The K Street Project Theory Lives On

I"m going to return to the theme of "It"s Not a Lobbying Scandal," probably by the end of the day, but for now, let"s just take a close look at what the Republican"s think "lobbying reform" means. This is from John Boehner"s document, "For a Majority that Matters," which has been read mainly for its humor value (reminiscent of Newt Gingrich"s famous seminar describing himself as "Definer of Civilization/Teacher of the Rules of Civilization ...Leader (possibly) of the civilizing forces") but has some substantive points as well:

The sordid spectacle of Jack Abramoff arises from two factors whose connection he personified, and I would suggest that any response that’s actually going to be effective will have to address those factors.

The first factor is the tremendous power of the federal government [boilerplate about how big government causes corruption]…

Second is that many of the lobbyists who enter our offices every day to represent their clients are, for all practical purposes, complete mysteries to us. Yet for the House to function, some degree of trust is necessary. Many lobbyists are of the highest integrity …But there’s every incentive for those with more questionable ethics to shortchange us and the House. And absent our personal, longstanding relationships, there is no way for us to tell the difference between the two.

We should think seriously about bringing greater transparency to the lobbying industry. Anyone – anyone – can call himself or herself a lobbyist, recruit clients, and make appearances on their behalf on the Hill. Clearer standards and greater transparency would promote greater institutional integrity and protect us against those in the industry who put their own short-term interests against the public trust.

This not only puts all the blame on the lobbyists, rather than the members who empower a lobbyist, it also describes the cosa nostra aspect of the K Street Project exactly. What the House Republicans did was to tell K Street, "Don"t send anyone up here who"s not a known guy." They told the firms and trade associations who to hire and then, in essence, made them full partners in the governmental process. Letting in Abramoff was a mistake, he wasn"t checked out properly.

Boehner"s complaint reflects all those basic assumptions of the K Street project. Instead of "their own short-term interests" lobbyists should prioritize "the public trust," defined as the interests of "us [the Republicans] and the House." But a lobbyist"s job to promote short-term private interests, not the public good. It"s the legislator"s job -- his public trust -- to weigh and balance those competing private interests in the public good. And how can a lobbyist "shortchange us and the House"? That statement only makes sense under the assumptions of the K Street Project. Let"s say it again: a lobbyist does not hold power. He can"t "shortchange" you as a legislator unless you delegate your power to him. And of course "anyone can call himsel or herself a lobbyist...and make appearances on the Hill." That"s democracy. The idea that House Republicans need even greater control over access, over who has the opportunity to make their own or their client"s case, is a formula for delegating even more power to a smaller, presumably more carefully selected, group.

It"s this conception of lobbying that"s the problem, not any particular practice. All the restrictions on trips and meals won"t matter if the Congressional majority continues to hold this peculiar view that their small cadre of selected lobbyists are essentially partners in "the public trust." I have a concept of lobbying that"s at once more benign and more distrustful. Sure, anyone can be a lobbyist. And every cause or interest -- including Food Stamps and early childhood education -- should have advocates who make the best case possible to legislators. Legislators should try to be open and accessible to all those viewpoints, but should at least initially be mistrustful of all of them, especially those representing private claims. There is plenty of room for abuse under that conception. No mortal legislator or staffer will ever be able to balance competing claims dispassionately or avoid the entanglements of friendship, subjective preferences, and fundraising. But that"s a very different matter from the K Street/Boehner concept of lobbying that puts those entanglements ("our long-term, personal relationships) at the very center of the public"s business.