Civil rights is big business

Manipulation and politics comprise a never-ending cycle in American politics. Thousands of players with varying interests and perspectives compete every day for the attention of decision-makers. The centre of this work is Washington, not just the US capital but for many Americans synonymous with everything that has gone wrong in the development of society.

”Washington is broken”, proclaimed the Republican candidates time and again during the presidential primaries. Democrats like Barack Obama and John Edwards promised to clean up the corruption and make politics more democratic.

But even if the theme is the same – politics is not working – the arguments are different. Democrats, generally speaking, consider the problem lies in the influence of money – Republicans, generally speaking, that the problem results from a state that is far too big. Consequently, Obama and Edwards regard lobbying as the root of all evil: special interests with large amounts of money tempt and ensnare elected representatives. And the examples of a system that appears to have run amok are unfortunately legion. At the moment, several Congressmen are in jail for receiving bribes. Lobbyists bought their votes. The fact that both Randy Cunningham and Bob Ney were Republicans contributed to their party losing its majority in the congressional elections of 2006.

Despite Obama’s and Edwards’ indignation and promises of reform, they are far from orthodox. Admittedly, Obama renounced money from lobbyists, but a large network of them provide him with advice and campaign for him.

The privately wealthy John Edwards, who also refused donations from lobbyists and special interests, was caught out on several occasions by his links to consultants and big business.

Another phenomenon which disturbs people is what is known as ”earmarking”, whereby members of Congress casually make use of the federal budget for all kinds of dubious projects, often with a local connection and often under the influence of lobbyists. In January (14/1/2008) an editorial in The New York Times, which is not exactly known for its overstatement, used the headline ”The Pork King Keeps His Crown” (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/opinion/14mon3.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=king+of+pork&st=nyt&oref=slogin).

The Democrat under discussion, Congressman John Murtha, made use of innovative methods to attract federal funds and investments to his district of Johnstown, Pennsylvania.

The term pork-barrel politics does not come even close to covering what Murtha made into a system. In 2007, he netted 167 million dollars for his electoral district of Johnstown. The New York Times reminds readers about the National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence, which Murtha founded in 1991 to produce environmentally-friendly emissions technology for the military. Since then, he has attracted more than 670 million dollars in contracts and earmarks. Of the 26 organisations and companies that received Murtha’s federal budget funds, every one contributed to his re-election campaign, for a tidy sum of 413,250 dollars. All of this should, of course, be seen in a wider context: the number of earmarks in the House of Representatives and Senate last year was 11,144, for a total value of 15 billion dollars.

In other words, lobbying is a profitable business with considerable resources. And it has grown substantially. The number of lobbyists in Washington has almost tripled in the last ten years to around 35,000. In 2006, they spent roughly 2.3 billion dollars. More than 200 former members of Congress are lobbyists today. (This figure is taken from the American public television company PBS (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/citizensclass/2006/09/#comments)

Brian Pomper is a novice in the industry. Between 2003 and 2006, he was the Democrats’ foremost expert on international trade on the Senate Finance Committee. For a year now, he has been a partner in the law firm of Parven Pomper Schuyler Inc. ”Lobbyists can’t dictate the terms. When I was on Capitol Hill (where Congress is located), I was contacted by lobbyists every day; I could trust several of them and their knowledge was important. They were simply doing their job.”

Pomper’s attitude is – and he claims he has always had it – that lobbyists are good for the American people. They contribute ideas, contacts and knowledge. ”A world without lobbyists is unrealistic and undesirable. Americans have a constitutional right to approach their elected representatives. When I worked in the Senate, I regarded it as my absolute duty to listen to lobbyists make their case.”

Pomper admits that lobbyists have had a bad reputation but places the blame on the excesses during the previous Republican majority in Congress. He was forbidden by law to lobby members and former colleagues on the Finance Committee for a year after he left the Senate. ”I think that‘s right. But I see no problems with politicians or staff members becoming lobbyists. They know the system and ensure that politicians listen to important views. The Democrats’ critique of lobbyists is unfair.”

An hour later and in a room several blocks away – most of Washington’s economic, political and legal life often takes place in the room next door, within an area of a few square kilometres – Kenneth Gross sits smiling sarcastically. Like Brian Pomper, he is also a lawyer, but unlike Parven Pomper Schuyler Inc, the firm of Skadden, Arps plays in a global division, with 22 offices worldwide and more than 300 employees in Washington alone.

Gross’ smile was provoked by my observation that political lobbyists are accused of being a threat to the common good. ”Everybody has a special interest. I don’t know what the common good is. What I can say is that there’s no interest that doesn’t have an opposing interest.”

In lobbying circles, Kenneth Gross is regarded as ”the go-to guy”, the person to turn to in order to find out what is right or wrong, possible or impossible, when money and politics come together. His clients are multinational companies and lobbyists.

For some months now, he has been busier than usual. After the illegal lobbying was exposed, legislation was pushed through to make the business more open and more ethical. Gross took part in the Congressional hearings.

He thinks that the new rules – greater insight into lobbyists’ contributions to political campaigns, better information and openness on earmarks, restrictions on lobbyists’ gifts to politicians and a longer quarantine period for politicians and staff members before they can begin lobbying – represent a marked improvement. ”Greater openness is important for democracy. But demanding information about how much is paid and to whom is unacceptable.”

I mention Göran Persson’s rapid transition from the Prime Minister’s office at Rosenbad to the consulting firm JKL. Gross rolls his eyes when I tell him about the lack of rules for Swedish politicians. He describes the idea that an American president would start to lobby as ”ugly”.

”But the ‘revolving door principle’ is a problem without any perfect solutions. Lobbying is part of our political system. You go into politics, understand how the system works and make contacts in order to earn money from what you’ve learned. It may seem crass. But that’s the way it is.”

Gross says prohibiting White House employees from lobbying at any time in the future, as Barack Obama and John Edwards have done, is unreasonable. Then the best qualified staff from the private sector could never be recruited into politics.

”I’ve worked here for 30 years, and I’m trying not to be cynical. Politicians try to do what’s right, generally speaking. They’re not consciously looking for a seat in order to get rich.”

The next day in downtown Washington, the weather has turned frigid, with icy winds and snow. This is a town that can experience three seasons in one day. I stagger into the lobby of Common Cause, one of the main opponents of lobbying.

”Lobbyists aren’t evil people.” Bob Edgar, who runs Common Cause and has personal experience as a member of Congress (Democrat), proclaims this truth quietly but resolutely. He is also a Methodist minister, so having moral standing is probably required so as not to despair when the odds against success are so high.

”What’s evil is the influence of money and lobbyists representing major companies and organisations who can influence politics and election results. The result is that we have elected representatives who are serving special interests instead of the general public.”

I tell him what Kenneth Gross said about lobbyists, that they actually represent the public interest. Edgar is unrelenting. They do not – quite the opposite. But he is in agreement with Gross that the new legislation is an improvement. How much of an improvement, it is difficult and too early to say. It worries him that attempts are already being made to find loopholes and to circumvent the regulations.

”We’re not against money in politics, just the exaggerated sums. Money isn’t a guarantee of freedom of expression, but may actually limit it. The Internet shows that there are opportunities for candidates like Barack Obama to raise large sums through small contributions from many individual contributors in the election campaign. (There is a ceiling on how much individuals can donate to politicians.)

Common Cause recommends that the public sector match contributions from the private sector. Politicians raise money from individual contributors up to a certain defined level; after that, public funds are contributed. The method has been tested in certain states and, according to Bob Edgar, with great success. The candidates are spared from having to devote their days to chasing money from special interests and can concentrate on the issues.

Opponents argue that it is wrong in principle for public funds to finance politicians, that this entails a kind of welfare system. Common Cause hits back by saying that the voters have to pay anyway, in that companies finance their lobbying costs by continually raising prices. Politicians who are free from financial pressures and considerations have a much greater potential for serving the public interest. Washington can be described as a ”market for ideas”. Values and principles underlie the crassest proposals and calculations, as they do the most idealistic proposals.

Common Cause monitors the harmful influence of special interests on politics, but at the same time has to justify its existence with a well-reasoned thoroughly view of society.

”We have our agenda, but at the same time we’re idealistic. We believe in diversity in the media and in politics. We don’t spend money on campaigns, but do spend a lot of money and energy on ideas that we want to disseminate. Common Cause is also a think tank.”

Translated by Phil Holmes