I'd like to start out with an anecdote.
When I was in high school, I believe that it was my senior or junior year, I took a government course. All students were required to take a form of the course, the alternative being an A.P. version. I still remember the classroom - in a trailer across from the main building, some of the students in my class - a fanatic in particular, and the teacher who taught the course. There is a phrase that he used, and did so on more than one occasion:
"money talks and b.s. walks"
Makes me want to start singing the AC/DC song...
Now, at the time, it made some sense. But I think it does even more so nowadays. I didn't used to always think this, either.
Every member of Congress receives money for their time spent in service. What you may not know is what they receive that is not money.
It's easy to claim that those members of the Senate and the House of Representatives receive too much money when actually they use their income to pay for their staff, which is actually underfunded, understaffed, or both.
What really is the issue or the lobbying interests. Now members of Congress can only receive so much money before they are required by law to turn it down. What the law does allow, however, are gifts. These gifts also have a value limit, but it's so hard to price good gifts these days, especially if you don't actually "gift" it.
Take for example a special retreat a Senator takes to a extremely nice ski resort or country club. That Senator is certainly open to hearing from a lobbyist if he's paying for his ski pass or round of golf and just happens to be riding in the lift or teeing off right next to the lobbyist.
Now, some of you might be asking, "what's wrong with that?" Is a member of Congress allowed to do that? Certainly, it's within the laws that they wrote.
Most of these members of Congress have a Juris Doctorate (J.D.). This means they went to law school. They know the ins and outs and can find the loopholes to exploit.
Now, back to the question of what's wrong with them getting a little elbow-to-elbow with a lobbyist. Why are they not meeting in their congressional office in Washington D.C.? Well, they do that too, but they figure something like: hey, why not enjoy the finer points of life that come with such an influential position. Then the lobbyist comes in with: what a grand idea!
The congressman or woman likes this little arrangement. The lobbyist likes this, too. The member of Congress receives delightful opportunities while the lobbyist just got to pitch an idea. It turns into a nice I scratch your back, you scratch mine. But there's another problem. The member of Congress has to get re-elected. So the lobbying organizations mobilize. They pitch to the voters the good for their guy and the bad for the other. Perfect example - the National Rifle Association. Now, if the lobbying organization plays the game right, they can even be tax-exempt by classifying themselves as a non-profit organization thanks to those wonderful lawyers in Congress.
The lobbying organization pays their employees, minus those interns, pays the lobbyists, buys the "gifts" for those members of Congress, and donates the rest to the campaign funds for those members of Congress.
Now, what are you left with?
1. A politician who would rather cozy up with a lobbyist.
2. A lobbyist who has a ideal relationship with a politician.
3. A constituency whose only influence is now voting for or against that politician and can't do anything about the lobbyist.
I'm sure that this would be a good note to leave off with, but I still have a few more thoughts that I want to pour in.
First, I want to point out that members of Congress are not the only ones that get the lobbying treatment. The bureaucracy of the United States gets it too. The head of the Environmental Protection Agency gets it. The Bureau of Land Management gets it. The only thing that they don't have to worry about now is the reelection process.
So, let's say you have a nifty little non-profit organization that receives it's income via members dues - kind of like a union. You want there to be some kind of regulation in place, maybe even one that benefits your organization. What do you do?
Well, you hit up those members of Congress to get the ball rolling. Now it's not that important of a bill, so it gets pushed to the back burner. Your idea is going to take anywhere from 3 to 10 years to be made into a law. You need to "work" with a lot of congressmen and women.
In the meantime, however, you send another Larry Lobby over to the agency that regulates those types of issues. They don't have to cooperate with other agencies like members of Congress do. They make their own rules and run with it; they're part of the executive branch and they make their own decisions. The only catch is it can't conflict with a directive from the president and you don't want it to land you in front of the House Oversight Committee.
So, you've got some guys on Capitol Hill working to make it a law, but settle for a regulations while the slow gears of Congress are in motion.
The last thing I want to discuss is why I didn't believe. There is some truth to these alternatives.
One alternative is that you believe that it's about what you know; the smarter you are, the more you can influence. While politicians certainly value intelligence, it depends on how that intelligence is used. Use it to their benefit and they will tolerate you. Unless you are working for them, they probably won't care what you have to say, unless there's something in it for them.
This is why you usually see celebrities on Capitol Hill. They have a celebrity speak and then get a photo op. Most recently was Ashton Kutcher.
The other alternative is who you know. Knowing the right people. While this certainly can help, it isn't a guarantee. Just because you met them at a townhall doesn't mean they're going to remember you and ask for your assistance.
Both of these alternatives have one thing in common. If you have the money to show for it, you'll get in.
So, as my high school teacher said,
Money talks and b.s. walks.
