Lobbying is as American as apple pie

Jack Abramoff, a well-connected, Washington lobbyist, pled guilty recently to three counts of fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials. Abramoff has agreed to provide information of his lobbying activities in Congress and some already in Congress are feeling very uncomfortable.

After the Watergate scandal in 1974, Congress enacted watershed reform of campaigns and special interests by passing the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). Trying to reduce the influence of special interests, Congress provided for the public financing of the election of the presidency but not the election of Congress.

FECA also attempted to balance the playing field by limiting the influence of so-called fat-cat contributors, but it ran astray of the Supreme Court. While holding that Congress could limit contributions, the Court held that limiting expenditures was limiting free speech and thus this portion of the law was unconstitutional. The ruling had an important impact on the weakening of FECA and deterred real effective future reform legislation.

My own experiences in politics taught me how influential special interests can be. Just out of graduate school in 1964, I joined the staff of a Republican congressman from New York. My boss was beseeched by environmental interests protesting against nuclear power in the Hudson River as he attempted to placate them.

In 1992, I made it onto the ballot in a congressional run and I learned why theses groups are called pressure groups. No sooner than I had announced my candidacy, I received many questionnaires from special interests wanting to know where I stood on issues. Do I tell these lobbies what they wanted to hear and sell my political soul to the highest bidder?

One day, I found my self accepting an interview with the real estate PAC. Ushered into an ornate room with expensive furnishings, I faced their questions on passive investments and other issues. Again, do I sell my political soul to the highest bidder?

Money talks and those in Congress need to raise substantial sums to pay those campaign bills. Suffice to say that I did not give into the special interests, but neither did I get their contributions.

Lobbies have the protection of the First Amendment and are here to stay. Congress has passed several laws regulating lobbying but these laws can only force most lobbyists to register and so have virtually little impact.

Congress has attempted to regulate its members through ethics rules. Rule 25, for example, restricts gifts above $50, but the ethics committees in Congress rarely enforce these rules. Yes, there has been a growing culture of corruption on Capitol Hill. We will have to see which party it will affect more, but my guess is that since the Republicans control both houses of Congress, they probably will be most affected in the 2006 elections. Passage of effective reform legislation could help their cause, too.

The Abramoff scandal involved many lavishly funded trips for members of Congress. Junkets have been a traditionally an important perk of the office. While on congressional staff in 1964, I got an up-close look at why it was called a junket. My boss took a trip after his election to attend a NATO air show in Europe. He was the ranking member on the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Sounds like he was taking care of official business, right? Well, there is only one problem — he was defeated in that election. Congress needs better regulatory machinery to review government paid trips and to ban lobbyist’s sponsored trips as a minimum reform package.

Perry J. Mitchell is a retired professor of political science living in Ocean View and can be reached at pmitchell@mchsi.com.