Lobbying

8 min readJul 5, 2022

by Kyiana Williams

Lobbying is the ability to air grievances to the government, a right that is protected by the U.S. 1st amendment. To lobby is to inform the government of the potential impacts of a piece of legislation. It can be as simple as a concerned citizen calling their congressperson to voice a personal issue regarding legislation. The complexities of lobbying stand when there are professional lobbyists being paid to advocate on behalf of their clients, allowing for money to pave the way to a louder voice in matters of politics. But with the decline in resources for government funded agencies such as the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the market is open to lobbyists filling in the gaps of “truth”.

Is a lobbyist a lobby that walks up to a Congressperson? The question sounds silly, but it is a good one. Many don’t know that lobbyists are called lobbyists because they used to approach congresspeople in the lobby outside the legislative chamber. Many don’t know that they provide in depth research, information, and perspectives on different articles of legislation. What we hear most often is that a lobbyist is an individual or a company manipulating Congress and legislation to benefit the few. Often seen as an unfair advantage for large corporations or interest groups, the process and the restrictions of lobbying a lawmaker are lost to our understanding. Today we’ll be talking about the obscure tool called lobbying: how it started, how it’s used, and how it is perceived.

What is a Lobbyist?

History of Lobbying

The first formal renditions of lobbying can be traced back to 1640’s London, when ship merchants would send a representative to voice their grievances about taxes and other restrictive commerce legislation. The merchants couldn’t take time away from running their businesses to advocate for themselves so they paid another to, creating the basis of the professional lobbyist. (Laptev) Lobbying continued for centuries in this manner and it was President Ulysses S Grant who coined the term “Lobbyist” after being harassed by petitioners attempting to leisurely smoke a cigar in the Willard Hotel lobby in the 1860’s. (Pugliese) In present day, lobbying doesn’t function the same way. There are many restrictions that limit how a lobbyist can interact with a congressperson: financially, spatially, and legally.

How Lobbying Works

Lobbying is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the right “to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” (Britannica) This means it’s a protected right for everyone to voice their issues about the governance of their country.

So, are you lobbying when you call your representative and let them know you didn’t like how they voted on a proposition? Well, no. “Lobbyists are not simply individuals who engage in lobbying. A constituent making a call to a policymaker regarding a matter of personal concern would … be exempt.” (NCSL) So what is lobbying? In each state a lobbyist is defined differently — structurally and financially. In Illinois lobbying is “any communication with an official of the executive or legislative branch of State government for the ultimate purpose of influencing any executive, legislative, or administrative action”. Whereas in Maryland, lobbying is defined as the same but “incurs expenses of at least $500 and/or earns at least $2,500 as compensation” (NCSL)

But across the board the simplest definition is Communication with a policy maker that takes a position on specific, pending legislation. (Prevent Coalition) Basically, a lobbyist is looking to influence the outcome of legislation that is about to be voted on or taken into effect. Before the vote on Medicare for All was taken, lobbyists from various perspectives petitioned hard to Congress and the House. Groups like AHIP, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, Chamber of Commerce of the U.S.A., and others hired over 100 lobbyists to voice their grievances on the bill. (Public Citizen) There were lobbyists opposed to the bill and lobbyists advocating for the bill. If there are lobbyists that support both sides, why do people view them with animosity?

Maria Laptev describes a lobbyist as a magician, mystifying with smoke and mirrors. They take in all your attention in order to cut through the noise so that they can lay out the facts, stats, and research. With a cacophony of voices for every issue it’s difficult for the government to evaluate the appropriate way to settle legislation. Laptev says it’s the lobbyists job to provide research and perspectives to the congresspeople: “If they’re worth their salt, they’ll go beyond the issues and those iconic graphics […] they’ll work on measures, exceptions” where necessary. (Site) The goal is to get Congress to act. As far as the smoke and mirrors, that trickery is money.

Restriction of a Lobbyists

There are many guidelines and restrictions for lobbying, laid out by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Fair Political Practice Commission (FPPC) including: registration, reporting, restrictions on gift giving/financial contributions, forms of oversight, and more. Most notably are the requirements for an individual or firm of lobbyists to register under the Disclosure Act.

“The [Disclosure] act is directed at professional lobbyists, that is, those who receive payments to lobby for an employer or a client, and requires the registration and reporting of certain identifying information and general, broad financial data. In addition to the Lobbying Disclosure Act, the Foreign Agents Registration Act requires the registration and reporting from those who act as agents of a foreign government or foreign political party, and who engage in “lobbying” or other similar political advocacy activities on behalf of their foreign principal.” (CRS)

In addition to registering and reporting lobby activities, lobbyists have strict guidelines to adhere to in regards to gift giving and financial contributions.

“No gifts may be accepted by Members, officers, or employees [They’re also] prohibited from receiving anything from lobbyists and agents of foreign principals for an entity or organization that is “maintained or controlled” by a Member, officer, or employee. [And they] may not accept a financial contribution or expenditure from a lobbyist or foreign agent for a conference or retreat, or the like, sponsored by or affiliated with an official congressional organization for or on behalf of Members, officers or employees.”(CRS)

In addition to these federal restrictions, each state has their own restrictions on lobbyists (NCSL).

Lobbyist Deceit

Returning to this question, why do people have such animosity towards lobbyists if they can: lobby for the good of the people, allow for congresspeople to hear all the facts in a condensed setting, and have restrictions on gift giving? It’s because of headlines like the following: LOBBYISTS WORKING TO UNDERMINE MEDICARE FOR ALL HOST CONGRESSIONAL STAFF AT LUXURY RESORT (The Intercept).

AT A LUXURY RESORT, Salamander Resort & Spa, around four dozen senior congressional staffers decamped for a weekend of relaxation and discussion. An event with an agenda focused on medicare-for-all with proponents of Medicare-for-All included. The event was hosted by Center Forward, originally known as the Blue Dog Research Forum, a caucus of the Democratic Party who identify as centrists or conservatives. The group spent as much as $560 per congressional aide for transportation, food, and lodging.

“The Ethics Committee rules bar registered lobbyists from arranging luxury travel for Congress. Although Center Forward’s board is made up almost entirely of registered corporate lobbyists, the event forms were signed by the group’s executive director, Cori Kramer, who is not a registered lobbyist — a technicality that helped elude the prohibition on lobbyist-funded travel.” (Site)

Whistleblowing stories like this are reported by the media regularly. And to the viewer, an event like the Salamander Resort & Spa looks to be a clear violation of gift-giving as stated in the lobbying guidelines and restrictions. But, there’s a loophole. The loophole is that “Cori Kramer” isn’t a lobbyist; he merely employs lobbyists. Therefore, he can host an event with his company of employees and his congressional guests, at the same time and place. This is a blatant loophole, but because no retaliation or punishment is given, we’re left with the idea that lobbyists can be deceitful in their efforts at influencing legislation.

There are many loopholes in the guidelines and restrictions regarding functions like: hosting an event and not being a lobbyist, or an event that is “open to the public”, or thank you banquets with $1000 plates, etc. (Duke Health Government Relations) It can seem frustrating, but this is the “smoke and mirrors” Laptev refers to. These indirect functions are how lobbyists get the attention of Congresspeople. But it’s not the only means to get a congressperson’s attention and it’s not restricted to just the wealthy. Money merely makes the attention-grabbing easier, allowing petitioners to cut through the noise faster.

Alternatives to Lobbying

Because of the “smoke and mirror” practices and the client paid petitioning, a lobbyist’s intentions can appear deceitful and untrustworthy. One may begin to wonder how can the government govern neutrally with all the lobbying surrounding them? Before the modern rise of lobbying, Congresspeople received legislative background from Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Congressional Research Service (CRS), or Think Tanks. These neutral organizations would provide extensive background information on the several pieces of legislation a congressperson voted on.

Created in 1974 in the wake of the Nixon budget impoundment crisis, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) gave Congress more of a brain on budgetary matters. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) provides nonpartisan policy and program analysis to lawmakers. Think Tanks (often non-profits) provide heavy research on a wide range of issues.
CBO and CRS saw a decline in funding in the 70’s and 80’s, and today the CRS employs 20 percent fewer staffers than they did in 1979.

“Fewer and fewer think tanks can claim the mantle of truly neutral expertise anymore. Instead, most are funded by industry, labor, or wealthy partisan donors whose official stance as “nonpartisan,” necessary for tax status, is a transparent veil for their advocacy-first work product. One does not go to the Heritage Foundation or the Center for American Progress for their neutral expertise. While such think tanks may produce much substantive analysis, their analysis is intended for (and consumed by) adherents of only one political party.” (The Atlantic)

With a reduction in funding and staff at the CRS and CBO as well as the loss of neutrality at think tanks, we return to the reliance on lobbying as we have it today. Not by choice, but by force of market economics.

Conclusion

Because lobbying has such a political air, we at Congressional Communities don’t lobby or intend to lobby in the future. Our goal as a non-profit organization is to provide a way for constituents in Congressional Communities to have better access to their representatives. We provide the opportunity for community members to voice their concerns on their own with no affiliation to any set legislation. We take the advocacy route which is more geared toward education and encouragement.

Sources

If you want to learn more about issues like these, we hope you’ll consider getting involved with your Congressional Community and letting your neighbors know concrete steps we can take to make Congress better.