I'm not running around. I'm running away. I simply don't have the answer.

_______________________

RE: your answer to Jupiter...: Mr. Birnbaum, respectfully... That reply is the definition of a broken democracy on sale if I've ever read one.

Thanks for the clarification of your belief in a government for sale to the highest bidder, and for control of the lives of american citizens by a handful of self-serving, bonus hunting, grossly overpaid corporate leaders who's ethics are often dubious. THEY are the ones sending money to lobbying firms. They are less than 1% of the electorate yet sway the entire congess.

Do you really not see the conflict with the founder's ideas of representative government here?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I do see it. Clearly. I also see clearly the way it actually works. And that's what I was--and am--addressing. I do not confuse my opinion with my analysis of what is actually going on here.

_______________________

Old City I, D.C.: FYI. The Post's Jonathan Weisman researched the Pelosi-Samoa connection and found no deal--other than large corporate donations to the GOP.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Yes, that is correct.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I guess to go back to your original question and say that these reforms would not substantively change how "special interests" redress government. I think the dinners, the jets and Wizards tickets make the job easier but that does not change the substance of what lobbyists and "special interests" are trying to accomplish. These groups have opinions on policies that affect the population and generally the way they lobby congress does not include flying them to Scotland for golf. Instead these groups are sounding boards on policy, because until the general public starts engaging Congress on substantive policy issues they are the only groups of people talking real policy issues with Congress.

This lobbying reform will only take an arrow out of the quiver, there are still plenty left to fight with.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Here's another one. A vote against the ethics bill. Is there no one out there to defend the House or Senate effort?

_______________________

Sun Prairie: For the record, Jeff, I agree with you on lobbyists becoming (temporarily) staffers on the Hill. The cut in pay must be considerable, and I fear the increase in pay once these staffers return to lobbying will be even more considerable.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: That is the way of Washington.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: In the proposed legislation on student loans, I understand where business interests lie (Sallie Mae, NelNet, others), but not where the school's interests lie. Do the universities, training schools have a lobbying position on student lending?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: There are many types of schools and, therefore, a variety of opinions on that side. Or so I am told.

_______________________

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Thank you all.

I am out of time.

Let's do this again 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.