|
United States Congress
Who owns our government, the people or the lobbyists and special interests? According to majoritarian
theory the people control the government, but throughout our history, voters have suspected special interests
and the ethics of government officials. Cartoonists have pictured the United States Senate filled with
little people, while the huge bloated trusts and business interests stood behind them making sure they
voted right. Progressive journalists since the days of Frank Norris, Ida Tarbell, and Upton Sinclair exposed
an "unholy alliance" between Big Business [the Sugar Trust, the Oil Trust, the Steel Trust]
and the lobbyists who swarm around government. How much do selfish special interests corrupt public officials?
This is hard to determine accurately, but the public perception of lobbying is of some shady character
quietly telling a congressman how to vote on the tax code, while slipping a cash payoff into his pocket
and euphemistically calling it a "campaign contribution."
Lobbyists deny the reality of this public image. Officially they try to influence your representative’s
vote. Their principal function is to provide information that will have an effect on congressional action.
Congressmen often turn to lobbyists on special issues for prepared speeches to give, or for special inserts
to include in The Congressional Record. Lobbyists are often former members of presidential or congressional
staffs, and thus are welcomed in lawmakers’ offices. Does this mean they actually buy votes, or do they
just get a little extra time from the officials, or the attention of a subcommittee? In either case, do
individual citizens have equal access to lawmakers or committees? If not, this lessens the equality of
a majoritarian democracy.
Lawmakers have always been easy to lobby. They are accessible and very sensitive to any pressure coming
from their constituencies. If lobbyists can provide information on how one’s district or state feels about
the legislation at hand, it might affect a vote. What better way to provide this information than somewhere
safe or pleasant? Thus public officials receive all-expenses-paid vacations in tropical hideaways, or
substantial honoraria for a brief appearance at the lobbyists’ meetings. Interest groups contribute to
fund-raisers for re-election. But when does persuasion become bribery, and when do government officials
become the ones hunting favors? The millions of dollars Charles Keating contributed to the "Keating
Five," along with all the rest of the money the savings and loan industry poured into governmental
offices to change regulations, make the government look bad. In February 1993, Republican members of the
House of Representatives held a strategy retreat and charged lobbyists $6000 each for the privilege of
attending. Members of important committees in both chambers have solicited similar visitations and donations
from lobbyists in the past. All actions like these raise questions about the credibility of the government.
Earlier attempts to regulate lobbyists and government ethics have had limited success. The 1946 Federal
Regulation of Lobbying Act required foreign lobbyists only to register and report their actions. The Ethics
in Government Act of 1978 attempted to ban contributions that would create conflicts of interest by government
officials. The latest attempt to improve the public perception of Congress occurred in early 1994, with
the passage of a new act to regulate lobbying and gift giving to Congress. As you read the following bill,
ask yourself what Congress really gave up, and if it is significant. Do you think it will make a difference,
or will the honoraria of the past develop into something new in the future, and the system perpetuate
itself?
|
