by J. Young

Created on: August 19, 2008

I suppose a large portion of this argument is contingent on the definition of 'Lobbyist'. It is not always true that a lobbyist is a paid representative, or even, for that matter, represents a formal organization. The state of California, for example, defines a lobbyist as: "An individual who seeks to influence the outcome of legislation or administrative decisions" 1. Under this definition, any person with an agenda, who seeks to persuade the decisions of a politician, would be considered a lobbyist in respect to the law. Whether that person represents a formal organization, or is paid for their efforts is irrelevant.

Clearly, any law that would abridge the rights of a spouse to speak with their politico partner on issues of importance to them would be useless, if not harmful. That being said, I think the term 'Lobbyist' usually connotes a feeling of big-spending, corporate representatives lavishing politicians with gifts and trips to exotic destinations. But the argument that politicians shouldn't be allowed to accept gifts from lobbyists is a whole different argument-and the potential conflict-of-interest that comes from a spouse pushing their politician spouse toward a cause is very different than some bribery scandal.

While Bill Clinton was in office, for example, Hillary clearly had an agenda for socialized medicine; and she clearly pushed (aka. 'Lobbied') Bill to promote her agenda-albeit unsuccessfully. People could argue their hearts out about whether or not this was a worthwhile cause, and some could even argue whether Hillary should have played any role in his presidency at all or if she should have simply remained a fly on the wall-but these arguments fundamentally miss a fairly simple point: When we elect a politician, we do it based on their views on issues that we are aligned with. But a politician is not some inanimate object that epitomizes objectivity on our behalf: he/she is a living, breathing person who is susceptible to the arguments of others.

A politician being persuaded by the virtues of others is natural, even desirable. Not everybody has all of the answers all of the time-clearly a politician will need to seek council on important issues occasionally. In fact, it is in our best interest that a politician hears all sides before making any decisions. If the end-result is an opinion largely influenced by their spouse-a person with whom they trusted to provide and nurture for their family-then so be it. A politician should have the wherewithal to make decisions that are representative of their constituency, regardless of outside influences. And, if they can't do that, then they shouldn't be politicians at all.

1 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/glossary.html

Learn more about this author, J. Young.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.