The Feedback Loop on K Street

by Fred Copley

The First Amendment protects the right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Given that we are not all equally eloquent or expert about our grievances and don’t all have the savvy and the connections to make them known to our government, it makes sense that a lobbying industry would arise to represent us citizens, as it were, to our representatives.

Lobbying firms—trading on their insider access and legislative know-how—represent any number of interests on all levels of government.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics whose Web site [opensecrets.org] is an amazing and powerful resource, spending on lobbying reached $2.2 billion in 2005. This is money given from corporations or interest groups to lobbying firms that work on behalf of those corporations or groups, advocating their issues. In theory, individuals could do this work for themselves, although not as well.

Lobbying involves educating both lawmakers and officials in the executive branch about an issue—but it can also devolve into more dubious methods, such as giving gifts and trading in information. It is certainly one thing for a defense contractor, for example, to trumpet the merits of its weapon system; another thing entirely if a lawmaker makes a fortune by supporting the deal.

A separate strategy for “petitioning the government,” often confused with lobbying, is giving money directly to candidates who support your interests. Individuals and corporations can donate money directly to candidates and political parties, but they can also make contributions through political action committees (PACs) organized around a given interest, industry, or ideology. Although they are entirely legal and fulfill an important function in the organization of political movements, precisely because of their tremendous influence, PACs also run the risk of corruption.

To start with the obvious, PACs convert money into power, but money is not necessarily accompanied by wisdom. The political stance that attracts the most money for a candidate may not be the best course for the nation. The same criticism holds for lobbying, insofar as those with the most money can also afford the most manpower, causing other—perhaps, wiser—points of view to be left by the wayside.

This leads to a corresponding problem. When money speaks louder than reason, less profitable insights are obscured and the available viewpoints become constrained, further encouraging leaders to take positions for which they already have ample financial incentive. This process plays into a feedback loop created by leaders, seeing that a given mindset attracts money, who are already looking for reasons to adopt it. Even if no outright position-buying has taken place, a quid-pro-quo relationship develops that goes beyond merely supporting candidates with positions similar to one’s own. Influential PACs are able to create a political reality and to govern the possible choices within it. The only real answer to this influence is to fight for a different reality.

(Image from flickr.)