Tweet
While there were millionaires in Washington in the past, "in those days the millions almost always came from somewhere else." Since the 1980s, Washington's "millionaires were homegrown, and the template for Washington housing was ostentatious, aristocratic and gargantuan." Frank's Washington "is a perfect realization of the upper-bracket dream of a white-collar universe, where economies run on the information juggling of the 'creative class' and where manufacturing is something done by filthy brutes in far-off lands." And in Washington the dominant white-collar figure is the lobbyist.
The increasing supply of lobbyists, Frank observes, "should have driven the price of lobbying down, not up. … The most credible explanation … is that clients grew more and more confident that their lobbyists could deliver something of value in exchange for their fees. … The reason companies started buying, in other words, was that Congress began selling." Special-interest earmarks in legislation by members of Congress have exploded in number, while careers in elected or appointed office are apprenticeships for lobbying jobs.
The increasing supply of lobbyists, Frank observes, "should have driven the price of lobbying down, not up. … The most credible explanation … is that clients grew more and more confident that their lobbyists could deliver something of value in exchange for their fees. … The reason companies started buying, in other words, was that Congress began selling." Special-interest earmarks in legislation by members of Congress have exploded in number, while careers in elected or appointed office are apprenticeships for lobbying jobs.
Being currently employed by lobbyists, I can tell you for sure that lobbyists hardly dominate Washington; it's mostly attorneys that really run things.
And while earmark-reliant lobbyists have raked in a lot of dough, and have been the bedrock of a lot of the big players, they have really been taking it in the shorts recently. From my experience, the biggest consistent money makers, lobbying wise, are the guys who to PR-***-legal, federal regulatory matters, tax law, and FARA representation. Those areas are arcane, complicated and they generally bill astronomical amounts. For FARA stuff, many countries think that dumping millions into lobbyists will help (and sometimes it does depending on the firm). I wasn't around during the big explosion of lobbying, but from what I've been told the biggest growth came from people realizing that:
a) The government can screw you, your business or your industry royally with the flick of a pen. It's reached into a lot of areas it probably shouldn't be in, but it is.
b) A $2 to $3 million dollar investment by a big firm in a DC office can pay off in spades by giving execs and the like a heads up and an understanding of new regs, regulation, etc
c) Many company execs have no idea what lobbyists do; they are just told that they are necessary so they pay for them (These companies are also the first ones that put the GR budget on the chopping block when times get tough)
d) It can be easy money for people who made peanuts working for the government. A lot of firms sign $10k to $30k/month contracts and only really have to produce a few meetings a month plus some written reports. See point c for reference.
e) Earmarking. Frank is right to a limited extent.
From where I'm sitting, the easiest way to cut down the influence of lobbyists would be to shrink the size of federal government, simplify the tax code and federal regulations, institute term limits/employment length limits in government, and to write in regs for broadcasters to provide air time for political candidates during prime time.
Edit:
If people want a window into the genesis of lobbying, they should read the series on Gerry Cassidy in the Washington Post. A choice quote from it:
As the reach of the federal government extended into more corners of American life, opportunities for lobbyists proliferated. "The issues have multiplied," as Cassidy put it.
Comment