Should lobbyists have access to elected officials?

No

1 of 10

by Robert C. Sage

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

Lobbyists represent special interests to the decision-makers of our government. Their job is to affect the decisions made in the direction of those special interests. Occasionally, it is conceivable that the aims of those special interests and those of the entire population, might coincide, but in that case, they would be fighting against other special interest lobbyists in favor of the common, greater good. However, if lobbyists were prohibited from initiating direct contact with the governmental decision makers, there would be a much higher likelihood that our elected officials would make decisions consistent with the common, greater good.

These lobbyists can earn hundreds of thousands of dollars per year to do work on behalf of members of Congress. At present, lobbyists actually write much of the legislation that is presented to Congress. Lobbyists simply shop around their ideas and proposals and then provide research and support for the sponsors chosen to introduce the bills. Those same special interest lobbyists then swing into high gear to convince other members of Congress to support their legislation. Obviously, this has significant impact on the decisions made and it perverts the intent of America's democratic process.

Lobbying organizations, if prohibited from initiating contact with high level government officials and their employees, could still contact their individual organization's citizen members and ask them to contact their elected representatives. That could result in more citizen contact to those same officials, which would be a good thing. It would also put common citizens nominally on an equal footing as citizen members of the special interest groups, as it should be.

Additional restrictions on special interest group's involvement in the political process would be appropriate. For example, corporations, organizations, unions and associations should not be permitted to make political campaign contributions or give anything of value (i.e. $100), including travel, memberships, gifts or meals, etc. to any government official or else be subject to prosecution for attempted bribery.
Even the appearance of impropriety is inappropriate and should be avoided.

Ideally, all federal campaigns should be exclusively funded by public financing. That would avoid any quid pro quo for contributions, a current practice that is tantamount to bribery. Obtaining a pre-set number of constituent signatures to file as a candidate and receive the funds could eliminate the less serious contenders.

If prohibition of public financing is too radical, there should also be strict limits on citizen contributions to political campaigns. In order to make a contribution, it should be a requirement to be registered to vote in the district served (or proposed to be served) by the elected official/candidate. The maximum contribution for one election cycle to one candidate would ideally be limited to a nominal amount (i.e. $100) and matched by a hefty multiple from public financing (i.e. x 10).

Currently, Congress uses "earmarks" for authorizing expenditures of public funds for
purposes that are advocated by special interests. This effectively avoids debate or discussion in most cases, due to the principle of reciprocity. This is also called "pork barrel" spending and a better system must be found for deciding which projects receive federal funding. All expenditures should go through a consistent vetting process to ensure consistent standards are maintained.

Special tax breaks and other financial benefits are also obtained by special interests' lobbyists at the present time. This is patently absurd and unfair. It is often accomplished due quid pro quo from campaign contributions, as discussed above. A watchdog mechanism, perhaps under the control of the judiciary, the third branch of government, should be set up to put an end to this practice.

Overall, it is clear that lobbyists, who are often former government officials or government employees going through a "revolving door" between private and public employment, provide unfair benefits to special interests at the expense of the American people. Ideas have been presented for eliminating and regulating such perverse abuse of the democratic process by lobbyists.

Undoubtedly, there would be a need for additional protections, after these initial safeguards are deployed, as the special interests and their lobbyists are often devious in working around the system. The grand experiment of American democracy must be reformed to end undue influence by lobbyists. The American people must take back our government from the special interests!

Learn more about this author, Robert C. Sage.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.