Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 13, 2007; 1:00 PM
Read and respond to Birnbaum's latest columns, Podesta, Livingston Look for Balance, Brawn in New Partnership (March 13) and Lobbying Bill Sparks Populist Uprising -- on Both Sides (March 6), and an article in the Business section on the the Democrats' new pay-as-you-go budget regimen.
A transcript follows.
____________________
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Hello everyone,
Thanks for writing in.
I see we have some very good questions, but please send more.
We have on our plate a new joint venture between two of the big names on K Street, Tony Podesta and Bob Livingston.
We also (in another section of the paper) have the new math of congressional legislation--the "pay for." In a pay-as-you go world, fiscal legislating is a zero sum game.
What do you think? Are either of these things a good idea?
Write in. Sound off. Let's get started.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: As an attorney who spent over a decade working on Capitol Hill, I think Rep. Waxman's proposal to require executive branch officials to disclose with whom they meet is pretty misguided.
I notice that he doesn't think Members of Congress should need to list everyone who meets with them (current lobbying disclosure only covers registered lobbyists to report and doesn't require disclosure of which exact Member the lobbyist actually met with). Such a proposal would also be a bad idea.
The reason that both proposals would be a bad idea is that policy makers in both branches need to be able to privately consult with experts on very complicated issues. Some experts will be more neutral, but most people with expertise have a vested interest on one side or the other. Its up the policy maker to understand someone's motivations and separate out useful facts from self serving arguments.
Replacing those who prove themselves unable to carry out their duties honestly (beg Duke Cunningham, William Jefferson) is the Constitution's answer to this dilemma - not a total bar on all private consultation.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: This disclosure requirement was a subject in my column last week.
But I don't quite understand your argument. If you are saying that disclosure would scare away experts from consulting with top executive branch officials, that is a point that many opponents of the provision make.
I, for one, don't know how that might happen. I can see sources of information that would like to remain secret staying away because of disclosure, but experts in general . . . I just don't buy it.
Anyone else think otherwise. Please click and type.
_______________________
Detroit: What was that all about with Hagel? Has he lost it?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: You are referring, of course, the Sen. Chuck Hagel's bizarre news conference yesterday.
He announced in advance, long in advance, that he would go before the cameras and tell the waiting world about his political future--read: his intention of running for president, or not.
Instead, he went before the cameras and and said that he would go before the cameras again some time this year to make an announcement.
In other words, he said, never mind.
That's as strange a political event as I have ever seen. It is, however, a sign that the Republican side of the presidential contest is still full or ferment.
Hagel has made sounds that indicate he's even thinking of running as an independent--a move he might be wise to take as long as he remains part of so small a minority, of Republicans opposed to the war in Iraq.
_______________________
Scranton: What ever happened to that lobbying bill that was supposed to pass in Congress? I bet it just died like last year.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Well, I wouldn't go that far yet.
The Senate passed an ethics and lobbying bill earlier this year. And the House passed some rules changes that, among other things, partially ban private-paid travel for members of the House by lobby groups. The House said it plans to pass its own more sweeping lobby legislation later this month or next month.
We'll see.
You are correct that despite multiple promises last year, almost nothing happened on the ethics and lobbying front. I will wait a little while before declaring that the same is happening this year.
It is true, however, that the House is taking longer than its leaders at first predicted for the bill to move. A finished and reconciled bill between the House and Senate is needed, of course, before the legislation can become law and that is still a long way off.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Thanks for your piece on isupportthismessage.com. I'm a little dubious about sites like this. I think the reason people's messages sometimes don't get through is because they aren't personal, not because they're delivered via e-mail. A form letter is a form letter whether it's on a piece of paper or delivered via electrons. What do you think about that?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: I think you're right. Lawmakers don't want cookie-cutter messages whatever form they come from.
But there are so many electronic versions of that kind of message that there's been an arms race among congressional offices to alter the forms that must be used to send e-mails in order to stanch the flow of them.
There are millions of e-messages a year that go to congressional offices, many of them ginned up by interest groups, and that is just too many to be handled and digested.
They also are often considered suspect (as are other types of so-called Astroturf communications) and for good reason. Clever and well-financed interests can compel their members to deluge Congress with messages, electronic or otherwise, often giving lawmakers a completely skewed impression of what the public really thinks.
Nonetheless, e-lobbying has become a gigantic and ever-growing business. You figure it out.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: I was intrigued by the merger. It's interesting to see traditional lobbying firms beginning to realize that they need to have ALL the pieces in place, not just a strong professional lobbying team.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: The alliance of Podesta and Livingston is not a merger. It is a joint venture.
The two men explained to me that they didn't want to sell their businesses. They just want to expand them by using this third vehicle, the PLM Group, which is named for Podesta, Livingston and Toby Moffett, the Livingston Group person who will head up the venture.
The concept of having all the pieces has been tried before and has not worked all that well, by the way. As I remember it, companies like Hill & Knowlton tried the supermarket approach to lobbying, offering every aspect of the persuasion game under one roof, and didn't gain much traction. Lobbying clients need lots of different professions at their disposal to lobby well--lawyers, access lobbyists, pollsters, advertising execs, PR experts, researchers, fundraisers, telemarketers, to name just some. But the a la carte method of choosing those services seems to have worked best over the years.
Podesta and Livingston would not be offering all of those services in a one-stop shop and probably would be wise not to try.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Do Podesta and Livingston have something there? Will their joint venture work and what does it say about how lobbying works these days?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Taking off from the previous question, it's hard to see why the Podesta-Livingston alliance wouldn't work, at least to some degree. If they get a joint client or two that's money in the bank for them. Extra money that they would not have gotten had they not tried the joint venture.
Does it produce better service and outcomes for the people who hire the group? On that I must be silent because I really wouldn't know.
Maybe I'll revisit that question later on. Anyone out there want to venture an opinion?
_______________________
Los Angeles: Is there any way that Congress will stick to its pay-as-you-go idea or is it just another ruse?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: I think for a while Congress will.
The minimum wage increase bill, for instance, has some small business tax breaks that I believe will be paid for, at least within the budget window.
But as the price tags go up on later legislation, my guess is that a new fact will become more prominent: the House can waive its pay-as-you-go requirement with a simple majority vote.
That's right. If the House has enough votes to pass an expensive new program or tax cut, it has enough votes to get rid of the requirement that the new benefit be paid for.
What's more, the waiver can be stuck in secret into the "rule" that must be passed every time a bill is debated in the House. In other words, the pay-go requirement can be eliminated without the public really knowing about it.
The closer we get to election day 2008, the more tempting that kind of release probably will get.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Frankly, I think disclosure would be a logistical nightmare, especially this time of year when literally hundreds of people come in to a Congressional office every week to discuss thousands of issues. If these types of disclosure requirements are going to be put in place, they'll need the staff to make it happen. And yet no one is willing to give Congress more staff!!
Jeffrey Birnbaum: An excellent argument. Thank you for making it.
I have been contacted by more than one software maker, however, who say that that kind of record keeping can be done with a few clicks and few type strokes. So easy and so cheap, they say.
Then again, they are also trying to sell a product I suppose.
Any other opinions about more disclosure?
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Re: the isupportthismessage question: I think e-lobbying will only continue to thrive as a medium if the companies figure out ways to truly engage both advocates and Members in a meaningful way. That's difficult, but it sets the stage for a more purposeful dialog. In Congress' defense on the e-mail front (and it goes back to another point I was making on the disclosure issue), it's hard to deal with the millions of e-mails when you have the same amount of staff you had 20 years ago...
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Fair enough.
One reason that lobbyists have so much swat these days is that congressional staffs have no choice but to rely on them to do some of the most basic legislative tasks, from research to legislative language development.
Without lobbyists, most congressional offices could barely operate at all.
Is that provocative enough for you? Am I right?
_______________________
Falls Church, Va.: What is your opinion of the practice of earmarking? In my old-fashioned view, I find it unethical and counter to good government and checks and balances. In fact, some years back I worked for a "boutique" lobbying firm (a competitor of Cassidy) whose main business was earmarking - and found the whole process unappealing. These young appropriations staffers had incredible freedom to make significant spending decisions, essentially on their own.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: The idea of bringing home the bacon is time honored and it used to be considered a perk of seniority on Capitol Hill.
But I think there is now a consensus that the process had gotten out of hand. Too much room for "corruption" in the sense of paying off members and staff using thousands of dollars in order to garner millions of dollars in earmarks.
This year will be the test to see if promises of more disclosure and more rigor in assessing whether earmarked legislation is meritorious will actually happen.
_______________________
PAYGO Reality ... LBC, CA:"Pay-Go"... YES deficits DO matter. Anytime I hear someone parrot a blabber head from TV or radio about deficits not mattering I ask them if they keep their credit cards maxed out. "Of course not!" is always the answer with indignation thrown in for good measure about the interest charges. EXACTLY.
The reason interest rates fell to 6 percent in 1996 from nine percent in 1992-ish was because CLINTON was educated that government should not compete with industry for the available finite amount of money in the system, and he started reducing our debt burden. When we stopped issuing 30 year bonds we no longer owed that credit card interest and rates began to fall. The reduced competition for dollars in the system allowed rates to fall further and business boomed. As we bought back more and more gov't bonds we got a booming economy and a surplus.
Of course the neo-cons spent the surplus and re-issued 30 year bonds and ran up the debt to all time record heights on the advice of Grover Norquist that if the government is buried in debt it can't afford social programs and might be "drowned in a bathtub"
so "YES Virginia"... deficits DO matter
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Well now, don't hold back.
I think there's enough blame to go 'round for the federal budget deficit. Democrats and Republicans shared the wealth that led to all that red ink.
_______________________
Sacramento, Calif.: So I see you had something nice to say about lobbying with the Norwood bill last week and the way it helped kidney transplants. Do you think lobbying has a place then?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Lobbying has a place absolutely.
As in the case of the Norwood bill that helped live donors give their kidneys to very sick people, lobbying often produces "good" results. I even hate to use the words "special interests" --though an editor included them in my feature today about pay-as-you-go legislating--because that makes lobbying sound dirty.
It is a constitutional right that we are lucky to have. Sometimes lobbying does get out of hand, however, and that needs to be written about, too.
Fair is fair in my view. Do you disagree?
_______________________
Washington, DC: re: whether Congressional offices could survive without lobbyists: Well, there is the House and Senate legislative counsel offices, which actually do most of the drafting of legislative language. So while lobbyists might make suggestions, it's these neutral third parties that put together the actual language that gets introduced. During appropriations time, however, lobbyists are essential for tracking down all the exact information needed for appropriations requests (line item, previous funding, etc.). On the flip side, while lobbyists help deal with some of the legislative leg work, they're also the one's pushing some of the agenda (I won't say ALL or even most), so it might be kind of a wash if there were no lobbyists, i.e., there wouldn't be as much help to get the work done, but, then again, there wouldn't be as much work!
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Good point.
I think it is indisputable that the more lobbyists there are, the more complex legislation becomes. Lots of lines means lots of work.
So yes, lobbyists have some very big impacts on the laws we live by.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Re: the question of having the staff available to disclose all meetings: It may be that there is software that would make it possible to coordinate the meetings of one member of Congress and nine staff (including all the "impromptu" meetings that happen while walking back and forth from the Capitol). However, I don't see anyone willing to boost the technology budgets of Congressional offices to make that possible. These things aren't free!
Jeffrey Birnbaum: You would make an excellent lobbyist for an increase in congressional budgets. Sadly, voters take a dim view of that kind of self-appropriation, hence the reluctance to add many more dollars.
_______________________
Long Beach, Calif.: That aids are not smart enough, not agile enough to write legislation or find facts in the age of the Internet and computerized productivity, is NOT a good reason to validate third-party mercenaries, or let them to create legislation that our representatives then rubber stamp.
Third party mercenary lobbying should be against the law and isn't needed at all in America.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Need? Maybe not. A reality, it is. Like it or not. I feel like Yoda.
_______________________
Dallas, Tex.: What's this about e-mails to Congress. They don't want to hear from their voters anymore?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: I don't think lawmakers want to silence their constituents. I think they believe that their constituents are being manipulated in an effort to manipulate them.
And, you know, to a large extent they are correct.
But is the answer making it harder for all constituents to e-mail congressional offices? That's a tougher issue.
_______________________
Sagamore Hills, Ohio: Speaking of K Street. What did you make of Delay's evil plan to flood K Street with hand picked republicans? Smacks of Oligarchy to me.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: I was never a big fan of the K Street Project in the sense you describe it. Nor was the House Ethics Committee. Nor was anyone else who heard about it, other than maybe DeLay and his aides.
The question now is whether more subtle means are being used by the Democrats in charge to place their own former aides into high paying high power jobs on K Street. If anyone out there has heard of any such pressure, please let me know.
My e-mail is Kstreet@washpost.com.
Or write in right now!
_______________________
Fairfax, Va.: One of my credit card companies sent info on the CCF settlement on foreign transaction fees, and I have information I can submit. Would it be better to wait until the settlement is reached? Is it prudent to send information on an active credit card? Thank you for anything you can tell me about this.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: I don't know much about this, but I would wait. Giving out credit card information can be dangerous unless you are sure you are dealing with the credit card company alone.
_______________________
Alexandria, Va.: Who is the best lobbyist in Washington?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Oh boy.
First, I try not to use the word "best" when referring to lobbyists. That's too freighted a word. It gives the idea of good versus bad, which I try to avoid in lobbying battles. Who is to say who is right and who is wrong in most of these things? Lobbying is mostly about winners and losers, not good and evil.
So I would re-ask the question, Who is the most effective lobbyist? And to that there is no single answer. There are many very accomplished and effective advocates in town, too many to name. There are far more, however, who are make-work experts who do little or nothing for the money they are paid.
The bright lights among lobbyists are too numerous to delineate but there are far far fewer than those who do their job well enough and then go home.
I guess, then, that makes lobbyists a lot like every other profession--including journalists, of course.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Re: the Waxman proposal - you seriously underestimate the reticence that many companies would show in being on some list of those who spoke to an official. You state that experts generally wouldn't object. In fact, on many issues there are only a handful of real experts and they're all players within an industry. Those niche issues, e.g. hedge fund regulations, can have a real impact. It's vital that policy makers have access to all sources of information.
Again, notice that Waxman isn't proposing Congressmen's meeting be listed? Ask yourself why.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: I did notice that and mentioned it myself in print.
I don't think you'll need to worry overmuch about the extra disclosure, by the way.
I am told by staffers on the Hill that the chances of the Waxman disclosure bill passing and becoming law this year is not very strong.
For what it's worth.
_______________________
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Gosh, that was fun.
Lots of very good questions.
I hope you enjoyed it too, and return in a couple weeks when I will do this again.
Cheers and all best!
_______________________
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.
