activism change goverment knowledge links lobby lobbying lobbyist mediascience obama politics read research show2 socialism usapodcast

My tags:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lobbying is the practice of influencing decisions made by government. It includes all attempts to influence legislators and officials, whether by other legislators, constituents or organized groups.^[1][2] A lobbyist is a person who tries to influence legislation on behalf of a special interest or a member of a lobby.^[3] Governments often define and regulate organized group lobbying.^[4][5][6]

Contents 1 Etymology 2 Viewpoints on lobbying 3 Lobbying by country 3.1 European Union 3.1.1 History 3.1.2 Current practice 3.2 France 3.3 United Kingdom 3.4 United States 3.4.1 Effectiveness 3.5 Other European countries 4 References 5 Bibliography 6 See also 7 External links 7.1 United States 7.2 Europe

[edit] Etymology

The supposed origins of the term "lobbyist" varies. The BBC holds that lobbying comes from the gathering of Members of Parliament and peers in the hallways (or lobbies) of Houses of Parliament before and after parliamentary debates.^[2] One story states that the term originated at the Willard Hotel in Washington, DC, where it was used by Ulysses S. Grant to describe the political wheelers and dealers frequenting the hotel's lobby in order to access Grant who was often found there, enjoying a cigar and brandy.^[7]

In her book Lobbying and Advocacy: Winning Strategies, Resources, Recommendations, Ethics and Ongoing Compliance for Lobbyists and Washington Advocates ^[8], Deanna Gelak, a former president of the American League of Lobbyists, quotes an appearance of the term "lobbying" in print as early as 1820:

“	Other letters from Washington affirm, that members of the Senate, when the compromise question was to be taken in the House, were not only "lobbying about the Representatives' Chamber" but were active in endeavoring to intimidate certain weak representatives by insulting threats to dissolve the Union.	”
	— April 1, 1820, New Hampshire Sentinel

[edit] Viewpoints on lobbying

It can be argued that lobbying is undesirable because it allows people with particular interests which represent a minority to gain special access to law-makers and through contributions and favors have controversial relationships with representatives. This is a danger to democracy as described in Article 22 of the Federalist Papers. Though many see lobbying as a potential corruption to the system, others disagree. Bill Clinton defended his wife's reception of lobbyist money for her campaign by saying:^[9]

“

Lobbyists are registered, they register with the federal government and can give the same amount of money, $2300, anybody else can. That's not going to influence you. What gives the Economist Thomas Sowell defends corporate lobbying as simply an example of a group having better knowledge of its interests than the people at large do of theirs.[10]

”

The House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee argued that while there are shortcomings in the regulation of the lobbying industry in the United Kingdom, "The practice of lobbying in order to influence political decisions is a legitimate and necessary part of the democratic process. Individuals and organisations reasonably want to influence decisions that may affect them, those around them, and their environment. Government in turn needs access to the knowledge and views that lobbying can bring."^[11]

[edit] Lobbying by country

[edit] European Union

[edit] History

Lobbying in Brussels was only born in the late 1970s. It was found to be an important aspect. Up to that time, "diplomatic lobbying" at the highest levels remained the rule. There were few lobbyists involved in the system and except for some business associations, representative offices were rarely used. The event that sparked the explosion of lobbying was the first direct election of the European Parliament in 1979. Up until then the Parliament consisted complex, and companies increasingly felt the need of an expert local presence to find out what was going on in Brussels. The foundation of lobbying was therefore the need to provide information. From that developed the need to influence the process actively and effectively. The next important step in lobbying development was the Single European Act of 1986 which both created the qualified majority vote for taking decisions in the Council and enhanced the role of the Parliament, again making EU legislation more complex and lobbying more important and attractive for stakeholders.

In short, the stronger the EU developed from a Member States organization to its own political player in the world, the more policy areas it covered, the more important it became as a lobbying target. With the EU enlargement in 2004 this development has taken a further step, bringing in not only a lot more players and stakeholders but also a wide range of different political cultures and traditions.

In the wake of the Abramoff scandal in Washington and in light of the massive impact that this had on the lobbying scene in the U.S.A., the rules for lobbying in the EU — which until now only consist of a non-binding code of conduct — may also be tightened.^[12].

[edit] Current practice

The fragmented nature of EU institutional structure provides multiple channels through which organized interests may seek to influence policy-making. Lobbying takes place at the European level itself and within the existing national states. The most important institutional targets are the Commission, the Council, and the European Parliament.^[13] The Commission has a monopoly on the initiative in Community decision-making. Since it has the power to draft initiatives, it makes it ideally suited as an arena for interest representation. There are three main channels of indirect lobbying of the Council. First, interest groups routinely lobby the national delegations in Brussels. The second indirect means of lobbying the Council is for interest groups to lobby members of the many Council-working groups. The third means of influencing the Council is directly via national governments. As a consequence of the co-decision procedures, the European Parliament attracts attention from lobbyists who target the rapporteur and the chairman of the committee. The rapporteurs are MEPs appointed by Committees to prepare the parliament’s response to the Commission’s proposal and to those measures taken by the Parliament itself.

There are currently around 15,000 lobbyists in Brussels (consultants, lawyers, associations, corporations, NGOs etc.) seeking to influence the EU’s legislative process. Some 2,600 special interest groups have a permanent office in Brussels. Their distribution is roughly as follows: European trade federations (32%), consultants (20%), companies (13%), NGOs (11%), national associations (10%), regional representations (6%), international organizations (5%) and think tanks (1%), (Lehmann, 2003, pp iii).^{[citation needed]}

[edit] France

In France, the political system does not integrate the lobbying practice. Much French republican thought has been suspicious of the claims of "particular interests," which are often contrasted with the "general interest" of the nation. This is one interpretation of Rousseau's Social Contract, for example. So while lobbying has always been practised in France, organized lobbying only made a significant appearance in France in the early 1980s. Since then, it has steadily grown; many interest groups routinely seek to influence the French institutions as the Government and the French Parliament (“National Assembly” and “Senate”). In order to make up the lost time, more and more French enterprises try to organize their own lobbies by creating their own public affairs department. In recent years, growing numbers of grassroots and grasstop lobbies have been organized by citizen groups, representing interests such as genetically modified organisms and software piracy.

But there is currently no regulation at all for lobbying activities in France and, as a consequence, this practice suffers from a lack of transparency. There is no regulated access to the French institutions and no register. For example, the internal rule of the National Assembly (art. 23 and 79) forbid to members of Parliament to be linked with a particular interest. However, MPs don’t have to declare their interest and the list of MPs' assistants is not public. At last, there is no rule at all for consultation of interest groups by the Parliament and the Government. Nevertheless, a recent parliamentary initiative (motion for a resolution) ^[14] has been launched by several MPs so as to establish a register for representatives of interest groups and lobbyists who intend to lobby the MPs. The purpose of this initiative is to introduce standards of conduct and access to the National Assembly. Through the use of a register, these standards of conduct and access will enable the Assembly to identify and maintain a list of the representatives of interest groups who follow legislative activity and to supervise fully the access of those representatives to the National Assembly. This motion has not been adopted yet.

[edit] United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom lobbying traditionally referred to the attempt to influence an MP's vote by either their fellow parliamentary colleagues, by one of their constituents or by any outside organisation. Currently the term often refers to the more narrow usage of the operation of "lobbyists" hired to represent the views of an organisation,^{[citation needed]} though "there is no neat way of defining what is generally acknowledged to be a porous concept."^[11] The professional lobbying industry has been steadily growing in recent years and was estimated by the Hansard Society in 2007 to be worth $1.9 billion and employ 14,000 people.^[15] Their report also suggested that some MPs are approached over 100 times a week by lobbyists.

The House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee held an investigation into lobbying, and its 2009 report called for "a statutory register of lobbying activity to bring greater transparency to the dealings between Whitehall decision makers and outside interests."^[16] It also concluded that the self-regulation of the professional lobbying industry was "fragmented" and appeared to "involve very little regulation of any substance".^[11]

There are two self-regulatory bodies which UK public affairs companies can join - the Association of Professional Political Consultants (APPC) and the Public Relations Consultants Association (PRCA) - and also the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) which registers individual lobbyists.

In addition to "open" lobbying, the United Kingdom, political parties have been accused of trying to raise campaign funds by offering peerages and other honors. Since peers sit in the House of Lords, part of the UK legislature, they are in a position to initiate or amend Bills on their way to becoming Acts of Parliament - a very influential position. The rules of Parliament do, however, require participants in debates to 'declare their interest'. The 'sale' of peerages is a criminal offence. To circumvent this law, it is alleged that some contributions thus solicited, are given not as outright gifts but as loans.^[17] These issues were also the focus of a Public Administration Select Committee investigation.^[18]

[edit] United States

Many jurisdictions, in response to concerns of corruption, require the formal registration of lobbyists who come in contact with government representatives. Since 1995, under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act (2 U.S.C. § 1601–1612), most people who are paid to make direct "lobbying contacts" with members of Congress and officials of the federal executive branch are required to register and file reports twice a year. If lobbyists neglect to register, they are susceptible to criminal charges and harsh penalties.

However, there are ongoing conflicts between organizations that wish to impose greater restrictions on lobbying activities, and groups that argue that such restrictions infringe on the right to petition government officials, which is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

For example, in January 2004, the U.S. Senate considered S. 1, an omnibus "ethics reform" bill. This bill contained a provision (Section 220) to establish federal regulation, for the first time, of certain efforts to encourage "grassroots lobbying." The bill said that "'grassroots lobbying' means the voluntary efforts of members of the general public to communicate their own views on an issue to Federal officials or to encourage other members of the general public to do the same." This provision was opposed by a broad array of organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Right to Life Committee, and the National Rifle Association, who argued that attempts by constituents to influence their representatives are at the heart of representational democracy, and that neither such contacts nor efforts to motivate such contacts should be considered "lobbying." On January 18, 2007, the U.S. Senate voted 55-43 to strike Section 220 from the bill. However, other proposed regulations on "grassroots lobbying" remain under consideration in the 110th Congress.

Another controversial bill, the "Executive Branch Reform Act, H.R. 985, would require over 8,000 Executive Branch officials to report into a public database nearly any "significant contact" from any "private party." Although promoted as a regulation on "lobbyists," the bill defines "private party" as "any person or entity" except "Federal, State, or local government official or a person representing such an official." Thus, under the proposal, anyone who contacts a covered government official is in effect deemed to be a lobbyist, unless the communicator is another government official or government staff person. The bill defines "significant contact" to be any "oral or written communication (including electronic communication) . . . in which the private party seeks to influence official action by any officer or employee of the executive branch of the United States." The bill is supported by some organizations as an expansion of "government in the sunshine," but other groups oppose it as an infringing on the right to petition by making it impossible for citizens to communicate their views on controversial issues without having their names and viewpoints entered into a government database.^[19] The U.S. Department of Justice has raised constitutional and other objections to the bill.^[20]

The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected congressional efforts to regulate grassroots communications as a form of "lobbying," on constitutional grounds. In 1953, in a suit involving a congressional resolution authorizing a committee to investigate "all lobbying activities intended to influence, encourage, promote, or retard legislation," the Supreme Court narrowly construed "lobbying activities" to mean only "direct" lobbying (which the Court described as "representations made directly to the Congress, its members, or its committees"), and rejected a broader interpretation of "lobbying" out of First Amendment concerns.^[21]. The Supreme Court thereby affirmed the earlier decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which said:

“	In support of the power of Congress it is argued that lobbying is within the regulatory power of Congress, that influence upon public opinion is indirect lobbying, since public opinion affects legislation; and that therefore attempts to influence public opinion are subject to regulation by the Congress. Lobbying, properly defined, is subject to control by Congress, . . . But the term cannot be expanded by mere definition so as to include forbidden subjects. Neither semantics nor syllogisms can break down the barrier which protects the freedom of people to attempt to influence other people by books and other public writings. . . . It is said that lobbying itself is an evil and a danger. We agree that lobbying by personal contact may be an evil and a potential danger to the best in legislative processes. It is said that indirect lobbying by the pressure of public opinion on the Congress is an evil and a danger. That is not an evil; it is a good, the healthy essence of the democratic process. . . .	”
	— [22]

[edit] Effectiveness

While lobbyists' precise influence over legislative decision-making in the United States can never be fully determined, non-profit organizations such as the Center for Responsive Politics attempt to track money in politics, and its effect on elections and public policy.^[23] This is an imprecise measure, however, since lobbying and campaign finance are different activites, and not all lobbyists or lobbying organizations make campaign donations. Also, cause and effect relationships in complex systems such as lawmaking are difficult to establish.

[edit] Other European countries

Only countries where lobbying is regulated in parliament bills are: Georgia (1998), Lithuania (2001) Poland (2005) and Hungary (2006). All require registration of professional lobbyists. So far, there is no complex lobbying regulation in other European countries. There were many attempts, but with no satisfactory results.^[24]

[edit] References

[edit] Bibliography

• Geiger,: EU Lobbying handbook, A guide to modern participation in Brussels, 244 pages, ISBN 3-9811316-0-6, Helios Media GmbH, 2006 (http://www.helios-media.com/de/information/buecher/lobbying_handbuch.php)
• GLOSSARY - Alphabetical list of terms associated with the Lobbying industry.
• Geiger, Andreas: From a lobbyist's point of view, European Agenda 1/2006)
• The Bulletin, 16 March 2006, p. 14, Lobbying Europe: facts and fiction
• The European Lawyer, December 2005/January 2006, p. 9, The lobbyists have landed
• Financial Times, 3 October 2005, p. 8, Brussels braces for a U.S. lobbying invasion
• Public Affairs News, November 2004, p. 34, Judgement Call
• The European Lawyer, December 2004/January 2005, p. 26, Lifting the lid on lobbying
• Geiger, Andreas: Lobbyists — the Devil’s Advocates?, European Competition Law Review, Volume 24, issue 11/2003, p. 559
• Wiszowaty, Marcin: Legal Regulation of Lobbying in New Members States of the European Union, Arbeitspapiere und Materialien - Forschungsstelle Osteuropa an der Universitat Bremen, No. 74: Heiko Pleines (ed.): Participation of Civil Society in New Modes of Governance. The Case of the New Member States. Part 2: Questions of Accountability. February 2006 (PDF).
• "Lobbying" (Web). BBC News: Politics. BBC. 22 December 2005. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/82529.stm. Retrieved on 2007-01-30. 
• "Police loans inquiry is widenened" (Web). BBC News: Politics. BBC. 30 March 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4861136.stm. Retrieved on 2007-01-30. 

[edit] See also

• Bribery
• Energy lobby
• Interest group
• Pharmaceutical lobby

[edit] External links

[edit] United States

• Lobbyists.info - The largest, comprehensive database of 22,000 registered lobbyists. Contains searchable profiles of lobbyists and government relations professionals, their clients and issues.
• LobbyistFinder.com - Searchable & editable database of 34,000 registered state lobbyists.
• Top 25 Lobbying Groups - Fortune lists the top 25 lobbying groups as of 1999.
• LobbyWatch - a project of the Center for Public Integrity with reports on lobbyists and lobbying efforts as well as a searchable database
• U.S. Senate Office of Public Records - a searchable database of registered lobbyists
• OpenSecrets.org
• NoLobby.com
• The Citizen's Guide to the U.S. Government - an online tutorial containing information for individuals who wish to address issues with their elected officials
• Free Speech National Right to Life page containing documents opposing excessive regulation of "lobbying" as infringement on "right to petition" guaranteed by the First Amendment.
• 10 Rules of Public Affairs
• Public Affairs Links

[edit] Europe

• Alliance for Lobbying Transparency and Ethics Regulation (ALTER-EU)
• Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO)
• Spinwatch
• Alliance for Lobbying Transparency - UK based campaign
• OECD : Special Session on Lobbying: Enhancing Transparency and Accountability. 7-8 June 2007