Making Government Transparent and Accountable
The Sunlight Foundation uses cutting-edge technology and ideas to make government transparent and accountable. Underlying all of our efforts is a fundamental belief that increased transparency will improve the public's confidence in government
The Sunlight Foundation Blog
-
How the Pharmaceutical Industry Bought Its Way Into Congress’ Heart
This Time article by Karen Tumulty and Michael Scherer is a must-read. Some key graphs:
[I]n the first six months of this year alone, drug and biotech companies and their trade associations spent more than $110 million — that’s about $609,000 a day — to influence lawmakers, according to figures compiled by the nonpartisan watchdog group Center for Responsive Politics. The drug industry’s legion of registered lobbyists numbers 1,228, or 2.3 for every member of Congress. And its campaign contributions to current members of Waxman’s committee have totaled $2.6 million over the past three years.
The return on that investment has been considerable, both in the House and in the Senate. “We’ve done very well,” says lobbyist Jim Greenwood, a former Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania who was a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and now heads the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO). “We carried a majority of the Democrats and a majority of the Republicans in each of the committees, and by very clear margins.”
Despite promises to reign in lobbyists, Congress and the White House have done little to affect the actual situation on the ground. The Obama administration has laid the ground work for what could be a promising new system for lobbying disclosure in their limited lurches at the lobbyist complex in Washington — requiring disclosure of lobbyist contacts for bailout and stimulus funds. The current lobbyist disclosure system, however, does not seek to help the public or affect K Street, but instead is aimed at providing lawmakers with an up-to-date list of the people who keep calling their offices. Earlier this year, I wrote about the need for lobbyist contact disclosure. Here are some key graphs from that post to think about when you’re reading the Time article on pharmaceutical lobbying:
Debate over previous lobbying regulation bills (the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946, the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, and the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007) acknowledged that the disclosure by lobbyists is not only due to the potential for corrupting activity, but because they serve an important role and their existence needs to be revealed, not only to the public, but for lawmakers and officials to better understand with whom they are meeting. In fact, the general thrust of the debate during consideration of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 surrounded the need for lawmakers to be informed of who they are meeting and discussing policy. While this has served the legislative need to know the bias of a caller, it has not served the public interest nor has it helped the factions and interests that hire lobbyists to better police each other.
…The reason why the disclosure of contacts is important is not because we are worried that lobbyists are engaging in a quid-pro-quo but because of associational bias. In her legal essay, St. John’s University law professor Anita Krishnakumar explains that, “…[T]he public perceives that lobbyists receive special face time with elected officials. Irrespective of where that face time occurs — in scheduled meetings, on a train ride, over a game of power, or on the golf course — it creates opportunities for lobbyists to persuade elected officials of their clients’ positions, opportunities that ordinary citizens do not have. In other words, the public’s concern is not just that elected officials will engage in blatant vote-selling to lobbyists, but, more subtly, that they will be partial to the causes of lobbyists’ clients because they spend a lot of time in lobbyists’ company.”
…
The disclosure of lobbying contacts provides not only the public with a better view of which interests and factions are trying to influence outcomes, but it also provides a chance for those same interests and factions to view the actions of their opposition. If union officials are putting a full court press over the Employee Free Choice Act, business groups will be able to see which lawmakers they are targeting and can prepare a better response. Groups can help educate the public on which lawmakers are more supportive of their causes, or if they are in opposition. And some lawmakers, exposed by the sunlight, may find it in their interest to meet with more groups to not only provide a more bipartisan public record, but to also gain insight from a more diverse group of interests.
…
The need for a better system of lobbying disclosure, that increases registration and disclosure, is necessary to provide the public, interests and lawmakers with the information that actually matters and to provide the professional legitimacy that the lobbying industry needs.
-
Should lobbyists be required to disclose anything?
That seems to be a question raised from The Next Right’s Soren Dayton. Dayton is taking the position that lobbyists and factions seeking to influence government do not have influence and therefore we should not require them to disclose their activities. This position is very much outside of the mainstream of thought on lobbyists and their influence in Washington. Currently, there are over 30,000 registered lobbyists in Washington with the sole job of influencing outcomes in the federal government. This could include, as Dayton says, educating officials and running pressure campaigns, and truly, there is not an inherent wrong with what almost all lobbyists are doing. However, even if the vast majority of lobbyists are doing no wrong, the revelation of their activities is still essential to a vibrant representative democracy.
(Continue reading…)
-
Raising the Expectation of Professionalism
At the Inside Counsel’s Ninth Annual Conference, Robert Bauer, campaign finance lawyer and council to Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee, gave the keynote speech, focusing on the changing nature of lobbying regulation. There are many important points in his speech, which is at times complicated and dense, but I’m going to focus on his main point here. You can read the whole thing here on Bauer’s blog.
Bauer writes:
[W]hile a steep increase in concerns about lobbying is hardly unusual during periods of economic and related political stress, as we now experience it, it would be a mistake not to see a more profound, more basic, change now in progress. Put another way, it would be a mistake to take the limits proposed for lobbying as merely symptomatic and to wait for the symptoms to pass when underlying conditions stabilize.
I am referring to the critical press on lobbying, accompanied as it is by new regulation and heightened scrutiny.
…
In the time that I have practiced, over a period of thirty years, I have observed the steady growth in regulation just as I have seen how readily the press and members of the regulated community seem determined to discount its significance. The developments of 2007 and 2008 are the latest of a series of steps toward the regulation of private interest lobbying and it is hard, surveying the course of events, to see them as the last. The full weight of these changes may not be felt for some time to come. That time seems sure to come, however.
This is undoubtedly true. Lobbying is coming under increasing scrutiny as it has established itself as a powerhouse industry ($3.27 billion reported by registered lobbyists in 2008) that mixes both private business with a component of public responsibility. The public largely believes lobbying to be a corrupting influence on the politicians that they elect to serve the public interest. Lobbyists largely believe that they are engaging in constitutionally protected activity that is essential for governance. These two ideas, while contradictory, are working to create a situation where regulation of lobbying is likely to increase.
As Bauer points out towards the end of his speech, recent reform efforts have focused on the professionalism of the lobbying industry, including treating them as equal partners with lawmakers.
[T]he newer rules do seem to have been influenced by the expectation that while lobbyists discharge a constitutionally protected function, there are constraints on their conduct and—going beyond constraints—an affirmative expectation of professionalism that the Court in [Trist v. Child] was expressing. A major change, mentioned earlier, is the decision to hold lobbyists to the same gift rules that Members observe under their Congressional rules, and it shows both the role of constraints and the expectations of professionalism.
On the one hand, those rules are a simple prophylactic measure to tighten up the gift rules. If the Member should not accept the gift, the lobbyist should not offer it. There are limits on the form of lobbying and the rules are meant to further enforcement by addressing the supply side. But on the other hand, Members and lobbyists are collaborating in the making of public policy and the more positive case for the rules is one that takes both lobbyist and Members as acting, though in different ways, in a public capacity, each bearing to different degrees responsibilities to the public.
This — raising the expectation of professionalism — looks to be the direction that further lobbying regulation will take. One area that deserves focus is the transparency of lobbyist operations. Acknowledging the important role that lobbyists play, while requiring full transparency in their operations — as we do, or at least aspire to, from our public servants. Transparency in lobbying contacts, in the unregistered swathes of influencers, and in other areas will help provide meaningful information to a wary and unsettled public in ways that the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 failed to do and also ensure the legitimacy of lobbying as a crucial part of governance. This is one area that raises the professional expectations of lobbyists and bridges the gap between the contradictory views of their profession between themselves and the public.
-
“They Frankly Own The Place”
That title comes from the words of Sen. Dick Durbin describing the power of the bankers and financial sector over Congress. You would think that this might be an exaggeration, or just a rhetorical bit of anti-bank populism, but if you look at the numbers, Durbin isn’t wrong. From 1997 to 2008, financial sector lobbying — represented by the finance, insurance and real estate industries — has amounted to fully 15% of all lobbying spending in Washington.
Lobbying Expenses by the Financial Sector (1997-2008) 2008 $459,312,006 2007 $419,754,990 2006 $375,133,174 2005 $371,666,173 2004 $338,123,874 2003 $324,385,802 2002 $267,586,799 2001 $235,049,868 2000 $230,368,026 1999 $213,801,725 1998 $209,659,907 1997 $177,374,000 Since 1997, the financial sector has spent a combined total of $3.6 billion on lobbying the federal government. The total lobbying expenses have increased by 260% since 1997. Over that same time financial sector corporate profits have gone through the roof, with the financial sector reporting up to 40% of corporate profits in recent years.
Over these eleven years, the industry has gotten pretty much whatever it desires. This is just a sampling of the things obtained by the financial sector: the deregulation of financial derivatives and credit default swaps, the elimination of the line between investment banks and commercial banks, the increased hardship for those filing for bankruptcy, and the total free hand for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to muddle their books and evade responsibility. And all of this has been fueled by the 3,000 or so finance sector lobbyists meeting with, calling up, and emailing congressional offices and executive branch agencies.
It is likely and that there have been tens of thousands, if not more, unreported contacts between financial sector lobbyists and government officials. These contacts have no doubt been aided by the high number of former officials who have taken the revolving door to lobby for the finance sector. According to a report by Essential Information and the Consumer Education Foundation, at least 142 former government officials lobbied on behalf of finance sector firms since 1998. These revolving door lobbyists include at least five former congressmen and dozens of top aides to congressmen, senators, and key congressional committees.
The Obama administration is taking a first step in requiring agency officials to report lobbying contacts as they relate to funds distributed from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Seeing as how the financial sector has been running wild through Washington over the past 11 years — getting whatever it pleases and blocking whatever it doesn’t — Congress, and the administration, should consider requiring the disclosure of these unseen lobbying contacts to help provide the public and officials with better information about the nature of the Washington lobbies, particularly the financial sector lobby.
Both Congress and the people would do better without a single lobby owning the place. Disclosing their lobbying contacts would be a first step in that direction.
All data obtained through the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) site OpenSecrets.org.
-
Another Three Agencies Begin Posting Recovery Act Lobbying Contacts
Three more agencies began posting, or provided a place to post, communications between lobbyists and agency officials in regards to funds distributed from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Last week, there were eleven agencies posting lobbyist communications, as required under the March 20 memorandum issued by President Obama to all agencies involved with the distribution of Recovery Act funds.
The three new agencies include the Department of Eduction, the Department of Health and Human Services and the General Services Administration. Differing from all previous attempts to display lobbyist contacts, the Department of Health and Human Services provides a searchable database. Unfortunately this is poorly thought out. There are no categories, just a search bar, and, at present, there are no contacts to search. Hopefully they can make this more useful once they have actually posted lobbying contacts. The General Services Administration has two pages (hence the second link in the chart below), one for written communications and one for other communications.
Agencies Posting American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Communications With Registered Lobbyists Agency Site Army Corps of Engineers Visit site Corporation for National and Community Service Visit site Department of Commerce Visit site Department of Defense none Department of Education Visit site Department of Energy Visit site Department of Health and Human Services Visit site Department of Homeland Security none Department of Housing and Urban Development none Department of Interior Visit site Department of Justice none Department of Labor none Department of State none Department of Transportation Visit site Department of Treasury none Department of Veterans Affairs none Environmental Protection Agency Visit site Federal Communication Commission Visit site General Services Administration Visit site (2) National Aeronautics and Space Administration Visit site National Endowment for the Arts none National Science Foundation none Office of Personnel Management none Railroad Retirement Board none Small Business Administration Visit site Smithsonian Institution none Social Security Administration none US Department of Agriculture Visit site USAID none
