A Few Dirty Details About Our Corrupt Political System

Brian Tamanaha

Congressmen Bob Ney and Randy Cunningham, and a number of former legislative staff members, have admitted to corruption in connection with lobbyists, and face jail time. Other criminal investigations are still in progress. Nonetheless, the New York Times reported last week that no serious lobbying reforms will be enacted by the current Congress, despite all the talk about reform following the Abramoff scandal (see also).

We shouldn’t be surprised. It will take more than a few indictments of the sloppiest offenders to prompt reform of what has become a system of structural corruption. Consider the following details about our current political system.

Public records indicate that almost $2 billion was spent on federal lobbying in 2003; $2.1 billion in 2004; and in excess of $2.3 billion in 2005; and the amount keeps rising. Leaving aside outright criminal bribery, this money-laden attention, lavished on legislators and their staffs, takes several forms: making direct campaign contributions, sponsoring campaign fundraising events, providing contributions to third-party supporters (political parties, political action committees, mutually favored institutes or organizations), supplying supportive work (drafting desired legislation, administrative regulations, and briefing papers), funding or securing funding for trips at home and abroad for "informational" purposes (golf resorts being a favorite destination, along with Hawaii, Paris and Italy), subsidizing travel on private jets, supplying free social dinners and entertainment (including high-profile sporting events), employing spouses and close relatives as lobbyists or consultants, and offering the prospect of well-compensated future employment.

The effort by legislators to utilize the resources offered by lobbyists to advance their own agenda was refined in the "K-Street Project" (named after the main location of lobbying firms), undertaken by Congressman Tom DeLay following the Republican takeover of the House in the 1994 elections. DeLay informed trade associations and lobbying firms that they must fire Democrats and hire Republicans if they wished to have access to influential lawmakers. "We’re just following the old adage," he said unrepentantly, "of punish your enemies and reward your friends." DeLay’s goal was to secure a permanent Republican majority in the House, as well as to enhance his own grip on power, goals which could best be accomplished by controlling the money spigot. As an indication of his effectiveness, in the early 1990s, money from lobbyists was about evenly distributed between Democrats and Republicans; by the mid-2000s, this money went two to one in favor of Republicans.

The intimate mixing between politicians and lobbyists is extraordinary. Lobbyists have served as treasurers for the campaign committees of 79 legislators and for 800 political action committees since 1998, raising campaign funds for Democrats as well as Republicans. In the run up to an election, many lobbyists temporarily set aside lobbying to become campaign consultants for incumbents. After the election, they return to lobby the very legislators they helped to victory. Lobbyists held all of the top positions at the 2004 Republican National Convention.

Money has always influenced politics, of course, but there are numerous signs that the political culture has changed for the worse in recent years. Twenty years ago, an uproar ensued when it became public that Senator Lloyd Bensten held a breakfast meeting for lobbyists who contributed funds to his campaign; today lobbyists sponsor fundraisers for various senators and representatives every day that Congress is in session. Representative Roy Blunt became acting majority leader upon DeLay’s resignation; Blunt’s wife is a lobbyist for Philip Morris, which contributes substantial sums to his campaign, and he has built a network of connections with lobbyists. John Boehner, who bested Blunt in the contest to permanently replace DeLay as majority leader, was openly skeptical of calls for refrom. For years, Boehner ran a weekly meeting with a dozen top business lobbyists (called his "K-Street Cabinet"). Fourteen former Boehner staffers work as lobbyists, and Boehner says he "regrets" an incident in 1996 when he “handed out checks from tobacco interests to members of Congress on the House floor.” "Yes, I am cozy with lobbyists," Boehner admitted, "but I have never done anything unethical." It is virtually a prerequisite for the majority leader position to have developed an extensive networks of lobbyists, given that fellow members tend to back the person likely to provide them with future campaign support.

The money connection does not end with departure from office. In 2004, almost 250 former members of Congress and former heads of administrative agencies worked as lobbyists. Lobbyists who advocate for the airline industry, to offer one example, include ten former members of Congress, two former Secretaries of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and three high-ranking officials in the Federal Aviation Administration. Representative Billy Tauzin, who chaired a committee with oversight over pharmaceuticals and was a member of the committee that drafted the Medicare drug legislation—which pharmaceuticals vigorously supported—left Congress soon after the passage of the bill to become President of PhRMA (the pharmaceutical industry’s trade association) at a reported annual salary of $2 million.

This system reeks, and everyone knows it. A public poll found that 77% of respondents believe that reports of lobbyists bribing members of Congress are not isolated incidents, but are “the way things work in Congress.” We collectively shrug our shoulders in resignation and continue to vote for our current Representative and Senator (incumbents who raise the most money in a race win reelection more than 90% of the time). Even Senators caught with unseemly connections with Abramoff may hold on to their office. So nothing changes.

Can anything be done about this systematic corruption?

Here’s a partial solution: impose a five year ban against any member of Congress and their staff, and any of their immediate relatives, from working in any capacity for a lobbying firm upon departure from office (with the ban for relatives also applying while in office). This period is long enough that, if they are thereafter hired by a lobbying firm, it will be owing more their expertise than to their personal relationships or perceived influence (which is fleeting).

The legislators would have to enact this ban, and they have already shot down a proposal to double the current one year ban (and they have not seriously considered imposing restrictions on relatives), which does not bode well for the prospects of a 5 year ban. No doubt legislators will argue that this unfairly restricts them, their families, and their staff, from making a living, and that it will discourage good people from running for office or working in staff positions. But this is a cynical argument. Plenty of talented people who are committed to public service would be willing to take these positions even if they cannot easily cash in later. It bears remembering that only in the past decade has it become routine for members of Congress to go on to lobbying positions.

This admittedly unlikely proposal might have a shot if a nationwide—blog driven?—campaign developed in the coming election to get every candidate to make a public pledge to support a 5 year ban. Candidates who refuse to support the ban will look like they are seeking public office mainly for their own economic gain. People won’t be fooled by their excuses.

We must do something to reform this corrupt system. Urge your local House and Senate candidates to: “Pledge to Enact the 5 year Ban.”
Posted 12:07 PM by Brian Tamanaha [link]